08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Un-covered Areas of Sexuality Education in Adults' Narratives
Akvilė Giniotaitė
Vilnius University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Giniotaitė, Akvilė
There is a lot of evidence supporting the effectiveness of sex education (SE) in addressing various personal, relational, and societal issues. It enhances self-worth, reduces sexual risk-taking, promotes sexual and reproductive health, fosters a positive socio-emotional atmosphere in schools, diminishes LGBTI+ bullying, and contributes to the physical and physiological well-being of different groups or students. However, adults often fall short in engaging in these crucial discussions. They lack confidence in their own competencies and capabilities to discuss sexual matters, are burdened by cultural anxieties related to providing too much information too early, and fear disrupting children's innocence by presenting challenging knowledge or inadvertently encouraging premature sexual activity. Meanwhile, numerous studies indicate that children and adolescents are willing to initiate discussions earlier, engage in more routine conversations, and explore a broader spectrum of themes.
The discourse of sex education is marked by a multitude of contradictions and paradoxes, which I explore by using insights from posthumanism authors such as Rosi Braidotti and Nathan Snaza, and their colleagues. Their perspectives illuminate the imperative to reevaluate our conception of a 'just' human, liberating it from the constraints of entrenched humanistic traditions. Posthumanism advocates for a shift away from viewing humans as isolated, dominating entities superior to other organic and non-organic subjects. Instead, it encourages recognizing humanity as intricately entwined in constant interaction and perpetual transformation within the intricate web of meanings. In this study a non-binary approach to the concept of gender, examined through the lens of posthumanism, takes on particular significance. Delving into the nexus between a child and sexuality, I draw upon the insights of scholars Kerry H. Robinson and Kathryn Bond Stockton, who delve into the construct of childhood. Their work becomes a valuable resource in comprehending the relationship between a child, sexuality, and the child's entitlement to knowledge about it. Additionally, the perspectives presented by authors Barry McCarthy and Emily McCarthy, who explore inhibiting and nurturing aspects of sexual development, carry significant weight. Given the centrality of relationships in sex education field, not only romantic but also those between parents and children and more broadly among adults and children, I delve into the ideas of sociologist Anthony Giddens. Giddens' examination of the transformation of the intimacy sphere sheds light on its profound impact on emotional and physical relationships. Finally, considering the historical perspective of sex education is integral to this study. In this regard, the work of Jonathan Zimmermann, providing a global overview of the history of sex education, proves to be a valuable resource. Finally, in this study sexuality education is framed as ‘wicked problem’.
In the field of sex education research, the focus has primarily been on understanding adult perspectives and values, with minimal exploration of their experiences in sex education discussions with young people or among adults. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the necessity of SE and emphasize the complexity of this field. To analyse the narratives of adults regarding their experiences in discussing topics of sexuality with young people and among themselves, and based on this, consider assumptions necessary for improving the quality of the organization and implementation of sexuality education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo garner insights about adults’ experiences in conversations about sexuality, a Dialogical Narrative Analysis (DNA) has been conducted. I formulated methodological insights about DNA based on the theoretical perspectives of Catherine K. Riessman and Arthur W. Frank. However, in narrative research, it is recommended to blend the boundaries of different methods and approaches, guided by previous examples and existing guidelines, without treating them as a set of rules. Therefore, while the leading methodology in this work was DNA, during the analysis, I applied qualitative content analysis features.
From May 3, 2023, to June 20, 2023, a total of 23 interviews were conducted with 24 participants (one interview involved a couple of caregivers). I invited individuals who raise school-age children or teach them to participate in the interviews. After the narrative interviews were transcribed, I read the transcripts multiple times and identified narratives in line with Labov's concept of narrative. Then in order to organize the data, I registered narratives in an "Excel" program. I created six broad thematic categories and filled them with sub-themes.
In dialogic narrative analysis, it is appropriate to implement interviews even without a clear and detailed plan of what will be done with the obtained data. Researchers do not know what will be told, therefore, "the analysis of chosen stories happens while trying to write" (Frank, 2012, p. 43). The collected and selected stories determine the focus and direction of analytical work. Decisions about what and how to include in the analysis and how the reconstructed story should be told are constantly made while writing.
The conventional understanding of sexuality education discourse as polarized between abstinence promotion and comprehensive sexuality education oversimplifies the complexity of experiences, approaches, and attitudes in people's lives. Adopting the DNA methodology provided a platform to listen to diverse and nuanced stories that hold significance for the storyteller. Narrative research enabled the fusion of private and public discourses, revealing how narratives shape individuals' choices. This approach allowed for an investigation into which narratives could facilitate different choices in navigating SE matters. This data was useful for considering the support adults need to enhance their understanding and competencies in sexuality related discussions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings6 conceptual areas of importance emerged: (1) Menstruation as the master narrative about sexuality for all young people despite gender. Adults feel the need to discuss menstruation topic with girls and often this is considered as sexuality education itself. It leaves young people with the notion that sexuality education is girls’ subject and sexuality equals reproduction. (2) “You are (not) gay” as epidemic informal sexuality education. “You are gay” name calling is so prevailing that adults stop noticing it and in the context of extremely scarce SE directed at boys – the name calling and the underlying message of it becomes SE of young people and especially boys. (3) Disruption of dichotomous roles (gender, age, function in the family) in the conversation about sexuality. Adults feel the pressure of “adult role” in the discussion about sexuality with minors. Also as mothers are most often responsible for sexuality topics at home, with their sons they feel tension of differing gender which leaves boys excluded from the reflexive communication. (4) Non-verbal talking of young people and in-ability to hear it. As young people lack the vocabulary and the skills to discuss sexuality, adults often interpret their behaviour as simply provocative and do not see it as creating an opportunity for dialogue. (5) Between fear of saying (too much) and delegating responsibility for the conversation to a child. Adults tend to wait for minors to “ask a question” and without the question they fear of causing harm to young people with saying too much. (6) Gap in conversations with young people – silence among adults. While adults feel the imperative to talk to young people, they do not find it important to elaborate the discussion about sexuality among themselves.
ReferencesBraidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press
Frank, A. (2012). Practicing dialogical narrative analysis. Varieties of Narrative Analysis, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117.n3
Giddens, A. (1993). The transformation of intimacy. Polity Press.
Goldfarb, E. S., & Lieberman, L. D. (2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036
Grossman, J. M., & Richer, A. M. (2021). Parents’ perspectives on talk with their adolescent and emerging adult children about sex: A longitudinal analysis. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(1), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00656-w
Kar, S., Choudhury, A., & Singh, A. (2015). Understanding normal development of adolescent sexuality: A bumpy ride. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 8(2), 70-74.
Kramer, A. S. (2019). Framing the debate: The status of US sex education policy and the dual narratives of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education policy. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 14(4), 490–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2019.1600447
McCarthy, B. W., & McCarthy, E. (2021). Contemporary male sexuality: Confronting myths and promoting change. Routledge.
Moshman, D. (2014). Sexuality Development in Adolescence and Beyond. Human Development, 57(5), 287–291.
Noorman, M. A. J., den Daas, C., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2022). How parents’ ideals are offset by uncertainty and fears: A systematic review of the experiences of European parents regarding the sexual education of their children. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(7), 1034–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2064414
Pesch, U., & Vermaas, P. E. (2020). The wickedness of Rittel and Webber’s dilemmas. Administration & Society, 52(6), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720934010
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
Robinson, K. H. (2013). Innocence, knowledge and the construction of childhood: The contradictory nature of sexuality and censorship in children's contemporary lives. Routledge.
Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Morris, M., Rotas, N., Sandlin, J., Wallin, J., Carlson, D., & Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. Retrieved November 16, 2022, from http://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/501
Stockton, K. B. (2009). The queer child, or growing sideways in the twentieth century. Duke University Press.
Tolman, D. L., & McClelland, S. I. (2011). Normative sexuality development in adolescence: A Decade in Review, 2000-2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00726.x
UNESCO. (2018). International technical guidance on sexuality education an evidence-informed approach.
Zimmerman, J. (2015) Too Hot to Handle. A Global History of Sex Education. Princeton University Press.
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Mandatory Child Safeguarding Education Programme for Children with Special Educational Needs
Barry Morrissey
Dublin City University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Morrissey, Barry
This study is focused on the role of schools in child safeguarding - specifically how teachers accessibilise a state-mandated child safeguarding education programme (CSEP), for children with special educational needs (SEN). Research across Europe and beyond indicates that children with SEN are more likely to be victims of child abuse (Putnam, 2003; Davies and Jones, 2013), with some evidence indicating that the likelihood is three-to-four times that of their typically-developing peers (Sullivan and Knutson, 2000). This increased susceptibility amplifies the significance of CSEPs in supporting and protecting their overall wellbeing (Miller and Raymond, 2008). In Ireland, the Stay Safe programme (MacIntyre and Lawlor, 2016) is rendered as the mandatory CSEP for all primary schools (Government of Ireland, 2023). This incorporates special schools which presents many challenges given the standard nature of the programme and questions over the extent to which it can be adapted, given the national policy mandate (Morrissey, 2021).
Like CSEPs across the continent, Stay Safe incorporates key areas that have been deemed essential in developing personal safety and abuse prevention skills in children (Brasard and Fiorvanti, 2015). These areas inform the Stay Safe conceptual framework which is based around five key topics and which underpins this research study:
-
Feeling Safe and Unsafe
-
Friendship and Bullying
-
Touches
-
Secrets and Telling
-
Strangers
It is advised that topics be taught in their ‘entirety…consecutively, beginning with Topic 1 and working through to Topic 5…in one block’ (MacIntyre and Lawlor 2016, p.7). Each topic is developmentally structured over four age-levels, with each level aimed at what the neurotypical child is assumed to be able to cognitively assimilate at that age:
-
Level 1 (5-6 year olds)
-
Level 2 (7-8 year olds)
-
Level 3 (9-10 year olds)
-
Level 4 (11-12 year olds)
The rigidity of this structure presents challenges for children with SEN, as many of these children may not have the cognition required to access the key messages of the core programme, at the different levels. The objective of this research is to probe how teachers deal with this reality at a practical level, for each of the five topics. The main research question is:
To define and categorise the approaches used for each topic, Shawer’s (2010) theoretical framework for curriculum enactment is relied upon. This framework is based on the notion that teachers can adopt three approaches to curriculum enactment:
-
The curriculum transmission approach, which is typically understood as implementing the curriculum with fidelity, in adherence with what is laid out in the official written document, in order to achieve a set of desired outcomes;
-
The curriculum development or ‘adaptation’ approach, which ‘enfranchises teachers to shape the curriculum according to their contexts’ (Shawer, 2010, p. 174);
-
The curriculum making approach, which involves teachers rejecting the official curriculum and enacting a completely different curriculum that is more-or-less self-designed.
Although rooted in Ireland, this paper will interest scholars in other European jurisdictions in both the health and wellbeing domain and the special education domain, given the widespread use of CSEPs in many jurisdictions across the continent (Topping and Barron, 2009; Walsh et al., 2018) and the dearth of data on their enactment with children with SEN. That the CSEP under examination in this study, is state-mandated, regardless of child ability, adds to the novelty of this paper and speaks to a trend emerging across Europe of teachers being subjected to greater regulation in curriculum enactment (see for example, Priestley et al., 2021) - even in the health and wellbeing sphere.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA two-phase, explanatory sequential mixed-methods research apparatus was designed to address the research question.
Phase 1 was quantitative in nature and consisted of a questionnaire distributed online, via Qualtrics, to the principal of every special school in Ireland. The distribution list was composed of all special schools (n=133) identified on a publicly available database from Ireland's Department of Education, from the 2019-2020 academic year. The purpose of the questionnaire was to generate descriptive statistics and identify areas that needed further exploration in Phase 2. The questionnaire’s valid response rate was 32%.
Phase 2 was qualitative in nature, and took the form of a three-site embedded case-study. The principals of all designated special schools were invited to nominate their school for participation via a recruitment notice sent with the questionnaire during Phase 1. When the expressions of interest were collated, three schools were selected on the basis of non-probability, purposive sampling:
- One school for learners with Mild General Learning Disabilities;
- One school for learners with Moderate General Learning Disabilities;
- One school for learners with Severe-Profound (SP) General Learning Disabilities.
There were four units within each Phase 2 case:
- Documentary analysis of the school’s curricular policy in the area under investigation;
- Interview with principal teacher;
- Interview with the curriculum coordinator, responsible for leading the mandatory CSEP under examination;
- Focus group of three or four teachers.
Moseholm and Fetters’ (2017, p.8) explanatory bidirectional framework was used to integrate data from both phases of this research because it facilitated an ‘iterative approach’ to data analysis. Phase 1 findings were analysed first and priori codes developed from this analysis were used to inform Phase 2. The findings from the second phase were then analysed and the emerging themes were used ‘to look for corroborative data from the quantitative dataset’ (Moseholm and Fetters 2017, 8). Greene’s (2007, 188) marble technique was employed for presenting findings because it allowed both phases of research to be reported together, ‘not-layered or offered separately’, so that the research objective could be addressed ‘in one chorus’.
Both phases of research were piloted before data-gathering commenced.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of this research illustrate the complexity of teaching a mandatory CSEP to children with SEN. While the overwhelming majority of special schools indicate that they complete the CSEP under investigation, half of those surveyed only use it ‘as a guide’. The results show that teachers engage in extensive adaptation in all five topics - and even at that, the extent to which children can access the key messages is questionable. Teachers prioritise potential child learning over programme fidelity, rejecting key design tenets in order to increase accessibility. That teachers are pressed into making self-determined prioritisations, which may theoretically conflict with the policy position in relation to their obligations to implement the programme, has validated some concerns that meaningful child safeguarding may have become ‘subservient’ to procedural considerations (Morrissey, 2021, p.12).
These findings have implications for the design of CSEPs across Europe. CSEPs that are conceptualised from a universal design perspective and promote teacher agency to tailor content to child need and capacity, will be better disposed to address a broader gamut of learners. However, determining the level of tailoring poses a dilemma - namely, too much tailoring could jeopardise the theoretical basis on which a CSEP is founded or at the very least undermine programme fidelity; too little tailoring could render the programme ineffective for some learners with SEN. This study’s unique contribution is that it showcases the potential of progression continua for individual CSEP topics, with a view to changing the approach for enacting CSEPs for learners with learning difficulties. The study will be of interest to teachers, teacher-educators and researchers from across Europe, due to the important insights on and possible directions for addressing a complex area of educational provision for a vulnerable population, in the health and wellbeing domain.
ReferencesBrassard, M.R. and Fiorvanti, C.M. (2015) ‘School-based child abuse prevention programs’, Psychology in the Schools, 52(1), pp. 40–60.
Davies, E. and Jones, A. (2013) ‘Risk factors in child sexual abuse’, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 20(3), pp. 146–150.
Government of Ireland (2023) Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: Government Publications.
Greene, J. (2007) Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
MacIntyre, D. and Lawlor, M. (2016) The Stay Safe Programme (Revised). Dublin: Child Abuse Prevention Programme.
Miller, D. and Raymond, A. (2008) ‘Safeguarding Disabled Children’, in Baginsky, M. (ed.) Safeguarding Children and Schools. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 68–84.
Morrissey, B. (2021) ‘A critical policy analysis of Ireland’s Child Protection Procedures for schools: emerging policy considerations’, Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 21(1), pp. 1–16.
Moseholm, E. and Fetters, M. (2017) ‘Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies’, Methodological Innovations, 10(2), pp. 1–11.
Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. and Soini, T. (2021) Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Putnam, F. (2003) ‘Ten-year research update review: child sexual abuse’, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), pp. 269–278.
Sullivan, P. and Knutson, J. (2000) ‘Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(10), pp. 1257–1273.
Shawer, S. (2010) ‘Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), pp. 173–184.
Topping, K. and Barron, I. (2009) ‘School-based child sexual abuse prevention programs: a review of effectiveness’, Review of Educational Research, 79(1), pp. 431–463.
Walsh, K., Zwi, K., Woolfenden, S. and Shlonsky, A. (2018) ‘School-based education programs for the prevention of child sexual abuse: a Cochrane Systematic Review and meta-analysis’, Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), pp. 33–55.
|
