高中性別運作課程與經驗課程之性別差異分析
244
0
0
全文
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) Gender Differences of Operational Gender Curriculum and Experiential Curriculum in a Senior High School Abstract The purpose of this study is to analyze the gender differences of Civics and Society teachers’ gender curriculum interpretation, operational curriculum and students’ gender experiential curriculum. The participants of this study were one male teacher and one female teacher of. Civics and Society. in a senior high school in. northern Taiwan. This study applied participant observations and interviews to collect the data. The major findings for this study are as follows: 1. The difference of teachers’ gender curriculum interpretation reflected in their teaching, including different integration of genders experience, transformation of textbooks, and gender perception. 2. The gender differences of operational gender curriculum were related to teachers' interpretation and teacher-student interaction. Teachers' teaching interpretation and teacher-student interaction influenced each other, which constructed operational gendered curriculum. 3. The differences of students’ experiential gender curriculum reflected in their points of view toward textbooks, teachers' teaching, classroom interaction and learning. 4.The backlash in operational gender curriculum caused gender experience divide between heterosexual teachers and students, which developed the same hatred and strengthens friendship between homosexual students. In this case, students’ experiences in gender curriculum barely meet the original goal of formal curriculum. Based on the above findings, this study proposed the following suggestions: 1. The teacher should include students’ experience into the classroom in order to make up for the gender insufficient experience of teachers. 2. No matter whether it is male teacher or female teacher, they are advised to strengthen the interaction with the female students, and further play a more active role in the class interaction..
(6)
(7) 3. The textbooks should provide balancing gender perspectives, including different gender experiences, to allow students to comprehend the gender meanings constructed by our society. 4. The teacher should deconstruct students’ gender bias by using gender counter-examples or shocking examples. Keywords: Civics and Society, gender curriculum, operational curriculum, experiential curriculum, gender differences !.
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11) !. i!.
(12)
(13) !. ii!.
(14) !. !. !. iii!.
(15) !. !. 1!.
(16) —. !. 2!.
(17) 2005. Ivinson & Murphy, 2006; Smith, 2000. 2007. !. 3!. Goodlad 1979.
(18) 2000 2001. 2002. 2006 2006. 2003. Goodlad. 1969. Smith, 2000. /. !. 4!.
(19) !. 5!.
(20) !. 6!.
(21) / /. Goodlad. / Goodlad Goodlad. 1979. ideal curriculum. formal curriculum. operational curriculum 1991. perceived curriculum experiential curriculum. Goodlad, 1979. ideological curriculum. 1997. !. 7!.
(22) Klein et al., 1979. Klein et al., 1979. !. 8!.
(23) 1989. Brophy 1982. Brophy Goodlad. Brophy. 1982. Brophy 2-1 A0. B. C0 E. A. D B. E. E0. F E. F E3. !. E1. F1. E2. F3. 9!. F2.
(24) 2-1 Brophy. 1982:4. Brophy E1. A. Brophy. Brophy. Brophy. 2011 !. 10!.
(25) Fullan. Goodlad. Pomfret, 1977; Posner, 1992. 1979 Klein 1979. Klein. !. 11!.
(26) Biklen & Pollard 2001. Biklen & Pollard. 2009. Klein 1979. Klein. 1991. Forman & Kuschner, 1983. !. Biklen & Pollard. Klein, 1991. 12!.
(27) Klein. Goodlad. 1978. 1. Klein. 2.. 1991. Erikson Shultz 1992. 2005. Erikson. Shultz, 1992. Goodlad, 1979. !. 13!.
(28) 2004. !. 14!.
(29) 300. 300. /. /. /. / Woodward. 1997. Bourdieu, 2001. two sexes. two genders Paechter, 2006. —. !. 15!.
(30) Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003. Paechter, 2006. Elbaz, 2006. Smith, 2000. hooks. 1994. 2009. Garcia and Pugh, 1992; Sleeter, 1995. meet. students’varying backgrounds. !. Smith, 2000. 16!.
(31) /. Anne Phillips. 1995. / Johnson. 1989. Weber & Mitchell, 1995 Nykyri. Utriainen. positions of bodies. Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003. Johnson, 1989 Connelly. !. Clandinin 1997. 17!.
(32) 2004. Lather, 1991; Bakhtin, 2002 Wood. Bradley. 2007. Sadker & Sadker, 1986. 1996. !. 2007. 18!.
(33) Sadker & Sadker, 1986. Pinar 1996. Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003. Bleakley, 2000; Noddings, 2001. Rogers et al. 1999. Vick & Martinez, 2011; Schwyzer, 2005. !. 19!.
(34) Francis, 2008. van Manen, 1991; Moje, 2000. Robinson 1992. Robinson. Robinson, 2000. 2004. !. 20!.
(35) / 2001. 2001. / 2010; Kehily, 2002. !. 21!.
(36) 1990 / Fisher, 2001. Hraba Yarbrough 1983. Gurin. Townsend. 1986. Wilcox 1997. Gerson Peiss 1985. Gerson Peiss 1985. gender awareness /. female/male consciousness. /. feminist/anti-feminist consciousness / /. !. 22!.
(37) Stanley. Wise 1993. Griffin 1989. Bell 2000. 2003. 2003. 2005. 2002. 2004. 2004. 2006 2004 !. 2004. 2006 23!. 2009. 2003.
(38) 2009. 2005. 2002. 2004. 2009. 2006. 2001. 2006. 2003. 2009. ,. 2004. 2001. 2003 2004. 2004. !. 24!. 2004.
(39) 2005. 2006 2004. 2004. 2003. 2009. 2006. 2004. 2002. /. 2004. 2006. 2003. 2004. 2006 2003. 2004 2009. 2003 2009 !. 25!. 2004.
(40) 2006 2002. 2005. 2004. !. 2004. 2002. 26!. 2004.
(41) Hopf & Hatzichristou, 1999; Omvig, 1989; Smith, 1991; 1992; Worrall & Tsarna, 1987. Meece, 1987. Omving, 1989; Smith, 1991. Saker. & Saker, 1986 Smith, 1992. Omving, 1989; Smith, 1991 Saker. !. Saker 1986. 27!.
(42) Sadker. Sadker, 1986. Sadker. Sadker. 1994. OK. Yes Beal, 1994; Sadker. No. Sadker, 1982. Jungwirth, 1991. Ilatov et al., 1998; Nairn, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1986 2001. !. 28!. 2006.
(43) 2001. Sadker. Sadker. 1994. Beal, 1994; Sadker, 1999. Duffy, Warrenand & Walsh, 2001. 2007. 2007. Duffy Warrenand Walsh 2001 Duffy Warrenand !. Walsh. 2006 29!.
(44) Duffy, Warrenand & Walsh, 2001. Canada. Duffy Warrenand. Canada. Einarsson & Granström, 2002. !. 30!. Pringle 1995. Walsh 2001. Pringle.
(45) Kernberg, 1980. gender-less. Einarsson & Granström, 2002. Einarsson & Granström. Einarsson & Granström 2002. Nodding (1984) Gilligan (1982). 2001. 1984 Brophy 1985. 2003 self-fulfilling prophecy Cooper, 1979; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968. !. 31!.
(46) 2003. Tournaki, 2003; Zaher, 1996. Sadker. Sadker. 1986. Palardy 1998. Duffy, Warrenand & Walsh, 2001. 2003. Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008. Childs. !. McKay, 2001. 32!.
(47) Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008. sex. Paechter, 2006; Skelton & Francis, 2002. Andersen. Miller, 1997; Top,. 1991 masculine subject areas Basow, 1998. Fernandez & Mateo, 1997; Rowden. Carlson, 1996 ; Tatro, 1995 Tatro, 1995 Langbein, 1994. 2007. !. 33!.
(48) Sabbe Aelterman, 2007. Barber, 2002; Dey, 1995; Marshall & Reinhartz, 1997. Durkin (1987). Grossman Grossman 1994 2-1 2-1 1.. 1.. 2.. 2.. 3.. 3.. 4.. 4.. 5.. 5.. 6.. 6.. 7.. 7.. 8.. 8.. 9.. 9. Grossman Grossman 1994. !. 34!.
(49) Demetriou, Wilson & Winterbottom, 2009. Cruickshank Bainer. !. Metcalf 1995. 35!.
(50) /. 2007. !. 36!.
(51) 2007. 2005. 2005. !. 37!.
(52) Hong. Lawrenz. Veach. 2005. 2005. Hong, Lawrenz,. Veach, 2005. 2005. 2005. !. 38!.
(53) 2005. 2005. 2008. 2001. 2002. 2005 !. 39!. 2005. 2002.
(54) 2005. 2005. 2007. 2005 2009. 2011. /. !. /. /. 40!.
(55) 2003. !. 41!.
(56) 2003. 3-1. /. /. / 3-1. !. 42!.
(57) /. /. ". / !. !. !. !. !. ! 3-1. !. ". 43!.
(58) 2001. 2001. 63 1. 21. 42~43. 1 1. 1. !. 1. 44!. 1.
(59) 100. 2002 2003. !. 45!.
(60) —. !. 46!.
(61) —. !. 47!.
(62) 43 22. !. 48!. 21.
(63) /. !. 49!.
(64) Lincoln & Guba,1985. Merriam,1988; Rossman&Rallis,1998. !. 50!.
(65) !. 51!.
(66) 100. !. 8. —9. 52!.
(67) …. 100. 9. …. —9. …. !. 53!.
(68) 100. 10. —101. 9. 1. 23. …. !. 54!.
(69) !. 55!.
(70) 101. 1. —3. Facebook. —. !. 56!.
(71) !. 57!.
(72) 100 101. 1. 10 /. !. 58!. 9. 9.
(73) 43. /. 3-1. !. 59!.
(74) 3-1. !. 6. 100/11/03. 16:10~17:10. 6. 100/12/02. 16:10~17:10. 3. 100/12/23. 16:10~17:10. 6. 100/10/28. 16:10~17:10. 4. 100/12/16. 16:10~17:10. 4. 100/12/30. 16:10~17:10. 6. 100/10/27. 11:30~13:00. 4. 100/12/16. 08:10~09:10. 4. 100/12/30. 08:10~09:10. 6. 100/11/09. 11:10~12:30. 4. 100/11/30. 11:10~12:10. 5. 100/12/02. 08:30~10:00. 60!.
(75) ASM1001028. A. 28 3-2. 3-2. AOOOOOOO. A. OOO. OO. OO. BOOOOOOO. B. OOO. OO. OO. ASMOOOOOOO. A. OOO. OO. OO. ASFOOOOOOO. A. OOO. OO. OO. BSMOOOOOOO. B. OOO. OO. OO. BSFOOOOOOO. B. OOO. OO. OO. TMOOOOOOO. OOO. OO. OO. TFOOOOOOO. OOO. OO. OO. 2008. 2001. !. 61!. 100. 10.
(76) !. 62!.
(77) —. !. 63!.
(78) 1. 2003. 100. 8. 23 100. 8. 30 101. 1. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. !. !. 64!.
(79) !. 65!.
(80) 2011. !. 66!.
(81) !. 67!.
(82) !. 68!.
(83) 99. — —. — —. /. !. 69!.
(84) …. … … …. B1000909. /. … A1000906. !. 70!.
(85) —. …. …… …. B1000913. … ……. !. 71!. A1000909.
(86) …. A1000913. … …. …. … …. A1000913. !. 72!.
(87) —. ……. !. 73!. B1000916.
(88) ……. 20 20 A1000916. —. ……. … !. 74!.
(89) …. ……. …. …. …. A1000916. 2006. 50 60. A1000920. !. 75!.
(90) ……. B1000916. 20 … B1000923. …… 1000916. !. 76!.
(91) —. 1993 … …. …. … …. !. 77!. A1000920.
(92) A1001005. 80~90%. 180. 100. … … 150 …. …. !. B1000923. 78!.
(93) —. men women. …. … …. B1000923. ……. ……. …… !. 79!. B1000923.
(94) … …. …. ……. —. !. 80!. B1000923.
(95) … …. … … A1000920. !. 81!.
(96) … … …. … …. —. A1000920. /. / /. …. !. 82!.
(97) … … A1000923. 40. 2003. … … … …. !. A1000923. 83!.
(98) …. … …. … A1000923. …. … … …. !. 84!.
(99) …. …. …. B1000923. !. B1000923. 85!.
(100) …. …. B1000927. …. 2/3. 1/3. …. B1000927. TM1010403 !. 86!.
(101) …. B1000927. …. … !. 87!. B1000927.
(102) B1000927. …. …. … … B1000930. !. 88!.
(103) …. … A1000923. …. B1000927. !. 89!.
(104) … … ♂3-2 ♂3-1 ♂4-1 ♂4-2. ♂2-1. …. … B1000927. !. 90!.
(105) B1000927. … …. …. … …. !. 91!. B1000927.
(106) —. B1000930. …. … …. !. 92!.
(107) … A1000923. …. !. 93!. A1000923.
(108) A1000923. … … A1000923. …. … CEO. …. …. … !. 94!. A1000927.
(109) TF1010327. …. A1000930. !. 95!.
(110) … …2002. … A1000930. …. !. A1000930. 96!.
(111) …. … …. …. A1000927. … …. … social. … …. !. 97!. A1000927. ….
(112) 5. 6. …. B1000930. !. 98!.
(113) …. …. A1000927. …. … … … … A1000927. !. ♂4-5 …. 99!.
(114) …. … A1000927. …. …. … !. 100!.
(115) …. B1000930. …. … …. …. B1000930. /. .... !. 101!. B1000930.
(116) … …. B1000930. 2008. Sternberg !. 102!.
(117) ♂2-1. ♂3-1. ♂3-2. ♂4-1 …. …. B1000930. Sternberg …. …. … ♂1-4 ♂2-4. ♂3-5 ♂6-6. !. …♀3-6. ♂6-6 180. 103!. A1000930.
(118) … A1000930. …. A1000930. !. 104!.
(119) 1979 1970~1980 …. …. …. … …. !. B1001028. 105!. B1001003.
(120) 1979 186 …. 186. …. 1001008. … …. 1/4. … 3/4. 3/4. 1/2 …. !. …. B1001018. 106!.
(121) 2/3 6~8. 1001008. …. !. 107!.
(122) …. 1001008. …. 1/2. 113. …. 34 10 18. 1/2 1/2. 6. 18/113 … 1/2 A1001008. 40%. !. 108!.
(123) …. 50%. … A1001008. A1001008. !. 109!.
(124) …. B1001028. —. gay. … 190. 10. …. !. 110!.
(125) … … A1001025. —. OK…. !. /. A1001101. 111!.
(126) B1001111. … ♂5-6 B1001209. !. 112!.
(127) A1001206. …. … …. B1001209. …. !. 113!.
(128) A1001213. TM1010403. TF1010327. …. B1001220. !. 114!.
(129) …. … …. …. A1001230. !. 115!.
(130) 1/3. B1001230. …. !. 116!. B1001223.
(131) … …. … …. … A1000103. 4-1. !. 117!.
(132) 4-1. Fredu /. 1.. 1.. 2. 2.. 3.. !. 118!.
(133) 4-1 1.. 1.. 1.. 2.. 2.. 2. 3. 3.. 3. ( /. !. 119!. ).
(134) 4-1. /. /. 4-1. 2011. !. 120!.
(135) 4-1. hooks 1994. Johnson, 1989. 2004. !. 121!.
(136) v.s.. … … … … …. …. TM1010403. !. 122!.
(137) … …. …. …. B1001003. TM1010403. B1010103. … … …. …. B1001129. … …. … B1000923. !. 123!.
(138) … …. TM1010403. TM1010418. care. care TM1010403. !. 124!.
(139) TM1010418. v.s.. …. !. TF1010327. 125!.
(140) … …. TF1010327. … A1000927. high. … … TF1010327. …. !. 126!.
(141) TF1010327. …. … …. TF1010327. …. !. 127!.
(142) … …. TF1010327. vs.. !. 128!.
(143) ASF1001223. …. ASF1001202. !. 129!.
(144) … …. …. ASF1001223. vs.. … …. !. 130!.
(145) ASM1001028. Connelly&Clandinin, 1997 2004. Johnson, 1989. ASM1001028. !. 131!.
(146) …. ASM1001230 vs.. ppt. BSM1001202. !. 132!.
(147) BSM1001202. BSM1001202. vs.. !. 133!.
(148) … 59.9 …. BSF1001216. 30. … BSF1001230. !. 134!.
(149) BSF1001230. hooks. !. 1994. 135!.
(150) BSM1001202. …. BSF1001216. … …. …. 18…. … BSF1001216. !. 136!.
(151) ASF1001223. !. 137!.
(152) …. ASF1001103. …. ASF1001202. !. 138!.
(153) … ASF1001223. …. BSF1001109. !. 139!.
(154) …. BSF1001202. …. BSF1001109. …. .... …. B1010106. !. 140!.
(155) BSF1001202. BSF1001130. … !. BSF1001130 141!.
(156) BSF1001202. Hello Kitty. Hello Kitty. ASM1001028. !. 142!.
(157) —. ASM1001028. ASM1001216. !. 143!.
(158) ASM1001230. ASM1001216. —. /. !. 144!.
(159) …. BSF1001027. …. … BSF1001027. !. 145!.
(160) BSF1001027. —. BSF1001027. BSF1001027. !. 146!.
(161) BSF1001230. —. 2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. !. 147!.
(162) ASF1001103. ASF1001103. !. 148!.
(163) … B1001129. BSM1001130. BSM1001202. !. 149!.
(164) …. …. … B1001129. TF1010327. !. 150!.
(165) TF1010327. TF1010327. !. 151!.
(166) ASF1001223. ASF1001202. !. 152!.
(167) …. … … … … … …. !. 153!. … B1001115. ….
(168) … …. 18. …. …. 30 ... …. …. … 30. 30. B1000906. 30 30. …. …. … B1001216. !. 154!.
(169) …. OK TM1010403. … OK TM1010403. BSF1001027. !. 155!.
(170) TM1010403. BSF1001216. !. 156!.
(171) BSM1001130. 4-1 !. 157!.
(172) 4-1. 4-1. Duffy, Warrenand & Walsh, 2001. Sadker. Sadker. 1994. 2001 !. 158!.
(173) Sadker. Sadker. Sadker. Sadker. —. 4-2. 4-2. !. !. !. !. 159!. ! !.
(174) 4-2. Andersen. Miller 1997. Top 1991. Fernandez and Mateo, 1997 ; Rowden Carlson, 1996 ; Tatro, 1995. 4-2. !. 160!.
(175) !. ! !. !. 4-2. Francis. 2008. Francis. Francis. !. 161!.
(176) hooks 1994. — 4-3. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. 4-3. 4-3. !. 162!.
(177) 4-3. 4-3. —. Sadker. !. Sadker 1986. 163!.
(178) Sadker. !. Sadker, 1986. 164!.
(179) Ilatov et al., 1998; Nairn, 1995; Shakeshaft, 1986. !. 165!.
(180) hooks, 1994. !. 166!.
(181) TM1010403. …. …. B1000923. down. 4. !. 167!.
(182) B1001122. —. … … …. TF1010327. !. 168!.
(183) …. Hello Kitty. vs.. …. TM1010403. !. 169!.
(184) TF1010327. … … TF1010327. !. 170!.
(185) 2008. vs.. !. 171!.
(186) TM1010403. A1000930. !. 172!.
(187) vs.. —. !. 173!.
(188) TF1010327. 2004. 2008. !. 174!. 2002.
(189) — … ASM1001230 ASF1001202. Wood. Bradley. 2007. …. !. 175!.
(190) TF1010327. Sadker & Sadker 1986. Sabbe Aelterman, 2007. Robinson, 1992. !. 176!.
(191) Meece, 1987. —. vs.. ASF1001223. !. 177!.
(192) …. ASF1001202. …. …. !. ASM1001216. 178!.
(193) …. ASM1001230. vs.. BSF1001027. !. 179!.
(194) BSF1001230. …. BSF1001216. —. !. 180!.
(195) …. … … BSM1001130. —. !. 181!.
(196) ASF1001223. —. ASM1001028. … !. 182!.
(197) ASM1001216. —. BSF1001027. !. 183!.
(198) BSM1001202. !. 184!.
(199) …. … ASF1001223. —. ASM1001028. ASM1001216. !. 185!.
(200) …. ASM1001230. BSF1001230. BSM1001202 !. 186!.
(201) BSF1001216. …. BSM1001109. !. 187!.
(202) BSM1001130. vs.. ASF1001103. !. 188!.
(203) ASM1001216. BSF1001230. …. !. 189!.
(204) BSF1001027. BSF1001027. BSF1001216. !. 190!.
(205) BSM1001130. —. …. BSM1001202. 1996. !. 191!. 2007.
(206) vs.. ASF1001202. !. 192!.
(207) … …. ASF1001103. …. 72 ASF1001202. !. 193!.
(208) …. FU 176 182. ASF1001202. …. ASF1001202. !. 194!.
(209) … …. ASF1001103. ASF1001202 …. ASF1001223 BL BL. !. 195!.
(210) OK. ASF1001202. ASM1001028. !. 196!.
(211) …. …. ASM1001028. ASM1001216. !. 197!.
(212) ASM1001216. ASM1001230. vs.. …. !. 198!.
(213) … OK. BSF1001027. BSF1001216. … …. !. BSF1001216. 199!.
(214) 50%. BSM1001202. BSM1001130. … !. 200!.
(215) BSM1001109. BSM1001130. !. 201!.
(216) Johnson. !. 202!.
(217) 2008. 2005. Sadker Sadker 1986. !. 203!.
(218) Sadker. Sadker. 1994. Beal, 1994; Sadker, 1999. !. 204!.
(219) !. 205!.
(220) !. 206!.
(221) !. 207!.
(222) !. 208!.
(223) 99. !. 209!.
(224) hooks. !. 210!. 1994.
(225) !. 211!.
(226) /. !. 212!.
(227) !. 213!.
(228) match. !. 214!.
(229) 9. !. 215!. 20.
(230) !. 216!.
(231) !. 217!.
(232) !. 218!.
(233) 2000 2005 2006. 3 (1) 1-18. 2009 International Conference on Primary Education 2009 November 25-27, 2009, Hong Kong. 2004 11(1/2) 147-170 2008 2011 7. 121-147. 2006 2001 2007 1996 — 2002. 2003 2005 2001 2003. 2006 1997 !. : 219!.
(234) 2009 2004 2007 29 2 51-72 18. 2008 1984 26. 115-122. 2002 2003 2004 2003. 17. 51-84 11(1/2) 111-138. 2001. —. 2008 1990 2005 2003 2002 10 (1989) 2009. 6 :. 45-62. 2005 99-131 2007 2007 24 2010 2001 2007. 51 2. 103-134. ╱ 25-50 (2004) 49(2). !. ─ 89-112 220!.
(235) 2004 2011. ICCS2009 ICCS2009. 2011. 2011. 2009 2002 2006. — 13. 2000 2005. 2003 2005 2002 2004 21. 4. 9-22. 2003 2001 19-25 2004 2009 2002 2003. !. 14. :. 221!.
(236) Andersen, K., & Miller, E.D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. Political Science & Politics, 30, 216-219. Auwarter, A., & Aruguete, M. (2008). Counselor perceptions of students who vary in gender and socioeconomic status. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 11, 389-395. Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1975) Barber, T. (2002). A special duty of care: Exploring the narration and experience of teacher caring, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 383-395. Basow, S.A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and teaching styles. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Career strategics for women in academe:Arming Athena (pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Biklen, S. K., & Pollard, D. (2001). Feminist perspectives on gender in classrooms. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 723-748). Washington, DC: AERA. Bleakley, A. (2000). Writing with invisible ink: Narrative, confessionalism and reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 1(1), 11-24. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brophy, J. E. (1985). teacher-student interaction. In J. B. Dusek, V. C. Hall W. J. Meyer, (Eds.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 303-327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brophy, J. S.(1982). How Teachers Influence What is Taught and Learned in Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 83(1), 1-13. Canada, K. and Pringle, R. (1995). The Role of Gender in College Classroom Interactions: A Social Context Approach, Sociology of Education, 68, 161-186. Childs, G., & McKay, M. (2001). Boys starting school disadvantaged: Implications from teachers’ ratings of behavior and achievement in the first two years. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 303-314. Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1997). Narrative inquiry. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook (pp. 81-86). Oxford: Pergamon. Cruickshank, D. R., Bainer, D. L., & Metcalf, K. K. (1995). The act of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Demetriou, H., Wilson, E. & Winterbottom, M. (2009). The role of emotion in teaching: Are there differences between male and female newly qualified teachers' approaches to teaching? Educational Studies, 35(4) 449-473. !. 222!.
(237) Dey, E. L. (1995). The activities of undergraduate teaching faculty. Thought and Action, 11(1), 43-62. Duffy, J., Warrenand, K. & Walsh, M. (2001). Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject. Sex Roles, 45(9/10), November 2001. Durkin, M. J. (1987). Teacher’s sex. In M. J. Durkin (Ed.), An international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 606-608). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Einarsson, C. and Granström, K. (2002). ‘Gender--biased Interaction in the Classroom: The influence of gender and age in the relationship between teacher and pupil’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 117-127. Elbaz, F. (2006). Studying Teachers’ Lives and Experience: Narrative Inquiry Into K-12 Teaching. In: J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry. Mapping a Methodology (pp. 357-382). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Erikson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 465-485). New York: Macmillan. Estola, E & Elbaz-Luwisch, F . (2003). Teaching bodies at work. Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 697-719. Fernandez, J. & Mateo, M. A. (1997). Student and faculty gender in ratings of university teaching quality. Sex Roles, 37, 997-1003. Fisher, B. M. (2001). No angel in the classroom: Teaching though feminist discourse. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Forman, G.E., & D.S. Kuschner. (1983). The child’s construction of knowledge: Piaget for teaching children. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Francis, B. (2008). Teaching manfully? Exploring gendered subjectivities and power via analysis of men teachers’ gender performance. Gender and Education, 20(2), 109-122. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397. Garcia, J. & Pugh, S. L. (1992, November). Multicultural education in teacher preparation programs: A political or an educational concept? Phi Delta Kappan, 214-219. Gerson, J.M., & Peiss, K. (1985). Boundaries, negotiation, consciousness: Reconceptualizing gender relations. Social Problems, 32(4), 317-331. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodlad, J. I. (1969). Curriculum: The state of the field. Review of Education Research, 39(3). !. 223!.
(238) Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Griffin, C. (1989). ‘ I 'm not a women' s libber, but...': Feminism, consciousness and identity. In S. Skevington & D.Baker (Eds.), The social identity of women (pp. 173-193). London: Sage. Grossman, H., & Grossman, S. H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hong, Z., Veach, P. M., & Lawrenz, F. (2005). Psychological Predictors of Psychological Distress in Taiwanese Secondary School Boys and Girls. Sex Roles, 53(5/6), 419-431. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of. Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related influences in Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1-18. Hraba, J., & Yarbrough, P. (1983). Gender consciousness and class action for women: A comparison of black and white female adolescents. Youth and Socioty, 15(2), 115-131. Ilatov, Z.Z., Shamai, S., Hertz-Lazarovitz, R., & Mayer-Young, S. (1998). Teacher– student classroom interaction: the influence of gender, academic dominance, and teacher communication style. Adolescence, 33, 269-278. Ivinson, G. & Murphy, P. (2006). Boys Don’t Write Romance: The Construction of Knowledge and Social Gender identities in English Classroom. In M. Arnot and M. Mac an Ghaill (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Gender and Education (pp.163-179). New York. Ivinson, G. & Murphy, P. (2006). Boys Don’t Write Romance: The Construction of Knowledge and Social Gender identities in English Classroom. In M. Arnot and M. Mac an Ghaill (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Gender and Education (pp. 163-179). New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer. Johnson, M. (1989). Embodied knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(4), 361-377. Jungwirth, H. (1991). Interaction and gender—Findings of a microethnographical approach to classroom discourse. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 263-284. Kehily, M. J. (2002). Sexuality, Gender and Schooling: Shifting Agendas in Social Learning. London: Routledge. Kernberg, O. (1980). Internal World and External Reality. Object relations theory applied. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Klein, M. F. (1991). The politics of curriculum decision – making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum. NY: Albany. Klein, M. F., & Goodlad, J. I. (1978). A study of curriculum decision making in eighteen !. 224!.
(239) selected countries. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206093). Klein, M. F., Tye, K. A., & Wright, J. E. (1979). A Study of Schooling: Curriculum. Dhi Delta Kappan, 61(4), 244-247. Langbein, Laura I. (1994). The Validity of Student Evaluations of Teaching. Political Science and Politics, 27(September), 545-553. Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Marshall, C. S., & Reinhartz, J. (1997). Gender issues in the classroom. The Clearing House, 70(6), 333-337. Meece, J. L. (1987). The influence of school experiences on the development of gender schemata. In L. S. Liben & M. L. Signorella (Eds.), Children’s gender schemata (pp. 57-73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moje, E. B. (2000). Changing our minds, changing our bodies: power as embodied in research relations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(1), 25-42. Nairn, K. (1995). Quiet students in geography classrooms: Some strategies for inclusion. New Zealand Journal of Geography, 100(1), pp. 24-31. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Noddings, N. (2001). The caring teacher. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (4th ed., pp. 99-195). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Omvig, C. P. (1989). Teacher/student classroom interaction in vocational education. Kentucky: Department of Vocational Education. College of Education, University of Kentucky. Paechter, C.F. (2006).‘Reconceptualising the gendered body: Learning and constructing masculinities and femininities in school’. Gender and Education, 18(2), 121-135. Palardy, J. M. (1998). The effects of teachers’ expectations on children’s literacy development. Reading Improvement, 35, 184-186. Phillips, A. (1995). Democracy and difference: Some problems for feminist theory. In: Kymlicka, Will, (Ed.), The rights of minority cultures (pp. 288-302). Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum as a gender text. In W. F. Pinar, W. M. Reynolds, P. Slattery, P. M. Taubman, (Eds.), Understanding curriculum (pp. 438-493). New York: Peter Lang. !. 225!.
(240) Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill. Robinson, K.H. (1992). Class‐Room Discipline: power, resistance and gender. A look at teacher perspectives. Gender and Education, 4(3), 273-288. Robinson, K.H. (2000). “Great tits miss!” The sexual harassment of female teachers in secondary schools. Issues of gendered authority. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 75-90. Rogers, A. G., Casey, M. E., Elcert, J., Holland, J., Nakkula, V., & Scheinberg, N. (1999). An interpretive poetics of languages of the unsayable. In R. Josselson and A. Lieblich (eds), Making Meaning of Narratives (pp. 77-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rossman, G.B. & Rallis, S.F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Rowden, G. V., & Carlson, R. E. (1996). Gender issues and students’ perceptions of instructors’ immediacy and evaluation of teaching and course. Psychological Reports, 78(3), 835-839. Sabbe, E. & Aelterman, A. (2007). Gender in teaching: a literature review. Teachers and teaching, theory and practice, 13(5), 521. Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster Inc. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 512. Salih, S. ( 2002). Judith Butler. London, New York : Routledge. Schwyzer, H. (2005). The Male Teacher’s Body and Propriety. (n.d.) Retrieved November 10, 2011, from http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/02/ my_post_below_o.html Shakeshaft, C. (1986). Women in educational administration. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications. Sleeter, C. (1995). White preservice students and multicultural education coursework. In J. M. Larkin and C. E. Sleeter (eds.), Developing Multicultural Teacher Education Curriculum (pp. 17-29). New York: State University of New York Press. Smith, Catherine R. (2000). Notes from the Field: Gender Issues in the Management Curriculum: A Survey of Student Experiences. Gender, Work & Organization, 7, 158-167. Smith, D. (1991). Classroom interaction and gender disparity in secondary vocational instruction. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 16, 35-58. Smith, D. (1992). A description of classroom interaction and gender disparity in secondary business education instruction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 34, 183-193. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology !. 226!.
(241) (new ed.). New York: Routldege. Tartro, C.N. (1995). Gender effects on student evaluation of faculty. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 169-73. Top, T.J. (1991). ‘Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the scientific, artistic, and literary professions: a review’. Sex Roles, 24, 73-106. Tournaki, N. (2003). Effect of student characteristics on teachers’ predictions of student success. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 310-320. van Manen, M. (1991). The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. London, ON: Althouse Press. Vick, M. J. & Martinez, C. (2011). Teachers and Teaching: Subjectivity, performativity and the body. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(2), 178-192. Weber, S. & Mitchell, C. (1995). That’s Funny,You Don’t Look Like a Teacher! Interrogating Images and Identity in Popular Culture. London: Falmer. Wilcox, C. (1997). Racial and gender consciousness among African-American women: Sources and consequences. Women and Politic, 17(1), 73-94. Woodward, K. (1997). Identity and Difference. CA: Sage Publications. Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers’ reported practices towards girls and boys in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300-312. Zaher, S. (1996). Gender and the curriculum in the school room. Education Canada, 36(1), 26-29.. !. 227!.
(242) p.24. !. 228!. p.45.
(243) !. 229!.
(244) !. 230!.
(245)
相關文件
[Supplementary notes to 2.3.4 The Senior Secondary Curriculum and Suggested Time Allocation and Appendix 7 in Booklet 2 Learning Goals, School Curriculum Framework and Planning of
refined generic skills, values education, information literacy, Language across the Curriculum (
The researcher of this study maintained that the junior high school curriculum emphasized too much on plane geometry and should incorporate existing high school curriculum
Senior Secondary Enriching Knowledge for the Geography Curriculum: (5) Dynamic Earth Series – Geology of Hong Kong and Slope Safety System..
The purposes of this research are to find the factors of raising pets and to study whether the gender, age, identity, marital status, children status, educational level and
By using Balanced Scorecard (BSC), the purpose of this study is to construct indicators of school management with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for L junior high school in
The purpose of this study is to analyze the status of the emerging fraudulent crime and to conduct a survey research through empirical questionnaires, based on
In different gender、time for study、time for cram、the parents education level and household income of junior high school students , some aspects of the academic stress were
