33. Gender and Education
Paper
”Less off Everything Else, More of What Sex Is!” Sexuality Education in Swedish Secondary School
Auli Orlander Arvola, Sara Planting-Bergloo
Stockholm University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Orlander Arvola, Auli;
Planting-Bergloo, Sara
“Less of everything else, more of what sex is!”, Hilda stated frankly in an interview discussing their past sexuality education unit. Although the interview also revealed students to find teaching interesting, something was clearly missing. They expected more and different from what they had experienced in school sexuality education. This study is part of a four year long research project exploring Swedish school-based sexuality education in five secondary schools. In this paper we focus on teaching in one of the participating schools where teachers decided to address the 15 year old students’ questions about what sex might be. The aim of the study is to explore how the teaching of sex might be enacted in Swedish secondary sexuality education.
Today, emphasis is placed in various documents about sexuality education, on the need to balance between risk and healthy perspectives (SKOLFS 2021:9, The Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2018). Knowledge about condom use and dental dam can lead to a healthy perspective is perhaps given, but if a healthy perspective only becomes an unspoken possibility, the area can instead remain in the risk perspective about possible diseases. The Swedish Schools Inspectorates survey (2018) shows that schools tend to leave out the healthy perspective in sexuality education. Research pinpoints the need of sexuality education that addresses also subject areas such as physical pleasure and lust (McGreeney & Kehily 2016; Helbekkmo et al 2021) and sensuality (Allen 2020). Louisa Allen (2020) claims that instead of what we call the healthy perspective, sexuality education is characterised by a mechanical and instrumental view of the content, with a focus on risks. The tone in the media and partly also in curriculum is that if schools cannot provide alternatives, students’ source to learn how to have sex will be with the help of pornography online, which is regarded as a dangerous way. Accordingly, the risk perspective is once again overwhelming. Meanwhile there is a pronounced demand in Sweden to involve students’ views in teaching (Swedish National Agency for Education 2022). International research has also concluded that young people’s realities and challenges need to be met in sexuality education (Cense 2018). Nevertheless, Katheleen Quinlivan (2018) who has worked a long time in focus groups with students means that the possibility of sex education to become otherwise is pedagogically challenging. Teaching at schools is filled with expectations.
According to Sharon Todd (2016) school is enmeshed in the language of learning. She means that learning is a concept connected to “efficiency, behaviour and management”, insinuating that things we are to learn are already defined and with a specific purpose (2016 p. 621). Todd (2016, p. 622) further argues for a shift towards seeing education as engagement with uncertainty rather than “as a vehicle for skills management and training” in giving answers defined elsewhere than in educational situations. In Todd’s (2016, p. 623) account uncertainty is seen “as a valuable feature” for students’ unpredictable experiences of becoming, and not only becoming in the flesh but also in the unknown becoming of the future. Hence, learning is not about acquiring particular skills, but rather “a response to uncertainty is to face uncertainty meaningfully”.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is part of a four-year practice-based research project on sexuality education including in total five secondary schools. Data was generated in creative meetings, so called research circles, consisting of interdisciplinary teacher teams and five researchers. One purpose of the meetings was to critically and creatively explore how sexuality education could be enacted at the school in question. In each school the teacher team included between 5–13 teachers with a variety of subject competencies. This study builds on a collaboration with one of the schools. Data consists of notes and audio recordings produced during research circles, participatory classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers. Participating teachers and students have further given their permissions to be part of the research project. All legal guardians were informed about the project and those with a child under the age of 15 years also had to approve their involvement.
The analysis builds on socio-material work of Annemarie Mol (2002; 2010) describing coexisting realities, where the practice shapes and simultaneously is shaped by collaborations, by a myriad of vibrant materialities. Mol (2002, p. 104) further engages in tensions, described as “ways to enact the reality”. This means we will tell local stories about the teaching of sexual practices in secondary school. We create patches engaging in different tensions that Mol means are inevitable in the world we are obliged to share (Mol 2002). Paying attention to tensions in data might further bring alive unexpected and uncertain events (Todd 2016), in this study resident in the paradox of how to teach secondary students about sex.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn our initial patchwork (Mol 2002) we have addressed aspects of tensions and so far brought to the fore different tensions in teaching. For example, students’ expectations of correct answers, teaching balancing between student curiosity and a lack of interest and how to feel comfortable teaching this content as a teacher. It also includes questions on how to plan a lesson ahead but still be open to explore unexpected questions, what’s manageable for both teachers and students to talk about and how to organise student work.
What the analysis has also brought to fore is that when students’ realities are made part of teaching (Cense 2018, Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2018), it opens up unexpected possibilities. The work among students in the classroom—filling post-it notes and discussions—opened up for topics where the students brought up lust perspectives such as, love, pleasure, satisfaction, how to have sex, where, with whom and excitement (McGreeney & Kehily 2016; Helbekkmo et al 2021; Allen 2020) but also reproduction. Hence, the student discussions show a tension in whether sex is for reproduction or pleasure? Sexuality education is stated to often be about reproductive bodies (Allen 2021), a teaching practice that in this classroom is challenged. Here, the teachers have the sexual body in focus and the students have the possibility to acknowledge sex to be a mixture of love, pleasure and reproduction. The discussions also show that the students have identified the norm to be heterosexual and between two people, mostly a boy and a girl, where both hopefully are aroused and satisfied at the end. Here, the students both affirm the norm and criticise it at the same time. To conclude, how the teaching of sex might be enacted in Swedish secondary sexuality education is still work in progress.
ReferencesAllen, L. (2020). Breathing Life into Sexuality Education: Becoming Sexual Subjects. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 27(1), 1–13.
Allen, Louisa (2020). Breathing Life into Sexuality Education: Becoming Sexual Subjects. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.7202/1070274ar
Cense, M. (2019). Navigating a bumpy road. Developing sexuality education that supports young people’s sexual agency. Sex education, 19(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1537910
Helbekkmo, E. Trengereid Tempero, H. Sollesnes, R & Langeland, E (2021). ‘We expected more about sex in the sex week’-A qualitative study about students’ experiences with a sexual health education programme, from a health-promotion perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 16(1), 1963035. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2021.1963035
Quinlivan, K. (2018). Exploring contemporary issues in sexuality education with young people: Theories in practice. Springer.
McGeeney, E. & Kehily, M (2016). Editorial Introduction: Young people and sexual pleasure – where are we now? Sex Education, 16(3), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2016.1147149
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
Mol, A. (2010). Actor-Network Theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50, 253–269. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.330874
SKOLFS 2021:9. Förordning om ändring i förordningen (SKOLFS 2011:144) om läroplan
för gymnasieskolan. [Proclamations on the changes in regulation on curriculum for upper secondary school, own translation]. Utbildningsdepartementet [Department of Education].
Swedish National Agency for Education (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan,
förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet (Lgr 22). [Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the preschool class and the school-age educare, own translation]. Skolverket [the Swedish National Agency for Education] https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=9718
The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2018). Sex- och samlevnadsundervisning. Tematisk kvalitetsgranskning. [Sex Education. Thematic Quality Review, our translation] (400-2016:11445). https://www.skolinspektionen.se/beslut-rapporter-statistik/publikationer/kvalitetsgranskning/2018/sex--och-samlevnadsundervisning/
Todd, S. (2016). Facing uncertainty in education: Beyond the harmonies of Eurovision education. European Educational Research Journal 15(6), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116669731
33. Gender and Education
Paper
Gender, Sex, Taboo. Insights from Armenian Sex Education
Zhanna Gevorgyan
HU Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Gevorgyan, Zhanna
Sexuality education is known by different names, including healthy lifestyle education, family life education, and relationship education. In the Republic of Armenia, the "Healthy Lifestyle" (HL) program is the only curricular program at public schools that covers reproductive health and gender-related topics.
This paper critically investigates how classroom participants in Armenia discuss gender-related topics during sexuality education lessons, and how this knowledge is constructed. As the socio-cultural context with regard to gender (i.e., societal and familial gender roles) common to the mainstream population in Armenia is in conflict with the definition of gender-related concepts such as gender equality portrayed in the HL curriculum, the focus is on the construction of gendered knowledge considering this incongruity.
Despite Armenia’s progressive stance on gender equality laws, evidenced by the enactment of the law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in 2013 and the development of gender mainstreaming frameworks for specific periods to address gender equality goals, the country’s deeply rooted patriarchal political system poses stark contrasts. Different studies and international reports highlight the persistent challenges of gender inequality and gender-based violence within the country (Khachatryan et al. 2015; Ziemer 2020).
Among a few sex education programs piloted in Armenian schools, the HL program has been distinguished with a nationwide mandatory status since 2008. As of 2023, it is taught to pupils from the 8th to 11th grade, covering topics such as reproductive health, family formation, gender inequality, unintended pregnancy, and gender-based violence. Apart from a few reports, the literature on the examination of the implementation of the HL program, particularly the pedagogical challenges and curricular topics has largely been neglected by academic analysis. This work addresses the academic gap by exploring how this gender-related knowledge is constructed. In doing so, it aims to offer insights into potential improvements for gender-related sexuality education in Armenia and beyond.
Gender is not merely a social institution; it is, along with categories such as race, ethnicity, and class, a central aspect of daily social interactions and power relations (Lorber, 1994). For instance, masculinities and femininities are not static attributes but vary from place to place and are continuously constructed and reconstructed through interactions (West and Zimmerman, 1987; Connell, 1991). This work’s conceptualization of gender-related terminology relies on the sociological categorization of ’sex,’ ’sex category,’ and ’gender’ as applied by West and Zimmerman in “Doing Gender” (1987). Doing gender is one explanation of how people construct and do gender. It is rooted in ethnomethodology and social constructionist traditions and is central to understanding the nuances of gender construction.
Gender, as a part of the social order and division, permeates all societal institutions and influences the construction of knowledge. Given that schools are identified as the primary setting for imparting sexual health information (Seiler-Ramadas et al., 2020), it becomes essential for pedagogues to receive adequate training to become aware of gender issues and to apply this knowledge in their teaching practices. However, teachers worldwide have reported receiving inadequate training for delivering sexuality education effectively (Eisenberg et al., 2010).
To answer the main research questions posed in the study of what knowledge is produced in the classroom and how is the knowledge of gender constructed in the classroom a qualitative study was conducted, described in more detail in the next section on methodology.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study adopted a qualitative methodology, which allowed effective immersion into the target population’s culture and facilitated in-depth analysis of their discussions and practices. Participant observations were conducted during January and February 2018 when the HL program was being taught. The research encompassed two educational settings: one site was a secondary, while another was a high school. In the secondary school, the HL curriculum targeted 8th-9th graders, while in the high school, it was designed for 10th-11th graders. This phase of the research consisted of both classroom observations and informal interviews with physical educators, who were teaching the HL program. This eight-week period of observing lessons in these schools was crucial for collecting primary, first-hand data.
To analyze classroom discussions, the Documentary method – a well-established tool in the field of school research and practical empirical enquiry - was used (Bohnsack, 2014). The study involved recordings of lessons, which were first transcribed in Armenian, then translated into English, and subsequently analyzed using the specific steps of the Documentary method. This process facilitated topical structuring and brought to light the central themes of the discussions. The reconstruction was achieved by following the interpretation steps of 1. formulating (thematic) interpretation, 2. reflecting (documentary) interpretation, 3. case description, and 4. sense-genetic typification, with case comparison continuing until types were formed. A key feature of this method is its systematic comparative analysis, which facilitates the reconstruction of data by distancing myself and adhering to an empirical analytical path. This approach enabled the reconstruction of underlying implicit beliefs and a shared understanding of gender-related topics.
The analytic stance matches that of this study because both approaches lend credence to constructionism and are in line with Mannheim’s interpretation method and sociogenetics. Moreover, ethnomethodology and the sociology of knowledge were the underlying theories for the development of the Documentary method (Asbrand and Martens, 2018, p.12). While the social-constructionist framework provides explanations for gender as socially arranged everyday practices, the Documentary method enables the reconstruction of conjunctive experience based on the common practice of participants.
The following paper is part of my upcoming book, “Gender, Sex, Taboo: Insights from Armenian Sex Education,” based on my doctoral research (Gevorgyan, 2024). In the next section, the central findings are presented by focusing on the construction of gendered knowledge during sexuality education classroom discussions around gender topics. The paper aims to contribute to the areas of sexuality education, gender, and education studies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe empirical findings indicated that participants shared a conjunctive understanding regarding moralization and essentialization of gendered knowledge, which manifested in both argumentative and implicit modes.
Data reconstruction revealed a common tendency to moralize various situations, behaviours, and actions within an appraisal mode. Notably, the classroom participants consistently demonstrated a shared knowledge of putting emphasized focus on women’s actions and a conforming to a collective understanding of appropriate behaviour and actions. This moralization extended to topics such as sexual intercourse and pregnancy, often associated with the implicit approval of marriage between partners. Expecting a pregnancy after marriage and putting highlighted responsibility and blame on a female if this does not occur was a shared horizon among all cases analyzed. In discussing these topics, the emphasis on abstinence, particularly for women, was central in participants’ commentaries, often conveyed through personal stories and film sequences instead of presenting medically accurate and reliable sources of information. Even in situations involving females affected by sexual violence the emphasis on abstinence remained central in participants’ commentaries.
The results showed that teachers played a dominant role in all classroom discussions, often guiding the conversation and giving long monologues. This approach led to the construction of gender knowledge based on a binary framework, including when addressing pupils and when presenting options for different situations based on the pupil’s sex. The findings also highlighted frequent deviation from original statements, both the teacher’s personal statements and those of the pupils, as well as shifts in the nature of questions and pupils’ answers. These deviations were characterized by the use of evaluative language for answers, situations, and behaviors; occasional exertion of authority; leading and loaded questions; prescriptive and descriptive modes; and frequent generalization of opinions.
ReferencesAsbrand, B. and Martens, M. (2018). Dokumentarische Unterrichtsforschung. Springer.
Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method. In Flick, U., editor, The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, pages 217–233. SAGE Publications, Inc, 55 City Road, London.
Connell, R. W. (1991). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Soc. Forces, 69(3):953.
Eisenberg, M. E., Madsen, N., Oliphant, J. A., Sieving, R. E., and Resnick, M. (2010). “am I qualified? how do I know?” a qualitative study of sexuality educators’ training experiences. Am. J. Health Educ., 41(6):337–344.
Gevorgyan, Z. (2024).Gender, sex, taboo: Insights from Armenian Sex Education. Psychosozial-Verlag.
Khachatryan, K., Dreber, A., von Essen, E., and Ranehill, E. (2015). Gender and preferences at a young age: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118(C):318–332.
Lorber, J. (1994). Night to his day”: The social construction of gender. Paradoxes of gender, 1:1–8.
Seiler-Ramadas, R., Grabovac, I., Niederkrotenthaler, T., and Dorner, T. E. (2020). Adolescents’ perspective on their sexual knowledge and the role of school in addressing emotions in sex education: An exploratory analysis of two school types in Austria. J. Sex Res., 57(9):1180–1188.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2):125–151.
Ziemer, U. (2020). Women against authoritarianism: Agency and political protest in Armenia. In Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, pages 71–100.Springer International Publishing, Cham.
33. Gender and Education
Paper
Healing, Care, Connection: The Value of Feminist Pedagogy in a Refugee Education Context in Greece
Tereza Mytakou
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Presenting Author: Mytakou, Tereza
The present paper aims to explore the potential benefits of implementing feminist pedagogy in a refugee education setting in Greece through a feminist, intersectional approach. More specifically, it seeks to explore how feminist pedagogy can be of use in a forced migration education context, in which trauma is often a major concern, as students have usually experienced or are continuing to experience traumatic situations due to displacement. I argue that feminist pedagogy, a liberatory pedagogy grounded in feminist thought and theory (Bostow et al., 2015; Crabtree et al., 2009; Weiler, 1991), aligns with many of the aims of refugee education and education in times of crises, such as that of helping teachers deal with trauma in the classroom, and of assisting students to develop resilience and overcome trauma.
The presentation draws on the author’s doctoral study, which examined the obstacles and opportunities of implementing a feminist pedagogy approach in the refugee education context, as well as its reception by teachers and students. The study focuses on the Greek border-island of Leros, where data collection took place at a school for children of refugee background.
The research project arose from the need to explore a more culturally and linguistically sensitive pedagogy for teaching students of refugee background, one which would take into account the vital factors of gender, ethnicity, religion, and their intersection in the classroom. The main over-arching question which I sought out to investigate was the following: Is the ground ready for a feminist pedagogy approach in refugee education in the Greek context? Drawing from this, three subsidiary questions arose:
- Firstly, what are the obstacles in implementing feminist pedagogy in the Greek refugee education context?
- Secondly, what are the opportunities for such an approach?
- And thirdly, how do teachers and students perceive of these obstacles and opportunities?
This presentation will focus on one of the opportunities for feminist pedagogy to be of benefit in a refugee education setting, that of its potential to help teachers and students deal with trauma and develop resilience. I suggest that feminist pedagogy’s attentiveness to the emotions and lived experiences of students (Boler, 1999; Bostow et al., 2015; Fisher, 1987; Hooks, 2003; Paechter, 1998), its focus on teaching as a practice of love, care, and connection (Hooks, 2003; McArthur & Lane, 2019; Morley, 1998), as well as its deconstruction of traditional power dynamics in the classroom (Morley, 1998), are all factors which complement the aim of refugee education to help students heal from trauma, foster resilience, and generate hope.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe project followed a feminist qualitative research methodology and was informed by feminist research epistemology (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007). Feminist epistemology and methodology provide an explicit attention to reflexivity and awareness of positionality (Harding, 2004; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007; Yoshihara, 2017), which enabled me to navigate complex methodological and ethical dilemmas throughout my twofold role as teacher and researcher, and to address issues of power and positionality which arose while doing research in a forced migration context.
The data collection took place during an eight-month stay on the island of Leros, Greece, where I worked as an English language teacher at a school for refugee students aged 6-16 and integrated the practice and praxis of feminist pedagogy in my own lessons. The following tools of data collection were employed i) semi-structured interviews with eight educators and two managers working in refugee education, ii) classroom discussions with two students attending the school on Leros (based on selected lesson plans informed by feminist pedagogy), as well as iii) the keeping of my own researcher diary.
The data was analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) reflexive thematic analysis framework, and produced the three over-arching themes of “Gender as a difficult and complex construct”, “Trauma as present, but not defining” and “Culture/language as barriers”.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis presentation will focus on exploring the theme of “Trauma as present, but not defining”, drawing more particularly on some of its subthemes, titled “There is a fine line”, “The healing aspect of education” and “Connection”. While the interviews with the educators and managers demonstrated their fear around trauma and emotions and the sensitivity of navigating trauma in the classroom, as indicated in subtheme “There is a fine line”, the analysis of the data also pointed to the existence of multiple opportunities for feminist pedagogy to assist educators in handling trauma and emotions in the classroom. Firstly, the educator and managers’ belief that education should assume a healing role, as explored in subtheme “The healing aspect of education”, ties in with feminist pedagogy’s attention to emotions and their integration in the classroom. Secondly, the emphasis that the staff place on human connection and on developing trust with the students, as discussed in subtheme “Connection”, is also linked to feminist pedagogy’s view of education as an act of love and care and its attention to the concept of “community”. Finally, acknowledging that teachers do not need to know all the “right” answers and that through active listening they can help students in their healing process is related to feminist pedagogy’s view that the role of the teacher is not that of an all-knowing authority. The study’s findings therefore point to the immense value that a feminist pedagogy based on love and care, which integrates emotions, lived experiences and relationships can have in contexts of education in crisis, such as that of forced migration. While trauma is indeed present in these contexts and cannot be ignored, feminist pedagogy provides hope for the future through its commitment to fostering the students’ resilience.
ReferencesBoler, M. (1999). Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. Routledge.
Bostow, R., Brewer, S., Chick, N., Galina, B., McGrath, A., Mendoza, K., Navarro, K., & Valle-Ruiz, L. (2015). A Guide to Feminist Pedagogy: The Role of Experience and Emotions. Vanderbilt Center for Teaching. https://my.vanderbilt.edu/femped/habits-of-head/the-role-of-experience-emotions/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE.
Crabtree, R. D., Sapp, D. A., & Licona, A. C. (2009). Introduction: The Passion and Praxis of Feminist Pedagogy. In Feminist Pedagogy: Looking Back to Move Forward (pp. 1–22). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fisher, B. (1987). The heart has its reasons: Feeling, thinking and community-building in feminist education. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15(3/4), 47–58.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (2007). Feminist Research Practice. SAGE Publications.
hooks, B. (2003). Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203957769
McArthur, S. A., & Lane, M. (2019). Schoolin’ Black Girls: Politicized Caring and Healing as Pedagogical Love. Urban Review, 51(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0487-4
Morley, L. (1998). All you need is love: feminist pedagogy for empowerment and emotional labour in the academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311980020102
Paechter, C. (1998). Educating the Other: Gender, Power and Schooling. Falmer Press.
Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and a Feminist Pedagogy of Difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 449–475. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.61.4.a102265jl68rju84
Yoshihara, R. (2017). The Socially Responsible Feminist EFL Classroom: A Japanese Perspective on Identities, Beliefs and Practices [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Multilingual Matters.
|
