過去關於性別與教育的研究，鮮少探討學生同儕活動中的性別意涵。研究學生同儕的性別活動，通常僅以普一性的父權運作來解釋，並未從「階級文化」的角度來剖析，而且也沒有針對勞工階級與中上階級的差異進行比較。本研究乃從階級文化的觀點出發，探究勞工階級與中上階級學生對性別的定義、所進行的性別互動、以及由此建構出來的性別關係。研究目的如下：
一、 瞭解不同社會階級學生的性別符碼。
二、 瞭解不同社會階級學生性別互動的過程。
三、 瞭解不同社會階級學生所建構的性別關係。
四、 由以上發現歸納結論，並提出國中階段性別平等教育的建議。
本研究採取質的研究，以觀察和訪談兩種方法蒐集資料。研究對象為台北都會區兩所不同國中的二年級學生，一所國中位於中上階級為主的社區，另一所位於勞工階級為主的社區。觀察的內容以學生下課時間與活動課程(如家政課、體育課 )中，異性間的互動情形為主。訪談主要針對學生對性別的定義、班級中的性別互動情形、以及班級中的性別權力地位之覺知，進行探索。觀察及訪談的資料均轉錄成逐字稿，並根據逐字稿進行編碼，從中發展出主題與類目，以進行分析與解釋。
經過以上探討，本研究獲致下述結論：
壹、勞工階級學生的性別定義較為刻板與二分，中上階級則較為彈性與自由。
貳、勞工階級學生的性別規範較為嚴苛，中上階級則較為寬鬆。
參、勞工階級學生缺乏性別平等的概念，中上階級學生的性別平等意識較高。
肆、勞工階級男生對女生的言語羞辱多，中上階級女生對男生的言語辱罵多。
伍、勞工階級男生對女生的侵犯與騷擾多，中上階級女生對男生的侵犯與騷擾多
陸、勞工階級學生會進行強凌弱的打鬧追逐，中上階級學生會發展男與女的相偕出遊。
柒、勞工階級學生呈現對立與分離的性別關係，中上階級建構互助與合作的伙伴關係。
捌、勞工階級學生締造男支配與女隸屬的性別關係，中上階級呈女強勢與男包容的性別關係。
基於上述結論，本研究分別對性別平等教育工作，以及未來後續的研究，提出若干建議，備供參酌。

Social class and adolescents’ gender world
In the past, gender and educational researchers seldom discuss gender development in the process of peer group activities. Even if there is few mentioned about it, they attributed gender inequality primarily to patriarchy, and did not analyze the issue from the perspective of “class culture.” Accordingly, this study try to compare the gender codes, gender interactions and gender relationships between working class and middle-upper-class students.
In order to fulfill the above purpose, this study applies qualitative research methods, i.e., participant observation and interview, to collect field data from students of two junior high schools. These two schools are situated in different social class communities. One is in a working-class community; the other middle-upper class. The researcher observed the cross-gender activities at break and activity courses, such as home economics and physical education, and interviewed with students to explore their gender codes, gender interactions, and gender relationships. The field notes and interview transcripts are both categorized in terms of narrative thinking unit to develop a coding system for comparison and synthesis. The major findings are as follows:
1. The gender codes of working-class students are stereotyped and gender-divided, but the middle-upper-class ones are more flexible and open-minded. The working class students attribute sissy boys and tough girls to gender deviation, while the middle-upper class students take them as personality traits. The sissy boys and tough girls in the middle-upper class school have good interpersonal relationships with others.
2. There are three prevalent forms of cross-gender interactions: insulting, invading, and harassing. The working-class boys are more likely to initiate insults, invasions, and harassment, while the middle-upper class vice versa.
3. The boys and girls of working-class students are fond of fighting and chasing, while the middle-upper-class students prefer to develop friendship and play together.
4. The working-class students are more likely to form opposed and gender-divided relationship, while upper-middle-class students develop supporting and cooperative relationship.
5. The working-class students construct male-dominant and female-subordinate gender relationship, while middle-upper-class students develop female- empowered and male-tolerant gender relationship.

參考書目
中國時報（民84）。杜絕校園性騷擾，從改善課程開始。12月21日第11版。
王文科（民79）。教育研究法。台北：五南。
民生報（民84）。學生集體性騷擾，兩性平等教育亮紅燈。12月19日第31版。
自由時報（民84）。成淵國中事件「加害」「受害」人數再增。12月19日第6版
聯合報（民84）。從成淵國中事件看當前兩性教育問題。12月21日第2版。
田俊龍（民87）。國小學生同儕團體與兩性關係。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
余曉雯（民87）。權力交戰場--學校中的身體規範與學生身體觀。國北師國民教育研究所碩士論文。
周新富（民88）。國中生家庭背景、家庭文化資源、學校經驗與學習結果關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
陸洛譯（民86）。社會階級心理學。台北：國立編譯館。
黃瑞琴（民83）。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理出版社。
曾惠敏（民83）。國一學生學校生活適應研究：一個國中教室的觀察。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
楊清芬（民84）。國小男生與女生的校園生活。台灣大學建築與成鄉研究所碩士論文。
劉毓秀（民85）。精神分析女性主義—從佛洛依德到伊蕊格萊。收錄於顧燕翎編，女性主義理論與流派。頁141-178。女書系列。
顧瑜君譯（民87）。質性研究寫作。台北：五南。（原著：Harry F. Wolcott）
Abraham,John(1995). Divide and School：Gender and class dynamics in comprehensive education. London.Washington,D.C.:The Falmer Press.
Adams, G.R. , Gullotta, T.P.,& Adams-Markstrom, C.(1994). Adolescent life Experiences. (3rd). Pacifi Grove, California:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Anyon,J.(1983).Intersection of gender and class: Accommodation and resistance by working-class and affluent females to contradictory sex-role ideologies.(pp19-37).In Stephen Walker and Len Barton(Ed.). Gender, Class, and Education. Sussex,England: Falmer Press.
Arnot,M.(1984). Male hegemony, social class and women’s education. Journal of Education,164(1).64-89.
Bogdan,R.C. , & Biklen,S.K.(1982). Qualitative research for education:An introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Brophy,J. & Good,T.L.(1974). Teacher-student relationship：Cause and consequences. New York：Holt,Rinehart & Winston.
Brophy,J. & Good,T.L.(1980). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MaCmillan.
Brotsaert,H.(1999). Coeducation and gender identity formation: a comparative analysis of secondary schools in Belgium. British journal of Sociology of Education,20(3).pp.343-357.
Canaan, J.(1987). A comparative analysis of American suburban middle class,middle school, and high school teenage cliques. pp385-406. In George Spindler and Louise Spindler(Ed.), Interpretive Ethnography of Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canaan, J.(1987). Why a slut is a slut : Cautionary tales of middle-class teenage grils.(pp.184-208) In Varenne Herve(Ed.) Symbolizing America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Clarricoates,K.（1980）The importance of being Ernest… Emma…Tom…Jane：The perception and categorization of gender conformity and gender deviation in primary schools. In R. Deem (Ed.) Schooling for women’s work. London：Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Clarricoates,K.（1980）All in a day’s work. In D. Spender & E. Sarah (Eds.) Learning to lose: Sexism and education.pp.69-80. Women’s Press.
Clarricoates,K.(1981). The experience of patriarchal schooling. Interchange,12(2-3). 185-205.
Coleman,J.C (1980). Friendship and the peer group in adolescence. In J. Adelson(Ed.) Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York：John Wiley & Sons.
Coleman,J.C. & Hendry L.(1990). The nature of adolescence(2nd). London and New York：Routledge.
Connell,R.W.(1977). Ruling class, Ruling culture：Studies of conflict,power and hegemony in Australian. London: Canbridge university press.
Connell,R.W.,Dowsett,G.W.,Kessler,S., & Ashenden,D.J.(1981). Class and gender dynamics in a ruling-class school. Interchange,12(2-3).102-117.
Connell,R.W.,Ashenden,D.J.,Kessler,S.,& Dowsett,G.W.(1982). Making the difference: Schools,families and social division. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Connell,R.W.(1989). Gool guys,swots and wimps：the interplay of masculinity and education. Oxford Review of Education,15(3).291-303.
Connell,R.W.(1995). Masculinities. London： Polity Press.
Connell,R.W.(1996). Teaching the boys：New research on masculinity, and gender strategies for schools. Teacher College Record,98(2).206-235.
Deem,R.(1980).Women,work and schooling：The relevance of gender. In R.Deem (Ed.) Schooling for women’s work.pp.1-12. London：Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dusk,J.B.(1996). Adolescent development and behavior. New Jersey：Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.
Eckert,P.(1989). Jocks & Burnouts : Social categories and identity in the high school. New York and London：Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eder,D. & Parker,S.(1987). The cultural production and reproduction of gender：The effect of extracurricular activities on peer-group culture. Sociology of Education,60.200-213.
Eder,D.,Colleen Evans,C.,& Parker,S.(1995).School talk：gender and adolescent culture. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Eder,D.(1997). Sexual Aggression within the school culture. In B.J.Bank & P.M.Hall(eds) Gender,equity,and schooling：Policy and practice. New York and London： Carland Publishings,Inc.
Erikson,E.H. (1968). Identity,Youth, and crisis. New York : Norton.
Francis,B. (1999). Lads lasses and (new) labour：14-16-year-old students responses to the "laddish" behaviour and boys' underachievement debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education,20(3),355-371.
Gaine,C. & George,R.(1999). Gender, race and class in schooling：a new introduction. London：Falmer Press.
Ghaill,M. M.(1994). The making of men:masculinity,sexualities and schooling. Open University Press.
Golombok,S., & Fivush,R.(1994). Gender development.Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University.
Giroux, H. A.(1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope. Harper Collins:Westview Press.
Harvey,G. & Hergert,L.F.(1986). Strategies for achieving sex equity in education. Theory into Practice,25(4),290-299.
Henricksen,H.V.(1981). Class and gender：Role model considerations and liberations in advanced capitalism. Interchange,12(2-3). 151-164.
Kenway,J. & Modra,H.(1992). Feminist pedagogy and emancipatory possibilities. In C. Luke, & J.Gore(Eds),Feminisms and critical pedagogy(pp.138-166). New York： Routledge.
Kessler,S.,Ashenden,D.J.,Connell,R.W.,& Dowsett,G.W.(1985). Gender relations in secondary schooling. Sociology of Education,58. 34-48.
Lambert,B.G.,Rothschild,B.F.,Altland,R. & Geen,L.B.(1972). Adolescence： Transition from childhood to maturity. Monterey,Calif：Brooks/Cole.
McConnell,D.(1997). Interaction patterns of mixed sex group in educational computer conferences Part I—empirical findings. Gender and education,9(3).345-363.
McRobbie,A. & Nava,M.(1984). Gender and generation. London:Macmillan.
McRobbie,A. (1991). Feminism and youth culture：From jackie to just seventeen. London：Macmillan Education LTD.
Nava,M.(1984). Youth service provision, social order and the queation of girls. In A.McRobbie & M.Nava(1984). Gender and generation.pp.1-30 London:Macmillan
O’Neill,N.J.(1973). Class and social consciousness：variations in the social perspectives of industrial workers. Unpublished PHd thesis,University of Hull.
Oswald,H., Krappmann,L., Chowdhuri,I.,& Salish,M.(1987) Gaps and bridges: Interactions between girls and boys in elementary school. Sociological Studies of Child Development.2,205-223.
Patton,P.(1998). Foucault's subject of power. In M. Jeremy(Ed.), The Later Foucault：Politics and philosophy.(pp.64-77) London：Sage Publications.
Proweller,A.(1998). Constructing female identities：Meaning making in an upper middle class youth culture. New York：State University of New York Press.
Pyke,K.D.(1996). Class-based masculinities：The interdependence of gender,class and interpersonal power. Gender & Society,10(5).527-544.
Renzetti,C.M. & Curran,D.J.(1992). Women, men and Society (2nd.ed.). Boston,MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Rice,F.P.(1993). The adolescent：development,relationships and culture. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Richardson,L. & Taylor,V.(1989). Feminist frontiers：Rethinking sex ,gender and society. New York: Random House.
Russell,S.(1987). The hidden curriculum of school：reproducing gender and class hierarchies. In R. Hamilton & M. Barrettpp（Eds.）The politics of diversity.pp.343-360.
Sadker,M. & Sadker,D.(1985a). Is the o.k. classroom o.k.? Phi Delta Kappan,66,358-361.
Sadker,M. & Sadker,D.(1985b). Sexism in the schoolroom of the 80s. Psychology Today,54-47.
Sadker,M. & Sadker,D.(1985c). Effectiveness and equity in college teaching : Final report. Washington,DC： Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
Sadker,M. & Sadker,D.(1994). Failing at fairness : How America's school cheat Girl. NY : Charles Scribner's Sons.
Seidman,I.E.(1991). Interviewing as qualitative research:A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. N.Y.:Teachers College Press.
Thorne, B.(1993). Gender Play:girls and boys in school. Rutgers University Press.
Uchida,A.(1997). Bringing the culture back in：A culture building approach to gender and communication. Women and Language,20(2).15-24.
Walker,S. & Barton,L.(1983). Gender, class and gender. The Falmer Press.
Weiler,K.(1988). Women teaching for change: Gender,class & power. London:Bergin & Garvey.
Weiner,G.(1994). Feminisms in education：an introduction. Buckingham Philadelphia：Open University Press.
Willis,P.(1977).Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Farnborough：Saxon House.
Wood,J.(1984). Grouping towards sexism：boys’ sex talk. In McRobbie,A. & Nava,M.(1984). Gender and generation.pp.54-84. London:Macmillan