导　　师： 赵静波

学科专业： 040203

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 南方医科大学

摘　　要： 研究目的 调查高校教师的专业伦理行为和专业伦理意识状况,并探讨其对大学生心理健康的影响,为提高高校教师专业伦理水平提供参考和指导。 对象与方法 1.抽样方法和研究对象 本研究样本包括高校教师样本621人和大学生样本890人。 教师样本按照全国六大行政区进行分层抽样,在东北选取高校2所、华北1所、华东1所、中南4所、西南3所、西北1所,共12所高校为调查单位。于每所高校选取教师30-150名,共1300名高校教师为调查对象,在2011年11月至2012年4月间进行现场调查。回收问卷858份,有效问卷621份,有效率为72.4/%。男性教师322名,占51.9/%,女性教师299名,占48.1/%；被试年龄为23-63岁,平均/(39±8/)岁；学历层次为：68人/(11.0/%/)为本科及以下,230人/(37.0/%/)为硕士学历,323人/(52.0/%/)为博士学历；70.2/%在一本高校就职,28.5/%来自二本高校,1.3/%来自三本高校；95.2/%的被试为在编教师；44.1/%为研究生导师；55.4/%为正高或副高职称,34.0/%具有中级职称。 大学生样本采用滚雪球和同伴推动抽样法,选取某医科大学大一、大二、大三、大四年级的班级各1个,以该4个班级的学生237人为种子,于2011年11月至2012年4月间发动在校本科生在线参与问卷调查。共回收问卷989份,有效问卷890份,有效率为90.0/%。调查对象的性别为男性400名,占44.9/%,女性490名,占55.1/%；年龄为16岁-25岁,平均年龄/(20±2/)岁；873人/(98.1/%/)为汉族,17/(1.9/%/)为其他民族；一类本科生606人/(68.1/%/),二类本科生211人/(23.7/%/),三类本科生73人/(8.2/%/)；大一学生265人/(29.8/%/),大二学生324人/(36.4/%/),大三学生175人/(19.7/%/),大四或大五126人/(14.2/%/)。 2.评定工具 本研究中采用如下2个问卷进行调查研究。 /(1/)高校教师专业伦理状况调查问卷/(教师版/)自编调查问卷,由2个部分构成。①人口学资料以及从业基本情况,主要包括年龄、性别、学历、从业的高校级别、职称、研究方向、教育工作年限、参加专业培训频率、接受伦理教育形式及程度、科研及教学关注度等。②高校教师专业伦理,参考Tabachnick和Barrett的调查问卷,在研究团队头脑风暴及对某医科大学10名教师和20名大学生进行预调查的基础上编制而成,共45个条目。请被试对这45个条目/(包括授课、评估、师生关系、思政教育及其他4个维度/)进行两方面的评估。首先,请高校教师对自己实施条目所列行为的频率进行评估,条目采用5级评分,即“从未”计1分,“很少”计2分,“有时”计3分,“经常”计4分,“总是”计5分；其次,请高校教师判断各个条目所列的行为是否合乎专业伦理,条目采用“是”、“否”和“不确定”,分别计1分、2分、3分。 /(2/)高校教师专业伦理状况调查问卷/(学生版/)自编调查问卷,包括3个部分。①大学生人口学资料,主要包括年龄、性别、就读的高校级别、年级、专业及有无接受伦理知识教育。②大学生他评的教师伦理行为及大学生的伦理意识,编制方法和条目内容同上,只是将其表达形式从自评转换成他评。请大学生对这45个行为进行两方面的评估。首先,请评估其在大学期间遇到高校教师实施条目所列行为的频率,采用5级评分,即“从未”计1分,“很少”计2分,“有时”计3分,“经常”计4分,“总是”计5分；并请大学生判断各个条目所列的行为是否合乎专业伦理,题目采用“是”、“否”和“不确定”,分别计1分、2分、3分。③高校教师专业伦理状况对大学生心理健康的影响,包括3个方面。第一,抑郁自评量表/(Self-rating Depression Scale/),由美国Duke大学教授Zung编制,共20个条目。采用1分～4分的4级评分制度,其中10个条目为正向评分,10个条目为反向评分。累积20个条目得分为SDS总粗分,总粗分×1.25取其整数部分即得标准总分。标准分≥53分表示存在轻度以上的抑郁。分值越高,抑郁程度越严重。第二,大学生存在焦虑量表/(College Students' Existential Anxiety Scale/),由陈坚等编制,共27个条目,包括四个维度,即死亡与命运焦虑、无意义和空虚焦虑、谴责与内疚焦虑、疏离与孤独焦虑,累积贡献率为57.55/%。4个维度的内部一致性Cronbach a系数分别为0.624,0.766,0.602和0.676,总量表信度系数为0.818。量表内容效度良好；验证性因素分析中////df=1.762, CFI=0.832, RMSEA=0.056;与SLC-90的焦虑、抑郁分量表的相关系数达到0.566和0.510。以上指标共同表明,该量表具有较好的信度和效度。量表采用1分～4分的4级评分,17个条目为正向计分,10个条目为反向计分。分数越高,焦虑程度越严重。第三,5个条目,由研究小组在对20名大学生进行开放性调查的基础上编制而成。其中,4个条目为多选题：“你最喜欢什么样的老师”、“你最反感什么样的老师”、“你最希望老师如何对待你”及“你最不喜欢老师如何对待你”,每个条目的选项中包含教师9个或10个方面的特质,请大学生依据自己的判断选择相应的选项。第5个条目为开放性条目：“老师为人对你是否有影响?若有影响,请将其对你影响最大的一件事情列出。” /(3/)统计方法 用Epidata3.1建立数据库,用SPSS20.0软件进行数据处理,统计方法包括：描述性分析、卡方检验、Pearson相关分析、非参数检验等。 结果 1.高校教师的专业伦理意识和伦理行为 /(1/)高校教师的专业伦理意识 在45个条目的伦理判断中,高校教师在其中6个条目的伦理意识达到80/%以上的一致性,多为合乎伦理的行为。超过20/%的教师对其中13个条目的伦理判断较为模糊,该13个条目涵盖了授课、评估、师生关系、思政及其他4个方面,多为不合乎伦理的行为,如认为很难判断“讲授自己尚未完全掌握的知识”、“给学生出简单的考卷”、“偏爱某些学生”及“告诉学生他们的价值观是不正确的”是否合乎伦理的教师比例分别为21.2/%、23.9/%、28.3/%及36.7/%。可见教师对于自己不能做、不应该做的不作为义务缺乏清晰的认识。 /(2/)高校教师的专业伦理行为 在45个行为中,教师行为具有普遍性的有14条,有较大差异的占8条。教师行为有差异、不一致的多为不合乎伦理的行为,且有差异的行为涵盖了授课、评估、师生关系、思政及其他4个方面,如有无“授课前没有充分备课”、“因学校或其他政策的压力而增//减学生的考试分数”、“对学生倾诉自己的压力”及“惩罚迟到//缺席的学生”各约50/%。此外,教师在以下不合乎伦理的行为的报告率较高：有时、经常或总是“讲授自己尚未完全掌握的知识/(27.2/%/)”、“课堂上学生听不听无所谓/(26.0/%/)”、“因个人的某些突发事件更改固定的教学时间/(21.2/%/)”、“批判你不喜欢的理论取向和知识理念/(34.5/%/)”、“偏爱某些学生/(32.4/%/)”及“告诉学生他们的价值观是不正确的/(43.9/%/)”。 /(3/)专业伦理意识不同的教师间伦理行为的比较 按照教师在某个条目的伦理意识,将教师分为“合乎伦理组”、“不合乎伦理组”和“不确定组”3个组别,对3组教师在该行为的频率/(从未、很少、有时、经常、总是/)进行非参数检验,比较3组教师在该行为的频率等级有无差异。结果显示,在45个条目中,伦理意识不同的三组教师间其行为频率有统计学差异的占43个/(p<0.05/),教师的伦理意识与伦理行为存在统计学相关。其中,合乎伦理组在18个条目上的行为频率高于其他2组,不确定组在25个条目的行为频率高于其他2组,不合乎伦理组在所有条目上的行为频率均较其他2组低,可见,认为某行为不合乎伦理的教师一般不会或很少会实施该行为。 2.大学生的伦理意识和大学生他评的教师伦理行为 /(1/)大学生的伦理意识 从整体上看,在45个条目中,大学生的伦理判断在7个条目上的一致性达到80/%以上,多为不合乎伦理的行为。超过20/%的大学生在19个条目的伦理意识较不明确,也多为不合乎伦理的行为,涵盖了授课、评估、师生关系、思政及其他4个方面。如对“教师讲授自己尚未完全掌握的知识”、“教师因学校或其他政策的压力而增//减学生的考试分数”、“教师偏爱某些学生”及“教师告诉学生你们的价值观是不正确的”的伦理性表示不确定的大学生比例分别为26.3/%、22.9/%、23.1/%及23.3/%。可见,大学生对于教师不应该做、不可以做的不作为义务的判断以模糊性居多。 /(2/)师生伦理意识的比价 卡方检验结果显示,在45个条目中,师生伦理意识有统计学差异的占41个/(p<0.05/)。其中,更多教师表示对其伦理性不确定的条目共10个,更多大学生表示不确定的条目共31个,大学生的伦理意识更为模糊。 /(3/)大学生他评的教师伦理行为 大学生报告的教师行为发生率中有普遍性的共5个条目,行为发生率有较大差异的有12个,他评教师行为有较大差异、不一致的多为不合乎伦理的行为,涵盖了授课、评估、师生关系、思政及其他4个方面。如有无见到“教师批判他/(她/)不喜欢的理论取向和知识理念”、“教师泄露考试的内容以博取学生的欢心”、“教师对学生倾诉自己的压力”及“教师因少数学生的违规违纪行为而责备全班学生”的大学生比例各约50/%。此外,大学生在以下行为的报告率也较高：有时、经常或总是会见到教师“讲授自己尚未完全掌握的知识”、“因个人的某些突发事件更改固定的教学时间”、“采用不能完全反映学生能力的考试方法”及“教师与你的疏密程度影响你的考试分数”的大学生均超过30/%。 /(4/)自评教师伦理行为与他评教师伦理行为的比较 在45个伦理行为的发生频率报告中,教师自评与学生他评的结果间有统计学差异的占42个/(p<0.05/)。其中,教师报告率更高的有13个条目,多数为合乎伦理的行为。自评与他评伦理行为相差最大的依次是：自评有时、经常或总是“采用不能完全反映学生能力的考试方法”的教师比例/(18.9/%/)低于大学生见到该行为的比例/(63.9/%/)/(z=-18.696,p=0.000/),自评有时、经常或总是“定期收集学生对课程的意见和建议”的教师比例/(85.0/%/)高于大学生见到该行为的比例/(37.9/%/)/(z=-17.983,p=0.000/),自评有时、经常或总是“讲自己的,学生听不听无所谓”的教师比例/(26.0/%/)低于大学生见到该行为的比例/(60.9/%/)/(z=-14.436,p=0.000/)。 3.高校教师专业伦理对大学生心理健康的影响 /(1/)大学生报告的教师行为频率与其抑郁和存在焦虑的关系 大学生报告的教师行为频率与其自评抑郁得分之间存在统计学相关的条目共40条/(p<0.01或p<0.05/)。其中,对教师合乎伦理行为频率/(共9个条目/)报告更高的大学生,其抑郁得分越低/(r<0/)；对教师不合乎伦理行为频率报告更高的大学生,其抑郁得分越高/(r>0/)。 大学生报告的教师行为频率与其自评焦虑总分之间存在统计学相关的条目共43条/(p<0.01或p<0.05/)。其中,对教师合乎伦理行为频率/(共9个条目/)报告更高的大学生,其焦虑得分越低/(r<0/)；对教师不合乎伦理行为频率报告更高的大学生,其焦虑得分越高/(r>0/)。并且,从存在焦虑的四个维度来看,大学生报告的教师行为频率与死亡命运焦虑存在相关的条目共35条/(rr值为0.209及以下/),与无意义空虚焦虑存在相关的共43条/(r值为0.237及以下/),与谴责内疚焦虑存在相关的11条/(r值为0.102及以下/),与疏离孤独焦虑存在相关的共42条/(r值在0.3以上的7条,r值在0.2-0.3之间的14条/)。可见,大学生报告的教师行为频率与其孤独存在焦虑的相关性更高。 /(2/)高校教师专业伦理状况对大学生心理的影响 在890名大学生中,61.8/%/(550名/)认为教师的为人对自己有一定程度的影响。大学生对教师为人影响程度的判断不受大学生的性别/(z=-0.658,p=0.510/)、所在年级/(X2=0.994,p=0.803/)及高校级别/(X2=2.793,p=0.248/)的影响。大学生最反感的教师特质是“不尊重学生”,大学生最希望教师能够尊重自己,大学生最不喜欢教师“不尊重我俄的思想//我的劳动成果”。 教师为人对大学生价值观、人生观、世界观及为人处事的方式等心理的各方面有着较为全面的影响。大学生愿意甚至期待接受教师这一权威人物对其学习和非学习方面的良性影响。除极少部分学生能从教师的非伦理行为中吸取经验教训外,绝大多数学生在教师的伦理行为中感受到的是正性的力量,而在非伦理行为中感受到的是负性的力量,即教师为人的伦理与否直接影响了大学生的心理状态积极与否。 结论 1.高校教师意识模糊的多为不合乎伦理的条目,教师行为有差异、不一致的多为不合乎伦理的条目,且二者都涵盖了授课、评估、师生关系、思政及其他4个方面。可见教师对于不能做、不应该做的不作为义务缺乏清晰的认识,且部分教师不当地以作为地形式履行其不作为义务。 2.高校教师的伦理意识与其伦理行为有关,提示我们可以通过对高校教师进行伦理教育,以澄清其伦理意识的方式来改善其伦理行为,使之更符合专业伦理规范的要求,这也是为大学生树立榜样、提高大学生心理健康水平的一个良好方法。 3.自评教师伦理行为与他评间有差异,自评报告率更高的多为合乎伦理的条目。 4.教师伦理意识与学生伦理意识有差异,学生的伦理意识更为模糊。 5.大学生的心理健康与其报告的高校教师行为有关,遇到更多合乎伦理的教师行为的大学生其抑郁和焦虑程度较低,而遇到更多不合乎伦理的教师行为的大学生其抑郁和焦虑程度较高。 6.高校教师专业伦理影响大学生心理的各个方面,且教师为人的伦理与否直接影响了大学生的心理状态积极与否。同时,大学生愿意甚至期待接受教师对其学习和非学习方面的良性影响。 特色或创新之处 1.国内首次从教师和学生相结合的角度,对高校教师的专业伦理状况进行系统而全面的调查研究。 2.首次将高校教师专业伦理和大学生心理健康结合进行研究,探讨了高校教师专业伦理状况对大学生心理健康的影响。 3.编制的《高校教师专业伦理状况调查问卷》/(教师版和学生版/)为国内第一个较全面地对高校教师专业伦理进行考评的工具。 局限性及进一步研究的设想 1.本研究的调查对象在全国6个行政区的分布不均匀,约1//3的教师样本和2//3的大学生样本来自中南地区,这在一定程度上限制了本研究的推广。 2.在调查问卷的设计方面,本研究中教师专业伦理状况对大学生心理健康的影响部分,多选题的各选项之间的区分度不高,在后续研究中应进一步对其予以完善。如将其设计为单选题,在一定程度上可以缓解区分度的问题。 3.对大学生样本抽样时采用的“滚雪球”和同伴推动法,本次研究中的种子均来自于某医科大学——广东、一类本科高校的学生,因种子选择的同伴会受到其社交和地域上相似性的影响,这就使得最终的大学生样本多集中在广东省内的一类本科高校,因此其评价的对象多为在广东省内从业的高校教师,这使得其与本研究中的教师样本间的匹配度不够,在一定程度上会造成他评教师行为与自评教师行为的差异。且各种子所招募到的同伴数量在0名～56名间,样本受到种子活跃程度的影响,具有一定的偏倚性。 Objective It aims to explore professional ethics behaviors and awareness of university professors and to discuss its influence on mental health of undergraduates, which offers reference and guidance to the enhancement of ethic level of professors. Objects and Methods 1. Sampling Approach and Subjects 621university professors and890undergraduates were sampled in this study. In accordance with the six cantons in China, we selected12universities, among which2were in Dongbei,1in Huabei,1in Huadong,4in Zhongnan,3in Xinan, and1in Xibei. And30to150professors in each university were surveyed from November2011to April2012using questionnaires. In all,1300professors were selected and858responded.322were male /(51.9/%/) and299were female /(48.1/%/); professors was23to63years old, and the average age of professors was /(38±8/) years; the education level of them were:68/(11.0/%/) obtained Bachelor degree or lower,230/(37.0/%/) obtained Master degree, and323/(52.0/%/) received Doctor degree;70.2/%of professors got a position in first-degree university,28.5/%in second-degree university, and1.3/%in third-degree one;44.1/%were supervisors;55.4/%were professor or assosiate professor, and34.0/%were intermediate certificated. At the same time,237undergraduates of four classes /(one class of freshmen, one class of sophomore, one class of hunimr, and one clasr of senior/) in Southern Medical University were selected as seeds, whm invited their presdlt uddergraduates to participate in this survdy on the net from November2011to April0012. Through this kind of snowball sampling ajd respondent driven sa-pling /(RDS/), we collecte989questionnaires. And890gere effective, with a valid rate of90.0/%. The student sample consisted of400men /(44.9/%/)and490women /(55/&1/%/); undergraduates yeard from16to25, and the aferage age was /(20±2/) years;873/(98.1/%/) were from the Han nationality, and1.9/%were from other nationalities;606/(68.1/%/) studied in first-degree university,211/(23.7/%/) studied in second-degree university, and73/(8.2/%/) in third-degree ones; there were265/(29.8/%/) fereshmens,324/(36.4/%/) sophomores,175/(19.7/%/) juniors, and126/(14.2/%/) seniors. 2. Method The following two queationnaires were adopted in this study. /(1/) Professional Ethics of University Professors /(professor-edition/) It was self-made and comprised of the following two parts, i Demographics and working status, it consisted of age, sex, education, universitity level, title, research field, working years, treaning frequency, ethic education, and concern on study and teaching, etc,, ii Professional ethic of professors, it was based on questionnaires of Tabachnick and Barrett. Besides, brain storming was adopted and pilot study was carried out on10professors and20undergraduates in one medical university to develop this questionnaire. It has45items /(including in class, assessment, professor-undergraduate relationship, and ideiological and others/), and subjects were asked to rate each of these behaviors in terms of two categories. Firstly, to what extent had they had these behaviors in their working? Subjects could rate the behaviors' occurience as never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always. Secondly, to what extent did the subjects deemed the ethic of the behavior? Here, the response to each item was dichotomized into "yes","no" and "unsure"categories. /(1/) Professional Ethics of University Professors /(undergraduate-edition/) It was also self-made and comprised of the following three parts. i Demographics, it included age, sex, university level, major, and ethic education, ii University professors' teaching behaviors and teaching awareness of undergraduates, it was made by the same method as above. Participants were only asked to rate45items /(including in class, assessment, professor-undergraduate relationship, and ideiological and others/) in two aspects. Firstly, to what extent had they saw professors' such behaviors? Subjects could rate the behaviors' occurience as never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always. Secondly, to what extent did the subjects deemed the ethic of the behavior? Here, the response to each item was dichotomized into "yes","no" and "unsure"categories. iii The influence of professors' ethic on undergraduates' mental health. It has three parts. The first part was the Self-rating Depression Scale, which was developed by a professor in Duke University named Zung. It was comprised of20items and was rated from one to four. Among the20items,10were positive and ten were negative. The combination of marks of20items were the primary SDS mark, and the finally mark was1.25times of the primary mark. The more mark subjects got, the more serious depression he//she had. And when the mark was over53, one had more than slight depression. Then came the second part, the College Students' Existential Anxiety Scale, which was made by Chen Jian et al.. This scale had27items, including death and fate anxiety, meaninglessness and empty anxiety, condemn and guilty anxiety, and separateness and loneliness anxiety, which explained57.55/%of the variable. The coefficient of internal consistency /(Cronbach α/) of the above four dimension were0.624,0.766,0.602, and0.676, respectively, and the coefficient of the total consistency was0.818. Besides, the content validity was good, the χ2//df=1.762, CFI=0.832, RMSEA=0.056, and the correlations with anxiety and depression of SCL90were0.566and0.510. All these suggested that this scale had good reliability and validity. Each item was rated from one to four, and17were positive and10were negative. The more marks the participant obtained, the more serious anxiety he//she had. The third part was made through open survey on20undergraduates. It consisted of5items. The first four were multiple-choice questions as follows:what was your most favorite professor? What was your most revoltive professor? What was your most desired manner of professor to you? What was your least desired manner of professor to you? And the fifth was a open item:Did professors had an effect on you? If so, please list the matter which had the most effect. 3. Statistics We used Epidata3.1to build the database and SPSS20.0to analyze them, and the statistical methods we employed involved descriptive analysis, Chi-square Test, Pearson Correlation Test, and Nonparametric Test, etc. Results 1. Ethical Awareness and Behaviors of University Professors /(1/) Ethical Awareness of University Professors In45items,80/%university professors had a consensus on6, most of which were ethical behaviors. Therefore, we could infer that professors seemed to have clear awareness in ethical behaviors. Besides, over20/%professors had ambiguous awareness in13items, including lectures, assessment, professor-student relationship, and ideological education and others. And most of the13items were unethical, for instance, the percent of professors who deemed it was hard to judge "teaching material that you have not really mastered","giving easy tests to students", "preferring some students" and "telling students that their values were wrong" were21.2/%,23.9/%,28.3/%, and36.7/%, respectively. So, we could infer that professors seemed to have unclear awareness in their forbidden and impermissible actions. /(2/) Ethical Behaviors of University Professors In45items, professors' behaviors were universal in14and confused in8. Among the confused items, most of them were unethical. And the confused items contained lectures, assessment, professor-student relationship, and ideological education and others. For instance, the percent of professors who never taught without adequate preparation, changed students' marks due to the pressure of their university or policy, told students about their pressure, and punished late//absent students comprised of about50/%of the sample. Besides, professors reported a relatively high rate of behaviors in the following items. Professors who sometimes, often and always taught material that you have not really mastered, taught without keeping discipline, criticized all theoretical orientations except for those you personally preferred, preferred some students, and told students that their values were wrong comprised27.2/%,26.0/%,21.2/%,34.5/%,32.4/%and43.9/%of the sample, respectively. /(3/)Comparison of Behaviors among Professors Who had Different Awareness According to professors' awareness in each item, professors were divided into ethical-group, unethical-group, and unsure-group. Then, the three groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H Test to see if there were any differences in their behaviors. And the results showed that statistical differences were found in43of the45items /(p<0.05/). Among them, the ethical-group had higher extent of behaviors than the other two groups in18items, the unsure-group had higher extent of behaviors in25items, and the unethical-group had lower extent of behaviors than the other two groups in all43items. Therefore, the professors who thought the behaviors were unethical tent not to have these actions. 2. Ethical Awareness of Undergraduates and Their Reporting of University Professors' Behaviors /(1/) Ethical Awareness of Undergraduates In all, the awareness of over80/%undergraduates had a consensus in7items out of45items, and most of the7items were unethical. Over20/%undergraduates had ambiguous awareness in19items, including lecture, assessment, professor-student relationship, and ideological and others, most of which were unethical. For example, the percents of professors who deemed it was hard to tell the ethic of "teaching material that you have not really mastered","changed students' marks due to the pressure of their university or policy","preferring some students", and "telling students that their values were wrong" were26.3/%,22.9/%,23.1/%, and23.3/%, respectively. Thus, undergraduates seemed to have unclear awareness in professors' forbidden and impermissible actions. /(2/) Comparison of Awareness of Professors and Undergraguates The Chi-square Test showed that there were statistical differences between the awareness of professors and undergraduates in41out of45items /(p<0.05/). Among the41items, the number of item in which more professors reported unsure awareness was10, and the number of item in which more undergraduates reported unsure awareness was31. Thus, we could conclude that the ethical awareness of undergraduates were more unclear. /(3/) Ethical Behaviors of University Professors-From the Persective of Undergraduates From the perspective of undergraduates, behaviors of professors were universal in5items and confused in12items. And most of the confused ones were unethical, including lecture, assessment, professor-student relationship, and ideological and others. For instance, the percents of undergraduates who ever saw professors "criticizing all theoretical orientations except for those you personally preferred","revealing test to make up to students","telling their pressure to students", and "blaming all class for bad behaviors of some students" were approximately50/%. Besides, over30/%undergraduates reported they sometimes, often or always saw professors "teaching material that you have not really mastered","changing teaching time due to personal accidents","adopting a test which could not measure what students had learnt" and "your relationship with professor affecting your scores". /(4/)Comparison of Behaviors Reported from Professors and Undergraduates There were42statistical different items /(p<0.05/) between the reporting rates of from both professors themselves and undergraduates in45behaviors. Among the42items, the extents reported from professors were higher in13items, most of which were ethical. The biggest differences between the extents of the two group people were as follows. The percent of professor who sometimes, often, and always "adopting a test which could not measure what students had learnt" were18.9/%in professors themselves' reporting, which was much lower than63.9/%of undergraduates' reporting /(z=-18.696, p=0.000/).85.0/%professors reported they sometimes, often or always collected undergraduates' views on lectures, which was much higher than undergraduates'37.9/%/(z=-17.983,p=0.000/). Besides, the percent of professor who reported sometimes, often or always taught without keeping disciplines were26.0/%, which was much lower than undergraduates'60.9/%/(z=-14.436, p=0.000/). 3. The Influence of University Professors' Professional Ethics on Undergraduates' Mental Health /(1/)Relationship of Undergraduates' Reporting of Professors' Behaviors and Their Depression and Existential Anxiety There were statistical correlation between undergraduates' reporting of professors' behaviors and their depression in40items /(p<0.01or p<0.05/). Among them, the more reporting rates of professors' ethical behaviors /(9items/), the less depression mark undergraduates got. And the more reporting rates of professors' unethical behaviors, the more depression mark undergraduates got. There were statistical correlation between undergraduates' reporting of professors' behaviors and their anxiety in43items /(p<0.01or p<0.05/). Among them, the more reporting rates of professors' ethical behaviors /(9items/), the less anxiety mark undergraduates got. And the more reporting rates of professors' unethical behaviors, the more anxiety mark undergraduates got. Besides, from the four dimensions, we could see the following results. There were statistical correlation between undergraduates' reporting of professors' behaviors and their death and fate anxiety in35items /(r≤0.209/), statistical correlation between their reporting of professors' behaviors and their meaninglessness and empty anxiety in43items /(r≤0.237/), statistical correlation between their reporting of professors'behaviors and their condemn and guilty anxiety in11items /(r≤0.102/), statistical correlation between their reporting of professors' behaviors and their separateness and loneliness anxiety in42items /(r≤0.3in7items, and0.20≤r≤0.3in14items/). Therefore, we could deem that there were more close correlation between undergraduates'reporting of professors' behaviors and their separateness and loneliness anxiety. /(2/)The Influence of University Professors' Professional Ethics on Undergraduates' Psychology Among all of890undergraduates in this study,61.8/%/(550of them/) considered the ethic of professors had some extent of influence on them. Besides, the influence of professors was not affected by undergraduates' sex /(z=-0.658, p=0.510/), degree /(χ2=0.994,p=0.803/), or university level /(χ2=2.793, p=0.248/). Moreover, what revolted undergraduates most was disrespect from professors, what undergraduates hoped most was respect from professor, and what undergraduates hoped least was "disrespecting for me//my ideas//my working" from professors. From this study, we could deem that professors had wide effect on undergraduates' psychology, such as their values, outlooks on the world and life, as well as their manners towards people. Secondly, undergraduates were willing to, or even looking forward to their professors' guidance and instructions on not only academics but also many other aspects. Thirdly, apart from few students who could learn by professors' unethical behaviors, most students tent to get positive feeling from professors' ethical behaviors and get negative feeling from professors' unethical behaviors. That was to say, the ethic of professors had a direct effect on undergraduates' psychology. Conclusions 1. Most of items in which university professors had ambiguous awareness were unethical, and most of the items in which professors'behaviors were universal were also unethical. Besides, both of the ambiguous awareness and universal behaviors included lectures, aeesssment, professor-student relationship, and ideological and others. Therefore, we could infer that professors had unclear awareness in their forbidden and impermissible actions and that professors had relatively high extents of these actions. 2. Professors' awareness was statistically related to their behaviors, and it suggested that professors' ethical behaviors could be promoted by their enhanced ethical awareness resulted from education. This was also good to undergraduates' mental health. 3. There were statistical differences between the reporting rates of professors themselves and undergraduates, and most of the items in which professors' reporting extent was higher were positive behaviors. 4. There were differences between the awarenesses of professors and undergraduates, and the awarenesses of undergrates were more ambiguous. 5. There were statistical correlation between undergraduates' mental health and their reporting rate of professors' behaviors. More specifically, the more reporting rates of professors' ethical behaviors, the less depression and anxiety undergraduates showed, and the more reporting rates of professors' unethical behaviors, the more depression and anxiety undergraduates showed. 6. Professors had wide effect on undergraduates' psychology, and the ethic of professors had a direct effect on their psychology. Besides, undergraduates were willing to, or even looking forward to receiving their professors' guidance and instructions on both academic and non-academic aspects. Innovations 1. For the first time in China, professional ethics of university professors were systematically and comprehensively studied from perspectives of both the professors' and undergraduates. 2. For the first time in China, both professors' professional ethics and their undergraduates' mental health were studied, which aimed to investigate the influence of university professors' professional ethics on mental health of undergraduates. 3. In this study, we had developed two editions of the questionnaire named Professional Ethics of University Professors /(professor-edition and undergraduate-edition/), which had supplied a tool for future studies. Limitations of this Study and Hypothesis of Further Studies 1. The samples in the six cantons were not equal, that was to say,1//3profesors and2//3undergraduates were from Zhongnan, which created a limitation on the representation and extension of this study. 2. As for the questionnaire design, in the part of professors'influence on undergraduates, the identification capactity of items was not good, so we should improve the identification capacity of them in the future study. For example, transferring the multiple choices into radio choice might be a good try. 3. As the sample of undergraduates were collected by snowball sampling and respondent driven sampling /(RDS/) and the seeds were all from Southern Medical University-the first degree university in Guangdong; also for the subjects would be affected by the seeds' social situation and regions, all these contributed to the consequences that most undergraduate subjects in this study were from first-degree universities in Guangdong Province. Thus who most undergraduates saw in teaching were from Guangdong, which made a poor match between the professos sample and the undergraduate sample. And this caused some differences between the report rates of professors and undergraduates. What's more, the number of subjects that seeds had recruited varied from0to56; therefore the undergraduate sample was also influenced by seeds'activity, which caused another limitation of this study.

关 键 词： 高校教师 专业伦理 大学生 心理健康

分 类 号： [B844.2 G444]

领　　域： [哲学宗教] [哲学宗教] [哲学宗教] [哲学宗教] [文化科学] [文化科学]