本研究的目的在瞭解國民小學自然科課程中，實驗單元產生廢棄物的情形，及老師們目前的處理方式，希望找出最理想的處理方式，供教育主管機關釐定政策及改進之參考。 　　研究者首先將國小自然科課程中一~十二冊「有實驗之單元」統計出來，發覺比例甚高，再將污染項目分十大類加以整理統計。然後自編一份「國小自然科學課程實驗廢棄物的調查與處理問卷」，針對彰化縣及全省各國小教師抽樣調查，有效問卷218份。研究發現：目前廢棄物的大致處理方式：（一）電池類：丟入垃圾桶（占69.46％）；（二）玻璃類：用透明塑膠袋裝好，註明危險，或集中處理，再由垃圾車載走（占81.09％）；（三）一般有機性廢棄物，包好丟入垃圾桶（占76.08％）；（四）塑膠類：丟入垃圾桶（占66.25％）；（五）一般性廢水：直接倒入水槽（占44.82％）；（六）化學藥品及溶液：稀釋後倒入水槽占53.08％；（七）金屬類：用後即丟入垃圾桶（占37.81％）；（八）泥土砂石：直接填回坑洞；（九）廢紙：丟入垃圾桶；（十）廢氣：師生在通風處做實驗等都占半數以上。 　　根據各類教師基本資料分析發現：教師的職別、服務總年資、學校所在地、學校班級數、學校類別、及級任教師擔任年級之不同等對教師在實驗廢棄物處理的正確方法及正確觀念之得分率上沒有顯著的影響。但其中女性教師之得分率優於男性教師者；主任之得分率優於教師及組長者；市郊學校之教師優於其他地區學校者；班級數在61班以上之學校教師得分率優於班級數少於60班之學校教師者；低年級級任教師之得分率優於中、高年級級任教師之得分率；自然科任教師之得分率優於非自然科任、級任教師之得分率。而服務總年資愈長者，似乎正確確處理觀念之得分率愈低，因此國小教師任教一段時間，需要再回學校進修。　　根據本研究作如下建議：（一）環保單位及教育機關、傳播媒體等，多提供環保資訊。（二）每學年調訓有關老師，使其了解正確處理方式及技術。（三）修訂課程，以建立師生處理廢棄物之正確知識及態度。（四）成立區域性化學廢棄物處理中心，為各校處理化學廢棄物。（五）儘量採用低污染、不殘留、低劑量之化學藥品。

　　　　　 This study is mainly to understand the laboratory waste production and handling of elementary science, and to find out the optimal handing means as a reference for policy making and rectification. The results showed that: First, ratio of experimental units being counted out from the elementary science textbooks was very high. And laboratory waste was statistically classified into ten kinds of waste. Then "a quentionnaire for survey and handling of laboratory waste of elementary science" was designed and used to test elementary school teachers in Changhuan county and of other places in Taiwan. Effective samples numbered 218. The results shows that the handling menas of elementary science waste for the present: (1)Electric battery is thrown into into trash can, 69.46% ; (2)Glass ware is packed up with "dangerous"-labelled plastic bags, or is gathered together for treatment, then is transported by trash car, 81.09% ; (3)Normal organic waste is packed up and thrown into the trash can, 76.08% ; (4)Plastic waste is thrown into trash can, 66.25% ; (5)Normal wastewater is poured into water trough, 44.82% ; (6)Chemicals and solution is diluted with water and is poured into water trough, 53.08% ; (7)Metals and metal ware are thrown into trash can, 37.81% ; (8)Soil and sand is filled back the previous pit ; (9)Waste paper is thrown into trash can ; (10)Waste gas: the experiments are proceeded at open place for more ventilation. Basic document being analyzed statistically, such as teachers' official rank, total service years, school location, class number, rank of school, and duty grade of class teachers, make No significant difference of right handling laboratory waste and of having right ideas of it. But female teachers' scores are higher than male teachers'. Perfects' scores are higher than teachers' and section chiefs'. Teachers of suburban schools are better than those of other places. Teachers of schools whose class number above 61 are better than below 60. Class teachers of lower grade are better than those of middle and higher grade. Course teachers are better than Non-course teachers. Science teachers are better than Non-science and class teachers. Teachers for longer service years have less right ideas of handling laboratory waste. So after a period of teaching, elementary teachers should come back to schools for relearning. Some suggestions are given as follow: (1)Organizations of environmental protection education and mass communication should more supply environmental information; (2)Related teachers should be assembled and trained to get right means and techniques of handling laboratory waste; (3)For right knowledge and attitude of teachers and pupils being promoted, curricula should be revived; (4)Local center of chemical waste should be set up to handle treat chemical waste of schools; (5)Chemicals of low pollution, No-remaining and low-dose application are used first.