國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例
碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 學校行政碩士班 === 93 === Ministry of Education actively promotes the task of “Human Rights Education” in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum. In the meantime ,in Minguo 90, the Ministry of Education set up the Human Rights Education Committee to carry out Human Rights Education concept at school an...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | zh-TW |
Published: |
2005
|
Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88304917100010785036 |
id |
ndltd-TW-093NCCU5626014 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
zh-TW |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 學校行政碩士班 === 93 === Ministry of Education actively promotes the task of “Human Rights Education” in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum. In the meantime ,in Minguo 90, the Ministry of Education set up the Human Rights Education Committee to carry out Human Rights Education concept at school and let the human rights culture take root. Our research aims at the practice condition of students’ human rights of the junior high school teachers in Taoyuan area. The research targets at six indexes, rights to health, rights to freedom, rights to privacy, rights to equality, rights to free expression and rights to education, and the paper comes out with the following conclusions:
1. Rights to Health:
More than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers have problem to start class and finish class on time to avoid taking up students’ rest time. Furthermore, more than 50 percent of the teachers would use the morning study hall or noon rest time to carry out remedial teaching or tests. For junior high school students whose mental and physical development is still immature, while teachers have given much thought to their study, appropriate time for students to rest should not be sacrificed.
2. Rights to Freedom:
With regard to student discipline problems, more than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers assert that as they give students language punishment, they would not harm students’ personal pride. However, only 4 percent of teachers can completely avert corporal punishment while correcting students.
3. Rights to Privacy:
It is still a common phenomenon for teachers to give out students’ grade or ranks without their permission in junior high school. Nonetheless, the manner to stimulate students to learn has at the same time violates students’ privacy.
4. Rights to Quality:
More than 90 percent of interviewee teachers claimed that they can handle the tasks of class management and administration under the “perfectly fair and impartial” principle, and they will not discriminate students by their backgrounds or results of study.
5. Rights to Free Expression:
Teachers still have dominant power over “the formation of various class policies” and “election of cadre members.” As a result, students cannot carry out the activities via democratic ways. The degree of the practice of “students’ feedback and opportunity of teacher evaluation” is rather low. Although junior high school students’ thinking may not yet be mature and thus their evaluation might become too emotional, students’ direct evaluation of teachers is still the trend of future.
6. Rights to Education:
It is generally common to use class meeting, social club activity time, class time of art and minor subjects to give students exams or intensified teaching of specific subjects. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for teachers to avoid taking measures of standing outside the classroom or keeping them in Office of Student Affairs which might violate students’ rights to education while correcting students.
7. As far as the junior high school teachers’ practice of students’ rights on campus is concerned, there is no obvious difference between the variables of “school location”, “seniority of the home room teacher”, “educational background” and “professional educational background.” Besides, the practice of Rights to Privacy and Rights to Equality would not be affected by the background variable of this research.
8. Rights to Health:
(1)The performance of schools with a scale of 25 to 36 classes is better than the school with a scale of more than 37 classes and 13 to 24 classes.
(2) The performance of teachers aged between 20 to 29 is better than the teachers aged between 50 to 59 ,while the performance of teachers aged between 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 is better than teacher aged between 30 to 39.
9. Rights to Freedom:
(1) The performance of private school teachers is better than public schools.
(2) The performance of the school with a scale of 13-24 classes is better than the school with a scale of 25 to 36 classes.
(3) Teacher who has more than 21 years’ teaching seniority performs better than those who has less than five years’ seniority, or those who has between 6 to 10 or 11 to15 years’ seniority. In addition, except the group of 6 to 10 years’ teaching seniority teachers, the practice performance of students’ rights to freedom has an inverse proportion to the teaching seniority.
(4) The performance of practice of teachers whose teaching subjects are Language (English) and Nature Science and Life Technology is inferior to teachers who teach Integrated Activity.
(5) The performance of practice of teachers aged between 20 to 29 and 30 to 39 is better than teachers between 50 to 59.
10. Rights to Free Expression:
(1) The practice performance of the private school teachers is better than public school teachers.
(2) The practice performance of female teachers is better than male teachers.
11. Rights to Education:
The performance of the teachers teaching “Langauge (Chinese)” ,”Language
(English)”, “Math”, ”Natural Science and Life Technology” and “Society” is inferior to teachers teaching “Health Education.”
12. Teachers whose “Rights to freedom” and “Rights to privacy” have been violated will avoid trespassing students’ same rights in their future teaching activity, which is also the principle of “Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you.”
Keywords:Human Rights , Children’s Human Rights, Students’ Human Rights
|
author2 |
馮朝霖 |
author_facet |
馮朝霖 林祺文 |
author |
林祺文 |
spellingShingle |
林祺文 國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
author_sort |
林祺文 |
title |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
title_short |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
title_full |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
title_fullStr |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
title_full_unstemmed |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
title_sort |
國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 |
publishDate |
2005 |
url |
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88304917100010785036 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT línqíwén guómínzhōngxuéjiàoshīxiàoyuánxuéshēngrénquánshíjiànzhīyánjiūyǐtáoyuánxiànwèilì |
_version_ |
1716840526113669120 |
spelling |
ndltd-TW-093NCCU56260142015-10-13T11:15:48Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88304917100010785036 國民中學教師校園學生人權實踐之研究─以桃園縣為例 林祺文 碩士 國立政治大學 學校行政碩士班 93 Ministry of Education actively promotes the task of “Human Rights Education” in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum. In the meantime ,in Minguo 90, the Ministry of Education set up the Human Rights Education Committee to carry out Human Rights Education concept at school and let the human rights culture take root. Our research aims at the practice condition of students’ human rights of the junior high school teachers in Taoyuan area. The research targets at six indexes, rights to health, rights to freedom, rights to privacy, rights to equality, rights to free expression and rights to education, and the paper comes out with the following conclusions: 1. Rights to Health: More than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers have problem to start class and finish class on time to avoid taking up students’ rest time. Furthermore, more than 50 percent of the teachers would use the morning study hall or noon rest time to carry out remedial teaching or tests. For junior high school students whose mental and physical development is still immature, while teachers have given much thought to their study, appropriate time for students to rest should not be sacrificed. 2. Rights to Freedom: With regard to student discipline problems, more than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers assert that as they give students language punishment, they would not harm students’ personal pride. However, only 4 percent of teachers can completely avert corporal punishment while correcting students. 3. Rights to Privacy: It is still a common phenomenon for teachers to give out students’ grade or ranks without their permission in junior high school. Nonetheless, the manner to stimulate students to learn has at the same time violates students’ privacy. 4. Rights to Quality: More than 90 percent of interviewee teachers claimed that they can handle the tasks of class management and administration under the “perfectly fair and impartial” principle, and they will not discriminate students by their backgrounds or results of study. 5. Rights to Free Expression: Teachers still have dominant power over “the formation of various class policies” and “election of cadre members.” As a result, students cannot carry out the activities via democratic ways. The degree of the practice of “students’ feedback and opportunity of teacher evaluation” is rather low. Although junior high school students’ thinking may not yet be mature and thus their evaluation might become too emotional, students’ direct evaluation of teachers is still the trend of future. 6. Rights to Education: It is generally common to use class meeting, social club activity time, class time of art and minor subjects to give students exams or intensified teaching of specific subjects. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for teachers to avoid taking measures of standing outside the classroom or keeping them in Office of Student Affairs which might violate students’ rights to education while correcting students. 7. As far as the junior high school teachers’ practice of students’ rights on campus is concerned, there is no obvious difference between the variables of “school location”, “seniority of the home room teacher”, “educational background” and “professional educational background.” Besides, the practice of Rights to Privacy and Rights to Equality would not be affected by the background variable of this research. 8. Rights to Health: (1)The performance of schools with a scale of 25 to 36 classes is better than the school with a scale of more than 37 classes and 13 to 24 classes. (2) The performance of teachers aged between 20 to 29 is better than the teachers aged between 50 to 59 ,while the performance of teachers aged between 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 is better than teacher aged between 30 to 39. 9. Rights to Freedom: (1) The performance of private school teachers is better than public schools. (2) The performance of the school with a scale of 13-24 classes is better than the school with a scale of 25 to 36 classes. (3) Teacher who has more than 21 years’ teaching seniority performs better than those who has less than five years’ seniority, or those who has between 6 to 10 or 11 to15 years’ seniority. In addition, except the group of 6 to 10 years’ teaching seniority teachers, the practice performance of students’ rights to freedom has an inverse proportion to the teaching seniority. (4) The performance of practice of teachers whose teaching subjects are Language (English) and Nature Science and Life Technology is inferior to teachers who teach Integrated Activity. (5) The performance of practice of teachers aged between 20 to 29 and 30 to 39 is better than teachers between 50 to 59. 10. Rights to Free Expression: (1) The practice performance of the private school teachers is better than public school teachers. (2) The practice performance of female teachers is better than male teachers. 11. Rights to Education: The performance of the teachers teaching “Langauge (Chinese)” ,”Language (English)”, “Math”, ”Natural Science and Life Technology” and “Society” is inferior to teachers teaching “Health Education.” 12. Teachers whose “Rights to freedom” and “Rights to privacy” have been violated will avoid trespassing students’ same rights in their future teaching activity, which is also the principle of “Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you.” Keywords:Human Rights , Children’s Human Rights, Students’ Human Rights 馮朝霖 2005 學位論文 ; thesis 0 zh-TW |