| Summary: | 碩士 === 開南大學 === 觀光運輸學院碩士在職專班 === 103 === According to the Environmental Education Act announced and implemented in Taiwan on June 5, 2011, both teachers and students below high school level are required to attend at least 4 hours of environmental education courses annually. This study involved integrating ecological tours provided by environmental education teams to design 4 environmental education courses.
This study investigated the effectiveness of the following 3 environmental education models for fifth and sixth graders in elementary schools: indoor lectures given by teachers, collaboration between teachers and professional ecological tour guides, and field trips followed by comprehensive discussions. Subsequently, we explored 4 environmental education course designs (Designs A−D) and their effectiveness on fifth and sixth graders (divided into Groups A−D) to provide a reference for promoting environmental education.
Design A only included a field trip to the Bade Pond Ecological Park (observation-based trip). Design B involved a thematic lecture and a field trip to said park (observation-based trip). Design C consisted of a thematic lecture and an ecological tour of the park (observation-based trip with commentaries). Design D comprised a thematic lecture, an ecological tour in the park (observation-based trip with commentaries), and a comprehensive discussion panel. Students in Groups A−C were required to submit a report after the field trip, whereas students in Group D were required to submit a report after the comprehensive discussion. The students were free to express opinions in the reports without guidance from teachers.
This study adopted a qualitative research design. After collecting the field-trip reports written by the students in the 4 groups, we read the reports thoroughly, analyzed the texts, selected keywords from the texts, and classified the keywords according to the capability index by phase for elementary school students involved in a 9-year joint environmental education curriculum.
The research results are as follows:
(a) Environmental awareness and sensitivity: Students in Groups B, C, and D exhibited more prior knowledge.
(b) Environmental conceptual knowledge: Overall, students in Group A < students in Group B < students in Group C < students in Group D.
(c) Environmental values and attitudes: Overall, students in Group A < students in Group B < students in Group C < students in Group D.
(d) Environmental actions and skills: Students in Groups A did not mention environmental protection at all; 8%, 15%, and 33% of the students in Groups B, C, and D described the concept of environmental protection, respectively. In Group D, 19% of the students described opposition to developing undeveloped land. Therefore, students in Group D exhibited substantially enhanced environmental skills.
(e) Environmental education lectures given in classrooms increased student prior knowledge.
(f) Group ecological tours considerably enhanced student environmental knowledge, although the tours were not particularly effective in establishing environmental protection values and attitudes among students.
(g) Comprehensive discussions combined with sharing and clarifying values were effective in building environmental protection values and attitudes among students.
In summary, Design D enhanced the effectiveness of environmental education most significantly. Finally, suggestions were proposed according to the research results, which may serve as reference in the environmental education course design for school teachers and future studies.
|
|---|
