落實校園生態教育之層級決策分析

Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process for Realization of Campus Ecological Education

葉旺長(Wang-Chang Yeh)

指導教授 ： 白子易

朝陽科技大學/理工學院/環境工程與管理系在職專班/碩士(2011年)

摘要

人類過度開發，依賴地球資源日益嚴重，加上多數生態棲地遭受破壞，以致物種滅絕速度超乎想像的快，雖然各國政府皆大力提倡保護地球資源，劃地保育稀有物種，但仍需整合教育資源，宣導相關保育概念，因此如何落實校園生態教育成為當前最重要的議題。透過以基礎教育的學習為主軸，整合具有教育功能的機構及體系，以推動校園生態教育，才能真正落實資源的工作。
本研究主要應用 (Analytic Hierarchy Process，AHP) 理論，進行專家學者、國小校長、總務主任、教育處長官等專家對落實校園生態教育準則之重要性評估，經由整理分析找出一致性之共同觀點，綜合整理而獲得研究結果，以作為政府在落實校園生態教育時之參考。
研究者透過相關的文獻探討，歸納整理相關的評估要素，採用Likert五尺度量表的題項設計調查問卷，統計結果，進行平均數與標準差分析，最後採用平均數4以上的16點題項為要素準則，完成「落實校園生態教育之層級決策分析」，並以此編製AHP相對權重調查問卷。
問卷回收後，透過一致性檢定篩檢有效問卷，以控制結果的可信度，藉由層級分析法之成對比較過程，獲得準則間的相對重要性權重值，建立權重體系，以提供相關單位有參考價值之訊息。本研究分析之結果如下：
一、評估要素層，整體專家權重認為最重要的要素依序為：「政策與計畫的訂定」(0.278)、「教育與宣導活動的落實」(0.260)、「營造整體性的校園生態環境」(0.238)、「學校單位的配合與執行」(0.224) 。
二、在「政策與計畫的訂定」下要素準則層，整體專家權重認為最重要的準則依序為：「制定國家生態教育發展目標」(0.274)、「編列校園生態推廣經費」(0.253)、「訂定校園生態教育目標」(0.251)、「擬定校園生態執行計畫」(0.222)。
三、在「學校單位的配合與執行」下要素準則層，整體專家權重認為最重要的準則依序為：「獎勵行政人員永續執行之能力」(0.420)、「培育校園生態種子教師」(0.229)、「校長具備相關理念與執行力」(0.177)、「設計校園生態導覽地圖」(0.174)。
四、在「教育與宣導活動的落實」下要素準則層，整體專家權重認為最重要的準則依序為：「培養學生對環境感知的敏銳度」(0.423)、「推動生態保育概念」(0.199)、「發展校園生態系列課程」(0.192)、「推廣永續校園計畫」(0.185)。
五、在「營造整體性的校園生態環境」下要素準則層，整體專家權重認為最重要的準則依序為：「尋求民間團體資源」(0.452)、「營造校園生物多樣性環境」(0.338)、「尋求家長會的支持」(0.233)、「規劃生態教育園區永續經營計劃」(0.141)。
六、要素準則整體權重前5項準則依序為「尋求民間團體資源」(0.452)、「培養學生對環境感知的敏銳度」(0.423)、「獎勵行政人員永續執行之能力」(0.420)、「營造校園生物多樣性環境」(0.338)、「制定國家生態教育發展目標」(0.274)。

關鍵字

層級分析法 ； 校園生態 ； 生態教育

並列摘要

Overdevelopment has led to excessive reliance on natural resources, as well as destruction of ecological habitats, thus resulting in extinction speeds faster than imagined. Even though the governments of various countries have worked hard to promote the protection of natural resources, leaving aside land for endangered species, it is still necessary to integrate educational resources and promote concepts related conservation. Therefore, the most important current issue is how to realize campus ecological education. Learning in basic education is used as a basis to integrate institutions and systems with educational functions, in order to promote campus ecological education and truly realize the work of conserving resources.
This study applied Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) theory to evaluate the importance of criteria for promotion of campus ecological education by experts and scholars, elementary school principals, general affairs directors, and officials of the education bureau. The results were organized and analyzed, and the consistent common viewpoints were collected to serve as a reference for the government in the realization of campus ecological education.
Literature review was conducted to identify the related evaluation factors. The Likert 5-point scale was used to design the questionnaires. After accounting for the results, mean and standard deviation analysis were conducted, and the 16 items with mean values of over 4 were used as the factor criteria to complete the “analysis of stratified decision-making for the realization of campus ecological education”. The findings were used to compile the AHP relative weight survey questionnaire.
After retrieving the questionnaires, the consistency test was used to filter the valid questionnaires to control the reliability of the results. With the paired-comparison process in the analytical hierarchy process, the relative weight of importance among the criteria was obtained to establish a weight system; information with reference value was provided to related departments. The results of analysis in this study are as follows:
1. For the factors, on the whole, the experts suggested that the most important factors are in the following order: “establishment of policies and plans” (0.278), “realize education and promotional activities” (0.260), “create a holistic campus ecology environment” (0.238), “accommodation and execution by school departments” (0.224).
2. For the factors and criteria under “establishment of policies and plans”, on the whole, the experts indicated that the most important factors are in the following order: “establish national development objectives for ecological education” (0.274), “arrange funding for campus ecology promotion” (0.253), “establish objectives for campus ecological education” (0.251), “establish execution plans for campus ecology” (0.222).
3. For the factors and criteria under “accommodation and execution by school departments”, on the whole, the experts suggested that the most important factors are in the following order: “the ability to reward administrative personnel for sustained execution” (0.420), “train seed teachers for campus ecology” (0.229), “principals should have related visions and administrative ability” (0.177), “design guidance maps for campus ecology” (0.174).
4. For the factors and criteria under “realize education and promotional activities”, on the whole, the experts indicated that the most important factors are in the following order: “cultivate student sensitivity for environmental perception” (0.423), “promote concepts in ecology and conservation” (0.199), “develop series of courses on campus ecology” (0.192), “promote plans for sustainable campuses” (0.185).
5. For the factors and criteria under “create a holistic campus ecology environment”, on the whole, the experts suggested that the most important factors are in the following order: “seek resources from private organizations” (0.452), “construct campus environments for biodiversity” (0.338), “seek the support of parents associations” (0.233), “create sustainable management plans for ecological education parks” (0.141).
6. The first five criteria in the overall weight of factor criteria are in the following order: “seek resources from private organizations” (0.452), “cultivate student sensitivity for environmental perception” (0.423), “the ability to reward administrative personnel for sustained execution” (0.420), “construct campus environments for biodiversity” (0.338), “establish national development objectives for ecological education” (0.274).

並列關鍵字

ecological education ； campus ecology ； analytical hierarchy process.

參考文獻

晏涵文、馮嘉玉、劉潔心，「我國學校環境教育指標之研究」，師大學報：教育類51 (1)，第85-102頁 (2006)。

張子超，「永續發展研究中融入九年一貫課程之新環境典範的內涵概念」，全球變遷通訊雜誌 (38)，第11-16頁 (2003)。

楊深坑、洪如玉，生態中心論的哲學解析及其在生態教育學建構上的蘊義 (Towards Construction of an Ecopedagogy Based on the Philosophy of Ecocentrism)，師大學報：教育類49 (2)，2004年10月，第1-18頁 (2004)

歐用生，「快樂學習或安樂死？～體驗學習的批判教育學意涵。」課程與教學季刊5 (4)，第107-124頁 (2003)。

蔡居澤，「活動課程評鑑的探討:以美國探索教育為例」，公民訓育學報 (8)，第283-294頁 (1999)。