本研究基於戶外教學不限於校外教學，且校園資源的利用應配合學校課程教學，因此選擇一所國民小學為研究對象，探討該校規畫校園教學功能及教師進行校園內戶外教學的情況。
本研究目的有二: (一) 國民小學校園內「戶外教學資源區」的規畫過程與案例分析。(二)國民小學教師使用校園景物進行戶外教學的情形及績效。
本研究除了進行相關文獻的探討之外，主要以訪談及問卷調查的方法蒐集資料，輔以文件分析法。研究者透過訪談法，搜集個案學校規畫校園教學功能的過程及部分填答問卷者的想法; 經由問卷法，調查該校教師在校園內戶外教學的情形及對學校規畫結果的看法; 以分析該校「校園步道教學活動設計」手冊，進一步瞭解當時規畫完的成果。此外，本研究也利用上述方法所獲得的資料，進行交叉檢証，以確保個別資料的正確性。最後根據研究發現，獲致以下結論: 一、支持該校規畫「戶外教學資源區」的動機有二: (一)提倡戶外教學的觀念。(二)發揮校園的教學功能。然後集合幾位行政人員，以儘量不改變校園中既有資源的原則及採取
設計「校園步道」的模式來實現之。規畫後，以鼓勵代替強迫老師使用。
二、規畫者的工作意願、能力及配合事物不足是規畫時所遇到的問題。
三、規畫者透過編寫活動教案的方式，整理出約20個可搭配課程內容的「教學資源區」，並指出其中可用的資源及建議的學習活動方式。因此個案學校規畫「教學資源區」的成果，
不僅只有地點，還列有建議教授的科目單元及教法等教學設計。
四、該校規畫「教學資源區」的作法，並未使老師的教學方式有多大的改變。會利用校園教學的老師早已佔大多數，這是因為他們認同這種對學生學習有利的方式，並將之列為他們平常教學方法的一種; 少數老師則依然只在教室上課。無論老師是否視戶外教學為正常教學法之一，「課程太多，無暇利用」是老師不去使用校園教學的主因。
五、該校老師安排戶外教學活動的時機是根據教學目標及課程內容的需要。他們會在活動中安排觀察、體驗、測量操作等學習經驗。但是，整合學科知識的教學方式和戶外學習活動單的使用都不普遍。
六、以個案學校為例，在20個建議的「教學資源區」中，老師們都可以找到提供各科單元中需要以戶外學習方式進行的資源，但是其中以配合「自然科」教學的區域比較廣。有的老師認為各科皆有可能在校園上課; 有的老師則認為校園只適合上「自然科」。
七、大多數使用過校園教學的老師，對它能發揮「教學資源區」的功能表示滿意，對他們的教學過程有幫助。但是認為配套設計的「步道手冊」未能考慮到老師實際的需要。此外，教學觀摩等推廣校園內戶外教學的作法也未讓老師覺得很有幫助，而值得注意。

Due to the consideration that outdoor education can be taken inside and outsidethe schoolground and any resources on the schoolground need to have the functionof being used in teaching, this research chose one elementary school to investigate how the teaching function of the schoolground is enhanced and how the teachers taught on the schoolground. This research aimed at (1)the process of planning "the resource areas for outdoor teaching" on the schoolground in an elementary school and (2) the condition of teaching on the schoolground. In addition to theoretical analysis, the researcher used interview, questionnaire and document to get information.The researcher got the information about the process of planning the "resource areas" and the opinion of some teachers' by interview. When surveying how the teachers taught outdoors on the schoolground and what they thought of the planning, the researcher used questionnaire. To knowwhat the "resource areas" were like, the researcher analyzed the document. Furthermore, the researcher also made use of the approaches stated above for triple checking in order to raise the reliability of the data. Based on the finding,this study concludes: 1.There were two reasons for the principal to plan "the resource areas for outdoor teaching." One was to advocate the conception of teaching outdoors.The other one was to enhance the teaching function of of the schoolground. In this case, he convened some of the administrative staffs to do the job. They tried to keep the schoolground as what it was and designed a trail at last. After that, they encouraged all teachers to use the schoolground in teaching as possible as they could.2. The problem appeared to be the lack of the intentionto do the job, the ability of knowing what to do and other needed things while designing the trail.3. The administative staffs discovered 20 "resource areasfor outdoor teaching" by writing unit plans and then compiled a booklet.In other words, they not only told the teachers where to teach , but alsothey suggested which subjects to teach and which methods to use. 4. Planning " the resource areas for outdoor teaching" did not make all the teachers change their teaching habits.Most of them accepting the conception of teaching outdoors had already made it one of the teaching methods they were used to use. Besides, there were some teachers still only teaching in the classrooms. Whether or not the teachers treated teaching outdoors as a normalway of teaching, the reason why some of the teachers would not make use of schoolground for teaching was because of too many lessons that needed teaching.5.Most of the teachers arranged outdoor teaching on the basis of teaching goals and curriculum. They would give students as much experience of observation and measurement as possible. However it was not common to adopt interdisciplinary teaching and use work sheets or guide sheets. 6. In this case, every school subject had been taught outdoors, but science teaching used much more "resource areas for outdoor teaching" than other subjects did. Some teachers believed that all subjects could be taught by using the resources on the schoolground, while others presumed that science was the only subject suitable for outdoor teaching.7. Most of the teachers were satisfied with the resource areas that did help them a lot in teaching. However they did not think thatthe booklet was useful, and nor was the teaching demonstration.