Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/87243
Title: 大學校院環境教育相關課程教師之教學現況調查及其相關因素研究
Authors: 劉潔心
李恆華
Keywords: 大學校院
教師
環境教育
資源
課程教學
環境素養
環境教育教學目標達成度
university
faculty
environmental education
resource
teaching curriculums
environmental literacy
reachable environmental teaching goals
Issue Date: 2004
Abstract: 本研究旨在瞭解目前大學院校環境教育相關課程教師的專業背景、資源、課程教學、教師環境素養、環境教育教學目標達成度之現況;並進一步探討上述五者之間的相互關係、影響及預測力。根據教育部高教司暨學審會建構之「大學校院課程上網」系統,查詢近三年內環境教育相關課程的任課教師,施測後得到有效問卷522份。以自評式問卷進行調查,所得資料以描述性統計、單因子多變量變異數分析(one-way MANOVA)、典型相關(CANONICAL)及結構方程式(LISREL)分析處理後,可得以下重要結論: 一、 目前大專院校環境教育任課教師大多數屬於年輕、高學歷、進修意願高等可塑性極高的一群,營造出生意盎然的未來。 二、在「資源」中行政人員資源的可獲性的滿意度明顯高於經費充裕度;「課程教學」中顯示教師自覺「教材特色」明顯高於「教學方法」及「教師角色」部分,最不理想的為「課程規劃與參與」的情形。 三、教師環境素養與環境教育教學目標達成度中,教師自評環境素養得分明顯高於其評定學生在環境教育教學目標的達成度,且兩者最高分的皆為環境覺知,環境態度與知識則處於中上程度,最缺乏的皆為環境行動與環境技能。 四、教師專業背景中,主要會因為教師的專長領域、所教授的課程內涵總數、所開設的課程型態總數、年資、參加研習活動次數、參加環保活動次數、加入環保團體的數目等項目的不同,而對資源、課程教學、教師環境素養以及環境教育教學目標達成度等四個分量表整體項目產生明顯的差異。 五、任課教師之「資源」分別與「課程教學」、「教師環境素養」及「環境教育教學目標達成度」存在典型相關,但是解釋量皆不太大(分別為7.005%,3.111%,4.395%),另外,「課程教學」對「環境教育教學目標達成度」之典型相關的解釋量(38.829%)大過於對「教師環境素養」的解釋量(33.06%),皆為正相關。 六、本架構模式中,「教師專業背景」可直接預測教學上「資源」、「課程教學」、「教師環境素養」以及「環境教育教學目標達成度」,其中以對教學上「課程教學」的品質之預測力及解釋力最高;而「教師專業背景」在缺乏課程教學品質及教師本身的環境素養情形下,會直接對「環境教育教學目標達成度」有負面影響效果,但若「教師專業背景」透過「課程教學」及「教師環境素養」等兩項中介變項的提升,即可對「環境教育教學目標達成度」產生正面的影響效果。 七、本架構模式中,「資源」、「課程教學」及「教師環境素養」對依變項「環境教育教學目標達成度」的預測情形中,以「課程教學」對「環境教育教學目標達成度」預測力最大,尤以「教師的教師角色彈性、多功能化」影響力最大;其次才是「教師環境素養」對「環境教育教學目標達成度」具有預測力,其中又以「教師環境技能」之影響力最大;而「資源」對依變項「環境教育教學目標達成度」的預測力及影響力並未達到顯著水準。 研究者亦針對上述結論對大學環教教師、相關教育指導單位及後續研究三方面,分別提出建議。
for One-way MANOVA , CANONICAL and SEM. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: 1.Most of the environmental education related university faculties are belong to the young category which are with the adaptability and the high educational background. For this reason, they will build the hopeful future in this field. 2.In the area of resources, the faculties feel better in their handling the administrators’ resources than getting enough funds. In the area of teaching curriculums, the scores in the item “the characteristic of the teaching material” are higher than the item “the teaching methods” and “the teaching roles”. Besides, the worst one is the item “the planning and participation of curriculums”. 3.The faculties’ self review “environmental literacy” was better than students’ “reachable environmental teaching goals”, the similar between faculties and students, both of them ware highest environmental awareness, moderate environmental attitude and knowledge, lowest environmental action and skills. 4.Significant differences in faculties’ whole environmental teaching were found with professional specialty, contents of curriculums , types of curriculums , seniority, environmental protection experience and environmental education training experience. 5.According to the model, “resources” were weak related to” teaching curriculums”, “environmental literacy” and ”reachable environmental teaching goals”(explanation amount are 7.005%,3.111%,4.395%). “Teaching curriculums” were more strongly significantly related(explanation amount are 38.829%) to “reachable environmental teaching goals” than ” environmental literacy”(explanation amount are 33.06%). 6.According to the model, “professional background” significantly predicted “resources”, “teaching curriculums”, “environmental literacy” and “reachable environmental teaching goals”. In addition, teaching curriculums is the most powerful predictor. However, if on ”teaching curriculums” and “environmental literacy”, the “professional background” would be negatively effective to “reachable environmental teaching goals”, and the “professional background“ would be positively effective to “reachable environmental teaching goals” by way of teaching curriculums and environmental literacy. 7.According to the model, “teaching curriculums” were the most effectively predictor for ”reachable environmental teaching goals”, the second effectively predictor were “environmental literacy” .Then, “the teaching roles” were the most effectively among curriculum teaching factors, and faculties’ “environmental skills” were the most effectively among environmental literacy factors. Recommendations of the university environmental faculties, education unit and follow-up researches were presented at the end of this thesis.
URI: http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0000S09269%22.&%22.id.&
http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/87243
Other Identifiers: G0000S09269
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


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