無

• Main Authors: Li, Chia-Pei, 李佳倍
• Other Authors: 郭麗安
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2019
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/jkwvw6

碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 輔導與諮商學系 === 107 === The purpose of this research is to explore the gender equity literacy of the Gender Equity Education Committee members, and based on the results of this research, some suggestions were provided. It is hoped that by the research findings, gender equity in education will be promoted. The thesis examined the Gender Equity Literacy of the Gender Equity Education Committee members in Taiwan Island. Stratified Sampling Method was applied in the research, and the strata were the regions and sizes of the schools. Paper questionnaires were used for data collection. A total of 1311 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding 148 invalid questionnaires, a total of 847 questionnaires were valid. The response rate was 75.9%. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, independent-samples t-test. This study analyzed different background variables of the Gender Equity Education Committee members, and the research outcomes were summarized as follows: I. The Gender Equity Education Committee members got high scores on the Gender Equity Literacy Scales. II. The Gender Equity Education Committee members got the highest scores on “Practicing Gender Equity Movement” subscale and “Advocate of Gender Diversity” subscale, but got the lowest scores on “Against Conventional Gender Roles” subscale. III. Female Gender Equity Education Committee members got higher scores on the Gender Equity Literacy Scales than Male ones. IV. The Gender Equity Education Committee members of non-heterosexual orientation had better gender equity literacy than those of heterosexual orientation. V. The Gender Equity Education Committee members under 35 years old had better gender equity literacy than those over 51 years old. The Gender Equity Education Committee members under 35 years old advocated for gender diversity more than the others. VI. The Gender Equity Education Committee members of Kaohsiung and Pingtung and the members of Taichung, Changhua and Nantou supported elastic career development more than the others. VII. The Gender Equity Education Committee members from more-than-49-class schools had better gender equity literacy than those from under-12-class schools. VIII. The Gender Equity Education Committee members of school counselors and in the domain of Integrative Activities had better gender equity literacy than the others; The Gender Equity Education Committee members in the domain of Mathematics, Science and Technology, and Health and Physical Education had worse gender equity literacy; The Gender Equity Education Committee members in the domain of Integrative Activities, Social Studies, and Arts and Humanities advocated for gender equity movement more than the others. IX. The Gender Equity Education Committee members without administrative duties had better gender equity literacy than those with administrative duties, but there were no difference in the action for gender equity between them. X. There was no difference in gender equity literacy between Gender Equity Education Committee members of different levels of seniority. XI. There were a variety of ways to select Gender Equity Education Committee members. The members selected by all of the school teachers and administrators, and by the other ways had better gender equity literacy than those selected by the principles. Finally, according to the findings of this study, some suggestions are made for practice and further research.