生態教材園實施探討--以蘆洲國小為例

外文標題: 
The Implementation of the Eco-education Garden -- A Case Study of Lu-Chou Elementary School
校院系所: 
國立花蓮師範學院 國民教育研究所
指導教授: 
石明卿
出版年份: 
2002年
主題類別: 
摘要: 

本研究以一所都會區國小所設立的生態教材園為研究對象,探討其設立的背景由來、生態經營情況及自然科教師利用其進行生態教學情形。 研究過程為蒐集園區相關文本資料及訪談參與規劃人員,以了解設立背景、過程及規劃情形;進行園區生物及生態調查,以探討生態經營情況;訪談自然科教師了解園區生態教學情形。研究主要結果如下: 一、研究個案之籌設背景,可歸為自然環境變遷、開放教育與戶外教學影響及生態課程教學需求等3項;過程上可分醞釀、決策規劃、施工與驗收及使用與管理4個階段;設計上可分園區配置、理念和分區物種3類規劃。 二、在個案園區生態經營的生物多樣性方面,在一年的野外調查中,共紀錄到植物120科443種,動物73科172種,Gleason生物豐物度(species richness)指數是1.757,約為剛設立時的19.84倍。生態經營情況方面,五個生態缸棲地營造與維持困難,所有原始規劃生物物種均已無法生存,現存動植物相合計均不超過10種;四個開放區域生態區,則生意盎然,生物蓬勃發展,動植物相合計均超過200種。 三、生態教學情形方面,教師在生物、族群、群落及生態系等相關課程,利用合作學習或引導探究等策略在園區內進行戶外生態教學;他們肯定園區可以提供安全戶外教學場所、提供適切教學材料、生動教學過程及肯定教學效果;影響教師利用園區教學的因素是擔心專業知識不足、學生秩序、場地狹小、雜亂不易觀察、欠缺圖鑑和導覽等配套措施。 根據研究結果及討論提出以下各點建議:(1)規劃方式應結合學校生態環境資源條件;(2)設計時應考慮教學與活動所需空間;(3)應由教師專業團隊經營與管理;(4)發展本地原生物種,避免不當引入保育物種;(5)提供推廣資訊與便利手續等配套措施;(6)應建立自己學校本位的園區特色。

外文摘要: 

The focus of this study was the eco-education garden in an urban elementary school. The researcher explored the background, the management of the eco-education garden and investigated how it was used as a teaching area by the teachers. The researcher gathered data about the history of the eco-education garden and interviewed the designers in order to understand the process of setting up of it. Field census was conducted to collect data related to the varieties of species and ecosystems. Besides, the researcher interviewed the science teachers to realize how they use the eco-education garden for teaching. The results were as the followings. (1)The foundation background of the eco-education garden included three factors: natural environment changes, the influence of open education and outdoor teaching, the need of the science teaching. The construction underwent four stages: thinking, planning, constructing, using and managing. When it came to the design, three factors were considered. They were areas setting, belief and the species in different areas. (2)As for the varieties of creatures in the eco-education garden, the researcher recorded plants up to 120 families and 443 species and animals up to 73 families and 172 species. The species richness of Gleason is 1.757 which was about 19.84 times of that in the beginning. As for the maintenance, it was hard for creatures to survive in the aquarium. There were less than ten kinds of plants and animals existed. The four open ecological areas ran very well, and there were more than 200 kinds of creatures in them. (3)In the science teachers’ opinions, they made use of the eco-education garden for ecology and other related outdoor teaching. They agreed that it provided a safe teaching field and abundant teaching materials to enrich their teaching. However, the teachers were worried about their own insufficient professional knowledge, the students’ behavioral order, the limit of the field, the maintenance, and the lack of guidelines of the garden. According to the results, the researcher made six suggestions: (1) The design should combine the ecological resources of the school. (2) When designing, the designers should take the space for teaching into consideration. (3) The eco-education garden should be managed by the professional teachers. (4) The eco-education garden should focus on local species and avoid the rare species. (5) The school should provide some guidelines, information, and easy procedures to help the students visit there. (6) The school should develop its own characteristics.