The Study of Cognitive Discrepancies in Environmental Literacy between University Instructors and Students

• Main Authors: Chou, Sian-Cong, 周憲聰
• Other Authors: Chou, Shao-Kai
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/33885702181533568277

碩士 === 嶺東科技大學 === 國際企業研究所 === 98 === The outbreak of the Industrial Revolution created rising technologies and promoted all nations’ economic development. But all of these also triggered all kinds of problems relating to pollutions and the destruction of ecological habitats. “Environmental Education” is the best way to prevent human beings from continuously damaging the earth. And main direction for “Environmental Education” is to enhance recipients’ environmental literacy. Then, how do university instructors in Taiwan perceive students’ environmental literacy? How do university students look at their own environmental literacy? How much difference between these two? These are main goals of this research. In connection with a longitudinal study regarding students’ environmental literacy in National Dong Hwa University, this research used “questionnaire survey” to collect information and adopted a modified questionnaire as the research tool. By mean value comparison, T-test, One-way ANOVA, the research tried to understand the differences between university instructor’s perception of student’s environmental literacy and student’s own perception of their environmental literacy. Lastly, referential directions were given to students in developing and promoting their environmental literacy. Research results obtained were: I. All university instructors gave an upper-intermediate level rating to university students regarding their environmental literacy. II. All university students rated themselves lower-intermediate level regarding their environmental literacy. III. Instructors that were from different region or in different position did not show significant discrepancies in student’s environmental literacy ratings. However, school’s attributes did show significant differences. IV. Students that have different gender, age, and school’s attributes did not show significant discrepancies in self-rating of their environmental literacy. V. Instructor’s rating of student’s environmental literacy did not show significant correlations with student’s self-rating. VI. Instructor’s rating of student’s environmental literacy was significantly different from student’s self-rating.