Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/66243
標題: 羅東自然教育中心課程對國小高年級學生在環境教育課程目標及生態價值模式之影響
The Influence of Environmental Education Course Goals and Ecological Values on Senior Elementary School Students at Loudong Nature Center
作者: 陳惠雅
Chen, Hui-Ya
關鍵字: 環境教育課程目標;Environmental Education Course Goals;生態價值模式;非對等控制組設計;The Model of Ecological Values;nonequivalent control group design
出版社: 森林學系所
引用: 王佩蓮、陳錦雪 (1994) 探討國民小學各科教材中環境教育問題。市師科學教育季刊19: 13-29。 王鑫 (1995) 戶外保育教育活動模式。戶外環境教育參考手冊-自然中心推動計畫。台北:中華民國國家公園學會。21頁。 吳俊賢(1987)。台灣綠色資源。農業週刊 13(39): 29-30。 李玉玲 (2005) 社區環境行動課程的建構與實施之研究。台北市立師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文 126-127頁。 李禎文 (2003) 融入是環境教育課程對國小學童環境素養影響之研究。台中師範學院環境教育研究所碩士論文 78頁。 汪靜明 (2000)。學校環境教育的理念與原理。環境教育季刊 43:11-27。 周儒 (2001) 尋找一個環境教育的實踐場所-「環境學習中心」的需求與概念。中華民國九十年度環境教育國際學術研討會論文集。台北:國立臺灣師範大學 72-80頁。 周儒 (2008) 創造優質的環境學習服務-談林務局自然教育中心之發展。台灣林業 34(1): 16-43。 林政仁 (2002) 生態教材園模組發展及教學實務探究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文 147-158頁。 林婉玲 (2008) 國小六年級環境教育課程融入社會與自然領域教學模組研究-以都會國小利用「校園環境變遷」為例。國立台北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士論文 195-196頁。 林新沛、鄭時宜 (2002) 環境倫理與環境政策態度相關之研究-以樹德科技大學為例。樹德科技大學學報 4(1):51-62。 張子超 (2005) 九年一貫課程環境教育能力指標的涵義與架構。教育研究月刊 139: 5-15。 張紹勳 (2004) 研究方法。滄海書局 147頁。 教育部 (2001) 國民小學九年一貫課程第一學習階段暫行綱要。台北:教育部。 許世璋 (2001) 我們真能教育出可解決環境問題的公民嗎?論環境教育與環境行動。中等教育 52(2):52-75。 許世璋 (2003) 影響花蓮環保團體積極成員其環境行動養成之重要生命經驗研究。科學教育學刊11(2):121-139。 陳湘寧 (2010) 林務局人員自然教育中心專業知能與專業發展需求之研究。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文 15頁。 焦妮娜 (2010) 臺北縣建安國小環境教育課程實施之個案研究。台北市立教育大學環境教育與資源研究所碩士論文 184-185頁。 黃文雄、黃芳銘、游森期、田育芬、吳忠宏 (2009) 新環境典範量表之驗證與應用。環境教育研究 6(2):49-76。 黃裕仁 (2008) 環境教育議題融入國中自然與生活科技領域教科書內容之分析研究。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文 26頁。 楊冠政 (1991) 環境教育課程發展模式與程式。環境教育季刊 9: 3-19。 楊冠政 (1998) 環境教育。台北:明文書局。 劉雲傑 (2008) 談桃園縣戶外教學第二校區-東眼山自然教育中心。台灣林業 34(1): 92-106。 蔡孟珊 (2010) 文化資產的活化與再利用-以羅東林業文化園區的規劃和經營為例。台北市立教育大學社會學習領域教學碩士學位學程論文 37頁。 蔡慧敏 (2008) 林業文化園區自然教育中心發展計畫。行政院農委會林務局羅東林管處委託研究結案報告書。未出版 36頁 鄭麗香 (2007) STS 教學模組對國小五年級學童環境教育分項能力之成效研究。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文 127-132頁。 顏仁德 (2005) 新世紀林業政策芻議-維護森林生態、保育自然資源。台灣林業 31(1): 4-9。 顏仁德 (2010) 生態保育及森林育樂推展現況及服務績效之探討。研考雙月刊34 (5): 99-106。 Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg and P. Nowak (1982) The new paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education 13: 39-43. Armstrong, J. B. and J. C. Impara (1991) The impact of environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education 22(4): 36-40. Bogner, F. X. (1998) The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long- term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education 29(4): 17-29. Bogner, F. X. (2002) The influence of a residential outdoor programmers to pupil’s environmental perception. European Journal of Psychology of Education 17: 19-34. Bogner, F. X. and M. G. Wilhelm (1996) Environmental perception of pupils. Development of an attitude and behaviourscale. Environmentalist 16: 95-110. Bogner, F. X. and M. Wiseman (1999) Towards measuring adolescent environmental perception. European Psychologist 4: 139-151. Brauser, M. (2003) Earth education programs. Journal for Experiential Education 23 (5/6): 23-31. Blaikie, N. W. H. (1992) The nature and origins of ecological world views: an Australian study. Social Science Quarterly 73: 144-165. Catton, W. R. and R. E. Dunlap (1978) Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. American Sociologist 13(1): 41-49. Carlson, S. and S. Maxa (1998) Pedagogy applied to nonformal education. In The center (pp. 48-53). St. Paul: The Center for 4-H Youth Development, University of Minnesota. Carlson, S. (2008) Environmental Field Days: Recommendations for Best Practices. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 7:94-105. Chawla, L. (1999) Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 15-26. DeVellis R. F. (1998) Scale Development: Theory and Applications. CA: Sage. Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere (1978) The ‘new environmental paradigm’: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10-19. Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere (1984) Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly 65: 1013-1028. Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig and R. E. Jones (2000) Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 425-442. Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking (2002) Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. p.63-74. Falk, J. H. and M. Storksdiec (2005) Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education 89: 744-778. Fein, J. D. Hevk and J. Ferreira (1993) Teaching for a sustainable world. UNESCO. Holt, D. T. and S. T. Lofgren (2005) Examination of the New Environmental Paradigm scale in a military sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills 100(3): 791-794. Hungerford, H. R., R. B. Peyton and R. J. Wilke (1980) Goals for Curriculum development for Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education 11(3): 42-47. Jacobson, S. K. (1999) Communication skills for conservation professionals. Island Press. Inc. p. 24-27. Johnson, B. and C. C. Manoli (2008) Using Bogner and Wiseman''s Model of Ecological Values to measure the impact of an earth education programmer on children''s environmental perceptions. Environmental Education Research 14(2):115-127. Knapp, D. (2000) Memorable experiences of a science field trip. School Science and Mathematics 100(2): 65-71. Leeming, F. C., W. O. Dwyer and B. A. Bracken (1995) Children’s environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. The Journal of Environmental Education 26(3): 22-33. Leeming, F. C., W. O. Dwyer, B. E. Porter and M. K. Cobern (1993) Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education 24(4): 8-21. Manoli, C. C., B. Johnson and R. E. Dunlap (2007) Assessing children’s environmental worldviews: Modifying and validating the New Ecological Paradigm Scale for use with children. The Journal of Environmental Education 38(4): 3-13. Poudel, D. D., L. M. Vincent, C. Anzalone, J. Huner, D. Wollard, T. Clement, A. DeRamus and G. Blakewood (2005) Hands-on activities and challenge tests in agricultural and environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education 36(4): 10-22. Regnier, K., M. Gross and R. Zimmerman (1992) The interpreters guidebook: Techniques for programs and presentations. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Foundation Press, Inc. Rickinson, M. (2001) Special issue: Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research 7(3): 207-320. Rideout, B. E. (2005) The effect of a brief environmental problems module on endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm in college students. The Journal of Environmental Education 37(1): 3-11. Schwarz, C. F., E. C. Thor and G. H. Elsner (1976) Wildland Planning Glossary. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-13, Berkeley. Shomon, J. J. (1969) Nature center: One approach to urban environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education 1(2): 58. Simmons, D. (1991) Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature and environmental education center goals. The Journal of Environmental Education 22(3): 16-21. Simmons, D. (1998) Using nature settings for environmental education: Perceived benefits and barriers. The Journal of Environmental Education 29 (3): 23-31. Sivek, D. J. and H. R. Hungerford (1990) Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of Environmental Education 21(2): 35-40. Stapp, W. B. and S. R. Tocher (1971) The community nature center’s role in environmental education. The University of Michigan. Sward, L. (1999) Significant life experiences affecting the environmental sensitivity of El Salvadoran environmental professionals. Environmental Education Research 5(2): 201-206. Tanner, T. (1998) Choosing the right subjects in significant life experiences research. Environmental Education Research 4(4): 399-418. Thapa, B. (2001) Environmental Concern: a comparative analysis between students in Recreation and Park Management and other departments. Environmental Education Research 7(1): 39-53. Wiseman, M. and F. X. Bogner (2003) A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences 34: 783-94. Yager, R. E. (1993) Science/ Technology/ Society as reform. School Science and Mathematics 93(3): 145-151.
摘要: 
環境教育對學童的環境覺知影響甚為重要,如何評估環境教育之成效在台灣仍處於發展階段;Dunlap 和Van Liere (1978) 創造之新環境典範,經過多次研究、改良、修正,近年由Wiseman和Bogner (2003) 設計生態價值模式,用以檢驗學童的環境覺知、評估環境學習課程的影響,且具有相當高之信度與效度。因此,本研究擬引進此生態價值模式,輔以依據2001年教育部九年一貫課程綱要設計之環境教育課程目標量表,利用林務局羅東林管處之自然教育中心場域及其設計之教案,作為探討評估國內環境教育對學童環境覺知的影響。
本研究採用非對等控制組實驗設計,針對國小高年級學生於2009年9月至2010年11月期間在羅東自然教育中心,利用兩大量表:1. 環境教育課程目標量表:覺知與敏感度、概念知識、倫理價值觀、行動技能、行動經驗五層面;2. 生態價值模式量表:保護、利用兩層面,分別對三套戶外教學課程及單一戶外教學課程評估其環境覺知之改變程度。
三套戶外教學課程結果:1. 環境教育課程目標量表方面,實驗組學生除「環境覺知與敏感度」面向未比控制組學生有顯著進步外,其餘面相均比控制組顯著進步。2. 生態價值模式量表方面,實驗組學生保護面向之進步分數為0.24-0.31分;在利用面向之分數顯著低於控制組學生。
  進行單一戶外教學課程之結果,實驗組學生在支持意圖面向分數,較控制組學生顯著提高。
 進行三套與單一戶外教學課程比較之結果,接受三套課程之效果顯著高於接受單一課程之效果,即三套課程的規劃具有完整性,建議應鼓勵參與戶外教學學校老師及學生能參加完整的戶外教學課程方案,以達到親環境行為之效果更顯著。

The influence of environmental education on students’ awareness about environmental are remarkable, and the stage how is effectiveness of environmental education evaluated today is developing area in Taiwan. The Model of Ecological Values developed by Wiseman and in 2003 is a powerful perspective for examining environmental perceptions in children and for evaluating the effects of environmental learning programmes on those perceptions. Therefore, the study introduces two indicators, both ecological value model and environmental education course goal which is designed by us according to the national curriculum guidelines of Ministry of Education in 2001, and lesson courses, designed and practiced by Nature Education Center of Loudong Forest District Office of Forestry Bureau, to evaluate the effects of environmental awareness on senior students of elementary school.
This research utilized nonequivalent control group design to survey high grade elementary school students in Sep. 2009 to Nov. 2010 in Luodong Nature Education Center. To understand elementary school senior students’ awareness about environmental changes via Environmental Education Course Goals and The Model of Ecological Values developed by Wiseman and in 2003, and to make suggestions in environmental education for continually developing nature education centers.
The results showed that: 1. experimental students did not have significant improvement on environment awareness than controlling students from Environmental Education Course Goals among the effect of three field trip education courses in 2009. On the other hand, significant improvement was found in environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes, environmental action kills and environmental action experiences. 2. In The Model of Ecological Values, experimental students’ significantly progressed 0.24 to 0.31 point in protection domain, i.e., intention to support, care with resources, enjoyment of nature. When the pretest scores were adjusted, controlling students significantly progressed than experimental students in altering nature and human use domain.
As for the single field trip education effectiveness in 2010, experimental students had higher scores on intention to support.
When we compared three field trip courses to that of single field trip, I found water-born family course had higher scores in intention to support than little green soul. The total effectiveness of three field trip courses and the railroad mystery had higher scores in care with resources than little green soul. The total effectiveness of three field trip courses and water-born family course had higher scores in altering nature than little green soul. Overall, the results showed taking three field trip courses had better effect than taking only one. Therefore, the findings suggested field trip teachers and more courses for students should be encouraged to achieve environment friendly behavior.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/66243
其他識別: U0005-2307201217192900
Appears in Collections:森林學系

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-101-7097033207-1.pdf1.81 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network   
Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.