| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 性別教育研究所 === 102 === This action research on relationship education was conducted in a class of 6th graders in an elementary school in Eastern Taiwan, with 20 students participating in total. With the approval of the homeroom teacher (also the collaborative teacher in this study), relationship education was conducted one session per week in a whole semester. The relationship education curriculum was mainly on love, integrated related issues such as gender features, sexual bullying, sexual harassment, LGBT education. Data were collected from teaching materials, interviews of the teachers and the students, and classroom observation.
Through analysis of collected data, the results were concluded as follows. There was a lack of relationship education curriculum in school. Relationship education was often replaced with human relationship and sex education was replaced with health, or physical education. Moreover, multiple sexual orientations were limited to “respect”, which worked as a slogan without any concrete content. Although most of the teachers did not forbid romantic relationships among students, students were not encouraged to do so. As a matter of fact, students still developed their romantic relationships with others even though they know their parents and teachers opposed it. In most romantic relationship developed among elementary school students, male students took the active role while females responded. Even female students who had their own thoughts were still limited to the gender norms. Knowledge regarding sex taught by teachers was mainly limited to health or physical education. And sexual pleasure and power were excluded. Besides, owing to students’ misunderstanding of homosexuality stemming from ignorance, the researcher integrated issues of homosexuality into different teaching topics to eliminate student’s bias and stereotype with better understanding of sexual orientation as well as LGBT issues.
In the teaching process, the research and the homeroom teacher once confronted each other owing to their different positions and values. However, they learned from each other and changed through dialogue and negotiation. The significance of accompanying children was thus demonstrated.
“Education field is the real battle field” because how to teach and what to teach deliver certain ideologies. Through approaching students’ experiences, the insufficient parts in our growth were shown. The idea that “the personal is political” was well illustrated.
|
|---|
