| Summary: | 博士 === 國立新竹教育大學 === 教育學系博士班 === 99 === A study of Indicators construction and Empirical analysis of Sustainable School in Elementary School
Abstract
This research focuses on the forming of indicators in sustainable schools and its recognition and matching situation. The research itself has to be done in two stages. First to create a meaningful indicator with the use of the Delphi Technique, that can direct the school to pursue sustainability. The Empirical Analysis is done in the second stage. The Investigation methodology will analyze the indicator’s recognition among all school personnel and the matching degree between the indicator and the reality.
In order to fulfill its purposes, this research uses questionnaires effectively. The Expert Consultation questionnaire of The Indicator Construction for Sustainable School in Elementary School was created based on the collection of related papers and the analysis of those papers. This questionnaire consults the professional environmental educators for their advices. Eighteen educators went through three rounds of the Delphi Techniques and the results developed into the questionnaire of the indicator’s present situation in Sustainable School in Elementary School. This nationwide questionnaire aimed towards Elementary School personnel in Taiwan. The targets were decided through stratified random sampling from three hundred schools. This group contains school principals, teachers, and staffs who pursue in environmental affairs, with a total of one thousand two hundred people.
The feedback percentages from three rounds of Delphi Experiments were one hundred percent, ninety-four percent and eighty-three percent. There are a total of seven hundred and thirty-six questionnaires returned with valid answers with a percentage of 62.25%. With the aid of the SPSS 12.0 software, all the information received from those two stages could be analyzed by methods such as the descriptive statistic, general linear model multivariate significance test, one-sample T test, one way ANOVA, Paired-sample T test and Scheffe’s. According to the purpose of the research and those statistic methods, this research could draw the following conclusions from the information.
1. On the “indicators construction of sustainable school” stage
(1)Indicator for sustainable school in elementary school contains five main levels such as “Administration management”, “Campus environment”, “Curriculum and instruction”,” Eco-friendly life”, and ”Partnership”. There are a total of fifty-two element indicators.
(2)The “Administration management” level includes three unit indicators such as “Plan and organization”, “Leadership and implementation”, and “Survey and evaluation” with a total of nine element indicators.
(3)The “Campus environment” level includes three unit indicators such as “Spatial plan”, “Campus building”, and “Buildings and facilities” with a total of eleven element indicators.
(4)The “Curriculum and Instruction” level includes three unit indicators such as “Curriculum program”, “Instruction implementation”, and “Material development” with a total of ten element indicators.
(5)The ”Eco-friendly life” level includes three unit indicators such as “Saving energy”, “Recycling resources” and “Preventing pollution“ with a total of thirteen element indicators.
(6)The “Partnership” level includes three unit indicators such as “Connecting communities”, ”Infusing resources” and “Exchanging cooperation”.
2.On the “Empirical analysis of sustainable school” stage
(1)About the recognition degree of sustainable school indicators:
i. The indicators for sustainable school are mostly recognized and supported in general.
ii. Within the five main level indicators, the most recognized are the level of “Eco-friendly life” and the level of “Campus environment”, then the level of ”Curriculum and instruction”, the level of “Partnership”, and then the level of “Administration management”.
iii. Within the fifteen unit indicators, the more recognized are the unit of “Preventing pollution“, “Recycling resources”, “Buildings and facilities” and “Spatial plan”.
iv. Compared between the variables of different population, older staffs, seniors staffs, teachers and principals with a master degree or higher recognizes the indicators for sustainable schools more, and they recognizes the level of “Eco-friendly life” the most.
(2)About the matching degree of sustainable school indicators:
i. The matching degree between the reality and the sustainable school indicators are between somewhat matched and matched in general.
ii. Within the five main level indicators, the more matched is the level of “Eco-friendly life”; other level indicators, such as the level of ”Campus environment”, “Curriculum and Instruction”, “Administration management”, and “Partnership” still need improvements.
iii. Within the fifteen unit indicators, the more matched are the unit of “Preventing pollution“, “Recycling resources” and “Spatial plan”; other unit indicators still need improvements.
iv. Compared between the variables of different school environments, schools with medium size and schools with moderate ages match better than others, in addition, the level of “Curriculum and Instruction” matches the most.
(3)About the differences between the recognition degree and matching degrees of sustainable school indicators:
i. The recognition degree for sustainable school indicator is much higher than the matching degree in general.
ii. Within the five main level indicators, the largest gap is in the level of “Campus environment”.
iii. Within the fifteen unit indicators, the larger gaps are in the units of “Campus building”, “Buildings and facilities”, “Energy saving”, “Exchanging cooperation” and ”Infusing resources”.
|
|---|
