Journal of Homosexuality, 61:382–398, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2013.842429
Easing the Transition for Queer Student Teachers From Program to Field: Implications for Teacher Education FIONA J. BENSON, PhD Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
NATHAN GRANT SMITH, PhD and TARA FLANAGAN, PhD Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Tensions exist between what some queer student teachers experience in the university setting, their lives in schools during field placements, and upon graduation. We describe a series of workshops designed for queer student teachers and their allies that were conducted prior to field placement. Participants revealed high degrees of satisfaction with the program and increased feelings of personal and professional self-efficacy. Participants reported high levels of experienced homophobia in their academic programs; as such, the workshops were a valuable “safe space.” These workshops appear to fill a significant gap for queer students and their allies in teacher preparation programs. KEYWORDS student teachers, teacher workshop, queer, LGBT, preparation, practicum
While teacher education programs strive to create an academic and experiential curriculum that effectively prepares new teachers for the demands of an evolving profession, many student teachers experience a reality shock during the transition to the field component of their programs and feel unprepared in their new roles (Le Maistre & Pare, 2004; Riches & Benson, 2010; Saarnivaara & Sarja, 2007). Among queer student teachers, these feelings
Address correspondence to Fiona J. Benson, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 382
Queer Student Teachers
383
of lack of relevance and insufficient preparation may be even more pronounced. Their unique experiences and needs are all too often ignored and thus they face innumerable hurdles and hardships that their heterosexual peers may not during the transition to the field (Benson, 2008; Meyer, 2007). Transition is a flexible concept that is generally thought to reflect a change from one state to another. In educational contexts, the term transition is used to describe both seemingly simple processes, such as switching subjects in the school day, and multifaceted ones, such as moving from secondary to post-secondary school. In the context of the move from teachereducation program to the field, transition is a process that is thought to generally reflect how a student negotiates and eventually adopts the identity of teacher. In his review of 35 years of research on the concerns of preservice teachers entering the field, Cherubini (2009) noted that teachers described the transition from program to field as difficult and abrupt, with many expressing feelings of abandonment and disenchantment in relation to their teacher education programs. In addition to receiving little support from teacher-education programs, new teachers report being left to navigate their new school environment independently (Fry, 2007; Sanderson, 2003), often leaving them feeling neglected and invisible. These feelings may be exacerbated in environments where transition is viewed as a simple shift in roles or as an endpoint (Fry, 2007), and where teacher identity formation is viewed in a linear or individualistic fashion instead of as a multi-influential model where the context and personal histories interact in a complex fashion to form and transform identities (Flores & Day, 2006). Clearly, many post-secondary students struggle with their emerging identity as professionals, and the transition process is stressful at any stage of development; however, this process is particularly stressful in times of identity formation and/or of instability (Johnson, Holt, Bry, & Powell, 2008). Field experience is perhaps the most exciting, nerve-wracking, and memorable part of any student teacher’s preparation as a teacher (Olmstead, 2007), but for those student teachers who identify as queer, there is often additional pressure to re-examine or hide their identities while on the threshold to a profession that many have personally experienced as rarely welcoming of such identities (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2010). Research attests to the fact that schools are sites of rampant homophobia where a queer student teacher is unlikely to be affirmed, respected, or cared for by teachers and students alike should her or his sexual orientation and/or gender identity become known during a field experience (Benson, 2010; Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Meyer, 2007; Wimmer, Chinnery, & Morrison, 2008). In addition, queer individuals face heterosexism and homophobia on a regular basis in multiple aspects of their lives. Stigma and discrimination lead to minority stress, which has been linked to a variety of negative mental, behavioral, and physical health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). Given the heterosexist context of society
384
F. J. Benson et al.
in general and schools in particular, the transition from university program to field experience can be even more challenging for queer student teachers. Helping queer student teachers to successfully navigate the transition to field experience and subsequently to the professional role of teacher should thus be a priority. Teacher education programs are therefore in a unique position to positively impact the proximal and distal success of all student teachers, including those who identify as queer. Students and teachers who identify as queer, as well as their unique teacher preparation needs, often go unacknowledged or ignored. Dejean (2010), speaking of his own journey as a queer student teacher, said, “I was ill prepared to navigate the challenges my queer identity would cause me within the teaching profession . . . . In my teaching preparation program, there was a discursive silence around queer matters in education” (pp. 233–234). Compounding this erasure and/or neglect is a relative lack of research into issues of concern to queer student teachers in general and to field placement specifically (Capel, 1997; Downey, 2001; Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). Though sparse, research suggests that closeted queer student teachers are concerned about issues of self-presentation, their sexual orientation being found out by teachers or students, and being questioned by cooperating teachers and university field supervisors (Benson, 2008). Out queer student teachers are concerned about managing and disclosing their queer identity, supporting queer students in need, and integrating lessons against sexism and homophobia in the classroom. Despite these many concerns, the needs of queer student teachers (and their allies) are often ignored, creating a chasm between actual needs for specific teacher preparation and what is currently available for students preparing to embark on student teaching field experiences (Rofes, 2002; “Starr,” 2002). In those classrooms where queer issues are part of the curriculum, such openings can be met with overt heterosexism and homophobia, giving rise to painful exchanges for out queer students, and causing closeted queer students to feel a sense of heightened risk and the need to maintain their silence and protect their invisibility even more (Benson, 2010; Cramer, 2002; Mills, 2004; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2001). As such, spaces are needed in which queer student teachers and their allies can raise, share, and reveal their stories, helping to navigate aspects of the secrecy, self-silencing, and isolation that arise in queer identities (Toynton, 2006). Clearly, provisions must be made for such spaces and dialogues for queer student teachers to ensure their own professional and emotional survival in an environment that is often hostile to the open expression of their identities. This article reports the initial results of a series of workshops designed to address queer student teachers’ concerns and to ease their transition from program to field. The workshops focused on increasing a sense of security, professional well-being, and preparedness for entering the field. As part of a
Queer Student Teachers
385
four-year longitudinal study, we investigated the effectiveness of such workshops for queer students and their allies throughout their program of study. Additionally, this research will examine the longer-term impact on their professional well-being and sense of efficacy as novice teachers, and how these data inform program revision and policy as regards the teacher preparation program in which we conduct our own work as researchers and teachers.
METHOD Participants and Researchers Twelve student teachers attended one of three workshops. Seven participants voluntarily completed the exit questionnaire, and six participated in the follow-up interview. The workshops, exit questionnaires, and follow-up interviews were completely voluntary and not related to any course or program requirements. Nine participants (two women, seven men) identified as queer. Three participants (two women, one man) identified as heterosexual. All participants identified as White and ranged in age from 22 to 54 years. Inevitably, the assumptions and stance that we, as researchers, bring to every aspect of a study must be informed by our experiences. Likewise, how we are viewed in our professional roles affects interactions between the research participants and us. All three authors served as the workshop facilitators and are currently professors in a faculty of education. The first author works directly with student teachers and is a faculty member in the department that houses the teacher education program. The second and third authors teach primarily graduate students and are in a different department within the faculty of education. The first author is a queer woman who has engaged in queer-advocacy work in her department and is most closely associated with student teachers. Her identity and advocacy work, along with her role as director of field experiences, might influence her observations and interactions with the participants and theirs with her. The second author is a queer man whose research focuses on queer issues in the context of counseling psychology with a focus on adult populations. He does not have expertise in teacher education training or research. The third author is a woman who identifies as an ally and conducts research on selfdetermination and quality of life among equity-seeking groups. In addition, she teaches courses on inclusive teaching strategies. The second and third authors were not as visible or familiar to the participants; however, they were sensitive to the power they held as faculty members. We took these biases into mind when conducting both the workshops and the data analysis and, being mindful of our biases, attempted to minimize their impact on our work. We used our complementary expertise in queer issues, equity, inclusion, teacher education, and counseling in designing the workshops to
386
F. J. Benson et al.
mitigate power imbalances and to quickly establish an atmosphere of safety for the participants.
Program Description The authors conducted three workshops to address the complexities and challenges of queer student teachers and their allies making the transition from program to field. After receiving IRB approval from McGill University, we offered the three workshops in which students could articulate as well as work through issues of concern to them. These workshops took place prior to the participants embarking on a major and lengthy (eight week) field experience. The three authors (who also served as the workshop facilitators) placed posters on their office doors advertising the workshops as an attempt to publicly display their support for queer student teachers, whose classes are held in the same building as the facilitators’ offices. The workshops were designed and timed to ease this transition by responding to needs articulated by queer student teachers and their allies to be and feel prepared for field experiences in elementary and high schools— often sites of homophobic bigotry and compulsory heterosexuality (Kosciw et al., 2010; Lipkin, 2004). Though the workshops were designed around this particular theme, the structure was open-ended to allow for the students to guide the direction of the discussions. Based on research examining the predictors of teacher performance, satisfaction, burnout, and retention (e.g., Day, Elliott, & Kington, 2005; Ferguson, Frost, & Hall, 2012; Henkin & Holliman, 2009), research on minority stress and workplace satisfaction among queer individuals (e.g., Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo, 1999), published narratives of queer student teachers (e.g., “Starr,” 2002), and our own conversations with queer student teachers, we developed the workshops with three overarching goals in mind: (a) increased effectiveness during field experience, (b) increased likelihood of staying in the program, and (c) increased likelihood of staying in the profession of teaching. To meet these overarching goals, we structured the workshops to meet the following sub-goals: (a) increased sense of connection and community, (b) decreased fear and sense of isolation, (c) increased sense of support from faculty, (d) heightened sense of personal/professional empowerment, and (e) increased access to personal/professional resources. To meet the sub-goals, we engaged participants in various tasks and provided them with various resources. Overall, the workshops were designed for open discussion and were delivered in a manner that allowed for venting and sharing of stories as well as for the acquisition of behavioral strategies to address concerns of queer student teachers. Though many activities in the workshop addressed multiple goals, specific strategies were utilized to meet each of the above sub-goals. To increase participants’ sense of connection and community, as well as to decrease fears and sense of isolation,
Queer Student Teachers
387
we delivered the workshops in a group setting. The facilitators began the workshop by sharing their own experiences and by discussing their motivations for delivering the workshops, including sharing concerns they had heard from other queer student teachers. By noting that other queer student teachers had expressed concerns about the field placement, the facilitators attempted to normalize participants’ fears and anxieties. The facilitators then encouraged participants to share their stories with one another as a way to further normalize their experiences, gain support from their peers, and validate their emotional reactions. As Dejean (2010) pointed out, “for the queer community, sharing our stories can be considered courageous conversations, as members participating in this dialogue are engaging in the risky business of choosing visibility by communicating aspects of our queer being and communicating it to others” (p. 236). Participants examined their fears relative to field placement, disclosed their experiences as queer and queer-affirming individuals in their academic program, and began to share stories. As these stories unfolded, participants opened up, grew bolder, and began to share ideas, resources, and strategies with one another. To increase participants’ sense of support from the facilitators, all of whom are faculty members, they disclosed their own identities as a queer woman, a queer man, and a heterosexual woman ally. They also shared their own reactions to participants’ stories, saying such things as “your story makes me feel . . .” and “I’m saddened that that’s been your experience.” By making use of self, the facilitators attempted to humanize themselves and provide emotional support to the participants. To minimize power differentials, the facilitators gently redirected questions back to the participants and encouraged them to answer their own questions. To heighten participants’ sense of personal/professional empowerment, we developed several classroom-based scenarios and had participants work in small groups to develop strategies for dealing with common problems encountered in the field placement. These scenarios focused on five themes: (a) heterosexism and discrimination, (b) personal agency, (c) teachable moments, (d) curriculum development, and (e) student teacher/cooperating teacher interactions. For the theme of heterosexism and discrimination, participants developed strategies to counteract and prevent both subtle forms of heterosexism and more overt instances of anti-queer discrimination, such as bullying. For the theme of personal agency, participants developed strategies to proactively promote classrooms and schools that are queer-affirming. In addition, they began to imagine the role that they might play as role models and mentors in their host schools in the face of potential obstacles. For the theme of teachable moments, participants developed strategies to turn instances of erasure or stigmatization of queer lives into teachable moments. For the theme of curriculum development, participants developed strategies to develop curricula that support queer identities and provide encouragement for queer youth. For the theme of student teacher/cooperating teacher interactions, participants developed strategies for negotiating coming out to
388
F. J. Benson et al.
cooperating teachers, addressing heterosexism, and engaging in self-care. Throughout the processes of developing strategies, the facilitators validated participants’ strengths and normalized feelings of fear and trepidation while attempting to empower them to make use of their own and their colleagues’ strategies. Finally, to increase participants’ access to personal/professional resources, we developed and shared with participants several handouts. These included a list of recommended readings on issues of sexuality. The list included researchers from the host university and other universities and institutions in the city, such as Meyer (2007, 2009, 2010), Otis, Ryan, Chouinard, and Fournia (2002), Ristock and Julien (2003), and Whatling (2009). We made the decision to include these researchers so that participants would have additional resources in the area and, if needed, could reach out to local experts in the field. We also provided participants with a list of low-risk classroom strategies, anti-prejudice interventions, and helpful scripts around scenarios such as having one’s sexuality questioned by students in a classroom context from sources such as Benson (2008) and Lipkin (2002). Finally, we provided additional resource materials such as names of local organizations (e.g., Project 10, a local LGBTQ agency that focuses on youth and young adults) websites (e.g., www.gsanetwork.org, the website for the GayStraight Alliance Network), books and publications (e.g., Baker, 2002), and films and narratives (e.g., Chasnoff & Cohen, 1996; Pan Left Productions, Potter, & Simmons, 2002).
Analytic Approach In order to provide a comprehensive methodology for the research purposes, qualitative and quantitative approaches were combined within an integrated mixed-methods design (Kington, Sammons, Day, & Regan, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Teddlie & Sammons, 2010). According to Flick (1998), the “combination of multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in a single study is best understood then, as a strategy that adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to any inquiry” (p. 231). In order to evaluate the impact/success of the workshop design, evaluation was carried out longitudinally through questionnaires with volunteer participants during the workshops and through informal interviews conducted following their subsequent field experiences. Participants were given the choice of doing face-to-face or telephone interviews. Two interviews were conducted over the phone and four in person. The interviews lasted approximately a half an hour each and included open-ended questions to guide the participants’ reconstruction of their experience in a manner that encouraged personal exchange and allowed for an immediate clarification of what was being shared. The interviews were conducted by the first author and by trained doctoral students in counseling and educational psychology under the supervision of the second and third authors.
Queer Student Teachers
389
Data Analysis The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and the data were analyzed utilizing aspects of both inductive analysis and interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). Consistent with inductive analysis, the researchers, informed by scholarship, selected specific aims for interpretation (Boyatzis, 1998; Thomas, 2003, 2006). IPA was then employed to examine how the participants made sense of their life experiences in relation to those aims (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2003). As part of this process, the authors independently read the transcripts several times in order to identify common themes in responses to key questions and consider the possible meanings inherent in the data. They arrived at initial interpretations through the application of a preliminary coding frame developed on the basis of theoretical criteria, professional experience, and the data themselves. The authors coded categories and subcategories that reflected the research goals and sub-goals. Overlap between categories or subcategories was analyzed and led to the refinement of and creation of new categories and subcategories. Similarities and differences across workshop groups were also explored. As new themes and patterns emerged, codes were augmented and transcripts exchanged between authors and reread to verify each of the authors’ identified themes and patterns. This process was used to further illuminate and define categories, which were then conceptualized into key themes after discussion. During this process of understanding individual experience, the authors made no attempts toward a generalization of findings, although they did allow for the possibility that experiences might be shared across participants. Trustworthiness of findings was established in seeing themes and patterns that surfaced from the participant feedback and through comparisons with findings from established research. In addition to the interviews, participants completed questionnaires that contained several questions regarding their views of the workshop’s efficacy (with responses on a Likert-type scale from 1 = not at all true to 5 = very true). Questions focused on the degree to which (a) the workshops prepared them for the transition to teaching, (b) they felt a stronger sense of self in their role as a teacher, (c) they better understood the issues related to the transition to teaching for queer student teachers, (d) they were confident they would have positive relationships with classroom students, and (e) their confidence in building professional relationships with teacher colleagues had increased.
RESULTS Overall, participants reported that they found the workshop structure and content helpful in terms of preparing them for the transition from the
390
F. J. Benson et al.
program into the field. Mean responses to all questions were very high. Specifically, participants responded that they felt better prepared for the transition to teaching, M = 4.14 (SD = .90); felt a stronger sense of self in their role as a teacher, M = 4.29 (SD = .76); better understood issues for queer student teachers, M = 4.57 (SD = .53); felt more confident in their ability to have positive relationships with students, M = 4.14 (SD = 1.07); and felt more confident in building positive relationships with teachers, M = 4.43 (SD = .79). Results from the qualitative analysis revealed several commonalities. For instance, all interviewees expressed that they found the workshop to be a “safe space” and that it was a place where they could share the information they wished to. Gary (a pseudonym; all subsequent names are pseudonyms) said, “I felt it was a very safe place because it was very comforting to know that you would be in a situation where you could really tell whatever was on your mind or whatever happened to you.” The interviewees all mentioned the positive impact of having queer faculty and faculty allies participate in the workshops. Sue told us:
Absolutely. Yeah, it was a great space. It was a good discussion. It was nice to be not only with students, but also with, you know, professors who are very comfortable and make it a great environment to share your thoughts, opinions. So, absolutely. I thought it was a very valuable discussion. And, it was definitely the space and people that made the difference.
Another commonality found was that this workshop did not affect their decision to become a teacher. Their decision was based on personal experiences and feelings prior to participating in the workshop. When queried whether participating in the workshop would influence their perspective of how they would teach, all the interviewees revealed that the workshop would have an impact on their teaching perspective. Elena’s words are evocative of the sorts of sentiments expressed:
[It’s] influenced how I want to bring in the queer perspective into the classroom. I’m an English teacher, so I’d want to bring in novels that deal with queer issues. It’s my hope that kids will develop a more compassionate and tolerant attitude in society.
The interviewees also felt that the workshop was successful in terms of allowing them to express themselves and share stories and learn from one another.
Queer Student Teachers
391
Gary noted: I didn’t come with big expectations. I had positive stories to share so . . . But I also, I guess, hoped to hear more about other situations, situations that were tougher that I might encounter as well. So for sure, for that I had a great time listening to some of the stories and how people dealt with it and how they could have dealt with it. Because sometimes on the spot, you don’t necessarily react in the best manner. So, my expectations were definitely met. I was looking for a space for discussion and to learn new skills. And yup, I would say my expectations were met. For sure.
In terms of workshop content, all the interviewees were highly satisfied with the content and materials included in the workshop. Gary discussed how the handouts helped him: And there were also, with the handouts, a lot of different possibilities, a lot of different answers you could give, depending on your style and your teaching style. There are some answers that are there, that are pertinent and answers that are also . . . that are also . . . how can I say that? They also fit with different kind of teaching persona. And I feel like it’s the best way. I guess if you can find an answer that fits with your personality and the way you think, and the way you think you should handle things, that’d be great. So that’s why I think having those answers . . . having those concrete examples . . . those answers that you can give to students was the best thing for sure.
With regard to additional content to add, one participant (Marc) suggested including topics on current events: “current, educational especially, events dealing with GLBT” issues. There were surprising outcomes to the workshops, which included that queer student teachers were as anxious about how to negotiate the relationship with their university field supervisors as they were about that with their cooperating teachers. We also learned that, to our mutual consternation, safe spaces cannot be made safe enough for some of our queer students and their allies. For example, Tania said: For sure it would be nice if more students came. I think a lot of students probably shied away from it just because of what it was called. I mean when I saw the name Queer students, I was like g-d, ‘queer students,’ I hate that name. Change the name. It was such a shame, I think there was about seven of us, that’s it, in all the B.Ed. program, which is really, really too bad. Maybe if somebody could like let students know, that, you know, don’t be afraid. You can sit there and not say a word if you don’t want to.
392
F. J. Benson et al.
Disturbingly, all participants indicated high levels of homophobia experienced in their university program from peers and faculty. Steve recounted one such experience: I remember that a few weeks before the workshop, it was the midterm, and before the midterm our teacher instructed us to go to the washroom. So, I went to the bathroom and the things I heard in the bathroom really turned me off to ever sharing anything. Because I could see that basically, all my fears were probably right on point. Like, you know, slurs, degrading, like: ‘don’t look at me fag’ ‘I’m peeing, don’t touch me’. Whatever. So a few weeks later there was this Project 10 speaker in my class and I’m like, really? Like I’m going to raise my hand and say: ‘yeah so I’m gay.’
Participants also shared their dismay at what they perceived as an absence of coverage of queer issues in their academic coursework. For example, Sue shared the following: I did have a speaker in one of my classes come and talk about queer issues in Phys. Ed. So that was one time that it was addressed, but otherwise, in my four years [in the program] I did not really face any times when we talked about homosexuality. It is such a taboo topic that people are afraid to approach, I think. Even people who are gay are afraid to approach it. I think teachers need to bring it up in classes. It is important.
In addition, Elena shared her impressions of how queer topics have been dealt with in some of her classes: I think the education faculty could definitely deal with this issue in more depth and more frequently. It usually comes up in superficial discussions . . . superficial meaning it’s not structured by the teacher, it usually comes up through conversations stemming from other issues. So, I also think it needs to be addressed more head-on. Teachers don’t want to step on anyone’s toes. But I think when it comes to issues of respect and tolerance of other human beings, then professors should take a bigger stand and not tolerate homophobic slurs in the class. I don’t know, just take a greater stance on the issue rather than a diplomatic one.
Finally, the workshops appeared to help all the participants feel more confident and ready to make the transition from program to field. Marc noted: I think knowing what to do with the administration or parents that are hostile to your attempts at normalizing gayness, right, is really useful. ’Cause some administrators would prefer you not talk about it at all to avoid backlash, while some parents would rather you didn’t teach kids
Queer Student Teachers
393
about it. Another one that I think will help me is what to do if a student approaches you and wanted to share that they are not straight, right, and their concerns about coming out. And what to do if a kid comes up to you in class saying, ‘mister, mister Marc are you gay?’ and how to reply to that and what to say, right. I figured that was very useful, very helpful too—because you can get in trouble without meaning to.
Similarly, Elena said: Definitely the workshop has helped me transition in that I now have a clearer idea of what I stand for and what I’m willing to tolerate . . . and to be more aware and sensitive to the atmosphere in schools and is it a safe space? Like if I were a homosexual, would I want to be in this school or not? It’s definitely helped me realize . . . . Um . . . just increased my awareness so much.
DISCUSSION Overall, the workshops appeared to increase students’ sense of professional and personal efficacy and served as an important venue for gaining support and skills in negotiating the transition from program to field experience. Participants indicated positive valuations of the workshops and noted the need for these types of safe spaces, especially in light of the high degree of homophobia experienced within their academic program. Stiegler (2008), writing about the failure of teacher education programs to address queer issues and support young queer teachers, questioned the effect that this neglect might have on queer student teachers’ “teacher identities” and their ability to address homophobia in their future practice. Our workshops are one response to this neglect. Indeed, our results indicated that participants experienced homophobia in their program and felt a clear absence of coverage of queer issues in their academic coursework. These findings regarding problems with the teacher education program mirror the themes Robinson and Ferfolja (2001) identified as impediments to teacher education: perceived irrelevance of queer issues to student teachers, lack of focus on queer issues in teacher education programs, and pathologizing of non-heterosexual identities. The results of our exit interviews provide several implications for teacher education. Participants reported experiencing homophobia in their academic coursework and a lack of coverage of queer issues in their curriculum. As such, there is a need to develop interventions for teacher education programs to reduce students’ experiences of homophobia and heterosexism, as well as a need to integrate queer issues into the teacher education curriculum. Creating safer and more inclusive atmospheres for queer student teachers in the university setting may help to alleviate some of the fear,
394
F. J. Benson et al.
trepidation, and lack of resources reported by participants in our workshops. In addition, there appears to be a clear need for initiatives like our workshops that help to support and provide resources for queer student teachers entering the field. Although much has been written that recognizes the importance of positive role models on a student teacher’s construction and conception of self as teacher (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Vinz, 1996), there is a paucity of research on structures within universities that might best support queer students and academics who wish to become such rolemodels (Benson, 2008). Finally, given the stigmatizing environment many queer student teachers face both in their academic programs and in their school-based field placements, broader systemic changes need to occur in university and primary and secondary schools. For example, research on young adults who attended high schools with gay-straight alliances (GSAs) reveals that the presence of GSAs is related to decreased depression and high school dropout and increased self-esteem and college education attainment (Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011). It is likely that the presence of supportive resources for queer teachers would have similar results, helping queer teachers to be healthier and more successful. Research is thus needed to explore the effectiveness of these types of support systems for queer teachers.
Limitations Although it should be noted that the small sample size for both the quantitative and qualitative analyses is a limitation of this study, the results are nevertheless encouraging. Future research should therefore test the efficacy of the workshops with a larger sample size. As noted by participants, feelings of fear and lack of validation in the larger teacher preparation program likely contributed to our small sample size. Indeed, shortly after the first workshop was conducted, a group of four students came to the office of one of the authors. They shared that although they were excited to see that such a workshop was being offered and had talked among themselves about going, they felt the risks were too great for them to attend. They worried about being seen entering or leaving the workshop. Another concern they voiced was the possibility that the workshop would be “crashed” by heterosexual students looking to see who was there in order to cause trouble. They made two suggestions that might have enabled them to participate. First, they felt strongly that the location of the workshop should not be mentioned on the poster advertising it. Rather, a secure university e-mail address should be provided and the workshop location be sent to those students who emailed their desire to attend. Their second suggestion was that we not place a poster on the door of the workshop location. While these suggestions had obviously been the subject of much earnest discussion between these students, their fear and trepidation was yet another disturbing reminder to
Queer Student Teachers
395
us of the chilling climate of homophobia and heteronormativity that exists for queer students and their allies in our own faculty of education, even as we promote our commitment to social justice. It is likely that implementing strategies to reduce homophobia and heterosexism in our own program may help to increase participation rates. In addition to increasing sample sizes, a randomized controlled trial would allow researchers to determine whether the workshops resulted in better outcomes than no intervention. Likewise, research is needed to examine the longer-term impact of the workshops on the professional well-being and sense of efficacy of novice queer teachers and their allies in the field. Finally, research that examines the individual components of the workshops could shed light onto those aspects that are most helpful to queer student teachers as they navigate the student teaching experience and transition to the field. These workshops represent a first step in addressing the unique needs and concerns of queer student teachers and their allies. We are hopeful that these workshops and additional research on queer student teachers will create changes in places of teacher education that are more favorable to queer teacher development and retention in the field. Sharing these results with a wider audience of those involved in teacher education also has the potential to engage faculty and students in important dialogues and enable participants to find the courage to escape the chains of heteronormativity and, in their work as teachers, be confident enough to become leaders in the struggle against homophobia in schools and society. We close with the rallying call: “the silence surrounding queer issues in teacher-training programs must desist” (Stiegler, 2008, p. 123).
FUNDING This research was funded by a grant from the Mary H. Brown Fund of McGill University.
REFERENCES Baker, J. (2002). How homophobia hurts children: Nurturing diversity at home, at school, and in the community. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Benson, F. (2008). Teacher educators’ practice of queer-care: A necessary expansion of Noddings’ model of care (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, QC. Benson, F. (2010, May) Queer issues in the study of education and culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (Canadian Association for Teacher Education), Montreal, QC.
396
F. J. Benson et al.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Capel, S. (1997). Changes in students’ anxieties and concerns after their first and second teaching practices. Educational Research, 39(2), 211–228. Chasnoff, D., & Cohen, H. (Producers and directors). (1996). It’s elementary: Talking about gay issues in school [motion picture]. United States of America: New Day Films. Cherubini, L. (2009). Reconciling tensions of new teachers’ socialization into school culture: A review of the research. Issues in Educational Research, 19, 83–99. Cramer, E. (2002). Addressing homophobia and heterosexism on college campuses. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Day, C., Elliott, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 563–577. Dejean, W. (2010). Courageous conversations: Reflections on a queer life narrative model. The Teacher Educator, 45, 233–243. Downey, B. (2001). “Good morning, I’m a heterosexual”: A case in the closet in rural Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 11(2), 33–43. Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ferguson, K., Frost, L., & Hall, D. (2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression, and job satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27–42. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and application. London, England: Sage Publications. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232. Fry, S. W. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: Ups, downs, and inbetweens. The Qualitative Report, 12, 216–237. Henkin, A. B., & Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban teacher commitment: Exploring associations with organizational conflict, support for innovation, and participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160–180. Johnson, V. L., Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Powell, S. R. (2008). Effects of an integrated prevention program on urban youth transitioning into high school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 225–246. Kington, A., Sammons, P., Day, C., & Regan, E. (2011). Stories and statistics: Describing a mixed methods study of effective classroom practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 103–125. Kosciw, J., Diaz, F., & Greytak, E. (2010). 2009 national school climate survey: The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nations’ schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Kyriacou, C., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ concerns during teaching practice. Evaluation & Research in Education, 13, 18–31. Le Maistre, C., & Pare, A. (2004). Learning in two communities: The challenge for universities and workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 44–52.
Queer Student Teachers
397
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265–275. Lipkin, A. (2002). The challenges of gay topics in teacher education: Politics, content, and pedagogy. In R. Kissen (Ed.), Getting ready for Benjamin (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Lipkin, A. (2004). Beyond diversity day: A Q & A on gay and lesbian issues in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Meyer, E. (2007). Gendered harassment in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Meyer, E. (2009) Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Meyer, E. (2010). Gender and sexual diversity in schools. New York, NY: Springer. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. Mills, M. (2004). Male teachers, homophobia, misogyny and teacher education. Teaching Education, 15(1), 27–39. Olmstead, M. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of practicum supervision: One student teacher’s experiences of powerful differences. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 138–148). New York, NY: Routledge. Otis, J., Ryan, B., Chouinard, N., & Fournia, K. (2002). Effets du Projet 10 sur le mieux-etre sexuel de jeunes gais, lesbiennes, bisexuelles et bisexuals. Rapport de recherche subventionnée par la Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal Centre [Impact of Project 10 on the sexual wellbeing of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Report on research subsidized by the regional body of health and social services, Greater Montreal]. Pan Left Productions (Producer), Potter, N. (Director), & Simmons, G. (Director). (2002). Voices of GLBT youth [Motion picture]. Tucson, AZ: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Riches, C., & Benson, F. (2010). Nothing new under the sun: Mitigating the lament of betrayal in teacher education. In J. Maurer & W. Halloway (Eds.), International research in teacher education: Current perspectives (pp. 157–172). Armidale, NSW, Australia: UNE Conference Company. Ristock, J., & Julien, D. (2003). Disrupting normalcy: Lesbian, gay, queer issues and mental health. Revue canadiene de santé mentale communautaure, 22(2), 5–8. Robinson, K. H., & Ferfolja, T. (2001). ‘What are we doing this for?’ Dealing with lesbian and gay issues in teacher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 121–133. Rofes, E. (2002). “I was afraid he would label me gay if I stood up for gays”: The experiences of lesbian and gay elementary education credential candidates at a rural state university. In Kessen, R. (Ed)., Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom (pp. 191–208). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Saarnivaara, M., & Sarja, A. (2007). From university to working life: Mentoring as a pedagogical challenge. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 5–16.
398
F. J. Benson et al.
Sanderson, D. R. (2003). Extending the learning community: The birth of a new teacher support group. The Professional Educator, 26, 63–71. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. London, England: Sage. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (pp. 53–80). London, England: Sage. Smith, N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 57–67. “Starr.” (2002). How my teacher education program failed me. In R. Kissen (Ed.), Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom (pp. 163–168). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Stiegler, S. (2008). Queer youth as teachers: Dismantling silence of queer issues in a teacher preparation program committed to social justice. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 116–123. Teddlie, C., & Sammons, P. (2010). Applications of mixed methods to the field of educational effectiveness research. In B. P. M Creemers, L. Kyriakides, & P. Sammons (Eds.), Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research (pp. 115–152). London, England: Routledge. Thomas, D. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Retrieved from http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/ Inductive2003.pdf Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246. Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school gay-straight alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 175–185. Toynton, R. (2006). ‘Invisible other’: Understanding safe spaces for queer learners and teachers in adult education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 38(2), 178–194. Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232. Whatling, M. (2009). A vigil for Jose Rose: Stories of being out in high school. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Wimmer, R., Chinnery, A., & Morrison, M. (2008). Breaking the silence: Teacher observations of behaviour affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and staff in Saskatchewan secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 19, 19–36.
Easing the Transition for Queer Student Teachers From Program to Field: Implications for Teacher Education FIONA J. BENSON, PhD Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
NATHAN GRANT SMITH, PhD and TARA FLANAGAN, PhD Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Tensions exist between what some queer student teachers experience in the university setting, their lives in schools during field placements, and upon graduation. We describe a series of workshops designed for queer student teachers and their allies that were conducted prior to field placement. Participants revealed high degrees of satisfaction with the program and increased feelings of personal and professional self-efficacy. Participants reported high levels of experienced homophobia in their academic programs; as such, the workshops were a valuable “safe space.” These workshops appear to fill a significant gap for queer students and their allies in teacher preparation programs. KEYWORDS student teachers, teacher workshop, queer, LGBT, preparation, practicum
While teacher education programs strive to create an academic and experiential curriculum that effectively prepares new teachers for the demands of an evolving profession, many student teachers experience a reality shock during the transition to the field component of their programs and feel unprepared in their new roles (Le Maistre & Pare, 2004; Riches & Benson, 2010; Saarnivaara & Sarja, 2007). Among queer student teachers, these feelings
Address correspondence to Fiona J. Benson, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC H3A 1Y3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 382
Queer Student Teachers
383
of lack of relevance and insufficient preparation may be even more pronounced. Their unique experiences and needs are all too often ignored and thus they face innumerable hurdles and hardships that their heterosexual peers may not during the transition to the field (Benson, 2008; Meyer, 2007). Transition is a flexible concept that is generally thought to reflect a change from one state to another. In educational contexts, the term transition is used to describe both seemingly simple processes, such as switching subjects in the school day, and multifaceted ones, such as moving from secondary to post-secondary school. In the context of the move from teachereducation program to the field, transition is a process that is thought to generally reflect how a student negotiates and eventually adopts the identity of teacher. In his review of 35 years of research on the concerns of preservice teachers entering the field, Cherubini (2009) noted that teachers described the transition from program to field as difficult and abrupt, with many expressing feelings of abandonment and disenchantment in relation to their teacher education programs. In addition to receiving little support from teacher-education programs, new teachers report being left to navigate their new school environment independently (Fry, 2007; Sanderson, 2003), often leaving them feeling neglected and invisible. These feelings may be exacerbated in environments where transition is viewed as a simple shift in roles or as an endpoint (Fry, 2007), and where teacher identity formation is viewed in a linear or individualistic fashion instead of as a multi-influential model where the context and personal histories interact in a complex fashion to form and transform identities (Flores & Day, 2006). Clearly, many post-secondary students struggle with their emerging identity as professionals, and the transition process is stressful at any stage of development; however, this process is particularly stressful in times of identity formation and/or of instability (Johnson, Holt, Bry, & Powell, 2008). Field experience is perhaps the most exciting, nerve-wracking, and memorable part of any student teacher’s preparation as a teacher (Olmstead, 2007), but for those student teachers who identify as queer, there is often additional pressure to re-examine or hide their identities while on the threshold to a profession that many have personally experienced as rarely welcoming of such identities (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2010). Research attests to the fact that schools are sites of rampant homophobia where a queer student teacher is unlikely to be affirmed, respected, or cared for by teachers and students alike should her or his sexual orientation and/or gender identity become known during a field experience (Benson, 2010; Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Meyer, 2007; Wimmer, Chinnery, & Morrison, 2008). In addition, queer individuals face heterosexism and homophobia on a regular basis in multiple aspects of their lives. Stigma and discrimination lead to minority stress, which has been linked to a variety of negative mental, behavioral, and physical health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). Given the heterosexist context of society
384
F. J. Benson et al.
in general and schools in particular, the transition from university program to field experience can be even more challenging for queer student teachers. Helping queer student teachers to successfully navigate the transition to field experience and subsequently to the professional role of teacher should thus be a priority. Teacher education programs are therefore in a unique position to positively impact the proximal and distal success of all student teachers, including those who identify as queer. Students and teachers who identify as queer, as well as their unique teacher preparation needs, often go unacknowledged or ignored. Dejean (2010), speaking of his own journey as a queer student teacher, said, “I was ill prepared to navigate the challenges my queer identity would cause me within the teaching profession . . . . In my teaching preparation program, there was a discursive silence around queer matters in education” (pp. 233–234). Compounding this erasure and/or neglect is a relative lack of research into issues of concern to queer student teachers in general and to field placement specifically (Capel, 1997; Downey, 2001; Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). Though sparse, research suggests that closeted queer student teachers are concerned about issues of self-presentation, their sexual orientation being found out by teachers or students, and being questioned by cooperating teachers and university field supervisors (Benson, 2008). Out queer student teachers are concerned about managing and disclosing their queer identity, supporting queer students in need, and integrating lessons against sexism and homophobia in the classroom. Despite these many concerns, the needs of queer student teachers (and their allies) are often ignored, creating a chasm between actual needs for specific teacher preparation and what is currently available for students preparing to embark on student teaching field experiences (Rofes, 2002; “Starr,” 2002). In those classrooms where queer issues are part of the curriculum, such openings can be met with overt heterosexism and homophobia, giving rise to painful exchanges for out queer students, and causing closeted queer students to feel a sense of heightened risk and the need to maintain their silence and protect their invisibility even more (Benson, 2010; Cramer, 2002; Mills, 2004; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2001). As such, spaces are needed in which queer student teachers and their allies can raise, share, and reveal their stories, helping to navigate aspects of the secrecy, self-silencing, and isolation that arise in queer identities (Toynton, 2006). Clearly, provisions must be made for such spaces and dialogues for queer student teachers to ensure their own professional and emotional survival in an environment that is often hostile to the open expression of their identities. This article reports the initial results of a series of workshops designed to address queer student teachers’ concerns and to ease their transition from program to field. The workshops focused on increasing a sense of security, professional well-being, and preparedness for entering the field. As part of a
Queer Student Teachers
385
four-year longitudinal study, we investigated the effectiveness of such workshops for queer students and their allies throughout their program of study. Additionally, this research will examine the longer-term impact on their professional well-being and sense of efficacy as novice teachers, and how these data inform program revision and policy as regards the teacher preparation program in which we conduct our own work as researchers and teachers.
METHOD Participants and Researchers Twelve student teachers attended one of three workshops. Seven participants voluntarily completed the exit questionnaire, and six participated in the follow-up interview. The workshops, exit questionnaires, and follow-up interviews were completely voluntary and not related to any course or program requirements. Nine participants (two women, seven men) identified as queer. Three participants (two women, one man) identified as heterosexual. All participants identified as White and ranged in age from 22 to 54 years. Inevitably, the assumptions and stance that we, as researchers, bring to every aspect of a study must be informed by our experiences. Likewise, how we are viewed in our professional roles affects interactions between the research participants and us. All three authors served as the workshop facilitators and are currently professors in a faculty of education. The first author works directly with student teachers and is a faculty member in the department that houses the teacher education program. The second and third authors teach primarily graduate students and are in a different department within the faculty of education. The first author is a queer woman who has engaged in queer-advocacy work in her department and is most closely associated with student teachers. Her identity and advocacy work, along with her role as director of field experiences, might influence her observations and interactions with the participants and theirs with her. The second author is a queer man whose research focuses on queer issues in the context of counseling psychology with a focus on adult populations. He does not have expertise in teacher education training or research. The third author is a woman who identifies as an ally and conducts research on selfdetermination and quality of life among equity-seeking groups. In addition, she teaches courses on inclusive teaching strategies. The second and third authors were not as visible or familiar to the participants; however, they were sensitive to the power they held as faculty members. We took these biases into mind when conducting both the workshops and the data analysis and, being mindful of our biases, attempted to minimize their impact on our work. We used our complementary expertise in queer issues, equity, inclusion, teacher education, and counseling in designing the workshops to
386
F. J. Benson et al.
mitigate power imbalances and to quickly establish an atmosphere of safety for the participants.
Program Description The authors conducted three workshops to address the complexities and challenges of queer student teachers and their allies making the transition from program to field. After receiving IRB approval from McGill University, we offered the three workshops in which students could articulate as well as work through issues of concern to them. These workshops took place prior to the participants embarking on a major and lengthy (eight week) field experience. The three authors (who also served as the workshop facilitators) placed posters on their office doors advertising the workshops as an attempt to publicly display their support for queer student teachers, whose classes are held in the same building as the facilitators’ offices. The workshops were designed and timed to ease this transition by responding to needs articulated by queer student teachers and their allies to be and feel prepared for field experiences in elementary and high schools— often sites of homophobic bigotry and compulsory heterosexuality (Kosciw et al., 2010; Lipkin, 2004). Though the workshops were designed around this particular theme, the structure was open-ended to allow for the students to guide the direction of the discussions. Based on research examining the predictors of teacher performance, satisfaction, burnout, and retention (e.g., Day, Elliott, & Kington, 2005; Ferguson, Frost, & Hall, 2012; Henkin & Holliman, 2009), research on minority stress and workplace satisfaction among queer individuals (e.g., Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo, 1999), published narratives of queer student teachers (e.g., “Starr,” 2002), and our own conversations with queer student teachers, we developed the workshops with three overarching goals in mind: (a) increased effectiveness during field experience, (b) increased likelihood of staying in the program, and (c) increased likelihood of staying in the profession of teaching. To meet these overarching goals, we structured the workshops to meet the following sub-goals: (a) increased sense of connection and community, (b) decreased fear and sense of isolation, (c) increased sense of support from faculty, (d) heightened sense of personal/professional empowerment, and (e) increased access to personal/professional resources. To meet the sub-goals, we engaged participants in various tasks and provided them with various resources. Overall, the workshops were designed for open discussion and were delivered in a manner that allowed for venting and sharing of stories as well as for the acquisition of behavioral strategies to address concerns of queer student teachers. Though many activities in the workshop addressed multiple goals, specific strategies were utilized to meet each of the above sub-goals. To increase participants’ sense of connection and community, as well as to decrease fears and sense of isolation,
Queer Student Teachers
387
we delivered the workshops in a group setting. The facilitators began the workshop by sharing their own experiences and by discussing their motivations for delivering the workshops, including sharing concerns they had heard from other queer student teachers. By noting that other queer student teachers had expressed concerns about the field placement, the facilitators attempted to normalize participants’ fears and anxieties. The facilitators then encouraged participants to share their stories with one another as a way to further normalize their experiences, gain support from their peers, and validate their emotional reactions. As Dejean (2010) pointed out, “for the queer community, sharing our stories can be considered courageous conversations, as members participating in this dialogue are engaging in the risky business of choosing visibility by communicating aspects of our queer being and communicating it to others” (p. 236). Participants examined their fears relative to field placement, disclosed their experiences as queer and queer-affirming individuals in their academic program, and began to share stories. As these stories unfolded, participants opened up, grew bolder, and began to share ideas, resources, and strategies with one another. To increase participants’ sense of support from the facilitators, all of whom are faculty members, they disclosed their own identities as a queer woman, a queer man, and a heterosexual woman ally. They also shared their own reactions to participants’ stories, saying such things as “your story makes me feel . . .” and “I’m saddened that that’s been your experience.” By making use of self, the facilitators attempted to humanize themselves and provide emotional support to the participants. To minimize power differentials, the facilitators gently redirected questions back to the participants and encouraged them to answer their own questions. To heighten participants’ sense of personal/professional empowerment, we developed several classroom-based scenarios and had participants work in small groups to develop strategies for dealing with common problems encountered in the field placement. These scenarios focused on five themes: (a) heterosexism and discrimination, (b) personal agency, (c) teachable moments, (d) curriculum development, and (e) student teacher/cooperating teacher interactions. For the theme of heterosexism and discrimination, participants developed strategies to counteract and prevent both subtle forms of heterosexism and more overt instances of anti-queer discrimination, such as bullying. For the theme of personal agency, participants developed strategies to proactively promote classrooms and schools that are queer-affirming. In addition, they began to imagine the role that they might play as role models and mentors in their host schools in the face of potential obstacles. For the theme of teachable moments, participants developed strategies to turn instances of erasure or stigmatization of queer lives into teachable moments. For the theme of curriculum development, participants developed strategies to develop curricula that support queer identities and provide encouragement for queer youth. For the theme of student teacher/cooperating teacher interactions, participants developed strategies for negotiating coming out to
388
F. J. Benson et al.
cooperating teachers, addressing heterosexism, and engaging in self-care. Throughout the processes of developing strategies, the facilitators validated participants’ strengths and normalized feelings of fear and trepidation while attempting to empower them to make use of their own and their colleagues’ strategies. Finally, to increase participants’ access to personal/professional resources, we developed and shared with participants several handouts. These included a list of recommended readings on issues of sexuality. The list included researchers from the host university and other universities and institutions in the city, such as Meyer (2007, 2009, 2010), Otis, Ryan, Chouinard, and Fournia (2002), Ristock and Julien (2003), and Whatling (2009). We made the decision to include these researchers so that participants would have additional resources in the area and, if needed, could reach out to local experts in the field. We also provided participants with a list of low-risk classroom strategies, anti-prejudice interventions, and helpful scripts around scenarios such as having one’s sexuality questioned by students in a classroom context from sources such as Benson (2008) and Lipkin (2002). Finally, we provided additional resource materials such as names of local organizations (e.g., Project 10, a local LGBTQ agency that focuses on youth and young adults) websites (e.g., www.gsanetwork.org, the website for the GayStraight Alliance Network), books and publications (e.g., Baker, 2002), and films and narratives (e.g., Chasnoff & Cohen, 1996; Pan Left Productions, Potter, & Simmons, 2002).
Analytic Approach In order to provide a comprehensive methodology for the research purposes, qualitative and quantitative approaches were combined within an integrated mixed-methods design (Kington, Sammons, Day, & Regan, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Teddlie & Sammons, 2010). According to Flick (1998), the “combination of multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in a single study is best understood then, as a strategy that adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to any inquiry” (p. 231). In order to evaluate the impact/success of the workshop design, evaluation was carried out longitudinally through questionnaires with volunteer participants during the workshops and through informal interviews conducted following their subsequent field experiences. Participants were given the choice of doing face-to-face or telephone interviews. Two interviews were conducted over the phone and four in person. The interviews lasted approximately a half an hour each and included open-ended questions to guide the participants’ reconstruction of their experience in a manner that encouraged personal exchange and allowed for an immediate clarification of what was being shared. The interviews were conducted by the first author and by trained doctoral students in counseling and educational psychology under the supervision of the second and third authors.
Queer Student Teachers
389
Data Analysis The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and the data were analyzed utilizing aspects of both inductive analysis and interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). Consistent with inductive analysis, the researchers, informed by scholarship, selected specific aims for interpretation (Boyatzis, 1998; Thomas, 2003, 2006). IPA was then employed to examine how the participants made sense of their life experiences in relation to those aims (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 2003). As part of this process, the authors independently read the transcripts several times in order to identify common themes in responses to key questions and consider the possible meanings inherent in the data. They arrived at initial interpretations through the application of a preliminary coding frame developed on the basis of theoretical criteria, professional experience, and the data themselves. The authors coded categories and subcategories that reflected the research goals and sub-goals. Overlap between categories or subcategories was analyzed and led to the refinement of and creation of new categories and subcategories. Similarities and differences across workshop groups were also explored. As new themes and patterns emerged, codes were augmented and transcripts exchanged between authors and reread to verify each of the authors’ identified themes and patterns. This process was used to further illuminate and define categories, which were then conceptualized into key themes after discussion. During this process of understanding individual experience, the authors made no attempts toward a generalization of findings, although they did allow for the possibility that experiences might be shared across participants. Trustworthiness of findings was established in seeing themes and patterns that surfaced from the participant feedback and through comparisons with findings from established research. In addition to the interviews, participants completed questionnaires that contained several questions regarding their views of the workshop’s efficacy (with responses on a Likert-type scale from 1 = not at all true to 5 = very true). Questions focused on the degree to which (a) the workshops prepared them for the transition to teaching, (b) they felt a stronger sense of self in their role as a teacher, (c) they better understood the issues related to the transition to teaching for queer student teachers, (d) they were confident they would have positive relationships with classroom students, and (e) their confidence in building professional relationships with teacher colleagues had increased.
RESULTS Overall, participants reported that they found the workshop structure and content helpful in terms of preparing them for the transition from the
390
F. J. Benson et al.
program into the field. Mean responses to all questions were very high. Specifically, participants responded that they felt better prepared for the transition to teaching, M = 4.14 (SD = .90); felt a stronger sense of self in their role as a teacher, M = 4.29 (SD = .76); better understood issues for queer student teachers, M = 4.57 (SD = .53); felt more confident in their ability to have positive relationships with students, M = 4.14 (SD = 1.07); and felt more confident in building positive relationships with teachers, M = 4.43 (SD = .79). Results from the qualitative analysis revealed several commonalities. For instance, all interviewees expressed that they found the workshop to be a “safe space” and that it was a place where they could share the information they wished to. Gary (a pseudonym; all subsequent names are pseudonyms) said, “I felt it was a very safe place because it was very comforting to know that you would be in a situation where you could really tell whatever was on your mind or whatever happened to you.” The interviewees all mentioned the positive impact of having queer faculty and faculty allies participate in the workshops. Sue told us:
Absolutely. Yeah, it was a great space. It was a good discussion. It was nice to be not only with students, but also with, you know, professors who are very comfortable and make it a great environment to share your thoughts, opinions. So, absolutely. I thought it was a very valuable discussion. And, it was definitely the space and people that made the difference.
Another commonality found was that this workshop did not affect their decision to become a teacher. Their decision was based on personal experiences and feelings prior to participating in the workshop. When queried whether participating in the workshop would influence their perspective of how they would teach, all the interviewees revealed that the workshop would have an impact on their teaching perspective. Elena’s words are evocative of the sorts of sentiments expressed:
[It’s] influenced how I want to bring in the queer perspective into the classroom. I’m an English teacher, so I’d want to bring in novels that deal with queer issues. It’s my hope that kids will develop a more compassionate and tolerant attitude in society.
The interviewees also felt that the workshop was successful in terms of allowing them to express themselves and share stories and learn from one another.
Queer Student Teachers
391
Gary noted: I didn’t come with big expectations. I had positive stories to share so . . . But I also, I guess, hoped to hear more about other situations, situations that were tougher that I might encounter as well. So for sure, for that I had a great time listening to some of the stories and how people dealt with it and how they could have dealt with it. Because sometimes on the spot, you don’t necessarily react in the best manner. So, my expectations were definitely met. I was looking for a space for discussion and to learn new skills. And yup, I would say my expectations were met. For sure.
In terms of workshop content, all the interviewees were highly satisfied with the content and materials included in the workshop. Gary discussed how the handouts helped him: And there were also, with the handouts, a lot of different possibilities, a lot of different answers you could give, depending on your style and your teaching style. There are some answers that are there, that are pertinent and answers that are also . . . that are also . . . how can I say that? They also fit with different kind of teaching persona. And I feel like it’s the best way. I guess if you can find an answer that fits with your personality and the way you think, and the way you think you should handle things, that’d be great. So that’s why I think having those answers . . . having those concrete examples . . . those answers that you can give to students was the best thing for sure.
With regard to additional content to add, one participant (Marc) suggested including topics on current events: “current, educational especially, events dealing with GLBT” issues. There were surprising outcomes to the workshops, which included that queer student teachers were as anxious about how to negotiate the relationship with their university field supervisors as they were about that with their cooperating teachers. We also learned that, to our mutual consternation, safe spaces cannot be made safe enough for some of our queer students and their allies. For example, Tania said: For sure it would be nice if more students came. I think a lot of students probably shied away from it just because of what it was called. I mean when I saw the name Queer students, I was like g-d, ‘queer students,’ I hate that name. Change the name. It was such a shame, I think there was about seven of us, that’s it, in all the B.Ed. program, which is really, really too bad. Maybe if somebody could like let students know, that, you know, don’t be afraid. You can sit there and not say a word if you don’t want to.
392
F. J. Benson et al.
Disturbingly, all participants indicated high levels of homophobia experienced in their university program from peers and faculty. Steve recounted one such experience: I remember that a few weeks before the workshop, it was the midterm, and before the midterm our teacher instructed us to go to the washroom. So, I went to the bathroom and the things I heard in the bathroom really turned me off to ever sharing anything. Because I could see that basically, all my fears were probably right on point. Like, you know, slurs, degrading, like: ‘don’t look at me fag’ ‘I’m peeing, don’t touch me’. Whatever. So a few weeks later there was this Project 10 speaker in my class and I’m like, really? Like I’m going to raise my hand and say: ‘yeah so I’m gay.’
Participants also shared their dismay at what they perceived as an absence of coverage of queer issues in their academic coursework. For example, Sue shared the following: I did have a speaker in one of my classes come and talk about queer issues in Phys. Ed. So that was one time that it was addressed, but otherwise, in my four years [in the program] I did not really face any times when we talked about homosexuality. It is such a taboo topic that people are afraid to approach, I think. Even people who are gay are afraid to approach it. I think teachers need to bring it up in classes. It is important.
In addition, Elena shared her impressions of how queer topics have been dealt with in some of her classes: I think the education faculty could definitely deal with this issue in more depth and more frequently. It usually comes up in superficial discussions . . . superficial meaning it’s not structured by the teacher, it usually comes up through conversations stemming from other issues. So, I also think it needs to be addressed more head-on. Teachers don’t want to step on anyone’s toes. But I think when it comes to issues of respect and tolerance of other human beings, then professors should take a bigger stand and not tolerate homophobic slurs in the class. I don’t know, just take a greater stance on the issue rather than a diplomatic one.
Finally, the workshops appeared to help all the participants feel more confident and ready to make the transition from program to field. Marc noted: I think knowing what to do with the administration or parents that are hostile to your attempts at normalizing gayness, right, is really useful. ’Cause some administrators would prefer you not talk about it at all to avoid backlash, while some parents would rather you didn’t teach kids
Queer Student Teachers
393
about it. Another one that I think will help me is what to do if a student approaches you and wanted to share that they are not straight, right, and their concerns about coming out. And what to do if a kid comes up to you in class saying, ‘mister, mister Marc are you gay?’ and how to reply to that and what to say, right. I figured that was very useful, very helpful too—because you can get in trouble without meaning to.
Similarly, Elena said: Definitely the workshop has helped me transition in that I now have a clearer idea of what I stand for and what I’m willing to tolerate . . . and to be more aware and sensitive to the atmosphere in schools and is it a safe space? Like if I were a homosexual, would I want to be in this school or not? It’s definitely helped me realize . . . . Um . . . just increased my awareness so much.
DISCUSSION Overall, the workshops appeared to increase students’ sense of professional and personal efficacy and served as an important venue for gaining support and skills in negotiating the transition from program to field experience. Participants indicated positive valuations of the workshops and noted the need for these types of safe spaces, especially in light of the high degree of homophobia experienced within their academic program. Stiegler (2008), writing about the failure of teacher education programs to address queer issues and support young queer teachers, questioned the effect that this neglect might have on queer student teachers’ “teacher identities” and their ability to address homophobia in their future practice. Our workshops are one response to this neglect. Indeed, our results indicated that participants experienced homophobia in their program and felt a clear absence of coverage of queer issues in their academic coursework. These findings regarding problems with the teacher education program mirror the themes Robinson and Ferfolja (2001) identified as impediments to teacher education: perceived irrelevance of queer issues to student teachers, lack of focus on queer issues in teacher education programs, and pathologizing of non-heterosexual identities. The results of our exit interviews provide several implications for teacher education. Participants reported experiencing homophobia in their academic coursework and a lack of coverage of queer issues in their curriculum. As such, there is a need to develop interventions for teacher education programs to reduce students’ experiences of homophobia and heterosexism, as well as a need to integrate queer issues into the teacher education curriculum. Creating safer and more inclusive atmospheres for queer student teachers in the university setting may help to alleviate some of the fear,
394
F. J. Benson et al.
trepidation, and lack of resources reported by participants in our workshops. In addition, there appears to be a clear need for initiatives like our workshops that help to support and provide resources for queer student teachers entering the field. Although much has been written that recognizes the importance of positive role models on a student teacher’s construction and conception of self as teacher (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2006; Vinz, 1996), there is a paucity of research on structures within universities that might best support queer students and academics who wish to become such rolemodels (Benson, 2008). Finally, given the stigmatizing environment many queer student teachers face both in their academic programs and in their school-based field placements, broader systemic changes need to occur in university and primary and secondary schools. For example, research on young adults who attended high schools with gay-straight alliances (GSAs) reveals that the presence of GSAs is related to decreased depression and high school dropout and increased self-esteem and college education attainment (Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011). It is likely that the presence of supportive resources for queer teachers would have similar results, helping queer teachers to be healthier and more successful. Research is thus needed to explore the effectiveness of these types of support systems for queer teachers.
Limitations Although it should be noted that the small sample size for both the quantitative and qualitative analyses is a limitation of this study, the results are nevertheless encouraging. Future research should therefore test the efficacy of the workshops with a larger sample size. As noted by participants, feelings of fear and lack of validation in the larger teacher preparation program likely contributed to our small sample size. Indeed, shortly after the first workshop was conducted, a group of four students came to the office of one of the authors. They shared that although they were excited to see that such a workshop was being offered and had talked among themselves about going, they felt the risks were too great for them to attend. They worried about being seen entering or leaving the workshop. Another concern they voiced was the possibility that the workshop would be “crashed” by heterosexual students looking to see who was there in order to cause trouble. They made two suggestions that might have enabled them to participate. First, they felt strongly that the location of the workshop should not be mentioned on the poster advertising it. Rather, a secure university e-mail address should be provided and the workshop location be sent to those students who emailed their desire to attend. Their second suggestion was that we not place a poster on the door of the workshop location. While these suggestions had obviously been the subject of much earnest discussion between these students, their fear and trepidation was yet another disturbing reminder to
Queer Student Teachers
395
us of the chilling climate of homophobia and heteronormativity that exists for queer students and their allies in our own faculty of education, even as we promote our commitment to social justice. It is likely that implementing strategies to reduce homophobia and heterosexism in our own program may help to increase participation rates. In addition to increasing sample sizes, a randomized controlled trial would allow researchers to determine whether the workshops resulted in better outcomes than no intervention. Likewise, research is needed to examine the longer-term impact of the workshops on the professional well-being and sense of efficacy of novice queer teachers and their allies in the field. Finally, research that examines the individual components of the workshops could shed light onto those aspects that are most helpful to queer student teachers as they navigate the student teaching experience and transition to the field. These workshops represent a first step in addressing the unique needs and concerns of queer student teachers and their allies. We are hopeful that these workshops and additional research on queer student teachers will create changes in places of teacher education that are more favorable to queer teacher development and retention in the field. Sharing these results with a wider audience of those involved in teacher education also has the potential to engage faculty and students in important dialogues and enable participants to find the courage to escape the chains of heteronormativity and, in their work as teachers, be confident enough to become leaders in the struggle against homophobia in schools and society. We close with the rallying call: “the silence surrounding queer issues in teacher-training programs must desist” (Stiegler, 2008, p. 123).
FUNDING This research was funded by a grant from the Mary H. Brown Fund of McGill University.
REFERENCES Baker, J. (2002). How homophobia hurts children: Nurturing diversity at home, at school, and in the community. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Benson, F. (2008). Teacher educators’ practice of queer-care: A necessary expansion of Noddings’ model of care (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, QC. Benson, F. (2010, May) Queer issues in the study of education and culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (Canadian Association for Teacher Education), Montreal, QC.
396
F. J. Benson et al.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Capel, S. (1997). Changes in students’ anxieties and concerns after their first and second teaching practices. Educational Research, 39(2), 211–228. Chasnoff, D., & Cohen, H. (Producers and directors). (1996). It’s elementary: Talking about gay issues in school [motion picture]. United States of America: New Day Films. Cherubini, L. (2009). Reconciling tensions of new teachers’ socialization into school culture: A review of the research. Issues in Educational Research, 19, 83–99. Cramer, E. (2002). Addressing homophobia and heterosexism on college campuses. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Day, C., Elliott, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 563–577. Dejean, W. (2010). Courageous conversations: Reflections on a queer life narrative model. The Teacher Educator, 45, 233–243. Downey, B. (2001). “Good morning, I’m a heterosexual”: A case in the closet in rural Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 11(2), 33–43. Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ferguson, K., Frost, L., & Hall, D. (2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression, and job satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27–42. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and application. London, England: Sage Publications. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232. Fry, S. W. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: Ups, downs, and inbetweens. The Qualitative Report, 12, 216–237. Henkin, A. B., & Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban teacher commitment: Exploring associations with organizational conflict, support for innovation, and participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160–180. Johnson, V. L., Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Powell, S. R. (2008). Effects of an integrated prevention program on urban youth transitioning into high school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 225–246. Kington, A., Sammons, P., Day, C., & Regan, E. (2011). Stories and statistics: Describing a mixed methods study of effective classroom practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 103–125. Kosciw, J., Diaz, F., & Greytak, E. (2010). 2009 national school climate survey: The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nations’ schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Kyriacou, C., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ concerns during teaching practice. Evaluation & Research in Education, 13, 18–31. Le Maistre, C., & Pare, A. (2004). Learning in two communities: The challenge for universities and workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 44–52.
Queer Student Teachers
397
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265–275. Lipkin, A. (2002). The challenges of gay topics in teacher education: Politics, content, and pedagogy. In R. Kissen (Ed.), Getting ready for Benjamin (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Lipkin, A. (2004). Beyond diversity day: A Q & A on gay and lesbian issues in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Meyer, E. (2007). Gendered harassment in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Meyer, E. (2009) Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Meyer, E. (2010). Gender and sexual diversity in schools. New York, NY: Springer. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. Mills, M. (2004). Male teachers, homophobia, misogyny and teacher education. Teaching Education, 15(1), 27–39. Olmstead, M. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of practicum supervision: One student teacher’s experiences of powerful differences. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 138–148). New York, NY: Routledge. Otis, J., Ryan, B., Chouinard, N., & Fournia, K. (2002). Effets du Projet 10 sur le mieux-etre sexuel de jeunes gais, lesbiennes, bisexuelles et bisexuals. Rapport de recherche subventionnée par la Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal Centre [Impact of Project 10 on the sexual wellbeing of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Report on research subsidized by the regional body of health and social services, Greater Montreal]. Pan Left Productions (Producer), Potter, N. (Director), & Simmons, G. (Director). (2002). Voices of GLBT youth [Motion picture]. Tucson, AZ: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Riches, C., & Benson, F. (2010). Nothing new under the sun: Mitigating the lament of betrayal in teacher education. In J. Maurer & W. Halloway (Eds.), International research in teacher education: Current perspectives (pp. 157–172). Armidale, NSW, Australia: UNE Conference Company. Ristock, J., & Julien, D. (2003). Disrupting normalcy: Lesbian, gay, queer issues and mental health. Revue canadiene de santé mentale communautaure, 22(2), 5–8. Robinson, K. H., & Ferfolja, T. (2001). ‘What are we doing this for?’ Dealing with lesbian and gay issues in teacher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 121–133. Rofes, E. (2002). “I was afraid he would label me gay if I stood up for gays”: The experiences of lesbian and gay elementary education credential candidates at a rural state university. In Kessen, R. (Ed)., Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom (pp. 191–208). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Saarnivaara, M., & Sarja, A. (2007). From university to working life: Mentoring as a pedagogical challenge. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 5–16.
398
F. J. Benson et al.
Sanderson, D. R. (2003). Extending the learning community: The birth of a new teacher support group. The Professional Educator, 26, 63–71. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. London, England: Sage. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (pp. 53–80). London, England: Sage. Smith, N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 57–67. “Starr.” (2002). How my teacher education program failed me. In R. Kissen (Ed.), Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom (pp. 163–168). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Stiegler, S. (2008). Queer youth as teachers: Dismantling silence of queer issues in a teacher preparation program committed to social justice. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 116–123. Teddlie, C., & Sammons, P. (2010). Applications of mixed methods to the field of educational effectiveness research. In B. P. M Creemers, L. Kyriakides, & P. Sammons (Eds.), Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research (pp. 115–152). London, England: Routledge. Thomas, D. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Retrieved from http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/ Inductive2003.pdf Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246. Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school gay-straight alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 175–185. Toynton, R. (2006). ‘Invisible other’: Understanding safe spaces for queer learners and teachers in adult education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 38(2), 178–194. Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232. Whatling, M. (2009). A vigil for Jose Rose: Stories of being out in high school. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Wimmer, R., Chinnery, A., & Morrison, M. (2008). Breaking the silence: Teacher observations of behaviour affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and staff in Saskatchewan secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 19, 19–36.
