Title

價值衝突與價值教育:以人權教育為例

Translated Titles

Conflicts of Values and Value Education in Terms of Human Rights Education in Taiwan

DOI

10.6384/CIQ.201610_19(4).0005

Authors

林佳範(Chia-Fan Lin)

Key Words

人權教育 ; 價值衝突 ; 道德發展 ; human rights education ; conflicts of values ; moral development

PublicationName

課程與教學

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

19卷4期(2016 / 10 / 01)

Page #

113 - 129

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

人權的議題,往往充滿爭議。此外,老師過去掌握的課堂知識或真理的權威性,已不可避免地被網路所挑戰,甚至可能被學生所挑戰。當老師在教室中的知識或真理權威被質疑,在價值上的衝突又該如何來面對?甚至當教育當局或老師被質疑在洗腦或教育不中立時,價值教育又該如何進行才有可能?本文將以人權教育為例,探討在民主多元價值的網路時代,價值教育該如何進行,才能不僅本身符合自由、平等、多元、差異等人權價值,又能使學生認知、認同與實踐人權的價值。本文最後建議教師在教室之教學,應拋棄過去教師作為教室中知識與真理的主張者角色,將教室建立成知識與價值的公共學習平台,成為民主開放的教室,才符合前揭的人權價值,與尊重學生的價值自主性。

English Abstract

Human rights issues are controversial. In addition, pupils now can google and challenge teachers what they are teaching in classrooms, where teachers used to monopolize knowledge and truth are no longer sustainable. While losing the position to be monopolizing in classrooms, how could teachers teach values? Even, when students challenge the educational authority to the effect that what taught at school is a kind of brainwashing, how value education is possible in teaching contexts? This study discusses these questions in terms of human rights education. It explores a possible model of teaching, which could meet the challenges and integrate human rights values, such as freedom, equality, and tolerance into the teaching process. It argues that the best model of teaching could be set up with a public platform for learning in the classroom where versatile opinions from students and teachers could be expressed and get examined freely and equally. In brief, a democratic classroom, like this platform serves, could be the best model for human rights education in the age of value pluralism and the Internet at the same time.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. Enright, R. D.(1981).A classroom discipline model for promoting social cognitive development in early childhood.Journal of Moral Education,11(1),47-60.
  2. Habermas, J.,Cronin, C.(Ed.),De Greiff, P.(Ed.)(1998).The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
  3. Habermas, J.,Lenhardt, C.(Trans.),Nicholsen, S. W.(Trans.)(1990).Moral consciousness and communicative action.Oxford:Polity Press.
  4. Hunt, L.(2007).Inventing human rights a history.London:W.W. Norton & Company Ltd..
  5. Krogh, S.(1981).Moral beginnings: The just community in Montessori pre-schools.Journal of Moral Education,11(1),41-46.
  6. Nucci, L.(Ed.),Narvaez, D.(Ed.)(2008).Handbook of moral and character education.New York, NY:Routledge.
  7. Orlenius, K.(2008).Tolerance of intolerance: Values and virtues at stake in education.Journal of Moral Education,37(4),467-484.
  8. Oser, F. K.,Althof, W.,Higgins-D'Alessandro, A.(2008).The just community approach to moral education: System change or individual change?.Journal of Moral Education,37(3),395-415.
  9. Pasek, J.,Feldman, L.,Romer, D.,Jamieson, K. H.(2008).Schools as incubators of democratic participation: Building long term political efficacy with civic education.Applied Development Science,12(1),26-37.
  10. Power, F.,Higgins, A.,Kohlberg, L.(1989).Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education.New York, NY:Columbia University Press.
  11. Reiman, A.,Dotger, B.(2008).What does innovation mean for moral educators?.Journal of Moral Education,37(2),151-164.
  12. Symonides, J.(Ed.)(2000).Human rights: Concepts and standards.Aldershot, Hants, England:UNESCO.
  13. 王泰升(2001)。臺灣法律史概論。臺北市:元照。
  14. 林毓生(1983)。思想與人物。臺北市:聯經。
  15. 林端(1994)。儒家倫理與法律文化。臺北市:巨流。
  16. 劉宗為譯、Fromm, Erich(2015)。逃避自由:透視現代人最深的孤獨與恐懼。臺北市:木馬文化。
  17. 顏厥安(1999)。與Rosa 歡樂起舞。臺北市:新新聞。