本研究旨在了解學前特殊教育教師對於基因遺傳學的教育需求，以立意取樣方式邀請60位臺灣在職的學前特教教師，進行半結構式訪談，將資料蒐集與分析後，經可信性、遷移性、可靠性、可驗證性等檢核後，整理受訪者對於基因遺傳學於職前的師資培育教育需求以及在職的研習教育需求。主要研究發現整理分述如下：
一、學前特殊教育教師對於基因遺傳學於職前師資培育的教育需求
（一）受訪對象皆沒有在大學或研究所的師資培育過程中修習過專門獨立的基因遺傳學相關課程，但有10位提到曾在特教課程中學到小部分基因遺傳學知識，並認為增加這些基本/專業知識對於工作上可更快掌握學生狀況。
（二）沒有修習過相關課程的原因為在師培過程中沒有基因遺傳學這門課以及沒有接收到基因遺傳學課程等資訊。而師資培育的大學或研究所沒有開設基因遺傳學課程的原因主要三項為：1.基因遺傳的知識被歸類到醫學專業領域而非教育專業領域所必備；2.師資培育比較注重的是教育現場所需的教學知識與技能；以及3.特教系與幼教系均無基因遺傳學專業背景的專任師資。
（三）有57位受訪者認為學前特教教師於師資培育課程裡應該包含基因遺傳學課程，有以下幾點原因：1.孩童出現基因問題的疾病似乎與其飲食和環境等因素有關聯；2.但無法分辨網路資訊的正確性；3.若遇到罕見疾病的特殊幼兒較不會擔心。應包含的課程內容依序為各類障礙的成因、基因遺傳學的基本概念、教學策略、常見的病徵及應對方式、親師溝通、罕見疾病的知識、大腦神經科學、疾病預防、如何查詢相關資訊等。但仍有兩位認為學前師資培育不需要，因為學前特殊教育教師資培育的重點在於如何教學，以及師資培育的必修課程內容已經太多。
二、學前特殊教育教師對於基因遺傳學於在職研習的教育需求
（一）有58位受訪者在擔任教職後，沒有參與過基因遺傳學相關的研習培訓，主要原因是沒有看過以基因遺傳學為主題的研習，以及覺得沒有立即的需求。
（二）有57位受訪者認為在職的學前特教教師研習課程應該要包含，因為曾在工作時回應家長的諮詢遇到困難，以及如果精進基因遺傳概念，對於教學應會有正向效果。希望的研習內容如下：基因遺傳知識如何連結有效的教學策略、實際案例分享、身心障礙幼兒的障礙成因、基因遺傳學的基本概念、親師以及普特師間的溝通、罕見疾病、疾病的病徵及應對方式、如何查詢相關資訊等。
（三）除了教育與培訓外，大多數的學前特教教師會透過其他管道了解基因遺傳學相關知識。主要的管道為自行網路查詢、閱讀書籍、詢問治療師、詢問學生家長、詢問自己的家人等。希望對於工作上的幫助有以下幾點：1.可更了解學生；2.制定更適切的教學策略；3.親師溝通更順利；4.更了解疾病的限制；5.能夠辨別網路資料的正確性。

最後研究者依據研究結果，對未來研究與實務上提出相關建議。

The main purpose of this study was to understand the educational needs of early childhood special education teachers regarding genetics issues. The purposive sampling method was conducted in this study, inviting sixty early childhood special education teachers to receive semi-structured interviews. The data were checked by credibility, transferability, and reliability. Analyzing from the interview data to explore educational needs of pre-service teacher education program and in-service teacher education workshop relating genetics issues among early childhood special education teachers. The findings were summarized as follows:
1. Educational needs of pre-service teacher education program
(1) All participants in the study didn’t take any genetic courses, but 10 participants learned some genetic knowledge from other special education courses. They thought equipped with this basic/specialized knowledge could be helpful for them to understand students.
(2) Most of the participants in the study believed that the reason why they did not take any genetic course was that the course was not offered in the program and didn’t receive any related course information. Another reason was genetic knowledge was supposed to belong to the medical discipline, while teacher education program was emphasized on teaching, and the department of special education and early childhood education didn’t hire any related full-time faculty.
(3) There were 57 participants who expected the program could offer genetic courses, because they did not know the accuracy of the information on the internet, and they felt anxiety when teaching rare disease students without genetic knowledge. Besides, eating and environmental issue which might trigger more and more genetic diseases. They also wanted to learn about the causes of students with disabilities, the basic knowledge of genetics, instructional strategies, common symptoms and coping strategies, teacher-parent communication, the knowledge of the rare disease, neuroscience, disease prevention, and how to search for genetic information. However, there were two participants who mentioned that the teacher education program needn’t offer genetic courses because it should focus on teaching skills and was already full of required courses.
2. Educational needs of in-service teacher education workshop
(1) There were 58 participants who didn’t take the genetic course or attending any teacher education workshop after being a teacher, because there was hardly any such workshop offered regarding genetic issues, and it might not be the first priority. The majority of the topics of workshops right now were on teaching strategies and educational administrations. The genetics issues might be too hard for teachers.
(2) There were 57 participants who thought genetics issues should include in the in-service teacher education workshop, because they had difficulties when communicating with students’ parents, and had more genetic knowledge that might be helpful while teaching. They wanted to learn more about instructional strategies, cases stories, the causes of students with disabilities, the basic knowledge of genetics, communicating with parents and teachers in general class, the knowledge of the rare disease, symptoms of the disease, and coping strategies, and searching for genetic information.
(3) Except for the pre-service teacher education program and in-service teacher education workshop, most of the participants would like to learn more about genetics knowledge from the internet, books, therapists, students’ parents, and their relatives. They thought it’s helpful, such as knowing more about students, making better instructional strategies, improving teacher-parent communication, knowing the restrictions of the disease. But they also worried about the accuracy of information from the internet.
Finally, according to the findings, some suggestions were provided for future research and practices.

一、中文部分
丁興祥、王勇智、李文玟、張慈宜、曾寶瑩（譯）（2006）。質性心理學─研究方法的實務指南（原作者：J. A. Smith）。臺北市：遠流。（原著出版年：2003）。
王文科（2000）。教育研究法（五版）。臺北市：五南文化。
王雲東（2007）。社會研究方法─量化與質性取向及其應用。新北市：揚智。
朱紹盈、翁純瑩（2017）。遺傳／罕見疾病簡介與遺傳諮詢的運用，護理雜誌，64(5)，11-17。
吳明哲（2003）。國小教師自編有關基因議題之課程目標研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺南師範學院，臺南市。
吳淑美（2016）。融合教育理論與實務。新北市：心理。
吳銘斌、林秀娟、黃國峰（2001）。遺傳與人類疾病，臺灣醫學，5(5)，569-576。
李政賢、廖志恆、林靜如（譯）（2007）。U. Flick著。質性研究導論。臺北市：五南。（原作出版年：2002）。
周俊良（2010）。緒論，載於周俊良、范智敏、陳冠蘭、劉蔚萍、李昆霖、劉心箖(合著)幼兒特殊教育導論(1-17頁)。臺北：華都。
林子鈞、黃建仁、李聰亮（2011）。遺傳學之進展，臺灣醫學，54(6)，16-19。
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究：理論與實務。臺北市：巨流。
林莉茵（2021）。學前特殊教育教師對於基因遺傳學的知識與態度（未出版之碩士論文），國立清華大學，新竹市。
珍妮佛・道納、山繆爾・史騰伯格 譯者：王惟芬（2018）。基因編輯大革命：CRISPR如何改寫基因密碼、掌控演化、影響生命的未來。臺北市：遠見天下文化。
范淑雅（2013）。學前特教教師職前師資培育課程與工作需求符合程度之探討—以中部地區為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
國家教育研究院（2020）。雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。檢自：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/3815063/
張文貞（2004）。打開潘朵拉盒子之後基因篩檢的挑戰，科學發展，378，28-33。
張正芬、李姿瑩、黃澤洋、鄭臻貞、詹孟琦、洪雅惠、林玟秀、葛竹婷、陳怡慧、黃玉枝、林慶仁、李淑玲、佘永吉（譯）（2016）。特殊教育導論（原作者：D. P. Hallahan, J. M. Kauffman, P. C. Pullen.）臺北市：華騰文化。（原著出版年：2015）。
張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。http://dx.doi.org/10.7036/JEE.201004.0087
教育部（2013）。師資職前教育課程教育專業課程科目及學分對照表實施要點。檢自：https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2600/News.aspx?n=A441B5D8D12FC242&sms=DED4954864BD81E1
教育部（2019a）。特殊教育法。檢自 全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0080027
教育部（2019b）。師資培育法。檢自 全國法規資料庫：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0050001
教育部（2020a）。108課綱資訊網。檢自：https://12basic.edu.tw/index.php
教育部（2020b）。中華民國教師專業素養指引-師資職前教育階段暨師資職前教育課程基準修正規定。檢自：https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001999
教育部（2021）。師資培育之大學一覽表。檢自：https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2600/Content_List.aspx?n=64C37CA2855C6243
陳立哲（2011）。生物資訊文獻中人類遺傳疾病與基因關聯度之研究（未出版之碩士論文），國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
陳向明（2009）。社會科學值的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳享連、鐘梅菁（2010）。學前特教巡輔教師提供普通班支援服務現況之研究。特殊教育與復健學報，23，25-47。
陳品璇（2009）。臺日幼兒教育師資培育制度之比較研究（未出版之碩士論文），國立暨南國際大學，南投。
陳清溪（2004）。淺談特殊教育教師的專業成長，研習資訊，21(4)，41-47。
曾恆靜（2008）。學前巡迴輔導特殊教育教師工作滿意度之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
鈕文英（2020）。質性研究方法與論文寫作(三版)。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
黃光雄（主譯）（2001）。質性教育研究（原作者：Bogdan, R., Biklen, S.K.）。嘉義：濤石。
黃瓊惠（2011）。學前特教班教師工作壓力與因應策略之研究（未出版之碩士論文），國立嘉義大學，嘉義市。
樊琳（2001）。臺灣地區國中、小教師及職前教師對現代生物科技發展了解之調查研究。通識教育季刊，8(2)，33-63。
潘淑滿（2006）。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北：心理。
蔡友月、潘美玲、陳宗文（2019）。臺灣的後基因體時代：新科技的典範轉移與挑戰。新竹市：交通大學。
衛生福利部（2020）。公告罕見疾病名單暨ICD-10-CM編碼一覽表。檢自：https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=596&pid=1065
衛生福利部（2020）。發展遲緩兒童早期療育服務個案通報概況。檢自： https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-2978-13976-113.html
薛婷方（2003）。學前階段特殊教育班師資現況及其相關問題之調查研究（未出版之碩士論文），國立臺東大學，臺東。
簡正鎰（2005）。進行質性訪談研究有關倫理議題之探討。輔導季刊，41(1)，45-57。
羅美珠（2009）。特殊教育巡迴輔導工作之困境與因應，雲嘉特教，9，71-77。
鐘梅菁（2001）。學前教師融合教育專業知能之研究，特殊教育學報，15，309-335。

二、英文部分
Anderson, G. W. (1996). The evolution and status of genetics education in nursing in the United States, 1983 to 1995. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 28(2), 101-106.
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224
Castéra, J., & Clément, P. (2014). Teachers’ conceptions about the genetic determinism of human behaviour: A survey in 23 countries. Science & Education, 23(2), 417-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9494-0
Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Öztekin, C. (2016). Relationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers’ genetics literacy levels and their attitudes towards issues in genetics literacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 159.
Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Öztekin, C. (2018). Genetics literacy: Insights from science teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and teaching perceptions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(7), 1247-1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9840-4
Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Tekkaya, C. (2012). Pre-service science teachers’ genetic literacy level and attitudes towards genetics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 56-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.016
Center on the developing child at Harvard University (2016). From best practices to breakthrough impacts: A science-based approach to building a more promising future for young children and families. http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
Chen, W. J., Zhao, S., Huang, T. Y., Kwok, O. M., & Chen, L. S. (2020). Autism spectrum disorders: Prenatal genetic testing and abortion decision-making among Taiwanese mothers of affected children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 476-488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020476
Christensen, K. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Roberts, J. S., Kardia, S. L. R., & Petty, E. M. (2010). Understandings of basic genetics in the United States: Results from a national survey of black and white men and women. Public Health Genomics, 13, 467–476.
Collins, F. S., & McKusick, V. A. (2001). Implications of the human genome project for medical science. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(5), 540-544.
Collins, F., & Galas D. (1993). A new five-year plan for the U. S. human genome project. Science, 262, 43-46.
Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 6–12.
Dwyer, M. L. (1998). Genetic research and ethical challenges: Implications for nursing practice. Advanced Practice in Acute & Critical Care, 9(4), 600-605.
Erdoğan, A., Özsevgeç, L. C., & Özsevgeç, T. (2014). A study on the genetic literacy levels of prospective teachers. Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 8(2), 19-37.
Frazer, K.A., Murray, S.S., Schork, N.J., & Topol, E.J. (2009). Human genetic variation and its contribution to complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(4), 241-51. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2554
Jennings, B. (2004). Genetic literacy and citizenship: Possibilities for deliberative democratic policymaking in science and medicine. The Good Society, 13, 38–44.
Lea, D. H. (2002). What nurses need to know about genetics. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 21(2), 50-61.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approach (6th ed.). Pearson.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3 ed.). Sage.
Sadler, F. H. (2001). The itinerant teacher hits the road: A map for instruction in young children’s social skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(1), 60-66.
Saihan, Z., Webster, A. R., Luxon, L., & Bitner-Glindzicz, M. (2009). Update on usher syndrome. Current Opinion in Neurology, 22(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283218807
Sale, J. E., & Thielke, S. (2018). Qualitative research is a fundamental scientific process. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 102, 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.024
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Talwar, D., Tseng, T., Foster, M., Xu, L., & Chen, L. (2017). Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: A systematic literature review. Genetics in Medicine, 19, 725-732.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 245-254.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yilmaz, S., Ayhan, A. B., Göktaş, B., & Beyazit, U. (2016). Special education teachers’ knowledge about genetic disorders. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 5(2), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.17100/nevbiltek.284731
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
Yuen, R. K. C., Merico, D., Bookman, M. et al. (2017). Whole genome sequencing resource identifies 18 new candidate genes for autism spectrum disorder. Nature Neuroscience, 20(4), 602–611. https://doi-org.nthulib-oc.nthu.edu.tw/10.1038/nn.4524
Zhao, S., Wang C.H., Hung T.Y., Chen Y.J., Hsia, C.H., Tseng, C. C., Xu. L., Chen, L.S., (2018). A qualitative study exploring the attitudes toward prenatal genetic testing for autism spectrum disorders among parents of affected children in Taiwan. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 48, 36-43.