Culturally engaging courses and campuses for LGBQ+ issues.
Culturally engaging courses and campuses for LGBQ+ issues.
复制标题
针对 LGBQ 问题的文化参与课程和校园。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Heather Haeger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Allison BrckaLorenz;Antonio Duran;Heather Haeger
目前的文献强调，需要通过对学校采取的做法进行批判性审视，来解决课堂内外对LGBQ+学生不友好的校园氛围。本研究使用大规模、多机构的定量和定性数据集，调查了学生对课程中纳入LGBQ+问题的看法，以及这与其他形式的参与有何关系。我们发现，不同专业和性别的学生对LGBQ+的看法存在差异，LGBQ+和非LGBQ+学生的参与度和LGBQ+课程包容性之间的关系很强。学生们的话强调了课程作业和性讨论之间的脱节，以及为LGBQ+社区创造包容性空间的重要性。针对LGBQ+问题的文化参与课程和校园你们都不是为我们而来的。快点。”在高等教育领域，学者们强调校园气候和文化的体验因学生的背景和社会身份而异（见Museus， 2014）。这一研究表明，学生对如何接受和欢迎他们的校园环境的看法是不同的，这取决于一个人的社会位置，特别是与历史上被边缘化身份的大学生相关（例如，musus, 2014; musus, Yi, & Saelua, 2018; Tyson, 2019）。例如，研究人员强调了LGBQ+社区的个人在高等教育机构中遇到的负面校园气候（例如，Evans, Nagoshi, Nagoshi, Wheeler, & Henderson, 2017; Garvey, Sanders, & Flint, 2017； Greathouse等人，2018;Woodford & Kulick, 2015）。这一领域的奖学金强调，需要通过批判性地审视学校所采取的做法，来解决课堂内外对LGBQ+学生不友好的校园氛围。与这项研究相关，学者们开始关注大学环境中的结构和举措，这些结构和举措塑造了学生对校园的看法，例如政策、俱乐部和课程设置（Pitcher, Camacho, Renn, & Woodford, 2018; Woodford, Kulick, Garvey, Sinco, & Hong, 2018）。一个重要的方面是人们在课堂上讨论LGBQ+问题的开放程度，这是一个经常被忽视的话题。在本文中，我们使用首字母缩略词LGBQ+来代表那些自认为是女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、酷儿、质疑者和其他性少数群体的人——这一语言与2017年全国学生参与调查（NSSE）的管理一致。然而，当提到学术时，我们反映了作者使用的语言（例如，酷儿光谱，LGBTQ等）。参与的LGBQ+学生在他们的大学里（Brockenbrough, 2018; Guerrero, Shahnazarian & Brown, 2017），以及他们如何看待校园氛围。由于这种对LGBQ+问题的抹杀，高等教育专业人士也缺乏知识，不知道将LGBQ+主题纳入课程会如何影响不同性取向的学生，包括那些自认为是异性恋者的学生。因此，本研究的目的是考察学生在考虑性取向和专业时，他们对学校在课堂上整合LGBQ+主题的开放程度的看法有何不同。本研究采用定量分析的混合方法，同时也包括学生对一个定性开放式调查问题的回答，提供了一个细致入微的批判性理解，了解LGBQ+社区内外的个人在他们的看法上是如何变化的，以及这是如何影响学校其他形式的参与的。与重新构想高等教育研究的愿景一致，这项研究挑战了这样一种观点，即只有那些认同LGBQ+社区的学生才能从LGBQ+主题在校园和课程中的整合中受益。指导这次调查的问题如下：学生的性取向和专业对LGBQ+议题纳入课程的看法有何不同？2. 对于LGBQ+和非LGBQ+学生的其他形式的参与，如何看待课程纳入LGBQ+问题？在重新构想学生事务和学术事务的实践中，本研究的结果有可能帮助教育工作者倡导将这些主题广泛地纳入课堂和机构。因此，机构代理将更好地准备文化参与课程，以支持校园中的LGBQ+社区，这反过来又会影响这些个人对大学文化的体验。在理解LGBQ+学生的多样性和包容性时，我们通过检查三层镜头的两个部分来探讨这一主题（BrckaLorenz等人，2019）。虽然不是本研究的重点，但第一层认为包容性环境的基础是代表性。在招聘、留用和学术成就方面，增加组成多样性有利于更广泛的校园社区（Astin, 1993; Brown, 2006; Cole, 2007; Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Tinto, 2006）。Pike和Kuh（2006）证明，随着组成多样性的增加，同伴之间的不同互动以及对更支持性校园环境的看法也会增加。在本研究中，我们考察了不同学科课程作业的包容性，并对校园文化（其他两个层次）的支持性观念进行了更广泛的考察。参见图1。在模型的第二个层次，我们探讨了课程培养包容性环境的程度。学者们将文化相关教学法（将学生的不同背景和文化融入课堂）与许多积极的学生成果联系在一起（Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017）；然而，这项研究在很大程度上忽略了课程如何与LGBQ+学生相关并吸引他们（Brockenbrough, 2018; Guerrero et al., 2017）。异性恋者的规范和政策也可能阻碍教师参与与文化相关的内容和关于性和身份的讨论，就像他们对种族等更广泛接受的身份方面所做的那样（Rhodes & Coda, 2017）。我们根据学生参与讨论LGBQ+问题的程度以及学生在课内外提出这些问题的舒适度来衡量课程的文化参与度。在我们模型的第三个层面，我们将支持LGBQ+学生的校园环境概念化为一个与其他LGBQ+学生建立社区意识的环境，促进对LGBQ+问题的讨论，并有助于学生了解自己和他们的身份。课堂内外的互动以及机构政策向学生传达了机构对多样性和包容性的承诺水平（Pike & Kuh, 2006）。在前面的章节中提到，大量的研究表明，LGBQ+学生在大学校园里仍然经历着不受欢迎和异性恋的环境——即使这些气候随着时间的推移正在改善（Garvey et al., 2017）。
Current literature underscores the need to address unwelcoming campus climates for LGBQ+ students both in and outside of the classroom by taking a critical look at the practices adopted at the institution. Using a large-scale, multi-institution quantitative and qualitative data set, this study examined student perceptions of the inclusion of LGBQ+ issues in curricula and how this relates to other forms of engagement. We found differences in student perceptions by major and sexuality, and that relationships between engagement and LGBQ+ curricular inclusion are strong for LGBQ+ and non-LGBQ+ students. Quotes from students highlight the disconnect felt between coursework and discussions of sexuality, as well as the great importance of creating inclusive spaces for the LGBQ+ community. CULTURALLY ENGAGING COURSES 3 Culturally Engaging Courses and Campuses for LGBQ+ Issues Y’all are not here for us. Step it up.” —A queer identifying student’s write-in response Within the field of higher education, scholars emphasize the reality that the experience of campus climate and culture varies by students’ backgrounds and social identities (see Museus, 2014). What this body of research showcases is that students’ perceptions of how accepting and welcoming their campus environments are differ based on a person’s social location, especially relevant for collegians from historically marginalized identities (e.g., Museus, 2014; Museus, Yi, & Saelua, 2018; Tyson, 2019). For example, researchers highlight the negative campus climates that individuals from the LGBQ+ community encounter at their higher education institutions (e.g., Evans, Nagoshi, Nagoshi, Wheeler, & Henderson, 2017; Garvey, Sanders, & Flint, 2017; Greathouse et al., 2018; Woodford & Kulick, 2015). This area of scholarship underscores the need to address unwelcoming campus climates for LGBQ+ students both in and outside of the classroom by taking a critical look at the practices adopted at the institution. Connected to this research, scholars started to look at structures and initiatives within university environments that shape students’ perceptions of campus, such as policies, clubs, and course offerings (Pitcher, Camacho, Renn, & Woodford, 2018; Woodford, Kulick, Garvey, Sinco, & Hong, 2018). One area of importance is how open people are to discussing LGBQ+ issues in the classroom, an often-ignored conversation. In particular, not engaging in conversations about sexuality in classes and on campuses can have significant effects on how 1 In this manuscript, we use the acronym LGBQ+ to represent those who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, and with other sexual minority identities – language that aligned with the 2017 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). However, when referring to scholarship, we mirror the language employed by the authors (e.g., queer-spectrum, LGBTQ, etc.). CULTURALLY ENGAGING COURSES 4 engaged LGBQ+ students are at their university (Brockenbrough, 2018; Guerrero, Shahnazarian & Brown, 2017), as well as how they view their campus climate. Because of this erasure of LGBQ+ issues, higher education professionals also lack the knowledge of how including LGBQ+ topics in curricula can impact students across different sexualities, including those who identify as heterosexual. Thus, the purpose of this research was to examine how students differed in their perceptions of how open their institution is to integrating LGBQ+ topics in the classroom when considering sexuality and major. Using a blend of quantitative analyses while also including students’ responses to a qualitative open-ended survey question, this study provides a nuanced and critical understanding of how individuals both within and outside of the LGBQ+ community vary in their perceptions and how this affects other forms of engagement at the institution. Aligning with the vision of the will to reimagine the study of higher education, this study challenges the belief that only students who identify within the LGBQ+ community benefit from the integration of LGBQ+ topics across campus and in curricula. The questions that guided this inquiry were as follows: 1. How do perceptions of the curricular inclusion of LGBQ+ issues differ by students’ sexual orientation and major? 2. How do perceptions of the curricular inclusion of LGBQ+ issues relate to other forms of engagement for both LGBQ+ and non-LGBQ+ students? In reimagining practice in student affairs, as well as academic affairs, the results from this study have the potential to help educators advocate for the incorporation of these subject matters in classrooms and at institutions broadly. Consequently, institutional agents will be better prepared CULTURALLY ENGAGING COURSES 5 to support the LGBQ+ community on their campuses, which in turn can affect these individuals’ experiences of their collegiate culture. Conceptual Framework In understanding diversity and inclusivity for LGBQ+ students, we approached this topic by examining two parts of a three-tiered lens (BrckaLorenz et al., 2019). Although not the focus of this study, the first tier considers the foundation of an inclusive environment to be representation. Increasing compositional diversity is beneficial to the broader campus community in terms of recruitment, retention, and academic success (Astin, 1993; Brown, 2006; Cole, 2007; Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Tinto, 2006). Pike and Kuh (2006) demonstrated that as compositional diversity increases, so do diverse interactions among peers and perceptions of more supportive campus environments. In this study, we examine inclusivity in coursework within different disciplines and look at a broader examination of perceptions of the supportiveness of the campus culture (the other two tiers). See Figure 1. In the second level of the model, we explore the degree to which coursework fosters an inclusive environment. Scholars associate culturally relevant pedagogy, which incorporates students’ diverse backgrounds and cultures into the classroom, with a number of positive student outcomes (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Marquez Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2017); however, this research largely ignores how courses can be relevant and engaging for LGBQ+ students (Brockenbrough, 2018; Guerrero et al., 2017). Heterosexist norms and policies may also discourage instructors from engaging in culturally relevant content and discussions around sexuality and identity in the same way they do with more widely accepted aspects of identity like race (Rhodes & Coda, 2017). We measure how culturally engaging courses are in CULTURALLY ENGAGING COURSES 6 terms of how much students engage in discussions about LGBQ+ issues and how comfortable students feel brining up these issues in and out of class. In the third level of our model, we conceptualize a supportive campus environment for LGBQ+ students as an environment that creates a sense of community with other LGBQ+ students, fosters discussion of LGBQ+ issues, and contributes to students’ understanding of themselves and their identity. Interactions in and out of the classroom along with institutional policies communicate to students the level of institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion (Pike & Kuh, 2006). Noted in previous sections, a significant body of research has demonstrated that LGBQ+ students still experience an unwelcoming and heterosexist environment on college campuses – even if these climates are improving over time (Garvey et al., 2017).