二十一世紀又被稱為資訊爆炸的時代，同時也是民眾環境意識與教育水準提升的時期，在這樣的背景下，我們可以輕鬆地取得環境相關的新聞與資訊。然而，環境教育的概念與範圍眾說紛紜，每個人對之有不同的定義與看法。因此，像是「救樹救地球」、「手下留樹」等標語流行在眾人之間，甚至變成環保人士的座右銘。然而，當民眾聽到這些標語時，並不會多加思考，便依循標語的「指示」行動，卻沒有想到，這些標語可能本身帶有迷思概念，甚至更嚴重的，帶有偏見。
本研究將透過得獎之環境教育教案，研究教師與教案撰寫者對「環境教育」的了解與認知。研究者統整教育部、環保署環境教育圖書館的得獎教案，將其依照「環境議題」、「敘述立場」兩個屬性統整、分類；並分析這些教案中出現的謬誤內容與類別。
研究者依照各教案內容，將環境議題分類為十個類別：分別為能源、動植物保育、環境生態、公害、水資源、氣候、食物、災害、永續生活與海洋；同時也將教案的敘述立場分類為「理性訴求」、「正向感性訴求」、「負向感性訴求」與「道德訴求」四類別。借由分析與統整，找到環境教育教案撰寫者偏好的範圍與議題，並且釐清整理教案撰寫者的敘述方式與立場。本研究亦將教案內容中的謬誤分類為「迷思概念」、「刻板印象」、「偏見」、「概念不完整」、「名詞濫用」等五類別，透過教案的詮釋與分析，了解環境教育教案撰寫著在撰寫教案時的謬誤觀念。
研究結果顯示，一百至一百零四年得獎的環境教育教案中，以「永續生活」作為討論議題的教案占最多數，緊接著是「公害」、「能源」等。環境教育教案撰寫者多以「負向感性訴求」作為其教學引起動機，然而這樣的現象可能教案撰寫者本身並沒有特別的訴求用意，僅是呈現議題相關的概念。在謬誤方面，大部份的教案都難以避免出現謬誤，其中以「迷思概念」以及「概念不完整」為最常出現的謬誤類型。

The 21st century, also known as information explosion era, is when we can easily get information about environment from different ways due to the rise of environmental awareness, and of course, education. However, the concept and scope of environmental education are divergent, and its definition and concept of propaganda vary from person to person. Therefore, slogans like “save trees to save earth”, or “land a hand to save trees” had become popular and stayed in our heart as mottos. But without questioning them, we all took actions as soon as we heard those slogans, even if the slogans themselves are designed with misconceptions, or worse, prejudgments.
This research collect, analyze and categorize issues, appeals, and fallacies that appear in the award-winning environmental teaching plans and examine the understanding and awareness of "environmental education" among teachers and participants in those campaigns. Though the process of this research, the researcher can therefore find out how teachers' acknowledgement of environmental education.
The researcher classified environmental issues into ten categories, according to the content of lesson plans: energy, animal and plant conservation, environmental ecology, pollution, resources, climate change, food and agriculture, disaster, sustainable living and ocean. The lesson plans also, were classified into "rational appeals”, “positive emotional appeal”, “negative emotional appeal”, and “moral appeal” four attributions by how teachers design their teaching plan. The author tried to find the scope and subject of preference of the writers of environmental education plans through analysis and integration. In addition, this research also classified fallacies in into "misconception", “prejudice” "stereotype", "incomplete semantics" and "misnomer" five categories for understanding the fallacy concepts of the writers of environmental education teaching plans.
Results showed that among all issues that mentioned in teaching plans, “sustainable living” is the most favorite issue, followed by “pollution” and “energy”. About the appeals that showed in teaching plans, the researcher found that “negative emotional appeals”, especially “fear appeals” are most common in those teaching plans, even if teachers have no intention to use them. Through fallacies examining, researcher found that “misconceptions” and “incomplete semantics” are most common in teaching plans.

一、 英文文獻：
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Atkins, E. (2016) Environmental Conflict: A Misnomer? Environment, Climate Change and International Relations, 99.
Ayer, A. J. (2012). Language, truth and logic. Courier Corporation.
Balgopal, M. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Decisions and dilemmas: Using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13-26.
Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric research reports.
Baxter, L. A. (1991). Content analysis. Studying interpersonal interaction, 239-254.
Botkin D.B. & Keller E.A. (1995). Environmental science-earth as a living planet. Wiley and Sons, Inc. 133p.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological bulletin, 86(2), 307.
Brown, R. (2011). Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
Campbell N.A. and Reece J.B. (2005). Biology. 7th Edition. Pearson, Benjamin Cummings. P490.
Chen, M. F. (2016). Impact of fear appeals on pro-environmental behavior and crucial determinants. International Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 74-92.
Connolly, A. C., Fodor, J. A., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (2007). Why stereotypes don’t even make good defaults. Cognition, 103(1), 1-22.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(1), 5.
Dietrich, H. (2013). The role of emotion in environmental decision making.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. Children’s ideas in science, 193-201.
Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, & Roger D. Blackwell(1968), Consumer Behavior, Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2015). SOER 2015 — The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Retrieved November 8, 2016, from http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
Fekete, P. (2005). Psychological Theories of Prejudice and Discrimination. Jersey, Channel Islands: Black’s Academy Co. Ltd.
Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 299-322.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.
Ginger, C. (2006). Interpretive content analysis. Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, 341-349.
Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (2005). Discussion: Three ways to misunderstand developmental systems theory. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2-3), 417-425.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.
Gordon, A. I., Allport, G. W., Lenski, G., Herberg, W., Raab, E., & Raab, E. (1965). The nature of prejudice.
Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of consumer research, 14(3), 404-420.
Holdren, J. P., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human Population and the Global Environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force. American Scientist, 282-292.
Hsu, S. L. (2007). Identifiability Bias in Environmental Law, Fla. St. UL Rev., 35, 433.
Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application: 45-55.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public opinion quarterly, 24(2), 163-204.
Khalid, T. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ misconceptions regarding three environmental issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 6(1), 102-120.
Leal Filho, W. (2000). Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International journal of sustainability in higher education, 1(1), 9-19.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing research, 361-367.
Martin, R. E., Sexton, C. M., & Gerlovich, J. A. (2002). Teaching science for all children: Methods for constructing understanding. Allyn and Bacon.
Miller G.T. Jr 2006. Environmental Science: Working with the earth, 11th ed, Books/Cole, Thomson Learning Company.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.
Ongkrutraksa, W. (2003). Environmental communication in the digital age: a study of emotional appeal effects. Retrieved March, 15, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237469853_Environmental_Communication_in_the_Digital_Age_A_Study_of_Emotional_Appeal_Effects
Pennocktgdi, M. T., Bardwell, L., & Britt, P. (1994). Approaching environmental issue in the classroom. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publshing Company.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 18-1952). New York: International Universities Press.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. Harpercollins College Division.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
Reser, J. P., Bentrupperbäumer, J. M., Lawrence, G., Higgins, V., & Lockie, S. (2001). 'Social science in the environmental studies and natural science arenas: misconceptions, misrepresentations and missed opportunities. In Environment, society and natural resource management: theoretical perspectives from Australasia and the Americas. (pp. 38-52).
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192.
Rothbart, M., Davis-Stitt, C., & Hill, J.(1997). Effects of a arbitrarily placed category boundaries on similarity judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 122-145.
Sanera, M. (2008). The Problem with Environmental Education Today: Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? In Free Market Forum. Hillsdale College (pp. 25-27).
Schreiner, C. (2012). The role of emotion in understanding and promoting sustainability and eco-friendly behavior.
Searles, K. (2010). Feeling good and doing good for the environment: The use of emotional appeals in pro-environmental public service announcements. Applied environmental education and communication, 9(3), 173-184.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Skelly, K. M., & Hall, D. (1993). The development and validation of a categorization of sources of misconceptions in chemistry. In Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in science and Mathematics, Ithaca.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667.
Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 31-51.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and behavior.
Solmsen, F. (1929). Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik (Vol. 4). Georg Olms Verlag.
Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7(4), 553-559. ISO 690
UNEP. (2014). United Nations environment programme year book 2014: Emerging issues in our global environment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.
United States Environment Protection Agency (UNEP). (2016). Environmental Topics. Retrieved November 8, 2016, From https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics
Wu M.C. (1992). Climate variations in Taiwan-temperature and precipitation. Atmosphere Science 20:295-318.

二、 中文文獻
王美芬、熊召弟（2000）。國民小學自然科教材教法。臺北市，心理出版社。
王秋鳳 （2011）。心理距離對刻板印象的影響：建構層次論觀點。（未出版碩士論文），國防大學心理研究所碩士論文，桃園市。
王立君（2011）。城市事件行銷的框架－以高雄市世界運動會為例。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
王彥（2015）。沈默的框架：框架理論六十年的時間脈絡與空間想像。中華傳播年會「從高雄出發：跨文化與新媒體想像」發表之論文，高雄義守大學。
中研院物理研究所（2016）。能源的使用對環境的影響。 取自：http://www.phys.sinica.edu.tw/~lowtemp/File02.pdf。
中國文化大學（2008）。環境與生態。臺北市：中國文化大學華岡出版部。
世新大學傳播資料庫 (2015)。2015世新傳播資料庫-2015媒體風雲排行榜。2016年4月22日擷取自http://www.1111.com.tw/mobileweb/zone/media/article-detail.asp?gid=67&autono=40388
李培芬、鄭安怡、林怡萱、徐琳達、林品涵（2004） 生物多樣性─台灣的自然資源與生態資料。臺北市：行政院農委會林務局。
沈彥甫（2011）。國小師生全球暖化迷思概念與成因之探討。（未出版碩士論文），臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所，臺北市。
林逢祺（2002）。教材選擇的知識判準。教育研究集刊，48(1)，1-33。
林湘怡、高泉豐。(2008)。提取引發遺忘刻板印象特質: 跨類別抑制與評價不對稱性。中華心理學刊，50(4)，403-423。
洪文東（2007）。兒童的科學觀。幼兒保育學刊，5，1-11。
姚素蓮、林義祥、邱豐程、鍾文偉、陳豐漳、林鴻章、謝明城(2008)。台北縣國小教師自然與生活科技領域教學知能現況調查研究，台北縣九十七年度教育研究成果報告，台北縣。
師資培育法（2014年6月4日）。
徐士敦（2010）。國小高年級學童能量迷思概念之研究。（未出版碩士論文），國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所，嘉義市。
徐美苓（2017）。導言：從末日預言到溫水煮蛙的警訊。傳播研究與實踐，7(1)，1-4。
許人禾（2009）。刻板印象的維持或改變：從內隱理論看違反刻板印象訊息的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學心理學研究所，台北市。
教育部（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2015）。104年版環境教育白皮書。
張宏正（2007）。淺談台灣地區能源政策與推動能源教育。取自：http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/62/62-25.htm。
張春興、林清山（1988）。教育心理學。臺北，東華。
陳憶寧（2011）。當科學家與記者相遇: 探討兩種專業對於科學新聞的看法差異。中華傳播學刊，(19)，147-187。
陸象豫（2010）。氣候變遷下的集水區經營與水土保持工作。第19屆水利工程研討會。雲林科技大學。
陸象豫、黃良鑫、劉瓊霦（2005）檳榔園水文特性及其對環境的影響。中華水土保持學報，36（1）。
游梓翔（2015）。演講學原理：公眾傳播的理論與實際。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
彭鏡毅（2002）。台灣植物多樣性。發現綠色植物─台灣植物專輯。臺北市：行政院農委會林務局。
黃嘉鈴（2015）。新竹市國小教師的全球暖化認知、態度對教學態度的影響以及教學現況之研究(未出版之碩士論文)，國立新竹教育大學，新竹。
曾玉如（2005）。從「黑面琵鷺集體死亡事件」之報導探討我國報紙之環境教育功能（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
楊冠政(2002)。環境教育發展簡史。博物館學季刊專題：博物館與環境教育，3-9。
楊幕理（2014）。探討環保廣告正面與負面感性訴求之廣告效果，中華傳播學會。取自http://ccs.nccu.edu.tw/word/HISTORY_PAPER_FILES/8128122014.pdf
經濟部能源委員會（2006）。中華民國台灣地區能源簡介。經濟部能源局（2005b）。取自： http://www.moeaec.gov.tw/ePublication/energy%20situation_94/13.html
廖如芬、張茂桂（2010）。從教案甄選看中小學教師「多元文化」想像的一些問題。教育資料與研究雙月刊，97，83-108。
歐用生（1999）。教育研究法。臺北市：師大書苑。
蔡清田、廖俊儒（2013）。社會科學研究方法新論。臺北市：五南。
薛國致（2009）。社會發展中偏見歧視之形成與消除。2009年南臺灣社會發展學術研討會。屏東教育大學。
臧國仁（1998）。新聞報導與真實建構：新聞框架的理論觀點。傳播研究期刊，3。
鍾聖校（1995）。國小自然科教學研究。臺北市，五南。
環境教育法（2010年6月5日）。
環境資訊中心（2011）。2011十大環境新聞：塑化劑、福島核災最受關切。2016年11月8日取自http://e-info.org.tw/node/72818
環境資訊中心（2012）。2012國內外環境大事紀：沒有人反對核能、世界末日最多人關切。2016年11月8日取自http://e-info.org.tw/node/82965
環境資訊中心（2013）。2013環境新聞回顧──「死亡筆記本」。2016年11月8日取自http://e-info.org.tw/node/96009
環境資訊中心（2015）。「議・難忘」2015十大環境議題回顧。2016年11月8日取自http://e-info.org.tw/node/112469