Introduction
Within the last 10 years increased attention has been given to the LGBT community and their civil rights. The issues of gender are now being debated in schools and impacting educational communities. The term transgender has undoubtedly been a popular term in recent times. The idea of being transgender seeks to break down cultural norms of gender and categorizing. In this literature review the focus takes on different implications of how the LGBT community has impacted the way in which children are socializing. Schools are experiencing a SSA (Same Sex Attracted) phenomenon where young people are receiving a lot of attention based on their nonconformity to gender norms (Ullman, 2015). Furthermore, the study examines teacher interaction with children to see if there is a way that boys and girls are treated and spoke to.
De Palma (2013) discusses the role that gender plays in schools. Her article “Choosing to lose our gender expertise: queering sex/gender in school settings” discusses the normality and “common sense approach to how students and teachers alike look at gender. She calls these “common sense views” and makes an additional point that most people are too sure about what gender is. De Palma (2013) surmises that to lose these norms that society has of gender, means to deconstruct everything society was taught to believe. This requires a loss of expertise. De Palma (2013) believes that queering questions this social order. She acknowledges that the discussion of queer ideology usually focuses on sexuality, she chooses to focus on gender. According to De Palma (2013), “I wish to concentrate on specifically queering sex and gender in this paper in order to explore some of the complexities particular to the policing of sex/gender norms. Research in primary school settings shows that this policing begins even among very young children” (p. 2).
De Palma (2013) believes that children need to be able to distinguish between gender identities. She said the fear is that these children could automatically be looked at as gay or progay. Furthermore, she believes that because these ideologies exist, then there needs to be a sex education associated with it. However, Malins (2016) disagrees with this assessment of gay dynamics in school. She believes that teachers should not lean on the old social norms of male and female construction. Ullman (2015) shares a time where a student discussed getting in front of a class and discussing her relationship with her girlfriend. Other students called her “faggot” and other derogatory names. She said that the teacher “rolled her eyes” and was not supportive. She never addressed the negative remarks made by other students. This will prove Malins’ point that training teachers to deal with “new” gender norms is important in fostering an emotionally safe learning environment.
Working with transgenders in the classroom has been a significant change in today’s times. Luecke (2011) explores this controversial and complex issue in her article, “Working with Transgender Children and Their Classmates in Pre-Adolescence: Just Be Supportive”. In the article the author discusses how an elementary school responded to a boy’s transition into become a transgendered female student. The writer makes an observation that a traditional school setting in the country has always included more traditional roles of girls and boy with no in-between. That in-between would be considered transgendered (Luecke, 2011). A transgendered person defies the society norms of male and female and identifies with the opposite gender. In this transition they take on the likes of their opposite sex. This includes dressing and “acting” like the opposite sex. Well this issue has impacted children and subsequently the school system. According to Luecke (2011) “When a child falls outside of these norms, school can be an uncomfortable place, and that child’s social-emotional and cognitive growth can be negatively impacted” (p. 116). Therefore the role of how schools handle this touchy issue has been observed in the last 10 years.
Other researchers have spent time examining how the “sexualisation” of girls impact their social behavior in schools. Kehily (2012) includes different perspectives on this topic. She provides the views of experts and girls themselves. The issue is not whether or not girls are being prematurely sexualized, but how the debate and controversies of the issue can be understood in a place and time. The author uses a deconstructionist approach in contextualizing the themes of this issue. The themes used in the research are childhood innocence and protection. The author uses four ways of exploring the issue, “the impact of second-wave feminism; the increased “sexualisation” of culture; the erotic potential of girls; and the lived experience of girlhood, as perspectives offering some explanatory power for present times” (Kehily, 2012, p. 255).
Kehily (2012) points out that there is a commercial aim to sexualize children through clothing and other products. This is a major concern for parents. The culprits appear to be retailers, television and the internet among other forms of media. Girls appear to be the major target. The author agrees with the assumption that this is a generation of “damaged girls”. The consequences of this paradigm are eating disorders, low-self-esteem and depression (Kehily, 2012). Therefore, the author argues that there needs to be more concern over the well-being of children. Consequently there is a link between premature “sexualisation” and consumption needs to be addressed considerably in this day and age. The author believes that the solution lies in further research on the connections between consumption and girls’ sexuality. She argues that discussion is vital in guiding the girls of a “lost generation”. The bigger solution is having a conversation with girls about their sexuality on different scales and address their concerns.
Harrop & Swinson (2011) discuss the implications of teacher talk to boys and girls in the classroom. The data suggests that the way in which teachers interact with boys and girl shows an imbalance. The observation focused on how teachers verbally spoke to the children. The authors note that while there have been earlier investigations of this dynamic, in more recent years new studies have taken place (Harrop & Swinson, 2011). The authors wanted to use the same methodologies of previous studies in order to assess current claims. The researches carefully observed behavior in secondary and primary schools. Before the study began, researchers were trained to observe. They were directed on what to look for in order to be consistent with their observations. The training continued until the researchers were satisfied with the level of observation presented. The observation method was accompanied with recording “teacher talk”. The research points out, “Teacher talk was recorded by frequency counting and pupil on-task behaviour was recorded by momentary time sampling at 10-second intervals” (Harrop & Swinson, 2011).
The results yielded similar results from older studies. The researchers found that teachers talked to boys more than girls in all of the six categories used to guide the study. The six categories being referred to were categorized by instruction and academic behavior. Other categories did not produce enough significance in the difference between the ways the students were communicated (Harrop & Swinson, 2011). It is believed that the reason that teachers spoke instruction to girls less is because the boys did not do as well on test. Therefore the teachers devoted most times directing the boys on the learning versus the girls. As far as completing work “on task” the girls had a mean of 865 while the boys were at 86%. Consequently, “It was also noted that more than half of the boys were off-task more than once in a lesson whereas less than one-third of the girls were off-task more than once, which strongly suggests that the boys’ lower on-task score was not a function of a few boys behaving badly” (Harrop & Swinson, 2011, p. 117). So what do these results mean in terms of gender balance? The implication is that teachers have a harder time managing boys than girls. Other research has indicated the same findings. Overall, with the findings of this study, these authors believe that the difference lie in the teacher talk. This represents the classroom management of the way boys respond versus girls.
Like Harrop & Swinson, Major & Santoro (2014) attempts to discuss the discourse of gender balance in school environments. Much to the disappointment of feminists, inteacher education programs the subject of gender is a relatively silent one. The authors believe that the stereotypical views of girls and boys can dominate the way teachers talk and treat them. Therefore the greater issue of identity-construction is rooted in this subject. These researchers take the ideas a step further by including cultural implications. Therefore the idea of culture and ethnicity needs to be addressed on a major scale in not just teacher education programs but in schools altogether. The authors argue that teacher education has an important role to play in preparing teachers with a critical orientation towards dominant gender discourses, and an understanding of the intersection of gender with other discourses, such as culture and ethnicity” (Major & Santoro, 2014, p. 59).
The complexities of gender are reflected in culture. Feminists believe that teachers do not understand this well. Therefore, they use a one size fits all method when it comes to addressing girls and boys. Feminists want teacher education programs to prepare future teachers in dealing with gender-related issues. They believe the majority of teachers are not equipped in dealing with these issues. The consequence is that stereotypical views of males and females take precedence and dominate teacher views. The authors believe that there needs to be an overhaul of dominant discourse and discursive practices of teachers (Major & Santoro, 2014). The best way to address the program would be to implement more gender related focus in teacher education programs. Patton (2010) also tackles the issue of management and social identities in his research. Teaching diversity course has enabled the author to take another look at how gender can lead to unexpected events in the classroom. While higher education sees more “hot button” topics in the classroom, primary and secondary schools are not exempt from the conversations. Teaching diversity courses leads to a greater awareness for professors and can consequently lead to the need for research.
Allan & Tinkler (2015) surmise that the best way to deal with gender related issue s on a larger scale is to see into the past and look forward to the future. The authors agree with other authors in this study and discuss how there have been a small number of attempts in dealing with gender issues in schools. This may be subsequently due to the primary role of schools is being to learn academics. However, it is a rather known fact that if schools do not foster comfortable learning environments then it can negatively impact the learning process. These researchers have found that visual methods can lead to advance practices that alleviate gender concerns in education. According to Allan & Tinkler (2015) “the visual has become somewhat invisible in accounts of gender and education research” (p. 791). The visible methods that the researchers believe will lead to a better understanding of gender issues are observations, photos and media. Visual data provides a more discerning method in understanding how cultural norms are integrated into society. Photo albums can tell the story of the way in which families culturally construct boys and girls. Feminists believe that visual research demonstrate how girls “have been and are seen, pictured and represented, and what this means for what we know about them” (Allan & Tinkler, 2015, p. 793). The use of visual methods and gender issues is certainly a direction that researchers want to take in understanding how gender construction is played out in society.
Using technology in the classroom is another way to examine gender gaps in schools. According to Plum (2008) gender bias is reflected in the materials used in the classroom. Researchers often look to see if the materials used in the classroom perpetuate or undermine gender stereotypes. The use of technology in classrooms is greatly different between genders. Men are more apt to using technology than women teachers. This can lead to children’s perception technology use. Plumm (2008) states, “Students may have a socially constructed idea of what technology is, how it is used, and who should be using it” (p. 1053). What this can essentially mean is that students believe that if male teachers are the majority of teachers who use technology in the classroom then students can surmise the viewpoint that only males are capable of delivering technology instruction and using computers. Breaking down this stereotype is a way of closing gaps in the way in which children construct who teaches subjects. If there was a balance between subjects taught and use computers, the way in which children perceive the dynamic can start to change (Plum, 2008).
Conclusion
Overall, the study of gender related issues in education is receiving a boost of energy due to the changing climate of schools. The literature discussed the variants of this issue and what needs to be doe moving forward. It has been established by most researchers that not a lot has been done to address the concerns and this is why the time is now to do so. With the constant changing world of gender differences and acceptance, it is only fitting that educational institutions start to reflect the social world around them.
References
Allan, A. & Tinkler, P. (2015) ‘Seeing’ into the past and ‘looking’ forward to the future: visual methods and gender and education research. Gender and Education, 279 (7) 791-811, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2015.1091919
DePalma, S. (2013).Choosing to lose our gender expertise: queering sex/gender in school settings. Sex Education, 13 (1). 1-15.
Harrop, A. & Swinson, J. (2011). Comparison of teacher talk directed to boys and girls and its relationship to their behaviour in secondary and primary schools. Educational Studies, 37 (1). 115-125.
Kehily, M.J. (2012). Contextualising the sexualisation of girls debate: innocence, experience and young female sexuality. Gender and Education, 24 (3). 255-268.
Luecke, J. (2011). Working with Transgender Children and Their Classmates in Pre-Adolescence: Just Be Supportive. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8 (20). 116-156, DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2011.544941
Major, J. & Santoro, N. (2014). ‘Sensible girls’ and ‘silly boys’: what do teachers need to know about gender. Aust. Educ. Res, 41 59-72.
Malins, P. (2016). How inclusive is “inclusive education” in the Ontario elementary classroom: Teachers talk about addressing diverse gender and sexual identities. Teaching and Teacher Education 54. 128-138.
Patton, E. (2010). When social identities collide: Commentary on ‘gender in the management education classroom’. Journal of Management Education 34(6) 874–881.
Plumm, K. (2008). Technology in the classroom: Burning the bridges to the gaps in gender-biased education. Computers & Education, 50. 1052-1068
Ullman, J. (2015). Regulating 'gender climate': exploring the social construction of gender and sexuality in regional and rural Australian schools. In T. Ferfolia, C. Jones-Diaz, & J. Ullman (Eds.), Understanding sociological theory for educational practices. Sydney: Cambridge.
