Inclusivity in the English Classroom

(1)

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES

Department of Humanities

Inclusivity in the English Classroom

A Study in Inclusivity, Focusing on Heteronormativity and Sexuality,

in the English Courses 5-7 in Upper Secondary Schools

Frida Winterkvist

2020

Independent Thesis, Professional Degree (advanced), 30 HE English

Upper Secondary Teacher Education Programme

Degree Thesis for Teachers: English with an Emphasis on Didactics (91-120) Supervisor: Iuilian Cananau

(2)

(3)

Abstract

This student thesis project centers around two subjects, heteronormativity and LGBTQIA+ representation, and examines whether or not they are prominent in today’s schools in a smaller selected municipality in Sweden, if schools strive for inclusivity, and what is done to prevent any potential suffering for the LGBTQIA+ youth. Firstly, this student thesis project presents the theory, more specifically queer theory, that will be used as the basis for results analysis. Secondly, the background is presented with relevant previous research in similar areas where LGBTQIA+ themes or issues and heteronormativity are key elements. Thirdly, this student thesis project presents the questionnaire that eight upper secondary school teachers in English have responded to and what they have responded, followed by the results that consist of an analysis using the previous research. Lastly, this student thesis project concludes that many areas affect how and when LGBTQIA+ issues or questions are represented. One area is responsibility as responsibility appears to be put on teachers, Skolverket, and the students themselves for change to happen. Teachers must dare to include LGBTQIA+ issues or questions, and teachers urge Skolverket to assist in including LGBTQIA+ related topics in the steering documents. The students have a responsibility to take LGBTQIA+ issues or questions seriously as they are presented to them in class and allow themselves to ask questions to gain more knowledge in the area. There is room for improvement in terms of inclusivity as heteronormativity still influences the schools in the selected municipality, making LGBTQIA+-questions secondary and separate rather than a natural part of education.

(4)

educational spaces, here upper secondary school, and how teachers are working towards inclusivity and diversity in terms of sexuality. To investigate how teachers are working today, eight English teachers have participated by answering a questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of questions that relate to the research questions that are mentioned below. LGBTQIA+ is the abbreviation that refers to those who do not

identify as heterosexual and will be defined below under the terminology section. In this student thesis project, it will be analyzed in the results whether the schools are inclusive in terms of LGBTQIA+ representation, if the schools are affected by heteronormativity, and if there is room for more than just heterosexuality in the world of education. The essay will mainly focus on language and the usage of “inclusive” language in terms of LGBTQIA+ representation and heteronormativity. For example, inclusive language can be including same-sex couples whenever relationships or families are discussed. It is also noteworthy whether or not such instances are noticed by the students and what their thoughts are regarding it. To narrow it down, this student thesis focuses on sexuality and what it could mean to be inclusive in terms of sexuality in the English courses in the upper secondary school. The school subject aims of English 5-7 from Skolverket will also be referred to and discussed under results as the participants from the questionnaire mentioned Skolverket as being part of the solution, in the participants’ opinion. The research questions are 1) How do the teachers in upper secondary schools in the selected municipality work with LGBTQIA+-questions in the English courses? 2) What

measures do teachers believe can be taken at different levels (teacher level, principal level, national curricular/Skolverket level) to be able to work towards a more inclusive environment in English courses at upper secondary schools? 3) The use of language appears to matter; to what extent do the teachers use the English language, more specifically what terminology, concerning to LGBTQIA+ while including LGBTQIA+ related topics?

(6)

2 (Skolverket 2020). Sexuality and sexual orientation have historically been used as justification for marginalizing and discrimination. For example, not to acknowledge that justification might contradict the curricular requirements mentioned above. It would be relevant for a student to be exposed to more than just heterosexuality as they most likely encounter people of various sexualities throughout their lives. Students are exclusively exposed to heterosexuality because of heteronormativity, according to previous research by Cristian D. Magnus and Mattias Lundin (2016), which will be discussed further in section “Background”. The definition of heteronormativity will be presented under the terminology section.

Moreover, the teacher could include LGBTQIA+ related topics to erase some of the heteronormativity in the classroom, as the curriculum is not exhaustive and technically has the choice to be inclusive or not. In English 6, one part of the contents of

(7)

3 2. Queer Theory

Queer theory is used throughout this student thesis project and is a theory that came to focus on and question the concept of identity, specifically gender and sexual identity. The term ‘queer’ is defined to neither have “a foundational logic nor a consistent set of characteristics” and that it is “an identity without an essence” (Jagose 1996, p. 96). However, as it appears to be such an ‘ambiguous’ term, it can be considered difficult to study. This study has decided to focus on the definition that queer refers to identity, more specifically any identity that is not cisgender and/or heterosexual (McCann and Monaghan 2020, p. 3). Also, the term ‘queer’ has etymologically transformed from being a ‘slur’, used to oppress those who identified as queer, into an affirmation used by the queer people themselves (Giffney and O’Rourke, 2009, p. 17). Queer theory also came from gay and lesbian identity politics but disassociated to become its own theory and the term was first ‘high-profiled’ by Teresa De Lauretis, a writer and professor, in 1991 (Giffney and O’Rourke, 2009, p. 21).

The meaning of ‘queer’ and ‘queerness’ has been re-identified by activists, writers, professors, and queers themselves since the birth of the term. Karl Knapper, an activist, defined it in 1992 as “queerness is about acknowledging and celebrating difference, embracing what sets you apart. A straight person can’t be gay, but a straight person can be queer” (Giffney and O’Rourke, 2009, p. 21). Michael Warner, a writer, defined it in 1993 as “the preference for ‘queer’ represents, among other things, an aggressive impulse of generalization; it rejects a minoritising logic of toleration or simple political interest-representation in favour of a more thorough resistance to regimes of the

normal” (Giffney and O’Rourke, 2009, p. 21). It means that the term focuses on the different sexualities, and embraces the differences, rather than seeing them as defects.

The first activists for LGBTQIA+ representation started with the intention to make same-sex relations be viewed as ‘legitimate’ to transform the “oppressive social structures” that stated that they were not legitimate (Jagose, 1996, p. 60). They wanted to fight back against the “stultifications of feminist and left anti-intellectualism” (Sedgwick et al. 2013, p. 14). In recent years, the term ‘politically correct’ came to life to ‘mock’ those who fought against such (Sedgwick et. al. 2013, p. 14). Moreover, queer theory began as the same type of activists started to question representation in not only literature, but in the cinematic and theatre world around the world, and as

(8)

4 more inclusivity, that people of different sexualities would be represented and have their existence acknowledged. Queer theory came from the queer studies which emerged in the early 1990s (Barry 2017, p. 141). From queer theory, aspects such as sexuality were thought to be “socially constructed” which means that society shapes the individual into identifying a certain way sexually. For example, a heteronormative society could be shaping individuals into believing they must be heterosexuals. Queer theory suggests a heteronormative society is more about trying to find an ideal in terms of sexuality to strive for and follow, rather than being something that humans do by nature.There is also a desire to normalize different sexualities, and not reduce them into something they are not. Jonathan Alexander and Karen Yescavage have been focusing on bi-erasure, meaning that bisexual individuals have been reduced to either being gay or being straight, depending on their current relationship. If the bisexual individual is in a same-sex relationship, they are labeled as ‘gay’, and if they are in a mixed-same-sex relationship, they are labeled as ‘straight’:

At the same time, sexual identity is only so effective in challenging homophobic social norms; because of heteronormativity, for instance, bisexuality frequently disappears into the dominant (straight) cultural field of vision as many focus on the normative ‘straight’ relationship while thinking of same-gendered attractions and intimacies as simply ‘experimentations’ or ‘erotic excursions’. As such, bisexual identity can be observed being simultaneously shoved into and out of both gay and straight communities (Giffney & O’Rourke, 2009, p. 49).

Furthermore, as Michael Foucault wrote in The History of Sexuality, that “we are what we desire” and that one’s sexuality is part of one’s whole identity, meaning that no matter what sexuality an individual identifies with is part of the individual’s true self (Giffney and O’Rourke 2009, p. 51). If so, sexuality is a natural part of each individual and not a choice one can make, hence not socially constructed.

Moreover, queer theory has a purpose to make sexual orientation “a fundamental category of analysis and understanding”, and presumably has a political or social aim, particularly “as oppositional design upon society, for it is ‘informed’ by resistance to homophobia and heterosexism and the ideological and institutional practices of

(9)

5 However, this theory is not believed to be a “unified body of work”, but rather consists of multiple angles or ramifications. One aspect queer theory wants to question is whether gender or sexuality is more fundamental to the personal self, meaning whether or not one’s gender or sexuality is a larger part of one’s identity. Heterosexuality is first thought to be the normative self, which is naturally given, while homosexuality is seen as ‘other’, something that is not naturally given. There is also a theory regarding whether identity is fluid, which also includes sexual identity. Such fluidity means that sexuality does not have to be something permanent, something that cannot change over time. One’s identity can therefore change over time. Another theory is that “all

identities are a kind of impersonation or approximation, a kind of imitation for which there is no original” (Barry 2017, p. 147). If any of these aspects are true, then there is a “limitless data bank of potentialities” (Barry 2017, p. 147), meaning that people can be whatever they want to be, their identity can be ever-changing, and it is up to the

individual to find their identity and not something that society decides.

Within queer theory, lesbian/gay studies have specifically tried to point to post-structuralism, where the idea is to “deconstruct binary oppositions”, which here is heterosexuality/homosexuality. These two are paired to deconstruct and to distinguish differences in terms of privilege and what makes them opposites.

Also, as queer theory is believed to stem from political motives, queer theory goes into questioning political power. According to queer theory, heterosexuality is believed to have political and cultural power today in Sweden. Heterosexuality is the social norm and the exclusively natural sexuality (Wasshede 2010, p. 27), which then proceeds to affect those who do not identify as such. Any other sexuality could be considered as ‘abnormal’ and could suffer from consequences because of cultural attitudes that consider abnormality as bad. Wasshede (2010, p. 28) theorized that when an individual identifies as something which is outside of the cultural norm, there is a risk because of that cultural norm and negative attitudes, that the sexual identity is deemed to interfere with the status quo. Therefore, those who do not accept ‘abnormalities’ would go forward by using either violence or other actions that intend to hurt the person or the people in question who are identifying outside of what is thought to be the norm

(10)

6 Wasshede (2010) argued that there are two terms that need to be established, as they are significant in queer theory and they explain why queer theory is political. Those two terms are interaction and intra-action. First, interaction refers to gender and sexuality being independent of each other, and the two did preexist one another. Now the two concepts are interacting and there are no transformations between them, they do not affect each other. One does not need to understand one concept to understand the other concept. On the other hand, intra-action refers to the belief that the two concepts gender and sexuality do indeed have a mutual dependency and that they become graspable when they are put together. One can grasp one concept if one grasps the other concept. For example, Wasshede (2010, p. 37) argued sexual identities are better understood through understanding gender differences. Therefore, sexual identity and gender are intra-acting (Wasshede 2010, p. 37). As the two are intra-acting with each other, it would mean they are pervading and transforming each other. They affect each other. Aspects like intra-action are also included in the analysis of the result as there is a possible link between gender and sexual identity, both according to Wasshede (2010) and some of the previous research, which will be discussed further down.

Queer theory has been selected for this student thesis project on the grounds of its questioning of heterosexuality’s privilege and the representation of LGBTQIA+ in spaces where LGBTQIA+ might have been excluded or ignored before. It has also been selected on account of its questioning of heteronormativity and what establishes

heterosexuality as the norm, which makes other sexualities to be seen as ‘abnormal’ or ‘otherness’. This essay could also have used feminist theory which also focuses on inequality and representation, but feminist theory mainly focuses on gender equality between the two binary sexes rather than sexual equality and equal representation between different sexualities, and queer theory was thus deemed more suitable.

2.1.Terminology

(11)

7 like sexual identity or relationships, as opposed to heterosexual individuals, and

assuming someone else’s sexuality could be harmful as those who are not heterosexual are falsely labeled as so, and might not contradict that label in fear of not being

accepted.

First off, heteronormativity can influence children’s lives as early as early childhood education in Sweden, according to Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 522). By using this as an argument, Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 522) claimed that heteronormativity has had some time to influence the students when they reach upper secondary school if it is never questioned or challenged before then. The students who are participating are as young as three years old and have presumably no understanding of the term, which is why it could be the preschool teachers’ responsibility to be role models who challenge or question heteronormativity. According to Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 523), the children’s first role model outside of the family could be the preschool teacher, and young children are prone to imitate what they see and hear, based on the study by Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 522) where the students are imitating what they believe is a family during their pretend play. Therefore, if the preschool teachers are actively challenging norms or question heteronormativity in front of their pupils, there is a chance the students imitate and start challenging norms as well. By being the first to challenge norms, it gives the students time to develop critical thinking at an early age, which could be beneficial and give them an advantage later in their education. By taking measures to decrease

heteronormativity in early childhood education in Sweden, there is a possibility that heteronormativity will not have as much influence during upper secondary school as the students will have the tools to critically analyze and challenge fewer positive norms.

(12)

8 schools. There have been projects on gender equality in Swedish schools, but as Brunila and Edström (2013, p. 310) argued, it could be damaging to have many on-going

projects as the projects could vary in quality and the extent to which these projects are working towards gender equality. Brunila and Edström (2013, p. 313) claimed that by making it ordinary work, for gender equality to be part of the initial education, would be a more efficient way for gender equality to be enforced.

Another key term in this paper is LGBTQIA+, which is an abbreviation. The abbreviation stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (Merriam-Webster 2020). This community includes all sexual and gender identities that are not heterosexual and/or cisgender and includes more than just the identities

mentioned in the abbreviation which is why a plus is added at the end of the

abbreviation to signify it. Simplified, the LGBTQIA+ community started because of a riot at Stonewall Inn., a gay club, in 1969, where LGBTQIA+ individuals were mourning the passing of Judy Garland, an actress, and singer (Halkitis, 2019, p. 852). The riot began with police forces raiding the club to arrest those who were homosexual as same-sex relationships were illegal at the time. The stand-off between the

LGBTQIA+ individuals and the police lasted for five days but sparked a social movement that is still active and relevant today (Halkitis, 2019, p. 851).

Less than two decades before the Stonewall riots, Alan Turing, who is considered the ‘forefather’ to the modern computer, was sentenced in court to be chemically castrated for being gay. As he was chemically castrated, he suffered from impotence and later ended his own life in 1954 because of not feeling physically or mentally well. Halkitis (2019, p. 851) argued that this serves as a reminder to not let such instances repeat themselves and to fight back against social inequities. The LGBTQIA+ community was tired of enduring the same treatment that Turing had endured, and the Stonewall riot was just the beginning of the LGBTQIA+ community fighting back. The movement was also intertwined with the women’s rights movement which also strived for equality, as members of the women’s rights movement could also be members of the LGBTQIA+ community (Halkitis, 2019, p. 851).

(13)

9 As to the courts, they could condemn homosexuality as well as infidelity, marriage without parental consent, or bestiality. What was taken into account in the civil and religious jurisdictions alike was a general unlawfulness. Doubtless acts "contrary to nature" were stamped as especially abominable, but they were perceived simply as an extreme form of acts "against the law"; they were infringements of decrees which were just as sacred as those of marriage, and which had been established for

governing the order of things and the plan of beings (Foucault, 1998, p. 38).

(14)

10 3. Previous Research Regarding Inclusivity Focusing on LGBTQIA+

This section provides a background and previous research in the area of inclusivity, and diversity, which focuses on LGBTQIA+, to examine what research has concluded in the past.

3.1. The Famous Nordic Gender Equality and What’s Nordic About It – Gender Equality in Finnish and Swedish Education

Brunila and Edström (2013) decided to investigate gender equality in Nordic education, specifically Finnish and Swedish education. Brunila and Edström (2013, p. 304) found that education in Sweden was persistent in ‘supporting’ females to choose science and to be exposed to more male models. However, Brunila & Edström (2013, p. 306) argued that by doing so, education makes females a “homogeneous group ‘in need’ of becoming more interested” in typically dominated work areas. These male-dominated areas are therefore ‘girl-adapted’ (Brunila and Edström 2013, 306). On the other hand, males are adding “a different view” to typically women-dominated work areas, whilst females are ‘in need’. As there is a distinct difference in the reason why the sexes are placed within different-sex areas, Brunila and Edström (2013, p. 307) claimed that making such a distinct difference between the genders reproduces a hierarchical gender order:

One of our key results is that the essential and hierarchical gender order enforced by marketization has increasingly reproduced gender as competing dichotomous categories with one sex losing (to the benefit of the other) rather than emphasizing gendered practices deprive (groups of) women and men, girls and boys (Brunila and Edström, 2013, p. 309)

(15)

11 This study by Brunila and Edström (2013) has been selected for this student thesis project on the grounds of its themes of gender equality and education in Sweden. It features how the educational spaces have the ambition to be inclusive but might

unintentionally make gender adapted rather than inclusive. This can be contrasted to one of the participating teacher’s ambition to use Pride week as the opportunity to discuss LGBTQIA+ questions or themes, which could make it adapted rather than included as a natural part of the curriculum, which will be discussed under the results section.

Moreover, Brunila’s and Edström’s (2013) study is like this study as both focus on education, specifically in upper secondary schools, and the need for inclusivity. However, the difference between the two is that Brunila and Edström (2013) has focused on the gender perspective but is still relevant and applicable to this student thesis project that focuses on sexuality as gender and sexuality could be intra-acting, as mentioned before.

3.2. Familiar Play: Age-Coded Heteronormativity in Swedish Early Childhood Education

Sotevik et. al. (2019) have conducted a study where the participants are 3- to 6-year-olds at a preschool in Sweden. This study was to investigate “how to (re)produce, (re)negotiate, and challenge heteronormativity in a Swedish Early Childhood Education (ECE) setting” (Sotevik et. al. 2019, p. 520). The focus is on “(re)productions of

heteronormativity in a reoccurring kind of peer-group play the children call mom, dad, child play”. This play is a type of role-play where the children will adopt the role of a family member and therefore to pretend to be a family. Sotevik et. al (2019, p. 520) observed that this play shows how normalized heterosexuality is represented in the context. Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 521) claimed that there is a belief that sexuality is ‘absent’ from children’s lives as they are too young to understand such concepts, but the reality is different. Sexuality ‘emerges’ in multiple ways, such as the games they play, role plays, storytelling, and in popular culture. Even so, Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 521) highlighted that children have shown the ability to transcend “the boundaries of heteronormativity”, to construct such aspects as sexuality in other ways. Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 521) claimed that by being able to do so, it could be because the children are exposed to other sexualities rather than just heterosexuality. Also, the Swedish

(16)

12 Moreover, causes for heteronormativity, which includes gender norms and heterosexual behavior, could be repetition. Repetition makes gender norms and heterosexual behavior seem ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ and therefore reinforces heteronormativity (Sotevik et. al., 2019, p. 522). Another important aspect is the act of imitation, as it is central to play as children imitate what they see and hear. Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 524) claimed that what they see in their study, as they observe the children during their mom, dad, child play, is the act of imitation. Somewhere, the children have seen the situations or heard the words which they are using and are therefore imitating. The study observed children at a preschool in Sweden and consisted of interviews with both the children and the

preschool teachers. The “mom, dad, child” play is played in the part of the preschool that is described as the ‘apartment’, as it is modeled to replicate a home. The preschool teachers believed that the children would recognize it as an apartment and that it will open for role play where they can pretend to be in a ‘home’. The ‘home’ is where the mom, dad, child play is observed. Afterward, Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 525) interviewed the children where the children claim that a family must have children, and only one mother. When the role of mother is decided, the position is filled and therefore the other children must decide to play another family member. One child claimed that “that is how family is” (Sotevik et. al., 2019, p. 526). Sotevik et. al. (2019, p. 526) argued that such instances are evidence that heteronormative behavior has been reinforced.

However, as two other children are interviewed separately, they both agree that a family needs at least one parent, and that having two mothers or two fathers is also allowed, but that a child is the most important part of the play. The two children further argued that there would not be a family without the child, and a mother is important because they agree that there would not be a child without a mother (Sotevik et. al., 2019, p. 527). Even so, the play contains heteronormative metaphors, such as the belief that the mother is the decider of the family while the father is the ‘cool’ parent that works, has tattoos, and is into racing. The preschool teachers noted that the role of the mother is the most desirable and the role of the father is the least desirable among the children.

(17)

13 connection between the gender of the child and the gender of the role, is based upon the heteronormative behavior that has been reinforced in the child’s life.

This study by Sotevik et. al. (2019) has been included because of its themes of heteronormativity and its place within the educational spaces. This study contains data from early childhood education, which is the start of a pupil’s time in school. It can be contrasted to upper secondary school, which for some pupils are the last years of education before they are headed into work. It will be discussed in the results section.

Moreover, this study by Sotevik et. al. (2019) is like this student thesis project’s thesis as it showcases the negative effects of heteronormativity and how children are influenced from a very young age by society. The difference is that this study focuses on early childhood education but is still relevant as the negative influences from early childhood education can continue to affect the children even when they enter upper secondary school, subconsciously or not. Both studies conclude that it could be significant to make children aware of social structures such as heteronormativity can help them develop critical thinking and the ability to challenge norms they find harmful.

3.3. Gay as a Classroom Practice: A Study on Sexuality in a Secondary Language Classroom

Simonsson and Angervall (2016) conducted a study in sexuality and education, as it is a growing research field in Sweden. Another reason for the study is that school is regarded as a significant influence in the pupils’ lives.

[…] school, as an institution, plays an important role in society when it comes to regulating gender and sexuality since school is a producer of differences in terms of “separable binary oppositions” such as man-woman and straight-gay, that are easily understood within the dominating culture and where one in each couple is usually more highly valued than the other (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 37).

As school has such a big impact on pupils’ lives, it not only regulates but also produces gender and sexuality. Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 38) claimed that previous research shows that male pupils implicitly often bring forth heterosexuality as normal when they are referencing homosexuality as abnormal, whether it is

(18)

14 focus is second language learning, specifically English, as it appears as learning a new language opens the possibilities for the pupils to communicate in new ways.

Furthermore, Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 39) have noticed previous research has been conducted with language learning as the focus. However, it has been focusing on literature used during learning rather than the interaction during production processes within the classroom. Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 39) agreed that representation in literature is important for the “production of legitimate speakers and representation in relation to sexuality in teaching materials can be emphasized as significant in the

production of heteronormativity in school” (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 39). Even so, Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 40) decided to conduct their study regarding the interaction that takes place within the classroom because they believed that “heteronormative discourses in the language classroom can have limiting effects for the possibilities of pupils who do not identify as heterosexual to express themselves and participate in the classroom activities”.

Moreover, Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 48) observed the classroom

atmosphere, the pupils’ and the teacher’s interaction, during English class in grade 8. During one lesson, the pupils are instructed to construct and perform a mini play in front of the class, and the play must be connected to a chapter from a novel the class had read as homework. One of the groups decides to perform a skit where two boys are portraying a homosexual couple getting tattoos together. The skit is met with laughter as the two boys hold hands, touch each other’s stomachs, and are faking tears from pain as they pretend to get their tattoos. Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 49) observed that even the teacher is laughing with the rest of the room and does not react when one pupil interjects the phrase “no homo, right?” at the performing pupils. As the performance was over, another student interjected “no homo, man”. However, as another group performed their mini play, also pretending to receive tattoos, one girl decided to get an image of male genitalia on her arm that she shows the audience. Now, only the pupils were laughing and it was observed that the teacher looked ‘perplexed’ (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 49).

(19)

15 Angervall (2016, p. 51), men have certain expectations, that they should date women, be able to handle pain, and not show affection publicly. By failing to be masculine, the two boys are failing at being men which then is seen as humorous (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 52). The reason why failed masculinity is seen as such a humoristic detail could be that masculinity is seen as natural, and not an aspect that is performed (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 54). By performing as a homosexual couple in a comedic manner, Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 54) argued that the two boys have implicitly selected something that is deemed as unnatural. Also, portraying

homosexuals as hypersexual, as shown by the way the two boys were intimately touching each other, is a stereotype in a discriminatory way. The teacher, by laughing alongside the students and giving positive comments after the performance, normalizes such behavior (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 53).

Furthermore, there might be an underlying reason for the “no homo” comments as Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 55) claimed that “no homo” can be used whenever there is a “supposed misconception or misreading of a previous utterance”. Such aspect means that by interjecting “no homo” at the two boys performing as a homosexual couple, the audience is ‘protecting’ the two boys from the role that they are playing. The audience is protecting the two boys from being confused with the persona that they have on stage.

By interjecting “no homo”, the ‘semantic’ meaning could be that the students might be trying to remove homosexuality from this context, to implicitly show that the

homosexual tendencies are only part of the performance. As the interjection came during the performance when all the students had their attention towards the mini play, the interjection could be a way to get attention from the whole room. Simonsson and Angervall (2016, p. 58) argued that the laughter from the audience and the mocking of a homosexual couple are ways of making homosexuality the ‘punch-ball’. It is to make it imaginary and not present in the classroom. Therefore, the results show that humor could be a tool in the classroom, but can lead to the opposite effect than desired, like with homosexuality in this example (Simonsson and Angervall, 2016, p. 60). The responsibility lays on the teacher to make the humor appropriate, without a ‘punching bag’, and goes with the school’s values.

(20)

16 within the classroom. It features problematic behaviors from both students and the teacher and an analysis of said behavior from Simonsson and Angervall that is useful for this student thesis project.

Furthermore, this study by Simonsson and Angervall is like this student thesis project’s thesis as both focus on language education, here English, and how use of language matters. However, not only does the use of language matter, but actions can matter and influence too. In this scenario, the teacher laughed along with the students, which subconsciously could encourage such behavior the two students showed during class. Both studies want to showcase that not only can such behavior take place during class, but how the teacher is the biggest influence during the children’s education and how they must be aware of their behavior and use of language to avoid negatively influence the students. The difference is that this student thesis project focuses on English education, with syllabuses and curriculums, and not only on specific lessons.

3.4. “It Began with Me”: An Exploration of Exemplary School Counselor and

Principal Experiences with LGBT Students

Beck (2019, p.1) referred to the LGBT youth and students as a “unique population that need and deserve support” within the school environment. Beck (2019, p. 1) also argued that previous research has shown that many school environments in the US are thought of as “unsafe” and “hostile”, and that 98.5% of LGBT youth in the US have experienced at least one incident where they have been targeted with prejudice

comments or had the term “gay” used against them in a ridiculing manner (Beck, 2019, p. 1). Furthermore, Beck (2019, p. 1) believed that school personnel does not intervene as they should whenever there is a case of discrimination or harassment on school grounds or such alike. Therefore, there have been requests from various organizations and others that school counselors and principals ought to do something, to act and make sure that the safety is increased for said students (Beck, 2019, p. 2). They are supposed to do this, according to Beck (2019, p. 2), as they are the “key advocates” and leaders who are equipped with the right tools to create an “inclusive and safe learning

environment” (Beck, 2019, p. 2). Beck’s (2019, p. 3) study is to showcase when counselors and principals have done admirable work in the field of improving the climate for LGBT students.

(21)

17 exemplary participant was operationally defined as current school counselors and

principals awarded/recognized at the national or state level for their commitment to ensuring a safe and inclusive school environment for LGBT students (Beck, 2019, p. 6). In total, four participants that were thought of to be exemplary in this study. The data collection came from interviews that were held during three months at different occasions, and the purpose was to bring light to each of the participating individuals’ experiences. One of the participating individuals, working as a principal, noted that he started working with LGBT issues and to improve his school’s environment because he, as he stated, that “I think, personally, it began with me not having a school when I was growing up that was safe and inclusive. And feeling like that I didn’t belong because I was gay.” (Beck, 2019, p. 8). Most participants mentioned similar views and had had similar experiences (Beck, 2019, p. 8). The only participating individual who identified as transgender noted that she would make sure that the relationship with all the students was “reciprocal” and that the students felt that they could talk to her, that she was someone they could “confide in” (Beck, 2019, p. 9) if there would ever be an issue that needed to be solved. Another participating individual noted that he was always making sure that they know that he sees them, which is done by frequently visiting classrooms and by often reminding the students about the school’s values (Beck, 2019, p. 9). By doing something actively and purposely to inform their students about the school values was one of the first steps towards what is referred to as advocacy for LGBT youth (Beck, 2019, p. 10).

Moreover, some participants decided was necessary is honesty about their sexuality or gender identity. Three of the participating individuals decided to be open about their identities at work, as they wanted the students to see them as representing the

(22)

18 and to make the students feel like they belong in the school, with adults that always intend to make their students feel safe and welcome (Beck, 2019, p. 11).

Beck’s (2019) study has been selected as it features significant perspectives from principals and school counselors, and how work for an inclusive school environment is not only limited to be the teachers’ or the students’ responsibility. It is relevant as it gives some glances into what the school can do with more parties involved and how principals and counselors view their responsibility.

Moreover, Beck’s (2019) study is relevant and like this student thesis project as it signifies the effects that discrimination and abuse have on LGBTQIA+ youth. Even though Beck’s (2019) study is in the US and has studied American LGBTQIA+ youth, it can be an example of what happens when LGBTQIA+ youth is not treated equally. It also shows how teachers, with or without LGBTQIA+ experience, can provide a safe environment for their students at school. This student thesis project also strives to investigate the current situation for LGBTQIA+ youth and representation, but the difference is that Beck’s study focuses on the school environment as a whole and this student thesis project focuses on English education.

3.5. Caught Between Expectations: Swedish Student Teachers’ Experiences of

Working with Gender and Sexuality Issues

Zachariasson (2015, p. 216) mentioned that as a teacher-student begins their education towards becoming a teacher, they are met with many various theories, didactics, methodologies, and ideas that they are supposed to apply into their working life later. Also, this new knowledge is to be tested during all the practicum periods during their education. This is where it might feel challenging, as the teacher-students will encounter different attitudes, opinions, and traditions from both the students and the school personnel. Furthermore, the university and the mentors at the local schools, where the teacher-students are placed during their practicum periods, might view aspects differently, especially regarding sexuality and LGBT issues, where some can have strong or controversial opinions on how and when to address them (Zachariasson, 2015, p. 217).

Next, both gender equality and the strive for no discrimination is part of the Swedish national curriculum from Skolverket, but studies have shown that even though it is part of the material that every school should follow, there is a problem with gender

(23)

19 mentioned that research has shown that schools exclusively focus on a few, very

specific aspects, such as making girls more interested in, for example, science or handle the fact that boys are underachieving. Therefore, issues regarding sexuality receive less attention than the aspects mentioned above (Zachariasson, 2015, p. 218).

Zachariasson (2015, p. 2019) highlighted that the schools can serve as a place where norms are produced, with unwritten rules and expectations as to how to behave, dress, or such alike, and that the national curriculum can play a part in producing such norms or appear to confirm norms to the students. On the other hand, norms can also be found in everyday communication and interaction amongst students, school personnel, and the school system. Hence, it is important that the attitudes regarding sexuality, for example, must be respectful and not prejudice (Zachariasson, 2015, p. 219). However, as many schools consist of people from various cultures, countries and/or with different traditions, it might not always be easy to enforce a more inclusive curriculum.

Not only might students feel that they are expected to follow the norm, but there might also be an aspect which is referred to as an imagined norm, which means when someone is under the impression that a behavior, identity, or sexuality is a norm-based on an assumption about other people or themselves. Therefore, they decide to act concerning said imagined norm even though the person does not have any previous experience of that norm. By trying to fit into the imagined norm, the individual believes that they are avoiding conflicts that might occur if one does not fit into the norm

(24)

20 attitudes and views of the school, and the teacher-students are expected to listen and learn from said mentors (Zachariasson, 2015, p. 220). Teacher-students are subordinate to their mentor, which is why the relationship between the two is referred to as a power relation as the hierarchy might affect how the teacher-students behave. Ultimately, the power relation may affect how and when the teacher-student wants to bring up LGBT issues or themes, all depending on the expectations, attitudes, and views from the mentor. Zachariasson (2015, p. 220) mentions “benevolent techniques” which is means “disciplining and normalizing people without it being too obvious that power is

exercised”. Zachariasson (2015, p. 220) further mentioned that “such benevolent government harmonizes with the democratic values of the Swedish school system, as well as with the caregiving aspects of the daily work in the school and is therefore not recognized as power as such”.

This might restrict the teacher-students in their education during their practicum periods, but also during the theoretical parts of the education at the university as the aim is to make “great teachers” and therefore benevolent techniques might be used to make the power relation seem less obvious, as benevolent techniques may be “a part of a process of disciplining and normalization (Zachariasson, 2015, p. 221). Thus, the behavior of the teacher-student may be affected by the existing power relations, which then makes the teacher-student restrict themselves and may not feel like they can test, or at least not fully test, all the new knowledge that they have received from their teacher education.

(25)

21 Furthermore, Zachariansson’s (2015) study is like this student thesis project as both focus on teachers, but the difference is that Zachariasson (2015) focuses on teachers even before they have graduated with the teacher program. The practicum period shapes the teacher-students and gives them their first teaching experiences and can influence how they teach during their work-life later. This student thesis project focuses on teachers now when they are teaching but has decided to include the significance of the teachers’ practicum periods and how the mentor’s during these practicum periods can affect the future teachers in their teaching.

3.6. Challenging Norms: University Students’ Views on Heteronormativity as a

Matter of Diversity and Inclusion in Initial Teacher Education

Magnus and Lundin (2016, p. 76) investigated the presence of heteronormativity in the school environment, which opened to the importance of questioning said

heteronormativity, as it leads to exclusion of those who do not identify as heterosexual. It is still a problem today and it is said to be “rooted in the evasive and non-reflected role of heteronormativity”, which means that it is not questioned as frequently as it should. According to Magnus and Lundin (2016, p. 77), research shows that the school environment can be both “heteronormative” and “heterosexist”, which means that all students are somehow expected to be and act as being heterosexual. LGBTIQ students have stated that they do not feel welcome or accepted in a school environment like such, according to research done in schools in Iceland . To make a change and to make the school environment more inclusive, it is evidently of great significance that the reason or history behind the heteronormative mindset or expectations, to better understand how to change it (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 77).

Furthermore, those who already experience negative attitudes and prejudice remarks at home, and continue to experience harassment at school, are at higher risk to become underachievers at school, or even dropping out, mentally ill, or homeless (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 77). Not exclusively are they denied “equal access to key social goods”, such as education as stated before, but they are also victims of being

(26)

22 have laughed at jokes where homosexuality is degraded, and only 18% report that their teachers intervened when a gay joke or gay insult was made (Magnus and Lundin 77).

[…] evidence heretofore gathered suggests that teachers largely are not being prepared to recognise homophobic bias, much less to subvert heteronormativity. Schools and colleges of education have been shown, in many cases, to breed deeper heterosexism in teachers (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 77)

Magnus and Lundin (2016, p. 81) conducted a study where they want to challenge these norms that students seem to have, especially concerning heteronormativity. Students are asked about their personal experiences with heteronormativity.

Heteronormativity is believed to be deeply rooted in today’s students, even if they are open to diversity and inclusivity, as it appears to be a case of naturalization. One of the students describes the concept as something that even affects young children:

If blue is presented as the colour of boys, girls won’t wear blue because they don’t want to be seen as boys. Children at that age try to be different than the opposite gender. Some years ago, I personally had an experience in a Disney Store near Frankfurt, Germany. A young family with two children, a girl and a boy, came into the shop. Both of the children ran to the same area of the shop before they were stopped by their parents telling the boy to not go for the girls’ area because there’s a special area with toys only for boys (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 82).

By providing examples like the one mentioned above show that the students are aware of the heteronormativity and that it starts as early as when children are just toddlers and start to experience the world to understand how it works. It all starts with the norm in society codes boys and girls differently, which then leads to people feeling restricted if they do not want to follow the norm. Another student reported that

heteronormativity also affects how open someone is about their sexuality:

(27)

23 the female teacher talked about her lesbian partner (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 82).

These examples show where social norms start to interfere in the school

environment. One teacher-student mentions how a boy and a girl are pushed in different sections of a Disney store, where the girl is pushed against the section with what is referred to as girly items and the boy is pushed into the section with more boyish items, and this is just one example of how even children, who are too young to understand why they are restricted to choose where they want to go themselves. The message, from the grownups, is implicit that it is not normal to be drawn to something outside of the norm and that one should stick to what is meant for them when there is nothing but social norms and prejudice that makes people pick different toys or go to different sections of a store (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 82). Even though the children are not thinking like the adults, they are still restricted and are taught the values, even if they are discriminatory and/or excluding, of their parents. Children do not “naturally” set themselves apart from the opposite sex, but those who are older teach them to do so. Also, aspect of sexuality can be normalized and “naturalized” (Magnus and Lundin, 2016, p. 82), meaning that it could be thought of to be unnatural to be anything else but heterosexual, and this also leads to restrictions in society and makes the LGBTQIA+ youth feel like they are unnatural or not normal.

Magnus’ and Lundin’s (2016) study has been selected as it also features the perspective of teacher-students and how heteronormativity has affected them both throughout their lives but also during their education. It features gender differences and how sexualities have been viewed differently. This student thesis project focuses

primarily on sexuality and being inclusive in terms of different sexualities, and therefore has this study been included.

(28)

24 4. Method

To obtain empirical data, this student thesis project includes a qualitative study with a focus on heteronormativity, sexuality, and the power of inclusive language. A

qualitative study stems from qualitative research where a survey, here questionnaire, is used for the research (Merriam and Tisdell 5). The study is qualitative because it seeks to understand how participants “interpret their experiences” and how they “attribute their experiences” (Merriam and Tisdell 6). The questions for the participants have been constructed from the notion of understanding, and therefore have a ‘qualitative design’ to gain the data needed (Merriam and Tisdell 6). The qualitative study contains semi-structured interviews with eight participants and the age ranges between 26 and 62. The participants are both males and females. The interviews were conducted on May 15th, 2020, through online meetings using Skype with each of the participants. Each interview was one-on-one with each participant. All the participants are currently working as English teachers, with various amounts of teaching experiences. All of the participating teachers have been promised anonymity in terms of names and workplace.

4.1. Selection of Material

This student thesis project has selected previous research studies that feature similar topics, themes, or research questions as material for this study. The previous research features themes such as heteronormativity, sexuality, and education. These previous studies shaped the questionnaire and the interviews because of said themes and the absence of similar studies in the selected municipality. There appeared to be a need for studies in this municipality as there were none when this student thesis project was researched.

(29)

25 thorough with their responses as possible for full clarity. The data was then analyzed using the previous research.

Moreover, queer theory is a result of lack of LGBTQIA+ representation, which is why this student thesis project selected this theory and applied it to smaller

municipality, where once again there was an absence of studies with queer theory as starting point.

4.2. Data Collection

As mentioned before, the data for this student thesis project is collected through semi-structured interviews via Skype where participants received an oral questionnaire. The themes of the questionnaire and the aim of the student thesis project were sent to the participants beforehand for them to understand what the interview would consist of. The questionnaire opened for follow-up questions, and the participants were asked to be thorough with their responses for full clarity. The follow-up questions corresponded with the responses from the participants and assisted the participants to be thorough and clarify what they meant. Each interview took between 40 to 60 minutes to conduct.

4.3. Ethical Issues

The selected municipality is not considered large in neither size nor population, and only has three municipal upper secondary schools. Therefore, the participants are anonymous and the school where they are currently working will not be revealed to protect their integrity. The only known facts about the participants are the gender and the age range. The participants were asked beforehand to give their consent as the interviews were to be recorded, and the interviews were only recorded to transcript afterward. All the participants gave their consent via e-mail before the interviews were conducted. The participants were informed beforehand, via e-mail, about the themes and that the study would be regarding teachers working with heteronormativity and

LGBTQIA+ representation.

4.4. Validity and Reliability

(30)

26 shown a larger scale than it currently does. However, as this student thesis project is based on a qualitative study, there is no need for large samples.

One final shortcoming is that the pandemic affected the schools and made them go into lockdown during the spring of 2020, and the schools turned to online classes. This caused the questionnaire to be done through Skype rather than in person and no students could be interviewed as their lessons were online due to them feeling it would invade their privacy in their homes. Moreover, the general recommendation from the Swedish government was not to make any non-necessary visits during this time to make sure that the virus would not continue to spread among the population. Finally, it should be noted that as this student thesis project has exclusively collected data from the questionnaire with eight participants, because of the covid-19 pandemic, it should be seen as sampling rather than showing the whole situation for the LGBTQIA+ youth. Again, this student thesis project could be the beginning for wider and more complete research, and not seen as complete research.

As “all research is concerned with producing valid and reliable knowledge in an ethical manner” (Merriam and Tisdell 237), this student thesis project has been conducted with this quote in mind. This student thesis project uses a method that measures the inclusion process in the selected municipality, with eight participants, in an ethical manner. The validity could be considered high as the teachers are almost equally spread amongst the three upper secondary schools in this municipality and gives responses that involve the workplace. This student thesis project measures using the teachers’ own beliefs. It is reliable as it shows the experiences of the individuals as of spring 2020.

The data collected came from all the respondents and all available teachers were included due to their availability. All teachers at the three upper secondary schools were contacted and eight accepted the invitation to participate in this study with no previous involvement with the author of this student thesis project. No response has been excluded as it is significant to include all data that is relevant for the study. The

participants have also been involved in the transcript and have approved the summary of the interviews. This author’s presence has hopefully not changed any of the

(31)

27 The study has focused on “methodological rigor”, which means measures to “ensure trustworthiness” (Merriam and Tisdell 242).

The theory selected for this essay, queer theory, has been selected due to its focus on sexuality. Feminist theory was also considered but feminist theory does also focus on gender differences which is less what this essay is about. Therefore, queer theory was deemed more fitting and gives the essay high validity because of this. As queer theory mainly focuses on differences between sexualities and LGBTQIA+ experiences, it increases the reliability on the essay as the focus has stayed the same throughout.

(32)

28 5. Results

The results are presented here to show the responses from the participating teachers to the questionnaire.

5.1. The Interviews

1. What is heteronormativity to you?

Teacher 1, teacher 3, teacher 5, and teacher 7 reveal that they do not know the term. They decide to guess what the term means as they state that they know what ‘hetero’ and ‘norm’ means, and therefore are guessing that the term is something that involves heterosexuality and is a norm. Teacher 1 and teacher 7 express their concern as the term sounds like a political term to them. Teacher 5 is quick to add that they want to be clear that they do not judge other people based on their sexuality. Teacher 2 notes how they remember from their childhood how boys and girls were treated differently and were conditioned to unconsciously not desire the same toys as the opposite sex, which they refer to as ‘evidence’ of heteronormativity. They believe heteronormativity is when certain behaviors or such alike are ascribed, and encouraged, to different sexes. Teacher 8 expresses a similar view as they mention different expectations on the different sexes, and to ‘behave as the opposite sex’ is seen as abnormal and wrong.

Teacher 4 refers to the term as just a term that is stating what the majority identifies as which means heterosexual. They also state that they believe heterosexuality is the ‘default’ sexuality in society, but that any other sexuality is not wrong, but rather uncommon.

Teacher 6 is certain what the term means, that heteronormativity is when different attitudes are based on heterosexuality being the norm. As heterosexuality is the norm, anything outside the norm becomes abnormal or wrong. They mention that gay people are often met with negative attitudes because of heteronormativity as they have been told so by colleagues and friends. They want to change this ‘system’ in society but cannot do it alone.

2. How do you teach your students about different sexualities?

Teacher 3, teacher 4, and teacher 7 all have the same concern and show

unwillingness. It is currently too much work and no time to teach their students about different sexualities. On the other hand, teacher 6 believes it is the teacher’s

(33)

29 cannot be assumed that the parents will do so. By taking responsibility to teach their students, the teacher can be reassured that all of the students will have the same level of knowledge when the semester ends. Teacher 8 is also striving for inclusivity by

critically analyzing the material that they give to their students to make sure that they do include different sexualities where it is appropriate to do so. They mention that they want their students to see them as open-minded by doing so. Teacher 2 also tries to be inclusive by reminding their students that there are more sexualities than just

heterosexuality ‘available’. However, teacher 2 expresses concern regarding how the terminology is difficult for the students to ‘grasp’ in terms of sexuality. Some students have trouble expressing themselves ‘appropriately’ and tend to avoid discussions during topics like sexualities because of this. Teacher 2 wants to make everyone comfortable whenever sexualities are discussed but have felt obligated to ‘strip’ down the lesson plans in this area as students’ did not find the subject ‘graspable’. Teacher 2 has tried to “dumb it down” for the students but has yet to find a way to make sexualities an

understandable topic and to make a comfortable setting in the classroom. Teacher 1 had the ambition to teach their students about different sexualities during Pride week but forgot to do so. Other topics got prioritized and teacher 1 ended up with no time to prepare for Pride week.

Teacher 5 is the only one to highlight that they do not know about different sexualities, and they do not know where to start in terms of selecting material that will cover such a subject. Teacher 5 refers to different sexualities as ‘otherness’ and that it is not

something that they fully understand themselves yet.

3. How do you teach your students about heteronormativity?

(34)

30 Teacher 6 tries to include heteronormativity as much as possible in their education, in the selected literature and discussions and has received positive feedback from the students for it. However, teacher 6 have not included or defined the term

heteronormativity to their students. They have not felt they needed to use the term heteronormativity to analyze the concept but rather focused on exposing and analyzing the social structures in today’s society and what they do to the individual(s). They have not thought about the words and terms they have been using other than defining the words that the students have had as homework. Also, teacher 6 have been using same-sex relationships in their examples and try to challenge norms whenever they feel like it is appropriate during their English classes. Teacher 6 elaborates and mentions that they use norms such as family norms where a mother, a father, and children are expected as an example. Such norm is something that they want to challenge and often mention to their students that families can consist of same-sex couples or just one parent of any gender. They mention that they try not to make a ‘big deal’ of using examples of different family constellations and relationships, to pass it off as more ‘natural’.

Teacher 8 is also including the concept, but without using the term, by discussing social issues with their students. Teacher 8 believes that it is a social issue that ‘LGBT people’ are not treated equally to heterosexual people and brings up topics as such during class whenever the opportunity arises.

4. What is your opinion on working with LGBTQIA+-questions in the English courses? Teacher 1, teacher 2, and teacher 3 find LGBTQIA+-questions to be too difficult. Teacher 1 believes they are difficult as a result of lacking experience and teacher 2 believes they are difficult because of the terminology and what language is appropriate to use. Teacher 3 believes they are too difficult because they think that the questions are too wide and therefore difficult to ‘grasp’, but also because they only have a ‘vague understanding’ of questions. Teacher 5 also believes

(35)

31 Teacher 4 expresses similar views but mentions stress as a factor as to why

LGBTQIA+-questions are difficult to include. The stress comes from not knowing what language is appropriate to use, and it is too much to handle as a teacher. On the other hand, teacher 6 again highlights that it is the teacher’s responsibility to be inclusive, and that includes including LGBTQIA+-questions. Teacher 8 mentions how rewarding it is to challenge the students’ views and to give them the ability to critically analyze social structures, and by including LGBTQIA+-questions, they provide them with this opportunity.

5. What is your opinion on the possibilities to be working with LGBTQIA+-questions in English courses at your school?

Teacher 1, teacher 4, teacher 6, and teacher 8 mention that they believe the possibilities are plenty and good at their schools. Teacher 8 further mentions that LGBTQIA+-questions can be included in already existing themes that are provided in the textbooks that the school uses and that there are no limitations. However, teacher 2 and teacher 5 both believe that it is difficult to work with LGBTQIA+-questions if one is inexperienced as it is difficult to know what and how to implement LGBTQIA+-questions into the syllabus. Teacher 2 requests help from Skolverket to provide

guidelines or including LGBTQIA+-questions in the steering documents for teachers to rely on and base their syllabus on. Teacher 3 also requests finished material, preferably from Skolverket, as they do not know how to work with LGBTQIA+-questions.

Teacher 7 notes that the possibilities are ‘probably’ good, but they have not have enough experience working with LGBTQIA+-questions to be certain. They again mention time as the one factor that makes it difficult for them to work with

(36)

32 schoolwork simultaneously with the same material and then make the teachers, students, and others involved evaluate the project afterward. Therefore, some responsibility is put on the principals to organize the work and ‘lead the way’ if they wanted their school to collectively work to increase the LGBTQIA+ representation in their teaching.

6. What do you feel about the material that is available regarding

LGBTQIA+-questions in English courses at a national curricular level (Skolverket), is it enough?

(37)

33 6. Discussion and analysis

Here, the results are discussed and analyzed using previous research. The sections below answer the three research questions that were mentioned in the beginning of the essay.

6.1. Heteronormativity in Today’s Upper Secondary School

Heteronormativity does not seem like a well-known concept among teachers in the selected municipality, based on the responses from the participating English teachers. Some do know the concept and the definition, some can make a guess based on the term alone, but some do not even desire to guess as they fear they will be sounding

uneducated. The fear of sounding uneducated should not stop a teacher, but rather ‘fuel’ them into wanting to know more. As evident by question three, none of the teachers appear to have been using the term heteronormativity during their teaching but admit to having been teaching about the concept without using the term for it. This is where the use of language and the extent of using the ‘correct’ terminology could be significant. Using the correct term and defining the concepts that the students are learning about provides the students with a deeper understanding and guides them in using and analyzing the term and its meaning themselves. The teachers who do not use the term has made a conscious choice not to include it in their teaching, even if they want their students to learn about heteronormativity. They have decided to focus more on what heteronormativity is and what it means rather than defining what they are teaching their students. The question is what is halting the teachers to further define what they are teaching their students and that there is a term for it. Most of the participants that do not include the term, but the concept, felt the need to ‘defend’ their choice of not using the term in their teaching. So, the students might still be aware of heteronormativity without knowing the term for what they have been taught and the participating teachers could be content with such fact.

(38)

34 oppositional design upon society, for it is ‘informed’ by resistance to homophobia and heterosexism and the ideological and institutional practices of heterosexual privilege”. Teachers are supposed to be politically neutral in the school environment, and if an issue or topic feels like it could be politically linked, then it feels safer not to include it in the education if it is not significant for a subject or course in general.

Heteronormativity is not politically linked to any political party, and therefore would be safe to include without any consequences for the teacher. However, even if the concept is not politically linked to a political party, the concept in itself is political. The teachers have the right to avoid political topics but must be aware of the fact that much of what they decide to teach their students during their English courses are not apolitical topics. Any topic that regards social inequality, racism and such make the teachers take a political stand. In this sense, it would be possible to teach their students about heteronormativity during their English courses.

As Brunila and Edström (2013) discussed in their study, if teachers want to be inclusive, their effort(s) cannot simply consist of projects but should be regarded as ordinary work. For example, teacher 1 and teacher 4 have the desire to work with LGBTQIA+-questions but only as part of a project, during Pride week in February. By only working with LGBTQIA+-questions during a specific and limited time of the year could be seen as making it a separate issue rather than including it in all themes, such as crime and justice, plastic surgery, and other themes in the textbook provided for English 6. By separating the LGBTQIA+-questions from the rest of the syllabus could be one of the many on-going projects that Brunila and Edström (2013, p. 313) argued is not as efficient as making it ordinary work, as it means that LGBTQIA+-questions get one week out of the twenty weeks that the spring semester consists of. Instead, by making it ordinary work, LGBTQIA+-questions could be implemented as a natural part of every theme that the course covers. One must only make sure that education is inclusive, and not ‘LGBTQIA+-adapted’ in the same way that some programs are trying to be ‘girl-adapted’.

6.2. Teachers Working with LGBTQIA+-Questions

Inclusivity in the English Classroom

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES