本研究從環境典範的概念出發，透過Dunlap提出的新環境典範量表（New Ecological Paradigm Scale），針對緬甸與臺灣進行跨國比較，去了解在緬甸受教育的學生與到臺求學的緬甸學生對環境的態度。因此，本研究希望可以從現今（1）在學的緬甸高中生、（2）在緬甸讀書的大學生、（3）來臺求學的在校緬甸僑生進行問卷調查研究與訪談，以了解這三類型的緬甸學生對新環境典範的態度，同時，研究者也好奇這些學生會不會因為求學時期的社會背景而產生不同的環境價值觀？赴臺求學的緬甸僑生與緬甸大學生對環境的態度與看法為何？赴臺求學後的觀念有無轉變？為何轉變？這些轉變是否有值得緬甸借鏡與參考之處？
本研究採用問卷調查法以及隨機取樣、便利性取樣，以（1）在學的緬甸高中生、（2）在緬甸讀書的大學生、（3）來臺求學的在校緬甸僑生進行問卷調查研究。研究者已於2017年11月30日至12月14日（兩個星期），分別在緬甸前首都－仰光（Yangon）、撣邦首府—東芝（Taunggyi）、克欽邦首府—密支那（Myitkyina），分別發放47份（隨機發放）、45份（立意取樣）、177份問卷（立意取樣），總計發放269份問卷。同時也於2019年10月26日，在國立臺灣師範大學僑生先修部的國際文化日，隨機發放50份問卷。再來，為了得到更細膩的資料，研究者訪談6位大學生（3位緬甸大學生、3位來臺求學的緬甸僑生），訪談方式為半結構式的深度訪談。
質性研究結果顯示，可以發現赴臺求學的緬甸大學生環境意識較強，三位受訪者皆在質性訪談中處處顯現來臺後對自己家鄉浪費資源行為的反思、環境行為的轉變、對自然資源開發傾向有極限、無法人定勝天、傾向新環境典範；而緬甸大學生雖然都支持環境保護的概念，但在人類是否為萬物之靈這一主題上，則傾向人類具有能主宰動物的權利、地球的人口尚未達到極限。
臺灣的環境教育是搭配政策與教育循序漸進。緬甸新政府方才起步便以「12點經濟政策」為目標，尤其第9點更可看出新政府保護環境的決心。「典範」不是一時三刻便可形成，它是經過日積月累的浸潤而得，研究者盼能藉此研究，釐清赴臺緬甸生與未赴臺緬甸生的環境典範差異與緬甸高中生的環境典範觀，藉此強化或修正緬甸的教育策略和方針，對新政府所倡議的12點經濟政策（12-point economic policy）的推動能更有幫助。

This study starts from the concept of environmental paradigm. This study used the revised New Ecological Paradigm（ NEP） scale constructed by Dunlap et al. in 2000. Through this research, we aim to compare between Myanmar and Taiwan to understand the environmental attitude of students educated in Myanmar and Myanmar students studying in Taiwan. Hence, this study hopes to conduct questionnaire research and interviews from （1） Myanmar high school students, （2） college students studying in Myanmar, and （3） Myanmar students studying in Taiwan to understand the environmental attitude. At the same time, researchers are also curious whether these students will have different environmental values due to their social background during their studies. What are the attitudes and views in Myanmar students and those studying in Taiwan? Has the concept changed after going to Taiwan? Why change? Are these changes worthy of reference and draw lesson from Myanmar?
In this study, 47 (randomly distributed), 45 (intentional sampling), and 177 questionnaires were distributed in the former capital of Myanmar (Yangon), the capital of Shan State (Taunggyi), and the capital of Kachin State (Myitkyina). Sampling), a total of 269 questionnaires were distributed. At the same time, 50 questionnaires were randomly distributed on the International Cultural Day of the Overseas Chinese Preparatory Department of National Taiwan Normal University. Next, in order to obtain more detailed information, the researcher interviewed 6 college students in a semi-structured in-depth interview.
The qualitative research results show that Myanmar university students who went to Taiwan to study have a strong environmental awareness. All three interviewees showed in qualitative interviews that they reflected on their hometown’s waste of resources, changes in environmental behavior, and The development of natural resources tends to have limits, there is no man’s ability to conquer the sky, and new environmental paradigms. Although Myanmar university students support the concept of environmental protection, they tend to have the right to dominate animals and the earth on the subject of whether humans are the spirit of all things. The population has not yet reached its limit.

Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak, （1982）, Land use planning: farm and city perspectives. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 37:341-344.

Chang-Ho, J. （2004）. Factor structure of the New Environmental Paradigm scale: Evidence from an urban sample in southern California. Psychological reports, 94, 125–130.

Cordano, M., S. A. Welcomer and R. F. Scherer （2003）. An analysis of the predicitive validity of the new ecological paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34（3）: 22-28.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. B. P. （2008）. Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation: Toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environment and Behavior, 40（5）, 703-725.

Dunlap, R. E. （2008）. The New environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40（1）. DOI: 10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18

Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, Jr., W. R. （1994）. Toward an ecological sociology. In W. V. D’Antonio, M. Sasaki, & Y. Yonebayashi （Eds.）, Ecology, society and the quality of social life （pp. 11–31）. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. （1978）. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.

Geller, J.M. and Lasley, P. （1985）. The new environmental paradigm scale: a reexami- nation. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 9-12.
Grendstad, G. （1999）. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale: Examination and Scale Analysis. Environmental Politics, 8（4）, 194–205.
方偉達（2017），《 期刊論文寫作與發表》，五南。
方偉達（2019），《環境教育，理論 、實務與案例》，五南。
王少泉（1998）。探索新環境典範的內涵-環境教育專業人士對臺灣環境議題態度之分析。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北市。
吳瓊恩（2000）。行政學。臺北:三民書局出版社。
李傑沛（1998），曾參與教師環境教育訓練之高中教師對於新環境典範態度之研究。
張子超（1995）。環保教師對新環境典範態度分析。環境教育季刊，26，37-45。
張子超（2000）。新環境典範內涵的研究—臺灣環保人士的環境態度。Value education and citizenship education in the new century–International Conference, Hong Kong。
鄭躍軍（2015），從跨國比較調查俯瞰東亞環境意識之特徵。林業研究專訊 Vol. 22 No. 5
徐榮崇,廖鶴群專案編著.（2016），從異域他鄉到落地生根 : 滇緬孤軍的越界遷移、文化認同與跨國網路
石純齊（2011）。大學生參與「環境倫理與永續發展」通識課程之學習歷程研究
A Study on the Learning Process which College Students participate in "Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Development" General Course
近日，緬甸出現了一個神奇工廠，將垃圾變成了緬甸最稀缺的寶貝https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/world/xqramg.html （2019年12月19日）
仰光垃圾填埋場的「福岡方法」解決福岡市等支持的垃圾廢物問題https://www.sankei.com/region/news/190821/rgn1908210033n1.htmlhttps://www.sankei.com/region/news/190821/rgn1908210033-n1.htm 1