都市青少年自然經驗發展特質之多個案研究

Analysis of Development of Nature Experiences-Multiple Case Study of Three Urban Adolescents

10.6555/JEER.10.1.065

曾鈺琪(Yu-Chi Tseng)；王順美(Shun-Mei Wang)

多個案研究 ； 自然經驗 ； 都市青少年 ； multiple case study ； nature experiences ； urban adolescent

環境教育研究

10卷1期（2013 / 09 / 01）

65 - 98

繁體中文

本文為探討都市青少年自然經驗發展特性之多個案研究，從發展心理學與環境心理學之角度，描述各階段自然經驗之主要內涵、分析相關影響因素，並詮釋各時期自然經驗所反映之個人內在身心發展特質與需求，以補充既有重要生命經驗研究較為缺乏的青少年資料。研究參與者是三位從國小到大學皆擁有持續且豐富自然經驗之都市青少年，受訪時平均年齡為18歲。研究結果發現，三位青少年的自然經驗發展可分為依賴期、啟蒙期、探索期與自主期等階段。各階段之自然經驗受到教育體制與學校資源、社會關係與社會互動、個人身心發展需求等因素影響，而呈現不同的樣態。其中在自然環境的選擇上，表現出從半自然環境到原始環境的變化趨勢，並隨著年齡增長而在活動形式上呈現出高度體能挑戰的偏好。其他有關自然欣賞能力、自然興趣培養、地方依附感發展之現象，則與國外學者所描述的環境經驗發展需求互有異同。本文依據研究成果提出環境教育之實務建議，並指出後續可行的研究方向。

This multiple case study aimed to describe different periods of nature experiences of three urban adolescents. We analyzed developmental features, related social and psychological factors that influenced contents of nature experiences in each period. The participants were three 18-year-old adolescents on average who had various and continuous nature experiences from childhood to the second year of university. We collected data from in-depth interviews, field notes of participatory observation, student journals and school curriculum documents. Afterwards, we used analytical skills of grounded theory to code interview transcripts and compared the result with other sorts of data. We found that adolescents' development of nature experiences could be divided into periods of dependence, enlightenment, exploration and independence. The school policies, parents support, social relationships, psychological need to interact with peers as well as personal interest in nature characterized each period. The result also showed that as the age increased, adolescents preferred wild nature and higher challenges in activities to tamed environments and safe activities. The comparisons were made with the existing studies and suggestions were proposed according to the results and discussions.

1. 許世璋(2003)。影響花蓮環保團體積極成員其環境行動養成之重要生命經驗。科學教育學刊，11(2)，121-139。
   連結：
2. 許世璋(2005)。影響環境行動者養成的重要生命經驗研究－著重於城鄉間與世代間之比較。科學教育學刊，13(4)，441-463。
   連結：
3. 行政院主計處（2009）。青少年狀況調查報告98年（99/8）。臺北市：行政院主計處。
4. 行政院教育部（2013年7月28日）。教育部國民及學前教育署補助直轄市縣（市）政府辦理國民中小學校外教學要點。取自 http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL046957&KeyWord=%E6%A0%A1%E5%A4%96%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8.html.。
5. 行政院主計處（1999）。中華民國青少年狀況調查報告。線上檢索時間：2013年8月10日。取自http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=2842.html
6. No Child Left Inside Act of 2011, S. 1372, 112d Cong. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1372#overview.html.
7. Altman, I.(Ed.),Low, S. M.(Ed.)(1992).Place Attachment.New York:Plenum Press.
8. Arnold, C.,Warner, A.(2009).Youth and environmental action: perspectives of young environmental leaders on their formative influences.The Journal of Environmental Education,40(3),27-36.
9. Bechtel, R. B.(Ed.),Churchman, A.(Ed.)(2002).Handbook of environmental psychology.New York:Wiley.
10. Bögeholz, S.(2006).Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action: recent German empirical contributions.Environmental Education Research,12(1),65-84.
11. Chawla, L.(1998).Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity.Environmental Education Research,4(4),369-382.
12. Chawla, L.(2009).Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world.Journal of Developmental Processes,4(1),6-23.
13. Chawla, L.(1998).Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: Review and recommendations.Environmental Education Research,4(4),383-397.
14. Chawla, L.(1998).Significant life experiences revisited: A review of environmental sensitivity research.Journal of Environmental Education,29(3),11-21.
15. Chawla, L.(1999).Life paths into effective environmental action.The Journal of Environmental Education,31(1),15-26.
16. Chawla, L.(2001).Significant life experiences revisited once again: Response to Vol. 5(4) 'five critical commentaries on significant life experience research in environmental education'.Environmental Education Research,7(4),451-461.
17. Clayton, D. S.(Ed.)(2012).The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
18. Clayton, S.,Myers, G.(2009).Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
19. Creswell, J. W.(2013).Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
20. Erikson, E. H.(1968).Identity: youth and crisis.NY:W. W. Norton and Company.
21. Fägerstam, E.(2012).Children and Young People's Experience of the Natural World: Teachers' Perceptions and Observations.Australian Journal of Environmental Education,28(1),1-16.
22. Gough, A.(1999).Kids don't like wearing the same jeans as their mums and dads: So whose 'life' should be in significant life experiences research?.Environmental Education Research,5(4),383-394.
23. Gough, S.(1999).Significant life experiences (SLE) research: A view from somewhere.Environmental Education Research,5(4),353-363.
24. Gray, T.,Martin, P.(2012).The role and place of outdoor education in the Australian National Curriculum.Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,16(1),43-54.
25. Hungerford, H.(Ed.),Bluhm, W.(Ed.),Volk, T.(Ed.),Ramsey, J.(Ed.)(1998).Essential Readings in Environmental Education.Champaign, IL:Stipes Pub. Co.
26. Kahn, P. H., Jr.(Ed.),Kellert, S. R.(Ed.)(2002).Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
27. Kellert, S. R.(2005).Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection.Washington, DC:Island Press.
28. Maxwell, J. A.(2005).Qualitative research design (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
29. Payne, P.(1999).The significance of experience in SLE research.Environmental Education Research,5(4),365-381.
30. Sivek, D. J.(2002).Environmental sensitivity among Wisconsin high school students.Environmental Education Research,8(2),155-170.
31. Sobel, D.(1993).Children's special places: exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood.Detroit, MI:Wayne State University Press.
32. Sobel, D.(2008).Children and Nature.Portland, ME:Stenhouse Publisher.
33. Strauss, A.,Corbin, J.(1998).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
34. Tanner, T.(1998).On the origins of SLE research, questions, outstanding, and other research traditions.Environmental Education Research,4(4),419-423.
35. Tanner, T.(1998).Choosing the right subjects in significant life experiences research.Environmental Education Research,4(4),399-417.
36. Thomashow M.(1996).Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
37. Vadala, C. E.,Bixler, R. D.,James, J. J.(2007).Childhood play and environmental interests: Panacea or snake oil.The Journal of Environmental Education,39(1),3-17.
38. Yin, R. K.(2009).Case study research: Design and methods.Los Angeles, CA:Sage.
39. 許世璋、李曉珊(2004)。影響三位花蓮環保團體領袖其環境行動養成之生命歷程探索。環境教育學刊，3(1)，57-74。
40. 黃至賢(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
41. 董貞吟、黃乾全、何文雀、伍連女、張桂禎(1998)。國小學童環境觀與環境經驗之調查研究—台灣地區城鄉之比較。師大學報，43(2)，55-73。

1. 曾鈺琪(2019)。臺灣國中青少年之自然連結量表編製與信效度分析。科學教育學刊，27(4)，323-345。
2. 曾鈺琪(2020)。探討重要生命經驗與國中青少年環境行為之關聯與自然連結之中介效果。科學教育學刊，28(3)，223-254。
3. 陳惠美(2021)。自然體驗對兒童情感與自然智能發展之影響。戶外遊憩研究，34(4)，1-36。
4. 賴美芬(2022)。新課綱與戶外教育的轉變。長榮運動休閒學刊，16，10-18。
5. 林佑真,王思涵(2019)。臺灣青少年的靈性健康及其對靈性的看法。生命教育研究，11(2)，53-87。
6. 鄭瑞洲、鄭丞棋、蔡執仲(2018)。以環境議題為主的暑期營隊活動對國小學童情境興趣表現之探究。環境教育研究，14(1)，39-76。