Rima Ali Researching Teaching and Learning

17789022

Assessment 2

Introduction

Previous studies indicate that LGBTQ students have higher rates of mental health issues than

heterosexual students due to bullying and victimization within school environments and

higher rates of absenteeism consequently effecting academic outcomes of Gender diverse

students. School curricula has been attributed as the foremost contributor to exclusive

education and victimization of gender diverse youth. The article The Impact of Homophobic

Bullying during Sport and Physical Education Participation on Same-Sex Attracted and

Gender-Diverse Young Australians’ Depression and Anxiety Levels “The Equal Play Study”

by Caroline Symons Grant O’Sullivan Erika Borkoles Mark B. Andersen Remco C. J.

Polman predominately discourses victimization and harassment of gender diverse students

specific and limited to PE classes. The article discusses traditional gender categories and

course content as well as the need for policy and curricula change to accommodate gender

diverse students. This article will be compared with Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire,

Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T. Russell’s research “LGBTQ-inclusive

curricula: why supportive curricula matter” which discusses the necessity for inclusive

curricula for gender diverse individuals amongst all course subjects as a means to effectively

provide LGBTQ students with inclusive and supportive education and safer school

environments. The article also contrasts the school climate, environment, safety and mental

health for LBGTQ students whereby inclusive and supportive curriculum is offered against

schools that lack supportive and inclusive curriculum for gender diverse students. Both

articles effectively discuss the necessity of curricula inclusion for LGBT students. While the
first article utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research to obtain their results the second

article only employed Quantitative research to obtain their data. However, both articles rely

on previous research as a basis of their arguments. In regards to the implications of teaching

practice, both articles determine that there is a necessity for a revised approach to

pedagogical practice directly in regards to change in curricular and school policy to provide

inclusive education for LBGTQ students.

Through thorough examination of both articles it is obvious that both research articles

undergo an in depth study of the pedagogical implications of school curricular heterosexual

bias and its association with mental health issues of LBGTQ students. However, both articles

are limited in that they merely examine attributions of gender diverse student’s mental health

concerns internal to the school curricular and school policies. Neither research article

examines the geographic location and cultural hegemony of the school. Historically,

prejudice in all forms either racial or sexual can stem from individuals non conformity to the

dominant cultural hegemony. Therefore, all elements of the student’s sociocultural factors

should be considered when examining the attributions for maltreatment of gender diverse

students. Laura Azzarito & Melinda A. Solomon argue that “the gender, race and social class

differences have not been an important consideration, and that understanding the implications

of these differences is crucial for improving physical education curriculum”. To further

extend and advance this study it would be beneficial to explore the issues of gender diversity

on a broader spectrum which includes the cultural, social stereotypes that may also attribute

to the school climate and harassment and victimization of LBGTQ students.

Furthermore, although both articles are in agreement that there is a necessity to change

curriculum in PE classrooms they fail to recognise the attributions that may root the
homophobia present within PE classroom environments. Although the participants in

Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T.

Russell’s research responses engaged with feminine and masculine stereotypes about physical

sports the article nor the survey directly engaged with issues of gendered roles. Neither

articles succeed in discoursing the historical and current gender stereotypes that have both

pre-existed and continually exist especially in areas of sporting and physical activity as well

as biological makeup. L. Azzarito and M. A. Solomon’s research utilizes both feminism and

postculturalism as a theoretical framework as a means to deconstruct traditional dominant

gender, race and social class issues centred around the body in sport and physical education.

(Azzarito & A. Solomon, 2005). Both articles will benefit by discussing theories of feminism,

masculinity and postculturalism and its attribution to homophobia within PE classrooms and

school climate. Laura Azzarito & Melinda A. Solomon further discuss that there is a need to

“reform the traditional sport-based physical education curriculum by addressing issues of

girls’ and boys’ participation in physical education and in sport in relation to different forms

of physical culture produced in society (Azzarito & A. Solomon, 2005). Thus both articles

would benefit by extending their research to discuss the source of homophobia in relation to

gender specific sports and biological makeup.

There are obvious similarities in both articles theory that higher levels of mental health

concerns are caused by school climates not providing safe, inclusive and supportive

education and environments for LGBTQ students. Both articles are alike in that they both

propose revision of school curricular. However, although Caroline Symons Grant O’Sullivan

Erika Borkoles Mark B. Andersen Remco C. J. Polman research proposes a revision of PE

curricula and selective teacher placement. Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina

O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T. Russell’s research extends beyond just revision of

school curricular to decipher causes of mental health issues for LBGTQ students. The article
draws on the term “School climate” which refers to the interactions among students and

teachers, organisational structures and culture or policy conditions of schools (Anderson

1982) in order to deconstruct the elements of school sociocultural factors that permit

victimization of gender diverse students. The article mandates the requirement to

acknowledge individual’s differences in that some students maybe “more attuned or sensitive

to safety than others” thus affecting their perceptions of school climate.

Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson argues that “A review of prior, relevant literature is an

essential feature of any academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for

advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of

research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed”. (Webster, T. Watson)

Although Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion &

Stephen T. Russell’s basis of their argument and background cited literature is extensive and

creates a firm foundation, most of the literature and previous research cited originates from

the United States limiting its contextual and global relevance. It would be beneficial to the

research if previous literature included research from countries that were less westernised,

all-inclusive and more multicultural. This will enable the study to extend beyond school

policy of westernised countries and rather enquire into the sociocultural elements of the

students and its impact or attributions of sexual prejudice and homophobia within schools.

An important aspect of both articles is the ethical approval that both research obtained. Joan

E. Sieber & Martib B. Tolich stated that “an effective system of ethical review of research

involving human subject is vital to the protection of research participants (E. Sieber, & B.

Tolich, 2017). Caroline Symons, Grant O’Sullivan, Erika Borkoles, Mark B. Andersen, &
Remco C. J. Polman’s sought out ethical approval by The Victoria University Human

Research Ethics Committee which deemed it to meet the requirements of the National Health

and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in

Human Research (2007). (Symons, O’Sullivan, Borkoles, B. Andersen, & C. J. Polman,

2014). Additionally, Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee

Gabrion & Stephen T. Russell’s research was granted IRB approval from the the University

of Arizona’s ethics committee to analyse this secondary data-set (*******). Ethical approval

is of particular importance when researching minors and participants who have experienced

victimization and harassment especially in regards to the issue of homophobia and bullying.

This is due to the delicate nature of the participant’s experiences with harassment that may

result in the resurface of previous trauma caused by the inquisitive nature of the research

conducted.

The articles began to contrast in the ways in which they conducted their research and

obtained their data. Neuman, W. L. stated “Strong, solid evidence has less to do with being

either quantitative or qualitative than with how carefully and systematically a researcher

gathered the evidence” (Neuman, 2009). Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina O.

Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T. Russell’s research was limiting as it only incorporated

quantitative research. The research would have tremendously benefitted if it had utilized a

variety of research methods such as qualitative research and allowed for more open ended

questions. Additionally, the sample size although diverse and substantial was restricted to

cross sectional data and merely represented minors located in California. A snowball

sampling technique would have allowed for a larger sampling method and would have

allowed the researcher to reach populations that would generally be difficult to sample.
In contrast Caroline Symons Grant O’Sullivan Erika Borkoles Mark B. Andersen Remco C.

J. Polman’s Research methods comprised of both qualitative and quantitative research. This

benefitted the research in that it allowed for the participants to respond to the survey in a

more informal and emotional response providing details about their characteristics.

Additionally, the research used a snowball sampling technique to expand their recruitments

of participants. This was done using Facebook and advertising. Initially the study was limited

to Victoria but was then expanded to include Australia wide. The research conducted by

Caroline Symons Grant O’Sullivan Erika Borkoles Mark B. Andersen Remco C. J. Polman

was far more in depth and reliable as it was systematically collected and not limited in areas

of participants. The research did not only represent a small minority but rather a large

majority. Furthermore, the utilization of qualitative research allowed for open ended

questions permitting participants to discuss freely their own experiences with homophobia

within school environments.

In conclusion both articles identify extensive amount mental health concerns for LBGTQ

students due to the lack of supportive and inclusive curriculum and school climates. Both

articles propose amendment to school curriculum to include supportive and inclusive

education for gender diverse students in order to promote safe and supportive environments.

This will affect the pedagogical practice of schools in terms of content in order to provide

gender diverse students with inclusive and supportive education and hopefully create a safe

and tolerant environment for LBGTQ students. Furthermore, there is a clear quality

difference in research conducted by both articles. Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire,

Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T. Russell’s article only utilized research

specific to a limited area while Caroline Symons Grant O’Sullivan Erika Borkoles Mark B.

Andersen Remco C. J. Polman’s article allowed for a more contextual explanation provided
through qualitative research. By examining both articles it is obvious that schools are failing

to provide gender diverse students with safe and supportive environments, furthermore the

curricular context is only further isolating these gender diverse students and promoting

unsafe and antagonising environments within PE classrooms.

Reference List

Anderson, C. S. 1982. “The Search for School Climate: A Review of the Research.” Review

of Educational Research 52 (3): 368– 420. doi:10.3102/00346543052003368.

Equal Play Study”, 1-24. Retrieved from

http://file://ad.uws.edu.au/DFShare/StdHomes/17789022/My%20Documents/EqualPl

ayReport_HomophobicBullyingDuringSport_DescriptiveStats_2014.pdf

E. Sieber, J., & B. Tolich, M. (2017). Planning Ethically Responsible Research (2nd ed., p.

1). California: SAGE Publications, 2012.

Kirk, D. (2002) Physical education: a gendered history, in: D. Penney (Ed.) Gender and

physical education. Contemporary issues and future directions (New York,

Routledge).

Neuman, W. (2009). Understanding research (1st ed., pp. 1-23). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn

and Bacon.

Shannon D. Snapp, Jenifer K. McGuire, Katarina O. Sinclair, Karlee Gabrion & Stephen T.

Russell (2015) LGBTQ-inclusive curricula: why supportive curricula matter, Sex

Education, 15:6, 580-596, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2015.1042573

Symons, C., O’Sullivan, G., Borkoles, E., B. Andersen, M., & C. J. Polman, R. (2014). The

Impact of Homophobic Bullying during Sport and Physical Education Participation on Same-

SexAttracted and Gender-Diverse Young Australians’ Depression and Anxiety Levels“The

Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a

Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii-Xxiii. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319