環境行動與群體效能教學模組之教學效果研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2002-06-??
Authors
邱詩揚
晏涵文
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
健康促進與衛生與衛生教育學系
Department of Health Promotion and Health Education
Department of Health Promotion and Health Education
Abstract
本研究的目的在探討「環境行動與群體效能教學模組」之教學效果，並與「傳統教師中心環境教學」比較教學效果之差異。「環境行動與群體效能教學模組」乃依據 社會認知理論、群體效能概念及跨理論模式，並掌握影響環境行為之重要變項，融合環境議是調查行動、行為改變策略及小組合作學習方法所發展的環境教育教學模 組。 本研究採「不相等實驗組、控制組實驗設計」，立意選取宜蘭縣立羅東國中一年級(實驗組)及國華國中一年級(對照組)，共374位學生為研究對象。實驗組中 有三個班級為實驗組A，接受「環境行動與群體效能教學模組」之教育介入，另中三個班級為實驗組B，接受「傳統教師中心環境教學」之教育介入。本研究之評量 包括形成評量、過程評量及成效評量，以問卷調查、訪談、觀察記錄收集量性及質性之評量資料。 研究結果顯示「環境行動與群體效能教學模組」可有效增進國中生的「環境意識」、「環境議是知識」、「增強管理技巧」、「自我效能」、「群體效能」、「小組 合作經驗」、「個人環境行動」及「團體環境行動」;也可增進「家人的支持」及「同學、學長姐或朋有的支持」，並維持對行動預期結果的正向評價。「環境行動 與群體效能教學模組」在各變項的立即教學效果均優於「傳統教師中心環境教學」，且對「個人環境行動」與「團體環境行動」持續教學效果也優於「傳統教師中心 環境教學」。學生對「教學活動的整體感覺」、「教學活動與教學目標達成」、「教學活動的興趣與喜歡程度」、「小組互動情形」、「教學媒體」及「學生手冊」 等方面，整體評價及滿意程度約在八成左右。 以往的環境教育教學多著重在個人環境行為，然而許多的環境問題的解決，卻常結合群體的力量。未來進行環境教育教學時，也應將目標放在團體環境行為，透過團 體合作過程來增進學生之群體效能，進而促進學生採取團體環境行動來解決環境問題。
This study compared the instructional effects of Environmental Action and Collective Efficacy Module (EACEM) with traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching. The EACEM is based on social learning theory, conceptions of collective efficacy and Transtheoretcal Model, and it also incorporates Hungerford’s Issue Investigation Skill, strategies of behavior change and methods of cooperative learning. A nonequivalent experiment control group design was used with 10 intact classes from two junior high schools in Ilan county. Experimental group A received EACEM instruction and Experimental group B received traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching during the intervention period (three weeks), while the control group received no treatment during the same period. Formation evaluation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation were taken with questionnaire surveys, interviews and observations to collect quantitative and qualitative data. A closed-ended pretest-posttest questionnaire and another closed-ended follow-up test questionnaire were the instruments used to evaluate the outcome effects. The results support the fact that EACEM instruction can produce a positive increase in students’ environmental awareness, knowledge about environmental issues, reinforcement and management skills, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, group cooperation, social support and environmental action, and maintain students’ positive outcome expectancy. A follow-up test provides support for the continuous educational effects on students’ individual and collective environmental actions. In addition, the effects of EACEM instruction proved to be better than traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching in all variables.
This study compared the instructional effects of Environmental Action and Collective Efficacy Module (EACEM) with traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching. The EACEM is based on social learning theory, conceptions of collective efficacy and Transtheoretcal Model, and it also incorporates Hungerford’s Issue Investigation Skill, strategies of behavior change and methods of cooperative learning. A nonequivalent experiment control group design was used with 10 intact classes from two junior high schools in Ilan county. Experimental group A received EACEM instruction and Experimental group B received traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching during the intervention period (three weeks), while the control group received no treatment during the same period. Formation evaluation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation were taken with questionnaire surveys, interviews and observations to collect quantitative and qualitative data. A closed-ended pretest-posttest questionnaire and another closed-ended follow-up test questionnaire were the instruments used to evaluate the outcome effects. The results support the fact that EACEM instruction can produce a positive increase in students’ environmental awareness, knowledge about environmental issues, reinforcement and management skills, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, group cooperation, social support and environmental action, and maintain students’ positive outcome expectancy. A follow-up test provides support for the continuous educational effects on students’ individual and collective environmental actions. In addition, the effects of EACEM instruction proved to be better than traditional teacher-centered environmental teaching in all variables.