研究生: |
黃思婷 Sz-ting Huang |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
草山生態文史聯盟進行社區環境行動之學習及影響 The Learning and Influences of Tsao-shan Ecological, Cultural and Historical Union Taking Community Evnironmental Action |
指導教授: |
王順美
Wang, Shun-Mei |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
環境教育研究所 Graduate Institute of Environmental Education |
論文出版年: | 2006 |
畢業學年度: | 94 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 189 |
中文關鍵詞: | 增能 、行動能力 、社區環境行動 、草山生態文史聯盟 |
英文關鍵詞: | empowerment, action competence, community environmental action, Tsao-shan Ecological, Cultural and Historical Union |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:310 下載:8 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
環境教育的目標為培養出能積極採取行動來解決環境問題的公民,而臺灣近年來社區環境行動不斷,居民在進行社區環境行動時,其過程也在進行環境教育。
行動能力的概念為丹麥學者提出,旨在讓學童從實際的環境行動中學習如何行動,培養批判性思考,並從參與行動過程體會民主的精神。而增能是近年來常被討論的概念,其中心思想為居民藉由對他們認為重要的議題行動,在過程中培養權力的概念,以便能對他們的生活、社區及社會產生影響。因此本研究主要的目的在於以行動能力與增能的觀點,來瞭解社區團體進行社區環境行動的內容,以及從中的學習及影響。
本研究歷經半年,實際參與草山生態文史聯盟的活動,以質的研究法為主,包括參與觀察、個人訪談、文件蒐集與田野札記。歸納分析之後,發現參與社區環境行動的成員所學深受行動的背景與過程影響,而其學習與影響可分為四個面向,包括草盟的學習及改變、教育社區的方式及影響、與公部門交涉過程中的學習,以及對環境行動的看法。
在「草盟的學習及改變」方面,草盟的居民成員原本不知如何是好,感覺自己渺小,組成草盟行動後獲得權力感,並知道如何處理議題,而參與草盟的研究生則對此更為熟練。在「教育社區的方式及影響」方面,草盟以各種方式傳達議題教育社區,使社區居民從不認同草盟到認同,而以草山水道議題來推動社區教育,獲得社區更大的支持。在「與公部門交涉過程中的學習」方面,公部門從不願正視居民的抗爭,逐漸瞭解必須與居民溝通,態度變得謹慎,草盟成為公部門的正面壓力團體。在「對環境行動的看法」方面,成員體會到行動的過程重於結果,居民參與的重要,並知道如何處理與應用專業知識。
最後,根據研究結果,對於地方環境行動、環境教育課程,以及環境教育者應用行動能力概念設計課程與提出建議。
One goal of environmental education is to motivate citizens to take action to solve environmental problems. Many communities in Taiwan have initiated environmental actions in recently years; some have found that the processes of taking action is a form of environmental education in itself.
The concept of “action competence” as proposed by Danish scholars refers to letting children learn how to take action, develop critical thinking, and experience the spirit of democracy from actual environmental action. Empowerment is the process in which residents develop the feeling of power to can take action that influences their lives, community, and society. This research aims to understand community environmental actions through the perspectives of action competence and empowerment.
The target group of this research is the Tsao-shan Ecological, Cultural and Historical Union. Research methods include six-month participant observattion, in-depth interviews, data collection, and field diaries. After data analysis, this research found that the participants’ learning is deeply influenced by their background of opposition as well as the actual process of taking action. Major findings can be categorized into four aspects as summarized below.
1. Members’ learning and changes: In the beginning, members did not know how to act on the issues and felt insignificant. After they established the association and took action, they felt empowered and knew how to deal with issues they care about. It was also found that the graduate students in this union were more proficient in handling these issues.
2. Methods and results of educating the community: The members tried several ways to arouse other residents’ awareness, and the community gradually turned from rejecting to supporting them. Later they tried to educate the community through the Tsao-shan water supply system issue and won much stronger support from the residents.
3. Learning from the process of negotiating with the government: The government did not want to face up to the community’s protests at first. Then they gradually knew they had to communicate with the residents. Tsao-shan Ecological, Cultural and Historical Union has become a positive pressure group.
4. Opinions about environmental actions: The members realized that the process of taking action is more important than its result. They also came to know the importance of citizen involvement and how to deal with and apply specialized knowledge.
Finally, in light of the research results, some suggestions are proposed to local environmental groups, environmental education programs and applications of action competence.
王美文(2001)。「增權」觀點之婦女學習。社會教育學刊,30,25-45。
王俊秀(1994)。以社區發展解決環境問題:論社區環保鐵三角模式。社區發展季刊,66:14-19。
王派仁(1993)。社區問題解決對社區居民之教育意義與影響。社教雙月刊,57,32-40。
王順美、沈姍姍(1999)。自發性社區環境行動個案探討。師大學報,44(1&2),17-30。
王順美、葉燕燕(1998)。社區環境行動及其環境教育意義—以83年度台北市十大環保社區為例。公共衛生,25(2),93-105。
王麗容(1991)。民間環保組織在社區環保運動中的角色和功能。社區發展季刊,56,127-131。
江慧儀(2004)。臺灣民間環保團體的環境教育現況與社會實踐:一個批判的環境教育觀點。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
何明修(2003)。民間社會與民主轉型:環境運動在台灣的興起與持續。載於張茂桂、鄭永年(主編),兩岸社會運動分析(29-67頁)。台北市:新自然主義。
李增祿(1995)。論社區意識、社會建設與國家發展。社區發展季刊,69,21-24。
林妙香(2000)。社區義工參與社區問題解決的學習極其影響之探討—以嘉義市王田里社區義工為例。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
林壯穎(2000)。黑面鴨要報仇—社會運動中的規劃專業者實踐:黑面琵鷺救援聯盟的個案。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林振春、王淑宜(2004)。社區營造與傳播。台北市:師大書苑。
社區發展季刊(1995)。從社區發展的觀點,看社區、社區意識與社區文化。社區發展季刊,69,1-4。
卓詩緣(2002)。從社區環境行動析論女性領導者的領導行為—湖本村長個案分析。國立臺灣大學農業推廣學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
邱淑娟(2002)。九二一震災社區參與學習之研究—以埔里鎮桃米社區為例。國立暨南大學成人教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,南投縣。
吳麗雪(2002)。女性意識覺醒與增能經驗:以鄉鎮型社區婦女教育為例。載於李瑛、趙長寧(主編),成人學習:本土經驗的實踐(101-148頁)。台北市:師大書苑。
郁道玲(1994)。社區事件居民抗爭動員過程之研究—三個台北案例。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何收集資料、登錄與分析?載於胡幼慧(主編),質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(141-158頁)。台北市:巨流。
徐震(1980)。社區與社區發展。台北市:正中。
徐震(1985)。社區發展—方法與研究。台北市:中國文化大學。
唐學誠(1971)。社區發展與社區組織。台北市:新陸。
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)。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研究。科學教育學刊,11(2),121-139。
莫慶聯、甘炳光(1996)。社會行動。載於甘炳光(主編),社區工作—理論與實踐(頁175-221)。台北市:五南。
陳王琨、范綱祥(1997)。社區環境政策:守望桃花源。台北市:淑馨。
陳林頌(2003)。本城上水‧時空由道—臺灣日治時期上水道之調查研究與保存行動。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
張瀛之(2004年7月9日)。陽明山第一類山坡住宅區變回保護區。中國時報,C4北市新聞。
楊冠政(1998)。環境教育。台北市:明文。
蔡宏進(1985)。社區原理。台北市:三民。
鄭一青(2004年4月1日)。誰來守護陽明山。天下雜誌,296,138-144。
劉可強(1994)。環境品質與社區參與。台北市:文建會出版,藝術總經銷。
劉潔心、晏涵文、邱詩揚(1998)。社區環境需求、組織運作及其環境行動之現況調查研究—以大安區民輝社區之個案研究經驗為例。公共衛生,25(1),33-46。
鍾怡婷(2002)。美濃反水庫運動與公共政策互動之研究。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
Brookfield, S.(1997)。成人學習者,成人教育與社區。(李素卿譯)。台北市:五南。(原著出版年:1983)。
Cox, E. O. & Parsons, R. J. (2001)。老人社會工作—權能激發取向。(趙善如、趙仁愛譯)。台北市:揚智文化。(原著出版年:1996)。
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S.(2002)。質的教育研究—概念分析。(王文科、王智弘編譯)。台北市:師大書苑。(原著出版年:2001)。
Patton, M. Q.(1999)。質的評鑑與研究。(吳芝儀、李奉儒譯)。台北:桂冠。(原著出版年:1990)。
Yin, R. K.(2001)。個案研究法。(尚榮安譯)。台北市:弘智文化。(原著出版年:1994)。
Bishop, K., & Scott, W. (1998). Deconstructing action competence: Developing a case for a more scientifically-attentive environmental education. Public Understand. Sci., 7: 225-236.
Breiting, S. (2000). Sustainable development, environmental education and action competence. In Jensen, B. B., Schnack, K. & Simovska, V. (Eds.), Critical environmental and health education research issues and challenges (pp. 151-165). Copenhagen NV, Denmark: The Danish University of Education.
Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action competence and environmental education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3): 349-353.
Clover, D. & Hill, L. H. (2003). Learning patterns of landscape and life. New directions for adult and continuing education, 99: 89-95.
Foley, G. (1999). Learning in social action: A contribution to understanding informal education. London, UK: Zed Books.
Fien, J., & Skoien, P. (2002). “I’m Learning…How You Go about Stirring Things Up—in a Consultative Manner”: Social capital and action competene in two community catchment groups, Local Environmental, 7(3): 269-282.
Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2004) Measuring social capital: An integrated questionnaire. The World Bank working paper no. 18. Washinton, D. C. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/11998_WP18-Web.pdf
Gutierrez, L. M. (1990) Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2): 149-153.
Gutierrez, L. M. (1995) Understanding the empowerment process: Does conscious make a difference? Social Work Research, 19 (4): 229-237.
Gutirrez, L., GlenMaye, L., & DeLois, K. (1995) The organizational context of empowerment practice: Implications for social work administration. Social Work, 40 (2): 249-258.
Hill, R. J. (2003). Environmental justice: Environmental adult education at the confluence of oppressions. New directions for adult and continuing education, 99: 27-38.
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2): 163-178.
Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3): 325-334.
Jensen, B. B., & Nielsen, K. (2003). Action-oriented environmental education: Clarifying the concept of action. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 1(1): 173-194.
Lazo, L. (1995). Some reflections on the empowerment of women. In Medel-Aonuevo, C. (Ed), Women, education and empowerment: Pathways towards autonomy (pp. 23-37). Hamburg: The UNESCO Institute for Education.
Marcinkowski, T. J., & Rehring, L. (1995). The secondary school report: A final report on the development, pilot testing, validation, and field testing of—The secondary school environmental literacy assessment instrument. Research funded by the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ministry of Education. (2004). On line version of Making meaning: Making a difference. NZ: Learning Media Limited. Retrieved November 24, 2004, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/health/cia/make_meaning/teach_learnappr_proc_e.php.
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: A central element in developing action competence in health and environmental education. Health Education Research Theory & Practice, 4(12): 429-436.
Newman, M. (2000). Learning, education and social action. In Foley, G. (Ed.), Adult education and training (pp. 267-281). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, 37 (5). Retrieved May, 2, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.html
Parsons, R. J. (1991) Empowerment: Purpose and practice principle in social work. Social Work with Groups, 14(2): 7-21.
Parsons, R. J. (1998). Evaluation of empowerment practice. In Gutirrez, L. M., Parsons, R. J., & Cox, E. O. (Eds.), Empowerment in social work practice: a sourcebook (pp. 204-219). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
Parsons, R. J., Gutirrez, L. M., & Cox, E. O. (1998). A model for empowerment practice. In Gutirrez, Lorraine M., Ruth J. Parsons & Enid Opal Cox.(Eds.), Empowerment in social work practice: a sourcebook (pp. 3-23). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole publishing.
Payton, R. B. (1977). An assessment of teacher’s ability to identify, teach, and implement environmental action skills. South Illinois University. (University Microfilms No. 784297)
Pilisuk, M., McAllister, J., & Rothman, J. (1996). Coming together for action: The challenge of contemporary grassroots community organizing. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1): 23-37.
Pinderhughes, E. B. (1983). Empowerment for our clients and for ourselves. Social casework: the journal of contemporary social work, 64:331-338.
Stromquist, N. P. (1993). The theoretical and practical bases for empowerment. In Medel-Aonuevo (Ed.)(1995), Women, education and empowerment: Pathways towards autonomy (pp. 13-20). Report of the international seminar (Hamburg, Germany January 27—February 2). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1978). The world’s first intergovernmental conference on environmental education in Tbilisi. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC Information Reference Center. ED 179408.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1980). Environmental education in the light of Tbilisi. France: UNESCO.
Uzzell, D. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relationships. Cambridge journal of education, 29(3): 397-413.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Rappaport, J. & Seidman, E. (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.