[[alternative]]A Content Analysis of Gender Role Stereotype on Children’s English MaterialsA Content Analysis of Gender Role Stereotype On Children’s English MaterialsA Content Analysis of Gender Role Stereotype On Children’s English MaterialsA Content Analysis of

[[abstract]]本研究在探討兒童英語教材中，兩性關係呈現的樣貌是否符應現今社會所推動兩性平等的狀況，研究者以兒童英語教材，「Let’s Go」、「佳音美語」、「YoYo & NaNa」、「Max & Mousy」、「You & Me」五個系列中的教科書共計二十三冊，做為本研究分析的文本。用內容分析法分析文本的圖片及文字，並依據方朝郁（1999）「教科書性別偏見檢核規準」，檢核結果如下: 「極重要」的檢核歸準，圖畫部分呈現為:一、外表形象及人格特質:男性人物角色為短髮、寒色系顏色衣服、褲裝、戴眼鏡、正向的臉部表情、男性化人格特質。女性人物角色外表形象為短髮、暖色系顏色衣服、著裙裝、戴眼鏡、女性化人格特質。二、職業種類及專業程度：男性人物角色職業種類多於女性且專業程度高於女性。文字部分呈現為: 此五系列教材內文並無出現對兩性的外表形象-髮型、衣服顏色、服裝樣式、服裝配件、臉部表情、人格特質等的描述用語出現，故無法對此做檢核。 「重要」的檢核規準圖畫部分呈現為: 一、男性、女性人物角色出現的活動種類接近、靜態為主。二、男性、女性人物角色努力或貢獻及性別關係並無描繪，故無法分析出兩性人物角色有無刻板的性別關係。三、兩性同時出現時，焦點人物的偏向的次數及百分比一致。文字部分呈現為:一、文字中描述兩性人物的活動種類及次數是一樣多的。二、活動性質的描述，兩性人物角色以靜態為主。三、無描述兩性人物角色努力或貢獻故。四、無描述男性、女性人物角色兩性的性別關係。五、描述女性人物角色的用語多於男性。六、描述男性人物角色職業較女性人物角色職業多。七、男性人物角色職業專業程度高於女性人物角色職業專業程度。八、文字部份出現以男性代名詞統稱兩性職業，例如: policeman , mailman。 九、無出現描述兩性的議題，故議題選擇有無偏差失衡，無法檢核。十、無描述兩性的成功或失敗的原因，故男女成功或失敗的原因存有性別偏見，無法檢核。 最後，研究者針對研究結果加以討論分析，並對編製英語教材者與出版方面教師、家長、及未來研究提出建議，以期對兩性平等推動有些許的助益。[[abstract]]The purpose of this study is to analyze the gender role stereotype in the Children's English materials. Gender relation is promoted in the present society, so the researcher with the Children's English materials, "Let's Go", "Joy English", "YoYo & NaNa", "Max & Mousy", "You & Me" 5 series, a total of 23 textbooks, as the object of this research and analysis. By content analysis and based on Chau Yuh Fang (1999) "The examination standard of sex bias in the textbooks", the following results: "Very important" to the pictures of the books as follows: 1, appearance and personality traits: the male characters with the short hair, cold color clothes, pants, wearing glasses, positive facial expressions, masculine personality traits. The female characters with short hair, warm color clothes, skirts, wearing glasses, feminine personality traits. 2, job titles and professional levels: the male characters’ occupational categories and the professional level are higher than the female characters’. The text part is: these five series of English materials do not appear within the text of the image of gender appearance - hairstyle, clothing, colors, clothing styles, clothing accessories, facial expressions, personality traits such as a description of terms appear, so are unable to do this analysis. "Important" to the pictures of the books as follows: 1, male and female characters types of activities occur close to the main static. 2, male and female characters and gender relations effort or contribution is not described, so can not be analyzed.3, gender appears at the same time, the central figure of the number and percentage are the same. The text part is: 1, the text descriptions of the activities of gender figures are the same as the type and frequency of many. 2, the descriptions of gender’s activities’ nature are static characters. 3, no describe the contribution for the characters . 4, no description for the characters of gender relations. 5, the text describing the role: female characters are more than male characters. 6, describing the role of professional male characters are more than female characters. 7, the career professional level: male characters are higher than female characters. 8, the text part of the appearance of the masculine pronouns as gender occupations, such as: policeman, mailman. 9, no description of gender issues emerged, so the choice of topics whether the bias of balance, can not be analyzed. 10, no description of the gender of the reasons for success or failure, so the reasons for success or failure of men and women there is gender bias, not analysis Finally, the researcher discussed the results of analysis for the study, and to preparation of teaching materials and those publishing in English, teachers, parents, and make recommendations for future research with a view to promoting gender equality, some of the promised benefit