臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
本研究旨在針對特定產業參觀及遊憩休閒兩類型環境教育場域，以「環境課程方案規劃及行動力教學之研究」為教學主軸，發展出＜資源保育、再利用、綠色消費＞、＜如何進行在地文化認識、傳承及保存＞、＜全球暖化、氣候變遷、節能減碳及極端氣候調適＞、＜自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造＞四種環境教育課程方案，選定「郭元益文化糕餅博物館」、「麥寮六輕環境教育場域」、「劍湖山環境教育場域」、「飛牛休閒場域」四個場域，針對學校師生、機關人員、一般民眾及企業員工為對象進行教學。
本研究所採行的環境課程方案，在實際進行課程教學後，進一步探討參與教學者之學習成效，比較教學前測與實施教學後測的差異，研究者採用單因子共變數分析（ONE WAY ANCOVA），以排除參與者的前測分數差異對教學成效的影響。並在教學中與教學後，透過教學過程、課程觀察、課後訪談，以探討各實驗教學在知識、態度、行動面向對參與的人員是否有環境素養之提升，且具有解決環境問題的能力及行動力的展現，並探討了解所發展的課程教案是否符合場域的需求，是否有需改進之處。
從整體的教學成效可看出參與者在環境問題解決力、知識、態度、行為面向的素養大有提升。
一、各課程教學之成效分析如下：
(一) ＜自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造＞之課程方案
本研究在劍湖山環境教育場域，以所發展的課程方案對於一般民眾－雲林麥寮鄉橋頭村、雷厝村村民進行教學，由實驗組教學前、後測問卷結果比較，實驗組在知識、態度、行為、技能面向的學習成效顯著優於對照組，總平均值均達極顯著差異。在麥寮六輕環境教育場域對於機關團體進行教學，由實驗組教學前、後測問卷結果比較，知識、行為題總平均值均達極顯著差異，態度方面達非常顯著差異，顯示參與者的學習成效良好。透過自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造相關環境議題討論，使參與者更瞭解所處生活環境中的自然生態問題，增加對所處環境觀察的細膩度，進而展現出保育生態能力及生物棲地營造的行動力。待修正之處為: 劍湖山環境場域有斜坡地，戶外導覽時人數較多，隊伍拉的較長，分成兩隊導覽解說效果會更好。
(二) ＜如何進行在地文化認識、傳承及保存＞之課程方案
本研究在飛牛休閒場域，以所發展的課程對企業員工－某營造公司員工及眷屬，及在郭元益文化糕餅博物館對學校師生－桃園幸福國小高年級進行教學，由教學前、後測問卷結果比較，知識、態度、行為面向總平均值均達極顯著差異，顯示參與者的學習成效良好。透過如何進行在地文化認識、傳承及保存相關環境議題討論，使參與者認識了在地文化，瞭解文化是一種無形的財產，進而展現出保存在地文化以及傳承的行動力。待修正之處為: 課程主題與場域的糕餅文化可相搭配，但參與學員年紀尚不到思考這些文化資產的年代，爾後課程解決策略是選擇年歲較長的學生或一般民眾。
(三) ＜資源保育、再利用及綠色消費＞之課程方案
本研究在雲林麥寮六輕環境教育場域，以所發展的課程對機關團體－雲林縣崙背鄉四校(中和、陽明、豐榮、大有)教師，及在郭元益文化糕餅博物館對學校師生－桃園幸福國小高年級學生進行教學，由教學前、後測問卷結果比較，知識、態度、行為面向總平均值達極顯著差異，顯示參與者的學習成效良好。透過資源保育、再利用及綠色消費相關環境議題討論，使參與者認識了5R，瞭解資源如何再利用，進而展現出綠色消費的行動力。待修正之處為:影片時間過長，可事先將影片縮減為較精要的片子來播放。
(四) ＜全球暖化、氣候變遷、節能減碳及極端氣候調適＞之課程
本研究在飛牛休閒場域，以所發展的課程對企業員工－某營造公司員工及眷屬進行教學，由實驗教學前、後測問卷結果比較，實驗組在知識、態度面向的學習成效顯著優於對照組，在行為方面則無顯著差異，顯示學生在知識、態度的學習成效良好。在劍湖山環境教育場域，對於一般民眾－雲林麥寮鄉橋頭村、雷厝村村民進行教學，實驗組在知識、態度、行為面向的學習成效顯著優於對照組，尤其在態度面向特別顯著，顯示學生的學習成效良好。透過全球暖化、氣候變遷、節能減碳及極端氣候調適相關環境議題討論，使參與者瞭解氣候的暖化、溫度變遷的急遽性，帶給我們的影響有哪些，進而展現出極端氣候後下的調適能力及節能減碳的行動力。待修正之處為:分組討論的人員配置，可事先稍作人員素質的瞭解，讓組員呈異質分配，議題討論會更熱烈。
綜合量化及質性資料，本研究發展之教案能有效增進參與者的相關環境素養，並提升環境問題解決能力及行動力。

關鍵字:課程方案、環境教育場域、產業參觀、休閒遊憩、教學成效

Abstract
Targeted at 2 kinds of environmental education sites (for industrial visiting and recreation) and took “Environmental experience, problem-oriented, action for the environment” as an axis, the study is to develop 4 kinds of curricula programs for environmental education: “Nature Conservation, Biodiversity, and Habitat Conservation”, “Understanding, Inheritance, Preservation of Local Culture”, “Resource Conservation, Recycling, and Green Consumption”, and “Adjustment to Global Warming, Climate Chang, Energy Saving and Emission Reducing, and Extreme Climate Adjustment”. We selected 4 sites: “Kuo Yuan Ye Museum of Cake and Pastry”, “Environmental Education Site of Sixth Naphtha Cracking Program in Mailiao”, “Environmental Education Site of Janfusun Fancy World”, and “Recreation Site of Flying Cow Ranch”; we took schools’ students, government officers, the general public, and firm employees as our object for the teaching.
There was an experimental design of curricula programs adopted. After the environmental education, the learning effectiveness of participants is evaluated by comparing the differences between pre- and post- teaching. “One Way ANOCOVA” was adopted to exclude the influence of participants’ pre-test remark on teaching effectiveness. Besides, before and after teaching, teaching observation and post-class interview was adopted to evaluate if environmental literacy of participants from aspects of knowledge, attitude, and action could be promoted, and if the participants demonstrated their capability to solve and execute the environmental problem. Also, we try to understand if the developed curricula teaching programs matched the requirements of the fields, and if there is anything needs to be improved.
Based on the overall teaching effectiveness, we can find that there is a significant improvement of participants’ environmental literacy from aspects of problem-solving, strategy-building, attitude, and behavior.
1. The effectiveness analyses for experimental teaching of each curricular program as below:
(1) Curricular program of “Nature Conservation, Biodiversity, and Habitat Conservation”:
In “Environmental Education Field of Janfusun Fancy World”, the program was applied to villagers from Qiaotou Village and Leicuo Village of Yunlin. The questionnaire results of the treatment group before and after the teaching was compared, and it was found the learning effectiveness of the treatment group is significantly better than the control group from aspects of knowledge, attitude, behavior, and skill. There are significant differences in each mean. In “Environmental Education field of Sixth Naphtha Cracking Program in Mailiao”, the program was applied to government officers. By comparing the questionnaire results of the treatment group before and after the teaching, there are very very significant differences in knowledge and behavior; there is a very significant difference in attitude, which shows that participants’ learning effectiveness is good. By discussing the environmental issues such as nature conservation, biodiversity, and habitat conservation, the participants can understand more about the ecological problems around their life, more precisely observe the circumstances, and demonstrate their nature and habitat conservation capability. However, there is something needs to be revised: There was a ramp in “Environmental Education field of Janfusun Fancy World” and the more of participants were there, which caused the queue to be too long. The participants could be separated into 2 groups, the effects of guiding and introducing would be better.
(2) Curricular program for “Understanding, Inheritance and Preservation of Local Culture”:
The program was applied to a construction firm’s employees and their family in “Recreation Field of Flying Cow Ranch”¸ and applied to students of the senior grades of Hsing-Fu Elementary School in Taoyuan in “Kuo Yuan Ye Museum of Cake and Pastry”. The questionnaire results before and after the teaching were compared, and there are found very very significant differences in the means of knowledge, attitude, and behavior, which shows that the learning effectiveness of the participants was good. By discussing how to understand, inherit, and preserve local culture, the participants knew local culture, and understand culture is an intangible asset, and they demonstrated their capability to carry out preservation and inheritance of local culture. However, there is something needs to be revised: the culture of cake and pastry can be combined with the program topic of the field, but the participants were too young to consider the cultural heritages. And our future strategy to solve this problem is to select older students and the general people.
(3) Curricular program of “Resource Conservation, Recycling and Green Consumption”:
The program was applied to teachers from 4 schools (Zhonghe, Yangming, Fengrong, Dayou) in Lunbei Township, Yunlin in “Environmental Education field of sixth Naphtha Cracking Program in Mailiao”, and was applied to students from the senior grades of Hsing-Fu Elementary School in Taoyuan in “Kuo Yuan Ye Museum of Cake and Pastry”. The questionnaire results before and after the teaching was compared, and it was found that there are very very significant differences in the means of knowledge, attitude, and behavior, which shows that the learning effectiveness of the participants was good. By discussing the environmental issues such as resource conservation, recycling, and green consumption, the participants knew 5 Rs and how to recycle, and they demonstrated their capability to carry out green consumption. However, there is something needs to be revised: the length of the video is too long, and the video can be condensed in advance.
(4) Curricular program of “Global Warming, Climate Chang, Energy Saving and Emission Reducing, and Extreme Climate Adjustment”:
The program was applied to a construction firm’s employees and their family in “Recreation Site of Flying Cow Ranch”. The questionnaire results before and after the teaching were compared, and it was found that the learning effectiveness of the treatment group is better than the control group from aspects of knowledge and attitude which shows that the learning effectiveness of students was good in “Environmental Education Site of Janfusun Fancy World”. The program was applied to villagers from Qiaotou Village and Leicuo Village of Yunlin. It was found that the learning effectiveness of the treatment group is significantly better than the control group from aspects of attitude and behavior; especially very significant in behavior and skill, which shows that the learning effectiveness of students was good. By discussing the environmental issues such as global warming, climate change, energy saving and emission reducing, and extreme climate adjustment, the participants realized the urgency of climate warming and change and its influences on us, and they demonstrated their capability to adjustment under extreme climate and execute energy saving and emission reducing. However, there is something needs to be revised: if we had surveyed the quality of the participants in advance and carried out a heterogeneous distribution, and the participation would have been more passionately.
According to both quantitative and qualitative data, the developed activities programs in the study can effectively promote the relevant environmental literacy of the participants and their capability to solve and execute the environmental problems.

Keywords: Curricular Program, Environmental Education Field, Industrial Visiting, Recreation, Teaching Effectiveness

目錄
目錄 I
圖目錄 III
表目錄 III
摘要 IX
第一章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究背景與重要性 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 環境教育與環境教育場域 9
第二節 環境教育法中有關環境教育場域之規範 12
第三節 戶外教學 16
第四節 環境教育課程方案之規劃及執行 21
第五節 環境體驗及行動力教學 28
第六節 課程方案的評估與修正 32
第七節 課程方案的設計與學習者的環境素養提升之相關研究 35
第三章 研究方法 39
第一節 研究架構 39
第二節 研究流程 40
第三節 課程發展 42
第四節 研究場域之描述 47
第五節 前後測問卷 49
第六節 觀察法 53
第七節 訪談法 56
第四章 結果與討論 61
第一節 各主題、活動教案設計 61
第二節 劍湖山環境場域對一般民眾課程方案教學之成效分析 72
第三節 飛牛休閒場域課程方案對企業員工教學之成效分析 98
第四節 六輕環境教育場域課程方案對機關團體教學後之成效分析 124
第五節 郭元益文化場域課程方案對學校師生教學後之成效分析 150
第六節 各場域主題課程實驗教學成效之比較 174
第七節 各類課程的改善與建議 180
第五章 結論與建議 183
第一節 結論 183
第二節 建議 188
參考文獻 189
附錄 197
附錄一: 環境教育場域參觀實施計畫表 197
附錄二: 修改後之「自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造」教案 200
附錄三:修正後「全球暖化、氣候變遷、節能減碳及極端氣候調適」課程方案 208
附錄四: 修改後「資源保育、再利用及綠色消費」之課程方案 213
附錄五:修改後 「如何進行在地文化認識、傳承及保存」之課程方案 219
附錄六: 資源保育、再利用及綠色消費課程方案訪談大綱 226
附錄七: 「資源保育、再利用、綠色消費」課程方案之問卷 227
附錄八: 如何進行在地文化認識、傳承及保存」課程方案之問卷 231
附錄九: 文化認識傳承保存教學方案訪談大綱 235
附錄十: 觀察紀錄表 236
附錄十一:「全球暖化、氣候變遷、節能減碳及極端氣候調適」課程方案之問卷 237
附錄十二:「自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造」課程方案之問卷 241
附錄十三: 自然保育、生物多樣性及生物棲地營造課程方案訪談大綱 245

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王正華、陳寬裕(2014)。論文統計分析實務SPSS與AMOS的運用第二版。臺北：五南。
王怡舜、施穎偉、施妙如 (2011)。環保影片應用於國民小學環境教育之成效－以彰化縣新水國小五年級為例。(未出版碩士論文)。彰化縣：國立彰化師範大學。
王文科、吳清山、徐宗林、郭秋勳、陳奎憙、陳聰文、黃政傑、黃德祥、詹棟樑、雷國鼎(2003)。教育概論。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
王順美 (1994)。解決環境問題教學模式之探討。環境教育，22，38-45。
王聖賢 (2006)。福寶溼地自然保育課程對國小中、高年及學童的適當性及溼地自然保育認知，態度之影響研究。未出版碩士論文，台中市：國立台中教育大學。
王懋雯 (1996)。師範學院學生環境行為影響因素之研究-以台北市立師範學院學生為例。未出版博士論文，台北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
王鑫（1999）。地球環境教育與永續發展教育。環境教育季刊，37，87-103。
行政院環境保護署(2012)。環境教育法相關法規彙編。台北市：行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署(2013)。環境正義給我的10堂課。台北市：行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署(2013)。邁向綠色永續未來。台北市：行政院環境保護署。
行政院農委會林務局、社團法人台灣環境資訊協會 (2012)。生物多樣性上課了。台北：行政院農委會林務局
汪靜明（2000）。學校環境教育的理念與原理。環境教育季刊，43，頁11-27。
何宜芳 (2012) 。盤面遊戲對國小六年級學童節能減碳知識與態度之影響研究。未出版碩士論文，台中市：國立台中教育大學。
吳清山(2003)。體驗學習的理念與策略。教師天地，127，15-22
吳鈴筑 (2010) 。國內外環境教育法比較之研究。未出版碩士論文，台北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
李崑山(1999)。落實國民小學環境教育之策略與方法。環境教育季刊，40，63-70。
阮俊榮 (2007) 。STS理念的環境議題融入課程對國小學童環境知識、態度與行為之影響 。未出版碩士論文，屏東縣：國立屏東教育大學。
周儒 (1993)。環境教育的規劃與設計。環境教育季刊，16，17-24。
周儒、呂建政 (譯) (2008)。戶外教學。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 (Hammerman, D. R., Hammerman,W. M.,& Hammerman, E. L.)
周儒 (2011)。實踐環境教育-環境學習中心。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
周儒、張子超、黃淑芬 (譯) (2013) 。環境教育課程規劃。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 (Engleson, D. C., & Yockers, D. H.)
林明瑞、周儒、蕭瑞棠(2000)。地方環境學習中心之規畫研究-以台中都會區為例。教育部環境保護小組，台北。
林明瑞(2003)。學校環境教育問題探討。台中市：國立台中教育大學。
林明瑞(2010)。環境教育計畫之研擬與實施簡報。未出版，台中市：國立台中教育大學。
林明瑞、李佩珊(2012)。有效提升環教參與者各種環境素養成效之教學策略研究﹝摘要﹞。2012中華民國環境教育學術暨實務交流研討會會議手冊 (頁22)。台北市：台北市立教育大學。
林明瑞、巫勝吉 (2012)。環境教育法推動之執行現況、成效、衍生問題及解決策略之探討。2012中華民國環境教育學術暨實務交流研討會會議手冊 (頁23)。台北市：台北市立教育大學。
林明瑞、黃竣豊(2010)。各種教學法對學童節能減碳知識、態度、行為、技能增進之可行性研究。2010環境教育學術及實務交流研討會會議手冊。台中市：國家教育研究院(豐原院區)。
林素華、蔡育澤 (2012)。教師環境素養指標與檢測工具見利之研究。(未出版碩士論文)。台中市：國立台中教育大學。
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，頁5-15。
張德銳、李俊達(2007)。教學行動研究及其對國小教師教學省思影響之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，38(1)，33-66。
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)。大學環境教育介入研究：著重於環境行動、內控觀、與環境責任感的成效分析。環境教育研究，1(1)，139-172。
許世璋 (2003)。大學環境教育課程對於環境行動與其它環境素養變項之成效分析。環境教育學刊，11(1)，97-119。
許世璋、高思明 (2009)。整合議題分析、生命故事、與自然體驗之大學環境課程介入研究--著重於情意目標的成效分析。環境教育學刊，17(2)，135-156。
許毅璿、翁儷芯(2013)。高品質的學習：林務局自然教育中心創新教學。臺灣林業，39(4)，頁56-60。
張自立、辛懷梓 (2013)。問題導向學習融入「環境教育議題研究」課程。東海教育評論，9，1-21。
張楊乾 (2013)。低碳生活的24堂課。台北市：朱雀文化事業有限公司。
盛連喜 (2007)。環境科學概論。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
陳志欣(2002)。環境議題教學對國小學童環境認知、態度及行為之影響。屏東縣，國立屏東師範學院。
陳麗玉(2015)。適合各級學校採行之「環境議題解決及行動力教學活動課程」規劃、教學之研究。臺中市：國立臺中教育大學。
曾俊凱 (2004)。國內環保網站內容對使用民眾環境認知、環境態度及環境行為之研究。未出版碩士論文，台中市：國立台中教育大學。
郭箴誠 (2011)、商鼎科普編輯小組/編著。暖化戰爭首部曲：全球暖化與氣候變遷。台北市：商鼎出版社。
葉欣誠 (2010)。抗暖化關鍵報告：台灣面對暖化新世界的6大核心關鍵。台北市：新自然主義股份有限公司。
黃湘筠 (2010)。環境議題導向教學促進學生環境行動之研究。未出版碩士論文，台中市：國立台中教育大學。
黃建榮(2000)。探索劉力學的重要生命經驗與環境行動在環境教育上的意義。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。
楊冠政 (1989)。環境教育概述(下)。環境教育季刊，2，4-6。
楊冠政(1992)。環境倫理─環境教育的終極目標。環境教育學刊，1，頁1-11。
楊冠政 (1993a)。環境行為相關變項與類別與組織。環境教育，15，10-24。
楊冠政 (2003)。環境教育。台北市：明文書局股份有限公司。
劉潔心、晏涵文 (1997) 。師範院校環境教育介入研究—著重師院學生負責任環境行為及其相關因素之成效分析。八十六年度環境教育研討會論文彙編 (頁49-70)。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學。
劉冠妙(2004)。關渡自然中心國小戶外教學課程方案發展及推動歷程之行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士，未出版論文，台北。
蔡居澤(1996)。戶外教育的涵義及其發展之探討。公民訓育學報，5，283-302。
蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。臺北市：五南圖書。
鄧好周(2004)。臺北縣國小教師戶外環境教學現況與障礙之研究。碩士論文，臺北市立師範學院，臺北市。
鄭秋菊、林新沛 (2010)。公務人員環境素養及訓練需求之研究---以高雄市政府為例。未出版碩士論文，高雄市：國立中山大學。
鄭郁馨 (2007)。政府人員環境素養之研究-以污水下水道環境工程建設為例。未出版碩士論文，台北市：台北市立教育大學。
歐姿妤、翁瑞禧、黃貞觀 (2010)。環境教育課程對專科學生環境保護認知與態度之影響。科學教育研究與發展季刊， 57，1-20。
蕭新煌、劉小如、朱雲鵬、蔣本基、紀駿傑、林俊全 (2003)。永續台灣 2011。台北市：天下文化。
蘇宏仁、楊樹森、游能悌、杜明進、黃輝源、劉志仁、余世章 (2012)。環境教育與永續發展。台北市：華都文化事業有限公司。
簡楚瑛(1994)。方案課程之理論與實務。臺北市：文景。
簡聰義(2013)。新北市國民小學推動學校環境教育之現況與策略，國立臺灣師範大學，臺北。
翰林出版 (2013)。國小自然與生活科技6下 (2013)。台南市:翰林出版事業股份有限公司。
南一書局(2013)。國小自然與生活科技6下。台南市:南一書局企業股份有限公司。
康軒文教 (2013)。國小自然與生活科技6下。新北市:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
南一書局 (2013)。國小自然與生活科技6下備課指引。台南市:南一書局企業股份有限公司。
康軒文教 (2014)。國中自然與生活科技1下教師手冊 。新北市:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
南一書局 (2013)。國中自然與生活科技3下教師手冊 。台南市:南一書局企業股份有限公司。
臺灣山林悠遊網(2015年12月1日)。林務局自然教育中心服務項目。取自http://trail.forest.gov.tw/NC/NC_Index_3.aspx



二、英文部分
Aikenhead , G. S.(1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives in reform (pp.47-59). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Athman, J., &; Monroe, M. C. (2004). The effects of envirnment-based education on students' axhievement motivation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9, 9-25.
Barrow, L. H. & Germann , P. (1987). Acid rain education and its implications for curricular development: A teacher survey. Science Education, 71(1), 15-20.
Bergan, J. R. (1985). School Psychology in Contemporary Society:An Introduction, Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Biehler, R. F. & Snowman, J. (1997). Psychology Applied to Teaching, Eighth Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Bloom, J. N. & Mintz, A. (1990). Museums and the future of education. In Museum Education Roundtable (ed.), Patterns in Practice. p.73.
Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action Competence and Environmental Education. CambridgeJournal of Education, 29(3), 349.
Carlson, S. (2008). Environmental Field Days: Recommendations for Best Practices. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 7:94-105.
Chin, C. C. (1993). A Study of Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior of Secondary Students and Pre- and In- Service Teachers in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Iowa.
Dunlap, R. E, & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482–524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Filipic, M. (2000). Best Practice for Environment Education : Guidelines for success. Columbus, Ohio : Environmental Education Council of Ohio.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis, Journal of environmental education, 18(2), 1-8.
Howe, R. W., & Disinger, J. F. (1988). Environmental Education that Makes a Difference-Knowledge to Behavior Changes. ERIC / SMEAC Environmental Education DigestNo.4.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED320761）
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Hungerford, H. R., Litherland, R. A., Peyton, R. B., Ramsey, J.M., & Volk, T. L. (1996). Investigating and evaluating environmental issues and actions: Skill development program. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
Hungerford, H. R., Litherland, R.A., Peyton, R. B., Ramsey, J.M., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues and Actions: Skill Development Program. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Co., IL.
Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, B. & Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42-47.
Hungerford, H. R., Volk, T. L., & Ramsey, J. M. (1990). Science-Technology-Society: Investigating and Evaluating STS Issues and Solutions. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Co., IL.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Retrieved January 1,2009,from http://www.ipcc.ch/
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163.
Joanne N. & Erminia P., (2015). Educators’ perceptions of bringing students to environmental consciousness through engaging outdoor experiences.
Johnson, D. E. & Potts, J. S. (2002). Planet ocean: interpreting the lure of the sea at the UK national maritime museum. The Changing Coast. Vol. 1. EUROCAOADT/EUCC, Porto-Portugal.
Kassas, M. (2002). Environmental education: Biodiversity. The Environmentlist, 22, 345- 351. doi: 10.1023/A:1020766914456.
Kendra R. L. & Marianne E. K.,(2014). Memories as Useful Outcomes of Residential Outdoor Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 45(3), 178-193.
Klein, S. B. (1996). Learning: Principles and applications, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Knapp, D. & Poff, R. (2001). A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretative program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 55-65.
Knapp, D. (2000). Memorable experiences of a science field trip. School Science and Mathematics 100(2): 65-71.
Knapp, D., & Benton, G. M. (2006). Episodic and semantic memories of a residential environmental education program. Environmental Education Research, 12, 165–177.
Knapp, E. C. (1983). A curriculum model for environmental value education. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(3).
Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter,B. E., & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-21.
Lewis, C. (1975). The Administration of Outdoor Education Program.
Liu, C. H. (1996). The Effects of an Environmental Education Program on Responsible Environmental Behavior and Other Associated Factors of Teacher College Students in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.
Marcinkowski, T. J. (1988). An Analysis of Correlates and Predictors of Responsible Environmental Behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University.
Maya, N., Gonen, S., Yaakov, G., Alan, S., & Alon, T. (2008). Evaluating the environmental literacy of Israeli elementary and high school students. The Journal of Environmental Education 39(2): 3-20.
Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Neiman, Zysman; Barbosa Frederico, Isabela y Pereira, Júlio César. (2012), La educación ambiental a través de las actividades de turismo educativo en la enseñanza superior. Estud. perspect. tur. 21(2), pp. 477-494.
Newhouse, C. (1990). Implication of attitudes and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32.
North American Association of Environment Education (2004). Nonformal environmental education programs: guidelines for excellence. Rock Spring, GA: NAAEE.
Nomura, K., Hendarti, L., & Abe, O.（2003）.NGO environmental education centers in developing countries: Role, significance and keys to success, from a “change agent” perspective. International Review for Environmental Strategies,4（2）,165-182
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181.
Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
Prochaska, J. O. and Velicer, W. F. (1997). The Transtheoretical Model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promotion, 12, 38-48.
Prouty, D. (1990). Project Adventure：A Brief History, In Miles. J.C. & Priest. S. (Eds.), Adventure Education Venture, Publishing, Inc. State College, pp 97-110.
Pooley, J. A. (2000). Environmental Education and attitudes: Emotions and Beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711–723.
Roth, C. E. (1992) Environmental Literacy Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s.Columbus, Ohio: ERIC/CSMEE.