19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Introduction

As argued by Jackie Ullman (2014), Staged Environmental Framework (SEF) is an appropriate

theory used for investigating the way in which teachers’ instructional scaffolding of the

normative heterosexual language and expectations; negatively impact the connectedness,

resilience and academic achievement amongst LGBTQ and GQ students. There is a powerful

correlation between the three life components outlined as the organisational, the instructional

and the interpersonal and the recommendations provided by Ullman. As suggested throughout

the article; the curriculum should be more LGBTQ- inclusive forging a gay-straight alliance

between student-student and teacher-student (Ullman, 2014). These recommendations are

implemented into the ‘Stage 6: lesson plan; critical analysis activity’ (Appendix 2) changed

from (Appendix 1; Gerges, 2017); in a tangible, sensitive manner as these issues are

challenging to present; into schools with a conservation gender culture formerly developed

(Robinson, 2005 ; Ullman, 2014).

Conceptualising LGBQT and GQ student engagement

LGBQT are not subject to the same inclusive educational advantages as heterosexual students

or student of LGBQT identification that conform to the traditional gender binaries i.e.

‘ladylike/butch’, ‘sporty/dapper’ representations. There is a significant marginalisation of

LGBQT students subsequently negatively affecting their educational engagement. Through

exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ using SEF theory, a conversation is created

by centralising the often-over-looked marginalising practices for LGBQT and GQ students.

1
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Including a global perspective, research from the US that includes positive representations of

same-sex attracted and transferred students possess a great sense of safety, experience less

victimisation, less absenteeism, increased academic levels and over all engagement are

reported higher than students subjected to curricular silences and feel marginalisation within

the classroom (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, and Barkiewicz. 2010, Ullman, 2014). As Ullman

(2014) pointed out; many participants characterised their teachers as architects of the set school

gender climate. The teachers are positioned as pioneers and leaders within the classroom; and

of those who were reluctant to acknowledge same-sex attraction and gender fluidity during the

lesson; participants became actively disengaged due to ‘somehow falling’ outside their teachers

concern or responsibility.

Cross-subject relevance

LGBT and GQ student’s engagement is mirrored through policy dimensions, formalised

through the Australian education system (ATSIL,2017; NESA, 2017). Code of ethics conduct

provides direction for teachers for committing to social justice issues including students with

differing characteristics opposing prejudice, dishonesty and injustices in the classroom

environment. The code of ethics also directs stakeholders; i.e. teachers, students, and wider

community; to make fair decisions to all people in avoiding discrimination on the ground of

race, culture, religion and gender (Code of conduct, 2017). Furthermore, teachers are required

to provide a quality teaching environment for ensuring a student’s wellbeing as it can

negatively impact success in academia and life chances after school.

The cross-curricular priorities are implemented through the Australian curriculum providing

guidelines for teachers; as architects of the learning environment and classroom discourse; to

2
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

foster the social justice sustainability and sustainable social futures for their LGBTQ students

(ACARA, 2017). In addition, the general capabilities that are crucial for LGBTQ student’s

engagement include the personal and social capability and the development of ethical

capabilities (ACARA,2017). ACARA employed these capability dimensions for the safety and

active engagement for all school climates; specified as ‘gender climate’ throughout Ullmans

research (Ullman, 2014). ATSIL (2017) also provides teachers with professional and ethical

responsibilities standard 7.1; requiring them to apply these key principles describes in the code

of ethics and across capabilities in all teaching area within an engaging learning environment

specific to LGBQT students.

Through the quality teaching model teachers provide the opportunity to enable teachers to

thrive in demonstrating knowledge and understanding the consequences for learning

differential social, intellectual, cultural physical characteristics including the characteristics of

LGBQT students’ within a visual arts class (A classroom practice guide, 2003). Their

continuous professional development is crucial for students to mirror understandings and

develop higher- order thinking on principles of inclusion or fellow peers. Furthermore, teachers

have the opportunity to thrive by applying scaffolding as theorised through the constructivist

theory; as a strategy for differentiating pedagogy to meed specific learning needs of students

across a full range of capabilities. (Vygotsky, 1980).

Critical Summary

According to Kevin Hsiehs’(2011) study of preservice art teachers; they are willing to learn;

and ready to implement positive conversations within their classrooms; creating; a safe

engaging, LBGTQ inclusive learning environment. However, there is the issue of the

institutional conventional construct that these pre-service art teachers are concerned about

encountering. This survey of 147 pre-service teachers support the SEF theory Ullman (2014)

3
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

investigated in improving the ‘gender climate’ and engagement of LGBQT and GQ students

(Hsiehs, 2011). The research that informed the article includes informing on whole school

curricular silences on sexual and gender diversity and student engagement is thoroughly

explored (Ullman 2014). This article cites teacher positivity affects towards gender binaries

and diversity; with qualitative research identifying the problem of marginalisation of LGBTQ

and GQ students and the effect it has on their social relationships and academic outcomes for

background global research informing local perspectives. (Ullman 2017; Ullman 2014; Ullman

2015; Davies, Vipond and King 2017).

Ullman’s (2014) research methodology used NVivo a verified qualitative and mixed method

research application; was used to assist with the organisation and analysis of the transcribed

interviews. This took place in two phases whereby the first phase, of data analysis, involves a

coding frame describing the research. This coding phase is tested for “inter-coder reliability

with the project research assistant, with a kappa score of 0.83, indicating a near perfect

agreement” score (Viera and Garrett 2005; Ullman 2014). The second phase separates 22

descriptive codes of data analysis and thematically collapses them using three school climate

components making up the Stage environmental theory (Merriam 2009; Saldana 2009; Eccles

and Roeser 2009; Ullman, 2014). The first component; organisationally; views the ways in

which the schools applied various gender boundaries through rules and consequences. The

second component; instructionally; divulges the manner the schools scaffolded gender

boundaries through curricular inclusions/exclusions, engagement/disengagement and gender

curriculum associations. The final school life component; interpersonal, conveys the manner

schools maintain these gender boundaries through social aspects and stakeholder’s engagement

(ACARA 2017; ATSIL 2017; NESA 2017).

4
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

This method was applied to five LGBTQ participants which can be viewed as a limited sample

when investigating the Western Sydney alongside Sydney’s south, the most homophobic area

of the city as a whole; However, Ullman (2014) provided background from other researchers

to support the exploration in understanding how students’ views of gender climate maybe

linked to their sense of school belonging and related motivational outcomes. (Collins and

Poynting Sex Education 2000; Flood and Hamilton 2005; Ullman 2014). Even so; had mixed

research methods, also, been used for understanding why the area was homophobic; the

background to this injustice would be stronger support for developing counter methods specific

to combating this ‘homophobic area’ and the reported schooling experience of these five

participants.

However, competingly; the interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and one-to-one;

participant directed and had a participant directed loose structure reflecting the organisational,

instructional and interpersonal experiences they endured as a result of the homophobic and

tolerant behaviour. The two participants that remained in the schooling environment

experiences retold; the suppressive accepted gender norms and expression, social acceptance

or marginalisation of LGBQT students maintained by curricular silence sustaining the active

disengagement of LGBQT students within the classroom (Ullman 2014). The three LGBQT

participants that no longer attended secondary school focused on the retrospective perspectives

of the gender climate they experienced. Existing outside of an instructional institution their

responses included numerous topics different to the students that were still in school; including

legal/social equity issues, social construction of gender, sexuality and the marginalisation and

disengagement they experienced in such classes i.e. sex education (Ullman and Ferfolja

forthcoming; Ullman and McGraw 2014).

5
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Their needs were not met; by not experiencing the same equity in education and they felt they

fell out of the teachers remit when asking questions surrounding same-sex relationships. This

is seen through sampling from the interview presented by Ullman; i.e. Hazel, age 19; was

subjected to victimisation and her principal suggested if she had altered her appearance she

would experience less victimisation. This an example of the neglect in ethical conduct and

injustice that Ullman (2014) is trying to raise awareness to. Ullman (2014) has discussed the

interviews from the perspectives of the participants; suggesting there is a limitation to these

interviews; requiring more research and support discussing why these teachers haven’t

maintained their professional development; protecting the safe equitable learning environment

for LBGQT and GQ students (ATSIL, 2017). In its entirety, the article provides comprehensive

research that is credible and has used appropriate framework to ensure teachers create

opportunities for LGBQT and GQ students to thrive maintaining their engagement via inclusive

curricular activities and discourse (Roffey, 2015).

Critical Analysis mini-series activity: Assessment and Revision

Ullman (2014) argues that the professed inclusiveness, acceptance and inclusion on social and

curricular levels of schooling are crucial for a teacher to foster an engaging environment with

thriving attitudes from LGBTQ and GQ students as exemplified in the visual arts critical

analysis activity (Gerges 2017); Appendix (2). Ullman findings and recommendation are

supported overall through additional research using numerous framework that overlaps

including; various other researched interventions through, SEL framework; Mind Matters

framework by building resilience and practicing mindfulness (NSW Department of Education

and Communities, 2015). According to Ullman (2014) and Roffey (2015), the disengagement

occurring more so by LGBQT students may be rectified by teachers who genuinely care and

6
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

take interest by creating a sense of connectedness and belonging within the classroom and

lesson curriculum (Goodenow, Szalacha, and Westheimer 2006; Kosciw et al. 2013). Within

the visual arts key learning area this can be included through the choice of artist through the

application of the conceptual framework.

Through these recommendations the visual arts lesson plan chosen’s activity has been altered

to include a LGBTQ artist Andy Warhol. Particularly through the Conceptual framework,

teachers can ensure students are having a safe, inclusive and engaging discussion on sexuality

and gender fluidity through a LBGTQ artist and their art practice according to the national

curriculum and syllabus (ACARA, 2017). According to Tompkins, Kearns and Mitton-Kukner

(2016) support Ullmans (2014) hypothesis in positive approaches towards LGBTQ and GQ

narratives (3.6 QTM); needed for increasing pedagogical equity amongst LGBQT or GQ

students. Through implementing critically analysing “Andy Warhol’s, Small Acetate (Self-

Portrait in Drag), (1980); from the Pop culture movement; students can experiment with

artwork interpretation and developing social and emotional vocabulary and literacy with

direction from the teacher (Resilience Programs and Planning, Mind Matters. Beyond Blue,

2014). This will subsequently help LGBTQ students build resilience within a safe learning

environment. As adolescence are already exercising period of stress and storm it is important

for teachers to scaffold differentiation between learning pedagogy tailoring their practices

across the entire class. Subsequently the student- teacher and student-student relationship

Ullman (2014) recommended will foster and flourish throughout LGBQT schooling years;

maintaining their engagements and academic success (Roffey, 2015).

Teachers can direct students using the quality teaching method and creating a positive narrative

in which they are comment and discuss in a safe informed environment away from

7
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

discrimination. As subject of visual arts is a creative, expressive outlet for students and they

are within their right to express themselves within the school climate as the standards outlined

in dimension 7.1 (ATSIL, 2017). Visual arts teachers can provide the opportunity for students

to use the syllabus to explore the artists LGBTQ lifestyle. Suggested questions are included to

guide the teacher in (Appendix 2); students can apply their findings and the methods to their

mini-series, applying the quality teaching method self-regulating their classroom behaviour

and academic success (A classroom practice guide, 2003).

The previous activity (Appendix 1) did not entail the appropriate material to encompass the

LGBTQ discourse with in a learning environment effectively. Even though it was a useful

activity, adding a different artist forces the curriculum to be unsilenced and students have a

platform to receive a more equitable learning opportunities and advantages. Furthermore, this

activity has been chosen to ensure there is open inclusive safe dialogue directed and guided by

the teacher but with more connectedness to the student’s interests remaining within the

Australian curriculum and syllabus (ACARA, 2017). Intervention strategies suggested by

Ullman (2014) strengthening student- student and teacher- student relationships for a sense of

belonging and gay-straight alliances to remedy and build resilience while activating the

engagement of LGBQT students within the learning environment will have a better chance via

this critical analysis activity. (Resilience Programs and Planning, Mind Matters. Beyond Blue,

2014).

Conclusion

The wellbeing of students increases academic success and assist students in increasing

successful life chances after schooling. According to Hagenauer, Hascher (2010) and Ullman,

(2014) research indicates that motivation and emotional positivity decrease, while active risk

factors and disengagement increase from childhood to adolescence. According to Lindsay

8
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

(2015) teachers need to be able to understand how to support children in order to express

themselves clearly as Ullman strongly suggested professional development (ATSIL, 2017).

Teachers are in fact, the architects of the classroom and equitable pedagogical practice,

inclusive curriculum and genuine support for LGBTQ and GQ students (Mitton-Kukner,

Kearns and Tompkins, 2016).

References:

Davies, A W. J. Vipond, E. King, A. (2017) Gender binary washrooms as a means of gender

policing in schools: a Canadian perspective. Gender and Education 0:0, pages 1-20.
Ullman, J. (2017) Teacher positivity towards gender diversity: exploring relationships and
school outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse students. Sex Education 17:3,
pages 276-289.
Ullman, J. (2015) ‘At-risk’ or ‘school-based risk? Testing a model of school-based stressors,
coping responses, and academic self-concept for same-sex attracted youth. Journal of
Youth Studies18:4, pages 417-433.
Kearns L-L. Mitton-Kukner J. and Tompkins J. (2016) LGBTQ Awareness and Allies:
Building Capacity in a Bachelor of Education Program retrieved from:
http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/viewFile/1628/1714
Tompkins J. Kearns L-L. and Mitton-Kukner J. (2016) Pre-service educators and anti-
oppressive pedagogy: interrupting and challenging LGBTQ oppression in schools,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44:1, 20-34,
DOI:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1020047
Hsieh, K (2011). Preservice Art Teachers Attitudes: Toward Addressing LGBTQ Issues in
Their Future Classrooms. Studies in Art Education, 57(2), 120-138
Roffey, S. (2015). Becoming an agent of change for school and student well-being.
Educational & Child Psychology, 32(1), 21-30. Retrieved from
http://wellbeingaustralia.com.au/wba/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-Becoming-
an-Agent-of-Change-for-Wellbeing.pdf
Hagenauer, G., and T. Hascher. 2010. “Learning Enjoyment in Early Adolescence.”
Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and
Practice 16 (6): 495–516. In Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper:
exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using stage–environment
fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912
Goodenow, C., L. Szalacha, and K. Westheimer. 2006. “School Support Groups, Other

9
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

School Factors, and the Safety of Sexual Minority Adolescents.” Psychology in the
Schools 43 (5): 573–589. In Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper:
exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using stage–environment
fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Kosciw, J., N. Palmer, R. Kull, and E. Greytak. 2013. “The Effect of Negative School
Climate on Academic Outcomes for LGBT Youth and the Role of In-School
Supports.” Journal of School Violence 12 (1): 45–63. In Ullman, J. (2014)
Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Ullman, J., and T. Ferfolja. Forthcoming. “Bureaucratic Constructions of Sexual Diversity:

‘Sensitive’, ‘Controversial’ and Silencing.” Teaching Education. In Ullman, J. (2014)
Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Ullman, J., and K. McGraw. 2014. “Troubling Silences and Taboo Texts: Constructing Safer
and More Positive School Climates for Same-Sex Attracted High School Students in
Australia.” In Gender and Sexualities in Education: A Reader, edited by Dennis
Carlson and Elizabeth Meyer, 298–312. New York: Peter Lang. In Ullman, J. (2014)
Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Kosciw, J., E. Greytak, E. Diaz, and M. Barkiewicz. 2010. The 2009 National School Climate
Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Our
Nation’s Schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. In
Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with
Australian LGBTQ students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4,
430-443, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design & Implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. In Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper:
exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using stage–environment
fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Viera, A., and J. Garrett. 2005. “Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa
Statistic.” Family Medicine 37 (5): 360–363. In Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch,
sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using
stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Eccles, J., and R. Roeser. 2009. “Schools, Academic Motivation, and Stage-Environment
Fit.” In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 3rd ed., edited by Richard Lerner and
Lawrence Steinberg, 404–434. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. In Ullman, J. (2014)
Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

10
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Robinson, K. 2005. “Reinforcing Hegemonic Masculinities through Sexual Harassment:

Issues of Identity, Power and Popularity in Secondary Schools.” Gender and

Education 17 (1): 19–37. In Ullman, J. (2014) Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper:
exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ students using stage–environment
fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Collins, J., and S. Poynting. 2000. The Other Sydney: Communities, Identities and
Inequalities in Western Sydney. Melbourne: Common Ground. In Ullman, J. (2014)
Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

Flood, M., and C. Hamilton. 2005. “Mapping Homophobia in Australia.” The Australia

Institute. http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdfIn Ullman, J. (2014)

Ladylike/butch, sporty/dapper: exploring ‘gender climate’ with Australian LGBTQ
students using stage–environment fit theory, Sex Education, 14:4, 430-443, DOI:
10.1080/14681811.2014.919912

NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2015). The Wellbeing Framework for
Schools. Retrieved from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/wellbeing/about/16531_Wellbeing-Framework-for-
schools_Acessible.pdf

Andy Warhol Museum. (1980) Pittsburgh; Founding Collection, Contribution the Andy
Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. © The Andy Warhol Foundation for the
Visual Arts, Inc. 1998.3.1135. Retrieved from: https://www.warhol.org/event/dandy-
andy-warhols-queer-history-2/

Lindsay, G M. (2015) Visual art education: The tangle of beliefs Faculty of Social Sciences

Papers Faculty of Social Sciences University of Wollongong Research Online

Resilience Programs and Planning, Mind Matters. Beyond Blue. (2014)

retrieved from: https://www.mindmatters.edu.au/docs/default-source /learning-
module-documents/module_overview_2-3.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Aitsl.edu.au. (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers [online] Available at:
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/general/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf?sfvrsn=399ae
83c_2 [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

11
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. (2017). [pdf] Sydney, NSW: NSW Education
Standards Authority, Revised edition March 2017 pp.4-28. Available at:
http://www.tsa.det.nsw.edu.au/docs/Australian_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers.
pdf [Accessed 16 Oct 2017].

ACARA (2017). ACARA - Curriculum. [online] Available at:

https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].

A classroom practice guide. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools. [online]
Available at: http://web1.muirfield h.schools.nsw.edu.au/technology/Programs/
Template/Quality%20Teaching%20Guide.pdf [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017]. pp.45-60

The code of conduct (2014) NSW Department of Education and Communities | Code
of Conducthttps://www.teach.nsw.edu.au/documents/code_guide.pdf [ Accessed 14
Oct. 2017]

Gerges, B. (2017). Stage 6: lesson plan; critical analysis activity [Lesson plan]. Visual arts.
School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

Designing, Teaching and Learning (2017). Stage 6: lesson plan; critical analysis activity [Lesson

plan]. Visual arts. School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

12
19189518 Brigitte Gerges RTL

Appendix 1 - Designing, Teaching and Learning (2017). Stage 6: lesson plan; critical analysis
activity [Lesson plan]. Visual arts. School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith,
Australia

Appendix 2 - Gerges, B. (2017). Stage 6: lesson plan; critical analysis activity [Lesson
plan]. Visual arts. School of Education, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia

13