臺灣推廣生態學校以提升學生自我為目標，期望學校依循生態學校七大步驟與認證過程，以之鼓勵學生主動參與。依據各學校的特色，制定適合的環境友善行動，將節能減碳、環境永續之理念與知識推廣到社區；另外透過臺美生態學校夥伴計畫持續與美國相關學校交流與學習，力求與國際接軌(林菁、沈桂枝、賴秀珍， 2016)。
教育方面，結合了台灣十二年國民基本教育課程綱要中的自發、互動、共享之目標精神，使得學校教學方式逐漸傾向於自主行動、相互溝通與互動，及社會參與之方式相互交流及學習。鼓勵學校主動參訪周遭的生態學校，互相觀摩、交流，藉此了解執行生態學校之好處（王懋雯、林勇成、徐榮崇、許仁利、魏雪玲，2015）。臺灣生態學校將環境議題融入至學校課程中，引導學生關注校園中的環境問題，在探索過程中認識校園環境，辨識校園中環境問題，分析環境問題以及其起因，最後藉由生態行動團隊討論出具體之解決方案。
本研究挑選2019年至2022年通過綠旗認證之五所臺美生態學校夥伴：新北市市立建安國小、新泰國小、米倉國小、萬里國小、新市國小。分析架構依照臺美生態學校之七大步驟原則，並以環境教育五大目標、探索教育七項活動作為評估指標，透過其分析以上五所國小各自達成七大步驟的目標與進度，以及落實生態學校之路徑。由於資料記錄上的限制，本研究將由上述學校中挑選其於七大步驟中各項執行紀錄相對完整的學校作為該步驟原則的研究標的。
生態行動團隊為執行生態學校計畫之核心，七大步驟中最重要的步驟，故本研究將以之作為七大步驟中首要研究的原則（蔡靜惠，2018）。
第一步驟：生態行動團隊。第一項—持續運轉，建安國小、米倉國小、新市國小均以該校三年級至五年級作為生態行動團隊的主要成員，確保其計劃得以在六年級學生畢業之際傳承給能在學校的學弟妹，故將以上述學校作為此指標的研究標的。第二項指標—團隊組成條件與角色分工，其中建安國小邀請生態專家共同參與學校生態行動團隊之執行工作，讓環境教育的前期輔以專家的建議與檢視將研擬出有效率且實際的行動方案。
第二步驟：環境路徑之檢視與稽核工作。五所生態學校皆以不同之方式執行生態行動團隊，其中米倉國小與萬里國小以分組、分部門之方式，進行每一項，並於定期之會議共同討論各項環境檢視之結果。而建安國小與新市國小皆著重於十項檢視路徑，為五所綠旗生態學校中檢視最多項路徑的兩所生態學校，並透過環境檢視與稽核之成果訂定生態行動方案。
第三步驟：生態行動方案之內容。五所生態學校皆以不同方式訂定生態行動方案，其中建安國小直接挑選著重之環境路徑訂定生態行動方案；而新泰國小、米倉國小、萬里國小、新市國小，皆透過期程表制定每日目標，按照進度完成路徑檢視，進而訂定生態行動方案。
第四步驟：監控生態行動方案執行情形。萬里國小與米倉國小均有定期分享其行動方案之成果及監控資料方式，並將監控生態行動方案的執行情形、狀況，以及監控資料融入至課程中。
第五步驟：結合教育課程。五所生態學校皆以自然科學領域進行環境教育，將生物多樣性與能源之路徑結合自然與生活科技之校本跨領域課程。
第六步驟：結合社區。其中新市國小透過社區生態資源舉辦活動，讓學生、社區民眾與家長進行交流與分享。
第七步驟：發展生態規範或宣言。新北市五所生態國小均透過公開場合向社區民眾宣導生態規範內容。其中新泰國小將生態規範內容公布於校園中之公佈欄、學校網站、社區明顯處，能夠讓新泰國小之學生家長與附近社區民眾更便利的了解之。

Taiwan promotes eco-schools with the goal of improving students' self-improvement and expects schools to follow the seven steps of eco-schools and the certification process to encourage students to actively participate. According to the characteristics of each school, formulate suitable environmentally friendly actions, and promote the concept and knowledge of energy saving, carbon reduction, and environmental sustainability to the community; In addition, through the Taiwan-US Eco-School Partnership Program, we continue to communicate and learn with relevant schools in the United States, striving to be in line with international standards.
In terms of education, combined with the goal spirit of spontaneity, interaction, and sharing in Taiwan's 12-year national basic education curriculum, the school's teaching methods are gradually inclined to independent action, mutual communication, and interaction, and social participation in mutual exchange and learning. Encourage schools to take the initiative to visit the surrounding ecological schools, observe and communicate with each other, so as to understand the benefits of implementing ecological schools.
Eco-schools in Taiwan integrate environmental issues into the school curriculum, guide students to pay attention to environmental issues on campus, and learn about the campus environment during the exploration process, identify environmental issues on campus, analyze environmental issues and their causes, and finally discuss with the ecological action team come up with specific solutions.
This study selects five Taiwan-American eco-school partners that have passed the green flag certification from 2019 to 2022: New Taipei City Jian-An Elementary School, Xintai Elementary School, Micang Elementary School, Wanli Elementary School, and Sinshih Elementary School. The analysis framework is based on the principles of the seven steps of the Taiwan-US Eco-School, and uses the five major goals of environmental education and the seven activities of exploration education as evaluation indicators. Through the analysis of the goals and progress of each of the above five elementary schools to achieve the seven steps, and the implementation of the Eco-School path.
Due to the limitations of data records, this research will select schools with relatively complete implementation records in each of the seven major steps from the above-mentioned schools as the research targets of the principle of this step.
The ecological action team is the core of the implementation of the ecological school plan, the most important step in the seven steps, so this research will use it as the primary research principle in the seven steps.
Step 1: Form an Eco Committee. The first item is continuous operation. Jian-An Elementary School, Micang Elementary School, and Sinshih Elementary School all use the third to fifth grades of the school as the main members of the ecological action team to ensure that their plans can be passed on to the able-bodied when the sixth graders graduate. The younger siblings in the school, so the above-mentioned schools will be used as the research targets for this indicator. The second indicator—team composition conditions and role division, Jian-An Elementary School invites ecological experts to participate in the implementation of the school's ecological action team, so that the early stage of environmental education can be supplemented with expert suggestions and inspections to develop an efficient and practical Action plan.
Step 2: Carry out a Sustainability Audit. The five ecological schools implement the ecological action team in different ways. Among them, Micang Elementary School and Wanli Elementary School conduct each task in groups and departments and discuss the results of various environmental inspections in regular meetings. Both Jian-An Elementary School and Sinshih Elementary School focus on ten inspection paths, and they are the two ecological schools that inspect the most number of paths among the five green flag ecological school, and formulate ecological action plans based on the results of environmental inspections and audits.
Step 3: Action Plan. The five ecological schools formulate ecological action plans in different ways, among which Jian-An Elementary School directly selects the environmental path to focus on to formulate ecological action plans; The Xintai Elementary School, Micang Elementary School, Wanli Elementary School, and Sinshih Elementary School all set daily goals through the schedule, complete the path inspection according to the progress, and then formulate ecological action plans.
Step 4: Monitor and Evaluate. Both Wanli Elementary School and Micang Elementary School regularly share the results of their action plans and monitoring data methods, and integrate the implementation, status, and monitoring data of the monitoring ecological action plans into the curriculum.
Step 5: Curriculum Work. The five eco-schools all carry out environmental education in the field of natural science, combining the path of biodiversity and energy with the school-based interdisciplinary curriculum of nature and life technology.
Step 6: Inform and Involve. Among them, Sinshih Elementary School organizes activities through community ecological resources, allowing students, community members and parents to communicate and share.
Step 7: Produce an Eco Code. The five ecological elementary schools in New Taipei City have publicized the content of ecological norms to the community through public occasions.Among them, the content of the ecological norms of the new Thai elementary school is published on the bulletin board on the campus, the school website, and the obvious place in the community, so that the parents of the students of the new Thai elementary school and the people in the nearby community can understand it more conveniently.

中文文獻
108課綱資訊網（2019）。十二年國民教育。108課綱重點。
AIRBORNE（2019）。萬里POWER電力公司CEO選舉發表會。新北市萬里國小環境大小事部落格。https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XWjvl1-PWU&t=2s
十二年國民基本教育（2019）。特殊教育課程實施規範。教育部國民及學前教育署。
尤泳智（2019）。 環境教育專業人員對氣候變遷全球暖化與節能減碳之知識態度行為意向之研究。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學系，58-277。
方偉達（2019）。環境教育理論、實務與案例。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。110-115。
王俊秀（2000）。通識教育與永續發展教育的連結。環境教育季刊，(43)，48-17。
王順美（2004）。 社會變遷下的環境教育-綠色學校計畫。師大學報：教育類，49(1)，159-170。
王懋雯、 林勇成、徐榮崇、 許仁利、魏雪玲（2015）。臺灣生態學校。國教新知， 62。
王鑫（1994）。環境保育教育。環境教育研究，23。
全球環境教育夥伴亞太中心（2021）。臺美生態學校推動成果與綠旗學校案例。
江岳洲（2016）。新北市米倉國小特色學校經營之研究（未出版之碩博士論文）。臺東：臺東大學。
米倉國小（2019）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市米倉國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
米倉國民小學（2019）。新北市八里區區米倉國民小學課程發展委員會組織要點。新北市八里區米倉國民小學。108校務會議修正通過。
行政院環保署（2021）。「臺美生態學校必選環境路徑電子手冊」。行政院環保署臺美生態學校夥伴計畫。https://ecocampus.epa.gov.tw/news/news_page/1003。
行政院環境保護署（2017)。執行臺美雙邊合作及國際環境夥伴計畫推動。行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署（2018）。臺美生態學校認證制度說明會議。行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署（2021)。2014年臺美生態學校夥伴計畫整體推動成果。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
行政院環境保護署綜計處（2018）。107年臺美生態學校綠旗飄飄成果豐碩。行政院環境保護署，環保新聞專區。https://enews.epa.gov.tw/page/3b3c62c78849f32f/2782786a-a9ed-4abb-a0ce-fd6d89076d6f。
吳鈴筑（2018）。臺灣環境教育政策與立法影響之研究。臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所學位論文，1-262。
李宛珍（2014）。校園棲地探索。新北市環境教育輔導團電子報。新北市政府教育局。
李嘉祥（2021）。新泰國小夢田慶豐收，百大青農推廣國產雜糧。台灣新生報。https://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news/新泰國小夢田慶豐收-百大青農推廣國產雜糧-084944470.html。
李麗日（2012）。社會學習領域概論。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
汪靜明（2003）。環境教育的生態理念與內涵。環境教育學刊。
汪靜明（2003）。環境教育的生態理念與內涵。環境教育學刊。1-38。
尚玉昌（2003）。行為生態學。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
忠福國小（2020）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(桃園市忠福國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
林佳儀（2020）。環境教育特色課程之行動研究-以台北市某國小為。國立屏東大學生態休閒教育教學碩士學位學程班學位論文。
林菁、沈桂枝、賴秀珍 (2016)。公民行動取向之資訊素養課程： 以國小六年級「台美生態學校夥伴計畫」為例。教育資料與圖書館學，53(2)，211-244。
林愛玲、李文盛（2021）。水水米倉，綠風校園-米倉永續循環校園示範校園。新北市教育電子報。https://epaper.ntpc.edu.tw/index/EpaSubShow.aspx?CDE=EPS202101040838060Z5&e=EPA20201127000000010。
建安國小（2018）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市建安國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
建安國小（2018）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市建安國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
張子超（2019）。十二年國教環境教育議題融入的課程發展-以永續發展主題為例。學校行政，(123)，54-67。
教育部（2018）。十二年國教課綱環境教育課程：「能源資源永續利用」主題教學示例手冊。教育部環境教育議題配合領域教學實施示例計畫。1-142。
教育部（2020）。臺北市大安區大安國民小學109學年度總體課程計畫。台北政府教育局。45-58。
莊珮琪（2013)。自然環境下的身體文化探究。運動文化研究，(23)，35-71。
許仁利。（2012）。Eco-schools綠旗飄揚，建安國小用環保與國際接軌。新北市政府教育局。3-7。
許世璋、任孟淵(2014)。培養環境公民行動的大學環境教育課程-整合理性、情感，與終極關懷的學習模式。科學教育學刊，22(2)，211-236。
許勝嘉（2007）。校園永續水資源管理與規劃。嘉南藥理科技大學環境工程與科學系學位論文，1-151。
郭哲君（2012）。永續校園理念融入學校體育之初探：打造學校綠色健康運動空間。運動管理，（15）， 68-80。
陳慕家（2019）。新北市萬里國民小學10學年度第一學期三年級綜合領域課程計畫。新北市萬里國民小學。
曾啟銘、汪靜明（2015）。比較環境體驗與傳統課室教學對國小中年級學童地方依附與負責任環境行為之影響：不同時間規畫調節。環境教育研究，11(1), 31-66。
曾楚倩（2018）。十二年國教自然科學領域課程融入環境教育議題食農教育為例。國立臺中教育大學科學教育與應用學系環境教育及管理碩士論文，23-112。
湯志民（2005)。全球永續發展與學校綠建築規畫之探析。國立政治大學「教育與心理研究」。1-33。
黃于瑑（2019）。臺南市臺美生態學校夥伴高年級學生環境素養之研究。國立臺南大學環境與生態學院環境教育碩士在職學位學程學術論文，115-119。
新北市教育局（2020）。校長帶你遊，萬里國小篇。取自：
新市國小（2020）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市新市國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
新泰國小（2019）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市新泰國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
楊冠政（1992 ）。環境教育發展簡史。博物館學季刊。 6卷3期。
楊冠政（2002）。環境倫理--環境教育的終極目標。環境教育學刊。
楊嵐智、高翠霞（2017）。環境教育的實質是什麼?-新課綱中環境知識概念之分析。國教新，64(3)，21-33。
萬里國小（2018）。台美生態學校綠旗認證資料(新北市萬里國小)。臺美生態學校夥伴網站。
廖宏彬（2015）。潮厝華德福教育實驗國民小學的革新之路—教師專業全面提升。雲林縣潮厝華德福教育實驗國民小學。
劉潔心,、晏涵文、馮嘉玉（2006）。我國學校環境教育指標之研究。師大學報：教育類，51(1)， 85-102。
歐姿妤、翁瑞禧、黃貞（2010）。環境教育課程對專科學生環境保護認知與態度之影響。科學教育研究與發展季刊。
潘隆麟（2017）。建構生態學校七大步驟。桃園市復興區光華國小哈嘎灣生態學校。取自https://sites.google.com/a/khes.tyc.edu.tw/haka-wan/er-ping-jian-zhong-dian/-yi-zu-zhi-ji-hua-yu-xuan-dao
蔡靜惠（2018）。臺美生態學校方案之學生環境覺知與環境行為之研究─以新北市某國小中高年級學生為例。臺北市立大學歷史與地理學系碩士論文，42-199。
衛生組長（2020）。新泰國小108年農場收割暨米食節活動。教育部綠色學校夥伴網路。
環境保護署（2020)。臺美環境保護技術合作協定簡介。行政院環境保護署。
總務主任（2019）。資源處理與再利用。教育部綠色學校夥伴網路。
顏佩如（2003)。課程圖像重建：學校全球教育課程發展之研究。臺灣師範大學教育學系學位論文，1-443。
英文文獻
Alves, C., & Araya Pellegrin, H. F. (2019). Extensive collaboration in teachers for Education for Sustainable Development A study case of the Eco-Schools program. Malmö University, Faculty of Culture and Society (KS).
Andreou, N. (2020). Towards a Generation of Sustainability Leaders: Eco-Schools as a Global Green Schools Movement for Transformative Education. In Green Schools Globally (pp. 31-45). Springer, Cham.
Boeve‐de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). The effect of Flemish eco‐schools on student environmental knowledge, attitudes, and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 33(11), 1513-1538.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2018). Eco-school evaluation beyond labels: The impact of environmental policy, didactics and nature at school on student outcomes. Environmental Education Research, 24(9), 1250-1267.
Bríd Conneely.(2017).Eco-School Handbook, The Britain Group.FEE Eco-Schools. 9-92.
Carvello, W. M. (2009). An assessment of the role of eco-schools in achieving whole school development through sustainability education (Doctoral dissertation). Unisa university of south africa. Institutional Repository.
Cincera, J., & Krajhanzl, J. (2013). Eco-Schools: what factors influence pupils' action competence for pro-environmental behaviour?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 117-121.
Cincera, J., Kroufek, R., Simonova, P., Broukalova, L., Broukal, V., & Skalík, J. (2017). Eco-School in kindergartens: the effects, interpretation, and implementation of a pilot program. Environmental Education Research, 23(7), 919-936.
Combes, B. P. (2005). The United Nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014): Learning to live together sustainably. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4(3), 215-219.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., Moore, D., & Boyd, W. (2014). Young children's play and environmental education in early childhood education. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dale, A., & Newman, L. (2005). Sustainable development, education and literacy. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (2014). An orientation to early childhood education for sustainability and research–framing the text. In Research in early childhood education for sustainability (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
Dyment, J. E. (2005). Green school grounds as sites for outdoor learning: Barriers and opportunities. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 14(1), 28-45.
Gigrin, S., & Yüksel, Y.Comparison of students at eco-schools, eco-schools with green flag and ordinary primary schools in terms of environmental literacy. Special Topics in Science Education Research (pp.192).
Gough, A., Lee, J. C. K., & Tsang, E. P. K. (2020). Green school movements: An introduction. In Green Schools Globally (pp. 1-9). Springer, Cham.
Hallfreðsdóttir, S. (2011). Eco Schools–Are They Really Better. Comparison of Environmental Knowledge.
Kannapin, O., Pawlik, K., & Zinn, F. (1998). The pattern of variables predicting self-reported environmental behavior. Zeitschrift fur experimentelle Psychologie: Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie, 45(4), 365-377.
Krnel, D., & Naglic, S. (2009). Environmental literacy comparison between eco-schools and
Lace-Jeruma, L., & Birzina, R. (2019). The improvement of eco-school students’ environmental awareness in the context of education for sustainable development. Rural Environment. Education. Personality, 12, 77-85.
López-Alcarria, A., Poza-Vilches, M. F., Pozo-Llorente, M. T., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. (2021). Water, Waste Material, and Energy as Key Dimensions of Sustainable Management of Early Childhood Eco-Schools: An Environmental Literacy Model Based on Teachers Action-Competencies (ELTAC). Water, 13(2), 145.
Lysgaard, J. G., Larsen, N., & Læssøe, J. (2015). Green flag eco-schools and the challenge of moving forward. In Responsible living (pp. 135-150). Springer, Cham.
McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here?. Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20.
Mogensen, F., & Mayer, M. (2005). ECO Schools: trends and divergences: a Comparative Study on ECO-school development processes in 13 countries. Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Moseley, C. (2000). Teaching for environmental literacy. The Clearing House, 74(1), 23.
Musser, S. J., & Orke, E. A. (1992). Ethical value systems: A typology. The journal of applied behavioral science, 28(3), 348-362.
National Wildlife Federation. (2016). Eco-schools USA handbook 2016.
O’Neil, J. M., Newton, R. J., Bone, E. K., Birney, L. B., Green, A. E., Merrick, B., & Fraioli, A. (2020). Using urban harbors for experiential, environmental literacy: Case studies of New York and Chesapeake Bay. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 33, 100886.
ordinary schools in Slovenia. Science Education International, 20, 5-24.
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Suny Press.
Ozsoy, S., Ertepinar, H., & Saglam, N. (2012, December). Can eco-schools improve elementary school students’ environmental literacy levels. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 1-25). The Education University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies.
Pirrie, A., Elliot, D., McConnell, F., & Wilkinson, J. E. (2006). Evaluation of Eco Schools Scotland. SCRE Research Report No. 124.
Riastini, P. N., Wati, C. S., Prodjosantoso, A. K., & Suryadarma, I. G. P. (2019). Is There Any Difference in Waste Consciousness between National Eco-Schools and Others?. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 513-528.
Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2009). Education for sustainable development in early childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 9-22.
Spínola, H. (2015). Environmental literacy comparison between students taught in Eco-schools and ordinary schools in the Madeira Island region of Portugal. Science Education International, 26, 392-413.
Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., & Wall, R. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 1(1), 30-31.
Vishwanath, H. N. (2006). Models of teaching in environmental education. Discovery Publishing House.
Wang, S. M., Lee, J. C. K., & Ho, S. J. (2020). The development of Greenschools in Taiwan: Current situation, obstacles and prospects. In Green Schools Globally (pp. 333-344). Springer, Cham.
土耳其文文獻
Arslantürk , N., & KetenoğluO. (2008). Akdeniz Bölgesinin Tanımı ve Florasının Kökeni. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 1(1), 79-86 .