89 11 109~136 JOURAL OF NATIONAL TAITUNG TEACHERS COLLEGE Vol.11-2,pp.109~136 (2000) -109-
89 12 Benne 1987 82 Tom Brennan 1981 Dawson & Prewitt 1969) 80 Dewey 1966 Bjerstedt l974 Kohl 1980 Hepburn 1983 Nakagava 1991 73 75 78 83 Cole 1978 80 81 82 84 Walter Borg 1966-110-
81 81 82 Harold Entwistle 1971 Francis Wardle 1978 Cittage Lane A Student Government Program Shaheen 1980 Gilman Middle School The Thaler System Bumstead 1978 PACER School PACER Model Wardle 1978 Summerhill School Snitzer 1964 82-111-
89 12 Froyen 1993 holistic 78-112-
Guba & Lincoln 1981 Stainback & Stainback 1984 80 Stake 1981 Merriam 1988-113-
89 12 80 82 81-114-
-115-
89 12-116-
-- -- -- -117-
89 12-118-
-119-
89 12-120-
-121-
89 12-122-
-- -- -- -- -- -123-
89 12 75-124-
-125-
89 12-126-
-127-
89 12 86 68 58-128-
-- -- ) -- -- -- Francis Wardlen 1978-129-
89 12 81-130-
75 62 Herb Snitzer 1964-131-
89 12 82 82 75 209-226 80 481 1-5 75 82 87 82 78 73 82-132-
78 83 70 2-6 80 81 81 1 97-132 81 84 80 22 12-3 Benne, K. D. 1987.The Meanings of Democracy in a Collective World. In Benne, K. D. & Tozer, S.( Eds. Society as Educator in an Age of Transition. Chicago: University of Chicago.1-23. Bjerstedt, A. 1974. Student Democracy Co-Planning at Different Educational Levels: Project Summary and Report Abstracts. Pedagogisk Dokumentation No.28. School of Education, Malmo (Sweden). Dept. of Educational and Psychological Research. Borg, W. R. 1966.Student Government and Citizenship Education. The Elementary School Journal. Brennan, T. 1981.Political Education and Democracy. London:Cambridge University press. Bumstead,R. 1978. The Thaler System: A Slice-of-Life Curriculum.Phi-Delta-Kappan; 59 10 659-64. Cole, P. 1978.The Implications of Cognitive-Developmental Theory for Law Related Curriculum in the Elementary School. Paper resented at American Bar Association Institute for Law and the Humanities. -133-
89 12 Dawson, R. E. & Prewitt, K. (1969). Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. Dewey, J. 1966.Democracy and Education. New York: The Free. Entwistle, H. 1971. Political Education in a Democracy. London: Roueledge & Kegan Paul. Froyen, L. A. 1993.Classroom Management: The Reflective Teacherleader. Columbus: Merril. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1981.Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hepburn, M. A. 1983 ed.democratic Education in Schools and Classrooms. National Council for the Social Studies Bulletin No. 70. National Council for the Social Studies, Washington, D.C. Snitzer,Herb 1964.Living at Summerhill School.N. Y.:Macmillan. Kohl, H. 1980.Insight: Crime and Punishment. Teacher, 97 4. Merriam, S. B. 1988.Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. California: Jossey-Bass. Nakagawa, M. 1991. A Call for Cooperative Pluralism from Me to We. Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia. Shaheen, J. 1980.Cottage Lane: A Student Government Program That Works. Social-Education, 44 5 : 387-90. Snitzer, H. 1964 : Living at Summerhill School. New York: Macmillan. Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. 1984 Broadening the Research Perspective in Special Education. Exceptional Children,50 5. Stake, R. E. 1981.Case Study Methordology: An Epistemological Advocacy. In W. W. Welsh ed..case Study Methodology in Educational Evaluation. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center. Wardle, F. 1978. PACER Model: Education for Democracy [and] Meetings and Student Control. ERIC :ED182016. -134-
A Study of the Self-governing Function of Class Meetings in the Elementary School The Observing on Two 6-th Classes Sheu, Chau-Jin Abstract According to general educational theories, student government is the important part of democracy education for the pupils of elementary school. But in practice most educators don t support student government. Are student government feasible in general public elementary schools? What is the influence of student government on students? If the implement of student government is difficult, what are the problems? This study focuses on the class meetings which is the main activity of student government, by observing two 6-th classes of a suburban elementary school in Taitung, attempts to explore the questions above. From the analyses and comparison of the data collected from field research, the conclusions have been reached as follows: 1.In the class meetings, students can elect class officers and chairman, hear officers reports, discuss class affairs, suggest school doing something, and decide class affairs. 2.How much power do class meetings have to govern class is decided by tutors ideal chiefly. 3.In the class of class meetings have more political power, students have better communicate ability, higher interest in participating politics, and great sense of political efficacy..more students support democracy in that class. Besides, in that class, students are responsible for their decision, and familiar with their tutors. These fact can debate educators discredit to student government, and identify student government is very important for democracy education. Keywords Class- Meetings Student- Government Self-Governing Elementary- School Democracy- Education Qualitative- Research. -135-
89 12-136-