99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Teaching Sensitive and Controversial Issues in The History Classroom: Exploratory Case Studies in England
Latife Eda Kuzuca
university of reading, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Kuzuca, Latife Eda
Pring et al. (2009) state, one of the most valuable functions of education should be responsible for keeping young people’s learning constantly up to date. This means that education should be shaped according to the needs and requirements of the period in which we live. Increased diversity within societies has started to influence school history to prepare students for the new world settings, due to its inherent nature such as understanding and respecting different perspectives, appreciating the value of diversity, and questioning one’s own views (Zajda, 2015).
Therefore, now, teaching sensitive and controversial issues (SCIs) has crucial importance within history-teaching communities in the UK for both developing individual cognitive skills and preparing students for a pluralist, democratic society (Barton & McCully, 2010; Hess, 2002; Oxfam, 2006). That is why, these kinds of subjects should be encouraged, to provide students, the opportunity to appreciate differences, tolerate different values and perspectives, and the ability to live in peace with people from various backgrounds in society (Bourn, 2014). However, the relevant literature in the UK frequently shows that history teachers hesitate to teach SCIs in their lessons (Byford et al., 2009; Kitson & McCully, 2005; Oulton et al., 2004). According to the Historical Association’s T.E.A.C.H. report, history teachers’ reasons for avoiding emotive and controversial historical subjects can be varied such as their lack of knowledge and skills, delivering misleading messages, creating conflict and alienation among students, and potential issues related to parent and school complaints (HA, 2007). Therefore, according to the research of Byford et al. (2009), the vast majority of teachers (60%) avoid teaching SCIs within the community they teach in order to protect themselves. The reasons behind this avoidance seemed to be related to the potential disapproval of the parents, potential lawsuits, and students’ sensitivities (HA, 2007; Philips, 2008, Traille, 2007). Additionally, topics related to students’ cultural and religious heritages and subjects about the wider issues in societies such as terrorism, racism and Islamophobia (Philips, 2008) are the other factors making teaching SCIs difficult for history teachers. The aim of this research, therefore, was to conduct exploratory case studies in London among history teachers, to gain further insight and understanding regarding the situation of teaching SCIs among English history teachers.
For these reasons, the research question that this study will address is: “What are the thoughts of the history teachers for teaching SCIs in history classrooms?” To answer this question, the following sub-questions will be explored:
• What kinds of challenges do teachers encounter while teaching SCIs?
• What approaches, strategies, methods, and activities do teachers utilise to overcome possible challenges while teaching SCIs?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study explored the views of history teachers regarding teaching SCIs in history classrooms. In this research, therefore, small-scale case studies, qualitative and interpretative approaches have been used, to gain a deeper understanding of history teachers’ experiences (Scott and Morrison, 2007). Six history teachers and three teacher trainers working in highly diverse school settings have been interviewed in London.
To conduct this study, qualitative data gathering tools such semi-structured and hypothetical scenario-based interview questions have been utilised. Qualitative data allowed to obtain detailed and extensive data to understand history teachers’ thoughts for teaching SCIs
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Semi-structured interviews served better for this research to gather in-depth understanding of people’s motivations, reasons, and problems, because the researcher could orient the communication and ask further questions if necessary (Scott and Morrison, 2007). In interviews, history teachers were asked about their thoughts on whether teaching SCIs was valuable and necessary, and if so, whether it should be taught in contemporary history classes. Then, teachers were asked if they find teaching SCIs challenging, if they have any hesitations to teach SCIs, and if they encounter any problem while teaching SCIs. And finally, the hypothetical scenario was related to racism in the classroom and asked what teachers’ recommendations for would be dealing with this problem. The reason for using that scenario was to see how teachers would react and approach the situation and what kind of recommendation they would make.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIt is understood that teachers' main concerns are mostly related to the students’ feelings as they often mentioned that they did not want to make students feel upset or offended. Teachers stated that when topics were related to students’ heritages and identities, they tend to be reluctant to teach them. Additionally, they said that when school information and students’ home-based information clashed, more challenges arise for teachers. And finally, teachers found challenging to help students understand why people in the past acted in the way they did, especially, while teaching sensitive subjects such as Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Holocaust, or terror attacks.
To overcome possible challenges, they stated that they need to have more knowledge about the students’ backgrounds while teaching SCIs to prepare better planned scheme of works for such topics. Another mostly suggested approach was having classroom discussions with the use of empathy. Secondly, majority of the teachers suggested the use of multiple and contrasting resources such as images, videos, or artefacts helpful while teaching SCIs. Additionally, fostering students’ relevant substantive and conceptual knowledge before discussing the SCIs in lessons were recommended.
However, unlike the findings in the literature, teachers emphasised that even if they had some concerns, they believed that potential challenges could be overcome. The participants were in agreement that these hesitations should not prevent them from teaching SCIs, because of the latter’s potential. Furthermore, two more teachers responded that they did not have any hesitations in terms of teaching SCIs because they had enough self-confidence and knew how to teach SCIs.
Finally, the majority of the participants reported that, in cases where problems related to teaching SCIs could arose, they would be supported and protected by the school boards. This could also be one of the reasons behind the participants’ higher levels of agency and self-esteem.
ReferencesBarton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2010). “You can form your own point of view”: Internally persuasive discourse in Northern Ireland students’ encounters with history. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 142-181.
Bourn, D. (2014). The theory and practice of global learning (Research Paper No.11). Development Education Research Centre. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1492723/1/DERC_ResearchPaper11- TheTheoryAndPracticeOfGlobalLearning[2].pdf
Byford, J., Lennon, S., & Russell, W. B. (2009). Teaching controversial issues in the social studies: A research study of high school teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(4), 165-170
Kitson, A., & McCully, A. (2005). 'You hear about it for real in school. 'Avoiding, containing Teaching History, (120), 32-37.
HA. (2007). Teaching emotive and controversial issues: A report from the Historical Association on the challenges and opportunities for teaching emotive and controversial history 3-19. London: The Historical Association.
Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(1), 10-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2002.10473177
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon*, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Controversial issues‐teachers' attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education. Oxford review of education, 30(4), 489-507. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4127162
Oxfam, G. B. (2006). Teaching controversial issues. Retrieved March, 9, 2009.
Pring, R., Hogson, A., & Spours, K. (2009). Aims and values. In Education for all: The future of education and training for 14-19 year olds, pp. 12-25, London: Routledge
Philips, I. (2008). Teaching history. Developing as a reflective secondary teacher. Sage Publications.
Scott, D., & Morrison, M. (2006). Key ideas in educational research. Continuum.
Traille, K. (2007). You should be proud about your history. They made me feel ashamed: Teaching history hurts. Teaching History, (127), 31-37.
Zajda, J. a (2015) ‘Globalisation and the Politics of Education Reforms: History Education.', (Ch. 1, pp. 1-14), In Joseph Zajda (Ed.), Nation- Building and History Education in a Global Culture; Springer, Australia: Melbourne
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Empowering Marginalized Students to Speak up through Dialogic Literary Gatherings: an Ethnographic Case Study in Ghana
Eugenia Allotey, Rocío García-Carrión
University of Deusto, Spain
Presenting Author: Allotey, Eugenia
The global discourse on diversity and inclusion makes it imperative for educational researchers to revisit marginalization in education settings. Marginalization in education is a form of acute and persistent disadvantage rooted in underlying social inequalities involving cultural differences, knowledge gaps, and socio-economic status (Akin & Neumann, 2013). It can affect students’ academic performance, peer-to-peer interaction and sense of belongingness in school (Benner & Wang, 2014; Pendergast et al, 2018). Despite the call for inclusive and equitable quality education (SDG4) that promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all, children from rural and urban poor communities, ethnic and linguistic minority children, and children in displaced situations in Ghana and many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have experienced marginalization in education for decades (Mfum-Mensah, 2018). Thus, to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all, it is essential for stakeholders in education to create learning environments that address educational inequities among students by empowering students to speak up and become actively involved in the teaching and learning process, particularly, those historically marginalized. Consequently, educational researchers advocate for better-informed practice with research that seeks to achieve social impact (García-Carrión et al., 2020).
Along these lines, research shows that dialogic learning has transformed classrooms and schools to provide high-quality education for all students (Flecha & Soler, 2013). This approach, according to Flecha (2015) increases academic performance, improves social cohesion, and enables participants to overcome educational inequality in diverse contexts. It dismantles deficit thinking and creates opportunities for participants to be confident and freely express themselves (Flecha, 2000; García-Carrión & Allotey, 2023). Thus, drawing on the social-cultural theory of cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978) and grounded on the theory of dialogic learning (Flecha, 2000), research shows that Dialogic Literary Gatherings (DLGs), foster learning and inclusion of vulnerable populations (Soler, 2020). This approach to teaching and learning has been acknowledged by the European Commission for achieving social impact and benefiting historically marginalized communities in many diverse contexts (European Commission, 2011).
DLGs are an interactive dialogue-based learning environment where participants share and discuss the greatest literary works through egalitarian dialogue that fosters respect towards diversity, solidarity, freedom, and overcomes inequalities (Flecha, 2000). Implemented in over 7,000 schools in fourteen different countries across Europe and Latin America (Soler, 2020), the efficacy of DLGs has been studied in various contexts where positive impacts have been observed in reading and students’ prosocial behavior. DLGs encourage relations of friendship and respect, it fosters a sense of community and self-confidence (Díez-Palomar et al., 2020) and encourages participants to speak up and share their experiences in an egalitarian dialogic atmosphere (Flecha, 2000; Soler, 2020). Nonetheless, little is known about DLGs in Africa, particularly in Ghana. Thus, granted that the call for diversity is also a call for voice, influence and power (Biesta et al, 2022), the objective of this paper is to explore how the Dialogic Literary Gatherings empower historically marginalized students to speak up while they participate in DLGs in an 8th-grade classroom in southeastern Ghana.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedQualitative Ethnographic case study (Rhoads, 1995; Schwandt & Gates, 2018) research methodology was adopted for the study. This is part of a bigger project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska Curie grant agreement No. 847624. DLGs were implemented for the first time with 8th-graders in a school in the southeastern part of Ghana from October 2021 to February 2022. During this time, participant observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author. Eleven DLG sessions lasting approximately one (1) hour were observed and audio recorded. These took place once a week during the students’ English Literature classes. In accordance with the dictates of the syllabus of the Ghana Education Service concerning mandatory literature books to be read by students from seventh to eighth grade, participants together with their English literature teacher, agreed to read the classical book Oliver Twist. Additionally, the students agreed to read Oedipus the King, one of the teacher’s supplementary teaching materials and The Odyssey, another book proposed by the researcher. Hence, during the DLGs, participants interacted with each other based on previous reading of age-appropriate versions of the books Oliver Twist, Oedipus the King and The Odyssey by choosing a piece of the text, reading it aloud and sharing their thoughts and feelings about aspects of the text that intrigued them (Soler, 2020).
In all, seventy-nine students participated in the DLGs with seventy-one participants giving the researchers their assent and parental consent. However, for this paper, we focused on the experiences of six students who felt marginalized and their contributions in four DLG sessions as well as the semi-structured interviews conducted with all six participants. Since one facet of marginalization is the experience of interaction with members of dominant groups (Given, 2008), these students were selected because their contributions during the DLGs indicated that they had experienced some sort of discrimination and marginalization. These included five girls and one boy aged thirteen to sixteen years. This was a heterogeneous group where the students had mixed academic abilities and belonged to five different ethnic groups in Ghana. The data was transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically (Braun, & Clarke, 2006) during which the following themes emerged: egalitarian dialogic space, platform to share grievances and boosting participants’ confidence. The research followed ethical principles approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ University.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe research demonstrated that participants experienced marginalization as a result of their cultural and ethnic differences, knowledge gaps, physical appearance and poor status in society. However, despite feeling marginalized and discriminated against for these reasons, findings from the study indicated that the DLGs created affordances for historically marginalized students to be empowered to speak up by granting participants an egalitarian dialogic space. Thus, the DLGs created an interactive space for students to share their views and opinions without fear of judgement. In addition, the gatherings empowered participants to speak up by boosting their self-confidence. Finally, the DLGs provided marginalized students with a platform to share their grievances with their classmates during which they felt not simply heard but listened to.
Resonating with previous research within the field (Díez-Palomar et al., 2020; García-Carrión et al, 2020; Flecha, 2000), our findings show that Dialogic Literary Gatherings indeed provide high-quality education for all, especially those historically marginalized and enables educational practitioners to engage all students in the teaching and learning process thereby ensuring an inclusive quality education for all (SDG-4). These findings are promising for educational practitioners in Europe and across the globe, seeking to encourage marginalized students to speak up for themselves. Besides, granted that little is known about Dialogic Learning, particularly Dialogic Literary Gatherings in Africa despite its success worldwide, this study contributes to science by replicating this approach in Ghana. Nonetheless, due to time constraints, the study was limited by its inability to measure the impact of the DLGs on marginalized students’ academic performance. Future research could delimit this setback by exploring this option.
ReferencesAkin, I., & Neumann, C. (2013). Identifying Proactive Collaboration Strategies for Teacher Readiness for Marginalized Students. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 10(4), 235–244.
Benner, A. D., & Wang, Y. (2014). Demographic marginalization, social integration, and adolescents’ educational success. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(10), 1611-1627.
Biesta, G., Wainwright, E., & Aldridge, D. (2022). A case for diversity in educational research and educational practice. British educational research journal, 48(1), 1-4.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101
Díez-Palomar, J., García-Carrión, R., Hargreaves, L., & Vieites, M. (2020). Transforming students’ attitudes towards learning through the use of successful educational actions. PLoS ONE, 15, e0240292
European Commission. (2011). Added Value of Research, Innovation and Science portfolio. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_11_520
Flecha R. (2015). Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe. Springer.
Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing Words. Rowman & Littlefield.
Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451–465.
Garcia-Carrion, R. & Allotey, E. (2023) International perspectives on community-engaged teacher education in Tierney, R. J., Rizvi, F. & Ercikan, K. (Eds) International encyclopedia of education. (pp 375-380). Elsevier.
García-Carrión, R., López De Aguileta, G., Padrós, M., & Ramis-Salas, M. (2020). Implications for Social Impact of Dialogic Teaching and Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:140.
Given, L. M. (2008). Marginalization. In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 532-495). SAGE Publications.
Mfum-Mensah, O. (2018). Education marginalization in sub-Saharan Africa: Policies, politics, and marginality. Rowman & Littlefield.
Pendergast, D., Allen, J., McGregor, G., & Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2018). Engaging marginalized,“at-risk” middle-level students: A focus on the importance of a sense of belonging at school. Education Sciences, 8(3), 138.
Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whales Tales, Dog Piles, and Beer Goggles: An Ethnographic Case Study of Fraternity Life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 306–323.
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.; pp. 341-358). SAGE.
Soler, M. (2020). Research on Dialogic Literary gatherings. In Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Major, L. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 348 -359). Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Views and Experiences of Teachers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pupils with SEND
Klaudia Matasovska
Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Matasovska, Klaudia
Abstract: In contemporary discourse, sexuality is being presented as something fluid, with research persisting in framing sexuality as flexible and negotiable to some extent. This way of examining sexuality is problematic because as one discovers how identity changes and evolves, a certain terminology, such as ‘trend’ or ‘phase’ becomes prominent giving the illusion that LGBT+ pupils with SEND are easily influenced and too immature to form LGBT+ identities because of their cognitive impairments. Educators viewing sexuality and gender identity as a phase or a trend can result in providing inadequate support, which can be limited due to the misconception that information about LGBT+ concepts is not important for this category of pupils or that one can simply stop being LGBT+. This paper discusses the views and experiences of SEN teachers involving their pupils' ways of exploring and expressing their LGBT+ identities and examines how this links to the misconception of their sexuality and gender as a phase or a trend due to their SENDs. Being inspired by the work of scholars exploring sexual and gender identity, the paper is framed by intersectionality which allows for a detailed analysis of how identities interact and inform when used as an analytic tool. The paper calls for more nuanced thinking of sexuality and gender in the lives of LGBT+ pupils with SEND, which will help to decrease inequality.
Author of proposal: Klaudia Matasovska (email: kmata005@gold.ac.uk)
First choice network: Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Second choice network: Gender and Education Network
Keywords: childhood, youth, SEND, gender identity, sexuality, phase, intersectionality
General description:
This paper explores the opinions and experiences of SEN practitioners with work experience involving children and young people with SEND who also identify as LGBT+. This study asks the question: How do SEN practitioners’ views compare with wider society’s misconception of disabled LGBT+ pupils’ sexuality and gender as a phase or a trend due to being often viewed as too ‘immature’ to have LGBT+ identities? There is very limited information regarding the LGBT+/SEND intersection. In particular, research is very limited regarding the views of SEN teachers in relation to the LGBT+/SEND intersection and their views about the misconception that disabled pupils’ sexuality and gender identity is informed by their disability. This study is an attempt to fill in this gap in research and to talk about the intersections regarding gender, SEND and sexual orientation. Intersectionality is the chosen theoretical framework for this study as it is a suitable tool for highlighting social inequalities with regard to the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, such as gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. This framework is also used to highlight how individual intersections (disability, gender and sexual orientation in the case of this study) impact each other in terms of experiencing layered stigma.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethods/Methodology:
This article includes data collected via one-to-one online interviews with eight participants, all of whom have teaching qualifications. Some of the participants have disabilities themselves and one identifies as a member of the LGBT+ community. The participants have worked with LGBT+ children and young people with autism, Pathological Demand Avoidance, dyslexia, communication difficulties and mental health needs. The data from the transcribed interviews were analysed thematically and via an intersectional lens. This method was appropriate to use as this study’s aim is to focus on the voices of SEN practitioners and to look for similarities as well as key differences in their responses to determine the key themes that were emerging from the data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSEN practitioners working with pupils with SEND are often very inclusive in their practice and this covers the area of LGBT+ inclusion. They are aware of wider society’s misconceptions, such as transgender children with SEND having the concept of gender ‘pushed’ onto them and LGBT+ young disabled people being incapable of being LGBT+ because of their disability. All of the participants challenge these misconceptions. They also acknowledge that some school staff, especially older generations, are impacted by these misconceptions to some extent. This is evident in their ‘hesitant’ attitudes towards teaching LGBT+-related content or in their lack of initiative in relation to creating LGBT+ spaces for pupils with SEND. Some of these attitudes are based on SEN school staff’s fear of saying “the wrong thing” due to their lack of LGBT+ related training in addition to their lack of training in relation to less explored areas of SEND, such as PDA. In addition to these attitudes, the limited LGBT+ information provided by SEN school settings and the layered stigma experienced by LGBT+ pupils with SEND, including PDA pupils, can negatively impact their wellbeing and academic progress. The paper concludes with a call for more nuanced thinking of sexuality and gender in the lives of LGBT+ pupils with SEND, which will help to minimise inequality.
ReferencesAramburu Alegría, C. (2018) ‘Supporting families of transgender children/youth: Parents speak on their experiences, identity, and views’, The international journal of transgenderism, 19(2), pp. 132–143. doi:10.1080/15532739.2018.1450798.
Arrieta, S.A., Palladino, J.M. (2015). A Multiple-Case Study of Special Education Teachers’ Approaches to LGBT Students with Emotional-Behavior Disabilities. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 10(1):1-12.
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners, London, SAGE Publications.
Buchanan, N.T. and Settles, I. (2014) ‘Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionality’, in The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199796694.013.017.
Bush, H. H., Williams, L. W., & Mendes, E. (2020). Brief report: Asexuality and young women on the autism Spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 725–733. doi:10.1007/s10803-020-04565-6.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.
Decker, J. S. (2015). The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality* Next Generation Indie Book Awards Winner in LGBT. Simon and Schuster.
Flores, A. R. (2019). Social acceptance of LGBT people in 174 countries: 1981 to 2017. Available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBT-Oct-2019.pdf (Accessed: 11 November 2022)
Erickson-Schroth, L. & Jacobs, L.A. (2017). "You're in the Wrong Bathroom!": And 20 Other Myths and Misconceptions About Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People’, Boston: Beacon Press
Goodboy, A. K., & Martin, M. M. (2018). LGBT bullying in school: perspectives on prevention. Communication Education, (67)4, 513-520,
GOV.UK (2022). Family Resources Survey: financial year 2020 to 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2020-to-2021/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2020-to-2021 (Accessed: 30 November 2022)
Gower, A. L., Forster, M., Gloppen, K., Johnson, A. Z., Eisenberg, M. E., Connett, J. E., & Borowsky, I. W. (2018). School practices to foster LGBT-supportive climate: Associations with adolescent bullying involvement. Prevention Science, 19(6), 813-821.
Gregory, E. and Ruby, M. (2011) ‘The ‘insider/outsider’ dilemma of ethnography: Working with young children and their families in cross-cultural contexts’, Journal of early childhood research : ECR, 9(2), pp. 162–174. doi:10.1177/1476718X10387899.
Hicks, G. R., & Lee, T. T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: trends and predictors. Journal of homosexuality, 51(2), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n02_04
Kosciw, J. G., Bartkiewicz, M., & Greytak, E. A. (2012). Promising strategies for prevention of the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. The Prevention Researcher, 19(3), 10-13.
To be continued
|
