gender and sexuality in english language education. focus on poland

ELT Research Papers 15.03

Gender and Sexuality in English Language Education: Focus on PolandAuthors: Łukasz Pakuła, Joanna Pawelczyk and Jane Sunderland

Gender and Sexuality in English Language Education: Focus on PolandAuthors: Łukasz Pakuła, Joanna Pawelczyk and Jane Sunderland

ISBN 978-0-86355-776-7

© British Council 2015 Design /F119

10 Spring Gardens London SW1A 2BN, UK

www.britishcouncil.org


Contents | 1

Contents

Thewriters............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1 Whataretheissues?.................................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Whatisgender?............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.2 Genderandsexuality................................................................................................................................................................10

1.3 Sexualityandheteronormativity.........................................................................................................................................10

1.4 TheEFLclassroomasacommunityofpractice...........................................................................................................11

1.5 Naturallyoccurringclassroominteraction.....................................................................................................................11

1.6 Representationandconstruction.......................................................................................................................................12

1.7 Masculinitiesandfemininities...............................................................................................................................................12

1.8 ‘Genderdifferences’,‘gendersimilarities’and‘gender-blindness’.......................................................................13

1.9 Educationaldisadvantage......................................................................................................................................................13

1.10 Gender and Sexuality in English Language Education:Focus on Poland;thisstudyandthisbook.........13

2 GenderandsexualityresearchinEFLtodate:areview.................................................................................15

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................15

2.2 Classroominteraction..............................................................................................................................................................15

2.3 Classroommaterials..................................................................................................................................................................19

2.4 ‘Talkaroundthetextbooktext’.............................................................................................................................................21

2.5 Sexuality:neededdevelopments........................................................................................................................................21

2.6 Intersectionality:sexismandhomophobia.....................................................................................................................23

2.7 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................24

3 ThePolishcontext:politicsandeducation.........................................................................................................25

3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................25

3.2 ThePolishcontext......................................................................................................................................................................25

3.3 Struggles:the‘ideologyofgender’....................................................................................................................................27

3.4 Diversityandex/inclusion?Thebroadeducationalcontext..................................................................................29

3.5 SexisminPolishEFLtextbooks:nowandthen..............................................................................................................32

3.6 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................33

4 ExploringgenderandsexualityinPolishclassrooms:methodology.........................................................35

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................35

4.2 Thetextbooksanddataselection.......................................................................................................................................35

4.3 Theclassroomsanddatacollection..................................................................................................................................36

4.4 Identifyingteachers’andstudents’perspectives:focusgroupinterviews......................................................39

4.5 IdentifyingMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewers’perspectives..................................................................42

4.6 Analysingthedata......................................................................................................................................................................42

4.7 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................43

2 | Contents

5 Genderandsexualityintextbooks.......................................................................................................................45

5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................45

5.2 Genderrepresentationintextbooks.................................................................................................................................45

5.3 Sexualityrepresentationintextbooks..............................................................................................................................54

5.4 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................56

6 Genderandsexualityinnaturallyoccurringclassroominteraction..........................................................57

6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................57

6.2 Classroomdiscourse:genderandsexualitymade(ir)relevant.............................................................................57

6.3 ‘Gendercriticalpoints’.............................................................................................................................................................57

6.4 Genderandsexualityinclassroominteraction............................................................................................................58

6.5 DealingwithgrammaticalgenderinPolish....................................................................................................................71

6.6 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................72

7 Exploringtheperspectivesofstudents,teachersandtextbookreviewers............................................73

7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................73

7.2 Insightsfromstudents.............................................................................................................................................................73

7.3 Insightsfromteachers.............................................................................................................................................................78

7.4 Institutionalpower:reviewers’perspectives.................................................................................................................92

7.5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................93

8 Conclusionsandrecommendations......................................................................................................................95

8.1 Concludingremarks..................................................................................................................................................................95

8.2 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................96

9 References....................................................................................................................................................................99

10 AppendixA:Focusgroupquestions/prompts(withteachers)......................................................................................109

AppendixB:Focusgroupquestions/prompts(withstudents).......................................................................................111

AppendixC:QuestionsandpromptsforMinistryofEducationreviewers................................................................112

AppendixD:MinistryofEducationreviewerforms.............................................................................................................114

AppendixE:Transcriptionsystems............................................................................................................................................ 123

AppendixF:Consentform(forparents).................................................................................................................................. 124

Thewriters | 3

ThewritersŁukaszPakułaisaffiliatedwiththeFacultyofEnglishandalecturerinGenderStudiesatAdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznań,Poland.Hisresearchinterestsincludelanguage,gender,andsexuality;identitiesineducationalsettings;critical(meta)lexicographyandidentityconstructioninreferenceworks(e.g.dictionaries),aswellascorpuslinguisticsworkingintandemwithcriticaldiscourseanalysis.Hepublishesinternationally,bothinjournalsandeditedcollections.Hehasalsoco-editedavolumeoninterdisciplinarylinguisticsandregularlypresentshisresearchatinternationalconferencesandcongresses.lukaszp@amu.edu.pl

JoannaPawelczykisAssociateProfessorofSociolinguisticsattheFacultyofEnglish,AdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznań,Poland.Herprimaryresearchinterestsareinlanguage,genderandsexualityissues,discoursesofpsychotherapyanddiscourseanalysis.Shehaspublishedinarangeofinternationaljournalsandeditedcollectionsongender,psychotherapyandidentity.SheistheauthorofTalk as Therapy: Psychotherapy in a Linguistic Perspective(2011).SheispresentlyamemberoftheadvisoryboardoftheInternationalGenderandLanguageAssociation.pasia@wa.amu.edu.pl

Jane SunderlandisanHonoraryReaderinGenderandDiscourseatLancasterUniversity,UK.Hermainresearchinterestsareintheareaoflanguage,discourse,genderandsexuality,butsheisalsointerestedinacademicdiscourse,doctoraleducationandthenotionofadaptation.HermonographsincludeGendered Discourses(2004)andLanguage, Gender and Children’s Fiction(2011).Sheiscurrentlyco-authoringabookcalledChildren’s Literacy Practices: Harry PotterandBeyond (provisionaltitle).SheisapastPresidentoftheInternationalGenderandLanguageAssociation(IGALA)[email protected]

4 | Thewriters

Acknowledgements | 5

AcknowledgementsWewouldfirstliketothanktheBritishCouncilforfundingthissociallyimportantresearchandthusrecognisingtheneedforastudywhosefindingscanhavereal-lifeimpact.

Thisstudywouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupportandwillingnessofmanyschooldirectors,teachers,studentsand(often)theirparentswhokindlygaveustheirpermissiontoobserveandaudio-recordEFLclassesatthethreeschoollevels,andtothehighschoolstudentsandteacherswhotookpartinourfocusgroups.Wewouldliketothankthemverymuch.Ithasbeenatrulyeducationalandinspirationalexperience.WealsothankthetwoMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewersforthetimeandprofessionalexpertisetheysharedwithus.

Hugewordsofappreciationgotoourtworesearchassistants,AleksandraSokalska-BennettandBartłomiejKruk(alsotheauthorsofChapter4ofthisbook),fortheirinvolvementintheprojectandawonderfulcontributiontothefinalreport.AleksandraandBartłomiejobservedandrecordedsomeoftheEFLclasses,analysedselectedEFLtextbooksandtranscribedsomeoftheinteractions.Theyalsohelpedusconductthefocusgroupinterviews.

WealsowanttothankProfessorKatarzynaDziubalska-Kołaczyk,DeanoftheFacultyofEnglish,AdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznań,forhersupportoftheprojectandbeingsopositiveaboutinterdisciplinaryresearchgearedtowardssociallyrelevantissuesaddressingreal-lifeproblems.

WearegratefultoProfessorJacekWitkoś,Vice-RectorforResearchandInternationalCo-operation,AdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznań,forallowingustousethelogooftheuniversityinprojectmaterials.Moreover,weappreciatetheaidofDrMałgorzataZawilińska-Janas,whoproofreadthePolishpartofthepublication.Last,wearealsogratefulfortheprofessionalismoftheeditorialstaffattheBritishCouncil–inparticular,AdrianOdell.

Lastbutnotleast,thanksgotoLancasterUniversity–totheResearchSupportOfficeforadministeringtheoriginalgrantapplication,theTravelsectionforhelpingwithflightsandaccommodation,andtheFacultyofArtsandSocialSciencesFinanceDepartmentforadministeringthefinances.

ŁukaszPakuła,JoannaPawelczykandJaneSunderland

BritishCouncilstatement

Thisreportisaresearchpaper.Whileallreasonableeffortshavebeenmadebythewriterstoensurethattheinformationcontainedhereinisaccurate,theBritishCouncilacceptsnoliabilityforsuchinformation,orfortheviewsoropinionspresented.

6 | Acknowledgements

Introduction | 7

IntroductionIsEnglishasaforeignlanguage(EFL)educationinflectedbygenderand/orsexuality?Someteachersmightseelittle–ifany–connectionbetweenthethree.Otherswillrecallinstancesof,forexample,non-normativethemesduringtheirclasses,asthisteacherreportedwhileparticipatinginaFacebookdiscussionwithothermembersofanEnglishteachers’group:

7-year-olds.We’replayingamemorygame.Theword:‘gate’.1

Amanda:Miss,whatisgay?

Me:It’samanwholovesothermenmorethanwomen.

Amanda:Well,mymother’sgotagayfriend.Andhedresseswellandgoespartyingwithher.

Sara:Well,thengayinPolishisgentleman.

I’vegotthebestjobintheworld.Iswear:)

7-latki:Gramywmemory.Słowo‘gate’.

Amanda:ProszęPani,acotojestgej?

Ja:Topan,którybardziejkochapanówniżkobiety.

Amanda:No,amojamamamakolegęgeja.Ionsięładnieubieraichodzizniąnaimprezy.

Sara:No,togejpopolskutogentleman.

Jamamnajlepsząpracęnaświecie.Przysięgam:)

Suchclassroomexchangesconstitutepowerfulevidencethatchildrenfromanearlyagearegenuinelyinterestedinallspheresoflifeandareabletouselanguage(includingaforeignlanguage)tocommunicatetheirneedtoknowallsortsofthings.Students,andEFLstudentsinparticular,learnabouttheworldfromtextbooksandclassroomtalk,andthesetwoperspectivesweavetheirwaythroughthisbook.Whileweacknowledgetheimportanceof

teacher–studentclassroominteractionandstudents’ownagency,wealsoaimtohighlightthespecialroleoftheteacherincommunicationandnegotiationofvariousdiversity-inclusivethemes,especiallyinthelightofrecentfindingsconcerningreasonsfordiscriminationwithintheschoolingenvironmentintheEU(EuropeanCommission,2015)and–importantly–inPoland(Gawliczetal.,2015).Westronglybelievethatinclusivenesswithintheclassroomisamust.Withoutit,somestudentswillfeelmarginalised;withit,allstudentsaremuchmorelikelytofeelwantedandappreciated,whichissurelyfundamentaltorealisingtheirfulllearningpotential.IntherecentwordsoftheOECD:

There is a growing body of evidence that shows that the highest-performing education systems are those that combine equity and quality. Equity in education is achieved when personal or social circumstances, such as gender, ethnic origin or family background, do not hinder achieving educational potential (fairness) and all individuals reach at least a basic minimum level of skills (inclusion) (2012:11).

Wehopethatthisbookwillbeofusetopractisingteachers,teachereducators,policymakers,textbookwritersandillustrators,publishers,serieseditorsandreviewers,byraisingtheirawarenessofgender-andsexuality-relatedissuesinactualandpotentialrelationtotheEFLclassroom.Itisourcontentionthatbroadanddeepimprovementisrequired.Forthisreasonweconcludethebookbyofferingconstructive,realisticandpracticalguidelinesforallthesestakeholders.Variousmaterialsintheformoffliersandbrochuresarealsofreelyavailableonlineatwww.wa.amu.edu.pl/eflproject/.

1 WehavereceivedpermissiontousethisFacebookpost.Theauthor’snamehasbeenremoved,andthestudents’nameshavebeenreplacedwithEnglish-soundingonestoensureanonymity.

8 | Introduction

Whataretheissues? | 9

1Whataretheissues?1.1Whatisgender?Leavingasidethenotionofgrammatical gender,thewordgenderisusedindifferentwaysinEnglish.Leastproductiveofthese,wesuggest,isasa‘polite’synonymofbiological sex,asinthephrase‘thetwogenders’.Certainlygenderisassociatedwithpeopleofdifferentbiologicalsexes,butwithideasoflearning,socialisation,socialconstructionandrepresentationratherthanwhatisinnate(musculature,genesandsexualcharacteristics,forexample).Wecanthustalkaboutthe‘gendering’ofsocialgroupsandindividuals,and‘gendered’socialpractices,andmeanthatthenotionofbiologicalsexisbeingmaderelevantinsome,perhapsprescriptive,way.

Thenotionofgenderasappliedtohumanindividuals,andhencealmostinevitablyassociatedwithbiologicalsex,iswhatJaneSunderland(2011)hascalled‘Model1’ofgender(a‘people-based’model).Whileitisreasonabletorefertosomeone’s‘genderidentity’–theirsenseofthemselvesasawoman,man,girlorboy–thedangerwithneatlyequatinggenderwithactual‘sexed’humanindividualsisthatthepopular,andoftenacademic,focusthentendstobeon‘genderdifferences’,apoliticallyunhelpfulnotion(seeCameron,1992).Slightlybetteristhephrase‘gendertendencies’,asdifferencesarerarelyabsolute,thereishugevariationamongwomenandamongmen,and‘gendersimilarities’(inmanycontexts)areinfacttheorderoftheday.Othercaveatstothismodelarethatgendertendenciesvarywithculture,contextandcommunityofpractice(seeSection1.4);thatgenderisnotfixed,as‘gendering’ison-goingthroughoutourlifetimes,andhenceisalwaysinastateofflux;andthathumanbeingsarenotpassively‘sociallyconstructed’butthemselvesalwayshaveameasureofagencyandpotentialforresistance(wearenot‘victimsofsocialisation’).Welookatthesepointsinmoredetailbelow.

‘Socialconstruction’ismoresubtlethan‘socialisation’,connotingnotonlyagencybutalsoinfluencebeyondchildhoodandadolescence.Thenotionofthe‘socialconstructionofgender’hasbeenparticularlyimportantforgenderandlanguagestudy,asitentailstheideathatlanguageandlanguageusecouldalsohavearoleinthis

construction–reversingtheoldsociolinguisticideathatsex/gender,andvariablessuchasclassandage,weresimplyreflectedinlanguageuse.AnextremeexampleofsocialconstructionofgenderfromlanguageisfoundinKiraHall’sclassic(1995)studyofsexworkers,inwhichamaleemployee,Andy,successfullyimpersonatedwomen,inwayswhichhis(heterosexual)maleclientsenjoyed.

Andy’ssuccesswasduetocertainideasabouthowwomentalk–howtheydoand/orshould.Buttheseideasarelikelytobevariableandcontingent–Andywas‘being’afemalesex-worker–andideological.WecanthereforeseeModel2ofgenderasbeingnotpeople-basedbutideas-based,wheretheideasareaboutwomen,men,boys,girlsand/orgenderrelations,andaresociallyandideologicallyshaped.Sunderland(2011)recallspartofanannouncementbyachiefpurseronaflight:‘I’mjoinedthiseveningbytwolovelyyoungladies,VickyandJo’.Thespeakerwasconstructingtheflightattendants’genderasrelevantto(atleastsomeof)hispassengers,butwasabletodoso‘successfully’givenhegemonicideasaboutgender,sexualityandindeedgenderandpowerrelationsonacommercialairline.Itisthenpossibletotalkaboutgenderandlanguageintermsofwhatissaid(orwritten)andhow,ratherthanbywhom.Gendermayherebeindexeddirectly(e.g.‘Hedoesn’tbehavelikearealboyshould’)orindirectly(e.g.‘Mydaughter’sreallykeenonfootball’–spokeninaworriedtone).Thisistoseelanguageasdiscourse,inwhichmeaningisidentifiablethroughallrelevantaspectsofthecontextinwhichthespokenorwrittenlanguageinquestionoccurs,andwhich,forpost-structuralism(seeFoucault,1972)andcriticaldiscourseanalysis(seeFairclough,1992),isconstitutive–inthiscase,ofgenderidentityandgenderrelations.Inthisbookwealsorefertodiscourses–sociallyinformedwaysofseeingtheworld–inrelationtolanguageeducationandgenderand/orsexuality.

Totheimportantnotionsofgender relationsandgender identity,wecanaddthatofgender representation.Thenotionofrepresentationisusuallyappliedtowritten,visualormultimodaltexts,butwecanalsoseegenderasrepresentedintalk.

10 | Whataretheissues?

1.2GenderandsexualityOverthelasttwodecades,thestudyoflanguageandgenderhasexpandedconceptuallytotakeonboardthenotionofsexuality,suchthatthesecondeditionoftheWiley-BlackwellHandbook of Gender and Language(2003)isentitledThe Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality(2014).ThisisnotjustbecauseoftheriseinLesbianandGayStudiesandofQueerTheory,butalsobecauseofanincreasingrecognitionoftheintertwinednatureofgenderandsexuality–whetherwearetalkingaboutsexualityasidentity,practice(linguisticandotherwise)and/ordesire(Kulick,2014;Queen,2014;CameronandKulick,2003).HelenSauntson(2008:274)referstothe‘uniquerelationship’betweengenderandsexuality,exemplifiedbyPaulBaker’sobservationthat‘Amasculinemanisexpected(orrequired)tobeheterosexual.Afemininemanisusually…regardedashomosexual…masculinewomenareusuallyregardedaslesbians’(2008:7).Sauntsonwrites:‘oncewebegintoexaminereal-lifelanguagepractices,genderandsexualityintersecttosuchanextentthatitbecomesimpossibletoseparatetheminlinguisticanalysis’(2008:274).AusefulreminderofthisisBaker’sobservationthat‘onewaythatpeopleareexpectedtoexpresstheirgenderisthroughtheirsexualbehavioursanddesires’(2008:7).Thesearehighlyheteronormative(seeSection1.3),sothatinsomecontexts,forexample,menwhodonotvisitprostitutesoruseheterosexualpornography,oratleastdonottalkaboutthese,mayriskbeingseenas‘unmasculine’andmaybehaveand/ortalkaccordinglytoavoidpreciselythis(seealsoCameron,1996).

Whentalkingaboutsexualityitisimportanttolookatwhatisoftenseenastransgressivebehaviour,andattheconsequencesofthis,whichcanbesevere.Whileinsomeculturalcontextstwomenwalkingdownthestreetholdinghandsisnowanunremarkablesight(thoughofcoursethisisnotalwaysasignofgayness),inothers,homosexualityispunishablebydeath.Atthesametime,femalehomosexualityhasalwaysbeenlessdisapprovedofthanmale,tothepointofdenialofitsexistence–alikelydownplayingofwomen’ssexualdesiremoregenerally.

SexualityisimportantintheEFLclassroomfordifferentreasons.Itislikelythatoneormorelearnersinagivenclassofteenagersoradultswillbegay,asindeedmaytheteacher.Asthelanguageclassroomisoneinwhichanytopicispotentiallyrelevant(e.g.forawrittenexercise,fororaldiscussion),andmosttopicsinvolvehumansinsomeway,andhumanrelationships,notonlygender-butalsosexuality-relatedissuesarelikelytoarise.Thesemaybeplanned,orotherwise,andtheteacherwillneedtobepreparedforboth.Thisisofcoursenotonlybecausewedonotwanttooffendnon-heterosexualparticipants;itisaboutwhatmightbecalled‘diversityeducation’forall(seeGray,2013a).

1.3SexualityandheteronormativityWithveryfewexceptions,onebeingFramework Level 3byBenGoldsteinandCeriJones(2003),nomainstreamtextbooksincluderepresentationsofexplicitlygaycharacters,forexample,indialogues,oreveninreadingcomprehensiontexts(say)onthetopicofsexuality,orgayrightsasadimensionofhumanrights.Thisisafactoroftheglobalmarketforlanguagetextbooks(seeGray,2013b),andEFLbooksasbigbusiness,butisincontrasttothefamiliardiscussionofgenderandofwomen’srightsintextbooks,aswellastosuchdiscourseinthepublicdomainmoregenerally(aswewrite,Irelandhasjustheldareferendumwhichisnowusheringinlegalisedsame-sexmarriage).

Manypeoplearefamiliarwiththenotionofhomophobia,i.e.hatredofgaypeople,ahatredwhichmaybemanifestedinlanguage,otherbehaviour,orevenoutwardlynotatall.Homophobiaisunlikelytobeanissueintextbooks,giventheabsenceofcharactersrepresentedasgay,althoughitmayoccurinclassroomtalk.Moresubtleandlesswellknownisthenotionofheteronormativity,i.e.assumingthatorbehavingandtalkingasifeveryoneisheterosexual.Peoplewhoareawareofandcondemnhomophobia,andwhoselanguageandotherbehaviourisnothomophobic,neverthelessoftenactinawaywhichespousesheteronormativity.Asimpleexampleissomeoneaskingateenageboyifhehasagirlfriend,orateenagegirlifshehasaboyfriend,questionswhicharelikelytobehighlyirritating(iffamiliar)toagayteenager,whetherornottheyare‘out’inoneormorecommunitiesofpractice(seebelow).Heteronormativityisubiquitous,anddominantinHollywoodfilms(especiallyrom-coms)andsoapoperas,soitisunsurprisingtofindheteronormativitythrivingineverydaytalk(seeMotschenbacher,2010,2011).


Itishoweverpossibletotalkaboutdegreesofheteronormativity,intextbooksandintalk(seealsoChapter5).Forexample,constanttextbookrepresentationsofnuclearfamilieswithamarriedmumanddad,withasonandadaughter,canbeseenashighlyheteronormative,ascancontinualstorylinesfeaturingheterosexualromanceandweddings,andtheteacher’s‘topofthehead’exampleshavepotentialforthistoo.Writtenandvisualrepresentationsofmixed-sexgroupsofadultandteenagefriendsaremuchlessheteronormative,astheyopenupthepossibilityofdifferentreadings,whicharethenavailableforclassdiscussion.Representationsofsingle-sexpairsofteenagersandadultscanbeseenasevenlessheteronormative,forthesamereason.

1.4TheEFLclassroomasacommunityofpracticeFirstintroducedin1991byJeanLaveandEtienneWengerinthefieldofeducation,thecommunityofpractice(CofP)notionwasintroducedtogenderandlanguagestudybyPennyEckertandSallyMcConnell-Ginet(1992),whereithasbeenveryinfluential.CofPisrelatedtothebroadnotionofcontextandamorespecificoneofculture,butactsasareminderthatwithincontextsandcultures,andoftenacrosscultures,othergroupingsexist–includingonlineones.ACofPcanbeverysmall(forexample,abookclub)orverylarge(forexample,aFacebookEnglishteachersgroup).The‘practice’notionincludesbothlinguisticpracticesandother(associated)practices.Bookclubmembersdiscussabook–butwhethertheydiscussotherthingstoowilldependonthespecificgroup.Isthediscussionafree-for-all,oristheresomesortofchair?Istherefood?Preparedbywhom?Wine?Broughtbywhom?Whenaretheseconsumed?Andhowdoessomeoneactuallyjoinabookgroup?Again,thesewillbespecifictothegroupinquestion.Facebookusers,forexample,uselanguage(actuallylanguages,andsometimescode-switching)tocommunicate,butotherpracticesinclude‘liking’apost,andadding(and‘unfriending’)friends.

TheimplicationoftheCofPnotionforlanguageandgenderstudyisinpartideological,astakingitonboardmeansthatitisthennolongerpossibletogeneraliseaboutwomeninaparticularcultureorbroadcontext.Awomanmay,forexample,beinapowerfulpositioninherfamily(oneCofP),achairoftheboardofgovernors(anotherCofP)atherchildren’sschool,butasecretaryonthelowestgradeatwork(athirdCofP).ThesedifferentCofPsaremoregenerallyassociatedwithdifferentformsanddegreesofpowerforwomen,butalsowithdifferentsetsoflinguisticpractices.

AforeignlanguageclassroomcanalsobeaCofP,constitutedbyahostoflinguisticandotherpractices.Whilesomeofthesemaybeunpredictable,manywillbefamiliarandrecurring.IftheforeignlanguageinquestionisEnglish,andifthestudentsshareamothertongue,whatisthe(officialandunofficial)roleofthemothertongueintheclass?Whatfunctionsdoesithave?Asregardsnon-linguisticpractices,dothestudentsstandupwhentheteachercomesin?Asregardsgender,doestheteachertendtoassigncertaintasksorroles,academicorotherwise,tofemaleandtomalestudents?Ifso,isthisaccepted,orresisted?

1.5NaturallyoccurringclassroominteractionIngenderandlanguagestudy(andindeedinthesocialsciencesgenerally)itisimportanttomakeadistinctionbetweenwhatisnaturallyoccurringbehaviourandwhatiselicited(andalsowhatisrepresented–seeSection1.6).Naturallyoccurringbehaviourisbasically‘whatwouldhavehappenedanyway’,includingwhatissaid,written,orotherwisedone,whetherornotaresearcherwasinvestigatingit.Mostlessonsarenaturallyoccurring,evenonesusedfordatacollection–inthateveniftheresearcher’spresencemayaffecttheparticipantssomewhat,thatlessonitselfasitplaysoutwouldbroadlyhavetakenplaceinthenormalcourseofevents.Inthisstudyandbookweareconcernedinpartwithsuchnaturallyoccurringbehaviour.Somethingthatwouldnothavehappenedanyway,suchasaresearcher’sinterviewwithateacher,resultsineliciteddata.Otherexamplesarequestionnairedata,andfocusgroupdata.Bothinterviewandquestionnaireeliciteddataarerelevanttothisstudyandbook:bothneededaresearchertocomealongtobringthisdataintobeing.

Lessonsinclassrooms,likemostpublicevents,aremostlynotonlynaturallyoccurring,butalsotypicallyinteractive.Evenifagivenlessonconsistsmostlyofteachertalk,thatteachercannotbutconsidertheirstudentsinthedelivery.Moreoften,theteacherwillaskquestionsandstudentswillusuallyanswer;sometimesstudentsasktheteacherquestions;sometimesstudentsinteractwitheachother,inon-taskpairorgroupwork;oftentherewillbeoff-tasktalkamongstudents.Alltheseareformsofclassroominteraction.Inamixed-sexclassroom,allcanbegendered:arethere,forexample,identifiablepatternsinthewaytheteacheraddressesmaleandfemalestudents?


1.6RepresentationandconstructionRepresentationisofsomeoneorsomething(anindividual,socialgroup,orinstitutionalpractice)bysomeone(s)(anindividual,socialgroup,orinstitution)andinacertainway.This‘certainway’extendstotalk,writing,images,andhencediscoursemorewidely.Forexample,membersofacertainethnicgroupmayberepresentedstereotypicallyinthetalkofonespeaker,andinanuancedwayinthetalkofanother–perhapsthefirstperson’sinterlocutor.Representationcantheninvolvearticulatingparticulardiscourses.Thisistoanextentamatterofchoice,i.e.ofselectionfromavailablepossibilities–somethingthatappliesinclassroomtalktoo.Forexample,theteachermay(ormaynot)refertomaleandfemalestudentsasmembersofspecificsocialgroups(stereotypically:‘Cansomestrongmenhelpmemovethistable?’),andmay(ormaynot)pitboysandgirlsagainsteachother,in,say,aquiz.Todosoistoexplicitlyrepresentmenandwomen,orboysandgirls,asdifferent,hencedownplayingthemany‘cross-gender’similarities.

Moreusually,though,representationisseenasevidentinwritten,visualandmultimodaltexts.Inthelanguageclassroom,thismostusuallyreferstotextbooks,butalsotootherpedagogicalmaterialssuchasteacher’sbooks,grammars,dictionaries,workbooks,worksheets,andofcourseonlineaswellasprintversions.Genderrepresentationinlanguagetextbookshasbeenafocusofresearchforseveraldecadesnow,andashifttowards‘fairer’genderrepresentationevidenced(seeMustaphaandMills,2015).Therepresentationofsexualityintextbooksisanewer,andmorecontroversialtopic,andoneweaddressinChapter5.

Thewordrepresentationissometimesusedinterchangeablywithconstruction.Whilethereisaprofounddebatetobehadhere,inthisbookwetakeasgiventhatconstructionentailsthatagivenrepresentationmayalsoreflect,insomeway,butcanalsoconstruct(tousetheseverbsnon-transitively),perhapsnewly,certainlyontheprintedpage,screenorinthewords,butalsoperhapsinthemindorevenbehaviourofthereader,viewerorhearer.Ofcourse,asinglemultimodaltext,suchasanadvertisement,aloneisunlikelytohavemuchconstructive(or‘constitutive’)power,butinconjunctionwitharangeofrelatedtextscertainlyhassuchpotential.Thisisnot,ofcourse,toequateconstructionwithdeterminism,asreaders,viewersandlistenerscan(todifferentdegrees)resisttherepresentationstheyareexposedto,andmanyhavetheabilitytoexperiencethemcritically.

1.7MasculinitiesandfemininitiesToseemasculinityinastereotypicalwayasassociatedwith(say)men’sstrengthandfemininitywith(say)women’sprettinessistogrosslyoversimplifythenotionsofmasculinityandfemininity.Whatisfeminineismoreaccuratelythatwhichisseenassalientlyassociatedwithwomenandgirls;whatismasculineisthatwhichissalientlyassociatedwithmenandboys.Thiswillvarywithbothcultureandcontext.

Withinanycultureorcontexttherewillbearangeofmasculinitiesandfemininities.Twowhichhavereceivedconsiderabletreatment,includingdebate,intheliteratureare‘hegemonicmasculinity’(often,thesedays:white,professionalclass,moneyedand,crucially,heterosexual)(Connell,1987;Kiesling,1997,2002)and‘emphasisedfemininity’(lessclear-cut,butagain,cruciallyheterosexual)(Connell,1987;Coates,2008).Inadditiontothesewillbearangeof‘subordinate’masculinitiesandotherfemininities.Thesealsovaryovertime.Forexample,inthepastandinsomecontextstoday,hegemonicmasculinitywas/isverycloselyassociatedwithphysicalstrength;thesedays,inmanycontexts,itisnot.

Intheclassroom,arelevantidentityisabroadlyacademicone.However,whiletheinstitutionandtheteachermaywelcomethisintheirstudents,thestudentsthemselvesmaynotwishtoembrace(eventemporarily)anacademicidentity.Gendermayberelevanthere,with‘academicfemininity’beingmoreacceptablethan‘academicmasculinity’insomeclassrooms,andthereverseobtaininginothers.Theforeignlanguageclassroomcanbeseenasan‘alreadygendered’siteinthatinmanyculturesandcontexts,oncelanguagelearningisamatterofchoice,orofsubjectselection,classroomstendtobepopulatedbywomenandgirls.Languagelearningitselfmaythenappearorbeexperiencedas‘feminine’innature,withparticularimplicationsforthe(gender)identityofanymalestudents(seeSunderland,2000a,2000b).

Masculinitiesandfemininitiesmayalsofrequentlyberepresentedorconstructedinthelanguageclassroom,perhapsmostobviouslyinthetextbook,asdiscussedabove,butalsointheteacher’stalk(forinstance,intheirexamples).Questionshereconcerntherangeofmasculinities/femininitiesrepresented,includingwhethertheseareallheterosexualones.


1.8‘Genderdifferences’,‘gendersimilarities’and‘gender-blindness’InSection1.1wepointedtothenotionof‘genderdifferences’,sofrequentlyencounteredinpopular(forexample,media)discourse,andwesuggestedthat‘tendencies’mightbeamoreaccurateterm.Moreimportant,however,issurelythenotionof‘gendersimilarities’:menandwomen,likeboysandgirls,havefarmoreincommonthantheydonot;otherwise,linguistically,wesimplywouldnotunderstandeachother.Researchfrequentlyseeksbutalsofrequentlyfailstofindstatisticallysignificant‘genderdifferences’;accordingly,wearguethatthenotionof‘gendersimilarities’isunderexplored,and,wewouldalsoargue,whensimilaritiesarefound,theyshouldbewelcomed(Sunderland,2015a).Whilethenotionofgenderdifferencesmaybepopular,itisunhelpfulintermsofsocialprogressgenerally,genderrelationsandgenderequalityinparticular,andinhinderingtheopening-upofthewidestpossiblerangeofoccupationsandactivities(broadlyspeaking)towomen,men,boysandgirlsregardlessofbiologicalsex.

Atthesametime,theremaybeoccasionswhenthenotionof‘gendertendencies’isuseful,andnotonlyforstrategicreasons.‘Genderblindness’refersbroadlytonotmakingadistinctionbetweenwomenandmen,boysandgirls,andaccordinglynot‘makinggenderrelevant’indiscourseorrepresentation.Atfirstglancethismaysoundlikeaprogressiveconcept,equivalenttofairandequaltreatment.Itisnotalwaysso,however.Letussay,forexample,thatboysinaclassconsistentlyreceivelowermarksthangirls.Thismaybeforahostofreasons,includingthattheboysinquestionareunmotivated,orlackability.Butitmaybethattheteacheris(forsomereason)markingtheboysdown.Tofailtoinvestigatethissituation(inwhich‘gendertendencies’needtoidentified,exploredandaddressed)wouldbetobegender-blind,inanunhelpfulandunprofessionalway.

1.9EducationaldisadvantageAssuggestedabove,iftherearegendertendenciesinsomeaspectoflanguageeducation,inparticularintheclassroom,thesemaynotonlybeaquestionofsocialvariation,butofactualdisadvantage.Forexample,if,inamixed-sexsecondaryforeignlanguageclassroom,theteacherpaysmoreattentiontoboysthantogirls,orallowsgirlstotalkintheforeignlanguagemorethanboys,thismaybeasourceofacademicdisadvantagetogirls,andboys,respectively.Ifthereisaquantitativeimbalanceofrepresentedgirlsandboys,womenandmen,inlanguagetextbooks,thismayadverselyaffectstudents’self-image.Ifequalnumbersarerepresented,butwomenandmen,girlsandboysarerepresentedinstereotypical,limitedordegradingways,thismaysimilarlyaffectself-image,asmayarelentless,unchallengedheteronormativityforthose(many)studentswhoarenotheterosexual.Indeed,itmayalsobeasourceofirritationandperceivedunfairnessforthosestudentswhoareheterosexual.Ofcourse,studentsrespondtodifferentthingsindifferentways;thesamegendered/sexualisedrepresentationor(recurring)discursiveeventwillaffectdifferentstudentsdifferently,butitisimportantforteacherstobevigilant(i.e.notgender-blind)here.

1.10Gender and Sexuality in English Language Education: Focus on Poland;thisstudyandthisbookIntherestofthisbookwediscusstheaboveissuesindepth,takingasdatatextsandtalkfromvariousPolisheducationalcontexts.Polandisimportantinthisrespect:Englishistaughtasaforeignlanguagebutanimportantone,givenglobalisationandPoland’smembershipoftheEuropeanUnion.Itisthemostcommonlychosenmodernforeignlanguagefromyearoneinprimary,gimnazjum 2andhighschoolsandisallocatedasubstantialnumberofhourswithinthecoreobligatorynumberofhourswithinagivenschoolyear.Forinstance,ingimnazjum,outof16coresubjects,modernforeignlanguagesareallocated15.9percentofclasstime(450outof2,825hours),whileinhighschool,outof16coresubjects,foreignlanguagesareallocated16.6percentofclasstime(450outof2,700hours).Eachgimnazjumandhighschoolisobligedtoofferatleasttwomodernforeignlanguages,andallstudentsneedtotaketwodifferentlanguagecourses,therelativetotaldurationofwhichareregulatedbytheprincipalofagivenschool.3

2 Gimnazjumisathree-yearschoolinthePolisheducationalsystembetweenprimaryschoolandhighschool.3 http://men.gov.pl/pl/zycie-szkoly/ksztalcenie-ogolne/ramowe-plany-nauczania(accessed31May2015).


However,despitetheimportanceofthesocialworldinlanguageeducation(e.g.intextbookcontent,andinroleplays),genderandsexualityhavebecomevirtuallytabooconcepts.Ineducationgenerallythenotionof‘gender’hasoflatetakenaninterestingbuthighlyproblematictwist–asweshowinChapter3–andsexualitycanbeacauseofbullying;indeed,nexttopovertyitisthemainreasonforbullying(Gawliczetal.,2015).ThismakesitdifficultforEFLmaterials,andforteachers,asmediatorsofforeignculture,tofollow/reflectinparticularmodernEuropeansocio-culturalandlegalchangesconcerningcivilpartnershipsandsame-sexmarriage.Atthesametime,relativelylittleworkhasbeendoneongenderinlanguageeducationinPoland(butseeJaworski,1983,1986,andalsoSection3.4).

Ourstudyisbasedaroundthreeresearchquestions.Theseare:

RQ1:HowaregenderandsexualityportrayedverballyandvisuallyinaselectionofPolishEFLtextbooks?

RQ2:Howaregenderandsexualitymanifestedinteacher-studentandstudent-studentspokeninteraction(a)inrelationtoEFLtextbooks,and(b)moregenerally?Doteachersandstudentsdrawongenderideologies?Ifso,how?

RQ3:Howdothreegroupsoflanguageeducationstakeholders,i.e.students,teachersandMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewers,respondtoexamplesofgenderandsexualityportrayalsintextbooks?Howdostudentsandteachersrespondtocasesofclassroominteractionrelatedtogenderand/orsexuality?

WeaddressourfindingsinrelationtothesequestionsinChapters5–8.

Inthenextchapter,Chapter2,wereviewworkongenderandsexualityresearchinEFLtodate,lookingatclassroominteraction,classroommaterials,‘talkaroundthetextbooktext’,andsexuality(howthishasbeenaddressed,andneededdevelopments),andwealsoconsiderthenotionofintersectionality(Crenshaw,1991;BlockandCorona,2014)inrelationtosexismandhomophobia.

Chapter3isonthePolishcontext:politicsandeducation.Consideringthebroadeducationalcontext,wealsolookatcurrentstrugglesaround‘gender’andthecurrent‘ideologyofgender’,andatthenotionsofandpracticesarounddiversityandex/inclusionintheworldofeducation.WealsoreviewAdamJaworski’searly(1983,1986)exceptionalstudiesofsexisminPolishasaforeignlanguageandPolishEFLtextbooks.

Chapter4documentsthemethodologyofourempiricalstudyofgenderandsexualityinPolishEFLclassrooms,includingdetailsofdataselection(whichtextbooks,whichparticipants),collection(whatwedidintheclassrooms)andgeneration/elicitation(howweconductedourinterviewsandfocusgroups).

InChapter5wereportanddiscussourfindingsasregardsgenderandsexualityrepresentationintextbooks(RQ1).

InChapter6welookatwhatteachersandstudents‘do’withtheserepresentationsinclassroomtalk(ifanything)andif,whenandhowclassroomtalkingeneral‘makesgenderand/orsexualityrelevant’(RQ2).

InChapter7wedrawonfocusgroupandinterviewdatatorepresenttheperspectivesofthreekeyEFL‘stakeholders’:students,teachers,andMinistryofEducationreviewerswhoevaluatepublishedteachingmaterials(RQ3).

Finally,inChapter8,wemakesomeconcludingcommentsaswellassomeall-importantrecommendations:forEFLteachers,teachereducators,MinistryofEducationofficialsandmaterialsdesigners.

GenderandsexualityresearchinEFLtodate:areview | 15

2GenderandsexualityresearchinEFLtodate:areview2.1IntroductionInthischapterwelookatdifferentdimensionsoflanguageeducationresearchasregardsgenderandsexuality.Westartbyconsideringclassroominteraction,thenmoveontolanguageteaching/learningmaterialsintheformoftextbooks.Theseaspectsoflanguageeducationarenotdiscrete,andwealsolookat‘talkaroundthetextbooktext’.Wethenfocusonissuesofsexuality,hithertomuchneglected,andconcludethechapterwithaconsiderationofintersectionality–forthisbook,sexismandhomophobia–inlanguageeducation.

2.2ClassroominteractionClassroominteraction,abasictoolforsociallifeandmeaning-makingintheclassroom,hasbeenasalienttopicintheliteratureonlanguageandgenderineducationalcontexts(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014:472).Belowwelookatclassroominteractionintermsoftwodyads,i.e.,teacher–studentandstudent–student.Oneofthemostsignificantcharacteristicsofclassroominteractionis,however,thatevenstudent–studenttalkisoftenmediated(ifnotdirectlycontrolled)bytheteacher(Swann,2011:162;seealsoGardner,2013).

Ofcourse,muchteacher–studenttalkisactuallyteacher–students,i.e.whole-classtalk.Butwhatdoesthis(not)consistof?InourconversationswithEFLteachers(bothmaleandfemale)whoparticipatedintheproject,weoftenheardcommentssuchas‘Oh,IonlyteachEnglish,thereisnothingrelatedtogenderinmyclasses’.ThisviewalignswithGabrieleLinke’s(2007)claimthatagreatdealoftheneglectofgenderedfeaturesofthetargetlanguagecanbeattributedtoteachers’preoccupationwiththe‘languageissue’itself:

… the constant struggle by language learners and language teachers to find the right words and the appropriate grammatical forms to satisfy even basic communicative needs leaves little scope to take account of non-sexist language (2007:137).

Commentssuchas‘IonlyteachEnglish’aptlysummariseEFLteachers’lackofawarenessofthevariouswaysinwhichgender(andothersocialcategories)isoftenunconsciouslydrawnonintheactsofteachingandlearning.EFLteachers,whethertheylikeitornot,areconstantlyteachingaboutsociety,whichtoagreatextententailsteachingaboutgenderandmayinvolvereinforcing,forinstance,theoftensubordinateroleofgirlsandwomenandtheoftendominantroleofboysandmen(FreemanandMcElhinny,1996:261;seealsoPawelczykandPakuła,2015;Swann,2011).WhileLinke(2007;seealsoSunderland,2000a,2000b)commentsonthelowprofileofgenderinforeignlanguageteaching,HeleneDecke-CornillandLaurenzVolkmann(2007:7)arguethat‘gender[inforeignlanguageteaching]continuestobeconceivedinatrivialised,everyday,unquestionedform,andthecommon-sensebeliefinanessentialist,self-evidentexistenceof‘women’and‘men’remainsuncontested’,aclaimwithwhichwewouldagree.

Students’classroominteractionalbehaviourcanbeinfluencedby‘genderasasystemofsocialrelationsanddiscursivepractices’(PavlenkoandPiller,2001:23).Followingthetenetsoffeministpoststructuralism(Pavlenko,2004:55;seealsoBaxter,2008),weseegenderasplayingdifferentandchangingrolesinforeignandsecondlanguageteaching,roleswhichmaydisadvantagefemalestudentsindifferentways–butdonotalwaysdoso.

Classroominteractionresearchdetailspotentialgenderdifferencesinstudenttalktootherstudentsorteachers,aswellasdifferentialtendenciesinthewayteacherstalktofemaleandmalestudents.Atthesametime,andratherdifferently,italsoexploresmultipleteacherandstudentidentities(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014:473;alsoSunderland,2000a).

16 | GenderandsexualityresearchinEFLtodate:areview

Earlystudiesofthegenderednatureofstudent talk totheteachertypicallyfoundthatmalestudentstendedtotalkmoretotheteacherthandofemalestudents(e.g.SadkerandSadker,1985;seealsoFrenchandFrench,1984).JaneSunderland(2000a:159)furthernotesthatinthe1970sand1980s,manystudiesofteacher talkinallsortsofclassroomsfoundthatbothmaleandfemaleteacherstalkedfarmoretothemalethantothefemalestudents(MerrettandWheldall,1992;Croll,1985;Spender,1980,1982;seealsoSwann,2011).Inameta-analysisof81suchstudies,AlisonKelly(1988:20)concludedthat:

It is now beyond dispute that girls receive less of the teacher’s attention in class … It applies in all age groups … in several countries, in various socioeconomic groupings, across all subjects in the curriculum, and with both male and female teachers…

Suchfindingswereofteninterpretedasevidenceforandamanifestationofmaledominance,orformalestudentsreceivingpreferentialtreatment.YetasSunderland(2000b)observes,moreattentionbeinggiventomalestudentsinvolvesacollaborativeprocessbetweenteacherandstudentsratherthanintentionalbehaviour(seealsoSwannandGraddol,1988;Swann,2011).Consequently,suchbehaviourshouldbereferredtoas‘differentialteachertreatmentbygender’ratherthan‘discrimination’or‘favouritism’.4

Sunderland(2000b:208)alsopointedtothedistinctionbetweenamountofattentionandkindofattentionin‘theprovisionoflearningopportunities’,notingthatKelly(1988)hadfoundthatthelargerpartofteacherattentionbeingpaidtoboyswasdisciplinaryratherthanacademic.Shealsoaskswhetherany‘differentialtreatmentbygender’apparentlyinfavourofmalestudentsmaybelesssalient,orlessrelevant,inaforeignlanguageclassroom,inwhichwomenandgirlsoftendowell(Arnotetal.,1996;Menard-Warwicketal.,2014).Yetrelativelyfewstudieshavebeenconductedinforeignlanguageclassrooms.InherownresearchinaGermanasaforeignlanguageclassroom,Sunderland(1996,1998)examinedthewaysinwhichtheboysandgirlsspoketotheteacher.Althoughoverallgendersimilaritywasmoreevident,twocasesofstatisticallysignificantgenderdifferencewere:(1)the‘averagegirl’producedmore‘solicit-words’5thanthe‘averageboy’;(2)whentheteacheraskedaquestionwithoutnamingastudenttoanswerit,the‘averagegirl’volunteeredsignificantlymoreanswersinGermanthandidthe‘averageboy’.Thepointis

thatmalestudentsmaybemoreforthcominginsomeways,femalestudentsinanother,andinmostwaystheremaybenostatisticallysignificantgenderdifferenceatall.

Indeed,moststudiesdemonstratenoconclusivedifferentialtendenciesbetweenmenandwomenorboysandgirlsinclassroominteraction.Forexample,ShujungLee’s(2001)research(citedinMenard-Warwicketal.,2014)onhowinstructorsdirectedtalktostudentsinaTaiwanesecollegefoundtheydidnotfavoureithermenorwomen,andTereseThonus(1999,similarlycited)foundthatinUScollegecontextstutorsdidnotchangestrategieswhenspeakingtomaleandfemalestudents.AndyetJuliaMenard-Warwickandcolleaguesintheirrecent(2014)overviewoflanguage,genderandeducationresearchconcludedthat:

… although the quest for generalisable gender differences is considered passé by many researchers in the language and gender field, studies comparing male and female students continue to be published regularly in educational journals [p.485].

Ofcourse,while‘differences’asaconceptmaybepassé,anideawithwhichwebroadlyagree,genderdifferentialanddifferentiatingpracticesmaystillbeongoing,butthesealwaysneedtobecontextualisedinrelationtosimilarities(seeSunderland,2015a).

Menard-Warwicketal.(2014)claimthat‘genderrarelystandsaloneinresearchonsecond-language(L2)andforeign-language(FL)educationbutratherconnectswithotherresearchtopics,suchasattitudestowardL2learning,ortheconnectedbutmorecontestedtopicoflanguagelearningmotivation’(2014:480–481;seealsoNorton,2000).Thisis,however,notalwaysthecase,andstudieswithafeministagenda(e.g.torevealclassroomdominationbymalestudents)wereevidentinthe1980s(seeSpender,1980,1982).Intheirreviewoftheearlystudies,HeleneDecke-CornillandLaurenzVolkmann(2007)makeadistinctionbetweenresearchthatfallsintothequantitativeparadigmofteacher–student/student–teacherinteraction(e.g.Batters,1986;Alcón,1994;Sunderland,2000a;Munro,1987;Holmes,1994;Yepez,1994)andpeerinteraction(e.g.Politzer,1983;GassandVaronis,1986;Chavez,2001),ontheonehand,andthosestudieswhichadoptanexploratoryandinterpretativeparadigm(e.g.Siegal,1994,1996;McMahill,2001;Willett,1995)ontheother.

4 Somestudies(e.g.,Yepez,1994)indeedfoundnodifferentialteachertreatmentatall.YetthestudentsinYepez’sstudywereadults,andagemaybeanimportantvariableinthissortofresearch.

5 Astudentsolicitwasdefinedas‘anutterancewhichrequiresandoftenresultsinaverbalresponse(orwhichresultsinorrequiresabehaviouralone)fromtheteacherverysoonaftertheutteringofthesolicit’(1998:60).


Criticallyassessingthequantitativestudies,Decke-CornillandVolkmann(2007)writethattheseresearcherstook‘thebinarynotionofgenderasapremise,andstartingfromthere,display[ed]aninterestintheamount,range,andtypeofgender-relatedinteractionalbehavior’(2007:80)–forexample,distributionofpraise.Theyviewtheseearlyquantitativestudiesasexcellentstartingpointsforfurtherinvestigationandteacherself-reflection,butalsoasmethodologicallyandtheoreticallyproblematic.Asregardstheexploratoryandinterpretativeparadigm,whosestudieswereconcernedwithidentity,theircriticismisagainofthegeneralassumptionofabinarygenderorder(p.85)butalsoandratherdifferentlyoftheresearchers’ignoringofanyimpactoftheirresearch(withtheexceptionofNelson,1999).AnetaPavlenkoandIngridPiller(2007)relatedlypointtooversimplifiedassumptionsaboutgenderinandinheritedfromearlierresearchwhichhavecreatedproblemsanddifficultiesforcurrentresearchinlanguageeducation.Muchearlierresearch,PavlenkoandPiller(2007)claim–althoughthismaybeoverstated–assumedessentialisedgenderdichotomiesandconsideredneitherdiversityintheclassroomnorvaluesassignedtodifferentdiscursivepracticesindifferentculturalandothercontexts.Anotherproblematicassumptionwasthatahighamountofinteraction(e.g.betweenteachersandmalestudents)wassometimestakentobeapositivephenomenonautomaticallyleadingtohigherachievement(seeKelly(1988)aboveforwhythismightnotbe).Atthesametime,findingsoftheearlierstudiesareimportantremindersoftheneedtobevigilant:severallanguageandgenderresearchers(e.g.Mills,2008;Lazar,2014),rejecttheassumptionthat‘maledominanceisathingofthepast’(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014:486)andcallforarenewedattentiontogenderinequitiesineducationalresearch.

Intermsofeducationalprogressandassociatedimprovementsinrelationtogenderresearch,itisimportanttofullycontextualiseanygivenstudy,whichmeansgoingbeyondconsiderationsofgender.Maledominance,forexample–foundacrossmanysettings–mayormaynotaffectlearningoutcomes,dependingonawholerangeofcontextualfactors,socialvariablesandsystemsofoppression(seeSection2.6on‘intersectionality’).Cultureneedstobetakenintoaccount,i.e.,‘classroomsin

differentculturalcontextswithdifferentdiscoursessurroundinggenderarethemselveslikelytobegendereddifferentlyfromeachother’(Sunderland,2000b:164).Itisimportant,however,toconsiderboththewiderculturalcontextofhowidentitiesareproducedinschoolsettingsand‘howlocalfactorsintersecttocreatecomplicatedgenderdynamics’(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014:473).Commentingsimilarlythatfindingswillvarywithcontextandcommunityofpractice(e.g.whathappensinasecondaryschoolclassroommaynothappeninhigherorprimaryeducationoreveninanothersecondaryschooleveninthesamesortofsocioeconomicorgeographicalarea),Sunderland(2000a)underlinesthat‘neitherdifferentialteachertreatmentbygendernormalestudents’verbosityshould…beseenasautomaticoruniversalclassroomphenomena’.‘Communityofpractice’(EckertandMcConnell-Ginet,1992;LaveandWenger,1991;seealsoSection1.4)isausefulconceptwhichishighlyapplicabletostudyinggenderineducationalsettings.KelleenToohey(2000)showedhowasingleclassroomcanberegardedasacommunityofpracticebytheparticipantsengaginginsimilaractivities(linguisticandotherwise),aimingtowardsthesamegoalandmakingsenseoftheiridentityperformances.Yetthesamegroupofchildrenattendingtheirvariousclasseswithdifferentteachersmayalso(re-)enactdifferentidentities.Genderdynamicsmayalsotakeondifferentformsandtrajectoriesineachofthedifferentcurricularclasses.Inthissenseitisdifficulttomakeanygeneralassumptionsconcerningtherelationshipbetweengenderedpracticesandeducationalachievementforanyonegroupofclassroomchildren,outsidetheirparticularsubjectclassrooms.Again,eveninasingleclassroom,andevenwhenthereishomogeneityofage,ethnicityandsocialclass,genderwillnotbeastraightforwardmasculine–femininebinaryastherewillalwaysbediversityamongandoverlapbetween‘gendergroups’(Sunderland,2000:164),andvariationacrossindividuals.


Whilein1990AlastairPennycookcriticisedpreviousresearchinappliedlinguisticsandlanguageeducationinparticularforlargelyignoring‘theroleofgenderinclassroominteractionandlanguageacquisition’(1990a:16),poststructuralism-informed/inclined(English)languageeducatorsconsideredmore broadlywhat‘thetroublingofidentity’notion(Seidman,1995;seealsoButler,1990)impliedforlanguageteachingandlearning(Nelson,1999:372;Peirce,1995;seealsoPennycook,1994;Rampton,1994).TheissueofanESLlearner’ssexualidentityandhowitshouldbeaddressedinclassroominteractionwastakenupinthepioneerworkofCynthiaNelson(1999,2006,2007,2009).Sexualidentityissuesaredifferentfromthoseofgenderintermsofclassroominteraction,notleastbecausenon-heterosexualstudentsarelikelytobeaminority,andmaywellnotpublicallyself-identifyasLGBT.Theissueisnot,then,howsexualminoritystudentstalktooraretalkedtobytheteacher,includinghowmuchandwhatsortofattentiontheyget,aswithgender,butratherhowtheissueofsexualdiversityitselfisaddressed,inclassroomtalk,inclassroommaterials,andintalkaboutthosematerials–byallclassroomparticipants.

Nelson(1999)arguedthataqueertheoreticalframeworkadoptedinanESLclassroomshiftsthefocusfrom‘inclusion’(i.e.oflesbianandgaystudents)to‘inquiry’,whichmaybepedagogicallymoreuseful.Inquiryimpliesexamininghowlanguageandcultureworkwithregardtoallsexualidentities,includingheterosexualones.Theroleoftheteacheriscrucialintheinquiryprocessintheirroleoffacilitatorofclassroominteractionanddiscourse.Theyarenotexpectedtoanswereveryquestionaboutsexualidentity,butrather:

… to frame the questions, facilitate investigations, and explore what is not known … [A] queer approach to pedagogy asks how linguistic and cultural practices manage to naturalize certain sexual identities but not others (Nelson,1999:377–378).

Theuseoflesbian/gaythemesisrecommendedtoexploredivergentcultural meaningsoflocal,everydayinteractionsandmeaning-makingpracticesratherthanpersonal feelingsconcerningthesocialissuesdiscussed(Nelson,2007).Thishasnotremainedamatteroftheorybuthasbeendrawnonbypractitioners:GloriadeVincentietal.(2007)andRobertO’Mochain(2006)documentedpositiveresultswhenattemptingtoincorporatenon-heteronormativethemesintotheirclassroompractice(seePawelczykandPakuła,2015;alsoseeSection2.4).

Classroominteractioncanalsobeusedtounpackstudents’normativeassumptionsandquestions,aimingatchallengingheterosexualhegemony.Nelson(2009)illustrateshowchallengingclassroomdiscussionsconcerningidentity,diversity,equityandinequitycanbeconstructiveeducationalexperiences,‘especiallyinincreasinglyglobalisedclassrooms,whicharecharacterisedbymultipleperspectivesandvantagepoints’.Thepotentialchallengesforteachersandstudentsalikecanbeunderstoodaspedagogicopportunities,sheclaims,‘iftheyareframedassuch’(2009:205).Nelson(2009)proposesfivestrategiesthatmayhelpteachersmakeuseofthepedagogicpotentialofqueerthemesandperspectivesinadvancinglanguagelearning:

1. recognisingthatsexualliteracyispartoflinguistic/culturalfluency

2. facilitatingqueerinquiryabouttheworkingsoflanguage/culture(i.e.challengingtaken-for-grantedassumptions)

3. unpackingheteronormativediscoursesforlearningpurposes

4. valuingmultisexualstudentandteachercohorts

5. askingqueerquestionsoflanguage-teachingresourcesandresearch(e.g.whetherandhowlanguageteachingmaterialsperpetuateheteronormativity).

Thedecisionastowhichofthestrategiesshouldbeappliedandwhenisverymuchcontingentontheteacher’slocalunderstandingofaspecificgroupofstudentscombinedwiththeirprofessionaljudgement(Nelson,2009).Infact,giventhatanytopicprovidesvaluablelanguagepractice,and,followingClaireKramsch(1993),EFLclassroominteraction,inparticulardiscussion,canbeusedasa‘thirdplace’inwhichchallengingissueswithregardtoallsexualidentitiesarediscussedwithduerespecttoallparticipants.

Nelson’ssuggestionsandguidelinesconcerningtherecognitionofallsexualidentitiesinalanguageclassroomechoAnetaPavlenko’s(2004:59)agendaoffeministandcriticalapproachestoFL/L2pedagogy,accordingtowhichteachersneedtooffertheirstudentsasafespaceandadequatelinguisticresourcesfordevelopmentofthestudents’varioussocialvoices.Thesafespacethenallowsthestudentsnotonlytorecogniseandacknowledgeexistingdiscoursesofgenderandsexualitybutalsotoexplorealternativeones.Pavlenko(2004)claimsthatthekeywaytoexploresuchalternativediscoursesandpossibilitiesisthroughauthenticity(seealsoNelson,2007),i.e.movingbeyondgenderandsexualidentitiestoacknowledgingstudents’multipleidentitiesandthatthevariousformsof


linguisticandculturalcapitaltheybringintotheclassroomshouldbetakenadvantageofintheprocessofteachingandlearning.Students’‘multi-voicedconsciousness’simultaneouslyneedstobemaintainedbycontinuousexplorationofsimilaritiesanddifferencesinthediscoursesofgenderandsexualityacrossculturesandcommunities(Pavlenko,2004:67;seealsoDePalmaandJennett,2010;MorrishandSauntson,2007;DeVincentietal.,2007).

Weemphasisethatinequitiesarealmostalwaysnuancedandgenderinflectedwithothervariables–notleastsexualidentity.Likemanyotherresearchersofgenderandlanguageeducation(e.g.Linke,2007),andindeedthoseinvolvedinclassroomresearchgenerally,wealsoadvocateacontinuingfocusontheneedtotranslateresearchfindingsintoprogressiveclassroompractice,throughpre-serviceandin-serviceteachereducation,teachers’associations,ministrypolicy,anddirectnetworkingbetweenresearchers,languageeducationpractitioners,andthoseinbothroles.WemakerelevantrecommendationsinChapter8.

2.3ClassroommaterialsAnobviouscaseofrepresentationinthelanguageclassroomismaterials:textbooks,andtheironlineequivalents,andalsoteacher’sbooks,workbooks,grammars,dictionariesandteacher-producedworksheets.Thesearefullofrepresentedhumancharacters,fictionalandactual,whocarryoutarangeofsocialactions(vanLeeuwen,2008).Andwhiletextbooksarepedagogicallymotivated,studentsmaylearnfromthembeyonddocumentedcurricularintentions.

Findingsofearly,pioneerworkonlanguagetextbooksconsistentlyfoundrelativeinvisibilityofwomenandgirls–asspeakersindialogues,asreferredtointexts,andasshowninvisuals.InKarenPorreca’s(1984)studyof15ESLtextbooksintheUSA,themale–femaleratiowas1.97:1.Relatedly,inEnglishlanguagetextbooksusedinGermanschools,MarlisHellinger(1980)foundgreateranonymityofwomen,inexpressionssuchasJohn’s wife.Asecondgeneralfindingwasthatofgreatersubordinationanddistortion/degradationofwomenandgirls:womenandmeningender-stereotypicaloccupationswithpredictabledifferencesinprestige,genderstereotypingmorebroadly(e.g.the‘naggingwife’),womenandgirlsbeingdescribedintermsofphysicalappearance(CarrollandKowitz,1994)andemotion(e.g.beingover-emotional),and,linguistically,in

Hellinger’s(1980)study,womenbeingrepresentedby‘speaking’ratherthan‘material’verbs(e.g.tell, admit,say).Porreca(1984)alsofoundtentimesmoreoccurrencesofmother-in-law than father-in-law,usuallywithnegativeconnotations.InthePolishcontext,AdamJaworski(1983,1986)consideredomissionandnegativestereotypingofwomeninPolishandEnglishlanguagetextbooks,aswellaswomen’snegativecontrastwithmen,andfoundthepredictable(butparticularlypronounced)genderimbalanceinfavourofmen,arangeoftypesofgenderstereotyping,andconsiderableuseof‘generic’manandhe.(SeeChapter3fordiscussionofthesestudies.)

Recentstudiesdosuggestimprovement,with,forexample,somemale–femaleratiosgettingcloser(e.g.Pihlaja,2008;Healy,2009).Representationaldifferencesmaystillbepronounced,however(LeeandCollins,2009;BartonandSakwa,2012).IntheHongKongcontext,meninlanguagetextbooksstilltendedtobefoundinpublicsettings,womeninhouseholdsettings(LawandChan,2004),andmenandboysweremoreactiveandsporty(LeeandCollins,2010).Thereisstilltherefore,again,aneedforvigilance.

Wecancertainlyexpectchangesingenderrepresentationinlanguagetextbookssincetheearlystudies.Socialclimatesarechanging,witharaisedprofileofwomeninpubliclifeglobally;thereisanewifpatchysocialawarenessoftheimportanceofinclusion,oftheunacceptabilityofdifferentsortsofsocialexclusion,andindeedofdiversity.Equalopportunities/sexdiscriminationpoliciesandlegislationarecommonplace,and,intheworldofpublishing,guidelinesfor‘inclusivelanguage’forcurricularmaterialsabound.Forexample,theHongKongEducationBureau’sGuiding Principles for Quality Textbooks(2014)6,pointC9,identifyingthedesiderata,reads:

There is not any bias in content, such as over-generalisation and stereotyping. The content and illustrations do not carry any form of discrimination on the grounds of gender, age, race, religion, culture, disability etc., nor do they suggest exclusion.

Omittedofcourseissexualityorsexual preference,althoughthe‘etc.’mayleavethedooropenforthis.

6 www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/resource-support/textbook-info/GuidingPrinciples/index.html(accessed3August2015).


Methodologically,aswascharacteristicofearlyclassroomstudiesofgenderandnaturallyoccurringtalk,manyearlystudiesofgenderrepresentationintextbooksdidnotlookforsimilarities,andsomerecentonesarelittlebetterinthisrespect.TheimportanceofthisisshowninChiCheungRubyYang’s(2014)studyoftwofrequentlyusedprimaryEnglishtextbookseriesinHongKong,Primary Longman Express(2005)andStep Up(2005),inwhichshefoundthat:

… although there is some variation [in gender representation] with textbook series and sub-genres … thereareobvioussimilaritiesingenderrepresentationacrossthewholedataset [our bold].

Weusethisworktoillustratethepointsbelow.

Somepast(andindeedsomerecent)textbookstudieswerealsoarguablylimitedintheirclaimsaboutfrequencyofoccurrenceofmaleandfemalecharacters.Althoughsomediddistinguishbetweentextandvisuals,fewmaderepresentationaldistinctionsbetween(1)typesandtokens,typereferringtoanactualperson(e.g.SusanSmith),tokenstoallreferencestoSusanSmith,includingrepeated ones:Susan Smith, Susan, Sue, Miss Smith, she, her,etc.,(2)human/non-humancharacters(e.g.robots,ghosts,fairies,whomaybeparticularlyevidentinprimaryschoollanguagetextbooks),and(3)differentsortsofvisuals(e.g.linedrawings/photographs).

Inherfrequencycounts,Yangfound75maleand74female‘types’inthetwotextbooksseries,butthemale–femaletokenratiowas733:522,astatisticallysignificantdifference.SowhilewecansaythatthecharacterswhopopulateStep UpandPrimary Longman Expressarerepresentedquantitativelyequallyintermsofgenderinoneway,theyaredefinitelynotsoinanother:thefindingsarepatchy.

Thedistinctionbetweenhumanandnon-humanisinterestinginthatnon-humancharacters,especiallyfantasyones,includingtalkinganimals,arearguablynotsubjecttothesamesocialrepresentationalconstraints(oratleastexpectations)ashumancharacters.Inprinciple,theydonot‘need’tobegenderedinahumanway.Ontheotherhand,illustrators,andperhapswriters,mayfeelaneedtodopreciselythis,andindeedmoreorstereotypicallyso:forexample,givingarabbitanaprontoindicatethatsheisfemale.Itisthusalwaysinterestingtoaskwhethernon-humancharactersare‘humanly’gendered,and,ifso,how.InYang’sstudy,intheStep Upseries,non-humanfemaleswerenoticeablyfrequentlyportrayedwithaccessoriessuchashandbagsand/orwithbowsintheirhair.

Thedistinctionbetweendifferenttypesofvisuals(e.g.photographsandlinedrawings)isinterestinginthatamodernphotograph(unlessitisdigitallyaltered)mustshowwhatishappeningatthetimeitistaken.Manyyearsago,commentingonthe1970sseriesEnglish for Today,PatHartmanandEliotJudd(1978)observedthatthephotographsshowedwomen‘inavarietyofoccupationalrolesnotreflectedbythetextitself’andwerefarlessgender-stereotypicalthanthedrawings.Theycommented,‘Perhapsphotographscapturearealitythathasnotyetthoroughlyimpresseditselfonourmoreconservativeimaginations’(388).Wecanagainexpectpatchinessoffindingshere.Yang(2014)foundhumanmalesquantitativelyover-representedinthelinedrawings,andnon-humanfemalesinthe(fewer)photographs–bothsignificantly,i.e.therewasarelationshipbetweenvisualtypeandcharactertype.

Mostearlystudiesalsodidnotdistinguish(sufficiently)betweendifferentsub-genres.Itisentirelypossiblethatgenderrepresentationwillvarybetween,say,readingcomprehensionexercises,listeningexercisesanddialogues.Yang(2014)foundsignificantlymoregenderimbalanceintermsoftokensofmalecharactersinthereadingpassagesinbothtextbookseriesthaninthedialogues.Anddialoguesareofparticularinterest,giventheirimplicationsforclassroompractice–if,say,theteacherasksmalestudentstoplaythemaleroles,femalestudentsthefemaleroles.Wereturntothisinthenextsection,buttomakethepoint:astudyofanearlytextbook,Functions of English(1977),foundthatthe15dialoguesallincludedatleastonemalecharacter,butsevenincludednofemalecharactersandallwereinitiatedbyamalecharacter(Jonesetal.,1997).Ontheotherhand,Yangfoundsignificantlymoreutterancesinthebetween-femalethanthebetween-maledialoguesinPrimary Longman Express,areminderthatimbalanceisnotalways‘infavour’ofmales.

TosummariseYang’s(2014)findingsconcerningPrimary Longman ExpressandStep Up,whatisrepresentedismainlygendersimilarity.Therewere,however,intotalsixcasesofstatisticallysignificantover-representationofmales,threeoffemales:predictablepatchiness,butthedirectionsuggeststhatthisisstillamatterofconcern.


Thedistinctionsidentifiedaboveareneededastheyallowforheterogeneityoffindings,ratherthanun-nuancedfindingsaboutagiventextbook(orsetoftextbooks).Intoday’ssocialclimate,heterogeneityintermsofgenderrepresentation–letussay,representationaldifferencesonsomedimensions(e.g.tokensofhumansasrepresentedvisuallyinline drawings)butnotothers–istobeexpected.Another,ratherdifferentbutimportantdistinction,isbetweentextsanduseoftextsintheclassroom,andwelookatthisbrieflybelow.

2.4‘Talkaroundthetextbooktext’Thedistinctionbetweentextbooktextsandusesofthosetextsintheclassroomclearlyconcernstheteacher.Teacherbehaviourisunpredictablefromthetextitself:theteachermaybeinahurry,theymaymisinterpretorre-interpretthetextbookwriter’sintention,theymaynotfeelconfidentabouttheparticularteachingpoint,theymaylikeordisliketheparticularcontent,theymayfeeltheycandealwithitinawaybetterthanthatproposedinthetextbookitself.Thisischallengingbutinteresting:theresearcherdoesnotknowwhattheywillfind.Theymustgointoaclassroom,withpriorpermission,wheretheyknowthata‘gendercriticalpoint’isevidentinthepartofthetextbookabouttobecovered.Agendercriticalpointcanbeanythingconcerninghumanswhoareidentifiedasfemaleormale(seealsoSection6.2).Thisisofcoursethecaseinmosttextbooktexts.

Asanexample,ateacherinPortugalwasplanningtouseatextbooktextaboutawedding.Theresearcher(JulieShattuck)thoughtitwouldbeinterestingtoseewhathesaidaboutthis:itisimpossibletoteachatextwithouttalkingaboutit.Intheevent,theteacherdecidedtotellhisstudentsaboutweddingsintheUK,oratleastashesawthem.Hesaid(and‘(.)’representsapause):

And the bride (.) usually (.) if it’s for the church wedding will wear white (.) and (.) the bridesmaids (.) she will often choose the (.) the outfit for them (.) usually she chooses something horrible so they (.) don’t look as good as her (Shattuck,1996:27).

Whilethisutterancerepresentswomenasvainandasjealousofotherwomen(itmayhavebeenintendedasajoke;itmayormaynothavebeenreceivedassuch),theutteranceitselfwascompletelyunpredictablefromthetextitself.Ofmoreinterestthanthetextwaswhatwassaidaboutit.

Conversely,asexisttextcanalsobecritiqued(rehabilitated?)bytheteacher.Angela,aFrenchteacher,referringtogender-stereotypicalportrayalsinhertextbook,saidinaninterview:

… we used to laugh at this – Madame Lafayette … we used to ask them ‘look at this, ‘where is she? in the kitchen’ – and where else would she be? She couldn’t possibly be anywhere else’ so we used to make fun and make jokes of it (AbdulRahim,1997).

Thepointisthattextswhichgobeyondatraditionalrepresentationofgendercanbeignored,endorsedorsubverted;oneswhichmaintainatraditionalrepresentationofgender,similarly(seeSunderlandetal.,2002).Eveninherentlysexisttextscanthusbeputtogoodusebyexperiencedteachers.

Studentsarealsoimportantinhowatextwillbeused:wecannotpredictfromagiventextwhatthestudentswillthinkorsayaboutit.Inparticular,sexistrepresentationsdonothavetobepassivelyaccepted;theycanberecognisedandresisted/critiqued.Thismayalsoimpactonstudent–teacherinteractionandhowthetextistreatedbytheteacher,orcollaborativelybytheclassasawhole.

Ofcourse,studentscanalsobeintentionallyintroducedtotextswhere‘wheregenderandsexualitymaybeconstructedandperformeddifferentlythanintheirownculture’(Pavlenko,2004:55;seealsoPavlenkoandPiller,2007).Thismayhelpprovideasaferenvironmentforexplorationanddiscussion.

2.5Sexuality:neededdevelopmentsSexuality-relatedthemesinlanguageeducationingeneralandtextbooksinparticularhavereceivedsomeattentiontodate(e.g.Nelson,2006,2009),andElizabethMorrish(2002)interestinglyconsidersthesituationofthelesbianteacherwhoisnot‘out’toherstudentsandhow(unlikeherstraightcolleagues)shemayconcealhersexualidentityinclass.However,anyclaimshereneedtobelocation-specificassomegeographiesandcontextsallowmorefreedominaddressingsexualdiversitythanothers.WhenlookingoutsidePoland,weobservethat:

In some other countries the situation seems healthier with numerous books, projects, reports and journals devoted to social justice and equity in education, including the situation of LGBTQ students in schools (Elia and Eliason, 2010; Franck, 2002; Gorski and Goodman, 2011; Hickman and Porfilio, 2012; Kehily, 2002; Toomey et al., 2012) (Pawelczyketal.,2014:57).


Polanddoesnotenjoysuchluxury.Thequestionthatneedstobeaddressedatthispointpertainstothedifferentreasonsforsuchdiscrepancies,andherewecantalkaboutpoliticsandeconomics:thepoliticalclimateofagivencountrycoupledwiththefinancialresourcesallocatedforresearch–oftenatthedisposalofthepowerful–both,weargue,influencewhetheragiven(social)issuewillbehinderedorfostered.JohnGray(2013b:43)claimsthatheterosexualityis‘strategicallyprivileged’andrestsontheideologyofcommercialism.Relatedly,mostequality-drivenprojectscarriedoutinthePolishcontext(seeChapter3formoredetails)arefundedbyexternalsources.

Despiteacommitmenttolookingcriticallyatrepresentationsofgenderandtraditionallygenderedrelationships,mostlanguagetextbookstudiesofgenderrepresentationhavealsofailedtolookadequately,orevenatall,atsexualityorheteronormativity(exceptionsarePawelczyketal.,2014;Gray,2013b;Nelson,2009).Inthissense,theyarebehindthetimesinthefieldofgenderandlanguage.Itdoesnottakeadetailedstudytoseethattextbooksdonotrepresentgayrelationships,butcloserconsiderationwouldrevealthattheyalsotendtobeextremelyheteronormative,withcontinualrepresentationsofheterosexualcouples,conventionalnuclearfamiliesandpossibleheterosexualromance.Implicationsfortextbookanalystsarethattheynotonlycritiquegenderimbalanceandstereotyping,butalsocriticallyhighlightthetextualprevalence/flauntingofheterosexuality(whichisnothard!).Analystscanalsolookforandwelcomepossiblereadingsofnon-heteronormativity,andatdegreesofheteronormativityinmultimodaltextbookrepresentations(consideratraditionalwedding,vis-à-visagatheringofwomenandmenwithnoobviousheterosexualpairings).Heteronormativerepresentationsthemselves(inparticular,thosewhicharemore/lessheteronormative)canandshouldalsobeconsideredinstudiesof‘talkaroundthetextbooktext’–whatdoestheteacher(andstudents)dowithsuchrepresentations?Welookatthisbrieflybelow.

Asregardsclassroompractice,Nelson(2007)advocatestheincorporationofsexualdiversitythemes.Onewayofintegratingsuchthemesintoclassroompractice,inanon-threateningandnon-alienatingway,mightbethrough‘narrative-basedpedagogy’(O’Mochain,2006:63),basedontriggeringin-classdiscussionofpotentiallychallengingthemesbyintroducingreal-life‘queernarratives’bylocallybasedagents,which‘makesitpossibletoacknowledgeandengagewiththelivedexperienceofindividualmembersofsocialgroups

thattendtobemarginalised’(2006:64).Nelson(2007)similarlydrawsattentiontothepossibleuseof‘thelifehistorynarrativesofqueer7residentswhoarepartofthesamelocalcommunitiesasthelanguagelearners’toenablestudentstorelatetheclassroomdiscussiontoanactualindividualtheyknoworhaveknown.Thismaybeofvalueinsocialtransformation,andhencemeritsspecialattentiononthepartofbothpractisingteachersandtheresearchcommunity(seealsoSection2.1).

Severalimportantstudiesinfacthaveresearchedlanguageeducationandsexualdiversity.AsdemonstratedbyBrianKing(2008),self-identificationintheprocessofforeignlanguagelearningmaybeinstrumental.KinginvestigatedthelearningtrajectoriesofthreeKoreangaymenwho,whenawayfromhome,duetotheirnotbeingheterosexual,enjoyedfreeraccesstotarget-languagenativespeakergroups,inparticularthoseoftheirnativespeakerpartners.Forthesemen,non-normativitycouldbeviewedinadvantageoustermswhentheyfoundthemselvesinatarget-languagecultureinwhichtheyfelt‘freer’thanintheirhomecountry.Thisstudyreinforcestheneedtodebunkthemythofthe‘one-dimensionallanguagelearner’andpointstotheimportanceofrecognisingallidentitieswithindifferentlearningenvironments(seealsoLiddicoat,2009).

Inaninterestingstudy,MatthewRipleyandcolleagues(2012)probedperceptionsofthefrequencywithwhichgaythemeswereintroducedintotheclassroombyanopenlygayinstructor.Onaverage,thestudentsoverestimatedtheratioofgaytoheterosexualthemesas4:1whileinrealityitwas39percentto61percentrespectively.Thisfindingappearssurprisinginthelightofthe‘progressive’attitudestowardsgayandlesbianidentitiesasself-reportedbythestudents.Toaccountforthisdiscrepancy,Ripleyandcolleaguesdrawontheconceptofnovelty attachment,i.e.novelthemesreceivemoreattentionandtheircontentmighthavebeenperceptuallyexaggeratedasthestudents‘viewed[theteacher’s]actionsthroughaheterosexuallens’(Ripleyetal.,2012:126).Anotherreason,theysuggest,maybecontent substitution,i.e.unmarkedcontentisseenasnon-content,whilegay-imbuedcontentwasconsideredasmarked.Forinstance:

… the instructor was discussing the expense of buying tickets to a professional sporting match, giving an example of how ‘Rob and his husband’ were unable to afford them. Three of the four students interviewed after this lecture erroneously listed this as an example of a time in which the

7 ‘Queer’isunderstoodinthisbookasanall-encompassingconceptreferringtonon-heteronormativeidentities(seeBucholtz,2014).


instructor talked about homosexuality as content. They did not recognize the content as about the ability of sport to highlight economic matters (Ripleyetal.,2012:126).

GloriadeVincentiandcolleagues(2007)lookedattheirownexperienceofintegratingqueerperspectivesintotheirteachingandconcludedgenerallythatsuchtacticsneedtobetailoredtomeettheneedsofagivenculture,withwhichweagree.Theyalsopointtotheproblematicnatureofbothinclusionandexclusion,arguingthat‘inclusionservestoreinforcethemarginalisationofnon-heterosexualidentities,whileexclusionfailstoacknowledgetheexistenceandrelevanceofallsexualidentities’(DeVincentietal.,2007:70).Asregardsinclusion,wewouldarguehowever,thatmarginalisationneednotbethusreinforced,dependingontheapproachtaken.

Asregardsthequestionofrepresentation,publishers’responsetotheabsenceofgaycharactersinlanguagetextbooksmaybethatlarge-scale,commercialpublishingoflanguage(especiallyEnglish)textbooksissubjecttoglobalmarketforces(againseeGray,2013b).Textbookscouldneverthelesssafelymovesomedistancefrom‘extreme’heteronormativityandinclude,forexample,moreportrayalsofsingleparentsand/orsame-sexfriendsandfriendshipgroups(whichwouldallowareadingofgayness),representationsofsocialdiversitymoregenerally,andfewerexplicitlyheterosexualinterestnarratives.

2.6Intersectionality:sexismandhomophobiaSociolinguisticworkoftenreferstothe‘intersection’betweentwovariables(orsometimesidentities),suchasageandsocialclass,orgenderandethnicity(Labov,1966,2008;Trudgill,1972:whatElizabethSpelman(1988)called‘theampersandproblem’).Ineducationalresearch,scholarshavealsorefocusedtheireffortstounderstandhowaspectsofidentitysuchasethnicity,class,orsexualityintersectwithgendertocreateorlimitlearningopportunities(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014:471).Intersectionalityis,however,moreinterestinglyandfruitfullyusedtomeanacomplexsystemofpower/oppression,as experienced.Inthiscasewewouldnotbetalkingabout,say,genderandethnicity,butsexismandracism–foragoodreason.AsMichelleLazarwrites:

Even though women as a social category are structurally disadvantaged in the patriarchal gender order, the intersection of gender with other systems of power based on race, social class, sexuality and so on means that gender oppression is neither materially experienced nor discursively enacted in the same way for women everywhere (2014:189;ourbold).

ThetermusedinthissensecanbecreditedtolegalscholarKimberléCrenshaw,who,withafocusonrace,arguedthat:

The problems of exclusion [in gender studies] cannot be solved simply by including Black women within an already established analytical structure … the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism. (1989:40).

DavidBlockandVictorCorona(2014)notethatintersectionalityusuallyhasa‘dominantdimension’:forthem,thisissocialclass;forCrenshaw,itwasrace.

Thequestionisthentwofold.First,dosomelanguagestudentsexperience,say,bullyinginclassasanintersectionalmanifestationofhomophobiaandsexism?Are,say,non-heterosexualmalestudentswhoare‘out’totheirclassmatesbulliedmorethantheirfemalepeers?Ifso,isthehomophobiagreaterthanthesexism?Isthisevenasensiblequestiontoask?

Second,canwetalkabout‘representationalintersectionality’,forexample,intextbooks?Interestingly,Crenshawdidextendtheconcept(inprinciple,atleast)torepresentation.Withreferencetoasetofsonglyrics,shewrote:

‘… representational intersectionality’ would include both the ways in which these images are produced through a confluence of prevalent narratives of race and gender, as well as a recognition of how contemporary critiques of racist and sexist representation marginalise women of color (1991:1282–3;ourbold).

Thequestionforthisstudyisthenwhetherwe(can)haverepresentationalintersectionalityintermsofsexismandhomophobia.Theremaybeagreatercaseforsexism(withwhichtheveryevidenttextbookheteronormativitycannotbeneatlyequated)thanhomophobia.So,ifwehavesexismbutnothomophobia,canweaskwhetherrepresentationalintersectionalityactuallyrequiresthedistinctionbetweenandconfluenceoftwo‘systemsofoppression’.Onedimensionoftheintersectionmayratherbeaconcept/socialcategory/identity(here,heteronormativity).Butgiventhecloserelationshipbetweengenderandsexuality,this‘lite’versionofintersectionalityisstilllikelytohaveanalyticalandtheoreticalvalue(foradiscussionofintersectionalityinrelationtopicturebooksforyoungchildrenfeaturingsame-sexparents,seeSunderland,2015a).


2.7ConclusionInthischapterwehaveprovidedasummaryofworkongenderandlanguageeducationfromoverthepast45years,inwhichsexualityhasonlyenjoyedveryrecentconsideration.Andwhilethesituationasregardsgendercanbesaidtobeimproving,asregardsbothclassroominteractionandtextbookrepresentation,presumablybecauseofincreasedsocialawareness,vigilanceisstillimportant.Itisalsoimportanttoalwaysexpectnuancesasregardsfindings–forexample,boysmayappeartobeadvantaged,ordobetter,insomeways,andgirlsinanother.Itisalsoimportant,perhapsevenmoreso,tolookforandexpect‘gendersimilarities’inbothrepresentationandinteraction,especiallyifandwhenthismeansthatgenderisnotbeinginappropriatelymaderelevant.

InChapter3,againstthisbackground,welookatgender,sexualityandlanguageeducationinmodern-dayPoland.

ThePolishcontext:politicsandeducation | 25

3ThePolishcontext:politicsandeducation8

3.1IntroductionThischapterintroducesthereadertothesocio-politicalcontextinwhichtheprojectwascarriedout.AfterlookingatthewiderPolishcontext,wemoveontodiscussthemostpertinentequality-relatedresearchinthedomainofeducation.Followingthat,wenarrowtheperspectivedowntoresearchongenderinthePolishEFLcontext.Wehopetodemonstratehowthesefactorshaveshapedourendeavourandmanyofourfindings.

3.2ThePolishcontextGrandfatherissittinginanarmchair,smokingapipe.Therestofthefamilyarescatteredaroundtheroom.It’s2014,andcompilationofthefirststate-fundedprimaryschoolprimerisinprogress.Thisillustrationundergoesalterationsduetotheinterventionofaneditorialmemberwhodealswithequalityissuesinthistextbook.Asaresultthegrandfathergetsupfromthearmchair,loseshispipe,getsequippedwithawateringcaninstead,andstartslookingafterplants.There’salsoanothermanintheroom–hisadultson.Thisseeminglysubtlechange,however,thenresultedinharshcriticismonpartofsomereligiousandconservativecommunities.9Theyaccusedtheeditorsofintroducingambivalentrepresentationsbyallowingasame-sexromanticinterpretationoftherelationshipbetweenthetwocharacters(Chmura-Rutkowska,2015).10Someorganisationslaunchedopenpetitionstotheauthoroftheprimernotto‘surrender’tothenew‘ideologies’whoseaimistoensuregenderequality.11

Thissituationseemssymptomaticofthecurrentequality-relatedstateofaffairsinPoland.Ontheonehandonenoticessubstantialprogress;ontheother,oppositiontothistrendalongwithabacklashispalpable.ThepoliticalpopularityofRobertBiedroń,aformeroutMPandthecurrentmayorofSłupsk,andofAnnaGrodzka,thefirstopenlytranssexual

PolishMP,12constitutepowerfulevidenceoftheprogressivechangeswithregardtopublicperceptionofnon-heteronormativeidentitiesinpresent-dayPolishsociety.Yet,thefierceoppositiontoratifyingtheCouncilofEuropeConventiononpreventingandcombatingviolenceagainstwomenanddomesticviolence(theIstanbulConvention,CoE,2011)13andlackofin-vitrofertilisationregulations(seebelow)seemtopointtoPolandgoingbackwardswhenitcomestoequalityrights.

ThedynamicsofegalitarianprocessesinPolandareclearlysomethingofamaze.Acomplexassessmentoftheequality-relatedchangestakingpartfromthebeginningofthedemocraticerainPoland(i.e.1989)isbeyondthescopeofthisbook;moreover,othershavesuccessfullydoneitalready(e.g.PiotrowskaandGrzybek,2009).However,sincethisbookisintendedforaninternationalaudience,ouraimistopresentthebroadsocio-politicalclimateinwhichthisstudyandreporthavebeencarriedout.Educationalresearchcannotbedivorcedfromthesocialworld,andelaboratingonthisconnectionisacrucialfactorinourundertaking.

DespitethefactthatPolandhascomealongwayinpromotingwomen’srightssince1989,womenarestillasubordinategroupintermsofpoliticalandeconomicparticipation(Fuszara,2009).Forinstance,althoughwomen’sparticipationinSejm(thelowerchamberofthePolishparliament)fluctuatedoverthepasttwodecades,risingfrom13percentin1989to20percentin2007,theoppositetendencyseemstoprevailinSenat(theupperchamber)asthenumbersthere,despiteaninitialrise,declinedfrom24percentintheterm2005–07toamerein8percentinthetermbeginningin2007(Fuszara,2009:190).Thepresent,i.e.2011–15,lowerchamberismadeupof350malesandonly110females(76percentversus24percentrespectively),14whiletheupperchamberconsistsof87malesandonly13

8 ThischapterisasubstantiallyexpandedversionofadiscussionofthePolisheducationalcontextandthe‘ideologyofgender’inPawelczykandPakuła(2015).9 http://sliwerski-pedagog.blogspot.com/2014/04/ele-miele-men.html(accessed11June2015);http://wpolityce.pl/lifestyle/206615-genderystka-konsultuje-

elementarz-czyli-nowy-sposob-komunikacji-na-linii-men-radni(accessed11June2015);www.radiomaryja.pl/informacje/genderystka-konsultuje-elementarz/(accessed11June2015).

10Thisresearcherhasbeenatargetofharshcriticismwhichhasbeenverbalised,interalia,inthearticlesmentionedinfootnote7.11www.mamaitata.org.pl/petycje/list-otwarty-do-marii-lorek(accessed11June2015).12Andtheonlyoneintheworldatthetime.13www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/convention-violence/convention/Convention%20210%20English.pdf(accessed14May2015).14www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm7.nsf/page/poslowie_poczatek_kad(accessed11July2015).

26 | ThePolishcontext:politicsandeducation

females(87percentversus13percentrespectively).15Analysesofpublicopinionpollspointtocomplexreasonsforthis:startingwithsystematicdiscriminationagainstwomen(includingfavouringofmeninthepublicsphere),amaleperceptionofthethreatoffemalerivalry,chauvinism,andthe‘double’responsibilitiesexpectedofwomen(salariedworkplusunsalariedhousework,whichisfrequentlyseenaswomen’sresponsibilityandhasbeendubbed‘thepinkeconomiczone’(DryjańskaandPiotrowska,2012).Polishwomenareoftenstereotyped(e.g.assexualobjects),notonlyinadvertisementsandcommercials(Chmura-Rutkowska,2015)butalsoinpoliticalcampaigns.16

FierceoppositiontoratifyingtheIstanbulConvention(CoE,2011)inauguratedanelaborate,regressivediscussiononwomen’srightsandwaysofpreventingviolence.Theopponents,fromright-wingcircles,claimedthatcertainregulationsintheConventiondocumentstandinstarkoppositiontotraditionalPolishandChristianvalues.Theyselectivelyreferredtofragmentswhichrecommendteachingaboutnon-stereotypicalgenderrolesandcontestedtheidentificationofthefamilyasapotentiallocusofdomesticviolence.TheConventionisequatedwiththe‘sexualisationofchildren’andwithopeningupavenuesforquestioningtheveryideaof‘family’.Thisrhetoricalstrategycanbeseenasinscribedinabroaderfightagainstwhatiscalled‘theideologyofgender’(seeSection3.2).Moreover,womenoftenexperienceimmensefinancialstruggleswhenattemptingtoaccesstheirfullreproductiverights,duetothelackofproperlegalregulationsconcerningIVFandseverelylimitedstatefundingforthismedicalprocedure.17PowerfulCatholicChurchrhetorictargetingIVFexacerbatesthissituationbydiscursivelydehumanisingit(anditsoutcome,i.e.children)andconstructinglifeandfamilyasendangeredduetoitsavailability(Kamasa,2013).

‘Sexuality’,atargetofthebacklashalongwithgender,isablurredconceptwhichmeansmanythingstomanypeople,includingintheacademy(Weeks,2009;JacksonandScott,2010;StaintonRogersandStaintonRogers,2001).DeborahCameronandDonKulick(2003:x),posingthefundamentalquestion‘whatdowemeanby‘sexuality’?’,concludethat,inthefieldoflanguageandsexuality,theconceptisusedsynonymouslywithsexual orientation.Wehereadoptabroaderdefinition,acknowledgingthecomplexityofsexualitybyseeingitasthesumofsuchcomponentsas

sexualdesire,sexualhealth,andidentity.PublicandinstitutionaltalkonthisunderstandingofsexualityishoweverhighlytabooinPolishsociety.Evensociologicalandpsychologicalknowledgeoftenresultsinotheringthosewhosesexualitydoesnotconformtotheheteronorm(Krzemiński,2008).

Havingsaidthat,sexuality-wise,Polandhasmadesomeremarkableprogress(O’Dwyer,2012),howeverunsatisfying.Priortoregainingfullsovereigntyandthetransformationfromacommunisttoademocraticstatein1989,gaypeople(mostlymen)werepersecuted.DespitethefactthatPolandwasoneofthefirstEuropeancountriestodecriminalisehomosexuality,therewasnopossibilityforgaypeopletoliveopenly.Acommunist-regime-orchestrated‘HyacinthOperation’(Operacja Hiacynt)(1985–87)carriedoutbythecommunistpolice(Milicja Obywatelska)resultedincreatingadatabaseofaround11,000(allegedly)gaypeoplewhowereblackmailedandforcedtobecomesecretcollaborators(seealsoKurpios,2002;Tomasik,2012).Thepost-1989periodcouldbedeemedamorepromisingeraasfarastherightsofsexualminoritiesareconcerned,butalotofworkoflocalactivistshasnotbeenmirroredinopinionpolls.ThePublicOpinionResearchCentre(CBOS,2013)reportrevealsthatonly12percentoftherespondentsthinkthathomosexualityis‘somethingnormal’,68percentdonotacceptsame-sexmarriage(thesamefigureasin2001),andanoverwhelmingmajority(87percent)doesnotapproveofsuchcouplesadoptingchildren(3percentagepointsmorethanin2001).Suchopinionsmightbemaintainedduetotherelativepublicinvisibilityofgaypeople,withtheexceptionoffewcelebritiesandpoliticians:thereportrevealsthatonly25percentoftherespondentsknowagaypersonpersonally;thisnumberhasbeenonasteadyrise,though(from16percentin2005).Mostrespondents(63percentin2013,butdownfrom78percentin2005)didnotwishtoseethegaycommunity‘displaytheirlifestyleinpublic’.

Whilethe2001Niech nas zobaczą(‘Letthemseeus’)LGBTQ-visibilitycampaign,whichfeaturedsame-sexcouplesoncitybillboards,wasdeemedinappropriateandcontroversialbythethenauthorities,18in2015same-sexcouplesbecameastaplediscussionthemeinthemainstreammedia.Yetthenotionofnon-heterosexualidentitiesisstillfarfromunproblematic:theincreaseinLGBTQvisibilityhasbeenmetwithastrongconservativebacklash.WhileeventheTories(ConservativeParty)intheUKvoteforthe

15www.senat.gov.pl/o-senacie/senat-wspolczesny/dane-o-senatorach-wg-stanu-na-dzien-wyborow/(accessed11July2015).16In2015,oneoftheleft-wingcandidatesrunningforpresidentwasawoman(anex-model)whowasmostlytalkedaboutwithregardtoherphysicalattributes,rather

thanherskills,politicalexperienceorcompetence.17E.g.onlyheterosexualcouplescanapply,hencesinglewomenandlesbiancouplesareexcluded.www.invitro.gov.pl/faq(accessed11June2015).18www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/1,0,7470493,20110912WA-DLO,POZWOLILI_SIE_ZOBACZYC,zwykly.html?t=1434027884324(accessed11June2015).


recognitionofsame-sexmarriage,conservativesinPolandinvitePaulCameron19touniversitiestolegitimateequatingsame-sexdesirewithpaedophilia.HatespeechaimedatLGBTQisomnipresentinPolandevenwithoutimportingit;ithasbeensymbolicallysanctionedbysomepoliticiansequatinggaypeoplewithpaedophilesandframingtheirrelationshipsasbarren(jałowe)onnumerousoccasions.Thisispossibleduetothelackofanylegalsanctionsagainsthomophobicspeechdespitenumerousattemptstointroducethem.Giventhisunfavourablepoliticalclimate,itishardlysurprisingthatattemptsatintroducingsame-sexpartnershipbillshavereachedacompletedeadlock.Meanwhile,however,anextensiveprojectintothelifeofnon-heteronormativefamilieshasbeenunderway.Families of choice(MizielińskaandStasińska,2013;Mizielińskaetal.,2014),apioneeringandextensiveinvestigationofsame-sexcouplesinPoland,20haspropelledthedebateonsame-sexcouplesintothePolishlegalsystem.Theauthors,however,acknowledgethedifficultyofconductinginformeddiscussionsduetothefactthateventhementionofnon-heterosexualfamiliessometimesevokessocialunease.

Ananti-LGBTQposterinPoznań.21(Itreads–fromtheupper-left-handcorner:Thiskindwantstoeducateyourchildren.Stopthem!31percentlesbians25percentpederastsrapethechildrentheybringup*–sourceRegnerus(2012).22Sexeducatorswant:toteachmasturbationfromkindergarten,toteachsix-year-oldshowtousecondomsandcontraceptivesubstances,topromote‘homo-relationships’.Thegovernmentco-operateswithsexeducators.)

Organisedhomophobiccampaignsarerunbydifferentorganisations/foundations(e.g.FundacjaPRO–Prawodożycia[‘Therighttolife’]–responsiblefortheposterabove)onasystematicbasisandsometaketheformofpresentingpseudo-scientific‘facts’.Thesearethenpowerfullyreinforcedbymeansofaccompanyingpictures.Ascanbeinferredfromtheposter,thebordersbetweensexeducators,gaypeople(includingthesescantilydressedonesduringPrideparadesoutsidePoland)andpaedophileshavebeendeliberatelyblurredwiththeintentionofputtingalltheseconceptsonapar,asifmakingthemsynonymous.Suchcampaignssilenceanyinformedtalkonsexualityandsexeducationinthepublicsphere.Thelackofrelevantknowledgeandofficialdata(whichcouldbeobtainedthroughthecensus)andlittleresearchcarriedoutonPolishLGBTQallcontributetothissituation(Mizielińskaetal.,2014:16–17).NGOsalongwiththeGovernment’sPlenipotentiaryforEqualTreatmentpointtonumerousotherspacespronetosystematicLGBTQdiscrimination,suchashospitals.23Thus,whilePolandhasundeniablyleapedforwardwhenitcomestogay(andwomen’s)rights,thereisstillalottostrivefor.24

3.3Struggles:the‘ideologyofgender’Possiblemeasuresthatcouldbetakentoaddresstheseissuesareofteninstantlyconfrontedwithaccusationsofimportingthe‘ideologyofgender’fromtheWest.‘Genderideology’isconventionallydefinedintheacademyas‘attitudesregardingtheappropriateroles,rights,andresponsibilitiesofwomenandmeninsociety’(Kroska,2007:1867).Genderideologiesaresociety-specificbutalsowithinonesociety,onecanbeexposedtoanumberofdifferentones(Philips,2014).InPolandtheacademicunderstandingofgenderideologysharplycontrastswithwhathasbeenlatelyapoliticalbuzzword,namely,ideologia gender(‘theideologyofgender’).Weintentionallyuseaprepositionalphraseinsteadofthemoreusualnominalonetodifferentiatebetweenthetwo.Whiletheformerispartofasociologicalconceptualapparatus,thelatterisapoliticalconstructthathasrecentlybeeninventedandsuccessfullyincludedinmainstreamright-wingpoliticaldiscourseinPoland,andcanbeseenasa‘moralpanic’(seee.g.Cohen,2002)triggeredbythePolishCatholicChurchalongwithright-wingpoliticians.

19PaulCameronisacontroversialpsychologistfromtheUnitedStates,wellknownforhisanti-homosexualitycampaignsaswellascontroversialresearchsurroundinghomosexualparentingandhomosexualteachers,interalia.Hispapershavebeenheavilycriticisedfornotmeetingethicalandprofessionalstandards,hencewedonotquotethemhere.

20Exceptionallyfundedbyastatefundingagency.21PhotographbyŁukaszPakuła.22Havingbeenmadeawareoftheuseofhisstudy,Regnerusmadeapublicstatementinwhichherejectedtheclaimsmadebythecampaigners,sayingthathis

researchdoesnotmakeitclearwhowastheabuser,e.g.http://wyborcza.pl/1,134642,16489372,Klamstwa_homofobow.html(accessed11June2015).23http://prawo.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/855315,fuszara-pacjenci-nieheteroseksualni-sa-dyskryminowani.html(accessed10June2015).24Strikingly,someEUequal-treatmentregulations,despitebeingpresentinthePolishlegalsystem,areveryrarelydrawnonbythecourtsoflaw,whichmightbe

indicativeofalackofawarenessofequality-relatedissues(KukowkaandSiekiera,2014).


SomeofthemostprominentCatholicChurchrepresentativesseemtosee‘gender’astheirmainenemy.Genderhereisviewednotasananalyticaltoolorconceptbutratherisanumbrellatermencapsulatinganumberofnegativelyloadedconceptsandideas–fromtheperspectiveoftheCatholicChurch,suchassexualisationofchildren,same-sexmarriage,radicalfeminism,compulsorychallengestotraditionalgenderroles,andpaedophilia.25Thishashadtremendousconsequences,interalia,foracademia.SomeuniversitycurriculafeaturinggenderhavebeenattackedbytheChurch,intandemwithright-wingpoliticiansandactivists.26Somelecturersandresearchershavecancelledlecturesinfearfortheirsafety.27Atthesametime,anumberofright-wing-inclinedacademicsandpriestsworkingwithintheacademyhavedelivered,orattemptedtodoso,lecturesandpublictalksdemonisingtheideaofculture-sensitiveandvariablegenderidentity.Thecontentofsuchtalksisclearlyexpressedintheirtitles:Gender, jak się przed tym bronić(‘Gender,howtodefendourselvesagainstit?’)orGender – dewastacja człowieka i rodziny(‘Gender–destructionofthehumanandfamily’).28

Severalintellectuals(e.g.Chmura-Rutkowska,2015)usingtheterm‘gender’forgenuinelyresearch-relatedanalyticalpurposeshavepointedouthowthephrase‘ideologyofgender’hasbeensuccessfullyintroducedintopublicandpoliticaldiscoursebytheconservativepowerful.Thiscoinagewasgrantedaquasi-secularstampofapprovalonceaparliamentarypanel,whosesoleambitionistoeradicatethe‘ideologyofgender’fromthePolishpubliclife,hadbeenestablished(ParlamentarnyZespół‘Stopideologiigender’[‘ParliamentaryPanel‘Stoptheideologyofgender’’]29).Thepanelitselfseemstohavebeenapoliticalfad,30onwhichanewright-wingparty–ZjednoczonaPrawica(‘UnitedRight’)–attemptedtobuildtheirideologicalbrand,andbecameanattention-seekerforthemainstreammedia.Unfortunately,thediscoursestheyperpetuatedhavebecomesolidifiedinpublicopinion,evident

whenarandompersoninthestreetisaskedforthedefinitionof‘gender’(somethingmanytelevisionprogrammeshavemanagedtodemonstrate).Veryoftentheunderstandingofthisconceptrevolvesaroundablurredideaofablendofhomosexuality,paedophiliaandaperverseneedtochangechildren’s‘natural’genderroles(e.g.makingboyswearskirtsinkindergartens).31Over2014–15,avastnumberofnewspaperarticlesandweeklymagazinesupplements32warningPolishsocietyofthedisastrouseffectsofpassivelyincorporating‘theideologyofgender’havebeenpublished.SomepoliticiansandacademicshavegoneontoclaimthatthisideologicalconceptshouldbedeemedworsethanNazismorcommunism.Theheightofabsurdity,somemightclaim,wasreachedwhenan‘anti-gender’onlinecoursewaslaunchedbyoneofthepriestscampaigningagainstthe‘ideologyofgender’and,perhapspredictably–anotherconceptworthyofmention–homoideologia 33(‘homoideology’).

Ironically,heateddebatesovergenderhaveresultedinitbeingvotedthemostpopularPolishwordof2013.34Despitethispopularity,however,asshown,thereislittleevidencethatthesocietyunderstandswhatgendermeansasasociologicalconcept.Numerouspollstestifythattheveryconsistentright-wingpropagandahasbeenimmenselysuccessful.Regrettably,thishasbeenmetwithlittleresponseonthepartoftheacademicworld:onlyafewpublicationsinthepressand–tothebestofourknowledge–onlytwobooksongenderasasociological concept(i.e.Środa,2014;Kapela,2014).

InthenextsectionwenarrowtheperspectivedowntotheeducationalcontextandFamilyLifeEducationtextbooksinPoland,whereaplethoraoffactualerrorshavebeenreported(Świerszcz,2012).Coupledwiththeomissionofdiscussionrelatingtosexuality,thisisaseriousfailingofthePolisheducationalsystem.35

25Paedophiliaisveryoftenmentionedasassociatedwithhomosexuality,especiallyinthecontextofadoptionbysame-sexparents.Thewidelydiscredited‘research’byMarkRegnerus(2012)isoftendrawnonasa(quasi)argumentum ad verecundiamandtoolofscientificgroundingforandlegitimisationofdiscriminationagainstlesbianandgaypeople.

26www.fronda.pl/a/rektor-kul-odpowiada-bp-meringowi-obowiazkiem-uniwersytetu-zwlaszcza-uniwersytetu-katolickiego-jest-analizowanie-waznych-watkow-dyskursu-publicznego,28954.html(accessed11June2015);http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,14149974,Rektor_KUL_o_wykladzie_na_temat_gender__Uczymy_tez.html(accessed10June2015).

27Personalcommunication.Nopersonaldetailsaregivenheretoprotectourinformants.28http://rdn24.pl/index.php/religia/4193-gender-jak-sie-przed-tym-bronic-konferencja-w-krakowie(accessed11June2015);http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,15068690,_

Gender___dewastacja_czlowieka_i_rodziny___Naukowcy.html(accessed11June2015).29www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm7.nsf/agent.xsp?symbol=ZESPOL&Zesp=270(accessed11June2015).30ItslastmeetingtookplaceatthebeginningofFebruary2015.31Ironically,themembersofthepanelalsofinditdifficulttoprovideaclearandreasonabledefinitionoftheterm.Frequently,toevokethemostnegativeassociations,

thesepoliticiansrefertoMoney’sfailedsex-reassignmentexperiment(MoneyandEhrhardt,1972),whichhasinfactbeenwidelycriticisedbysocialscientists.32Withsuchtitlesas‘Genderkontrarodzina’(‘Genderversusfamily’)(source:www.wsieci.pl/gender-kontra-rodzina-dodatek-specjalny-pnews-738.html)

(accessed15May2015).33Moreinformationaboutthecoursecontentscanbefoundhere:http://stop-seksualizacji.pl(accessed15May2015).34TheworditselfhasnoequivalentinPolishandthedescriptiveequivalent(płećspołeczno-kulturowa;lit.‘socio-culturalsex’)seemstobelosingouttothe

incorporationofgenderintothePolishlanguage(Kiełkiewicz-JanowiakandPawelczyk,2014).35Cultivatedhomophobiaresultsin‘recursivemarginalisation’(Bogetić,2013)wherebynon-heterosexualstudentsbullyothernon-heterosexualstudentsfortheirnon-

conformistgenderedbehaviour(Świerszcz,2012).


3.4Diversityandex/inclusion?Thebroadeducationalcontext‘Educationsystemsneedtofocusonequityandquality’(OECD,2015:44).This2015reportonthestateofeducationinaninternationalperspectiveisclearabouttheprioritiesforpresent-dayeducation.WhilethereportrecognisesthepositiveprocessesandimplementedsystemicchangesinPolisheducation,italsodrawscriticalattentiontostudent–teacherrelationships.Intermsofstudentsatisfaction,outof34countriesanalysed,Polandcamelast(OECD,2015:79).ThismaybesymptomaticofanarrowermalignantproblemeatingawayatthePolisheducationalsystem:thelackofunderstandingofstudent(includinggender-andsexual-identity-related)needs.

Aswehavearguedelsewhere(Pawelczyketal.,2014;PawelczykandPakuła,2015),moreresearchintogenderand,especially,sexuality,isacurrentsocialimperative,includinginthefieldofapplied

linguistics.Bullyingandharassmentarepresentineducationalsettings(Rivers,2011;Monk,2011;Birkettetal.,2009);36bothoccurwithrespecttonon-heteronormativeidentities(andgenderidentity/expression),andcanbe‘correlatedwithavarietyof[negative]psychologicalandhealthoutcomes’(Collieretal.,2013:331).Silencing,marginalisation,stigmatisation,andbullyinghavehaddisastrouseffectsonindividuals’lives,includinghomelessnessandsuicide(Rosarioetal.,2012;Agostinone-Wilson,2010;Świerszcz,2012).Despitethisknowledgeincertainacademicquarters,Polandisalongwayfromcomingofagewithregardtosystemicchangesandraisingteacherawarenessasregardssexualdiversityinthestudentpopulation.

Todojusticetorecentdevelopments,though,thelastdecadehaswitnessedsomeresearchpertainingtodiversitywithinPolishschoolanduniversitycontexts.ThemostimportantispresentedinTable1:

Table1:GroundbreakingresearchonequalityinPolishschoolsandlearningmaterials

Editor/author Publicationname(shortened) Issuesaddressed

1 Żukowski(ed)(2004) SzkołaOtwartości[Schoolofopenmindedness]

Textbooks(Polishlanguage,history,civics,andfamilylifeeducation)

2 Abramowicz(ed)(2011) Wielkanieobecna[Thegreatabsentee]

Anti-discriminatoryeducationineducation,teachertrainingprogrammesinspection,analysisofobligatoryeducationforstudents

3 Drozdowski(2011) Przemilczane,przemilczani[Thesilencedf/m]

ThesituationofLGBTQstudentsattheUniversityofWarsaw

4 Świerszcz(ed)(2012) LekcjaRówności[Thelessonofequality]

Attitudesandneedsofstaffandstudentswithrespecttohomophobiaandhomosexuality

5 Kochanowskietal.(2013) SzkołaMilczenia[Theschoolofsilence]

Homophobiccontentinbiologyandfamilylifeeducationtextbooks

6 Rientetal.(2014) Męskośćikobiecośćwlekturachszkolnych[Femininityandmasculinityinschoolsetbooks]

Setbookcontentanalysiswithregardtogenderequality

7 Gawliczetal.(2015) Dyskryminacjawszkole–obecnośćnieusprawiedliwiona.ObudowaniuedukacjiantydyskryminacyjnejwsystemieedukacjiformalnejwPolsce

[Discriminationinschools–presenceunexcused.Onbuildinganti-discriminatoryeducationintheformalsystemofeducationinPoland]

PatternsandaxesofdiscriminationinPolishschools

8 Chmura-Rutkowskaetal.(2015)

Genderwpodręcznikach[Genderintextbooks]

QualitativeandquantitativeanalysisofgenderandgenderrelationsinPolishtextbooks

36LGBTyoutharemorelikelytoexperiencebullying(Berlanetal.,2010;Poteatetal.,2009;Williamsetal.,2005).(WewouldliketothankMarkMcGlashanforhelpingwiththesereferences.)


Todate,then,therehavebeenonlyafewinquiriesintotheissueofequalityatvariouslevelsofeducationinPoland.37Relatively,however,thereisapreponderanceofstudiesofgenderandjustalittleonsexualityper se.

Sunderland’s(2015a)observationthatwhilemuchresearchintogenderrepresentation(andconstruction)inEFLcoursebookshasbeencarriedout,sexualityhasbeenunder-explored,isalsoapplicabletothestudiesabove.Consequently,whileresearchintogender(discrimination)ineducationgloballyhaswitnessedalongtradition(Menard-Warwicketal.,2014;Kehily,2002;CarrandPauwels,2005;Kopciewicz,2011),insightsintosexualityarestillrelativelypoor,probablyduetothefactthatbringingupthesubjectislikelytobringaboutoppositioninmanyschoolcommunitiesworldwide(Meyer,2010:58).WenowlookatsomeofthestudiesinTable1.

Theearly2004‘Schoolofopen-mindedness’report(Żukowski,2004)foregroundsissuespertainingtonationalidentity,ethnicandreligiousminorities,andnationalstereotypes,butdevotesonlyone(sub)chaptertosexuality,givingalittlemorespacetogenderrolesandstereotypesinthecontextofWychowanie do życia w rodzinie–familylifeeducation(FLE).ThereportcriticisestheMinistryofEducationforlegitimisingCatholicChurchbiasintheFLEcurriculawhichenablesFLEtextbookstosmuggleinquasi-scientificdata–amongothers–forexampleaboutthe(non-)useofcondomsandaboutsexualidentities,whichrunscountertocurrentresearchevidence.

TheseobservationsarecongruentwiththoseinareportonLGBTQandhomophobiccontentinschooltextbooks.JacekKochanowskiandcolleagueshavecorroboratedtheseresultsinacomprehensiveandin-depthresearchsurveyofbiology,FLE,andcivicstextbooksfromtheperspectivesofsexology,genderstudies,sexualeducation,andclinicalpsychology(Kochanowskietal.,2013).ThetextbooksaregenerallysilentontheissueofLGBTQpeople,butiftheytakeitup,dosoinaverybiasedway.Apartfromanall-pervasiveheteronormativity,instancesofconflatinghomosexualityandbisexuality,pathologisingofhomosexuality,andmentionsofreparativetherapyasacureforhomosexuality,werealsoidentified.Thesetextbooksalsooffernumeroustheoriesof‘becoming’homosexual,rangingfrom

‘seduction’to‘extensive-exposure-to-pornography’.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatentrustingstudentswhohavenotyetfullydevelopedcriticalevaluation/thinkingskillswithsuchtextbooksrunstheriskofthemacceptingthesepropositions,internalisingthemandactingaccordingly.

SuchfearshavebeendocumentedinastudyundertakenbyaSexualEducators’Groupknownas‘Ponton’(Skonieczna,2014)which–inasurvey-basedstudy–explorednotonlythecontentsofFLEclassesbutalsotheirimpactonstudents’lives.38Forinstance,duringcertainFLEclasses,contraceptivemethodssuchastherhythmmethodhavebeenpresentedasequallyeffectiveasmodernmethods.Afterexposuretothis‘knowledge’,someindividualswhohadbeenusingcontraceptives,suchascondoms,stoppeddoingso–whichresultedinpregnancies.Thistestifiestothefactthateventhoughtheknowledgeofmodernmethodsdoesreachteenagers,itcanbesuppressedorsubvertedbytheauthorityoftheteacherandtheschoolenvironmenttothedisadvantageofthestudent.Atthesametime,themajorityofthesurveyrespondents(89percent)saidtheysawknowledgeabouthumansexualityascrucialandneededtobeincludedinthecorecurriculum.AmoredetailedstudyofFLEtextbooksfoundthatsomeimposeonlyonenationalmodelofmasculinityandfemininity,whichisrepresentedasfundamentaltothevaluesofPolishculture(Abramowicz,2011:229).

RobertRientandcolleagues(2014)lookedatfemininitiesandmasculinitiesasrepresentedinthecontentofsetbooksusedduringPolishlanguageandcultureclassesinschools.100percentofthemalestudentswhotookpartintheresearchpointedtoonlymalecharactersastheirfavouriteones,asdid54percentofthefemalestudents.Thispreferenceformalecharacterscanbelinkedbothtothelackofvisibilityoffemalecharactersinthesetbooks(19primaryschooland15middleschoolbooksfeaturedstorieswithmaleprotagonists,andonlyfiveandonerespectivelyaboutfemaleprotagonists),andthefactthatboyreadersgenerallydonotadmirefemaleprotagonists(Maynardetal.,2008).Thismay,however,notbebecausetheyarefemaleper se,butbecausetheyaredepictedingender-stereotypicalways,i.e.passive,obedient,andrepresentedinlargepartintermsoftheirappearance,asopposedtomaleprotagonistswhoareheroic,activeandrescuethefemalecharacters.

37Abroad,thesituationseemsmoreoptimistic,withmoreprojectsandattentiondevotedtotheissue(Franck,2002;GorskiandGoodman,2011;Hickman,2012;Kehily,2002;Toomeyetal.,2012).

38 Wenotethelimitationsofthismethodology.Thefindingssummarisedaboveshouldnotberegardedasdefinitiveandmeritfurtherattention.


Summingup,amodernmodelofsexualeducationisvirtuallynon-existentinPolisheducationalsettings;thisfindingobtainsagainstabackgroundofparentswhomaybeincapableofhandlingsexuality-relateddiscussionswiththeirchildren(Izdebski,2012).Furthermore,inschools,knowledgeabouthumansexualityiscommunicatedduringthenon-compulsoryfamilylifeeducation(FLE),acourseverylikelytaughtbyinstructorswithaconservativeoutlookonlife39andhighlyinfluencedbyaChristianideology,whichobscuresresearch-drivenstate-of-the-artknowledge.Thelikelyoutcomeofthissituationiseasilyforeseeable:ahugedeficitinawarenessandunderstandingofhumansexualityinadolescentsandadults(Izdebski,2012:720).Thisstateofaffairscouldberectifiedbyeffectivesexualeducation,butabanonthishasbeensuccessfullymaintainedbyright-wingpoliticians.Andsotheviciouscirclecloses.40Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthepredominanceofstereotypesovermedical,sociological,andpsychologicalknowledgeresultsinotheringthosewhosesexualitydoesnotconformtotheheteronorm(Krzemiński,2008).Inlightofthesocio-politicalclimateinPoland,however,thescarcityofresearchontheconstructionofgenderandsexualitycomesasnosurprise.41

Someequality-insensitiveandpower-imbalance-blindresearchintogender-relatedtendenciesinlanguagelearninginPolandhashoweveralsobeencarriedout(Główka,2014)with,regrettably,littleawarenessoftheworkthathasalreadybeendoneinthisdomain(seeChapter2).DanutaGłówkamakesclaimsthatgirlsarebetterEFLlearnersthanboysonthebasisofteachers’gradesobtainedfromdifferentschools(highschoolsandastatehigherschoolofvocationaleducation),amethodologywhichneedsquestioning.Główkadoesnotdiscusspossibledifferencesingradingpolicies,nordoessheattendtotheissueofateacher’ssubjectivejudgementsconcerninglanguageattainment.Thus,thestudyinvestigatesreportedstudentachievementratherthanstandardisedevaluationofsuchachievementacrosstheinvestigatedsample.Główkaexplainsthe‘poorerachievement’onthepartofthemalesampleinpartasaresultofboys’greateruseofnon-standardvarietiesofagivenlanguage:

All official foreign language tests are based on standard varieties, and, in the case of English, for example, it is either Standard British English or General American English. This school objective

definitely reflects girls’ linguistic preferences and therefore might work to their advantage. Moreover, male speakers are more likely to swear or employ slang expressions in their speech. School curricula for foreign languages favor standard languages as the most useful and commonly used varieties of a given language, and therefore they can be said to favor girls (2014:631).

Suchclaimsregardinggenderedlinguisticbehaviourhavebeenwidelydiscussedintheliteratureandconvincinglyrefuted(e.g.Milroy,1980;Talbot,2010;seeCameron,2007foraveryaccessiblediscussion),andofcourseearlyideasaboutmalespeakersbeingmorelikelytousenon-standardlanguagereferredtotheiruseoftheL1.Thisquotesimplyraisesfurtherquestions,inparticularwhy‘standardness’hasbeensingledoutastheonefactoraffecting(gendered)foreignlanguageattainment.

Intheoreticalterms,atcertainpoints,thestudytendstoconflatebiologicalsexwithculturalgender,whichfurtherunderminesthetheorisationofgenderedlinguisticattainmentinthiswork.Weseesuchresearchasveryproblematicasitperpetuatesandunashamedlylegitimisesunsubstantiatedreceivedwisdomaboutgenderedlanguagelearning.Główka’sessentialistrecommendationstopractisingteachersandpolicymakersaresimilarlyproblematic:

… there is a need to officially recognize the gendered differences in foreign language learning by, for example, including specific testing procedures which would result in regular monitoring of gender differences in achievement and introducing new teaching and learning styles that would motivate boys to learn languages (2014:632).

Althoughmonitoringgendertendencies(not‘differences’;seeSection1.8)mayinprinciplebetothebenefitofbothfemaleandmalestudents,thegroundsonwhichtheseparticularproposalsarefoundedareshaky.Ifandwhenboysdoperformworsethangirlsintheforeignlanguageclassroom,thisislikelytobeformany,intersectingandcomplexreasons(seeCarrandPauwels,2005).Also,theconclusionthatmalesneedtoreceivespecialattentionisalsoproblematicinthelightofresearchfindingsoffrequentdifferentialteachertreatmentbygenderinclassroominteractionwhichinmanywaysfavoursboys(seeSunderland,2004,foranoverview).

39Obtainingqualificationstoteachthissubjectisrelativelyunproblematic(Izdebski,2012).40 Poorknowledgeofhumansexualityandnumerousstereotypicalmisconceptionsaretwocausesofmarginalisationofnon-heterosexualPoleswhoaredeniedthe

righttoenteranykindofinstitutionalisedpartnership(MizielińskaandStasińska,2013).41 Miceli(2006)reportsonasimilarsituationintheUSA,wheresexualeducationhasbeenestablishedforsometimenow,yetwheremanyCatholicandChristian

fundamentalistshavesoughttolimitoreradicatesexualeducationfromschoolswithaviewtoprotectingtheirchildrenagainstthe‘dangers’ofsexualityandto‘reinstallingsexualmoralitytotheculture’(Miceli,2006:363).


Weareconvincedthatdivorcingpowerissuesfromgender-relatedprojectsineducationalsettingsisachallengetotheirvalidity.Indeed:

Language teaching and learning has often had associations with concentrations of power where … people have sought to learn languages to gain access to power and to resist oppression, and people have tried to teach languages so as to gain control or extend influence over others (Crookes,2009:595).

Whilethisclaimmayseemsomedistancefromthenotionof‘genderedattainment’,itisareminderthatclassroomlanguagelearningisessentiallysocialandhenceneedstobeseenagainstawidersocio-politicalbackground.Here,forexample,wecanaskwhethergirls’reportedsuperiorityinforeignlanguagelearningisthecaseworldwide,andindeed,whenitisthecase,whetherthisadvantagesordisadvantagesthem(relativetoyoungmen)whentheyreachthejobmarket.Therealisationthatideology,hegemonyandotherformsofpowerareatissueincriticalEFLresearch(seePennycook,1990a,1994)has,however,notbeengivenproperattentioninthePolishcontext.

3.5SexisminPolishEFLtextbooks:nowandthenAswehaveobservedelsewhere(PawelczykandPakuła,2015),gender-relatedinvestigationintoEFLpracticeandmaterialshasbeeneffectivelyabsentinthePolishcontextfornearly30years.Morerecentliteraturesuggeststhatthismaybechanging.WehavealreadylookedcriticallyatGłówka’s(2014)studyofgenderandattainment.Muchmoreprogressively,andintunewithothercurrentresearch,IwonaChmura-Rutkowskaandcolleagues(2015)havesubjectedEFLbookstoquantitativeanalyses.Withinabroadercontextofforeignlanguageeducation,interestinegalitariangenderrepresentationhasstartedtoundergoa(tentative)revival,asseeninKingaJagiełłoandcolleagues’studyoftheconceptoffamilyasrepresentedinFinnishandPolishlanguagetextbooksforforeigners(Jagiełłoetal.,2014).

Weconcludethischapter,however,byreturningtotwopioneerstudiesofgenderandlanguagelearningmaterialsinPolandbyAdamJaworski(1983,1986).Inthefirststudy,JaworskisubjectedtextbooksforteachingPolishasaforeignlanguagetoscrutiny;

inthesecond,hefocusedonEFLtextbooks.The1983studyidentifies‘sexistpatterns’(p.113)infourtextbooks.DespitetheseeminglyrepresentedemancipationofPolishwomen,certainstereotypicalimagesoffemalesarebuiltintothematerials.Theseincluded‘complainingwomen’,‘womennotbeingabletofindtheirbelongings’,‘womenasbeingalwayslate’,and‘womenasabsent-minded’.Atthistime,withlimitedavailabilityofalternativesourcesaboutPolandandPolish(e.g.nointernet),suchdepictionscouldhaveresultedin‘sexistwaysofthinkingaboutthetargetcultureamongthestudents’involvedinstudyingPolish(p.113).Jaworskifinishesthispaperwithacallforaction,urgingthatitwashightimetostartwritingnon-sexisttextbooks.

Inhissecondpaper,Jaworski(1986)presentshisanalysisof11randomlyselectedPolishEFLtextbooks,adoptingtwodifferentperspectives:languageusedaboutwomenandandrocentrisminlanguageuse.Hecategorisedlanguageusedaboutwomen(‘linguistictacticsofsexism’)intextbooksintothreetypes:omissionofwomen,negativestereotypingofwomen,andnegativecontrastwithmen.Withregardtothefirsttype,number-wise,thedisproportionofmaleversusfemaleoccurrenceswasstaggeringlyinfavourofmen.Menalsoheavilyoutnumberedwomenintermsofbeingrepresentedinagreaterrangeofprofessions.Moreover,manywomenwerenameless,whilemostmenenjoyedtheprivilegeofbeingidentifiablebyaname.Andwhilesomeofthetextbooksfeaturedmorementhanwomeninstereotypicallyfemaledomains,e.g.teachers,therewerenowomeninstereotypicallymaledomains,e.g.scientists.

Intermsofnegativestereotyping,thesetextbookswerealsoguiltyofperpetuatingtheideathatbeautyandintelligencecannotgohandinhandinonewoman,butalsogavewomenanumberofnegativecharacteristicsnotpresentinmen,i.e.beingsuspicious,indecisiveandemotional;alsowomenworry,wivesareapain,aretrivial,andfemalesareforgetful.Theprototypicaltextbookwomanwasnotequaltotextbookmanandwascastinasecondary,supportiverole.Thesefindingscorrespondedtothoseofmanyothersuchtextbooksstudies,i.e.thatbothwomenandmenwereshownstereotypically,thoughthiswasmoretothedisadvantageofwomen,andthatwomenwerefarlessvisiblethanmen(seealsoSection2.2).


Jaworski’sfindingsaboutandrocentricEnglishlanguageuseincludedtheheavyuseof(pseudo)generic‘man’and‘he’.Exceptions,i.e.ofsplitting,thatis,usingthegender-inclusivehis or her,wererare,andexerciseinstructionsseemedtobeinconsistenthere.Forinstance,whenexercisesreferredtostereotypicallymalepursuits,onlymasculinepronounswereemployed,yetwhenthetopicshiftedtogettingmarried,splitting(his/her)wasusedinstead.Moreover,theoccasionaltranslationsrevealedapreponderanceofmasculinegrammaticalgenderand/ortermsofaddress.Forexample,thesentence‘WhatcanIdoforyou?’wastranslatedasCo mogę dla Pana zrobić?(literally:‘whatcanIforyouMrdo?’);clearly,theoriginalquestionhasagreaterreferentialpotentialinthatitcanbeusedwithaninterlocutorofanygender.WhiletranslationsintoPolishusuallytakethemasculineform,42breachingthistraditioncanalsobetelling,e.g.conceitedinonetextbooktakesthefemininegender(zarozumiała)whilecolleagueisrenderedaskolega(masculinegender).Jaworskialsoobservedthat,althoughMsis–andwasthen–usedbynativespeakersofEnglish,itwasmissingfromallthetextbooks.

Jaworski’s(1986)studywasoriginalinthatitwasnotinformedbyguidelinesdesignedbyother(feminist)reviewers(e.g.Schmitz,1984)andintroducedinterestingpointsnotpresentintheliteratureofthetime.Inparticular,Jaworskiposedimportantquestionsregardingthesubjectiveevaluationofpotentiallysexistmaterials.Whatissexist,hecontended,isnotalwaysagreeduponunanimously,andhewarnedotherresearchersagainst‘impressionisticjudgementsinevaluatingFLM[foreignlanguagematerials]’(1986:74).Healsonotedthatmentooareportrayedinstereotypicalways,somethingwhichhadhithertobeenunderplayed.JaworskicautionedagainstunrealisticexpectationsofEFLtextbooksbyrightlysayingthatthey‘cannotbeblamedforbeingthesoleinstigatorsofsexisminstudents’useofthetargetlanguage’,butadded,‘However,thereisnoreasonwhyFLMshouldservetoreinforceandjustifysexistusageofthetargetlanguagebyforeignstudents’(1986:87).

WhileJaworskitendedtotreatthematerialsasiftheywereautonomousobjectsanddownplayunevenpowerdistribution,thestudywasnotunusualinthis,foritstime;indeed,bothstudies(1983,1986)wereexceptionalforthetimeandunderthelimitingcommunistregime,andJaworski’sworkanticipatedrelateddevelopmentsinthisfieldofenquiry.

3.6ConclusionWehopethatthischapterhasshedinformedlightonthesocio-politicalcontextsurroundingourstudy,whichwillfacilitatetheunderstandingofourfindingsfornon-Polishreaders.Toconclude,atthemomentofsubmittingthisbook,oneprimaryschoolinPoznańisconsideringjoiningthe‘crusade’against‘gender’.Theparentcouncilofthisschoolwishestoactagainst,amongotherthings,‘sexualisation’oftheirchildrenand‘questioningthestabilityofsexandgender’byparticipatinginaprogrammecalledSzkoła Przyjazna Rodzinie(‘FamilyFriendlySchool’).43The‘ideologyofgender’moralpanicreallyhasbeenasuccessfulpoliticalinventionandconstitutesagenuinechallengetoacademia,inparticulareducationandthesocialsciences.FollowingBurr,wecanonlyurgeotherintellectualstocommitthemselvestosociallyengagedresearch(HardingandNorberg,2005),and/orrelevantexploratorypractice(AllwrightandHanks,2009)oractionresearch(Burr,1995;seealsoBaker,2008).

InthenextchapterswemoveontodocumentourownstudyofgenderandsexualityinrelationtoEFLtextbooks,classroompractices,andperspectivesofdifferentlanguageeducationstakeholders.InChapter4welookatourmethodology.

42Thisisalsostandardpracticeindesigningheadwordstructureandprovidingequivalentsinbilingualdictionaries,i.e.allformsaremasculine.43 http://poznan.gazeta.pl/poznan/1,36001,18120416,Szkola_bedzie_walczyc_z_gender__Rada_rodzicow_ jest.html(accessed15June2015).

ExploringgenderandsexualityinPolishclassrooms:methodology | 35

4ExploringgenderandsexualityinPolishclassrooms:methodologyAuthors:AleksandraSokalska-BennettandBartłomiejKruk

4.1IntroductionThestudypertainingtogenderandsexualitywenowreportonhadthreedifferentfoci:EFLmaterials(mainlytextbooks),classroompractice,andstakeholders’understandings:thoseofteachers,students,andMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewers.(SeeChapter1forthedetailedresearchquestions.)

Accordingly,inthecourseoftheproject,threemajorstudieswereconducted,inthreestages.Forstageone,theinvestigationofmaterials,wecarriedoutamultimodaldiscourseanalysisofselectedEFLcoursebookswiththemainaimtoscrutinisewaysinwhichgenderandsexualitywereconstructed.Thetextbooksandselectedfindingsalsolaterservedasstimuliduringthefocusgroups(seebelow).InthesecondstageofthestudyweinvestigatedsituatedclassroompracticeofEFLteachinginPoland,drawingontheprinciplesofethnography.WeparticipatedinanumberofEFLlessonsasclassroomresearchers,audio-recordedthelessons,andtranscribedselectedextractsforanalysis.Instagethreeweran(andmoderated)threefocusgroups–onewithhighschoolstudentsandtwowithpractisingEFLteachers–andconductedin-depthinterviewswithtwoMinistryofEducationreviewersofEFLtextbooks.Thefocusgroupsandinterviewswerealsoaudio-recorded.

4.2Thetextbooksanddataselection

4.2.1ThecorpusThecorpusofEFLtextbooksselectedforthisstudywaschosenfromfivesets,a‘set’potentiallyincludingstudent’sbooks,teacher’sbooksandworkbooks,tailoredfordifferentlevelsoflearnerproficiency.Two‘part-sets’camefromprimaryschool,twofromgimnazjum(middleschool)andonefromhighschoollevels.AllhavebeenofficiallyapprovedbythePolishMinistryofNationalEducationandareusedwidelythroughoutPolishschools.Thetextbookswerethoseusedintheschoolsinwhichobservationswereundertaken(thesecondstageoftheproject),inorderthataswellasthetextbooks,wecouldlookathowtheywereused,asfarasgenderrepresentationinparticulartextswasconcerned.Thetextbookschosenfromeachinstitutionallevelwere:

Primary school

a.Evolution(Macmillan)Thisisathree-levelEFLbookseriesaimedatgradesfourtosix.TheEvolutionseriesconsistsofastudent’sbook,workbookandteacher’sbook.Level1wasselected.

b.Project(OxfordUniversityPress)Thisisafive-levelprogrammedesignedforyoungEnglishlearnersathigherlevelsofprimaryschool.Level3–consistingagainofastudent’sbook,workbookandteacher’sbook–wasselected.

Gimnazjum

c.Voices(Macmillan)Thisisathree-levelseriesoftextbooks.Eachlevelincludesastudent’sbook,workbookandteacher’sbook.Level3oftheserieswaschosen.

d.Exam Explorer: Repetytorium do gimnazjum(NowaEra)Thisisdesignedtobeusedatanyofthethreelevelsofgimnazjumeducation.Itconsistsofastudent’sbookandateacher’sbookandwascreatedinaccordancewiththecurrentrequirementsfortheendofmiddleschoolexam.Thestudent’sbookwasmainlyusedfortheanalysis.

High school

e.New Matura Solutions(OxfordUniversityPress)Thisisafive-partcoursewithlevelsrangingfromelementarytoadvanced.Alllevelsconsistofastudent’sbook,workbookandteacher’sbookandareaimedatstudentsfromyears1to3.ThecoursewasdesignedwithaviewtopreparingEFLhighschoolstudentsfortheofficialfinalexamination(matura).Theupper-intermediatelevelwaschosen.

Ourselectionofbooksatprimarylevelwastoensurethecoverageofdifferentproficiencies,atgimnazjumlevel,differentpedagogicobjectives,andwithinthehighschoolset,a‘non-extreme’level.Ouraimwastolookateachstudent’sbookasawhole,andsometimesrelevantpartsoftheteacher’sbookorworkbook,andgiveprominencetothemostinterestingandtellingtexts.Theanalyticalprocedureisdetailedinthefollowingsection.

36 | ExploringgenderandsexualityinPolishclassrooms:methodology

Wealsodrewondatafromotherteachingmaterialswhichweencounteredduringobservedclassesorwhichwerebroughttoourattentionbytheparticipatingteachers(seee.g.Section5.2).Theseareclearlyindicated.

4.2.2ProcedureAbasicframeworkforanalysiswasdeveloped.FollowingSunderland(2014),ratherthanlookingatgenderandsexualityrepresentationholisticallythroughoutthedifferenttextbooks,adistinctionwasmadebetweendifferenttextbooksub-genres.Sunderlandarguesthatgender(andsexuality)representationmightvarybetweensuchsub-genressuchasdialogues,readingcomprehensionandlisteningexercises.Ofparticularimportanceistheirdifferentpracticepotentialintheclassroom,e.g.dialoguesfeaturingmalesmaybereadonlybymalestudents.

Theinitialframeworkdevelopedforamultimodalanalysisofthetextbooksconsistedofsixgenericcategories:dialogues,reading,listening,grammarexercisesandexplanations(e.g.grammarboxes),lexicalexercises,andspeaking.Afterapilotanalysis,44weconsideredthereliabilityoftheanalyticalframeworkandbecauseofthemanydifferencesinstructurebetweentextbooks,theframeworkwasmodified,developedandunified.Thenewcategorieswerereading,listening,grammarandlexicalexercises,speaking,and‘other’(acategorywhichincludedphoneticexercises,writingprojects,andwarm-ups).Foreachofthecategories,imagesaswellastextswereconsidered,andtherelationshipbetweenimagesandtext.

Thegeneralanalyticalfociforeachofthesub-genreswere:

■■ gendercriticalpoints

■■ stereotypicalornon-stereotypicalrepresentationoffemininityandmasculinity

■■ genderrolesascribedtocharacters

■■ gendereddiscourses

■■ heteronormativity.

With‘gendercriticalpoints’(Sunderlandetal.,2002),teacher’sbookswerealsoconsultedtoseewhethertheycontainedanyassociatedrecommendations.

4.3TheclassroomsanddatacollectionThesecondstudy,ofEFLclassroompractice,involvedfieldworkinPolishschoolsatthreedifferentlevels(primary,gimnazjumandhighschools)betweenNovember2013andJune2014.Thisinvestigationentailedmethodsofdatacollectionborrowedfromethnography:non-participantobservationofEFLclassroominteractions,makingfieldnotesandaudio-recordingEFLlessons(seeDörnyei,2007:130).Suchaneclecticuseofdatacollectiontechniques,i.e.triangulationofdatasources(seealsoSarangiandRoberts,1999),helpedustogeneratea‘thickdescription’(Geertz,1973)oftheresearchsite.Theultimateobjectivewastoenableafullandsensitiveinterpretationofthedata.

ThedatawerecollectedinnineschoolsinwesternPoland:threeprimaryschools,fourgimnazjaandtwohighschools.Fiveschools45(oneprimary,threegimnazja,onehigh)wereinacitywithapopulationofover500,000;theremainingfour,twoprimary,onegimnazjumandonehigh,werelocatedintwosmallerurbancentreseachwithapopulationrangingfrom60,000to80,000inhabitants.

Altogether,theaudiodatausedforthisprojectcomprise47EFLlessons.InPoland,irrespectiveofschooltype,astandardlessonunitlasts45minutes.Thistranslatesinto35hoursand15minutesofnaturallyoccurringclassroominteractions.Twenty-fiveteachers(sevenmalesand18females)fromnineschoolsconsentedtobeobservedandrecorded.TheywereallprofessionallytrainedandhadexperienceofteachingEFLtostudentsatvariouslevelsofproficiency.About240students46participatedintheresearchproject;theyallattendedmixed-sexEFLclassescomprisingbetweensevenand18studentsatthetimeofrecording.Primaryschoolpupilswereallrecruitedfromthefourth,fifthandsixthgrades.FollowingtheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages,aswellastheguidelinesforforeignlanguageteachingproposedbytheMinistryofNationalEducationinPoland,theirproficiencyinEnglishcouldberoughlyestimatedasA1.GimnazjumstudentsweretaughttoreachB1orB2level,dependingonthetypeofcourse,elementaryoradvanced.Finally,highschoolstudentsrecruitedfromthetenthandeleventhgradeswerenotonlytaughtEnglishasacurricular

44Fourdifferenttextbookswereselectedforthepilotstudy,twoprimarybooks:StarlandandNew English Zone;andtwogimnazjumbooks:Repetytorium gimnazjalne. Poziom podstawowy i rozszerzony (Longman) and Exam Explorer: Repetytorium do gimnazjum.Theywerechosenbecauseoftheirdifferentstructures.Eachwasanalysedbytworesearchersinordertotesttheanalyticalframeworkandcheckreliability.

45 AccordingtotheActoftheImplementationoftheEducationSystemReformof8January1999,whichdefinesthecurrentstructureofthePolishschoolsystem,six-yearprimaryeducationusedtostartwhenchildrenturnedseven,oroptionallysixuponparentalrequest.Since2014theageofcommencementofcompulsoryprimaryschooleducationhasbeengraduallyloweredtosix.Gimnazjumlaststhreeyears,afterwhichstudentsjoinoneofthreetypesofhighschool:high,vocational(zasadnicza szkoła zawodowa),ortechnicalschool(technikum)forthree,twoorfouryearsrespectively.

46 AccordingtotheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages,A1isthelevelreachedbybeginners,A2byelementarylanguageusers;B1andB2correspondtointermediateandupper-intermediatelevelsrespectively;C1andC2denoteproficientlanguageuserswhereC1isunderstoodasadvancedcompetenceinaforeignlanguageandC2asnative-likeproficiency.


subjectbutalsoforothercourses,suchashistoryorgeography,whereEnglishwasthemediumofinstruction.TheirproficiencycouldbeashighasC1.Theaudiorecordingsofalllessonsconstitutenaturallyoccurringdataasfarasthisispossibleforsuchastudy.

Likeallresearchprojects,thisprojectnecessitatedtheadoptionofcertainethicalprocedures.TheresearchprotocolandethicalapproachadoptedwerereviewedandapprovedbyLancasterUniversity’sEthicsCommittee.

Beingawarethatourprimaryresponsibilitytoourparticipantswasnottoharmthem,andindeedifpossibletobenefitthem,weengagedtheprincipleofinformedconsent.Weapproachedallparticipantstoobtaintheiragreementtoparticipateintheresearch.Wefirstsolicitedschoolprincipals’permission.Theywerepresentedwithageneraldescriptionofourresearchobjectivesandactivities.Outof18schoolsweinitiallycontacted,ninerefusedtoparticipateforvariousreasonsandatvariousstagesoftheresearchproject.Drop-outdecisionsweremotivatedby,forexample,ideologicalconsiderations(mostlymisconceptionsaboutthe‘ideologyofgender’(seeChapter3)),lackoftime,teachers’lackofinterestinsocialproblemsinEFLteaching,orobjectionstobeingobservedandrecorded.Inmostcases,thedecisionwascommunicatedtousimmediately.However,intwoinstances,principalschosetoconsultwithteachersfirst,afterwhichtheyinformedusoftheirwithdrawal.47

Giventhego-ahead,weapproachedtheEFLteachers,someofwhomhadbeendelegatedbytheirschoolprincipals.TheteacherswereinformedthatourresearchobjectivewastoexaminehowtherepresentationofmenandwomeninEFLtextbooksisaddressedandreceivedbystudentsandteachersduringclasses.Itwasnecessarytobeexplicitaboutthisbecausethedetailswerealreadyontheinformationsheets.Whetherandwhattheprimaryandgimnazjumstudentstakingpartintheprojectknewaboutourresearchobjectivesdependedonwhattheirparentshadtoldthem,ifanything.Theteacherswereprovidedwitharesearchdescriptionandconsentform(seeAppendixF),andwereaskedtodistributecopiesamongtheirstudents.The‘beinginformed’aspectofconsentreferredtowhatparticipationintheresearchprojectentailed,i.e.theaimsofourinvestigation,thetasksthattheparticipantswouldbeaskedtoperform,

possiblerisksandconsequencesstemmingfromparticipation,thedegreeofconfidentialityoftheclassroominteraction,andtherighttowithdrawfromthestudyatanytime,aswellasdisseminationofresearchfindings(cf.Dörnyei,2007:69).Twooftheheadresearchers’emailaddressesweregivenontheconsentformsothatlegalguardianscouldaskanyquestionsabouttheirchildren’sparticipation.Inallbutonecasetheparentsdidnotraiseanyobjections.

‘Passiveconsent’wassoughtdirectlyfromtheteachersandhighschoolstudentsagedover18.Forthoseparticipantsunder18,passiveconsentwasobtainedfromtheirlegalguardians,i.e.ifstudentsthemselvesand/orparentsonbehalfoftheirminorsconsentedtoparticipate,theywereaskedtokeeptheformandtakenoaction(seeAppendixFfortheparents’consentform).Conversely,ifstudentsrefusedtotakepart,orparents/guardianswishedthemnottodoso,theywereaskedtoclearlystatetheirrefusalontheconsentform,signandreturnittotheresearchers.Thetimegapbetweenbeinginformedoftheresearchprojectandtheactualrecordedclassroominteractionsgaveparticipantsandtheirlegalguardiansplentyoftimetomakeinformeddecisionsaboutparticipationorwithdrawal,aswellaswhethertheywouldconsenttotherecordedmaterialbeinganalysedandpublished.

Allclassroominteractionwasrecordedwithanon-obtrusivehigh-qualitydigitalrecorder,ZoomH2HandyPortableStereoRecorder,which,whenpossible,waslocatedatthebackoftheclassroom.Audio-recordingmadeitpossiblefortheresearcheratthesametimetomake‘thick’fieldnotes.Theseincludedobservationsonthecontextandsetting,theteachers’andstudents’facialexpressionsandgesturesinthecourseoftherecordedclassroominteraction,aswellascommunicationafterthedigitalrecorderwasturnedoff.Assoonaseachlessonstarted,weactivelyscannedtheEFLtextbookmaterialtobecoveredinclasswiththeaimofidentifyinganysexuality-relatedcontentand‘gendercriticalpoints’(seeSection2.3).Whileobserving,wemadenotesonhowthesetwoaspectswerehandled,aswellaswhetherpointsaboutgenderoccurredspontaneouslyandforwhatdidacticfunctions,ifany.Aftereachclassweconsultedtherelevantteacher’sbooktoseeifanyguidancepertainedtogenderorsexualityrepresentation,and,ifso,whetherthiswastransformedintosituatedpractice.

47Additionally,inonegimnazjum,thestudentsthemselvesobjectedtotheaudiorecordingswhentheirteachertoldthemabouttheresearchproject.Inonehighschool,althoughallstudentsandtheirlegalguardianshadconsented,theteacherdecidedtowithdrawfromtheprojectbeforeobservationsstarted.


Priortotherecordingproper,weagreedwiththeteachersthatwewouldobserveatleastoneortwoadditionallessonswithoutrecordingsothatourparticipantscouldfamiliarisethemselveswithourpresenceandwouldfeelmorecomfortablewhentheactualrecordingtookplace.Wethensatatthebackoftheclassroomtakingnotesonclassroomproceduresaswellastheteachers’andstudents’reactionsandcomments,withtherecordingequipmentswitchedofftomakeitappearthatthelessonwasbeingrecordedforreal.Thisprovedparticularlyeffectiveinthecaseofoneclassofprimaryschoolpupilswhoduringonefirstobservedlessontreatedusasasortof‘attraction’.Theyseemeddistractedbyourpresenceandevenmoresobythatoftheaudiorecorder:theyturnedround,peekedatusandexplicitlycommentedonouractivitiesandtheequipment,butthenoveltyworeoffwhentheyhadbecomeusedtous.Althoughourrequesttoobserveextralessonswithoutrecordingthemmetwithgeneralapprovalfromtheteachers,inoneschoolweweredeniedthis:theteacherclaimedthatthestudentswouldnotbeashamedtospeakastheywereusedtotheirlessonsbeingobservedbyvariousexternalvisitors.Infact,duringthefirstrecordedlesson,itturnedoutotherwise:thepupilsremainedmostlysilentifnotaddressedbytheteacher.

Atthispointitisimportanttoconsidertheroleofparadoxes,especiallytheobserver’s paradoxandparticipant’s paradox(Sarangi,2002),affectingthevalidity(qualityandauthenticity)ofcollectedmaterial.Theformerreferstotheobservationofasituationbeinginfluencedbytheinvestigator’spresenceattheresearchsite,thelattertoasituationoftheparticipantsobservingtheresearcher.Theparticipatingteachers,inparticular,wereveryawareofourpresenceintheclassroom,andofthefactthattheywerebeingobservedandrecorded.Sometreatedtheobservationsasasortoftestwherebycertainteachingpracticesorclassroommanagementtechniquesmightmakethemloseface.Thiscouldbeobservedinthewaytheyconductedtheirlessonsinordertopresenttheirbestselves.

Forinstance,duringnon-recordedobservations,sometoldthestudentsthatwhenthelessonwasbeingrecorded,theyshouldnotsayanythingunlessexplicitlyasked.Surprisingly,someteachersalsoexhibitedahighdegreeofself-disclosurehere:forexample,inpost-lessonsmalltalk,theyopenlyadmittedtohavingseparatedtalkativestudents,ortheyaskedusiftheyhaddonewell.Beingcognisantofourresearchobjectives,twoteachersconfessedthattheyhadpurposefullyselectedgenderand/orsexuality-relatedtopicsinordertofacilitatetheiremergenceinclassdiscussionsandtoprovokestudents’greaterreflectiononthesesocialissuesthantheywouldnormallyhavedone.Finally,arelativelysmallgroupofteachersopenlyadmittedtochangingtheirregularclassroompracticeintooneinvolvingtheinteractivewhiteboard,believingthatlessonswithastandardblackboardaretoodulltobefruitfullyobservedbyvisitingoutsiders,andthattheuseoftechnologicalaidscouldmakethelessonsricherinresearchablecontent.Nevertheless,wefeelthatthesepointsdidnotinvalidateourresearchfindings.

Onceeverylessonwasover,therecordedmaterialwasdownloadedintoapassword-protectedcomputer,inaccessibletoanyonebuttheresearchers.Thefilescontainingthedatawerenumericallycodedtomaximiseconfidentialityofthematerialandtheanonymityoftheparticipants.Therecordingswerelistenedtocarefully,severaltimes,andkeyextractstranscribed.Orthographicornear-orthographictranscriptionwasappliedtoalltheinteractionsdiscussedinthisbook,toaidreadability,andtheextractswerelightlyeditedforthesamereason.TheexceptionisExtract1inChapter6,whereasimplifiedversionofJeffersoniantranscriptionconventions(Jefferson,2004)wasusedforconversationanalysisofthisextract(seebelow;alsoseeAppendixEfortranscriptionsymbols).

Allinformationthatcouldidentifyourinformants(firstnames,surnames,classnames,andlocations)wereomittedorfictionalisedtoprotecttheparticipants’anonymity.


4.4Identifyingteachers’andstudents’perspectives:focusgroupinterviewsFocusgroupsarediscussionswithmultipleparticipants,includingamoderator.Whatdifferentiatesfocusgroupsfrominterviewsisthatwhereasininterviews,intervieweesnormallycommunicatesolelywiththeinterviewer,infocusgroups,participantsareexpectedtointeractwithoneanother,toelicitperspectivestheresearchermaynothavethoughtof.Infocusgroups,themoderatorfacilitatesormoderatesdiscussionbyintroducingtopicsbutdoesnottakealeadingorevaluativeposition.Theyalsoensurethediscussionflowsandisnotdominatedbycertainindividuals.Focusgroupsareusuallyaudio-recordedandthentranscribedusingdocumentedconventions.

Thefocusgroupswere‘focused’aroundportrayals(conservativeandprogressive)ofwomenandmen,girlsandboysinEFLtextbooks,andtheirpotentialuptakeinclassroominteraction.Focusgroupsaretypicallyusedwithinamulti-methodresearchdesign(seeSilverman,2011:210)andtheaimofthesegroupswastoclarify/verifyand/orextendthefindingsfrom

theotherstagesoftheproject(involvingobservationandtextanalysis)bygivingvoicetostudentsandteachersconcerninggenderandsexualityinEFLcontexts.Wewantedtobetterunderstandwhenandwhyfortheselanguageeducationstakeholdersgenderandsexualitybecome(ir)relevantinthePolishEFLclassroom,andmorespecificallyaccountforcertainpatternsidentifiedintheclassroominteractions(seeChapter6).

Threefocusgroupswerecarriedout:twowithEFLteachersandonewithEFLhighschoolstudents.Theteachersandthestudentswereencouragedbythefacilitators(JoannaPawelczykandŁukaszPakuła)tointeractwitheachother,i.e.notonlytoaddresstheirremarkstothefacilitator.Athirdresearcher(eitherAleksandraSokalska-BennettorBartłomiejKruk)madedetailednotestobeusedtosupporttheaudiorecordingsduringanalysis.Eachsessionlastedbetween60–90minutesandwasheldataschoolwithwhichparticipantswereaffiliated.Aftereachinterview,researchers’impressionsandobservationswerecomparedanddocumented.

DetailsofthethreefocusgroupsareshowninTable2:

Table2:Focusgroupdetails

Focusgroup Numberofparticipants

Participants’status Location Lengthofrecording

1 10 Teachers Bigcity 70mins

2 6 Teachers Smallcity 51mins

3 11 Highschoolstudents Smallcity 67mins


Beforetheactualdiscussion,theresearchersintroducedthemselvesandthepurposeofthefocusgroups.Theparticipantswereassuredfullanonymisationofanydatathatcouldpotentiallyexposetheiridentity,andtheirconsenttoberecordedwasobtained.

AllfocusgroupswereconductedinPolish.First,afewwarm-upquestionsunconnectedwithgenderwereaskedinordertoshowthattheinteractionshouldprimarilybebetweentheparticipantsratherthanparticipantsandresearchers.Thefocusgroupsweresemi-structured(cf.Krzyżanowski,2008)withanumberofquestionsandpromptsutilisedinordertostimulatediscussion.Promptswereintheformofextractsoftexts,dialoguesandpicturesfromselectedcoursebooks(e.g.StarlandandNew Matura Solutions),andtranscriptsshowingeither‘gendertriggeredpoints’(seeSection2.3)or‘genderemergingpoints’48fromrecordedclassroomtalk.Thesamesetofpromptswasusedtofacilitateallthefocusgroupdiscussions,withtheexceptionofthestudentgroup,wherecertainmaterialswhichcontainedclassroominteractionwereomittedbecausetheycamefromlessonobservationsfromtheirschool.AfulllistofthepromptsusedinthefocusgroupscanbefoundinAppendicesAandB.

Certificatesofparticipationweregiventoalltheparticipantsastokensofgratitude.

4.4.1Thefirstfocusgroup:teachersThefirstfocusgroupwasheldinagimnazjuminalargeurbancentreinwesternPoland.TenPolishfemaleteachersofEnglishvolunteeredtoparticipate.Thenumberfluctuatedslightlyinthecourseofthediscussionbutthisdidnotcauseanydisruptiontotheongoingfocusgroupinteraction.

Alltheteacherswereaffiliatedwiththeschoolwherethegrouptookplaceandkneweachother,sothedatawerenotaffectedbylackoffamiliarityoftheparticipantswitheachother.Figure1presentstheseatingarrangementofthefirstgroup.

Togetherwiththetworesearcher-moderators,theteachersweresatinacirclefacingoneanothertofacilitatecommunication.Thethirdresearcherwassittingatthebackoftheclassroomandtakingfieldnotes.Thisgavehimagoodviewofthenon-verbalaspectsoftheexchangesbetweentheparticipants.

Althoughalltheteacherscontributedtothediscussion,theydidsotovaryingdegrees.Some,inparticularTeachers2and6,activelysharedtheirexperiencesandcommentedontheprompts.Teacher5wastheleasttalkative,butmanifestedengagementthroughminimalacknowledgementtokens(suchasmhmoryeah),noddingandeyecontact.

Figure1:Focusgroup1seatingarrangement

Teacher 8

Teacher 7

Teacher 6

Teacher 5

Teacher 4

Teacher 10

Teacher 3

Teacher 9

Researcher 1

Researcher 2

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

4.4.2Thesecondfocusgroup:teachersThesecondfocusgroupinterviewwaswithsixEFLteachers,onemanandfivewomen.AllwerePolishandknewoneanotherverywellasagaintheytaughtinthesameschool.Someparticipantswerealreadyacquaintedwiththeresearchersastheyhadpreviouslytakenpartinclassroomobservations.Aroomforthefocusgroupwasarrangedbytheteacherparticipantsthemselvesintheschool.Thistimeweprovidedrefreshmentsfortheparticipantswiththeaimofcreatingarelaxedandwelcomingatmosphere.Theseatingarrangement,withtheteacherssittinginacirclefacingoneanotheraswellastheresearchers,allowedforsmoothcommunication.Thethirdresearchersatoutsidethemainareainordertoavoiddistractingtheparticipants.Figure2showstheseatingarrangement,againaroundatable.

Ingeneral,theinteractiontookplacemostlybetweentheteacherparticipants,ratherthanteachersandresearchers.Althoughalltheteacherswereengagedandeagerlysharedtheirexperiencesandviews,thecontributions,asisoftenthecase,werenotequallydivided.Femaleteacher2wasleastactiveverbally,butcontributedtotheinteractionwithminimalresponsesandgesturessuchasnoddingandsmiling.

48Gendertriggeredpoints’and‘genderemergingpoints’arebothconceptswhichwehavedevelopedinthecourseofthisprojectandwhichpertaintothe‘gendering’ofclassroomtalk.



Female teacher 1

Female teacher 2

Female teacher 3

Female teacher 4

Female teacher 5

Male teacher

Researcher 1

Researcher 2

4.4.3Thethirdfocusgroup:highschoolstudentsThethirdfocusgroupdiscussionconsistedof11second-andthird-gradehighschoolstudentsfromacityofmorethanfiftythousandinhabitants:fiveboysandsixgirls.Allparticipantswereover18andwerechosenbytheirformtutorsfromdifferentclasses,meaningthatsomewerenotacquaintedwitheachother.Theparticipantstriedtoorganisetheseatingarrangement(whichwasinaclassroom)inacirclesothateveryonecouldseeoneanother.Unfortunately,becauseofthenumberofstudentsandthedesignoftheclassroom,thisposedsomedifficultiesandnoteveryparticipantcouldseealltheothers.Thisdidnot,however,affectthediscussionbetweenthestudentssignificantly,andtheinteractionwassuccessfuldespitetheseatingarrangementdifficulties.Figure3showstheresultingarrangement:


Male student 1

Male student 2

Female student 1

Female student 2

Female student 3

Female student 4

Female student 5

Female student 6 Male student 3

Researcher 1

Researcher 2

Male student 5

Male student 4

AscanbeobservedfromFigure3,thestudentsarrangedthemselvesinallmale–maleorfemale–femalegroups.Initially,theytendedtointeractwiththeresearchersratherthanwitheachother,butthentheywereremindedbytheresearchersaboutthepurposeofthefocusgroup,i.e.tointeractwithoneanother,whichtheydid.Somestudentswereparticularlyactiveandsomealmostcompletelysilent.ThosewhowereparticularlyvocalwereFemalestudent1and,especially,Malestudent4,whodominatedthediscussion,oftenspokeoverothersandconfidentlyvoicedhisviews.This,andhisconservativeopinions,repeatedlystirredupclearoppositiononthepartofothers,especiallythefemaleparticipants;thiswasbothverbalandnon-verbal,suchasshakingofheadsandrollingofeyes.ThediscussionbecameincreasinglyheatedbetweenMalestudent4andotherswhoexpressedopposingstandpoints.Itwasevidentthat,towardstheendofthediscussion,thesituationnegativelyaffectedtheatmosphereandthemoodofsomeparticipants.

Duringthediscussion,anEFLteacherwaspresentatthebackoftheclassroom,engagedinherownprofessionalactivities.Althoughshedidnottakepartinthediscussionandhadprobablydecidedtobetheretokeepaneyeonthestudents,shewaspayingattentiontoatleastsomeoftheinteraction,assheoncecontributedbydirectingadisciplinaryutterancetothestudents.Shenever,however,gaveanyvaluestatement,anddidnotinfluencethetalkinanywayasthestudentsneitherrespondedtowhatshesaidnoracknowledgedherpresence.


4.5IdentifyingMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewers’perspectivesToaccessakeyinstitutionalvoice,weconductedinterviewswithtwoMinistryofEducationEFLtextbookreviewers.BotharefemaleacademicswithmanyyearsofexperienceofreviewingEFLmaterialsandarethusfamiliarwithhowthereviewcriteriahavechangedovertheyears.

Eachinterviewtookabout60minutesandstartedwithgeneralquestionsconcerningtheroleofcultureinacquiringaforeignlanguage,followedbymorespecificquestionsregardingtherequirementsasregardstheavoidanceofstereotypes,ifany,orrequirementsofmoreprogressiveportrayalsofwomen,men,genderrelationsingeneralorofreferencestosexualdiversity,againifany(seeAppendicesCandD).Wewerealsointerestedintakingadiachronicperspectivetoidentifythetimelineofchanges.

Inthesecondpartoftheinterview,thereviewerswerepresentedwiththesamesampletextbookmaterialsthatwehadusedwiththestudentsinthefocusgroupsandaskedtocommentonexamplesofstereotypical/conservativegenderportrayalsusedingrammarandvocabularyexercises.

4.6AnalysingthedataFourrelatedqualitativemethodologieswereemployedtoanalysedatafromdifferentaspectsandstagesoftheproject.Belowweprovideabriefdescriptionofeach.

Multimodaldiscourseanalysisallowsresearcherstoinvestigatethevariousmodesofcommunication(e.g.verbalandnon-verbal)employedbyinterlocutorsinaninteraction(cf.Kress,2010;Norris,2004;cf.alsoVestergaardandSchröder,1985).Itcanalsobeappliedtoscrutinyofthemeaningsencodedinnotonlyimages(cf.KressandvanLeeuwen,1996)butrelationshipsbetweentheverbalcontent(text)andaccompanyingimage(s).Forexample,non-dominant,alternativediscoursesofgenderrelationsconstructedinthewrittentextmaybesupportedorunderminedbyaccompanyingimage(s);imagesmayalsobesupportedorunderminedbyaccompanyingwrittentext.Imagesplayacrucialrolenotonlyinthecontemporarymedialandscapeingeneral,butalsoinEFLmaterials,soitisvitaltoexploretheirroleinconveyinggenderedandsexualmessages.

Qualitativediscourseanalysisoffocusgroupdata49isincreasinglypopularthroughoutthesocialsciences(cf.Krzyżanowski,2010).WewereoriginallyinspiredbyVirginiaBraunandVictoriaClarke’s(2006:87)six-phasemodeloffocusgroupdataanalysis:

1. familiarisingyourselfwiththedata

2. generatinginitialcodes

3. searchingforthemes

4. reviewingthemes

5. definingandnamingthemes

6. producingthereport.

Theanalysisinthistypeofapproachisnotlinearbutisamorerecursiveprocess,‘wheremovementisbackandforthasneeded,throughoutthephases’(BraunandClarke,2006:86).Datatendtobepresentedasaccountsofsocialphenomenaorpracticescorroboratedbyquotationsfromfocusgroupdiscussions(Wilkinson,2011:170).

However,giventhehighlyideologicalnatureofgenderandsexuality,andtalkaroundthese,wedecidedtolookfordiscoursesratherthanthemes,adiscoursebeingasocial,potentiallyconstitutivewayofseeingandunderstandingtheworld(seeFoucault,1972;seealsoSunderland,2004on‘gendereddiscourses’).Discoursesarearticulatedintalkorwrittentextbutcannotthemselvesbeseen,orheard;rather,‘traces’ofdiscourses(Talbot,1998)intalkandwrittentextallowtheinferenceofparticulardiscourses.Silverman(2011)writesthatthematicanalysisassumes‘aone-toonelinkbetweenutterancesinfocusgroupsandpeople’sviews’(p.212),however,weshareRapley’s(2001)viewthatfocusgroupdatacanbestbetreatedasaccountswhere‘theinterviewdatacollectedareseenas(moreorless)reflectingarealityjointlyconstructedbytheintervieweeandinterviewer’(p.304).Thepointisthat,howeverconstructed,focusgroupsgeneratedifferentwaysofseeingandunderstandingthesocialworld,whichiswhywechosetousethemforthisproject.

49Threemethodsaretypicallyusedtoanalysefocusgroupdata:contentanalysis,thematicanalysisandconstructionistmethods(discourseanalysisandconversationanalysis)(Silverman,2011:211;Wilkinson,2011).


Criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA)isanumbrellatermforavarietyofmethodologiesandapproaches.All,however,takeasgiventhattheexistenceofcertainsocialpracticesarerelatedtoandconstructedbydiscursiveaswellasmaterialpractices(seeWodak,2009):oneofthekeytheoreticalassumptionsunderpinningCDAisthatdiscursivepracticesarevitalto‘sustainandreproducethesocialstatusquo’(FaircloughandWodak,1997)andthesocialproblemsgeneratedbyit.CDApractitionersdrawonconceptssuchas‘power’,‘ideology’,‘hegemony’,‘dominance’,‘domination’,‘socialproblems’and‘socialpractice’.Uncoveringpowerrelationsandideologyindiscoursecanexplainthemaintenanceofthestatusquo,whichCDA,asaproblem-orientedapproach,attemptsattransforming(Wodak,2009).The‘problems’,forthisstudy,includelackofacknowledgementtothepointoferasureofthenon-heteronormative,maledominance(quantitativeandqualitative)inrepresentation,andrestrictiveunderstandingsofgenderroles.

Withitsoriginsinethnomethodology,conversationanalysis(henceforthCA;Sacks,1992)providesinsightsintohowindividualsperformvariousactionsintheireverydaylifethroughthesequentialorganisationoftalk-in-interaction.AccordingtoMadilletal.(2001:415),thisqualitativeanalyticalapproachcanbebestdescribedintermsofthreecharacteristics:activityfocus,turn-by-turnanalysisandtheinteractants’orientationtothebusinessathand.TheapplicationofCAtoolstoastretchofourdata(Extract1,Chapter6)helpedilluminateparticularclassroominteractionaldynamicswhenlessnormativevoicesarenotorientedtobytheteacher.

4.7ConclusionInthischapterwehopetohaveexplainedourresearchmethodologyintermsofwhatwedidandwhyinawaythatcanbereplicated,ifotherswouldliketofollowasimilarresearchjourney.Inthenextthreechapterswelookatourfindings:ongenderandsexualityintextbooks(Chapter5),genderandsexualityinnaturallyoccurringclassroominteraction(Chapter6)andperspectivesofstudents,teachersandlanguagetextbookreviewers(Chapter7).

Genderandsexualityintextbooks | 45

5Genderandsexualityintextbooks5.1IntroductionInthefirstpartofthischapterwepresentthefindingsoftheanalysisofselectedtextbooksatthelevelsofprimary,middle(gimnazjum)andhighschoolconcerningthesocialrepresentationandconstructionofwomenandmen,girlsandboys.ThesecondpartofthechapterisdevotedtoourfindingsregardingsexualityandheteronormativityrepresentationintheselectedEFLtextbooksatthethreeschoollevels.

5.2GenderrepresentationintextbooksTextbooks,asJaneSunderland(2014)observes,areimportanttothestudyoflanguage,genderandlanguageeducationastheyconstituteatextualformofgenderrepresentationandassucharean‘epistemologicalsite’forgenderandlanguagestudy.Theyareimportantnotonlyfortheirubiquity,butfortheirpotentialfor‘takenforgranted’,traditionalgenderrepresentationswhichmaynotbechallengedbecausethemainpurposeofthetextbookislikelytobeseenasafacilitatoroflanguagelearningandteaching,notanagentofthestatusquo,orevenofsocialchange.

Theresearchquestionforthispartofthestudy,RQ1,was:‘HowaregenderandsexualityportrayedverballyandvisuallyinaselectionofPolishEFLtextbooks?’Incontrasttomanytextbookstudies,ouranalysiswasqualitative.BelowwepresentthefindingsoftheanalysisoffiveEFLstudent’sbooksatthethreeschoollevels(forfurtherdetailsofthetextbooks,seeSection4.1.1):

■■ primaryschool(szkoła podstawowa):Evolution 1(MacmillanPolska);Project 3(OxfordUniversityPress)

■■ middleschool(gimnazjum):Voices 3(Macmillan);Exam Explorer(NowaEra)

■■ highschool(szkoła średnia):New Matura Solutions upper-intermediate(OxfordUniversityPress).

Foreachtextbookwefollowedthesamecriteriaofanalysis,takingintoaccounthowgenderfeaturesindifferenttextbooksub-genres50(listeningtasks,readingcomprehensiontasks,speakingexercisesandgrammatical/lexicalexercises,aswellas‘other’,e.g.lead-inexercisesandprojectpreparation,dependingonthetextbook;againseeChapter4fordetails).Wetookintoaccountthevisualaspectsofseveraltexts,thusacknowledgingthemultimodalaspectoftextbooks.Acrucialconceptintheanalysiswasthe‘gendercriticalpoint’(GCP),i.e.apartofatextinwhichgenderisrelevantinsomeway.Giventhatmosttextsrefertohumans(andhencesocialaction),gendercriticalpointsarenothardtofind.Thisconceptwasoriginallyusedinastudyof‘talkaroundthetext’(Sunderlandetal.,2002),i.e.thatataGCPtheteachermustdosomething(evenifonlytoignoreit),andinChapter6welookatwhatwas‘done’withgenderedtextsbytheteacherand/orstudents(‘talkaroundthetext’).However,itcanbeappliedtoanalysisofthetextalone.Itallowedustoidentifythetexts(orpart-texts)wheregenderparticularly‘mattered’,forexampleinthat:

The gender representation might appear to maintain or exaggerate traditional gender roles (with or without irony), or might appear ‘progressive’, representing gender roles saliently broadened so as to extend the range of activities normally available to men or women, boys or girls (Sunderlandetal.,2002:231).

Todeepenouranalysiswealsooccasionallyconsultedworkbooksandteacher’sbookstoexaminewhetherthereisconsistencyintheconstructionofgender(workbook)orwhetherandhowteachersarerecommendedtoorienttoanidentified‘gendercriticalpoint’(teacher’sbook).

50Sunderland(2014)suggeststhatdifferenttextbooksub-genresarelikelytohavedifferentpotentialsforgenderrepresentation(seeChapter2).

46 | Genderandsexualityintextbooks

5.2.1PrimaryschooltextbooksEvolution 1Evolution 1iswrittenforbeginnersandconsistsofnineunitswiththreelessonsineach.Itcanbeseentopromotegenderequalitybothtextuallyandvisuallywitharepresentationofboysandgirlsinvariousexercises.InthePolishrubric,variantsofshe/hearegiven,forinstance:jesteś na wakacjach u kolegi/koleżanki[youareonholidayatyourmale/femalefriend’s].Thisstrategyofsplittingissalientastypicallythegeneric(masculine:kolegi)formwouldbeused.

ListeningtasksListeningexerciseshavethepotentialtoconveynormativeexpectationsinacovertmanner,inpartbecausetheyofteninvolverepetition.Forexampleinonetask(exercise1,p.113),studentsareaskedtomatchthenameofa(nextreme)sportwithanappropriatepicturefeaturingamaleprotagonist(avisiblymaleorfemalesilhouette)andthentorepeatthenamesofthesportsafterlisteningtoarecording.Repeatedexposuretotheportrayalofmen,butnotwomen,functioninginagenticrolesmaysuggesttoyounglearnersasenseof‘naturalness’ofsuchportrayals.Similarlyinexercise2(p.47),wherethestudents’taskistoputpicturesfeaturingdifferentmaleprotagonistsinanappropriateorder,alltheportrayedboysare‘onthego’inanactiveposition.

Asregardsthecharacters,aman,Host,appearsinalmosteveryunittofacilitatethe18dialoguesbetweenthelearners,whoarealwaysagirl(Carla)andaboy(Darren).AnimageshowingbothDarrenandCarlaaccompanieseachdialogue.Bothtakeonvariousdiscourseroles:bothaskquestionsandanswerthemandbothgivecorrectanswersaswellasmakemistakes.

Someexercisesrefutedominantoratleasttraditionalgenderedexpectations,forexampleofwomen’sacceptanceofmen’sopinions.Inexercise3(p.60),forexample,afemaleprotagonist(Mara)overtlydisagreeswiththemaleprotagonist(Joe)bychallenginghisclaimswithoutmitigationorhedging(forexamplewhenreferringtoanotherperson’sclothes:‘Idon’tagreewithyou.They’refantastic’):a‘masculineinteractionalstyle’(seeHolmesandStubbe,2003).

ReadingsTherearerelativelyfewreadings,perhapsduetothestudents’lowleveloflanguageproficiency.However,inthosethatdoexist,therearebothfemaleandmaleprotagonists,andconservativeandprogressiveportrayalsofboysandgirls.Inexercise2(p.23)thereisashorttextaboutDebbie(anactress)andMike(amusician).Bothare19andalsoattendsecondaryschool.Theaccompanyingimageenhancesthetext(UnsworthandCléirigh,2009)asDebbieisportrayedasworkingonthecomputerwithanessaypagevisibleonthescreenandapileofbooksonherdesk.Theimagethusadditionallypositionsherasinterestednotonlyinactingbutalsoschoolwork.Somedeparturefromgenderedexpectationscanbeobservedwhenboysarereferredtoas‘shy’(exercise8,p.79).Sometextsalsofeaturefemaleprotagonistsonly.Forexample,inexercise2(p.100)Vickydescribesherfemaleclassmatesandtheirdrinkspreferences.Importantly,ofthetwopicturesaccompanyingthereading,onefeaturesVickyworkingonthecomputer,againenhancingthereadingbypositioningheraspotentiallyskilledatmathematicssincenexttotheimageissomestatisticaldata.

Twoexercises(2and3,p.49),however,drawverymuchonadiscourseofgenderdifference.Inexercise2,welearnthatthegirl’sroomis‘verytidy’.Inexercise3,thestudentsareaskedtodescribethemaleprotagonist’sroom,whichis‘verymessy’.Thediscourseofgenderdifferenceisinfactcommonlypresent.Femalesarepositionedasmothersandpreferring‘quietfestivals’,menasinterestedin‘loudmusic’and‘musicfromdifferentcountries’.

Inexercise2(p.99),thereadingfeaturesKevinandtwootherpeoplewhoareintroducedinrelationtohim,i.e.Kevin’smotherandKevin’ssister(whosenamesarenotgiven).Thereadingisaccompaniedbya‘trueandfalse’exercisewheresimilar‘relational’referencescanbefound,e.g.‘hismother’.

SpeakingBothboysandgirlsagainperformvariousdiscourseroles:femaleandmaleprotagonistsaskquestionsandanswerthem.ThemostinterestingexamplewaspresentedaboveintheListeningsectionwherethefemaleprotagonist(Mara)adoptsamasculineinteractionalstyle(seeabove).


Grammatical/lexicalexercisesThegrammatical/lexicalexercisesalsofeaturearangeoffemaleandmalecharacters,asindicatedbypronouns(she, he)andspecificfirstnames.Inthefill-inexercises,maleandfemalecharactersbothagaintakeonvariousdiscourseroles:girlsandboysbothaskandanswerquestions.Inexercise2(p.55),KarinandNigeltakeonthediscourserolesofquestionerandanswererinterchangeably.

Equalityisalsomaintainedintheimages.Thepicturesinexercise1(p.8)showfemaleandmalecharactersperformingvariousjobs.Twooutofeightpicturespresentnon-gender-stereotypicalprofessionalroles:amaleshopassistantandafemaletrainer.The‘maleshopassistantreference’isthenusedinthegrammarexercise(exercise2,p.9).Inthevisualsaccompanyingotherexercises,maleandfemalecharactersarepresentedincomparable/similarsocial/professionalroles,e.g.asasingerandanactress(exercise4,p.19),andafootballplayerandatrainer(exercise9,p.41).

Toconclude,Evolution 1mixesconservativeandmoreprogressivegenderportrayalsandgenderrelations.Morespecifically,thetextbooksub-genresofspeakingandgrammatical/lexicalexercisesdepartconsiderablyfromthestereotypicaldivisionbetweenafemininedomainoccupiedbywomenengagingincommunaltasksandmasculinedomainwheremenfunctioninagentiveroles.

Project 3Project 3,writtenforstudentsintheirlastlevelofprimaryschooleducation,isgenerallystructuredaroundtwotypesofnarrativecontent:

1. interactionsbetweenschoolboysandgirls(Lewis, Trish, Sonia and Martin)characterisedbyadiscourseofheterosexualromance/partner-seeking

2. textsabouttwoprivatedetectives(Sweet Sue and Smart Alec).

Thedetectives’namesalignwithgender-normativeexpectations.EventhoughSweetSuetakesonchallengingtasks(discussedbelow),repetitionofthetwonamesreinforcegenderstereotypes.

ListeningtasksThelisteningtasksrevolvemainlyaroundthesetwomainnarrativesandcharacters.Otherlisteningexercisesfeaturefamousfemaleandmaleprotagonists(e.g.BeatrixPotterandLewisGordonPugh).Thepresenceofbothfemaleandmalecharactersisreflectedintheaccompanyingpictures.Sometasksfeaturebothafemaleandamalecharacter(e.g.exercise4,p.49)orafemalecharacteronly(exercise1b,p.66).

ReadingsAgeneralthemeinthereadingsinProject 3asawholeistheportrayalofwomenandgirlswhosemainpreoccupationisshopping,whilemen(anddads)tendtogetnewjobsindistant/newplacesandconsequentlythewholefamilyisforcedtorelocate.Thereadingsalsorevolvearoundthetwomainnarrativesconcerningthegroupoffriendsandthetwodetectives.SweetSueissometimesportrayedasassertiveandbravedespitehernickname.Forexampleonpage7,commentingonhowshegetsonwithherfellowmaledetective,shesays:‘I’mgoingtofightback…’.Thisisbecausegenerallythetwodetectivescompetewitheachotherandthemaledetectivetendstobemoresuccessful.Suealsomakessomemistakes,forinstanceshe(bychance)givesdirectionstosomebankrobbers.Attheendofthestory,Suesuggeststhattheyshouldbeworkingasateamratherthanrivals,thusbeingpositionedasco-operative–somethingofafemininestereotype.Shehoweverchallengesthemaledetective’ssuggestionoftheiragency’sname,assertingthatitshouldbe‘TheSweetSueandSmartAlecDetectiveAgency’ratherthan‘TheSmartAlecandSweetSueDetectiveAgency’.

ThereadingsfeaturingLewis,Trish,SoniaandMartinasindicateddrawondiscoursesofheterosexualromanceandgenderdifference.Theinteractionsandpositioningofthefouryoungpeoplefurtherconstituteadiscourseof‘heterosexualsociality’(Lazar,1999,2003).Inoneofthereadings(‘VirtualSoap’),thegirlsarepresentedintheaccompanyingimagesastalkingonmobilephonesandworkingonthecomputer.Althoughthetextrevealsthattheyareactuallyplayingthecomputergame‘VirtualSoap’andtakingontherolesofromanticheterosexualpartners,theseportrayalsalsoofferareadingofthegirlsastechnologicallysavvy.


Tworeadingsarededicatedto‘Myfamily’(p.9)and‘Families’(p.16).‘Myfamily’portraysanuclearfamilywithdescriptionsoffamilymembers.‘Families’presents‘atypicalBritishhome’consistingof‘twoparentsandone,two,orthreechildren’(p.16).Thiscouldinprincipleallowanon-heteronormativereadingofparents.Yettheaccompanyingpicturesclearlydefinewhotheparentsare:amanandawoman,shownhuggingeachother.Thereading,however,signalsthat‘divorceiscommoninBritain’andthus‘alotofchildrenliveinasingle-parentfamily,orinafamilywithastep-parentandstep-brothersandsisters’(p.16).Thiscouldbeanicestartingpointforaclassdiscussionaboutotherfamilymodels,aschildrenlivinginsingle-parentfamilies,51forexample,canfeelleftoutfromthe‘ideal’image–butthisisnotsuggestedbythefollow-upexercisesorintheteacher’sbook.

Onemoretextconcerninghumanrelationshipsmeritsacomment(p.24).Question3inaquestionnaireasks:‘Whatwillyouridealpartnerbelike?’Theuseof‘partner’isveryinclusiveandatleastinprincipleopensupvariouspossibilitiesincludingnon-heteronormativereadings.

SpeakingSpeakingisoftencombinedwithlisteningandwritingtasks,featuringfemaleandmalecharactersinvarioussocialroles.Herewedrawattentiontojustoneexercise(p.13).TheprotagonistisUncleEric,andthestudentsareinstructedtomakesentenceswhichshowhowhe‘alwaysmixesthingsup’,forexample:‘MyUncleEricwassupposedtogivethebabyabottleofmilkandtakethedogforawalk.Buthegavethedogabottleofmilkandtookthebabyforawalk’.Thestudentsarealsoofferedalistofjobswhichincludechores(e.g.puttingrubbishinthedustbin).Followingtheexerciseguidelines,thestudentswillthus–withtheirsentences–constructUncleEricasahopelessindividual,i.e.ahelplessmaleunabletoperformbasicchores.Thisechoescommonthemesincurrentadvertisingthatdepictmenasfailinginperforminghousework(seeGill,2007).Theexercisereinforcesadominantdiscourseofgenderdifferencewhichpositionsonlywomenas(conveniently)beingabletoexcelathousework.

Grammatical/lexicalexercisesEvidenthereisanoverarchingdiscourseofgenderdifferenceandamuchmoreperipheraldiscourseofgenderequality.Inaunitentitled‘Mylife’,thestudentsaretopractisethelanguageofa‘typical’lifepath(exercise1,p.8).By‘typical’weandprobablythetextbookwritersmeanfollowingnormativegenderexpectationswherebyawomanandmangetmarriedandhavetwochildren.Thislexicalexerciseisaccompaniedbyimagesofanewlywedcoupleandafamilywithtwochildren(seeminglyaboyandagirl).Theexerciseendswithagappedsentence:‘Mydad___gotanewjoblastyear’,athemewhichisechoedinmanytextsofthistextbook.(Inareadingtext,onp.8,forexample,Carlnarrateshisexperiencesconcerninglivinginanewplace:hehadtomovewhenhisfathergotanewjob).52The‘lifestages’themeisalsotakenupinexercise2(p.18)whereadiscourseofconservativegenderrelationsandheteronormativitypredominates.Thisistosay:awomanandamangetmarried,moveintoanewhouseandthenthewomanwalksthechildtoschool.Shedoesalsogetajob–andwethenseeinthepicturehowsheisbeingcongratulatedonthisbyhermaleboss.

Inexercise5(p.35),afemalecaretakerishoweverpositionedasincontrolinanemergency.Thethemeoflife-savingsituationsiscontinuedinunit3inafill-inexercise(p.42)featuringthemaleandfemaleprotagonistsMarkandJackie,whohavebothsavedpeople’slives.

Tosumup,Project 3greatlyutilisesdiscoursesofgenderdifferenceandagendereddivisionoflabour.ComparedtoEvolution 1, Project 3dependsmoreconspicuouslyonpositioningwomenandmenindifferentsocialroles.Thisismostevidentinthereadingsub-genreandingrammatical/lexicalexerciseswherediscoursesofheterosexualromanceandgenderdifferenceprevail.

51Thenationalcensusof2002showedthat15percentofchildreninPolandlivedinsingle-parentfamilies.Thenumberiscurrentlymuchhigher,yetthereislackofprecisedata.Forexplanationssee:http://irss.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Samotne%20rodzicielstwo%20%E2%80%93%20mi%C4%99dzy%20diagnoz%C4%85%20a%20dzia%C5%82aniem.pdf(accessed14May2015).

52 WealsoreadaboutCarl’sinterestinsports–atraditionallymasculinerepresentation.


5.2.2Middleschool(gimnazjum)textbooksVoices 3ListeningInVoices 3,threemainareasconcerningtheportrayalofwomenandmenwereidentified:menandsport,menascriminals,andwomenandmenasexperts.TheexamplesfromlisteningtasksdiscussedbelowcomefromtheVoices 3workbook.

1. Men and sport

Malecharactersratherthanfemaleonesarepresentedasinterestedandengagedinsports.Thisisoftenachievedbyjuxtaposingamalecharacterwhoisdoingsomethingsports-relatedwithafemalecharacterwhoisnot.Forexample(p.21),MrGrangergivesdirectionstoPaulandhissisterEllie:PaulisgoingtothesportshallwhileEllieisgoingtothelibrary.Inanotherexercise(p.31),aboycomesintoashopandwantstobuyaT-shirt;theshopassistantisawoman.Additionally(p.44),afamousmaleskateboarder,Hawk,ispresentedinareadingandlisteningexercise.

2. Men as criminals

Onelisteningexercise(p.23)featuresButchCassidy,afamousAmericanrobberandgangmember,whoiseventuallyshotdead.Thethemeof‘menascriminals’reflectsageneralfindingacrossthetextbookandtheaccompanyingworkbook.

3. Women and men as experts

Severalexercisespresentmaleandfemalecharactersasexperts.Interestingly,theirexpertisedoesnotalwaysaccordtoconventionalgender(ed)expectations.Onpage33,Stephenistalkingaboutcarbootsalesandwhattheyare.Inanotherexercise(combininglisteningandreading,p.35),awomanispresentedasanexpertoncoins.However,weonlylearnfromhervoiceontheCDthatsheisawoman.Bothmenandwomengiveadviceonhealth(p.41).Afewexercisesfeatureexclusivelymaleorfemalecharactersasexperts,e.g.awomantalksaboutafamousskateboarder(p.44)andamanaboutstunts(p.45;botharealsoreadingexercises–seebelow).

Reading(andlistening)InVoices 3severalreadingcomprehensiontasksareinfactmatchedwithlisteningexercises,i.e.studentsareaskedtoreadsomethingandonthatbasisdoatask(e.g.decidewhattoputingapsandthenchecktheiranswersfromarecording).Twomaingenderedthemeswereidentified:menandcrime,andwomenoccupyingasymbolicallyfemininesphere(butseealsoaboveonwomenandmenasexperts).

1. Men and crime

Thetopicofcrimeisgenderedinthatthegreatmajorityofcharactersconnectedwithcrime(bothcriminalsandpolicemen)aremen.

Thestudent’sbookfeaturesatextentitled‘Vanished!ThemysteryofDanCooper’(p.21).DanCooperwasahijackerwhothreatenedafemaleflightattendant,hadabombinhissuitcase,demandedmoneyandforcedtheplanetogotoadifferentdestination.Avisualshowshimwearingasuitandbowtiewithasuitcasefullofmoneyandmakingaparachutejump.

Onereadingcomprehension(p.24)consistsofthreeseparatetextsonthetopicofcrime.Allareaboutmen:twomencommittingcrimeandapoliceofficer.Allhaveapictorialrepresentationenhancingthegenderedreading,wherecollectivelythefeaturesattributedtothemare:droppinglitter,anti-socialbehaviourandavisualrepresentationofthepoliceofficerasmale.

Theworkbookexercisesfollowthesameconvention,i.e.menaredescribedascriminals,detectivesorlawprotectors.Oneexercise(p.25)consistsoftwotextsaboutcrimewhichalsofeatureonlymen.TextoneisaboutgangmemberJesseJames,describedasengagedinrobbingbanksandcoaches,whosefellowmemberswereinfamousformurderandarmedrobbery.TexttwoisaboutthefamousAmericanoutlawWilliamBonney,describedasbeingarrestedforstealing,escapingfromjail,committingmurderandbeingsentencedtodeath.Thepersonwhocaughthimwasalsoaman:SheriffPatGarrett.


2. Women occupying a symbolically feminine sphere (shopping, magazines or fashion)Inthestudent’sbook,onetext(p.36)consistsofthreesub-textsaboutteenagers’spendinghabits.Textonefeaturesaboywhowantstoopenasavingsaccountandbuyahouseandacar.Incontrast,textstwoandthreefeaturegirlswholikeshopping(onesaysshelovesit).OnecouldbedescribedasashopaholicandtheothersaysshebuysclothesandCDswithherpocketmoney.Inthevisualrepresentations,thegirlsarepresentedduringshoppingorjustafter,carryingshoppingbags,whereastheboyispresentedsimplysittingdowninsomeunknownlocation.Inthiswaythegirlsarepresentedasengaginginnormativelyfeminineactivity,therepresentationoftheboystandingincontrast.

Inanotherreadingcomprehensiontext(p.66),boysandgirlsarejuxtaposed.Thisconsistsoftwosub-textscomparingpaperandonlinemagazines.Thepaperversionisrepresentedbytwoteenagegirlswhoaresmilingandreadingamagazinetogether.Thetextdescribes‘girls’magazineswitharticlesaboutboysandfashionandinterviewsaboutfamouspeople.Theyalsohaveproblempages,horoscopesandcompetitions’.Incontrast,texttwodescribesthephenomenonofonlinemagazinesandthevisualshowstwoboysinfrontofacomputer.Thiscanbereadasmenbeingmoreabletechnologically–inlinewithpopularstereotypes.

LexicalandgrammaticalexercisesAnimportantthemehererelatestothepositioningofmeninthesphereofsport,eitherveryinterestedinoractivelyengagedinit,inthesentencesandaccompanyingpictures.Forexample,onpage50,themajorityofpicturesofextremesportsfeaturemalecharacters.

Bothwomenandmenarehoweverpositionedassuccessful.Severalsentencesfeatureawell-knownmalepersonality,e.g.NelsonMandela(p.13),MarekKamiński(p.48),orafemaleone,e.g.GertrudeElion,whoinventedadrugforleukaemia(p.19),andKatyWhittaker,oneoftheUK’stopfemaleclimbers(p.52).Oneinterestingdialogue(p.57)isaboutafemaledoctorhelpingamanwhomayhaveaskateboardinginjury.Thedialoguedoesnotpointtothesexoftheinteractantsbutthepicturepresentsthedoctoraswearingapinksweaterratherthanaprofessionaluniform.

Intheworkbook,mumsanddadsarepresenteddifferently.Fathersareshownthroughthejobstheydo,sothattheirprofessionalidentityishighlighted.Examplesinclude:

■■ ‘WhatisyourfatherdoinginAfricaatthemoment?’‘Heisworkingasavolunteer.’

■■ ‘Whatdoesyourfatherdo?’‘Heisanengineer.’

■■ ‘Myfatherhastobeatworkat6.30inthemorning.’

Mums,ontheotherhand,occupythedomesticsphere.Theytendtobe‘other-centred’(cf.Lazar,2002),doingthingsfortheirfamilies.Someexamplesare:

■■ Mum:It’scoldoutside.Doyouwanttotakeascarf?(p.26)

■■ Look!Mumboughtsomepopcornfortonight.(p.29)

■■ Mymotherdrewthispictureforme.(p.115)

Overall,Voices 3tendstomixconservativegenderrelationswithaseeminglymoreprogressivedepictionofwomenandmeninvarioussocialroles.Thethemeofmenasactivelyinterestedinsportsfeaturesprominentlyinthelisteningandgrammatical/lexicalexercises,butthesesub-genresalsomixconservativeandmoreprogressivegenderrelationsquiteprominently.Thereadingandlisteningexercisestendtopromoteadominantdiscourseof‘consumerfemininity’(Talbot,1995)wherewomenshopandareinterestedinfashion.

Exam ExplorerExam Exploreraimsatpreparingmiddleschoolstudentsforthemiddleschoolfinalexambyallowingthemtopractiseanddeveloptheskillstobetested.

ListeningHerewefoundthreemainthemes:menrepresentedinpowerfulpositionsandasprofessionals,gender-stereotypicaljobdivision,andwomenbeingconstructedintermsofappearance.

Onetask(p.48)featuresadoctorwhoseexpertiseisstressandhowtodealwithit,whoisinvitedtotakepartinaradioprogramme.Thewrittenpartoftheexercisedoesnotrevealthesexofthisprofessional,buttherecordingshows‘DoctorStephens’tobemale.Heisconstructedasaknowledgeableexpert.Asecondtask(p.223)featuresProfessorNertlett,anothermaleexpertaskedtoparticipateinaradioprogramme.Hetalkstothefemalepresenteraboutsmartphones:sheasksquestions,heshowshisexpertise.Shesaysshepreviouslylikedheroldphone,butchangedhermind(thankstotheprofessor)andnowlikeshersmartphone.


Theexerciseonpage28showsastereotypicalpresentationof‘dreamjobs’,withpictorialrepresentationsthatstudentsareaskedtomatchwithrecordeddescriptions:theseincludeamalepilot,amaletruckdriver,amalebuilder,afemale‘cashier’atapetrolstationandafemaledesigner.Oneexampledeservesspecialattention:agirlistalkingaboutthejobofskiinstructor.Shesaysthatshewantedtobeaskiinstructoronlybecauseshehadacrushonaguy,andthisallowedhertobeclosetohim.Onpage32,peopletalkabouttheirexperiencesofwork:awomanwhoisacook(orperhapsahousewife)says:‘IfeelIammoreamanagerratherthanacook’.However,inthesameexercise,a‘real’manageristalkingabouttheirjobexperiences,butthismanagerisaman.

Asregardswomenbeingconstructedwithinthestereotypicallyfemininedomainofappearance,inoneexercise(p.8),studentshavetomatchwhattheyhearontherecordingwithapictorialdescriptionofwhatAnnaisgoingtoweartoaparty.Intherecording,womenwonderingwhattoweararethuspresentedinthetraditionallyfemininesphereofappearance.Inanotherexercise(p.56),studentshavetomatchtherecordingwithapictorialdescriptionofwhatagirlisgoingtobuyforherself.Outofthreeoptions,wecanseeskiingshoes,skisandskiinggoggles.Thegirlis,however,talkingaboutskiingclothesandaccessories.Incontrast,inthesameexercise,oneexamplefeaturesmengoingtoamatch,andthepicturespresentthreewatchesshowingdifferenttimes.Onpage8,thereisanotherlisteningexercisefeaturingboysgoingshopping.Whilethismightseemquiteprogressive,itturnsoutthattheboysdecidetobuytrainersinasportsshop.

ReadingsThereadingstendtofeaturemenoccupyingpowerfulorprestigiouspositionsandpresentthemashavingexpertiseinvariousfields:theyareinventors,expertswhogiveopinions,orfamouspeople(withtalent).ExamplesincludeManuelTorres–inventorofasprayfabric,AlexanderParkes–inventorofplastic,LaurentCantet–filmdirector,CharlesDarwin,SalvadorDalí,LeonardodaVinci,Picasso,andvanGogh.Beinggoodatsomethingseemstobethepreserveofmen.

Thereisalsoacontrastingjuxtapositionofmenandwomenintextsonthesametopic.Forexample,inonetext(p.218),amanandawomantalkabouttheirworstholidays.PaulaRainburnwantedtogotoParistodosightseeingandshopping,buthadacutefoodpoisoning:‘WhenIgotbetter,IwantedtocrywhenI

realisedmyholidayinPariswasnotgoingtohappen.’Shoppingandcryingarebothnormativelyassociatedwithwomen.ColinPreston,ontheotherhand,wascareless,wentbungeejumping,and‘Ashewasfallingheadfirstintotherivercanyon,thepassportfelloutofthepocketandfellintothewater.’Engaginginsportsactivitiesthatinvolveriskanddangerisstereotypicallyascribedtomen.

Lexicalexercises(dialogues)InExam Explorertherewereafewlexicalexercisesintheformofdialogues;thesemostlyinvolvedanagentiveboyandpowerlessgirl.Onpage13thedialogueisbasedonstereotypicallyascribeddiscourseroles:aboy(agentively)asksagirlout.Heproducesquestions,usinglongsentences.Sheispassive,onlyagreeing.Inthedialogueonpage21,thegirlinitiatestheconversation,askingtheboy:‘Whatdoyouthinkofthisroom?’Herespondsandsheagrees.Heproducesafurtherresponseandsheagreeswiththataswell.Onpage153theboyisgivenagency,startstheconversationandsuggeststhings.Thegirlonlyresponds.Sheisalsoascribedgender-stereotypicalrolesasregardspractices:baking(makingcakes)andlookingafterherlittlesister(takinghertothecinemaforherbirthday).

Anotherdialogueonthesamepagefeaturescharacterswhosegenderisnotovertlyindicated,buttheytalkaboutamalefriend:aboywhoplayssport,hashadanaccident,hasabrokenarmandplayscomputergames.Thedialogueonpage157isbetweenfemalestalkingaboutseeminglytrivialmatters:amotheranddaughtertalkabouttidyinguptheroomandpeople’sopinionabouttheuntidiness:intheendthemumtidiedtheroom.

Toconclude,thethreesub-genresofExam Explorertendtopositionwomenandmenindifferentsocialrolesandaspredisposedtodifferentactivities.Malecharacterstendtobeinpowerandtobeagentive.Femalecharacters,ontheotherhand,tendtobepresentedintermsofappearanceandtoactinasymbolicallyfemininemanner.Comparedtothemalecharacters,theyarerelativelypowerless.

Thesetwomiddleschooltextbooksrelyondiscoursesofgenderdifferencebypositioningwomenandmenindifferenttypesofactivities.Whileanexceptionwasthethemeof‘menandwomen’asexpertsidentifiedinVoices 3,overall,bothpromoteconventionalgenderrelationsanddonottypicallydisplaywomenandmeninmoreprogressivesocialroles.


5.2.3HighschooltextbooksNew Matura Solutions upper-intermediateNew Matura Solutions upper-intermediateisaimedathighschoolstudentspreparingfortheirschool-leavingexam,i.e.matura.Itisdividedintosectionscorrespondingtotheskillstestedduringtheexam,i.e.reading,writing,vocabulary,listeningandgrammar.Thereisalsoaculturecomponentinallunits.

ReadingThereadingsectionsofferavarietyoftopicsfeaturingbothmaleandfemalecharacters,showingbothconservativeandprogressivegenderrelations.Weidentifiedthefollowingmain‘gendereddiscourses’(Sunderland,2004):

1. ‘Males are geniuses’ (pp.8–9)and‘Computer-savvy males’ (pp.51–52)

Thesereadingsconstruemalesas‘naturally’capableofbecomingprodigiesaswellasbeinginvolvedinsophisticatedcomputerandsoftwareusefromanearlyage.Suchportrayalsarecementedbytheaccompanyingphotographs,whichdepictexclusivelymales.Someoftheseprotagonistsarealsocharacterisedassociallyineptandincapableofmaintaininginterpersonalrelationships.This,however,changeswithtimewhenthetextsintroducethe‘heterosexualmarketplace’(Eckert,1996)asencounteredbythemalecharactersforthefirsttime.Themesofdifferent-sexromance,then,alsoseemtobeanintrinsicpartofthemasculinedomain.

2. ‘Females as professional achievers’ vis-à-vis ‘Females fulfilling communal roles’

Femalecharacterstendtobeconstructedinvariousroles,includingcommunalones;however,femaleprofessionalachieversarealsosalient.Wecomeacrosstwofemalemillionaires,whohavemadetheirmoneyduetohardworkandskills,ina‘SecretMillionaire’(arealitytelevisionshow)(pp.18–19),descriptionsofwhomarecomplementedbysimilarcharacterisationsoftwomen.Thisseeminglyequalrepresentationis,however,disruptedbythefactthatwomentendtobesituatedbothinthecontextoftheirprofessionandtheircommunalrole(i.e.womenaresuccessfulprofessionalsbutalsomothersandcarers).

Suchconstructionsarealsocontestedbyatextwhichtalksaboutmothersaslesssuccessfulthanfathersincommunicatingwiththeiroffspring:a‘Teenager’sguideonhowtobeagoodparent’(pp.30–31),whereEllie–the‘narrator’–complainsaboutmisunderstandingswithhermotheraswellasherbeingoverprotective(note:criticismisnotvoicedagainstherfather).Whilethisisonlyonetext,manyexercisesareassociatedwithit.Thisreadingofthistextisenhancedmultimodallywithanaccompanyingphotographofthemotheranddaughterlookingindifferentdirectionsandamalecharacter(presumablythefather)lookingdownonthemother.Thisisareminderoftheimportanceofanunderstandingofmultimodalitybothfortheanalystandforthecriticallyliteratestudent.

Listening(andlexis)LexicalandlisteningexerciseshavebeenmergedinNew Matura Solutions.Thelexicalexercisesareofgreaterinterest:theypointtoaspectrumofrepresentationsofbothmaleandfemaleprotagonists.

Wewereabletoidentifyseveralthemesconcerningbothmenandwomen.Womenarefrequentlyfoundincommunalroles(e.g.discipliningchildren)butalsoaswell-knownpoliticians.Here,thebookhasbeenlocalised,i.e.adjustedtoPolishreality,asitpresentsHannaGronkiewicz-Waltz(atthetimeofwriting,themayorofWarsawandvice-presidentofthepoliticalpartyinpower)aswellasAngelaMerkel(theGermanchancellor).Men,however,areagainoftendepictedasrisk-takers,doingextremesportsandoccupyingrolesstereotypicallyassociatedwithmasculinity,forinstancekidnappersandmurderers.Overall,thissub-genredoesnotseemtomarkedlydifferfromthepreviousone,i.e.reading,wheretherepresentationofgenderrolesisagaindiverseandtendstomixrolesthatcanbeseenasprogressivewiththoseseenasmoretraditional.

Thetextbookisalsoconsistentinsplittingpronouns,i.e.usingtheinclusivehe/she(andderivatives),throughout.However,itdoesnotemploythelessformal‘singularthey’,leavingthistotheteacher.


GrammarSimilargenderthemesareevidentinthe‘grammar’sub-genretexts−inparticular,awelcomerangeofrepresentationsofwomen.Forinstance,atextonJKRowling(oneofseveralsuccessfulandwell-offwomencharacters,p.20),designedtointroducethepastperfectsimpleandcontinuoustenses,differsmarkedlyfromatextontwootherstructures,used toandwould(p.16),whichconstructsanabsent-mindedMollyHigginscharacterwhoalmostendedupnotusingherwinninglotteryticketandcontinuedtoliveonbenefitsinsteadofinhereventual‘ten-bedroommansionnearLondon’.

Twoothertextscaughtourattentionastheypresentedissuesstereotypicallyfallinginthefemaledomainbutseemednon-genderedatfirstasfarasthewrittenaspectswereconcerned.Thefirsttalksabout‘magicmirrors’(p.50)andthesecond(p.60)isafoodquiz.Althoughthesedonotconstruetheactivityoflookingatone’simageinamirrororobsessionwitheatingasfemaledomains,theaccompanyingpicturesdisambiguate,orclosedown,otherreadingsbyshowingexclusivelyfemales.Suchcasesdemonstratethepowerofmultimodality,whichrestsontheassumptionthatwhenonemodalityisambiguous,theother,accompanyingonemaydisambiguateittowardsanormativereading(seeSection5.2foradiscussionof‘multimodaldisambiguation’).Thus,eventhoughonemightbetemptedtoreadthetextsas‘genderinclusive’,theimagespreventthis.Thatsaid,atextonsportsfeaturingfemalesportspersonsandoneonfemalesdiscussingtheirgymmembership(p.108andp.104)contesttheconclusiononemightotherwisereachfromtheabundanceofpicturesdepictingmaleorgender-ambiguoussportspersons.

SpeakingThe‘speaking’sub-genretextsaredesignedtodevelopspeakingskillswhicharetestedduringthematuraexam.Ineverysection,boxeswithtipspointtothedesiredlanguagetobeusedwhenengaginginaroleplay,addressingexaminers’questionsordescribingpictures.Forthisthirdtasktype,especially,thissectiondrawsonmultimodality,astheaccompanyingpicturesserveasastartingpointofmostdiscussions.

Duetothewelcomespectrumofdiverserepresentations,itisnotpossibletogeneraliseaboutgenderroleshere.Forinstance,oneofthephotographsfeaturesayoungwomanholdingagiftbagwhoseemstobeunhappywithit(p.21).Theaccompanyingquestions,forinstance‘whatisthegirlfeeling’donotseemtobegenderstereotypical.Otherphotographsforegroundfemalecharactersasactiveagentsduringprotests(p.43).

CultureWedecidedtolookatthe‘culture’sub-genreinNew Matura Solutionsindependentlyofothersub-genresasittakestheformofautonomousunits.Theteacher’sbookindicatesthatthissub-genreaimsatpresentingculturesofEnglish-speakingcountriesandhopestofacilitatemakingcomparisonswiththestudents’homecountry.Itconsistsofreadingandlisteningexercises.

Thescopeoftopicsisbroadandrangesfromliterature,religionandpolitics,healthylivinganddietingtoFacebookfearsandsport.ItdoestakeuptopicswhicharecommonlyregardedascontroversialinthePolishcontext(forinstanceIVF;seeChapter3)butdoesnotaddressanyissuesrelatedtoequalitygender-orsexuality-wise(seebelow),despitethefactthatthepresent-dayanglophoneworldissaturatedwithongoingdebatesonsame-sexmarriageandgenderequity.Instead,studentsareencouragedtoproblematisehighsalariesof(male)footballplayersortheuseofFacebookby(male)students.Thesedepictionsfurthercementthediscoursespermeatingtheothersub-genres.Ofcourse,weneedtodojusticetotheotherproblemsthatthesesubchaptersraise:wecannotdownplayissuesofstarvationinsomedevelopingcountriesorofobesityintheUSA.However,weproposethatonlyeconomic-cum-politicalreasonscouldhavemotivatedthepublisherstoimposea‘blanketavoidance’(Gray,2013b)ofanymentionofgender–andsexuality-relatedthemes–inthetextbook.


5.3SexualityrepresentationintextbooksHavingaddressedgender-relatedissuesinEFLtextbooksaimedatthePolishaudience,wenowdiscusssexuality(andsexualdiversity).Weconcentrateonthefollowingtextbooks:New English Zone 3(primarylevel),Voices 3, English Explorer 2(gimnazjumlevel),Exam Explorer Repetytorium do gimnazjum(gimnazjumlevel)andNew Matura Solutions upper-intermediate(highschoollevel).Thisselectionoftextbookswasmotivatednotbytheirrepresentativenessbutbyourawarenessofcertain‘tellingcases’(Mitchell,1984)intermsofthetextstherein.

Over15yearsagoScottThornburyvoicedthefollowingcry:

Where are the coursebook gays and lesbians? They are nowhere to be found. They are still firmly in the coursebook closet. Coursebook people are never gay. They are either married or studiously single. There are no same-sex couples in EFL coursebooks. There are not even same-sex flatmates: coursebook people live with their families, on their own or with their opposite-sex partners (Thornbury,1999:15).

Unfortunately,thisobservationseemsastruenowasitwasin1999.Evenworse,asBenGoldstein(2015)hasdemonstrated,theerasureofnon-heteronormativerelationshipsseemstobeongoingandtracesofLGBTpeoplearehardlydiscernible.Duringhisplenarylectureatthe2015QueeringESOLseminar5,53GoldsteindescribedacaseoftwodifferenteditionsofFramework,atextbookofwhichheisco-author,withrelationtotheinclusionofsexualdiversity.The2003editioncontainedtwomentionsofgayidentities.One,inasection‘Howwemet’,depictedagaycouplealongsidethreeheterosexualcouples(thissectionintroducedtwonarrativetenses:pastsimpleandpastcontinuous).Thesecondmentionofgaypeoplewasinaseparatechapterentitled‘Taboo’,couchingnon-heterosexualityinanarrativeofthe‘deviantother’.Whilethelatterrepresentationleavesalottobedesiredfromthevantagepointofpositiverepresentationanddiversityinclusion,theformerseemsmostwelcome.Thefollowing2005edition,however,underwentamajorredesignanderasedthegaycouplesfromboththe‘Howwemet’sectionandthe‘Taboo’unit.54Thelatterdepictionwassubstitutedwithanexerciseaskingstudentstoreflectonthe(taboo)statusof,interalia,twomenorwomenholdinghandsinpublic–asituationthatisnotnecessarilygay-imbuedbuthasthepotentialtoinvokesuchassociations.55

Oursynchronictakeontheissuestartswithreferencetotheoverarchingtechniquethatwehaveobserved,i.e.the‘blanketavoidanceofanyrepresentationsofclearlyidentifiedLGBTcharacters’(Gray,2013b:49).Noneofthetextbooksatourdisposalfeaturedanygaycharactersorevencharactersthatcouldbecharacterisedbyanovertlyambiguousidentitywithrespecttotheirsexuality.Allthetextbooksaboundinheteronormativediscourseandthuslexis(seebelow).Forthisreason,aswellasholdingrealisticexpectationsoftextbookcontents,wedrawonSunderland’s(2015b)notionof‘degreesofheteronormativity’tolookatthenuancesofheterosexuality-centrednarratives.

Allthetextboookswerecharacterisedbytheomnipresenceofaheteronormativelexiconregardingkinshipterms,forexamplehusband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend–allinheterosexualpartnerships.Onlyafewfeaturea‘tentative’departurefromthistrendbyintroducinglexissuchasstepmotherandadoption(e.g.Exam Explorer).Othertextbookspresenttheiruserswithambiguouspicturesaccompanyingexercise.AcaseinpointisNew Matura Solutions,whichinaunitonrelationships(p.27)featuresamulticulturalgroupofmaleandfemalepeople.Thepictureitselfdoesnotimposeanyheterosexualreading;however,theheteronormativelexiswithit,i.e.mother, father,limitsanyotherinterpretations.AnotherexamplecanbefoundinVoices 3.Onpage6weseethreepicturesshowingafamilyunit;itisnothoweveranuclearfamilyparexcellenceasweareunabletodeterminetherelationshipsbetweenitsmembers.Inthefirstpicturetherearefivepeople(twoyounggirls,awomanandtwomen),thesecondpictureshows(whatlookslike)asinglemotherwithtwokidsandthethirdshowsanextendedfamilywithmanypeopleandonecan’treallysaywhoiswho.Thisisnottosaythatthesefamiliescannotbereadasheterosexual,butratherthattheyarepositionedoutsideprototypicallyheteronormativeunderstandings.

53https://queeringesol.wordpress.com/seminar-5/(accessed31May2015).54Thisunithasbeenrenamed‘Controversy’inthe2005edition.55SeealsoGray(2013b:51–52)foradiscussionofthisremake.


Evensuchportrayalsarerare,however,andmultimodalreadingspreventusfrommakinganyclaimsabouttheir‘progressiveness’.ThisisthecasewithanexerciseinExam Explorer, whichincludesalisteningexercisecontaininginformationaboutheterosexualrelationships(thisisevidentinsuchphrasingas‘Iwouldn’tknowhowtocheerupmyfriendifshebrokeupwithherboyfriend’;p.15).Thesameexerciseincludesexampleswhereheterosexualityisnotdirectlystated,asinsentences:‘Ithinkyoungpeopledatetooearly–itdistractsthemfromschool’,‘Myparentsdon’tapproveofthepersonwho’sdatingtheirteenagechild’,and‘Idon’tmindkissingandhuggingpassionatelyinpublic’.However,theaccompanyingpicturedepictsateenageboyandgirlsittingveryclosetoeachother,lookingintoeachother’seyesandsmiling,whichpromptsaheteronormativereading.Wewanttocallthisprocess‘multimodaldisambiguation’.Itdrawsontheassumptionthatasinglemodality(inthiscase,thetext)opensuppossibilitiesofdiverse(sexuality-related)interpretations,butsuchreadingsarecurtailedbytheother,accompanyingmodality(here,thepicture)whichvirtuallyenforcesaheterosexualreading,closingdownotherpossiblereadings.Suchaprocessgainssignificanceinthelightoftheconceptof‘talkaroundthetext’(Sunderlandetal.,2002;seealsoChapter2)whichpotentiallyempowerstheteachertointroduce‘progressive’readings.Intheabovementionedcases,however,non-heteronormativereadingsexpressedin‘talkaroundthetext’islimited–unlesstheteacherdecidestogobeyondthetext.

Othertextbookshintatnon-normativereadings.Anexampleis‘FamilylifeintheUK’(New English Zone 3, p.45),whichstatesthat‘[a]bout30percentoffamiliesintheUKareone-parentfamilies’andintroducestheconceptsof‘separation’and‘divorce’.However,‘[w]ewitness,adramaticshiftin(…)thequalityandtypeofthenarrativeinthesecondpartofthistext:Phil’sfamilyispresented,again,withthemotherfulfillingthecommunalrolewhilethefatheristhebreadwinner’(PawelczykandPakuła,2015).56Yetanothertextbook(Exam Explorer, p.12)featuresaseeminglyprogressiveexampleofasingleunclewiththefollowingwords:‘UncleTonyismygodfather…UncleTonytreatsmelikehisownson.Maybeit’sbecausehe’ssingleanddoesn’thavekidsofhisown’.Thisallowsareadingofanon-heteronormativeidentity,andconstitutesa‘lesser’degreeofheteronormativity.

Withsuchobservationswearelefttoponderhowtomeasure‘degreesofheteronormativity’andwhatlevelcouldbeseenas‘satisfactory’?Ifbothglobalandlocalisedtextbooksavoidmentionsofnon-heterosexualitycompletely,howcanwesupplementthisgap?Gray(2013b:48)mentionsatleastthreepublications57thatexplicitlyaddressLGBTissuesandcanaddressthelackofsuchcontentinmainstreamtextbooks.These,sadly,aredifficulttoaccessbyPolishteachers,andstate-fundedinstitutionsarehighlyunlikelytobewillingtopurchasethem.Whatweareleftwith,then,arepublicationswhichserveassupplementaryresources.

Onewehavepersonallyencountered–butnotusedourselves–isTaboos and Issues(seeSection7.2forteachers’reflectionsonthis).Taboos and Issuescontains40photocopiablelessons,someofwhichreferencegayidentitiesexplicitly.Theydoso,however,inaveryunfavourableway.Thetitlepointstonon-heteronormativitybutalsosuggests‘deviance’.Thelexemegayismentionedmostextensivelyinalessonentitled‘AIDS’and,assuch,facilitatesacausalreadingbetweenthetwo.Useofgay(andgays)asanouninsteadofasamodifierevokestheimageofapersonasconstitutedpredominantlyintermsoftheirsexuality(alsoseeBaker,2008),andalsogaypeopleasamonolithicgroup(consideralsothephrasethe gays).

Whattodowhenateacherfeelsthattheirclasscouldbenefitfromsexuality-diversethemes?Hereweaskandtrytoanswertwoquestions:whatisrealisticthatisnotbeingdone,andwhatcouldinprinciplebedone?Wesuggestseekingoutrelevantprogressivematerialsavailableonvariouswebsites,andespeciallythosemostuptodateonthecurrentstateofaffairsfromanglophonecountriesandcultureswheremuchhasbeenwritten,forinstance,onnon-heterosexualpeopleandtheextensionoflegalmarriagetosame-sexpartners.Debatesoverthese‘hot’topicsfeaturedinthemainstreammediaprovidefruitfulmaterialforin-classdiscussions.Nelson(2007)advocatesincorporatinglocalthemesintoclassroomnarrativesandwesuggestthatdiscussingRobertBiedroń’s58electionforthepostofmayorofSłupskorAnnaGrodzka’s59seatinthePolishparliament–bothreportedoninnumerousnewspapersandmagazinesworldwide–constituteapowerfulresourcewhichcouldenablefurtherself-identificationonthepartofsomestudentsandopenupnewavenuesofthinkingaboutsocietyatlargeforall(seeO’Mochain,2006,forsimilarstrategies).

56SeeChapter6forteachers’reflectionsonthetext.57Theseare Choice Readings, Citizenship Materials for ESOL Learners and Impact Issues.58FirstopenlygaymayorandformerMPinthePolishParliament.59FirsttransgenderMPinthePolishParliamentandatpresenttheonlyoneworldwide.


5.4ConclusionManypreviousstudiesoftextbookshavetakenaquantitativeapproachandhaveconsistentlyandregrettablyfoundwomenandgirlsunderrepresentednumerically,andintherangeofactivities,occupationsanddiscourserolesindialogues(seeSection2.2).Thishasbeenimportantwork,raisingalsothequestionofthedesiderataofgenderrepresentation:crudely,giventheneedforimprovement,shouldtherebenotonlythesamenumberofwomenandmen,boysandgirls,asregardsbothtypesandtokens,butshouldwomenandmenalsoberepresentedasperformingthesamerangeofoccupations,withthesamefrequencies?Or,shouldtextbooksreflectcurrent(andperhapslikelyfuture)socialrealities?

Asourownstudyadoptsaqualitativeapproach,wedonotaddresssuchquestions(butseeSunderland,2015b).Wedo,however,sometimeshavetoaddresspatterns,whichhaveaquantitativeelement:apatternisconstitutedofseveralcomparableoccurrences,enablingustotalkabouttypicalityorrepresentativeness;ontheotherhand,asingleoccurrencemaybe‘telling’(Mitchell,1984;seealsoChapter6).Ourfindingsarebestdescribedas‘patchy’:progresswasevident,butsomebooksweremoreprogressivethanothers,forexampleEvolution 1(discussedabove).Weareawarethatthisblendingof‘contradictorydiscourses’might‘enablehegemonicmasculinitytowithstandtheriskoflarger,moredisruptivestructuralchanges’(Talbot,1998:186),butareoptimisticthatwhilethismaybetrueofrepresentation,progressive‘disruption’maycomefromusersofthetextbooks(seebelowandChapter6).

Wefoundnoexamplesofnon-heterosexualcharacters,whichwasnotsurprising.Publishers,writersandillustratorsmaywishtoconsidercreativewaysofrectifyingthisinfuture.Moresurprising,andlessobvious,wastheextentofheteronormativityevidenced(nuclearfamiliesabounded),andaccordinglythelackofexamplesoftextswhichatleastofferednon-heteronormativereadings.Here,publishers,writersandillustratorsmightliketoworkwithrepresentationswhichareatleast‘lessheteronormative’thanhitherto,andweseethisentirelyrealistic,evengiventheconsiderationsofglobalpublishingaswellasthecurrentPolishsocio-politicalcontext(seeChapters2and8).

Weremainconvinced,however,thatevenmoreimportantthantextbookrepresentationsiswhatis‘done’withthoserepresentationsinclass–bytheteacher,thestudentsandinclassroominteractionmoregenerally.Thisisthefocusofthefirstpartofthenextchapter.

Genderandsexualityinnaturallyoccurringclassroominteraction | 57

6Genderandsexualityinnaturallyoccurringclassroominteraction6.1IntroductionClassroominteractionintheverbalsenseisaratherspecialkindoftalk.Itisinstitutionalandmuchofit(thoughnotall)canbedescribedas‘public’.Eachclassroom,i.e.eachgroupofstudentslearningaparticularcurricularsubjectwithaparticularteacher,canbedescribedasacommunityofpractice(seeSection1.4),withparticularwaysofdoingthings,includingusinglanguage.Andthereareclearelementsofpower,muchofwhichresideswiththeteacher,whocaninfluenceagivenstudent’sclassroomlifebutalsotheirentirecareer,andwhoitisgenerallybelievedtalksapproximatelytwiceasmuchastheirstudentsputtogether.Powermayhoweveralsomakeitswayintotheclassroomfromoutsideinotherways,sothatstudentswhoaredisempoweredbeforetheystarttheirschooldaymaycontinuetobesowhentheyarriveatschool.Herewearetalkingabouthegemonicrelationsassociatedwithrelationsofclass,ethnicity,genderandsexuality.Inthischapterwelookathowthelasttwoofthesearemanifested,directlyorindirectly,inclassroomtalk.

6.2Classroomdiscourse:genderandsexualitymade(ir)relevantClassroomlearningandteachingarealwayssocial,andexplicitandimplicitlearningandteachingofacurricularsubjectcannotbeseparatedfromlearningandteachingabout(a)society(seeMenard-Warwicketal.,2014).Relatedly,nolanguage(includingthatproducedinaforeignlanguageclassroom)iseverproducedinasocialvacuum,andevenself-studyofgrammaticalstructuresinatextbookinvolvesreadingaboutindividualswhoarerecognisablymenorwomen,girlsorboys(Pawelczyketal.,2014).SteveJones(2006)proposesthateducationasaninstitutionconstructsandregulatesgenderedidentitiesandtypicallyendorseshegemonicmasculinity,‘emphasisedfemininity’(Connell,1987)andheterosexuality-as-the-norm(seealsoGray,2013a).Inviewofthis,itisinterestingtoexaminehowPolishteachersandstudentsorienttogenderandsexualityinclassroomtalkinEFLclassrooms.

Inthischapterwethereforedetailhowgenderandsexuality(aloneortogether)feature,becomerelevantoraremade(ir)relevantinEFLclassesinPolandinprimary,middle(gimnazjum)andhighschools.Wepresentourqualitativeanalysisofextractsfromprincipledselectionsofthenaturallyoccurringdatathatwerecollected(audio-recorded)duringclassroomobservations.Theextractsareaccompaniedbydetailsfromfieldnotesmadeduringtheobservations.Theanalyseddatapresentedbelowillustrateandevidencehowgenderand/orsexualityare‘triggered’or‘emerge’inEFLclasses.Werefermostlytoteacher–studentandstudent–teacherexchangesbutsometimestostudent–studentexchanges.InwhatfollowswethereforeaddressResearchQuestion(RQ)2:Howaregenderandsexualitymanifestedinteacher–studentandstudent–studentspokeninteraction(a)inrelationtoEFLtextbooks,and(b)moregenerally?Doteachersandstudentsdrawongenderideologies?Ifso,how?

6.3‘Gendercriticalpoints’WetakeasourstartingpointSunderlandetal.’s(2002:231)conceptof‘gendercriticalpoints’.Sunderland(2000a:154)concludedthat‘lookingatthetextalonemaybeafruitlessendeavour’.Accordingly,howclassroomparticipantsdealwith‘genderedtexts’,e.g.whatisdone withthetextbookrepresentationsinclass,needscloserinvestigation.Sincetextscanbeusedinvariousways,itisimportanttoscrutinisehowteachersandstudentsengagewithtexts(seeMartínez-Roldán,2005).Tolookat‘talkaroundthetext’(e.g.Lillis,2009;seealsoSunderlandetal.,2002)istoexplorehowlanguageteachersasanextensionoftheir‘readaloud’roletalkaboutgender,aspromptedbytextbooktexts.Explorationsof‘talkaroundthetext’intermsofgenderrepresentationcanthenfocusfirstonthosetextbooksectionsinwhichgenderisparticularlyevident–the‘gendercriticalpoint’:

…‘critical’ in the sense that, having reached such a point in the textbook, the teacher wouldthenhavetodosomethingabouttheparticulargenderrepresentation (even if that something was ‘playing it by the book’, or ignoring it). (Sunderlandetal,2002:231).

58 | Genderandsexualityinnaturallyoccurringclassroominteraction

Genderrepresentationentailsportrayalsofwomen,men,boys,girlsandgenderrelationsmorewidely,progressiveandconservative.Whatisofinterestishowthetextsare‘consumed’(Fairclough,1992)intermsof‘teachertreatment’aswellasinteacher–studentandstudent–studentexchanges(PawelczykandPakuła,2015).

Ateacher’s‘talkaroundthetext’mayconstituteaso-called‘teachablemoment’(Havighurst,1952),i.e.anideallearningopportunitytooffersomeinsighttostudents.Soateacher’sprogressive(andappealing)handlingofagenderedtextmaybeusedasatriggerforalivelyclassroomdiscussionduringwhichstudentsareabletoexplorecertainaspectsofprogressiveand/ornon-progressiveroles(includingnon-heteronormativeones)thatmenandwomenoccupy,perhapsinaparticularcommunity,alongwiththeirsocialimplicationsandconsequences(seeNelson,2007;Pawelczyketal.,2014).

Theanalysisbelowfocusesongendered‘talkaroundthetext’inteacher–studentinteractionsandthepotentialandactualnegotiation,challengeand/orrejectionaswellas‘uptake’ofdifferentgendereddiscourses.Variousscenariosmayemergeasteachersmaysubscribetoviewsapparentlyputforwardinthetextbookor,incontrast,challengethemandproposenewreading(s).Teachersmayalsoactivelypromptstudentstocommunicatetheirownopinionsontheseviews(notleasttohelplearnerstoconcurrentlyfurthertheirEFLcommunicativeskills),ortheymaysilencethem.Teachersplayavitalroleinhowthetextswillbedealtwithinclassroominteractionsandthushowthegenderedcontentwillbeconsumed.Althoughthis‘handling’hasconsequencesforallEFLlearners,youngstudentsareinaparticularly‘vulnerable’situationastheirtypicallylimitedforeignlanguageskillsandassociatedtrustintheirforeignlanguageteachersmaypreventthemfromresistingparticular,traditionalordominantreadings(PawelczykandPakuła,2015;Porreca,1984;DePalmaandAtkinson,2010).

6.4GenderandsexualityinclassroominteractionAnalysisoftheEFLtextbooksforthisstudy(seeChapter5)revealedthatgender(andheterosexuality)areextensivelydrawnonintexts.Inotherwords,numerousgendercriticalpointscouldbeandwereidentifiedinthetextbooksatallthreeschoollevels.Ourinteresthererelatesmainlytoteachers’actualorientationstospecific,selectedcasesofgenderandsexualitycontentandportrayal.SomeofthetextbookswelookathereinrelationtotalkwerethoseanalysedastextbooksinChapter5;somearenot.

Inallthreelevelsofschool,EFLteacherstypicallyorientedtothegendercriticalpointsintextbooksthroughacceptance,inthesensethattheytendednottochallengerepresentedconservativegenderrelationsortheomnipresent,covertandovertheteronormativity,ortoencouragediscussionofmoreprogressivegenderrelations.

However,someteacherstreatedtheirtextbooktextsdifferently.Inthissection,drawingontheempiricaldatagatheredinthecourseoftheproject,weproposetwonewnotions,i.e.‘gendertriggeredpoints’(Section6.3.1)and‘genderemergingpoints’(seeSection6.3.2).Basedonourobservationsofclassroominteraction,andinformedbytherationalebehinddevelopingtheconceptualapparatus,weaimtoillustratehowtheseconceptsplayoutinreal-lifeclassroominteraction.Wealsolookatwhatwecall‘educationalchit-chat’(seeSection6.3.3)andathowthiscanbegendered.

6.4.1‘Gendertriggeredpoints’(GTPs)Theteachersweobservedsometimes‘gendered’atextinaparticularwayandunpredictablewayintheirtalk(seePawelczykandPakuła,2015).Werefertothisphenomenonasa‘gendertriggeredpoint’.ExtendingSunderlandetal.’s(2002)conceptof‘gendercriticalpoint’tothenotionofthe‘gendertriggeredpoint’webelieveenrichestheanalyticalapparatusbyhighlightingthedynamiccharacterofclassroominteractionandinparticularthecentralroleofteachers(PawelczykandPakuła,2015).Intheanalysisbelow,wediscussteachers’own‘gendering’oftextsandshowhowtextscanbeconsumedinanewlygenderedmanner.


Incontrasttoa‘gendercriticalpoint’,a‘gendertriggeredpoint’(GTP)doesnotresideinthetextbookbutisaninteractionalelaborationofa(gendered)textbooktext.Hencetheterm‘triggered’,asaGTPwouldnotoccuraspartofclassroominteractionwereitnotforthetextbooktextorothermaterialsintroducedinthecourseofalesson.AGTPcanbebuiltoneithera‘gendercriticalpoint’oratextwhichissubsequentlyexplicitlygenderedbyclassroominteraction.Importantly,aGTPseemstobeateacher’stactictofacilitatelanguagelearning,i.e.genderisusedasaresourcethat(thesePolish)teachersexplicitlydrawonintheirtalk,tofacilitatesomeaspectofforeignlanguageteachingandlearning.Thisrelianceon‘genderasfacilitator’,however,tends(inourdata;thismaynotalwaysapply)toassumeaverybinary,rigidunderstandingofgender,withfemininityandmasculinitytreatedasboundedandtheboundariesnottobetransgressed.

Wefirst,however,presenttwoexamples(fromhighschoolandgimnazjum)whereidentifiedgendercriticalpointswereignored.

Thefirstcaseinvolvedhighschoolstudentsreadingoutloudatextaboutthenumberofchildreninfamilies(textbook:New Matura Solutions intermediate).Thetopicrevolvedaroundwhetheritis‘better’(andthemeaningof‘better’wastobedeconstructedinclassdiscussion)tohaveonechildormoreand,alongwithit,whetheritismorefavourabletobeanonlychildorhavebrothersandsisters–aparticularlygenderedtopicwithdifferentlayers.Intheevent,students’‘readingaloud’didnotleadtoanyspontaneousdiscussion:neitherthestudentsnortheirteachertookupthecontentofthereading.Thestudentswerethenaskedtoworkingroupsandpreparelistsofprosandconsconcerningbigfamilies,withtheaimtoprepareargumentsthatcouldbeusedinalargerproject,e.g.anessay.Thelistsofargumentscouldnicelyhavebeenusedaspromptsinadiscussionconcerninggenderissues,forexample,women’scareerpatterns,women’shealthandtheroleofmodernfathers.Thelistswere,however,onlyusedbytheteachertoexplicatethestructureofanessayandconsequentlyanimportantsocialdiscussionwasmissed.

Inthesecondcase(English Plus 2),gimnazjumstudentsweretocompleteaquestionnaireentitled‘Areyouhelpfularoundthehouse?’Thequestionnaireconsistedofsixquestionswiththreeansweroptionsforeachandwasaccompaniedbyanimageofagirlsittingonthefloorandtalkingonthephone.Thebackgroundoftheimagefeaturedamessyroom.Theimagecanbeseenasgenderedandprogressiveasitbreakstheconstructof‘emphasisedfemininity’whichconstructsfemalesasconcernedwithdomesticorderandneatness.Thistaskcouldhavepromptedaninterestingclassdiscussionaboutwho(boys,girls,orboth)shouldhelpkeepahousetidy.Suchadiscussion,however,didnottakeplace:theteacherinsteadfocusedoncheckingthestudents’answersandscores.

Wealsoobservedthatteachersrarelyorientedcriticallytoquiteconservativeandtraditionalportrayalsofwomenandmenintextbooks.Forinstance,inoneofthetextsatprimarylevel(Project 3;seeChapter5),thegirlwhoplayedalargeroleintherobberyisdescribedonlyintermsofherappearance(asiftomakeupforher‘unfriendly’personality).Again,however,nogender-relevantdiscussionwasinitiatedbytheteacher.Ateacher’sovertuptakeofgenderportrayalsintermsofelicitingstudents’ownviewsaboutit(betheyconservativeorprogressive)could,however,leadtoaninsightfulsociallyrelevantdiscussionandwouldalsoconstituteapedagogicallyusefulexerciseinwhichvariouscommunicativeskillscouldbeputintopractice.

Teacherswereindeedsometimesengagedinvalidatingatraditionalgendereddivisionoflabour(herehouseholdchores)byovertandcriticalcommentonbehaviourthattransgressesnormativegenderexpectations.Thefollowingdialoguebetweentheteacherandprimaryschoolstudentsfollowedthelisteningtask(inNew English Zone 3)abouthousework.Notethatthisextractinourdatahasbeentranscribedusingsomeconversationanalysisnotation.


(1)Dadsdon’tdohousework60T:teacher;S:student,Ss:students61

1. T: Whodoesmostofthehousework?

2. Ss: Mum!

3. T: Mum,yes.Whataboutyourfamily?

4. Ss: Mum!

5. T: Mum?Mum?

6. S: Mum

7. S: Dad!

8. S: Grandma

9. T: Haha,yes,ofcourse,you’vegotgrandma!so,grandma,yes

10. T: Whataboutyourfamily?

11. S: Dad

12. S: Mum

13. T: Mum?andyours?

14. S: Mum

15. T: OfcourseMum

16. S: Dad

17. T: Nextquestionnumberwho?

18. S: Dad

19. T: Dadinyourfamily,really?

20. S: Yeah

21. T: Wowthat’ssomethingdifferent

Inline1,studentswereaskedbytheteacheraboutthepersonintheirhomewhoisresponsiblefordoingthechores.Withinthisinteractionatraditionaldivisionoflabourwithinahouseholdwasinteractionallyconstructed.Mostofthestudents’responsesalignedwithatraditionalgendereddivisionoflabour(i.e.womendohouseholdchoresandmentendnotto)andareinteractionallyreinforcedbythefemaleteacher(e.g.ll.3,9,15).Oneofthestudents–whoseresponsehadbeensofarleftunattendedbytheteacher(ll.7and11)–managedinline16tovoicethathisdaddoesmostofthehousework.Theinteractionalstrategyofoverlapasevidencedinlines11,12and15,16–welldescribedbyconversationanalysts–allowsustoseehowthestudentisattemptingtovoicehisanswerwhichdoesnotresonatewiththedominantgenderedexpectations.

Theideaof‘doingchores’isconstruedasproblematicbytheteacherwhoproffereda‘repair’(Schegloffetal.,1977)inline17(‘who?’)–averbaldouble-take.Thestudent(l.18)repeatedtheiranswer,‘dad’.Theteacherimmediatelytopicalisedthisbyformulatingachallengingstatement(l.19),whoseformatconstructsamalefigureasatypicallyinvolvedinhouseholdduties.Whenthestudentconfirms(l.20)thatitisactuallyhisfatherinchargeofhousework,thisisfollowedbytheteacher’sovertcomment(‘wowthat’ssomethingdifferent’)constructing‘fathersdoingchores’asdivergingfromtheexpectednorm.

InthisdialoguewecanobservehowEFLteachersareeasilyinvolvednotonlyininteractionalanddiscursiveregulationbutalsolegitimisationofatraditionalgenderorder–althoughthisdialoguecouldhavegonedifferently.Asobservedby–amongothers–KarenPorreca(1984)andRenéeDePalmaandElizabethAtkinson(2010),youngchildreninparticulararesusceptibletotheirteacher’s(authoritative)voice.This,inturn,mayleadtochildren’sreluctancetovoiceany‘lessthantraditional’genderrelationsthattheyexperienceathomeandinthiswaydonotbenefitfromfullparticipationintheclassroomdiscourseandinteraction.AsaresulttheymaynotdevelopcertaincommunicativeEFLskillsaswellasothers.AsAnetaPavlenko(2004:59)claims:

… students whose voices are not being acknowledged in the classroom may lose their desire to learn the language or may even engage in passive resistance to classroom practices and curriculum demands.

Wealsofoundteacherswhointheirdiscoursedidchallengethetraditionalgenderorderandgenderrelations.InNew English Zone 3,primarystudentswereinvitedtorecountthetextbookdialogueentitled‘Familylife’whichtheyhadlistenedtoduringthepreviouslesson.Inthedialogue,‘Mumwasangrybecausenoonewantedtohelpheraroundthehouse;herhusbandandchildrenclaimedtobebusy’.Theteachertriedtoelicitthedetailsofthedialogue.

60ThisextractisalsodiscussedinPawelczykandPakuła(2015).61 FortranscriptionsymbolsforthisandallotherextractsinChapters6and7,seeAppendixE.


(2)Suddenlyhewantedtostudy?suddenly–saidinalowervoice

1. T: Whataboutthefirstdaughter,Jane?Whatwasherproblem?

2. S: Shewantedtohaveabath.

3. T: Shewantedtohaveabath,OK.WhataboutMatthew?Matthew?Hm?

4. Ss: Matthewhasgotalotofhomework.

5. T: Yeahohsuddenlyhewantedtostudyyeah?AndwhataboutLucy,hm?

Line5showshowtheteacherbyusingalowvoicequestionedMatthew’smotives.Theinteractionalpackagingofhercommentconstructsthisboy’sexcuseaslackingcredibility.Jane’sexcusewasnotproblematisedbytheteacher(nor,later,wasLucy’s).Theteacher’sinteractionalbehaviourinline5,whilesheisshowingscepticismtowardsMatthew’s‘reason’,canalsobeseenasconfirmingtraditionalgenderrelationswheremenandboysgetoutofactiveinvolvementinhouseholdduties.

Followingthisdiscussionthesameteachertriedtoelicitfromstudentshowtheyhelpathome:

(3)Whocleansthewindows?1. T: Doyoudrythedishes?MaybeAllyson?

Doyoudrythedishes?

2. Al: NoIdon’t.

3. T: ‘NoIdon’t’,good.Doyoudustthefurniture?

4. MS: YesIdo.

5. T: Yes?[astonishment].Inyourroomorinthewholeflat?

6. MS:Onlyinmyroom.

7. T: Onlyinyourroom.Ok,that’sthemostimportantyeah?

[linesomitted]

8. T: Doyoucleanthewindows?Judy?Doyouhelpyourmum?Whohelpstheirmumwithcleaningthewindows?

9. FS: Grandma

10. T: Ah!Grandmayes!![laughter]Reallygrandma![laughter]That’snice.Sowhocleansthewindows–nobody?

Theteacheractivelyasksherstudentsabouttheirinvolvementinhouseholdchores.Shebeginsbydirectingherquestiontoagirlandthenshiftsherattentiontoaboy,onlytoexpressheramazementathisanswer–thuscastingdisbeliefandconstructinghimasincapable/unwillingtoactivelyparticipateinhouseholddutiesandlinkingthetextbookrepresentationdiscussedinExtract2withreal-lifepractices(ll.3–7).Afewlineslater(l.8),anotherfemalestudentisaskedaboutwhethershehelpshermotherwithcleaningwindows.Theteacher,yetagain,andincontrasttoherstanceinExtract2,symbolicallyapprovesofthedistributionoflabourwhenthestudentrespondsthatitishermotherandgrandmotherwhoareinvolvedintheactivity.

Wealsorecordedinstancesofexplicitstudentnegotiationoftextbookcontentwherestudentsquestionedtextbookrepresentations.ThefollowingdialoguetookplacewhenthehighschoolteacheraskedtheclasstoproceedtoacommunicationexerciseattheendoftheNew Matura Solutions upper-intermediatestudent’sbook(exercise1,unit8F,p.160).Theintentionoftheexercise,whichusedphotographsofmenengagedinreplacinglightbulbs,installingsolarpanelsandridingabike,wastodiscussbeingeco-friendly(picturedescriptionisapartofthematuraexam).However,somestudentsidentifiedadifferentmessagetheydeemedmorerelevanttotheclassroom:


(4)Questioningrepresentations:menreplacelightbulbs,womenshop62

1. T: Ingeneralwhoandwhatcanyouseeinthephotographs?

[irrelevantfragmentomitted]

2. FS: Mens[dismissiveintonation]

3. T: Menmen–OKwhataretheydoing?

4. FS2: Workwork

5. T: Working?

6. FS: WellIdon’tthinkthelastoneisworking,Imeantheoneinthelastpicture.


7. T: Whataretheydoingingeneral?

8. FS3: They’redoingsomeeco-friendlythings.

9. T: MhmOKerm–doesitmeanthatwomenshouldn’tdothat?

10. FS3: NoIthinkImeanthatwomenalsoshoulddothat.

11. T: OK,sowhydidn’ttheypickapicturewithawomaninit?

12. S4: Justbecause.

[whispering]

13. T: Justbecause…[clearlyrisingintonation]Youmeantheydidn’thaveany?

14. MS4: Imeanitisn’tnecessary.Itdoesn’tmatterifthereisamanorawoman.

[laughterintheclass,somedisagreement]

15. T: Itdoesmatter,itdoesmattertome.Girls,whatdoyouthink–Icannotidentifywiththosepeoplehere?

16. FS5: Wellmaybetheydidn’twanttooffendwomenbuttheyjustforgot.

17. T: Butjust…?

18. FS5: Forgot.

19. T: Forgot?OK

20. MS4: Theydon’tthinkaboutitmaybebuttheyshould.

21. T: Doyouthinktheyshouldwhentheychoosepictures?

22. FS: Yeees.

23. T: Yesbecauseyoucanchangeabulb–yesbutitseemsthatit’saverymalething.

[whisperingbetweentwofemalestudents]

24. FS: Yesnowłaśnie[exactly]

25. T: Whatdoyouthink?What’sthediscussionabout?[directsherattentiontothewhisperingstudents]

26. FS: Wellinthetaskfromunit6thereareonlywomen.

[laughter]

27. T: ShoppingyesOK

[theunitisalsoonfoodandcooking]

28. T: Soyouthinkthattheseseriousthingscanbedoneonlybymen?

29. Manystudents[mixed]atthesametime:nooo…

30. T: Noofcoursenot,that’saveryinterestingthing,andyou’venoticedit,yes?OKgood–solet’sreadtheinstructions.OKKate,couldyoureadtheinstructionsplease?

Theimmediateanswertotheinitialquestionposedbytheteacherresultsinanexplicitorientationtogenderbythestudents’foregroundingofmenasperformingtheactivitiesdepictedinthephotographs.Havingelicitedthatthesepicturesalldealwithbeingeco-friendly(ll.7–10),theteacherherselfreturnstothesegender-relatedremarks.Theinteractionthatfollows(ll.12–18)downplaystheimportanceofthegenderissuesignalledinline1bythestudents,whosaythatitisirrelevantwho,i.e.menorwomen,performtheseactivities(theyincludelightbulbreplacement,solarpanelinstallation,andcycling).Anotherstudent(l.20),however,signalsthatthechoiceofpicturestobeincludedinatextbookisimportant,andthisiscorroboratedbyotherstudents.

Followingthisexchange,theteacherevokestheideaofamaledomain(l.23),andclearlythepicturescouldbesaidtoshowthis–repairing,doingsports.Thisismetwithcomplementaryobservationsbytwofemalestudentswhonoticethatanothercommunicationexercise(onthesamepage),withafocusonshopping,featureswomenonly(l.26).Thisinstantiatesacriticalengagementwiththeparticularmultimodalrepresentation.This,however,wouldnothavebeenpossiblehadtheteachernotrecognisedtheimportanceofthestudent’sremarkinline2.Theteacher,then,bypickinguponthedisagreementvoicedbythestudentwhointentionallyhighlightedtheall-malepresenceinthevisualstimuli(l.2),createdasafeenvironmentfordiscussinganoff-topicremark.Inthiswaythelanguageclassroomcanbeconsideredanenvironmentwherethesocialislinkedcloselytothelinguistic,andwherestudentscan,withtherightteacher,feelcomfortableand

62Thisextracthasbeenreproducedatlength,asitseemsexceptionalduetothestudent-inspiredquestioningofthetextbookrepresentation.


willingtoexpresstheirobservations(seealsoline30,wheretheteacherexpressesappreciationofthisinput).

Alsoimportantinthisinteractionisbringingofthepersonalintothepublic.Theteacherisopenaboutherownfeelingstowardssuchportrayalsandbringsuptheissueof(non-)identification(seealsoBlock,2014)withthemultimodalrepresentations(l.15).Byobservingthatshecannotrelateherownexperiencestothosedepictedinthetextbook,sheimplicitlyencouragesher(female)studentstobecriticalofthetextbookcontent.

Anotherextractwithhighschoolstudentsconcernsageandgendermadeexplicitinagrammarexercise.Theteacher,whoknewabouttheobjectivesofourproject,toldusshechangedthetopicandappearedtoberespondingtoagendercriticalpointinagendertriggeredway(New Matura Solutions intermediate).However,shedidthiswithoutanyovertrequestfromus.Shehadapparentlydecidedthatthistextbookmaterialheldmorepromiseinprovidinguswithdatathanthetextshewascurrentlyworkingonwiththeclass.Thefollowingtalkrevolvesaroundalisteninglead-inexercisewherestudentsaretocompletegapsinadialogue.Allthemissingitemsareconstitutivepartsofthethirdconditional(‘Ifwehadhurried,wewouldhave….’).Yetthedialogueitselfhasapowerfulmultimodaldimension:boththetextandtheimagepresentamotherdisciplininghersonforbeinglate.Beforelisteningtotherecording,theteacheraskedherstudentstoreflectontheirpersonalexperiencesoneitherfollowingorbreachingrulesoncomingbackhomelate:

(5)Wherehaveyoubeen?:rulesoncominghome1. T: WhataboutyouAdrian?

2. Ad: WellIhavetobehomeatabout11.

3. T: Areyou18ornotyet?

4. Ad: Nonotyet.

5. T: Whenareyougoingtobe18?

6. Ad: InAugust

7. T: August


8. Ad: Nothingwillchangebecausemymotherissimplyworriedaboutme,soIhavetobehomeat10or11pmunlessItellherthatI’mgoingtobelater,thenIcanbeoutIdon’tknowtill1ammaximum,andthenextdayshehastogotowork.IfIdon’tletherknowshekeepswaitingforme.

9. T: Andit’syourmumnotyourdadwhostaysandwaitsforyou?

10. Ad: NowhenI’min[cityname]athishousehedoesn’tseemtocaremuch.

11. T: Orhejustgivesyoumorefreedom?

12. T: Iftherearesiblingsathomearetheredifferentrulessetforthem.Paulinayouseemtowanttosaysomething?

13. Pa: BecauseIhavemorefreedomthanmysister–mysisterisolderthanme.

Thisinteractionisimportantforourpurposesfortworeasons:thetalkabouttheemotionaldivisionoflabourofparentswiththeirchildren,andgender-relatedrightsattributedtothestudentsbytheirparents.Inline8thestudentdirectlyorientstowardshismother,whoisapparentlythedomesticrulestipulatorandkeeper.Sheistobenotifiedwhenhersoncomesbackhome,andthestudentdoesnotseemtoquestionthis.Whengenderismaderelevantindirectly,i.e.bytheteacherinvokingthefatherandhispossibleinsistenceonsimilarrules(ll.9,11),thestudentdismissesthiswith‘hedoesn’tseemtocaremuch’.Theteacherthenurgesherstudentstoanalysetherules-on-coming-back-home-lateissueinamorecomplexmanner,i.e.sheasksforacriticallookatruleadherenceacrosssiblings:

14. T: Kateandwhataboutyou–youhaveabrotherormorebrothers?

15. Ka: Onebrother.

16. T: Onebrother.Doyouthinkyouarebeingtreateddifferently?

17. Ka: Myparentsalwaystellustheyloveusequally.

18. T: Mhmgood

19. Ka: ButwhenitcomestoIdon’tknowwhenitcomestowhenmybrotherwantstogotoWarsawtheysayit’sOKhecango,butwhenIwantedtoWrocławtheysaidthattheywouldgowithme,nomatterthatIumIumIwantedtomeetwithmyfriendsthere,andmybrotherhavenofriendsinWarsaw.

20. T: Mmhm

21. Ka: Buttheydidn’tletmegoso…

22. T: Isee,butisitamatterofyoubeingagirlandhimbeingaboyor…?

23. Ka: Yes,yes

24. T: Orhimbeingolder?


25. Ka: Yes,Ithinkit’sbecausehe’saboyandI’magirl.

26. T: Sotheyworryaboutyoualittlebitmore,yes?

27. Ka: Yes

28. T: Andaremoreconfidentabouthimanddoyouthinkit’sunfair?

29. Ka: Idon’tknowIthinkit’snormal.

30. T: Hm,soyouacceptitbecausethisisthewaythingsare–anddoyouthinkit’sthesameinotherfamilieswherethereareboysandgirls?

31. Ka: Yesit’sthesame.

32. T: Soyouacceptitandit’squiteunderstandingunderstandableforyou.

Thediscussionturnsintoagender-polarisedanalysisoftherightsofboysandgirlswithinagivenhousehold,i.e.genderisbeingmaderelevant(l.14).Kateisencouragedtocomparetherightssheandherbrotherenjoyandcomestotheconclusionthatherfreedomissomewhatcurtailedwithrespecttoherbrother’s(ll.14–22).However,whentheteacheroffersherthepossibilityofcriticalevaluation,sherejectsitbydrawingonadiscourseof‘normality’toaccountforthedifferenttreatmentofboysandgirls.Theteacher,however,consistentlymaintainstheclassroomasasafespaceandsecuresKate’sstancebyacknowledgingnon-criticallywhatshesaid.

Thefollowingexchangecomesfromagimnazjumlessonandisaspeaking/vocabularyextensionexercise(Repetytorium gimnazjalne,exercise11,p.122).Theteacherattemptstoinvolveoneofthestudents,sittingattheback,intheclassroomdiscussion.Shedoessoexplicitlyandmanagestogethimtalking:

(6)Yogaisforgirls1. T: Doyouwanttotakepartinthelesson

today,doyouwanttosayanything,yesorno?

2. MS: Yes

3. T: So,whichsportwouldyouliketochoose,whichofthecourseshmfromtwo…[longsilence]Doyoulikeyoga?

4. MS: No

5. T: Whynot?

6. MS: Becau–becauseit’sforgirls.

7. T: Haha,it’sforgirls,sowhatisforboys…[longsilence]Whatdoyouthink,icehockey?

8. MS: Yes.

9. T: Whyforboysnotforgirls?[silence]Whyisitforboysaccordingtoyou?

10. MS: Becauseit’sbrutal.

11. T: Ah,it’sviolenthm…[silence]Whyisitviolent,justbecauseoftherulesofthegame?

[longsilence]

12. MS: Yes

13. T: Wouldyouliketochooseicehockeyforyourself?

14. MS: No

15. T: Sowhichone?

[longsilence]

16. MS: Jak powiedzieć ‘żadne z tych’?[Howtosay‘noneofthem’?]

17. T: Noneofthem

18. MS: Noneofthem

19. T: OK,sowhatisyourfavouritesport–doyoulikesport?

20. MS: Yes

21. T: Whatisyourfavouriteone?

22. MS: ActuallyAmericanfootball

23. T: Americanfootball,mm,it’snotpopularinPolandIthink,isit?

Inthistranscript,wewitnessamalestudentbeingverypassive.Hedoesnotseemeagertoparticipateinthediscussionandforthisreasonhebecomesthefocusoftheteacher’sattention(seeSunderland,2004:90–100).Whenconfrontedwiththequestionofhispreferredsportsandthesuggestionthatyogamightbeone(l.3),heisveryclearaboutwhocandoit,i.e.‘it’sforgirls’(l.6).Theteacherdoesnotallowhimtocriticallyreflectonhisstanceandsendsasignalofapprovalbymeansof‘friendly’laughterandaskingforexamplesofmalesports.Theboyconstructssportswhichentailacertaindegreeofviolence,suchasicehockey(ateacher-inspiredexample),asatypicallymaledomain,butexpressesnointerestineitheryogaoricehockey,optingforAmericanfootball.Thisexchangeshowshowgendereddiscoursepermeatesyetanothersphereofyoungpeople’slives–sports.Whilesomeare‘masculine’,othersarecastintothefemaledomain.Regrettably,theteacherdoesnotrefertothecollectiveexperienceoftheclasstoseekdiversestancesontheissuebutratheruncriticallyacceptstheboy’sopinionandmoveson.Potentiallythiscouldbeinterpreted,bytherestoftheEFLclassparticipants,astacitapprovalofthisparticularformofgender‘appropriacy’andcould‘other’theirown,different,experiences.


Thefollowingconversationtookplacewhileprimarystudentswereworkingonalead-inpre-writingexerciseon‘aschooluniformproject’(Evolution 2).Theteacherisattemptingtoelicitstudents’opinionsonadesirableschooluniform:

(7)Skirtsareforgirlsonly1. T: Tellme,whatisyouridealschooluniform?

Whatwouldyouliketoweartoschoolasauniform?Whowantstosay?[silence]Whatwantstosayabouthisorherfavouriteschooluniform?Agneswhatwouldyouliketoweartoschoolasaschooluniform?

2. Ag: AblueT-shirt.

3. T: Aha,youwouldliketohaveablueT-shirt.

4. Ag: Andayellowskirt.

5. T: Andablueshirttoo?

6. Ag: Yellow

7. T: Ayellowshirt.OK.[longsilence]Sothiswouldbeyourperfectschooluniform.Doyoulikeblueandyellow?

8. Ag: Yes

9. T: Andthecombinationofyellowandblueisnice?

10. MS1: Ishorrible.

11. T: Nick,whataboutyou?Whatwouldyouliketoweartoschoolasauniform?[silence]Forsurenotaskirt,right?Notaskirt.No–youarenotScottish.[laughter]

12. Ni: YellowT-shirt.

13. T: Aha.[longsilence]AyellowT-shirtplus…[longsilence]Trousersorjeans?

14. Ni: Bluetrousers.

Arelateddiscourseofmasculinitywasobservedwithregardtostudentattire.BoththeteacherandthefemalestudentconstructaT-shirtandaskirtasamodelschooluniform,indirectlysignifyingfemininity.Furthermore,‘symbolicfemininity’isreinforcedbytheorientationtocoloursoftheclothes(ll.2–9).Thisexchangeisinterruptedbyamalestudentexpressinglackofhisappreciationofthecombinationofblueandyellowinline10(‘it’shorrible’).Inthenextturn(l.11),theteacherorientstopiecesofclothingasgenderedandreproducesthisnorminherpenultimateturn(‘ayellowT-shirtplustrousersorjeans’).Noticetheuseof‘Forsurenotaskirt’furtherreinforcedby‘you’renotScottish’andlaughter.TheremarkaboutbeingScottishandthelaughterareutilisedas‘policing’toolsstrengtheningtheheteronormativityofdresscodes(aboywearing

askirtwouldbeconsideredastransgressionofsuchanorminthePolishcontext,whereasthereverse–agirlwearingtrousers–wouldnot).63

Inthenextextract,afemalehighschoolteachertriestodrawthestudents’attentiontogender.IntheexerciseinNew Matura Solutions intermediate(exercise5,p.85)onwhichshebuildsherquestion,twomen–JimandMark–aretalkingaboutarecentlypurchasedvehicle.Theteacherdrawsherstudents’attentiontotheabsenceofwomenfromthisconversation:

(8)Drivingandcooking:whoseexpertise?1. T: Iftwowomenwerehavingthisconversation

woulditlooksounddifferent?[silence]Wouldtwowomenhaveaconversationlikethis?Ishouldprobablystart…

[whispering]

2. T: [smilingandwithrisingintonation]no…

[laughter]

3. T: Whynot?

4. MS: Womenandcars

5. T: Hmnotsomuchthething,yes?[risingintonation]

[laughter]

6. MS2: Maybeaboutsomedishesorsomething.

[laughter]

Theinitiallines(ll.1and3)createasafespaceforexploringthisexercisedialoguethroughagenderlens.However,therewasnoquestioningoftheall-malerepresentationinthedialogue.Incontrast,malestudentsdominatethefloorbydrawingongenderstereotypes.Despitethis,theteacherispersistentinherattemptatmakingthefemalevoicesheard:

7. T: Aboutwhat?[shortsilence]OK,whataboutthecars,couldyourepeatwhatyousaidbecauseI…

8. MS2: Maybewomencouldtalklikethataboutsomedishesorsomethinglikethatbut…

9. T: Dishes,cooking,children,yes…[easilydetectableirony]

10. MS2: Mykitchenlooksgreat.

11. T: Hehheh…[slightlaughter]Soifawomanboughtacarshewouldn’ttalkaboutitwithanybody?Doyouthink?

12. MS3:Shewould.

63Kopciewicz(2011)talksaboutdiscipliningfemalelooks,inthePolishcontext,butthisalsoappliestomenandhasthepotentialtooccurinvariousclasses.


13. T: Averyexoticidea–awomanbuysacar.[easilydetectableirony]

[laughter]

14. T: Whathappensnext?Whatdoesshetalkabout?

15. MS4: Becauseshewouldn’tknowwhatisbrokendowninthiscar.

16. T: HhahahahaSomewomenknowalothehheh…OK,howaboutyourmums?Howmuchdotheyknowaboutthecarstheyhave?

17. MS4: Thecolour.

[laughter]

18. T: Only?really?

Theteacherconsequentlykeepsthedooropenforanyincomingfemaleopinions.Sofar,itisonlymalestudentswhoarewillingtovoicehighlystereotypicalopinionsregardingthefemaleexpertiseinthedomainofcars(‘talkingaboutdishes’,‘shewouldn’tknowwhat’sbrokendown’,‘theyknowthecolourofthecar’)(ll.8,15and17).Theteacherintroducesthesubversivetechniqueofironyintotheexchangetocontestthestereotypedimagesofwomenasconstructedbytheboys.

[linesomitted]

19. T: Girlsyoudidn’tsayanything,doyouagreewiththem?Ann,doyou?Veronica?[shortsilence]Noopinion?Saysomething,saysomething!Doyouknowwomenwhoareinterestedincars?

[linesomitted]

20. FS1: Butmymummustknoweverythingaboutcarbecausemydaddon’thaveadrivinglicence.

21. T: Doesn’thaveadrivinglicence,andyourmumdoes,yesyourmumhasadrivinglicenceandshedrivesthecar?

22. FS1: Yes

23. T: See?[risingintonation]It’snotalwayssoobvious,aha,andshehastotakecareofthecar,yes?Andhowdoesshedothat,canshemanage?

24. FS1: Yesshecan.

Line19exemplifiesperseveranceonthepartoftheteacherinthefaceoftheboys’dominanceofthefloor.Inthefollowingturnagirlintroducesanewperspective:hermotheristheonlydriverinherfamily.Furthermore,themotherisconstruedascapableofhandlinganyissuesarisingwithregardtocareofthecar.Hadnotitbeenfortheteacher’sdrivetoactivatethefemalevoicewithintheclassroom,themale-decentredperspectivemaynothavebeenheardandthegender-stereotypicalexamplesthuslegitimised.

Thefollowinginteractionscomefromaclasswhichwasacontinuationofapreviousdiscussionofgenderstereotypingandwhichrevolvedaroundanextract64fromthenowinfamous(inthesociolinguisticmilieu)65Men are from Mars, Women are from VenusbyJohnGray(1992).66Thistextispremisedon(essentialised)genderdifferencesandpromotesasimplifiedgender-differencemodelofcommunicationandpractices.Theinteractionsbelowtookplaceafterpairworkpreparations.Thestudentswereaskedtolookatalistofeverydayactivities(shoppingforshoes,talkingtoaspouse,talkingtotheirmotheronthephone,cleaningthehouse,hangingoutorspendingfreetimewithafriendofthesamegender,readingmapsandnavigating,andplayingsports)andtosayhow,accordingtostereotypesandtheirpersonalexperiences,womenandmenintheirculturedifferedwithrespecttotheseactivities.Thestudentsparticipatedinthepairworkdiscussionsprecedingthein-classdiscussioninaverylivelyway.

64Thenameofthetextbookhasnotbeenprovideddeliberately,toprotecttheidentityoftheProjectparticipants,asonlyahandfulofschoolsinPolanduseit.65Foracomprehensivecritiquesee,forinstance,Cameron(2007).66ThisisJohnGraywhoauthoredMen are from Mars, Women are from Venus.JohnGray(2013a,2013b)isaresearcheraffiliatedwiththeInstituteofEducationatthe

UniversityofLondon,andaverydifferentperson.WedrawontheresearchofthesecondJohnGray,especiallywhendiscussingheteronormativity(seeSection5.2).


(9)MarsandVenusrevisited1. T: Let’sshareumyourthoughtswiththegroup

um–shoppingforshoesstereotype…

2. FS: Girlsusuallytrylotsofpairsofshoeswhileboysjustsitandcomplainthatwespendtoomuchtime

3. Sue: [mockingboys’moaning]‘awwcanwegoawaynow?’

4. T: Mhm,OK

5. FS: Butwhen…

6. T: Yourexperience?Isitthesame?

7. FS: Yes

8. MS1: Yes

9. Sue: Ihateshopping.Idon’tshop.

10. T: OKSue?

11. Sue: Ihateshopping.

12. T: Youhateshopping.

13. Sue: UnlessI’minamoodtogoshoppingandtotryonnumerousshoes,dresses,whatever,Ireallyhateshopping.

14. T: Mm,OK[fallingintonation],gentlemen…[fallingintonation]

[laughter]

15. T: Doyoulikeshoppingforshoes?

16. MS (many):no[laughter]

17. T: Soyoufitthestereotype,Adam.

18. Ad: No.

19. T: Becauseyouwerelikenotsure?

[laughter]

T: Mm,itdependsonwhat?Denis?

20. Den: Ihatelookingfortheshoeslikebootsforwinter.

21. T: Mhm

22. Den: Ihateit.

23. T: Youhateit?

24. Den: Whenitcomestonormalshoesit’saratherquickdecision,it’snotsomethingdifficult.

25. T: Butcanyousayyoulikeit,youdon’tmind?

26. Den: Idon’tmind,it’s…

27. Sue: It’saduty.

28. T: It’sadutynotapleasure.

[laughter]

29. Den: Notapleasure,yeah.

Theteacherelicitsstudents’responsesandactivelyseeksdifferentopinions.Thisencouragedaspectrumofdifferentstereotypesand,followingthis,juxtapositionofthestereotypeswithstudents’ownexperiences.Thesetendtogoeitherhandinhandwithstereotypes(ll.7–8)orcontrarytothem(ll.11–20).Importantly,thesevoicesareacknowledgedandappreciatedbutnotevaluated(neitherbytheteachernorotherstudents).Suchaconduciveenvironmentmakesstudentsmorewillingtoparticipateandresultsinin-depthintrospectionandrecollection(ll.19–26).

30. T: Right,talkingtohisorhermotheronthephonestereotype…

[omissionofirrelevantutterances]

31. T: Gentlemen

32. MS3: Ithinkthatinourexample…likewhenMonikacallshermothertheytalkbasicallyabouteverything…

[laughter]

33. T: OK

34. MS3: Fromthingswhattheydidandetcetera–andwhenIcallmymotherIusuallyIdon’tknowchangeinformationorwhenIwantsomethingparticularnotjustbecauseIwanttocall.

[linesomitted]

Comparisonandcontrastofgender-relateddifferencesisalsowelcomeandnotquestionedbyanyone.Studentsseemateasetoexpresstheirownviewsandprovideexemplification.Here,lines30–34reproducethe‘talkativewomen’stereotype.

Thenextextractconcernshouseholdlabourandisreproducedforthesakeofcomparisonwiththeprecedingextracts:

35. T: Hm,OK,others,what’syourexperienceinthatcase–boysdoyouparticipateincleaning?

36. Ss: Yes

37. T: Whodoesthemainjob?

38. MS4: Meandmybrother.

[soundsofsurprise]

39. T: Youandyourbrother,OK,good,welldone.OK,soitdoesnotfitthestereotype,yes,OK?

[linesomitted]


IncontrasttotheteacherfromExtract1,thisteacherdoesnotexpressheramazementatthefactthathouseholdchoresarethejoboftwomeninafamilybutacknowledgesitcriticallyandmakessurethatthisvoiceisheardbymeansofrepetitionandacknowledgementdevicessuchas‘OK’and‘welldone’(l.39).Thedialoguecontinues:

40. T: OK,readingmapsandnavigatingstereotype…

[omission]

41. FS1: …thatwomenareterriblenavigators.

42. T: OK,andwhat’sthereality?

43. FS1: Inmycaseit’stotallyopposite,yeah,definitely,cosmy…

44. T: Soyourmumdoesthenavigating?

45. FS1: yeahyeahyeah

46. T: Isshegoodatit?

47. FS1: Yeahdefinitely,myfatherdon’tcareaboutthenavigatornavigatingheonlydrivesthecarand…

Progressiveviewsarealsoexpressedwhentheclassdiscussesthemythof‘poorwomennavigators’.Inline41,thefemalestudentcriticallyidentifiesthestereotypeandproceedstoelaborate,castingherfather’snavigatingabilitiesindoubt(‘heonlydrivesthecar’,l.48).Theclassthenmovesontostereotypessurroundingcookingabilities:

48. T: Whataboutcooking,what’sthestereotype?

49. Ss: Womencook.

50. T: Womencookwhere?

51. Ss: Athome.

52. T: Athome,hm.Whataboutrestaurants,what’sthestereotype?

53. FS2: Tobehonestit’sdivided,butIthinkthattherearemoremeninthekitchen.

54. Ss: Yeah

55. T: Topchefsareusuallymen,right,andwhat’sthereality,what’syourexperienceinthatcase?

56. MS3: Inmycaseit’stotallydifferent–myfatherisabettercooker.

57. T: Cook

58. MS3: Cook

[laughter]

59. T: It’sOK.

Generally,inthisinteractiontheteacherpositionsherselfasamoderatorratherthananevaluativeauthority.Sheachievesthisbyconstructingherselfasanactivelistenerthroughtheuseofsuchinteractionaldevicessuchas‘OK’,‘yes’,‘mhm’,whichencouragethestudentstospeak(duringthisobservation,itwasnoticeablethatthestudentsfeltcomfortableinthecompanyoftheteacher).Shealsoensuresasafespacefortheexpressionofopinionsandnon-judgementalreceptionthroughnumerousrepetitions(acknowledgements)ofstudents’answers(e.g.l.23),and–atthesametime–treatingthevariousvoicesonaparwithoneanother.Forinstance,sheacknowledgesbothprogressiveandnon-progressiverolesthatthestudentssharewiththeclasswithoutfurtherevaluation.Thistacticispolesapartfromthetacticsexhibitedbyotherteachers(ininteractions1,2,3,and6),whosecontributionstothedialoguesseemedtoactinthenameofnormativity(beitaheterosocialdivisionoflabourorconstruingsomesportsasmoremasculinethanothers).

Thisteacherorientstogenderinatwofoldmanner.First,sheusesthewordgentlementwice(ll.14,31)–adirecttranslationofpanowiewhichisaformalPolishtermofaddressforadultmen,sometimesemployedalsoinalessformalorjocularmanner.Shedoessofirsttoencouragetheboys’participationwhenthetopicis‘shopping’(l.14),butorientingtogenderinthissomewhatironicwaycanalsobeseenasacknowledgingthegendereddiscoursesinthisdiscussion.Secondly,sheorientstothestudents’(gendered)experiencesoutsidetheclassroombyaskingthemtodrawontheirpersonalexperiencesandcriticallyreflectonthetextbookcontent.Thus,shedoesnotteachonlylanguageper se,butalsoactivelyconstructsanenvironmentconducivetodevelopingcriticalthinkingskills.


HavingestablishedthatMen are from Mars… utilisesstereotypesandthatthestudentsacceptthis,theteachertheninformsthestudentsofthehugesuccessofthepublicationandasksforthereason:

60. T: Whydoyouthinkit’ssopopularsuchapopularself-helpbook?

61. FS1: Maybebecausepeopleareinterestedinunderstandingtheothergender…

62. T: Hm…

63. FS1: Butit’sbasedonstereotypes…

64. T: Whyisitsopopularthen?

65. FS1: Becausepeoplebelieveinstereotypesand…

66. T: Dowelikestereotypes?Whydopeoplelikestereotypesespeciallygenderstereotypes?

67. FS1: Becauseforexampleformenit’scomfortabletothinkthewomanisabettercooksosheshouldcookeverytime.

68. T: OK

FS1criticallyreflectsonthepopularityofMen are from Mars…Importantlythiscomesfromthestudentherself,aidedbytheteacheronlyinherroleofcreatingasafespaceforexpressingopinions.Followingthis,theteacherinformedthestudentsofthecontroversialnatureofthepublicationandaddedthatitreceivedalotofcriticism(research-informedknowledgetransmission).Inalaterone-to-oneconversationwithoneoftheresearchers,shesaidthenextclasswouldbebasedonarecordingofalecturecriticisingGray’sbook.Thisinteractionexemplifiesateacherwhofacilitatesandsupportsactiveandcriticalengagementwithteachingmaterials(seeNelson,2006).

6.4.2‘Genderemergingpoints’(GEPs)67

Sofarwehavediscussed‘gendercriticalpoints’and‘gendertriggeredpoints’.Nowwewishtointroducetheconceptofthe‘genderemergingpoint’(GEP).AcrucialfeatureoftheGEPisthatnotextisrequiredforittobeemployedanditis(usually)initiatedbythemostpowerfulparticipantintheclass,i.e.theteacher.GEPscantaketheformofdividingtheclassintosame-sexgroupsordirectingonetypeofquestionstomalesandanothertofemales,perhapswiththeintentionoffacilitatingtheprocessoflanguagelearning(andteaching).BelowweexemplifyuseoftheGEPwithempiricaldata.68

Duringoneoftheprimaryschoolclasses,thestudentswerepractisingthegrammaticalstructurethesecondconditional(e.g.‘Ifitrained,I’d…’).Intheirtextbook(Starland 3)oneexerciseasksstudentstocompletesentencesstartingwiththeprompts:‘IfIwereananimal,I’dbe…;IfIwereaflower,I’dbe…;IfIwereacolour,I’dbe…;IfIwereafooditem,I’dbe…’Theteacher’sbookadvisestheteachertoexplainthetask,allowtimeforitscompletionandthenaskstudentstocomparetheiranswers.Theexercisewas,however,refocusedbytheteacherwhoputtwosentencesontheboardwiththeclearinstructionthatonewastobecompletedbygirls(‘IfIwereaflower…’)andtheotherbyboys(‘IfIwereacar…’).Theteacherdrewonthecategoryofgenderto(potentially)facilitatetheprocessofteachingandlearningtheseconditionalstructures.YetshedidsoinawaywhichalsohadthepotentialtosuggesttotheyoungEFLlearnersasenseofaworldbasedbinarilyongender(cf.discourseassociallyconstitutive(Fairclough,1992)).

Inthesecondexercise(alsousingStarland 3),thesamestudentswereaskedbytheteacherwhichtelevisionprogrammestheyenjoyedwatching.Theaimwastopractisethenamesofvarioustelevisionproductions.Thetaskwasbasedonatextbookexercisethatofferedalistoftenprogrammesrangingfromthenewstosoapoperas.Theteacher’sbookinstructstheteachertoelicitwhichtypesofprogrammesstudentsenjoybyaskingquestions.Thisteacher,however,againrefocusedtheexercisebyaskinggirlsandboysdifferentsetsofquestions:theboysaboutsportsprogrammes,quizshows,documentariesandthenews;thegirlsaboutsoapoperas,sitcoms,comedyshowsandcartoons.Theteacherthenaskedthestudentstoaskoneanothersimilarquestions;interestingly,thoughworryingly,thepatternsetupbytheteacherwasfollowedbythestudents:boyswereaskedaboutthenewsandsports,girlsaboutsitcomsandsoapoperas.Againanoriginallynon-genderedlexicaltaskwasturnedintoagenderedactivitybytheteacher.Regrettably,byusingonlysomeofthevocabularyitems,thestudentsdidnotgettopractisealltheitemsthattheexerciseaimedat.Whattheyindeedpractised,though,wasseeingtheactivityofwatchingtelevisionasagenderedpracticewhereboysandgirlsareexpectedtowatchdifferentprogrammes.

67Sunderlandetal.(2002:260)talkabout‘genderedtalkaroundnon-genderedtexts’,givingtheexampleofateacherdealingwithatextaboutwine-making,writteninthepassive,iftheteacherrefers,say,tomanagersas‘he’,andtalksaboutgender-differentialtendenciesofwomenandmentogetdrunk.

68ThetwoexamplestofollowarealsodiscussedinPawelczykandPakuła(2015).


Wealsocollectedvariousexamplesofteacherspointingtoeithergirlsorboysasbest‘qualified’totackleaspecifictask.Thesepointtoanoverarching‘discourseofgenderdifference’(Sunderland,2004)thatcharacterisesthestructuringofmanyclassroomtasksintheseEFLclasses(and,ofcourse,beyond).

Inamiddleschool(gimnazjum)class,thestudentswerepractisingtheuseofcomparativeadjectivesandwereaskedtoconstructsentencestoillustratethese.Indescribingthetask,theteacheraddressedtheboyswith:

T: możecie porównać samochody, samoloty

T: [youcancomparecarsandplanes]

Theseexamplesillustratetheeverydaynatureofteachers’relianceongenderedexpectationsandgenderideologiesintheirclassroomdiscourse,throughwhichtheypositionboysandgirlsascompetentatdifferenttasksandpotentialfutureexpertsindifferentfields.Theteachersweobserveddidnotseemawareofmakingsuchgenderedcommentsintheirlessons.

Thelastexamplecomesfromahighschoollessonduringwhichtheissueofwhetheritisbettertotakealoanandbuyone’sownapartmentortorentonewasdiscussed.Inadiscussionabouttheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofloans,theteacheraskedmainlyboysquestionsaboutfinanceingeneral.Thegirlswerenotencouragedtojoinin.Thisclearlypositionsfemalestudentsaseitheruninterestedinfinance,unabletounderstandit,orasnotneedingitintheirfuturelives.Butthis(presumed)viewdidnotgouncontested.Inexplainingtheintricaciesofloansandrents,partofanutteranceproducedbytheteacherwas:

T: Youbuyaflatnotabigonejustforyouandyourwifeoryourgirlfriend.

Ss [tootherSs]:Oryourboyfriend…[whispered]

Thesemaleandfemalestudentswerethusattemptingtochallengetheirteacher’s‘here-and-now’manifestationofheteronormativity.Theteacher’sutterance‘oryourgirlfriend’waspotentiallyreceivedasaheteronormativeone,asforsomehomosexualstudentsarelevantpartnerwouldbeaboyfriend.Wecanalsoreadthisasheterosexualfemalestudentswantingtobepositionedasloantakersaswell(forthemselvesandtheirboyfriends/husbands).

6.4.3Educationalchit-chatAnothermanifestationofcreatinggenderrelevanceinthecontextofEFLclassroomsconcernsvariousgender(ed)ideologiesthatoftenaccompanyclassroomactivities,intheformof‘educationalchit-chat’.Here,weobservedtheemergenceof‘traces’(Talbot,1998)ofgender(ed)ideologiesinstudent–studentinteractions(mostlyintheformofovertcommentsconcerningthecontentofotherstudents’utterances)andinteachers’discourserelatingtogivinginstructions,explainingissuesoflanguageuse,orasgeneral/casualcommentsrelatedtothetopicsdiscussed.

Duringinitialnon-audio-recordedobservations(seeChapter4),inonegimnazjumweencounteredsomeratheruntypicalbut‘telling’ideologicallyimbuedchit-chat.Duringhislessons,the(male)teacheroftenresortedtoPolishinordertopresentthestudentswithfactsaboutanglophonecountries(e.g.aboutMountKosciuszko).Whileinitselfagoodpractice,wewereratherscepticalabouttheratioofactualforeignlanguagelearningpracticetothese‘minilectures’inPolish.

Onthisoccasion,theinputinPolishconcernedapersonalexperience.Theteacherrecalledamemoryoftravellingbacktohishotelonabus,duringhissummerholidaysabroad,whenhesuddenlynoticedthathiswallethaddisappearedandmighthavebeenstolen.Backatthehotel,heimmediatelyphonedthebankhelplineandblockedhisdebitcard;duringthisconversationhewasinformedthattherehadbeentwoattemptsatwithdrawingmoneyfromhisaccount.Thiswasfollowedbyhiscomment:‘well,Iain’tnostupidoldladywhoputsthePINnumberonthebackofherdebitcard’(nie jestem jakąś głupią starą babą, która pisze PIN na swojej karcie płatniczej).Whiletheteacher’sutterancecanbeseenascrudestereotyping,orworse,i.e.asdrawingondiscoursesofsexismandageism,two‘vectorsofoppression’(CameronandKulick,2003:xv),thestudentsintheirturnlaughedanddidnotquestionthestoryoritstelling.So,inpartbecausetheywereinapositionofrelativepowerlessness,theybecamecomplicitinthetelling,thesediscourseswentuncontestedandindeedremainedaresourceforpotential(uncritical)futurereference.


ElizabethMorrish(2002)assertsthatteachersofallcurricularsubjectscananddo,throughsimplecasualremarks,promoteanunthinkingheteronormativity(seealsoPawelczyketal.,2014).Dominantgenderideologiescanbeseenascarryingabuilt-innaturalisation,i.e.‘common-sense’knowledgeabouthowmenorwomenare,understoodasfixedandunchangeable(Pawelczyk,submitted).Intheclassroom,dominantgenderideologiestakeonspecialsignificanceandaregulatoryfunctionwhenvoicedbytheteacher–thevoiceofauthority.Thesamecanalsobesaidoffellowstudents,duetopotentialpeerpressure(seeJones,2006).Dominantgender(ed)ideologiescanofcoursebediscursivelyresistedandchallenged,includinginthediscursivespaceoftheclassroom(Pawelczyketal.,2014),butsuchtransgressionisnotusuallymetwithimpunity.

Inoneprimaryclass,devotedtoissuesoftechnology,theteacheraskedforPolishequivalentsofcertaintechnology-relatedlexicalitems,andaskedaboyaquestionimmediatelyfollowedbyaverygenderedcomment:

T: Cotojest‘harddrive’?Tojestzałatwedlachłopców.

T: [Whatisa‘harddrive’?Thisistooeasyforboys.]

Thecomment(‘Thisistooeasyforboys’)wasnottheresultofonlyboys’willingnesstoanswerthisquestion,butcanalsobeseenasideologicalinitssequentialnature,i.e.immediatelyfollowingtheparticularquestion,‘Whatisa‘harddrive’?’

Inanotherprimaryclass,theteacherwastryingtoexplainthemeaningoftheword‘goal’,andvoicedthecomment:‘Theboysshouldknowthisone.’

Ofcourse,educationalchit-chatisalsotheprovinceofstudent–studenttalk.Intheprimaryschoolclasswherethestudentswereansweringquestionsaboutwhattelevisionprogrammestheywatched(seeabove),thefollowingexchangewasrecorded:

FS1:Ineverwatchsoapoperas=

FS2:=naprawdę? Nigdy nie oglądasz Mjakmiłość?’

[really?YouneverwatchL for Love?]

Femalestudent1’sassertionthatsheneverwatchessoapoperaswasimmediatelyorientedtobyanothergirl’saligningcomment(notethelatch(=),i.e.‘nogap,nooverlap’betweentheutterances,asymbolborrowedfromconversationanalysis)challengingthis.Interestinglythechallengeopenswiththequestion‘really?’andthenanexampleofoneofthemostpopularPolishtelevisionseriesisoffered.Thissecondstudent’saligningresponse‘demands’a‘repair’(anotherCAconcept)ofwhatthefirststudenthasclaimedandcanbereadasatraceoftheideologythatgirlsareexpectedtowatchsoapoperas.Whatisalsointerestingisthatthesecondstudent’scommentisinPolishalthoughtheexercisewasbeingconductedinEnglish.Thisuseofthenativelanguagepointstoahighlevelofemotionalityintheexchange.

6.5DealingwithgrammaticalgenderinPolishWenowidentifyaratherdifferentphenomenonwheregenderbecomesrelevant.ThePolishlanguageheavilyreliesonthecategoryofgrammaticalgender,fornouns,verbsandadjectives(fordetails,seeKiełkiewicz-JanowiakandPawelczyk,2014).ThisisrelevanttoclassroomtranslationexercisesfromEnglishintoPolish,asEnglish,unlikePolish,hasnaturalratherthangrammaticalgender.ThuswhileinEnglishaparticularadjective,forinstance,retainsthesameformforbothfemaleandmalereferents,inPolish,achoiceneedstobemadewhethertheadjectiveistodescribeafemaleoramale.

Inagimnazjumclassofgirls,thestudentswerepractisinguseofadjectivesinasentencecompletionexercise.The(female)teacherwastranslatingEnglishsentencesintoPolish,drawingonthegenericmasculineform.ThustheEnglishgender-neutral‘I’,asin:

Iwassix.MymumwasupsetbecauseIwasverynaughty.

becamegrammaticallygenderedas‘I’wasgiventhemasculinegrammaticalforminPolish.Itseemsthat‘naughty’wassymbolicallyassociatedbytheteacherwithmasculinity.


Someteachershoweverintranslationexercisesprovidedthestudentswithbothmasculineandfeminineformsintheprocessoftranslation.OneprimaryschoolteacherwhenelicitingtheEnglishtranslationusedthefollowingPolishsentences:

T: Właśnie zrobiłem/zrobiłam zadanie domowe[Ihavejustdone(m.)/done(f.)myhomework]

T: Nigdy nie byłem/byłam w Warszawie[Ihaveneverbeen(m.)/been(f.)toWarsaw]

ThisteacherthusproducedbothmasculineandfemininePolishverbforms.

Allinall,however,weobservedthatmasculinegrammaticalgendertendedtofunctionasthedefaultformintranslationexercises,linguisticallyreinforcingthepredominanceandnormalisationofmasculinityandsymbolicmasculinity(‘maleasnorm’).Still,someteachers’provisionofchoicesofPolishequivalentswhenadministeringatranslationisencouragingandmightbeconstruedasareflectionofchange-in-progressinthePolishlanguage(seeKiełkiewicz-JanowiakandPawelczyk,2014onfeministlanguagereform).

6.6ConclusionWehopethatinthischapterwehaveshowntheimportanceofclassroomtalkinthesocialconstructionofgender.Thisisincontrasttothestudyoftextbooks,which,howeverinterestingandimportant,tendstoassume,interalia,thatsexistrepresentationswillinfluencestudentthinking,andthatteacherswillteachtherepresentationsuncritically,astheyappearonthepagesonthetextbook.Neithermaybetrue.Theanalysisreportedhereisalsoincontrasttothemanyquantitativestudiesofthe1970sand1980s,whichlookedatdifferentialteachertreatmentbygender(forexample,praise,blameandquestiontypes),anddifferentinteractionalbehaviouroffemaleandmalestudentsinmixed-sexclasses(seeChapter2).Inthischapter,weratherlookedqualitativelyatgendereddiscourseintheEFLclassroom,andatwhatissaidbothinrelationtothetextbookandotherwise.Itisclearthattraditional,heteronormativethinkingaboutgenderisalive,wellandfrequentlyarticulated,sometimesalmostunconsciously,butitisalsoclearthatsomestudents,andsometeachers,aremorethancapableofarticulatingresistantvoices.

InthefollowingchapterwecontinuewithourqualitativeapproachandlookatwhatEFLteachers,studentsandMinistryofEducationEFLtextbookreviewershavetosayonthetopicsofgenderandsexualityinlanguageeducation,giventheopportunitytoreflectontheseissuesandexplorethemwiththeirpeers.

Exploringtheperspectivesofstudents,teachersandtextbookreviewers | 73

7Exploringtheperspectivesofstudents,teachersandtextbookreviewers7.1IntroductionWenowpresentandcriticallydiscusstheviewsandinsightsconcerninggenderandsexualityinEFLcontextsinPolandputforwardbythestudentsandteachersinthefocusgroupsandthereviewersintheinterviews.InthischapterwethusaddressResearchQuestion(RQ)3:Howdothreegroupsoflanguageeducationstakeholders,i.e.students,teachersandMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewers,respondtoexamplesofgenderandsexualityportrayalsintextbooks?Howdostudentsandteachersrespondtocasesofclassroominteractionrelatedtogenderand/orsexuality?AsindicatedinChapter4,thedatahereisallelicited,andthereforeprovidesspeakers’accountsandunderstandingsratherthandetailsoftheiractualpractices.

7.2InsightsfromstudentsThestudentfocusgroupwasconductedwithhighschoolstudents(11secondandthirdgradehighschoolstudents)attheschooltheyattend.Fivemaleandsixfemalestudentsandthetworesearchersintheroleoffacilitatorstookpart.Thethirdresearcherwassatatthebackoftheroomandherrolewastotakedetailednotes.Oneoftheteachersofthesestudentswaspresentduringthewholemeeting.Shetookaseatatthebackoftheroomandinnowayparticipatedintheinteraction.Themeetingstartedwiththeintroductionbytheresearchers:theaimofthemeetingwasexplainedandtheformatofinteractiondetailed.Informedconsentwasprovidedbyallparticipants,whowereassuredaboutouranonymisingofthedatatobecollectedandlaterpresentedinscholarlypublications.InthedatadiscussedbelowweuseEnglishnamepseudonymstoprotecttheidentityofourparticipants.

Thestudentshadnottakenpartinafocusgroupinterviewbeforeandwerethusintroducedtotheinteractionalformatoffocusgroupsbydiscussingacurrentsocialtopic,i.e.‘whethere-bookswillreplacethepaperbooks’.Theactualfocusgroupinterviewstartedwithageneralquestionaboutstudents’opinion(s)concerningtheportrayalofwomenandmeninEFLmaterials.Thenstudentswereprovidedwithsomeactualexamplesofstereotypical/conservativegenderportrayalsusedingrammarandlexicalexercisesasastimulusandaskedtocommentonthem.Weusedpromptsfromtwoprimaryschooltextbooks(Starland 3, New Zone 3)thatfeaturebothverbalandvisualtexts.Wewereinterestedinstudents’interpretationofthedivisionoflabourandthediscourserolestextuallyassignedtomaleandfemalecharactersinthedialogues.Wealsousedpromptsfromahighachooltextbook(New Matura Solutions)wherewefocusedonstudents’perceptionsoftheimagesthataccompaniedthewrittentexts.Attheendofthemeetingtheresearchersmadesure–byanexplicitquestion–thateverybodyhadvoicedtheiropinions(seeAppendixB).

ForthedataanalysisweadaptedBraunandClarke’s(2006)six-phasemodelframeworkofthematicanalysisbutinsteadofthemesidentifieddiscoursesasthesebettercaptureourinterviewees’oftenideologicalviewsongenderandsexualityinthebroadlydefinedEFLcontext.(Forfurtherdetailsofdatacollectionandanalysis,seeChapter4.)

Analysisofthisdataallowedustoidentifyfourmaindiscourses,whichweprovisionallycall:

1. Genderdifference

2. Your‘normal’isnotmy‘normal’

3. EFLtextbooksrelyonstereotypes

4. Thepicturesarethereforareason.

74 | Exploringtheperspectivesofstudents,teachersandtextbookreviewers

1.Genderdifference‘Genderdifference’,prevalentinthisfocusgroup,canbeseenasan‘overarchingdiscourse’(seeSunderland,2004;Mullany,2007).‘Traces’ofthisdiscourse(Talbot,1998)wereintroducedintothediscussionbyboysandchallenged/contestedbygirls.Weillustratethisinthreeextracts.InExtract1,wecanseehowSamintroducesthethemeofgenderdifferenceintothediscussion:

Extract1Sam:Inasocietywomenandmenarepredisposedtodocertainthings;forexample,themotherwillgetalongbetterwiththedaughter–thisisarealityinthesetextbooksandnotstereotypes.

Wspołeczeństwiekobietyimężczyźniwykazująsięlepiejwpewnychspecjalizacjach,naprzykładmamalepiejdogadasięzcórką–tojestrzeczywistośćwtychpodręcznikach,aniejakieśstereotypy.

Amanda:Butthisisageneralisation,it’snotlikethateverywhere,sometimesthereisarolereversalandtheywillnotshowit.

Aletojestgeneralizowanie,niewszędziejesttak,czasaminaodwrót,ategoniepokażą.

Samclaimsthattextbooksreflectarealityinwhichwomenandmendodifferentthings.Hedoesnotrelyonanymitigationdevices(‘thisisareality…andnotstereotypes’).ThisinterpretationofrealitywherewomenandmenarebetteratdoingdifferentthingsisusedtojustifythecommonportrayalofwomeninEFLtextbooksascaring,protectiveandother-centredindividuals(seeLazar,2002).Sam’sviewis,however,challengedbyAmanda,whonotesthatin‘reality’onecanencountersituationsinwhichwomendostereotypicallymasculinejobs(‘sometimesthereisarolereversal’).ShediscursivelydistancesherselffromthedominantrepresentationofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooksbyotheringthoseresponsibleforproducingthestereotypicalportrayalsandnotmoreprogressiveimages(‘theywillnotshowit’).

InExtract2adifferentmalestudentalsoattemptstovalidatethestereotypicalportrayalofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooks:

Extract2Mark:Wecan’trefutethatwomenandmenarenotthesamebecausethisfollowsfrombiologyandIcan’timagineawomancarryingbricksbutIcanimagineamanmakingdinner;itseemstomethatstereotypesaredetrimentalbuttherearealsosituationswherewomenandmenarebetterpredisposedtocertaintasks.

Niemożemynegowaćtego,żekobietyimężczyźniniesąrówni,botowynikazbiologiiiniewyobrażamsobie,żebykobietanosiłacegłynabudowie,alemogęwyobrazićsobiemężczyznęktóryrobiobiad;wydajemisię,żestereotypysąkrzywdzące,alesąteżtakiesytuacje,gdziemężczyźniikobietymająlepszepredyspozycjedoczegoś.

Markinvokesbiology(seeCameron,2007)toaccountforwomen’s(hypothetical)inabilitytodophysicalwork(‘carryingbricks’)yetconcurrentlyhe‘canimagineamanmakingdinner’asfarastheportrayalofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooksisconcerned.ThissuggeststhatMarkseestheachievementofmoreprogressiverolesforbothsexesasagradualprocess.Onepartoftheprocesshasbeencompleted,i.e.mencanfunctioninmoresymbolicallyfeminineroles.Hethusappearstoacknowledgesomereconceptualisationofsocialrolesforwomenandmen.Atthesametime,onereadingofhiswordsisthatheis‘protecting’traditionalmasculinedomains,whiletryingtoperformbeinga‘newman’throughhis‘makingdinner’comments.

Extract2alsoreflectsdominantmediadiscoursesongenderwhichmixevolutionarybiologicalexplanationswithmoreculturalreasoning(Cameron,2007,2013)andpresupposeabinarydivisionofhumanpopulationandhomogeneitywithineachgendercategory.Insum,MarkviewswomenandmenasexcellingatdifferenttasksandgivesconsenttosuchbinaryimagesinEFLmaterialseventhoughtheymightsometimesbedetrimental.

Extract3featuresanothermalestudent’ssummaryofdifferentrepresentationsofwomenandmeninEFLmaterials:


Extract3Peter:It’snotthatweareworseorbetter,wearejustdifferentandthisissimplygood.

Toniejesttak,żejesteśmygorsiczylepsi,tylkopoprostujesteśmyinniitojestakuratdobre.

Thisviewheavilydrawsona(problematic)‘equalbutdifferent’essentialistviewwhichPeterseemstotakeforgranted.

Thesethreeextractsillustratehowthe‘discourseofgenderdifference’maybedrawntojustifyaconservativedepictionofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooks,andascarcityofprogressiveportrayalsofwomen.Theseboystendtoconstructwomenandmenthroughtraditional,conservative,binaryandboundedcategories,whichpositionwomenandmenaspredisposedtopursuedifferentgoalsandtasksinlife.Importantly,however,resistantvoicesarealsoprojected,forexampleAmandarecognisesthatthe‘reality’theyliveindoesnotalwaysfollowtraditional,dominantconventionsandobservesthatmoreprogressivegenderandsexualidentityrolesrarelyemergeinEFLtextbooks.

2.Your‘normal’isnotmy‘normal’Whatwecalladiscourseofnormality:‘Your‘normal’isnotmy‘normal’’wasarticulatedtojustifybothconservativeandprogressivegenderdepictionandtoaccountforgenderrelationsingeneral.WeillustratethisinExtracts4and5.InExtract4,thestimulusisapicturethataccompaniesagrammatical/lexicalexercise.Itfeaturesawomanbusyinthekitchenbakingacake.

Extract4Sam:Thesepicturesshowtherealitythatisthemostnormalforthechild/studentandhonestlyspeaking,Ihavenevermetamanwhowasabletobakeareallygoodcake.

Teobrazkisątakstworzone,żebytodladziecka/uczniabyłojaknajbardziejnormalneipowiemszczerze,żejanigdyniespotkałemsięzmężczyzną,któryupiekłnaprawdędobreciasto.

Carol:Butthefactthatdadmakesacakeisnormaltoo!

Aleto,żetatapiecze,toteżjestnormalne!

Sam:Ithappensbutitisnotasocialnormthataguycomesbackhomethinking‘Iwillmakeacake’.

Tozdarzasię,aletoniejestnormąspołeczną,żefacetwracadodomuimyśli‘upiekęsobieciasto’.

Amanda:Whyisitasocialnormthatawomancanmakeagoodcake,sometimesmenbakecakesandthisisnotaproblemforme.

Dlaczegonormąspołecznąjestto,żekobietapotrafiupiecdobreciasto,czasamimężczyznaupieczeciastoiniejesttodlamnieproblemem.

Theboyandthetwogirlsinvolvedinthisexchangeexpressdifferentviewsonhowmenandwomenshouldberepresentedintextbooks.Atthesametime,theyallstructuretheirreasoningaroundthethemeof‘normality’.InSam’sview,studentsareabletorelatetoimagesdepictingwomen(ratherthanmen)bakingcakes.Heusespersonalexperiencetoaugmenthisargument:‘Ihavenevermetamanwhowasabletobakeareallygoodcake’.Carol’sresponsealsoreliesonthenotionof‘normal’:‘Butthefactthatdadmakesacakeisnormaltoo!’,stressingthatthisshouldnotberegardedasanythingsensational.Samstrengthenshisargumentbyevokingtheconceptof‘socialnorm’tounderlinethatmenmaybakecakesbutinfactrarelydoso.Thevalidityofthe‘socialnorm’argumentis,however,contestedbyAmandaunderliningthatmenareabletobakecakesaswell.

TheexchangeinExtract5followsthefacilitator’squestionofwhetheramoreprogressivedepictionofwomenandmeninthepicturesaccompanyinggrammaticalandlexicalexerciseswouldsomehowinterfereintheprocessoflearningtheassociatedgrammaticalstructuresand/orlexicalitems.


Extract5Sam:Despiteeverythingtextbooksshoulddepictsomethingthatwillnotsurprisethestudent,heshouldjustdohishomework,right?

Podręcznikimimowszystkomająpokazywaćcoś,żebyniedziwiłotegouczniatylkożebyonzrobiłtozadanie,tak?

Peter:Whatisshowninthetextbooksshouldbea‘naturalenvironment’forthestudent,aneverydayphenomenon;theactivitiesshouldaccustomthestudentstousingthelanguageinthemostnormallifesituations.

To,cojestpokazywanewpodręcznikach,mabyćnaturalnymśrodowiskiemdlaucznia,codziennezjawisko;czynnośćmaprzyzwyczaićuczniadoużyciajęzykawnajbardziejnormalnychsytuacjachżyciowych.

Amanda:ButDadbakingacakeisnormaltoo!Unfortunately,itisnormalforusthatmumsbakecakes.

Ależetatapiecze,toteżjestnormalne!Niestetytojestdlanasnormalne,żemamapiecze.

Extract5,acontinuationoftheexchangeinExtract4,alsocontainsreferencesto‘normal’and‘natural’.Here,however,Sam’sargumentisextendedbyhisassertionthattextbookdepictionsshouldincludeonly(social)contentthatisveryfamiliartostudents.Inotherwords,anyprogressiveportrayalofgenderrelations,forinstance,maypotentiallyhindertheprocessoflearning(‘heshouldjustdohishomework,right?’).ThediscourseofnormalityisstrengthenedbyPeter’sreferencetoa‘naturalenvironment’thatshouldbereflectedintextbooks,which,inthewidersocio-politicalcontextofthecurrentdiscussion(seeChapter3),canbereadas‘conservativegenderrelations’.Peteralsousesthephrase‘mostnormallifesituations’,referringtothesocialscenariosthatshouldbepresentedinteachingmaterialsingeneral.ThisviewisagainchallengedbyAmanda,whoagainbringsinthelexicalitem‘normal’tomakethepointthatmoreprogressivegenderportrayal(e.g.‘dadsbakingcakes’)doesconstitutethe‘norm’forotherstudents.Shealsocriticallyassessesthefactthatforthemajorityofstudents(‘us’),thenormativeexpectationisformums(andnotdads)tobakecakes.

Itisinterestinghowoftenthesestrongreferencestowhatisconsidered‘normality’and‘normal’wereusedbythestudentsindefendingtheirdifferentstances,signifyinghowsalientformanythecategoriesoffemaleandmale,alongwiththeassociatedcharacteristicsofmasculinityandfemininity,actuallyare.

3.EFLtextbooksrelyonstereotypesInExtract6thegirlsarevoicingtheiropinionoftextbooksingeneral:

Extract6Carol:Youarebrowsingthroughthebookandyouareconstantlycomingacrossthestereotypeofacleaningwoman.I’dlikeitnottobestrangethatadadbakesacake,it’snotaboutdiscriminatingagainstmentoobuttomaketherolesequal.

Przerzucasztestronyksiążkiicałyczasjesttenstereotypkobietysprzątającej,jabymoczekiwała,żebytoprzestałobyćdziwne,żetatapieczeciasto.Niechodzioto,żebymężczyznteżdyskryminować,ależebyterolewyrównywać.

Amanda:Herethemotherisdoingthehomeworkwiththegirlwhilethefatherhassomefunwiththeson–thispatterngetsrepeated!

Tutajmamazdziewczynkąodrabiająlekcje,atatazsynemrobiącosfajnego–tosiępowtarza!

CarolobservesthatEFLtextbooksconstantlypromotethestereotypeofa‘cleaningwoman’(shemeansawomancleaningherownhouse).Thisstereotypepointstoanoverarchingdiscourseofconservativegenderrelations,showingwomenassubordinate,economicallypowerless,andnotusingtheirbrains,somethingthattendstocharacteriseEFLmaterials.Carolalsovisualiseswhatthesituationcouldbe(‘tomaketherolesequal’).AmandaalsopointsouttheunfairportrayalofgirlsinEFLmaterialswhotendto(needto)workattheirschoolworkwhileboysareportrayedashavingfunandthuspotentiallyrelyonluckandbeingultimatelyclever.IfAmandaisright,the‘repeatedpattern’isalsooneofhomosociality.


TheinteractioninExtract7focusesonsocialchangeandtheinterestingquestionofitsstartingpoint:

Extract7Mark:Firstweneedtochangetheworldandthenthebooks.

Najpierwtrzebabyłobyzmieniaćświat,apóźniejksiążki.

Amanda:Whycan’twestartwiththebooks?

Costoinaprzeszkodzie,żebyzacząćodpodręczników?

Carol:Wehavetoattendschool,wehavetousetextbookssotheyareimportant.

Musimychodzićdoszkoły,musimyużywaćpodręczników,więcpodręcznikisąważne.

Amanda:Wehavetogiveitsomethoughtwhetherit’sfairthatwetypicallytreatawomanassomebodywhocleansup.

Trzebasięzastanowić,czytojestfair,żetraktujemyzazwyczajkobietęjakokogoś,ktosprząta.

Carol:Theworldischangingandtheyareconstantlyshowingthesestereotypesinthesepictures.

Światsięzmienia,aonicałyczaspokazująnatychobrazkachtestereotypy.

Amanda:Textbooksarethebestwaytochangethestereotypesbecausetextbooksareusedatschools.

Podręcznikitonajlepszysposób,żebyzmieniaćstereotypy,bopodręcznikisąużywane.

Markarguesfirstthatchangeinthecontentoftextbooks(whichimpliesthathethinkstheportrayalofgenderintextbooksisproblematic)canonlyfollowsocialchange.However,varioussocialchangeswhichhavealreadytakenplaceareoverwhelminglyabsentintheEFLmaterials(asCarolsaid:‘theworldischangingandtheyareconstantlyshowingthesestereotypesinthesepictures’).AmandaechoesthepointmadeearlierbyCarol(‘Wehavetoattendschool,wehavetousetextbookssotheyareimportant’)thatthechangesshouldbereflectedintextbookssincetheyarecommonlyusedbystudentsandthusthisisthebestwaytoeradicatestereotypes.Overall,thegirlsunderlinethatEFLtextbooksheavilyrelyonstereotypesthatdepictwomenandmeninnormativesocialrolesandviewthemcriticallyasasourceofconservativegenderportrayalandgenderrelations.

4.ThepicturesarethereforareasonLast,theparticipantswereconcernedabouttheroleoftextbookimagesintransmittingcontent,andtherewassomedisagreementhere.Forexample:

Extract8Sara:It’simportanttofocusondetailsandhowtheimagessubconsciouslytransmitmessages.

Ważnejestskupieniesięnaszczegółach,napodświadomymprzekazywaniutreściprzezobrazki.

Sam:Welearnfromthebook,imagesarejustdecoration,attentionneedstobefocusedontheactualmessages,nottheimages.

Donaukijestksiążka,obrazkitotylkoozdoby,uwagętrzebaskupićnarzeczywistychtreściach,anieobrazkach.

Carol:Butpicturedescriptionisacomponentofthefinalexamandthepicturesubconsciouslyinfluencesus;thepicturesarethereforareason!

Aleprzecieżopisobrazkatojestelementmaturyipodświadomienanaswpływa;przecieżpocośsąteobrazki!

Similartotheextractsdiscussedabove,inExtract8wecandistinguishtwocompetingvoicesconcerning–thistime–theroleofimagesinmeaningmaking.Saraconsidersthatimagestendtoaffectoursubconsciousandthusattentionshouldbepaidtowhattheydepict.TheimportanceofimagesisalsostressedbyCarol,whoobservesthatpicturedescriptionconstitutesanintegralpartofthehighschoolfinalexam.Thiscomment,however,followsSam’sclaimthatimagesareanunimportantadditiontotheactualwrittentext(‘decoration’)andthusattentionshouldbepaidtothewrittentextratherthantheaccompanyingimages.

Thefourdiscoursesidentifiedinthefocusgroupdataevidencestudents’awarenessofthepresenceofgender(andgendereddiscourses)inthecontextofteachingandlearningaforeignlanguagewithreferencetomaterials.BoththemaleandthefemalestudentsgotveryinvolvedinthisdiscussionofgenderportrayalinEFLmaterialsand,aswehaveshown,variousdominantandresistantdiscoursesemerged.Resistantdiscoursesincludedthatthedominant‘reality’ofconservativegenderrelationsdepictedinEFLtextbooksoftendoesnotmirrorstudents’authenticexperiences.


Tracesofdominant,traditional,conservativediscoursesofgendertendedtobearticulatedbythemalestudents,resistantdiscoursesbythefemalestudents.Thismaypointtoagreaterawarenessofgenderandgenderrepresentationonthepartoffemalestudents,orresistancetosocialchangeonthepartofthemales–or,ofcourse,both.

Thesestudents’generalinterestingenderportrayals(progressiveandconservative)evidencedintheirdiscussionsuggeststhatthetopiccouldbeeasilyusedforinsightfulandlivelyclassroomdiscussionsinPolishhighschoolsmorewidely(seeNelson,2006,2007).

7.3InsightsfromteachersWerantwodifferentfocusgroupswithteachersfromtwodifferentschools(fordetailsseeChapter4).

Fromthesubsequentfocusgroupanalysis,weidentifiedtracesoffourdiscoursesfromTeachers’focusgroup1andofthreefromTeachers’focusgroup2.Contrarytoourexpectations,aswehadexpectedtofindsimilarconcernsbeingexpressed,thetwogroupsvoicedverydifferentconcerns.Theonlydiscoursetheyhadincommonwecall‘Danger:weliveinPoland’.

7.3.1Teachers’focusgroup1Thefirstteachers’focusgroupsessiontookplaceinamiddleschool.Alltenparticipantswerewomenwhoteachatthisinstitution.Aswiththestudentfocusgroup,thetwofacilitatorsfirstinitiatedadifferentdiscussion(ontheissueofe-bookssuppressingtraditionalprintedbooks)togivetheparticipantstheideaofwhathappenedinafocusgroup.Wethenproceededaccordingtothepre-designedquestionsandprompts,inPolish(seeAppendixA).

Afterintensivelisteningtotherecording,weidentifiedfourdiscourses,whichwecall:

1. Stereotypesasfacilitating(grammar)learning(andasub-discourse:‘Myrealityisyourreality’)

2. Studentsincapableofcriticallyreflectingontextbooks

3. Selectivetolerance:unabletocrossinstitutionalandsocialboundaries

4. Danger:weliveinPoland.

Belowwepresentextractswhichbestexemplifythesediscourses.TheteacherswequotehavebeennamedSusan,Andrea,Virginia,Janet,andAllyson(allpseudonyms).

1.Stereotypesasfacilitating(grammar)learningAnoverarchingdiscoursesurroundingstereotypicaldepictionoffemalesandmalesingrammaticalandlexicalexerciseswascouchedpositivelyintermsofthisbeingadevicefacilitatinggrammarlearning.Accordingtoseveraloftheseteachers,whenstudentsareconfrontedwithstereotypicalgenderroles,forinstancefemalenursesvis-à-vismaledoctors,thesehavethepotentialnottodistractstudentsfromthemainteaching/learningpointofagivenclass,butratherhelpthemtofocusonachievingtheirlearninggoal.Forexample:

Extract9Susan:Well,Ithinkthatteachingthelessproficientclasses,Ithinkthatthesestereotypeshelptoconsolidateinsuchawaythatitisnotneededtothinkabout,thisaboutotherness,Idon’tknow,iftherewereamalenurseherebutitisafemalenurse,OKIthinkthisisnormal,IcanassociateitwithsomethingandImoveon,andIdrawtheir[students’]attentiontothegrammaticalpointwhichweareworkingonatthemoment,IthinkthatthesestereotypesfacilitateassociatingsimplethingsthatIwanttoconcentrateon,andIwouldnotsaythatthisissomethingnegative,wecannoticeitbut…

No,alejamyślę,znaczy,uczącwłaśnieteklasysłabsze,wydajemisię,żetestereotypypomagająutrwalićwtensposób,żenietrzebasięzastanawiaćnadtym,nadinnością,niewiem,żetubyłbypielęgniarz,tylkojestpielęgniarka,OK,kojarzę,tojestnormalne,aterazidęizwracamuwagęnatentematgramatyczny,któryrobimyiwtymmomenciewydajemisię,żetestereotypypomagająwskojarzeniuprostychspraw,naktórychsięchcęskupićijabymtutajichnieeeniemówiła,żetojestcośnegatywnego,mymożemytowychwycićyyymale…


Joanna:Noticeitanddosomethingaboutit,ornot?

Wychwycićijeszczecośztymzrobić,czyjużnie?

Susan:Ithinkthattheyhelpustodrawattentiontothemainsubjectbecauseatthispoint,ifwehadamalenurse,IwouldhavecommentsandwecouldtalkbutIhavetofocuson…

Yyjamyślę,żeonenamtutajpomagajązwrócićuwagęnagłównytemat,bowtymmomencie,jakbybyłopielęgniarz,tomiałabymkomentarzeimoglibyśmyrozmawiać,alejamuszęsięskupićnatym,jakbyco…

Allyson:Ongrammar

nagramatyce

Susan:Onwhatisthepointoftheclass,Ihavetoaccomplishmyaim.

Natym,cojestdanymtematem,zrealizowaćmójcel.

Joanna:mhm

mm

Susan:SoIwouldnotquestionthatthisstereotypeworksinthewrongway,ithelpsmetofocusonwhatIwanttodowithgrammar…

Takżejabymtutajniekwestionowała,żetenstereotyptutajźledziała,onmipomagazwrócićuwagęnato,cochcęzrobićzgramatyką…

Łukasz:mhm

mm

Susan:Ithelpsmetoassociate,ifIhavethepicturethevisualiserswillfindithelpful,andIwouldn’tquestionthatweconstantlyhavetoconfound…

Pomagaskojarzyć,skorojestobrazek,todlawzrokowcówbędziepomocnyijabymniezawszepodważała,żemusimyciąglemieszać…

Łukasz:mhm

mm

Janet:Butwearenotbroadeningtheirhorizonsbut…

Alenieposzerzamyichhoryzontówwtymmomencie,tylko…

Susan:YesbutnowgendercropsupandIthinkitisanexaggeration.

Notak,aletojużgenderwchodziitojużzaczynajużbyćprzesadaprzepraszam.

InthisexchangethereappearstobestrongresistancetowardstakingupgenderequalitythemesduringclasseswhoseprimarygoalisseenasexplaininganddrillingEnglishgrammar.Susancontendsthatstereotypesacttothebenefitofstudentsbynotdistractingthemfromthegrammaticalpointofaclassbutratherarearesourceshecandrawoninordertomakegrammarintelligible.WhenthisuseofstereotypesiscontestedbyJanet,Susandrawsonthefamiliar‘discourseofexaggeration’whengendercropsup(possiblyinfluencedbythe‘ideologyofgender’;seeChapter3)andclosesdownthepossibilityofnegotiationofthebenefitsofnon-stereotypicaldepictions.Anopposingopinion,notquotedhere,wasthattalkingaboutgenderstereotypesmightbeagoodstartingpointtotrytoavoidsocialisingchildrenintocertaingenderedprofessionalrolesbecauseitmaycementrealityandpreventsocialchange,butthiswasnottakenupbytheotherparticipants.

Duringthissession,theteacherswereshownanextractfromNew English Zone 3(gimnazjum,p.45),atextonanuclearfamilyintheUKconsistingofamother(teachingassistant),afather(computercompanyemployee),Phil(maincharacterinthebook)andPhil’ssister.Theteachersfindmanyaspectsofthefamilycorrespondtotheirownexperienceandatfirstdonotarriveatanycriticalevaluations.Oneteacherobjectedtosuchevaluationsaltogether:


Extract10Andrea:Well,wecanpickholeshere,becauseIcannotimagineasituationthatthemotherworkedinthiscomputercompanyandthefatherwasaclassroomassistant,becausethiswouldbeartificial,thisiswhatIthinkbecausethisisourreality,whetherwewantitornot,mostoftenthannotthefatherworksinacomputercompanyandthemotherisaclassroomassistant.

Toznaczy,możemyszukaćdziurywcałym,boniewyobrażamsobie,żemamabyłaby,pracowałabywtymcomputercompany,atatabyłbyclassroomassistantaaa,botobyłobysztucznewtedy,takmisięwydaje,bonaszarzeczywistość,czytochcemy,czyniechcemytego,noonajesttaka,żetonajczęściejtatapracujewcomputercompany,amamajestclassroomassistantaaa.

ThisnarrativebothnaturalisesunequalgenderrepresentationinthePolishjobmarketandalsoconstructssuchdivisionasmoreintelligibleforstudents,henceasentirelyproper,andnotneedinganyinterventiononthepartofthepublisherortheteacher.Thisteacherbasesherargumentongroundsofthetextbeingsituatedintherealityshe(andherstudents)aresupposedlyliving,whichmakesitpossibleforthestudentstorelatetoit.Forher,thepointisnotequalprofessionalvisibilityofwomenandmenbutratheracquisitionofvocabularyandfactualknowledgeaboutanglophoneculture.However,thisaccountwascontestedbyanotherteacherwhosaidthatthewomanoccupiesamarkedlylowersocio-economicstatusthanherhusbandand–moreover–ismerelyanassistantandnotanautonomousteacher.Otherparticipants,however,objectedtohercriticalreflection,andthethemewasnottakenupbyotherteachers.

Atthispointoneofthefacilitatorsaskedwhetherteacherscouldasktheirclassesaboutotherfamilymodelsinageneralsenseandtheirpersonalexperiencespertainingtothisissue.Oneresponsewas:

Extract11Virginia:Thisisadifficultdecisionbecausenoteveryonewantstotalkabouttheirfamilies,theyvirtuallyallhavecompletefamilies…

Tojesttrudnadecyzja,dlategożeniewszyscychcąmówićotychswoichrodzinach,oniterodzinymająpraktyczniepełne…

Łukasz:right

nowłaśnie

Virginia:ermandIalsothinkit’saslipperyissuebecausesomeofthemcansimplyfeel…

eeiwydajemisię,żetojestśliskitematnalekcję,boniektórzymogąsięczućnajzwyczajniejwświecie…

Andrea:worseinaway

gorzejjakośtam

Virginia:worseandwon’twanttosaytellothersbecausetherearealotofchildrenwhohaveasingleparentorliveinpatchworkfamiliesyesermandIthinkthattalkinginpublicaboutthisintheclassroomcanbeuncomfortableatleastatpresenthere.

gorzejiniebędąchciałyotymopowiedzieć,bojestdużodzieciaków,którzymajątylkojednegorodzicaalbo,no,majątąsytuacjęrodzinnątakąpatchworkową,tak,yyyiwydajemisię,żemówienieotympubliczniewklasiemożebyćniekomfortowe,przynajmniejnarazie,unas.

Susan:Atthisage

Natympoziomiewiekowym

Virginia:OursocietyisatthestagethatIthinkthechildrenaren’teagertotalkaboutthis.

Naszespołeczeństwojestnatakimetapie,żewydajemisię,żeniechętnieotymmówią.

[linesomitted]


Susan:AsVirginiasaidwecan’tdragthisoutofchildrenatthisstagewho…

TaktylkotakjakmówiłaVirginia,przytakichetapachniemożemywyciągaćnasiłę,jakpracujemyzdzieciakami…

Łukasz:surejasne

Andrea:Wehavetobeverycarefulandtactful.

Musimybyćbardzoostrożniitaktowni.

Susan:Arefromorphanagesandlastyeartheyrebelledagainstparticipatinginfamilylifeeducationclassesbecausetheydon’twanttohearaboutotherchildren’sfamilysituationsbecausetheydon’thavethesefamiliesandinthiscaseI’llhavecrowdsofchildrenwhohavecoolfamiliesandwillwanttotalkaboutthis,butI’llalsohavechildrenwhoarequietnotbecausetheycannottalkaboutitbutbecausetheydon’t.Severalfemalecharactersaredepictedassuccessfulandwell-off.

Zdomudzieckaionenaprzykładbuntowałysięwzeszłymroku,żeniechcąchodzićnaWDŻty,ponieważniechcąsłyszeć,jakukogośjestwdomu,booneniemajątegodomuiwtymmomencie,owszem,będęmiałatłumdzieciktóremająfajnerodzinkiibędąchciałyotymopowiedzieć[linesomitted],alebędęmiaładzieciaki,któresącichoniedlatego,żeniepotrafiąopowiedzieć,tylkodlategożeniechcąopowiedzieć.

[linesomitted]

Łukasz:Wouldanythingchangeifthetextwasaboutasinglemotherorasinglefather?

Aczycośbysięzmieniło,gdybytekstbyłosamotnejmatcealboosamotnymojcu?

Susan:Itdependsonhowthissinglemotherorsinglefatherwasdepicted–ifinagoodlightassomethingthatisanormalsituationnowanditwasn’tanythingbizarremaybesomechildrenwouldadmitoratleasttheywouldfeelthatitisnormaltoo.

Zależy,jakbytasamotnamatkaczysamotnyojciecbylipokazani,jeśliwpozytywnymświetle,jakocoś,cojestsytuacjąwtejchwilinormalną,niebyłobyudziwnieńróżnegorodzajueee,tomyślę,żemożnabybyłootym,byćmożeniektóredziecibysięwjakiśsposóbprzyznałylubpoczułyby,żetoteżjestnormalne.

Thisexchangeconstructsthesubjectofnon-normativefamiliesasasensitiveissuethatteachersarenotwillingtobringupduringtheirclasses.Childrenare,then,notencouragedtotakeupsubjectsthatfallbeyondthescopeoftheirtextbookseventhoughsomeoftheteachershadpreviouslyunderlinedtheimportanceoftheirstudentsbeingabletorelatetothebroaderdiscursivecontentoftheirclasses.Atthesametime,someconcededthattextbooksfeaturingnon-normativefamilieswouldopensafespacesfordiscussionsforthosestudentswhomightnototherwisefeelencouragedtomaketheirvoicesheard.SusandrawsattentiontoFLE(seeChapter3)classeswhicharemeanttoaddresssuchissuesbutfailtodoso,evidencedbythefactthatstudentshaveobjectedtoparticipating.Thiscontestationandnegotiationoftheabilitytorelatetothetextbookandthebroaderdiscursivecontentofclassesseemstobeunresolved.

Ofparamountandconcerningimportanceisthefactthatteacherstendtoconstruetheirownrealitiesasmodelanduniversalrealities,andassumethatstudentsalsolivethem.SeveralremarkedthatstudentsneedtobeabletorelatetothebroadcontentofEFLclassesinordertodeveloptheirlinguisticknowledge,butareunwillingtocontextualisethelearningexperienceandthatcontentforthosestudentswhofindthemselvesinarealitydifferentfromtheirs.


2.StudentsincapableofcriticallyreflectingontextbooksWhenaskedwhetherstudentspayattentiontogenderrepresentationintheirtextbooks,anotherdiscoursedrawnonbytheseteacherswhichdownplayedtheimportanceoftalkaroundthetextaboutgenderrepresentationwasthatstudentsaregenerallyuninterestedinthetexts,simplysometimescomplainingthattheylackrelevancetotheirownpersonalexperiencesorareboring.

Extract12Joanna:Dothestudentssometimescomment[ongendered-aspectsoftexts]duringclasses?

Aczynaprzykładuczniowiekomentujączasaminazajęciach?

Andrea:No,forthemthetextiseitherboringornot…

Nie,nie,dlanichtekstjestnudnyalbonie…

Virginia:Yes,yesoroutdated

Tak,tak,albostary

Andrea:oroutdatedbutthequestionoffemale–malebalanceiscompletelyoutsidetheirinterestandI’dsaythisissueisabittakenoutoftheair…

albostary,natomiastpodejścieeerównowagidamsko-męskiejwogóleichnieobchodzi,tojesttemat,powiedziałabym,troszeczkęwyssanyzeepalca,mówiącbrzydko…

Thisexchangeconstructsstudentsasuninterestedandincapableofcriticalreflectiononthetextstheyinteractwith.Theseteachersdidnotindicatethattheywerewillingtoalterthissituation,presentingitasifsetinstone.Virginiaadds:

Extract13Virginia:They’llsoonernoticethatagirlisbeautiful.

Prędzejzauważąto,żedziewczynanaobrazkujestładna.

Suchremarkspresupposeactiveandmostprobablyheterosexualmalestudentswhosevoicesarebeingheard.Nocommentsrelatedtofemalestudentsengaginginthe‘heterosexualmarketplace’(Eckert,1996)wereheard.

3.Selectivetolerance:unabletocrossinstitutionalandsocialboundariesThethirddiscourseconcernscertainsocio-politicalissueswhichareconstructedasinaccessibleand/orirrelevanttoclassroompractice.Whiletheteachersappeartopayattentiontoraciallymotivatedcommentsmadebytheirstudentsandtakemeasureswiththeaimoferadicatingthem,lesbianandgaythemesareconspicuouslyabsent.Oneoftheteachersmadeitclearthatshedoesnotallowracistslogans,andcombatssuchbehaviourwitheitherelaborateexplanationsorsubversivetechniques(e.g.ifastudentusesthewordniggerwithreferencetoablackperson,shelabelsthemwhite trash).Suchcommentswerenotvoicedwhentalkingaboutthewordgayusedinapejorativeway.

Extract14Susan:WellI’velaidmyhandsonatextbookaboutcontroversialissuesandIuseditduringone-to-oneprivateclassesandtherewasanarticleontherightsofgaycouples…

Znaczy,jadorwałamostatniotakipodręcznikokontrowersyjnychtematach,naindywidualnychzajęciachużyłam,tambyłartykułoprawachermpargejowskich…

Joanna:mhm

mm

Susan:But,Ithink,thatIknewwhoI’mdoingitwith,andthattheseareriskyissuesalsoforus,becausewecannotimposeourworldviewandwiththeseriskyissues,inaway,ourworldviewislinkedtothem,andapartfromthis,thisbookisentitledTaboos and difficult topics,69orsomethinglikethis,sothetitleitselfsuggestedthatIneedtobecarefuland,ifIdiditone-on-onewithanintelligentpersonwhoIknew,thenwecouldermboostmoreadvancedvocabulary,andthiswasanexcuseforme,becauseIknewthatthegirllikedtalkingaboutsuchissues,however,whenIaskaboutGershwinorBeethoveninmyclass,theydon’tknowwhatI’mtalkingabout[linesomitted],becauseoneneedstobeatacertainlevel,andtheseissues,well,weneedtosticktolesscomplicatedones,moreuniversalones,becausethereisthisrisk.

69SeeSection5.3forashortdiscussionofthispublication.


Alewydajemisię,żewiedziałam,zkimtorobięyiżetotematyteżdlanasryzykowne,boniemożemynarzucaćswojegoświatopoglądu,aztymitematamiryzykownymijakbyteżnaszświatopoglądsiętutajermwiążeitosą,zresztąsamaksiążka,zktórejkorzystałam,byławłaśnieTaboos and difficult topics,czycośwtymstylu,więcsamasugerowała,żemuszębyćostrożna,jeżelirobiłamjedennajedenzosobąinteligentną,którąznałamtomogłam,mogłyśmyyyypodciągnąćwłaśniesłownictwobardziejzaawansowaneitobyłdlamniepretekst,bowiedziałam,żedziewczynalubirozmawiaćnatakietematy,natomiastwklasie,kiedypytamoGershwinaiBeethovenainiewiedzą,oczymmówię[linesomitted],bototrzebabyćnapewnympoziomieiitetematytakie,musimyzostaćprzyprostszychibardziejuniwersalnych,botojestjednakwiążesięztympewneryzyko.

Withthislongutterance,theteacherherselfintroducedthe‘gaytheme’intothesession.Shedidsoafteroneofthefacilitatorsaskedthegroupwhethertextbookslackanycontentthattheydeemrelevantfortheirclasses(shedidnotspecifywhatsort).Susandrawsonherexperienceofusinggaythemeswithaprivatestudent.Thepossibilityofdoingsois,however,constructedasentailingrisk,asparentsmightfindthisinappropriate,andhenceshouldbereservedforstudentswitha‘highlevelofintelligence’.

4.Danger:weliveinPolandSusanseesbringingupgaythemesassomethingthatwillbeperceivedasapartofone’sworldviewandfindsthisuncomfortable.SheandAllyson(seebelow)construethemselvesasrisk-takershere,andSusanconflatesherpotentialexperienceofproblematisingnon-normativeidentitythemeswithbeingaccusedofpromotingaspecificandpresumablyunwantedworldview:

Extract15Allyson:Bringingupcontroversialsubjectscanveryoftenevokeverynegativereactionsonthepartoftheparentsandsuchreactionsendupintheprincipal’soffice,forexamplethatwepromoteagayworldview…

Poruszaniekontrowersyjnychtematówbardzoczęstomożewywołaćbardzonegatywnąreakcjęrodzicówitotakąreakcję,którasięnatychmiastznajdzieudyrektora,żemynaprzykładkrzewimyświatopoglądygejowskie…

Theseteachers,then,construethemselvesas‘atrisk’shouldtheybewillingtoincorporatethesesociallyrelevantandindeedstudent-orientedissues.Thedatasuggests,however,thattheyalsolackappropriateresources:thetextbookSusanmentioned,Taboos and Issues,isheavilyoutdatedand,ifuseduncritically,potentiallyharmfultothegaycommunity(seeSection5.2).AlthoughDiscourseiv.doesnotstandoutsharplyintermsofnaminganyspecificgeopoliticallocation,theseteachershintatthe(hindering)realitytheycontinuallyexperience.ThisisalsotobeseeninthepreviousexchangeswhentalkingaboutFLEclassesandwhenembarkingon‘riskytopics’,suchasgaythemes.Wedecidedtodirectreaders’attentiontothisissueasthisseemstobetheonlydiscourseincommonbetweenthetwoteachergroups(seebelow)–butassuchisanimportantone.

7.3.2Teachers’focusgroup2Thesecondfocusgroupsessiontookplaceinahighschool.Therewerefivefemaleparticipantsandonemale;alltaughtEFLatthisinstitution(seeChapter4fordetails).

Theseteachersmadeitclearthattheyareawareofgenderbiasinrepresentationsofwomenandmenintextbooksandthattheirstudentsaresimilarlyaware.AsthisschoolofferstwoEFLprogrammes,atraditionalprogrammeandaninternationalone,theteachersalsotendedtodrawcomparisonsbetweenthem,reachingtheconclusionthatthelattergrouptendstobemoreawareofsocialissuesduetotheextensivereadingsintheirtextbook.70Afterintensivelisteningtotherecording,analysisofthissecondteachers’groupdiscussionsuggestedthreediscourses,whichwenamed:

1. Languageasreflectiveandconstitutive

2. Openingupdiverseavenuesofinterpretation

3. Danger:weliveinPoland.

TheteacherswequotewecallDeborah,Jennifer,Louise,SallyandTony(theman).

1.LanguageasreflectiveandconstitutiveRightattheveryoutsetofthesession,whenpromptedtoreflectontherepresentationsofmenandwomenintextbooks,theteachersembarkedonaseriesofcriticalobservations.Severalsaidthattextbookscontainlargenumbersofstereotypes.Grammarway 4,atextbookfordrillinggrammar,wasidentifiedasaprototypeforstereotypicallydepictingbothwomenandmen,andteachers’attentioninclasswasoftendirectedtowardsstudents’linguisticbehaviourasregardsgenderwhenworkingonstructuralandgrammaticalexercises.

70ThistextbookisusedonlyinafewschoolsinPolandanditsnamehasbeenomittedtopreservetheanonymityofourparticipants.


Extract16Sally:Anddoyoualsoencountersituationswhereyouaskthemtoprovideexamplesandgirlsoftengiveexamples…

Amacieteżtak,naprzykład,żejakprosicie,żebypodalijakiśprzykład,todziewczynyczęstopodająprzykładw…

Deborah:yes

tak

Sally:Inthemasculine?

Męskiejformie?

Deborah:yes

tak

Sally:Ithappensinmyclassestoo.

Teżtakmam.

[linesomitted]

Deborah:I’venoticedthat,whentranslating[sentences]fromSolutions upper-intermediate,whenrevisingfromPolishtoEnglish,andfromEnglishtoPolish,andwhenthereisawordthatwedon’treallyknowwhetherit’samaleorafemale,Iforexamplenoticedthatonegirlfromclass[nameofclass]readthissentenceandtranslateditintoPolish,andtranslatedit:Iwent[masculine],somethinglikethat,andanywayIsaidanditcouldn’tbeassumedfromthetext,andIthoughtitwasabitbizarreandIaskedwhyandshesaid:wellIdon’tknowsheexplainedtomethatwhen,andthisisprobablythecruxofthematter,thatwhensheusesthemasculineinflection,shemeanseveryone,bothfemalesandmales,andwhensheusesthefemaleoneshe’sreferringonlytothem.AndIsaidthatIunderstandthatithasbeenassumedtobeso,thatteachers[masculine]meansallteachersandhowamIsupposedtofeelapartofthegroup?AndIusebothforms[referencingbothmalesandfemales]deliberately[linesomitted],andwearebroughtupwiththis,andthenwethinkthatstudents[masculine]meansgirlsandboys,andstudents[feminine]meansgirlsonly.

JazauważyłamprzytłumaczeniachwSolutions upper-intermediate,napowtórkach,sątłumaczeniazpolskiegonaangielski,zangielskiegonapolskiijestformataka,żeniedokońca,naprzykład,jestjakieśimię,któremożebyćtraktowanejakomęskieiżeńskiei,naprzykład,zauważyłamtoostatnio,dziewczynka,właśniewklasie[nameoftheclass],czytałatozdanieitłumaczyłanapolski,iprzetłumaczyłaja poszedłem,cośtakiego,wkażdymraziepowiedziałam,aniewynikałotozezdania,atodziewczynaimówiłazmęskąkońcówką,więcmisiętowydawałodziwneizapytałampoczymonamówi:noniewiem,onamitowytłumaczyławtensposób,żejak,itojestchybacluecałegocałegoproblemu,żejaksięmówizmęskąkońcówką,toobejmujepłećmęskąiżeńska,ajakżeńską,tonie,ajamówiężerozumiem,żetaksięprzyjęło,nauczyciele,sięmówiijamamsiępoczućrównieżwtejgrupie,natomiastzpremedytacjąnauczyciele,nauczycielki,uczennice,uczniowie[linesomitted],nomywtymrośniemyipotemtakuważamy,żeuczniowietoznaczydziewczynyichłopcy,auczennicetotylkodziewczyny.

Thisexchangewasveryemotive(Sallyhadnotfinishedhersentencewhenotherteachersstartedagreeing)andmostteachersseemedtobeabletorelatetotheexperiencethatDeborahspokeatlengthabout.ItisclearfromDeborah’sanecdotalexperienceandcommentarythatlinguisticawareness,equality-drivenlanguageuseandinparticularmasculinegenericsareonheragenda.Shealsocontended(later)thatlanguageshapesourthinkingandneedstobeattendedtoduringherclassessothatstudentsofallidentities(gender-wise)arewelcome.

Ingeneral,theseteacherscomplainedthattextbookstendnottomirrorrealityandpresentoutdatedsocialrelations:

Extract17Deborah:Textbookshavenotcaughtupwithrealitybecause,Irememberthat

inthepresent[nameoftheclass],lastyear,alotofpeopletoldmethatitwasthefatherthatcooksorbakes,andtheirmothercomesbackhomeat7pm,becausesheisabankmanager…

Książkikursowenienadążajązarzeczywistością,bopamiętamwobecnej[classname],wzeszłymroku,tamdużoosóbmówiło,żealeumnietatagotujealbotataświetniepiecze,amojamamawracacodziennieo19,bojestdyrektorkąbanku…

Whenaskedwhethergender-basedrepresentationsrequireactiononthepartoftheteacher,thefollowingexchangetookplace:


Extract18Deborah:Wedon’thavethetime,butItrytodoso,I’mpersonallyinterestedandI’mnothappywithhowthingsare…

Czasuniemamy,alejastaramsięzwracać,mnietoosobiścieinteresujeiboli,żetotakwłaśniewygląda…

Tony:PersonallyIdon’tpayattentiontosuchthings,wellmaybeinordertodrawattention,asIsaid,whenweworkonargumentativeessaysonhe/she…

Jaosobiścieniezwracamuwaginatakierzeczy,nochybażebyzwrócić,jaktuwłaśniepowiedziałem,jakjesttarozprawkanahe/she…

WhileDeborahattemptstoaddresswhatsheseesasharmfulrepresentations,Tonyappearstoprefertoconcentrateonlanguageforms.However,Tonyalsodrawsactivelyandprogressivelyonstereotypesinordertodrawstudents’attentiontoparticulargrammaticalstructures:

Extract19Tony:WhenIsometimesask[students]totranslatesentencesinthepastcontinuous,wherethereistheexamplethatmotherwasreadinganewspaper,whenthemotherwasreadinganewspaper,atthesametime,thefatherwaswashingupandatthispointthey[students]payattentiontoit,andatthispointeverybodyraises[theirhead]andsays‘buthowcome?Motherwasreadingthenewspaper?’Itistheywhonoticethattherearesuchclichésintextbooks.

JakdajęczasamidotłumaczeniazdanianapodstawiePastContinuous,gdziejest,naprzykład,mamaczytałagazetę,gdymamaczytałagazetę,totatazmywałnaczynia,towtymmomenciekażdypodnosi,bokażdymówi‘alejak?mamaczytałagazetę?’,toonizwracająnatouwagę,awksiążcesątakiekomunały.

Deborah:clichés?

sztampa?

Tony:Thatthefatherissittingdownandthemotherisbeaveringawaywashingup…

Żetatasiedzi,amamcialecizgarami…

Inthisexchange,Tonyconstructshimselfashighlyawareofgenderstereotypesandabletoencouragecriticalthinkinginhisstudentsbycomingupwithcreativevariantsoftheexercisesencounteredin

textbooks.Inhisemotionallyloadedmessageinthelastline,Tonyexpressesacriticalattitudeandhisdisapproval.

Unlikethefirstgroupofteachers,theseparticipantsseemtouse‘gendersubversion’inordertotriggerinterestinthegrammarpointtheyareaddressingintheirstudents.(Thismightbeastrategyfordealingwith‘boringtexts’thatthegroup1teacherscomplainedabout.)

Stereotypesarenotseenbythesegroup2teachersaspotentialinhibitorsinthelearningprocessbutratheraspotentiallyharmfulgeneralisations,whichmaybecomeimprintedintostudents’linguistic,andextralinguistic,behaviour:

Extract20Deborah:Ifwedon’tdrawtheir[students’]attentiontoit…

Jaksięniezwracaimnatouwagi…

Sally:Theyuse[informal]stereotypes.

Jadąstereotypami.

Deborah:Ifwedon’ttalktothemaboutit,fromtimetotime,orwedon’taskthemabouttheiropinions,theyoperatewithsuchclichésandthispresumablyhassomeinfluenceonlearningalanguage;thatis,wedescribetheworldwithalanguagesoifweknowthelanguageinsuchawayaswethink,andweexpressourthoughts,thenweperceivethisworldinsuchaway…

Jaksięcojakiśczas,jeślinieporozmawiaznimiotymalboniezapytaoto,comyślą,topotemtakimikalkamigdzieśtamoperują,niewiem,pewniematojakiśwpływnanananaukęjęzyka;znaczy,opowiadamyświatjęzykiem,więctojakznamyjęzyk,wjakisposóbmyślimyiwyrażamyswojemyślenie,topotemwtensposóbpostrzegamyświat…

Deborahseemstofeelresponsibleforthewayherstudentswilluselanguagetoexpresstheirthoughtsandultimatelyhowtheywillperceivetheworld.Insteadofpersuadingherstudentstoacceptherworldviewshe‘talkstothem’and‘asksquestions’andviathismeanscreatesthepossibilityforthestudentstodevelopcriticalthinkingskillsthemselves.

InresponsetoJoanna’sprompt,itwasalsoproposedthatreversingtraditionalgenderrolesingrammarexerciseswouldactuallymakethesentencesstandoutandmakethemmorememorable,andwouldhelpthestudentsfocusoncontentaswellasform:


Extract21Joanna:Anddoyouthinkthatintheprocessoflearningaforeignlanguage,it’dbeabigdistractortoreversethegenderroles?Say,it’snotmumcookingorbakingthecakebutthedad,daddoesit[linesomitted].Wouldthisbeproblematic?

AczymyśliciePaństwo,żewprocesiewłaśnieuczeniasięjęzykaobcegodużątakądystrakcjąbyłobyzamienietutajtychról?Tak,czyliwłaśnieniemamagotujeczyprzygotowujetociasto,tylkotatoyytatotorobi[linesomitted];czytobybyłoproblematyczne?

Sally:Ithinkonthecontrary,itwouldstick.

Jamyślę,żewręczpreciwnie,botobyutkwiło.

Penny:It’dattractthestudents’attentionmore.

Bardziejprzykłuwałobyuwagęucznia.

[linesomitted]

Jennifer:Paradoxically,itcouldbroadentheirhorizonsinasubliminalwaybutalso[trigger]moreattentiontothinking,andnotonlymechanicalfillinginsentences.

Paradoksalnietomogłobyszerzejtehoryzontyotwierać,gdzieśtamcośpodprogowoprzekazywać,aleteżgdzieśjakiświększyudziałwmyśleniu,nietylkotakiemechaniczneuzupełnianiezdań.

Sally,PennyandJenniferexpresstheopinionthatsubvertingthealreadyexistentgenderroles,whererelevant,ingrammarexercisescanworktothebenefitoftheirstudents(intermsoftheir‘thinking’,and‘sticking’intheirminds).Thisispartlysobecausegrammardrillscanbemechanical,andintroducingcreativevariationshasthepotentialtocreateadeparturefromthis.Here,then,non-stereotypicaluseoflanguageisviewedinaverydifferentwayfrominthefirstfocusgroup.Theseteachersalsoseemtohaveexperienceofutilisingsuchmeansofactivatinglearners’thinkingwhiledevelopingtheirlanguageskills.

Jenniferalsoraisesanimportantpointaboutthecentralroleoftheteacherinstimulatingstudents’learning:

Extract22Jennifer:Whentheyseethatwepayattentiontosomethingtheytrytobeaheadofusandfishoutsomesituations.

Jakoniwidzą,żemynacośzwracamyuwagę,tosamipróbująnaswyprzedzićimająjakąśsytuację,żewyłapują.

Shehighlightedthatstudentsaremorethaneagertotakeupcertainissuesoncetheyaremadeawareofthem.

2.OpeningupdiverseavenuesofinterpretationOneofthetasksduringthesetwofocusgroupswasfortheteacherstoreflectonaparticularmultimodalrepresentationoffamiliesfromNew English Zone 3,p.45(gimnazjum),wherethemotherisdepictedasfulfillingfamilyroles(e.g.cooking,callingthefamilyinforlunch),whilethefatherisplayingfootballwithJack(hisson)andMatthew(Jack’sfriend).

Extract23Deborah:Thecontexthereispushy,alongwiththedialogue,it’snotjustasinglesentenceinagrammaticalexercisethatcanbeignoredifthere’snottimeforthat,andthat’snotsignificantbecausethereisnocontext.Ifstudentsdon’tseeitthemselvesthensomethingscanbeignored,becausewewon’treadthingsintoeveryclassandeveryexercise,there’ssimplynoneedforthat,butinthiscase,there’sacertaincontexthere,anditcementscertainstereotypesandsomehouseholdscanbelikethat…

Nachalnytujestkontekst,tujestdialog,toniejestjakieśtamjednozdaniewćwiczeniugramatycznym,któremożnasobieodpuścić,jakniemaczasuiniejesttoistotne,boniemakontekstu,rzeczywiściepókiuczniowietegoniewyłapią,topewnerzeczymożnaprzemilczeć,boniebędziemynakażdejlekcjiiwkażdymćwiczeniuczegośsiędoszukiwać,niemanatonajzwyczajniejwświeciepotrzeby,natomiasttujestjakiśkontekstitoutrwalastereotypy,pewniewniektórychdomachtakjest…

Jennifer:Iwasjustabouttosaythatthiscannotbetreatedasasomehownegativesituation.

Chciałamwłaśniemówić,żeniemożnategotraktowaćjakojakiejśsytuacjinegatywnej


Deborah:Thisisnotsciencefiction,butincertainhouseholdsitistheotherwayround,butwefailtoseethismirroredintextbooks,it’sstereotyped,it’sperpetuatedandIthinkIwouldn’tbeabletomakethispointbeforemystudentswhowouldopenthebookandsayJesus…[lastwordspokensarcastically]

Toniejestsciencefiction,alewniektórychdomachjestodwrotnie,natomiastnieznajdziemyodzwierciedleniaodwrotnychsytuacjiwpodręcznikach,jesttostereotypowe,jesttoutrwalone,jamyślępewniebymniezdążyła,bopewnimoiuczniowiebyotwarli,moiprzynajmniej,ipowiedzielioJezu[ostatniesłowowypowiedzianesarkastycznie]…

Sally:WellIthinkthisisatextbookaimedatmiddleschoolstudents.

Znaczy,jadomyślamsię,żetojestksiążkanapoziomiegimnazjum.

Łukasz:You’reright,thisismiddleschoolearlymiddleschoolso…

Właśnie,tojestgimnazjum,wczesnegimnazjum,takwięc…

Sally:Ialsoteachatgimnazjum,andIthinkthatIhavethetendencyto,erm,Itrytomakethelesson,naturallyapartfromthethingsthatweneedtocover,Itrytoengagethem,encourageandrelaxtheatmosphere,sowewouldfirstreadthedialogue,listentoit,andthenI’daskthem:listenandhowarethingsinyourhousehold?isitthatonlyboysplayfootball?what’sitlike?I’dsaybecauseI,forexample,likeplayingfootballwhatdoyouthinkaboutthis[linesomitted]?it’sgoodtodepartfromthelessonabit,sothatitdoesn’tbecomeclichédand…

Jateżuczęwgimnazjumi,jamyślę,jamamtakątendencję,żeyyyjastaramsię,żebytalekcja,oczywiścieoprócztego,żejestto,comusimyzrobićiprzekazaćitakdalej,toichtakzaangażować,wciągnąć,rozluźnićatmosferę,żenapoczątek,takjakbyśmytendialogprzeczytali,posłuchali,apotembymzapytała:słuchajcie,ajaktojestuwaswdomu?totylkochłopcygrająwpiłkę?tojaktowygląda?mówię,bojanaprzykładlubięgraćwpiłkęicomyślicieotym?[linesomitted]Fajniejestodejśćodtejlekcjitrochę,żebyniebyłotaksztampowo…

Thereseemstobeagreementthatthemultimodalconstrualofthisfamilyisproblematic.Itisexperiencedassuchnotmerelyduetotheteachers’ideologicalstances,butalsobecauseoftheirpersonalexperiences(e.g.Sallylikesplayingfootball)andexperienceofteachingEnglishtoadiversespectrumofstudents(Deborah).Atthesametime,triggeredbyJennifer’sremarkthatthereisnothingnegativeinthedepictionitself,theotherteacherscontendthatthecruxofthematterisnotaone-offmentionofacertaintypeofsocialarrangement,butratheritsforcefulimpositiononthelearners(andpossiblytheteachersaswell)andtheunquestioningnatureoftheaccompanyinginstructions.Sallyconstructsherselfasanactiveagentintheclassroombysayingthatshewouldcreatesafespacesforquestioningthetext,juxtaposingthiswithherstudents’personalexperiences,thusmotivatingthemtochallengethistextbookrepresentationofthefamily.

Thefollowingexchangefurtherspecifieswhatmeasurescouldbetakeninordertobringstudents’ownexperiencesintotheclassroombyappreciatingandvaluingthem–ineffect,deliberatelyusingthenotionof‘talkaroundthetext’(seeChapter3):

Extract24Joanna:Suchaninfelicitoustextcanbechanged,itcanbeworkedon–amIcorrect?

Takiniefajnytekstmożnazmienić,możnaznimpopracować,czydobrzeusłyszałam?

Deborah:Wecouldaskthemtowriteasimilardialogue,butsubstitutingthingsandwritingwhatthingsareintheirhouseholds,forexample.

Możnabybyłoznimizrobiććwiczenie,żebynapisalipodobnydialog,tylkotrochętamwymieniliinapisali,jakunichwdomujest,naprzykład.

Deborah,then,welcomespersonalnarrativesandallowsacontrolleddeparturefromthetextbooktext.Thesetechniquesalsoallowtheteacherstoallownon-heteronormativeinterpretationsofsexuality-ambiguoustexts,asreflectedinthenextexchange:


Extract25Jennifer:Weturnitintoajoke,andrandomly,whensomebodyreadsdialogues,whenonesometimesrealisesthat,forexample,‘meetyourboyfriend’,andsoon,andithappenstobeaboyreading…

Obracamytowżart,nawyrywki,jakktośczytapojednymzdaniu[dialogi],jakczasamisięzdążyzorientować,żenaprzykład‘meetyourboyfriend’itakdalej,itrafinachłopaka…

Sally:Butthisisgreat!

Aletojestfajne!

Jennifer:Orwhenweworkonotherprojects,notethatIalwayssay:weshouldn’ttabooit,thisobviouslycanbeanormalsituationforaboytosayit…

Albojakieśtampracerobimy,tymbardziejżeteżmówię:nieróbmyztegotabu,tomożebyćoczywiściecałkiemnormalnezdanietakdlachłopakapowiedzieć…

Deborah:Anditisformany.

Ijestdlawielu.

Jennifer:Butofcourseitis.

No,żejest,oczywiście,żejest.

Penny:Eventhestudentsadmitthatthiscanbeso.

Samiuczniowieprzyznają,żeprzecieżtakmożebyć.

Jennifer:ButIalwayscheckwhattheatmosphereinagivenclassis,anderm,ifsomebodywhohastoreadit,doesn’tfeeluncomfortable…

Teżzawszetylkosprawdzam,jakijestklimatwklasieiyyyczyktośnanakogotrafi,iczyktośtamwłaśnieniebędziesięczułniekomfortowo…

Jenniferorientstothefactthatherclassmembershipscanbecharacterisedbysexualdiversityandensuresthatallpossiblevoicescanbeheardbyeitherallowingamalestudenttoreadagrammar-drillexercisefeaturing‘hisboyfriend’orreadingadialogueandassumingafemalecharacter.Thus,Jenniferallowsmultiplereconfigurationsofanoriginallyheteronormativetext.Suchtacticsarevalidatedbytheotherparticipants.However,Jenniferalsostressesthefactthatthe‘climate’inagivenclassneedstobeconduciveinordertoopenupavenuesforpotentiallydifficultdiscussions(seeDiscourse3).

TheextractfromNew English Zone 3(p.45)whichpromptedtheabovediscussiondoesshedsomelightonthechangingcharacteristicsoffamilieswithintheBritishcontext(e.g.moresingle-parentfamilies,mentionsofseparationanddivorces),includingstatistics,butthenmovesontopresentatypicalnuclearfamilyconsistingofmother(classroomassistant),father(computercompanyemployee),sonanddaughter.71Theteacherswelcomedthestatisticalpresentationasreflectingpresent-daysocietybutwerescepticalofthewayinwhichthetextdeveloped:

Extract26Jennifer:Suchapromisingintroduction,whiletherestofthetext…

Takiobiecującywstęp,apotemresztatekstucałkowicie…

Sally:yesprecisely

nowłaśnie

Jennifer:It’ssostereotypical,thatit’splainlyimposing.

Teżtakstereotypowa,też,taknachalniewręcz.

Deborah:Butbecauseofthefirstsentence,Iassumedthatatypicalfamilieswouldbediscussed…

Natomiastprzeztopierwszezdanienastawiłamsię,żebędziemowaonietypowychrodzinach…

Jennifer:Thatit’llbeaboutdifferentfamilymodels…

Żeoróżnychmodelachrodzin…

71Wehavesubjectedthistextbooktoin-depthanalysiselsewhere(PawelczykandPakuła2015).


Deborah:oraboutbothbutit’sjustthefirstsentence.

alboijednym,idrugim,takskończyłosięnajednymzdaniu.

Łukasz:Anditisimportanttotalkaboutatypicalfamilymodels?

Aczyważnejestto,żebymówićonietypowychmodelachrodzin?

Deborah:yes

tak

Sally:Manystudentscomefromsuchfamilies.

Wieleuczniówpochodziztakichrodzin.

Deborah:Yes,becauseIrecentlytalkedaboutsuchasubjectin[classname],andIdidn’ttriggerthis,buttheyaskedacertainquestion,andthistriggeredadiscussionbetweenthemselvesand,theysaid:heybutlet’slookatourselvesandthefamilieswelivein,anditturnedoutthatso-calledtraditionalortraditionalfamilieswereintheminority,becausethesewereeitherpatchworkfamiliesorthesewerefamilieswherethemotherhasasecondhusband,orafamilywherethemotherherselfisbringingup[thechild],orasinglefatherandoutof12peopletheratiowasseventofiveinfavouroftheso-calledatypicalfamilies,andIalsowasincluded,sothiswasamajoritythatis30percentbutmaybeitwasjustanaccident,buttextsdon’ttakesuchchangesintoconsideration.

Tak,bojawłaśnieostatnio,jakrozmawiałamotakimwłaśnietemaciewklasie[classname],tozupełnieniewynikłoodemnie,tylkoonisami,jakieśpytanieichsprowokowałoizaczęlizesobądyskutować,imówią:ej,alepopatrzmynasiebie,wjakichmyrodzinachżyjemy,tosięokazało,żewmniejszościbyłytakzwanetypoweczytradycyjnerodziny,boalbotobyłyrodzinypatchworkowe,albotobyłyrodziny,żejestdrugimążmamy,albomamasamawychowuje,albotatosamwychowuje,na12osóbbyło7do5nakorzyśćtychtakzwanychnietypowychijeszczejasiędołożyłam,więctowogólebyławiększość,tojest30%,alemożewyjątkowotaksięułożyło,aletekstynieuwzględniajątychzmian.

Astheexchangesillustrate,theseteachersfoundtheintroductiontothetextpromisingbutweredissatisfiedwiththelatterpart,whichdrawsheavilyongenderstereotypes.WhenpromptedbyŁukasztoelaborateontheimportance(orlackthereof)ofintroducingtopicsregardingnon-normativefamilialarrangements,thereseemedtobeunanimousagreementabouttheimportanceofthis.Theseteachersseetheneedforthestudentstorelatetothebroadcontentoftheirclasses.ThiswasevidentwhenDeborahsharedthissituationfromherownclass,whenherstudentsspontaneouslyquestionedthetextabouttraditionalfamiliesandfoundthatmostlivedinother,non-traditionalfamilymodels.(AsDeborahherselfdoestoo,sheislikelytobeparticularlysensitivetosuchissues.)

3.Danger:weliveinPolandThisthirddiscourseistheonlyoneincommonacrossthetwoteacherfocusgroups(seeDiscourseiv,Section7.2.1).Theteachersdrewattentiontothesocio-politicalandinstitutionallimitationsthatconstituteobstaclestointroducingnon-normativesubjectsduringtheirclasses:

Extract27Tony:Rememberthatthebookiswrittenforthenationaleducationsystem,andwe’reinPoland,andrememberwhatstatethisis[linesomitted].Itsimplycannotbechangedbecauseit’llbesaidthatwecultivatethis…

Pamiętaj,żeksiążkajestpisanapodsystemedukacjinarodowej,ajesteśmywPolsceipamiętaj,jakiemamypaństwo[linesomitted].Poprostutegosięniezmieni,bobędzietak,żesiękultywujeto…

Deborah:OK,OKIdon’thaveanyissueswithwhatfamiliesarelike[linesomitted],but,forexample,I’mawarethatifIwastenor12inaprimaryschoolorgimnazjum,andIdidn’tcomefromaschoolwhereI’mbroughtuponlybyamother…

OK,OK,janiemamproblemu,żebyopowiadać,jakjestwrodzinie[linesomitted],tylkonaprzykład,bojasobiezdajęsprawę,żejakbymmiała10–12latbędącwpodstawówceczygimnazjum,iterazniewiem,pochodzęzrodziny,gdzie,niewiem,tylkomamamniewychowuje…


Sally:incomplete

niepełnej

Deborah:Or,Idon’tknow,myparentsweredivorcedandbothhadnewpartners,andIwasconstantlyfacedwithsuchtextsI’dstartthinkingIwassomekindofafreak.

Albo,niewiem,rodzicesąporozwodzieiobydwojemająnowychpartnerów,aciąglespotykamsięztakimitekstami,tozaczynammyśleć,żejestemjakimśfreakiem.

Sally:Iwantedtosaythesamething.

Tosamochciałampowiedzieć.

Jennifer:Pathology,isn’tit?

Patologia,nie?

Deborah:Precisely,thatI’mpathologicalandwell…

Żejestempatologią,dokładnie,noi…

[linesomitted]

Deborah:Yes,Iunderstanditinthesameway,andsurelyathighschooltheyhaveacompletelydifferentattitudetowardsit,butatprimaryandgimnazjumlevelschildrenreadaboutitinatextbookduringPolishlanguageclasses,EFL,andsomewhereelseandhearaboutitduringreligionclasses,andthentheythinktheycomefromdysfunctionalfamilies,andmoreoverthepeerpressure,thatis,contactwiththeirpeerswhocanridicule:youdon’thaveafatheryoudon’thaveamother…[linesomitted]It’simportanttoidentifybecauselaterit’seasierforustolearnalanguageifwefeelapart[ofit].

Tak,ijatorozumiem,pewniewliceumjużmająnatozupełnieinnypogląd,alepodstawówka,gimnazjum,dzieciprzeczytająnajęzykupolskimwpodręczniku,najęzykuangielskimijeszczegdzieśtam,nareligiiusłysząipotemmyślą,żesązjakiejśdysfunkcyjnejrodziny,aplusjeszczejakiespeerpressure,czylikontaktzrówieśnikami,którzymogąsięwyśmiewać:tyniemasztaty,tyniemaszmamy…[linesomitted]Toważne,żebysięidentyfikować,bopóźniejłatwiejnamprzychodziuczeniesięjęzyka,jeśliczujemysięczęścią.

[linesomitted]

Jennifer:Suchatextcanevenbemoreinteresting.

Nawettakitekstbardziejzaciekawi.

Deborah:Surelyitwillbebutiftherewasatextaboutapatchworkfamily,wecouldintroducerelevantvocabulary.

Nopewnie,żetak.Alejakbybyłtekstorodziniepatchworkowej,tomożnabybyłowprowadzićtakiesłownictwo.

Thisinteractionweproposealsosuggeststwosub-discourses.Oneisa‘discourseoflimitedpossibilities’.Similartothefearsvoicedbythegroup1teachers,Tonycontendsthattherearecertainsocio-politicalandinstitutionalbarrierscurtailingthepossibilitiesofmorediversity-inclusivematerialsandpractices.Thesecond,acounter-discourse,is‘needforconstructionofmarginalisedidentitiesinclassroomexperiences’,i.e.throughparticularnarrativesinlearningmaterialsandintheteachingofcertainschoolsubjects,becauseofstudents’needtobeabletorelatetothecontentoftextbooksandclassroompractices.Deborah’spointisthatacrossdifferentcommunitiesofpractice,similardiscoursesmightarise,leadingtothealienationofstudentswhoareleftunabletofindanyoverlapbetweentheiridentityandtheidentitiesevokedduringcertainclassroom(andother)practices,andthissomehowneedstobechallenged,despitethefactthat‘WeliveinPoland’.

Duringthefollowingexchangestheteachersexpressedtheirconcernwithbringingupissueswhichmightcauseparentalunrest:

Extract28Łukasz:IntheUK,same-sexmarriagehasalreadybeenintroduced–isitworthtalkingaboutit?Orwoulditconstituteadistractorduringclasseswhichwouldmoveusawayfromthemainfocus?

WZjednoczonymKrólestwiemamyjużmałżeństwajednopłciowe,czytowogólejestwarte,abysiętymzajmować?Czytobędzietakimdystraktoremnazajęciach,którywogóleodwiedzienasodtematu?

Sally:Well,Ithinkthatingimnazjumweneedtobeverycareful,becauseweliveinPoland,andIhavethefeelingthatIcouldhaveparentsvisitingmeinnotime…

Znaczy,jamyślę,żewgimnazjummusimybardzouważaćbożyjemywPolsceijamamwrażenieżemogłabymmiećzachwilęrodziców…


Deborah:eveninhighschool

nawetwliceum

Sally:Withcomplaints…

Zpretensjami…

Deborah:thatwe’reindoctrinating…

żeindoktrynujemy…

Sally:thatIspreadconfusion.Ithinkthatwecanallowourselvesmoreinhighschool.

żezamętsieję,myślę.żewliceumtomożemysobienawięcejpozwolić.

Louise:Butitalsodependsonthegroup.

Aletoteżzależyodgrupy.

Deborah:notalways

niezawsze

Sally:Itisthestudentswhoaretoexpresstheiropinions–afterall,Idon’thavetoexpressminebutgivethemtheopportunitytoexpress[theirs].

Touczniowiemająwyrażaćopinie,przecieżjaniemuszęswojej,tylkodaćimokazję,żebyoniwyrazili.

Deborah:yes,yes,yes…

tak,tak,tak…

Overlappingwiththeconcernsvoicedbythefirstteachers’focusgroup,itseemsthatirrespectiveoftheeducationalinstitutionandthegeneralattitudetoevokingnon-normativethemesduringclasses,thesocio-politicalreality(seeChapter3)exertssignificantinfluenceoverwhatteachersfindpossible.Theseteachers,likethoseinthepreviousgroup,underlinetheagencyofthemanyparentswhoarelikelytoopposeteachersdiscussing‘progressive’viewsduringtheirclasses.Giventhispotentialhesitancyonthepartoftheteacherandthepresumedlackof‘safespaces’inthecaseofaclassbeingledbyan‘unprogressive’teacher,sadly,‘themessageoferasuremaywellbetakenbystudentsasmeaningthatwhatiserasedisofflimits,literally

unmentionableinclass’(Gray,2013b:50).AndwhileSallyobservesthatherroleduringin-classdiscussionsismoreofamoderator,ratherthanattitude-transmitter,whichresonateswithNelson’s(2007)claimthattheteachershouldbeafacilitatorwhendiscussing‘dangerous’contents,evenbeinga‘moderator’whenitcomestodiscussionofthenon-heteronormativemaybeseenastransgressive.

Anotherimportantobservationisthecorrelationbetweenintroducingdiversity-inclusivenon-normativethemesandthelevelofschooling,i.e.themoreadvancedthelevel,themoreopentheteachercanbe,forreasonsofstudentmaturityandsophisticationinEFL.Teachersfrombothsessionshighlightedthecentralroleofmaturityoftheirstudentsasanimportantfactordeterminingwhatcanbebroughtintotheclassroom.Onenegativeoffshootofthis,however,isthatsomeyoungstudentsmayneedtowaitalongtimeuntiltheiridentitiesarerecognisedandappreciatedwithintheireducationalsetting.

Moreoptimistically,thefinalextractfromtheTeachers’focusgroup2pointstotherelativelyconducivenatureofEFLclassesforintroducing‘risky’socialissues:

Extract29Sally:Well,tobehonest,IthinkthatI’dsoonerbringupsuchissues[same-sexmarriage]duringmyEFLclassesratherthanduringageneraleducationalclass72[linesomitted].DuringEFLclassesI’mmoreopenbecauseItreatitasapartofculture[linesomitted],I’mbraver.

Toznaczy,powiemwamszczerze,żeprędzejporuszyłabymtakitematnaangielskimniżnagodziniewychowawczej[linesomitted].Naangielskimjajestembardziejotwarta,bouważamtozaczęśćkultury[linesomitted]tamjestemodważniejsza.

SallyconstructsherEFLclassesasasortofspringboardtointroducingsubjectswhichshemightfinddifficulttoaddressduringa‘generaleducationalclass’.Thisisbecauseshecanpackagethesetopicsastransmittingpartofaforeigncultureandexploreitaccordingly;thisconstitutesakindofan‘alibi’forherontheonehandandaresourceonanother.Therefore,wewitnessthemodelofanEFLteacherasapotentialmediatorofmarkedlydifferentanglophonesocio-politicswhichcanbebeneficialforthestudentswhomayfeelmarginalisedduringotherclasses(seeChapter3),butwhichmayalsoindirectly‘other’thestudents’ownculturalsetting.

72InthePolisheducationalsystem,‘ageneraleducationalclass’isusuallyaone-hour-per-weekmeetingwithaclassandtheirtutorwhendifferentissuespertainingtoschoollogistics,socialissuesandaspectrumofothertopicscanberaised.


7.3.3Theteachers’groupscomparedAscanbeseenfromtheirdiscussions,thetwoteachers’focusgroupsdifferedtoagreatextent.Whilethefirstgroupdownplayedtheirstudents’abilitiestocriticallyinteractwithlessoncontents,thesecondactivelyencouragedtheirlearnerstotakeastanceonissuestheyconsidersignificant.Thismaybeduetothefactthatthesecondgroupseemsmoreawareoftheimportanceoflanguageinconstructingsocialrelationsandidentitiesinparticular.Furthermore,whilethefirstgroupwasreluctanttoraisediversityissuesduetostudent‘immaturity’,participantsofthesecondgroupconstructedthemselvesasactivelyparticipatinginmoderatingnon-normativethemesduringtheirclasses.Whatstandsoutfromthesecondgroupishowtheteachers’progressive(andappealing)treatmentofagenderedtextmaylenditselftoalivelyclassroomdiscussion(engagement!),duringwhichstudentsareabletoexploreavarietyofprogressiveandnon-progressiveroles(includingnon-heteronormativeones;seeNelson,2007)aswellaspractisetheirEnglish.

Itseemstousthattheethosoftheschool,alongwiththeteacherswhoformakindofacommunityofpractice,constituteanimportantfactorincreating‘safespaces’duringEFLclasses,asteacherswithinaschoolseemtoespousesimilarvaluesandmaintainsimilarattitudestowardssocialissuesintheirprofessionalpractice.OurimpressionwasalsothatthelevelofEnglishamongstudentsintheschoolwithwhichthefirstgroupisaffiliatedwassignificantlylowerthanthatofthesecondschool.ThissubjectivejudgementmightbedevelopedintoaworkinghypothesisforfutureresearchabouttheinterrelatednessoflanguageattainmentandsocialinclusivityintheEFLclassroom.

7.4Institutionalpower:reviewers’perspectivesOneofthetasksofMinistryofEducationtextbookreviewersistocompleteparticularformsaboutthetextbookstheyreview(seeAppendixD).BelowwepresentthemainpointsputforwardbythetwoEFLtextbookreviewersintheirinterviews(forinformationaboutthereviewersthemselves,seeChapter4).

Reviewer1Reviewer1providedawidelydefinednotionof‘culture’intheprocessofteachingandlearningaforeignlanguage:‘itmotivatesthestudentsandshowswhatvaluesarerespected’.Inherview,publishersarecurrentlyincludingmorevariation

thanhithertoinhow‘people’ingeneralarepresented.Inotherwords,cultureusedtobepresentedinaverystereotypicalmannerwheredominantculturalconcepts(archetypes)weremainlydrawnon.

Thisreviewermadeaninterestingdistinctionbetweenglobalpublishers(e.g.OxfordUniversityPress),localpublishersco-operatingwithaforeignpublisher(Egisco-operatingwithExpressPublishing),andlocalpublishers(e.g.NowaEra)intermsofrelianceonstereotypes.Thefirstgroup,inthereviewer’sview,stillutilisesgeneral,widelyrecognisedstereotypes.Thesecondgrouptendstobemoreprogressivewhilethethirdmixesstereotypicalportrayalswithinterestingtopical,‘local’foci.Foreign(inthiscaseBritish)publishers,theysaid,paymoreattentiontoissuesofequitywhenitcomestogenderrepresentation.

Reviewer1toldusthatitdependsonthe(social)sensitivityofanindividualreviewerwhethertheydecidetoaddressanybiasand/orover-relianceonstereotypesintheirreviewreport73ofagiventextbook.Thisisimportantasreviewers’commentsaretypicallyaddressedbythepublishers.Thecurrentpositionofthetextbookreviewerthusechoescurrentthinkingonthepositionoftheteacherwhodecideshowtextbookcontentwillbetreatedintheclassroom.

Therevieweralsonotedchangesinhowfamilies,menandwomenareportrayedintextbooks.Inherview,nuclearand‘ideal’familiesprevailedsometenor15yearsago.Currently,textbooksincludefamilieswhoareexperiencingproblemsaswellasfamilytypesthatdepartfromtheconventional‘workingfather,stay-at-homemotherandtwochildren’pattern.Shealsopointedtotheinclusionofmalecharactersintextbooksectionsdevotedto‘doingchores’:‘it[thepresenceofmalecharactersdoingchores]divergesfromtraditionalstereotypes’.However,shealsoobservedthatreversingtraditionalgenderrolesingrammatical/lexicalexercisesmayleadtoproblemsinthesmoothconductingofanexercise.Forinstance,onematchingexercisefeaturedamalenurse.Thestudentsweretomatchthenameoftheprofession‘nurse’withthepicturewhichdepictedamalecharacterperformingthisjob.Shecommentedonstudentslikely‘slowness’andproblemsinfindingthematch,butdidnotsuggestthatthese‘discrepancies’mightinfactleadtointerestingdiscussion.

73AscanbeseeninAppendixD,thereviewformsdonotindicatethatissuesofgender(orsexuality)areofanyconcerntothereviewer(andhencetotheMinistryofEducation)whenreviewingtextbooks.


Reviewer1hadneverencounteredanynon-heterosexualrepresentationsinEFLtextbookstobeevaluated:‘never,noteventheslightesthintofnon-heterosexuality’.SheaddedthatsheassumedthatteacherstypicallydidnotpaymuchattentiontostereotypesdepictedinEFLmaterials,andtendedtofollowthecontentoftextbookswithout‘gettingintodialogue’(e.g.challenging,contesting)withthetexts.Sheascribedthistolackoftime,inlargepartasteachersneedtopreparestudentsforvariousexams.Inotherwords,teachersarepressedtocovertherequiredmaterialandthusnotimeislefttogobeyondthetextbook.Teachers’reflexivitywasseenasaskillthatcanonlybeobtainedovertheyears,withexperience.Inparticular,inthereviewer’sview,issuesofgenderandgenderportrayalsdonotactuallymattertomanyprospectiveandpractisingEnglishteachers.

Reviewer2Reviewer2alsounderlinedtheimportanceofcultureintheprocessofteachingandlearningaforeignlanguage,andsaidthatforeignpublishers’‘unfamiliaritywiththePolishreality’couldsometimesbeaproblem.

Inherview,atypicaltendencyfoundovermanyyearsisthattherearemoremalethanfemaleprotagonistsintheEFLtextbooksusedinPoland(abouttwo-thirdsmalecharactersandone-thirdfemalecharacters).ShealsoobservedthatwomenaremainlydepictedindominantfemininerolesandthefactthatmanyyoungPolishfathersnowactivelytakecareoftheirchildrenisnottypicallyreflected.

Inthisreviewer’sopinion,thereisaproblemof‘untypical’familiesintermsoflackofrepresentation.ThereisnowinPolandagrowingnumberofchildrenwhoarebroughtupinsingle-parentorin‘patchwork’/‘reconstituted’families,e.g.siblingsfromtwosetsofparents.Sheconsideredthisveryproblematicforsuchstudentswhocannotidentifywith‘typical’familyrepresentations:‘it’sarealproblem’.

Therevieweralsocommentedonstudents’potentialdiscomfortwhenafamilymodelisdiscussedwhichdoesnotreflecttheirownfamilyrelationship.Shealsopointedoutthatvocabularyrelatedtonon-traditionalfamilymodelsisnotintroduced:thestudentsdonottypicallylearnsuchlexicalitemsasstep-mother,forexample.Shehadmadesuggestionsaboutincreasingthenumberoffamilytypestosectionsoftextbooksdealingwithfamilylife,andaboutintroducingataskcomparingdifferentfamilymodelsintotextbookstocreatespaceforlessdominantfamilytypes.

Asregardsthepresenceofgaypeople,Reviewer2assumedthatovertrepresentationwouldmostprobablynotbeapprovedbytheMinistryandsimilarlyotherreviewerscouldalsohaveanissuewithit,althoughshepersonally‘wouldnotmind’suchrepresentations.

LikeReviewer1,Reviewer2alsounderlinedthatmostteachersmainlymeticulouslyfollowthetextbookanddonotquestionorgobeyondit.ShecriticisedextensivetestingasamajorobstacletomakingtheEFLclassroomasocialspacewherevariousdiscoursescanbearticulatedanddifferentvoicesheard.Shestressedherviewthatteachersshouldcriticallyapproachtheirownclassroompracticeanddevelopreflexivityaroundit.

Tosumup,bothreviewersunderlinedtheimportanceofwidelydefinedcultureintheprocessofteachingaforeignlanguage.Althoughsomevariationinthedepictionoffamilieswasmentioned(Reviewer1),muchofReviewer2’scommentaryconcernedlackofvarioustypesoffamilies.Bothunderlinedthatteacherstendtoconscientiouslyfollowthecontentoftextbooksandnotimeislefttofurtherexploreimportantsocialissuesrelatedtogenderandsexuality.Theyalsounderlinedtheimportanceofteachers’reflexivitytocriticallyassesstheirclassroombehaviour.Allinall,theywouldwelcomemoreprogressiverepresentationsofwomenandmenintheEFLtextbooks.Eventhoughtheyhaddifferentexperiencesofwhethertheirideasaretakenup,asMinistryreviewerstheyhavesomeinfluencein–atleast–drawingpublishers’attentiontoanyimbalanced,discriminatory,inaccurateoroutdatedportrayalsinEFLtextbooks.

7.5ConclusionInexploringdifferentlanguageeducationstakeholders’perspectives,Chapter7clearlyshowsthatgenderandsexualityareissuesof(some)importanceto(some)teachers,yetwaysofaddressingthesediffertoasignificantextent.Whiletheteacherstendedtodifferinthewaytheyelaboratedongenderandsexualityintheirpractice,alldisplayedahighlevelofawarenessoftherelevantsocio-politicalcontext(seeChapter3)asinhibitingopendiscussionon‘taboo’topics.Moreover,despitethefactthattheMinistryofEducationdoesnotimposeadirectrequirementthatreviewersinspectgender-relatedissuesofrepresentation,74bothreviewerswereabletocommentonthis.Reviewingwoulddefinitelybenefitfromexplicitpoliciesandcriteriaintheguidelinesforreviewerstoensurethatallreviewersattendtotheseissues.

74Inthislight,itcomesasnosurprisethatsexuality-relatedissuesaresilencedaswell.

Conclusionsandrecommendations | 95

8Conclusionsandrecommendations8.1ConcludingremarksOnhearingthatimbalancedgenderrepresentationinforeignlanguagetextbooksisstillanissue,orthatgirlsandwomenstudentsmaybedisadvantagedinlanguageclassroominteraction,peoplearesometimessurprised.Haven’ttheseissuesbeenresolved?Don’tgirlsdobetterthanboysatlanguagesanyway?Thesamequestionerislikelytobefurtherperplexedwhenbeingtoldthat,notheyhaven’t,andsexualityisalsonowseenasanissue,relatedtogender,fortheforeignlanguageclassroom.ButwhathassexualitygottodowithlearningEnglish?thequestionermayask.

Thisresearchprojecthasshownthat,althoughtheremayhavebeenimprovementsoverthedecades,genderisstillmaderelevantinthelanguageclassroominwaysitshouldnotbe,andignoredinwaysitshouldnotbe.Comparedwithgender,sexualityisarelativenewcomertothefieldoflanguageeducationresearch,butgendercannotproperlybeexploredwithoutlookingatsexuality(seeBaker,2008).Inthefieldoflanguageeducation,thisisinlargepartbecauseclassroomsareoftenextremelyheteronormativespaces,bothinthematerialsstudentsaregiventolearnwith,andinspokenclassroomdiscourse.Howmanyoff-the-top-of-the-headexamplesofagivenlexicalitemorsyntacticstructurerefertowomen’shusbandsandmen’swives,girlfriendandboyfriendcouples,orheterosexualdesireinsomeshapeorform?Andhowdoesthisconstantheteronormativity–includinginroleplays–makegaystudentsfeel?Theseissuestakeaparticularinflectionin21stcenturyPoland,where‘gender’isinsomecontextsdismissedasasociallyunacceptableandinvalidexplanationofinequalitybetweenwomenandmen,andwheregayrelationshipsmeetwithafargreaterlevelofresistancethanmuchoftherestof21stcenturyEurope.

Fromwhatweidentifyunashamedlyasaprogressiveperspective,thefindingsofthisstudyare,predictably,patchy.Genderstereotypingappearstobestillaliveand(fairly)well.Thereisprogress,buttherearealsostickingpoints.Thisextendstoallthefindings:thoseasregardstextbookrepresentation(somearebetterthanothers),andclassroomtalk,includingclassroom‘talkaroundthetextbooktext’.Encouragingly,though,genderstereotyping,and

traditional,disadvantagingrepresentationsofwomenandgirlsaresometimescontestedbystudentsandteachers,whoactascriticalmoderatorsofclassroomdiscussions.

Tothefieldofgender,languageandeducationwewouldnowbuildonSunderlandetal.’s(2002)notionofa‘gendercriticalpoint’and,asshownparticularlyinChapter6,addthetwotheoreticalnotionsof:

■■ a‘gendertriggeredpoint’,i.e.teacherorstudenttalkaboutgendertriggeredbyatextbooktext

■■ a‘genderemergingpoint’,i.e.teacherand/orstudenttalkaboutthecategoryofgenderwhichmaycomeoutoftheblueinclass,assumedbyteacherstofacilitatetheprocessofteachingandlearningaparticularlanguagestructure.

Asregardssexuality,theissueisnotsomuchmisrepresentationasnon-representationofanythingotherthanheterosexuality;accordingly,heteronormativity(e.g.representationsofhusband-and-wifecouples)isalsoaliveandwell.Themoreglobalthetextbook,thelesslikelihoodthereappearstobeofchange–althoughrepresentationsofpeoplesuchassame-sexfriendsandflatmateswouldhelp,tosimplyallowmorereadingsthantheheteronormative.Changemaycomelocally,forexamplefrompressurefromstudents(and/ortheirfriendsandfamily),whomaybereflectedornotinthebookstheyuseintheclassroom.

Thetwotheoreticalnotionsabove,the‘gendertriggeredpoint’and‘genderemergingpoint’,couldinprinciplebeextendedtosexuality,althoughtheformerwillremainunlikelyuntilgreatersexualdiversityachievesrecognitionintextbooks.Tothestudyofheteronormativityandsexualityintextbooks,however,weproposeathirdconcept,thatof:

■■ ‘Multimodaldisambiguation’,i.e.whenawrittentextwhichcouldbereadasambiguousintermsofsexuality(e.g.thesexualityofanindividualcouldequallybegayasstraight)iscloseddownbyanassociatedimage(e.g.ofthatindividualholdinghandswithsomeoneoftheoppositesex),orbyawrittentextassociatedwithavisualone.

Multimodaldisambiguationcouldofcoursealsoapplytogenderrepresentation.

96 | Conclusionsandrecommendations

Wehopethatreaderswillbeconcernedbymanyofourreportedfindings,butwillwelcomethemoreprogressiveones,andwilljoinwithusinseekingfurtherprogressivewaysforwardforlanguageeducation(seebelow).Werecognisethatsomestudentsandsometeacherswillbediscomforted,eventhreatenedbytherecommendationsthatfollow,andmaythinkwearemakingafussaboutnothing.Wearesurewearenot,butweareconcernedthatallstudents,regardlessoftheirgenderandsexualidentity,feelathomeinthelanguageclassroom.Thisisnoteasytoachieve,notleastbecausethemainpointofthelanguageclassroom,mostwouldargue,istoteachlanguage.Also,textbookrepresentationwillalwaysbecontested–whoshouldbeshown,andhow,willremainamatterofdebateevenforthosewiththesameagendas(seeSunderland,2015b).Further,sensitiveinclusivityisnoteasytoachieveinclassroomdiscourse:thisisnotabox-tickingexercise,andifstudentsandteachersdofeelcompelledtotalkinonewayratherthananother,thiswouldsimplybecounter-productive.Atthesametime,ifwearetohaveastartohitchourwagonto,andsometimesastarisneeded,weseeitfortheforeignlanguageclassroominthefollowingbyAnetaPavlenko:

… the multiple forms of engagement should aim to offer a safe space in which students could learn to recognise and acknowledge existing gender discourses and explore alternative discourses, identities and futures (2004:63).

Theexistinggenderdiscourseswehaveinmindareheteronormativeones,whichneedtoberecognisedforwhattheyare,asdoalternative,non-heteronormativeandprogressiveones.Forifwecannotexplorealternativediscoursesinthe‘safespace’ofthelanguageclassroom,whereinprincipleanythingcanbediscussedintheinterestsofcommunicationdevelopment,wherecanwedoso?

8.2RecommendationsWeunderstandthatEFLteachersarebusypractitionerswhoareoftenexpectedto‘deliver’intermsofgettingtheirstudentsthroughtestsandexams.Atthesametime,weknowthatmostarecaringandthinkingprofessionals,fullycapableofcriticalreflexivity(cf.Ryan,2005;Lazar,2014),andareinparticularawareofthepotentiallyconstitutivepoweroflanguageandlanguagesinourlivedexperiences(seeNortonandToohey,2004).Givensupportandtime,webelievethatteachersarewillingandabletosharethisreflexivityandunderstandingwiththeirstudents,engaginginwhathasbeencalled‘criticalreflexivityaspraxis’(Lazar,2014).

Moreparticularly,webelievethatmostteacherswouldwishtocreateadiversity-inclusiveenvironmentintheirclassrooms(seeNelson,2007,2009,2012)aspartofsociallyinformedlanguageteaching(andlearning).However,theycannotdosoalone.Henceourrecommendationsbelow,whichconcludethisbook,aswellasforteachersareforthreedifferentprofessionalgroupsoflanguageeducationstakeholders:teachereducators,MinistryofEducationEFLtextbookreviewers,andthoseinvolvedintextbooksproduction(writers,illustrators,serieseditorsandpublishers).

Indrawinguptheserecommendations–whichdonotclaimtobecomprehensive–wehavetriedtomaintainabalancebetweenprincipleandanappreciationofwhatcanrealisticallybeexpected.Themaxim‘Thinkpracticallyandlooklocally’(EckertandMcConnell-Ginet,1992)isrelevanthere.However,weliveinanincreasinglyglobalisedworld,andinadditiontoproposingthatEFLpractitionerslooklocally,wesuggestthattheylook–critically,ofcourse–globallyaswell.

Conclusionsandrecommendations | 97

8.2.1RecommendationsforEFLteachersWherepossibleandrelevant:

a.acknowledgethelikelysexualidentitydiversityofanyclassofstudents

b.monitorongoinglanguageuseinstudents’classroomtalk;makehomophobicandsexistlanguageasunacceptableasracistlanguage

c.usepositiveexamplesofwomenandnon-heterosexualpeople

d.usesupplementarytextsandexamplesintalkthatallowmultiplereadings,e.g.throughtheuseofwordssuchaspartner

e.challengetextbooksexism,relentlessheteronormativity,andotherwisediscriminatoryrepresentationinanamusing,engagingandcreativeway

f. considersharingpersonalstoriesofnon-traditionalfamilystructures

g.incorporatecontemporaryfeaturesoflanguagechangeintoclassroomdiscussion(e.g.Ms, she or he, singular they)

h.explorereversingtraditionalgenderrolesingrammarexercisestomakethemmorememorable

i. introducesupplementaryauthenticmaterials,e.g.newspaperarticlesfeaturingpeoplewithnon-heteronormativeidentitiesandgoingbeyondstereotypicalgenderroles,especiallythoseconcerninglocalnarratives(seeSection5.2)

j. makesurethatanysupplementarytextbooksarenotoutdatednortreatanyminorityinapatronising,inferiorway(thisalsopertainstoethnicandnationalminorities)(seeSection5.2)

k.whenpossible,usetextbooktextsinwhichgenderand/orsexualityarerelevanttodifferentvariousreadingsofthetextsinrelationtothediscussedtopic.

8.2.2RecommendationsforEFLteachereducatorsWherepossibleandrelevant:

a.integratesocialdiversityintoallteachereducationprogrammesandmodules

b.ensurecriticalconsiderationofthecausesandeffectsofbullying,includinghomophobiclanguage

c. includemodulesdevotedtosocialinclusionintoteachereducationprogrammes,withafocusonsocioeconomicbackground,gender,sexualityandethnicity

d.includeconsiderationsofsocialinclusion,intraineeteachers’talkandpractices,inobservedteachingpractice

e.demonstrate,onthebasisofhigh-qualityresearch,howstudentsbenefitfromdiversity-inclusivethemesintheclassroom(seeSection2.4)

f. ensurethatpointsa.–e.arefoundedonup-to-dateresearchconductedinthelocalcontext.

8.2.3RecommendationsforMinistryofEducationEFLtextbookreviewersAfterproperconsultation:

a.ensurethetextbookreviewformincorporatescriteriarelatedtofullandequalrepresentationasregardsgenderandsexualdiversity

b.ensurethatasufficientnumberoftexts,includingmultimodaltexts,allowarangeofreadingsintermsofsocialdiversity

c.ensurethatteacher’sguidessupportteachersinteachingaboutsocialdiversityinapositiveandsensitiveway,especiallyinrelationtoparticularunitsorexercises

d.meetregularlyasagrouptodiscusscontroversialissuesinboththecontentoftextbooksandtextbookimplementation

e.continuallymonitortextbookreviewformsforsocialrelevanceandchange

f. incorporateresearchfindingsconcerningdiscriminationintoreviewingpracticesandtextsintheformofrelevantguidelines.

98 | Conclusionsandrecommendations

8.2.4RecommendationsforEFLmaterialspublishers,writers,illustratorsandserieseditorsa.ensurequantitativelyandquantitativelybalanced

representationofmenandwomen,girlsandboys

b.ensurethatwomenandmenarerepresentedinasbroadaspectrumofoccupationsandactivitiesaspossible,andgirlsandboysinanequallybroadspectrumofactivities

c. includemultimodaltextswhichallowarangeofreadings,includingofthecharacterswhopopulatethem

d.avoidgenderstereotypinginimagesincludingclothing,activities,andtherelativesizeofcharacters

e.includearangeofnon-heteronormativewrittenandmultimodalrepresentations,e.g.same-sexfriendsandflatmates;mixed-sexgroupswhichdonotincludecouples

f. includeauthentictextsfeaturingnon-heterosexualpeople,famousandotherwise

g.ensurethattextbookwritersandillustratorsmeettodiscussthecontentofmultimodaltextssothatpositiverepresentationsofsocialdiversityinonemodearenotunderminedbytheothermode

h.regularlyupdatetextbookstoincludesomeimportantsocialchangesrelatedtogenderandsexuality(e.g.therecentsame-sexmarriagereferenduminIreland)asthisisintegraltoteachingaboutculturesoftarget-languagecountries

i. whenlocalisingagiventextbook,includeissuesofdiversity,toleranceandcriticismofdiscriminationagainstdifferentsocialgroupspresentinthattextbook(seeSection3.3).

References | 99

9ReferencesPrimarysources(textbookdata)andothertextbookscited

(a)TextbookdataEnglish Explorer 2(2013)Stephenson,HandTkacz,A.Warsaw:NowaEra.

English Plus 2(2012)Wetz,B,Pye,D,Quintana,J,Styring,JandTims,N.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Evolution 1(2012)Beare,N.Warsaw:MacmillanPolska.

Evolution 2(2013)Beare,N.Warsaw:MacmillanPolska.

Exam Explorer. Repetytorium do gimnazjum (2012)Tkacz,A,Ostaszewska,DandKlemińska,K.Warsaw.NowaEra.

New English Zone 3 (2012)Nolasco,RandNewbold,D.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

New Matura Solutions upper-intermediate (2013)Davies,PA,Falla,T,Wieruszewska,M,Gryca,DandSobierska,J.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

New Matura Solutions intermediate (2014)DaviesPA,Falla,TandWieruszewska,M.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Project 3 (2008)Hutchinson,T.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Starland 3 (2010)Evans,VandDooley,Newbury,J:ExpressPublishing.

Voices 3 (2012)McBeth,C.Warsaw:MacmillanPolska.

(b)OthertextbookscitedClarke,K,Hall,E,Sieh,M,andWilson,A(2005)Primary Longman Express.HongKong:LongmanHongKongEducation.

Dooley,JandEvans,V(1999)Grammarway 4.Newbury:ExpressPublishing.

Goldstein,BandJones,C(2003,2005)Framework Level 3.Oxford:Richmond.

Jones,L(1977)Functions of English.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

MacAndrew,RandMartinez,R(1998)Taboos and Issues.Photocopiable Lessons on Controversial Topics. ThomsonHeinle.

O’Neill,AandYu,V(consultants)(2005)Step Up.HongKong:EducationalPublishingHouse.

Slager,Wetal.(1975)English for Today Book 4: Our Changing Technology.NewYork:McGrawHill.

SecondarysourcesAbdulRahim,F(1997)Gender – if it’s ‘part of the climate’, what do language teachers do? but is not cited at teachers’ treatment of gender in teaching materials. MAdissertation,LancasterUniversity.

Abramowicz,M(ed)(2011)Wielka Nieobecna [TheGreatAbsentee].Warsaw:TowarzystwoEdukacjiAntydyskryminacyjnej.

Agostinone-Wilson,F(2010)Marxism and Education beyond Identity: Sexuality and Schooling. London: PalgraveMacmillan.

Alcón,E(1994)Theroleofparticipationandgenderinnon-nativespeakers’classroominteraction.Working Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism 4/1:51–68.

Allwright,DandHanks,J(2009)The Developing Language Learner: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Arnot,M,David,MandWeiner,G(1996)Educational Reforms and Gender Equality in Schools.EqualOpportunitiesCommissionResearchDiscussionSeriesNo.17.Manchester:EOC.

Baker,P(2008)Sexed Texts: Language, Gender and Sexuality.London:Equinox.

Barton,AandSakwa,LN(2012)TherepresentationofgenderinEnglishtextbooksinUganda.Pedagogy, Culture and Society20/2:173–190.

Batters,J(1986)Doboysreallythinklanguagesarejustgirl-talk?Modern Languages67/2:75–79.

100 | References

Baxter,J(2008)Isitalltoughtalkingatthetop?Apost-structuralistanalysisoftheconstructionofgenderedspeakingidentitiesofBritishbusinessleaderswithininterviewnarratives.Gender and Language2/2:197–222.

Berlan,ED,Corliss,HL,Field,AE,Goodman,EandAustin,SB(2010)SexualorientationandbullyingamongadolescentsintheGrowingUpTodayStudy.Journal of Adolescent Health46/4:366–371.(accessed25March2015).

Birkett,M,Espelage,DLandKoenig,B(2009)LGBandquestioningstudentsinschools:themoderatingeffectsofhomophobicbullyingandschoolclimateonnegativeoutcomes.Journal of Youth and Adolescence38/7:989–1,000.

Block,D(2014)Second Language Identities.London:BloomsburyAcademic.

Block,DandCorona,V(2014)Exploringclass-basedintersectionality.Language, Culture and Curriculum27/1:27–42.

Bogetić,K(2013)Normalstraightgays:LexicalcollocationsandideologiesofmasculinityinpersonaladsofSerbiangayteenagers.Gender and Language7/3:333–367.

Braun,VandClarke,V(2006)Usingthematicanalysisinpsychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology 3/2:77–101.

Bucholtz,M(2014)‘TheFeministFoundationsofLanguage,Gender,andSexualityResearch’,inEhrlich,S,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds)The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (2ndedition).Oxford:Blackwell,23–47.

Burr,V(1995)An Introduction to Social Constructionism.London:Routledge.

Butler,J(1990)Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.NewYork:Routledge.

Cameron,D(1992)Feminism and Linguistic Theory(2ndedition).London:Macmillan.

Cameron,D(1996)‘Performinggenderidentity:Youngmen’stalkandtheconstructionofheterosexualmasculinity’,inJohnson,SandMeinhof,UH(eds)Language and Masculinity.Oxford:Blackwell,47–64.

Cameron,D(2013)More Heat than Light?: Sex-difference Science & the Study of Language.Vancouver:RonsdalePress.

Cameron,D(2007)The Myth of Mars and Venus. Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages?Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Cameron,DandKulick,D(2003)Language and Sexuality.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Carr,JandPauwels,A(2006)Boys and Foreign Language Learning.Houndmills,Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Carroll,DandKowitz,J(1994)‘UsingconcordancingtechniquestostudygenderstereotypinginELTtextbooks’,inSunderland,J(ed)Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education.NewYork:PrenticeHall,73–82.

CentrumBadańOpiniiSpołecznej(CBOS)(2013)Komunikat Badań. Stosunek do Praw Gejów i Lesbijek oraz Związków Partnerskich [Report. Attitudes towards the Rights of Gay and Lesbian People, and Same-Sex Unions].Warsaw:CBOS.

Chavez,M(2001)Gender in the Language Classroom. Boston:McGraw-Hill.

Chmura-Rutkowska,I(2015)‘Lalki i eksperci oraz inne przypadki. Reprezentacje kobiecości i męskości w mediach – analiza krytyczna’ [Dolls and experts, and other cases. Representations of femininity and masculinity in the media – a critical analysis],talkgivenatOtwartespotkaniazGenderStudiesUAM,March2015,Poznań,Poland.

Chmura-RutkowskaI,DudaM,MazurekM,Sołtysiak-ŁuczakA(2015)Genderwpodręcznikach.Projektbadawczy.Raport,T.1-3.[Genderintextbooks.ResearchProject.Report.Vols.1–3]Warsaw:FundacjaFeminoteka.

Coates,J(2008)Men Talk.London:JohnWileyandSons.

Cohen,S(2002)Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers.London:Routledge.

Collier,KL,vanBeusekom,G,Bos,HMWandSandfort,TGM(2013)Sexualorientationandgenderidentity/expressionrelatedpeervictimizationinadolescence:asystematicreviewofassociatedpsychosocialandhealthoutcomes.Journal of Sex Research50/3–4:299–317.

Connell,RW(1987)Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics.Sydney:Allen&Unwin.

CouncilofEurope(CoE)(2011)Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.Istanbul:CoE.

CrenshawK,(1989)DemarginalizingtheIntersectionofRaceandSex:Ablackfeministcritiqueofantidiscriminationdoctrine,feministtheoryandantiracistpolitics.The University of Chicago Legal Forum140:139–167.

References | 101

Crenshaw,K(1991)Mappingthemargins:intersectionality,identitypolitics,andviolenceagainstwomenofcolor.Stanford Law Review43/6:1,241–99.

Croll,P(1985)Teacherinteractionwithindividualmaleandfemalepupilsinjunior-ageclassrooms.Educational Research27/3:220–223.

Crookes,G(2009)‘Radicallanguageteaching’,inLong,MHandDoughty,CJ(eds)The Handbook of Language Teaching.Oxford:Wiley,595–609.

Decke-Cornill,HandVolkmann,L(eds)(2007)Gender Studies and Foreign Language Teaching.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag.

DePalma,RandAtkinson,E(2010)Thenatureofinstitutionalheteronormativityinprimaryschoolsandpractice-basedresponses.Teaching and Teacher Education26/8:1,669–1,676.

DePalma,RandJennett,M(2010)Homophobia,transphobiaandculture:DeconstructingheteronormativityinEnglishPrimaryschools.Intercultural Education21/1:15–26.

DeVincenti,G,Giovanangeli,AandWard,R(2007)Thequeerstopover:Howqueertravelsinthelanguageclassroom.Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4, suppl1:58–72.

Dörnyei,Z(2007)Research Methods in Applied Linguistics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Drozdowski,M(2011)Przemilczane, przemilczani: Raport z badań nad sytuacją osób LGBTQ studiujących na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim [Silenced (f/m): situation of LGBTQ students at the University of Warsaw].Warsaw:QueerUW(UniwersytetWarszawski).

Dryjańska,AandPiotrowska,J(eds)(2012)Nieodpłatna praca kobiet – różowa strefa gospodarki. [The Unsalaried Work of Women: The pink economic zone].Warsaw:FundacjaFeminoteka.

Eckert,P(1996)‘Vowelsandnailpolish:Theemergenceoflinguisticstyleinthepreadolescentheterosexualmarketplace’,inWarner,N(ed)Gender and Belief Systems. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaBerkeleyWomenandLanguageGroup,183–190.

Eckert,PandMcConnell-Ginet,S(1992)Thinkpracticallyandlooklocally:languageandgenderascommunity-basedpractice.Annual Review of Anthropology21:461–490.

EducationBureau(2014)Guiding principles for quality textbooks.HongKong:TextbookCommittee,EducationBureau.

Ehrlich,S,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds)(2014)The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.

Elia,JPandEliason,M(2010)Discoursesofexclusion:Sexualityeducation’ssilencingofsexualothers.Journal of LGBT Youth7/1:29–48.

EuropeanCommission(EC)(2015)Overview of Youth Discrimination in the European Union. Report. Brussels:EuropeanCommission.

Fairclough,N(1992)Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge:PolityPress.

Fairclough,NandWodak,R(1997)‘Criticaldiscourseanalysis’,invanDijk,TA(ed)Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction,Vol.2.London:Sage.

Foucault,M(1972)The Archaeology of Knowledge.London:Tavistock.

Franck,KC(2002)Rethinkinghomophobia:interrogatingheteronormativityinanurbanschool.Theory and Research in Social Education30/2:274–286.

Freeman,RandMcElhinny,B(1996)‘Languageandgender’,inMcKay,SandHornberger,N(eds)Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,218–280.

French,JandFrench,P(1984)Genderimbalancesintheprimaryclassroom:Aninteractionalaccount.Educational Research26/2:127–136.

Fuszara,M(2009)‘Kobietywpolitycedwudziestolecia(1989–2009)’[Womeninthepoliticsofthedecade],inPiotrowska,JandGrzybek,A(eds)Raport. Kobiety dla Polski. Polska dla kobiet. 20 lat transformacji 1989–2009. [Report. Women for Poland. Poland for women. 20 years of transformation 1989–2009].Warsaw:FundacjaFeminoteka,187–202.

Gardner,R(2013)‘Conversationanalysisintheclassroom’,inSidnell,JandStivers,T(eds)The Handbook of Conversation Analysis.Oxford:Blackwell,593–611.

Gass,SandVaronis,E(1986)‘Sexdifferencesinnon-nativespeaker–non-nativespeakerinteractions’,inDay,R(ed)Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second language Acquisition.NewYork:NewburyHouse,327–351.

102 | References

Gawlicz,K,Rudnicki,P,andStarnawski,M(eds)(2015)Dyskryminacja w szkole – obecność nieusprawiedliwiona. O budowaniu edukacji antydyskryminacyjnej w systemie edukacji formalnej w Polsce. Raport z badań. [Discrimination in schools – presence unexcused. On building anti-discriminatory education in the formal system of education in Poland. Report] Warsaw:TowarzystwoEdukacjiAntydyskryminacyjnej.

Geertz,(1973)The Interpretation of Cultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gill,R(2007)Gender and the media.London:PolityPress.

Główka,D(2014)TheimpactofgenderonattainmentinlearningEnglishasaforeignlanguage.Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching4/4:617–635.

Goldstein,B(2015)‘LGBT Invisibility in Language Learning Materials’,plenarytalk,Seminar5ofQueeringESOL:TowardsaculturalpoliticsofLGBTissuesintheESOLclassroom:London.(Availableat:https://queeringesol.wordpress.com/seminar-5/)

Gorski,PCandGoodman,RD(2011)Istherea‘hierarchyofoppression’inU.S.multiculturalteachereducationcoursework?Action in Teacher Education 33/5–6:455–475.

Gray,J(1992)Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships. NewYork:HarperCollins.

Gray,J(ed)(2013a)Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials.London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Gray,J(2013b)‘LGBTinvisibilityandheteronormativityinELTmaterials’,inGray,J(ed)Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials.London:PalgraveMacmillan,40–63.

Hall,K(1995)‘Lipserviceonthefantasylines’,inHall,KandBucholtz,M(eds)Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. NewYork:Routledge,183–216.

Harding,SandNorberg,K(2005)Newfeministapproachestosocialsciencemethodologies:Anintroduction.Signs30/4.

Hartman,PandJudd,E(1978)SexismandTESOLmaterials.TESOL Quarterly12/4:383–392.

Havighurst,R(1952)Human Development and Education.London:Longman.

Healy,D(2009)TherepresentationofwomenandmeninamodernEFLtextbook:Arepopulartextbooksgenderbiased?Memoirs of the Osaka Institute of Technology. Series B54/2:91–100.

Hellinger,M(1980)‘Formenmustworkandwomenmustweep’:sexisminEnglishlanguagetextbooksusedinGermanschools.Women’s Studies International Quarterly3:2–3,267–275.

Hickman,H(2012)‘Handlingheteronormativityinhighschoolliteraturetexts’,inHickman,HandPorfilio,BJ(eds)The New Politics of the Textbook: Problematizing the portrayal of marginalized groups in textbooks.Rotterdam:SensePublishers,71–85.

Hickman,HandPorfilio,BJ(eds)(2012)The New Politics of the Textbook: Problematizing the portrayal of marginalized groups in textbooks.Rotterdam:SensePublishers.

Holmes,J(1994)‘Improvingthelotoffemalelanguagelearners’,inSunderland,J(ed),Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education.HemelHempstead:PrenticeHall,156–162.

Holmes,JandMeyerhoff,M(eds)(2003)The Handbook of Language and Gender.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.

Holmes,JandStubbe,M(2003)‘‘Feminine’workplaces:Stereotypeandreality’,inHolmes,JandMeyerhoff,M(eds)The Handbook of Language and Gender.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell:573–599.

Izdebski,Z(2012)Seksualność Polaków na początku XXI wieku. Studium badawcze [Poles’ Sexuality at the Beginning of the 21st Century. A case study.]Kraków:WydawnictwoUniwersytetuJagiellońskiego.

Jackson,SandScott,S(2010)Theorizing Sexuality.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Jagiełło,K,Sałacińska,AandKamasa,V(2014)Rodzinawpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykafińskiegoorazpolskiegodlaobcokrajowców.KrytycznaAnalizaDyskursu[FamilyinFinnishasaforeignlanguagetextbook.CriticalDiscourseAnalysis].Tekst i dyskurs – Text und diskurs7:155–173.

Jaworski,A(1983)Sexismintextbooks.British Journal of Language Teaching 21/2:109–113.

Jaworski,A(1986)A Linguistic Picture of Women’s Position in Society: a Polish-English contrastive study. FrankfurtamMain:VerlagPeterLang.

References | 103

Jefferson,G(2004)‘Glossaryoftranscriptsymbolswithanintroduction’,inLerner,GH(ed),Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins:13–23.

Jones,S(2006)Antonio Gramsci.London:Routledge.

Jones,M,Kitetu,CandSunderland,J(1997)Discourseroles,genderandlanguagetextbookdialogues:wholearnswhatfromJohnandSally?Gender and Education 9/4:469–490.

Kamasa,V(2013)Naming‘InVitroFertilization’:criticaldiscourseanalysisofthePolishCatholicChurch’sofficialdocuments.Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences95:154–159.

Kapela,J(2014)Gender. Przewodnik Krytyki Politycznej [Gender. A guide by Krytyka Polityczna]. Warsaw:WydawnictwoKrytykiPolitycznej.

Kiesling,S(1996)‘Powerandthelanguageofmen’,inJohnson,SandMeinhof,UH(eds)Language and Masculinity.Oxford:Blackwell,65–85.

Kiesling,S(2002)‘Playingthestraightman:displayingandmaintainingmaleheterosexualityindiscourse’,inCampbell-Kibler,K,Podesva,RJ,Roberts,SJandWong,A(eds)Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. Stanford:CSLIPublications,249–266.

Kehily,MJ(2002)Sexuality, Gender and Schooling: Shifting agendas in social learning.London:Routledge.

Kelly,A(1988)Genderdifferencesinteacher-pupilinteractions:Ameta-analyticreview.Research in Education39:1–23.

Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak,AandPawelczyk,J(2014)‘LanguageandgenderresearchinPoland:Anoverview’,inMeyerhoff,M,Ehrlich,SandHolmes,J(eds)Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,355–377.

King,BW(2008)‘Beinggayguy,thatistheadvantage’:QueerKoreanlanguagelearningandidentityconstruction.Journal of Language, Identity and Education7:230–252.

Kochanowski,J,Lew-Starowicz,Z,Kowalczyk,RandWąż(2013)Szkoła milczenia: przegląd treści szkolnych podręczników do biologii, WOS i WDŻR pod kątem przedstawienia w nich problematyki LGBTQ i treści homofobicznych [The School of Silence: In Search of LGBTQ and Homophobic Contents in Biology and Family Life Education Textbooks]. Toruń:StowarzyszenieNaRzeczLesbijek,Gejów,OsóbBiseksualnych,OsóbTranspłciowychOrazOsóbQueer‘PracowniaRóżnorodności’.

Kopciewicz,L(2011)Nauczycielskie poniżanie. Szkolna przemoc wobec dziewcząt [Teachers humiliating students. Violence against women in schools].Warsaw:Difin.

Kramsch,C(1993)Context and Culture in Language Teaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kress,GandvanLeeuwen,T(1996)Reading Images: The grammar of visual design.London:Routledge.

Kress,G(2010)Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.London:Routledge.

Kroska,A(2007)‘Genderideologyandgenderroleideology’,inRitzer,G(ed),The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology.Malden:Wiley-Blackwell,1,867–1,869.

Krzemiński,I(2008)Naznaczeni. Mniejszości seksualne w Polsce. Report 2008. [The marked. Sexual minorities in Poland. 2008 Raport].Warsaw:InstytutSocjologiiUniwersytetuWarszawskiego.

Krzyżanowski,M(2010)‘Discoursesandconcepts:interfacesandsynergiesbetweenBegriffsgeschichteandtheDiscourse-HistoricalApproachinCDA’,indeCillia,R,Gruber,H,Krzyżanowski,M,Menz,F(eds)Diskurs-Politik-Identität/Discourse-Politics-Identity.Tübingen:StauffenburgVerlag,125–137.

Krzyżanowski,M(2008)‘Analysingfocusgroupdiscussions’,inWodak,RandKrzyżanowski,M(eds)Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,162–181.

Kukowka,GandSiekiera,A(2014)Monitoring skuteczności funkcjonowania Ustawy z dnia 3 grudnia 2010 r. [Monitoring of the effectiveness of employment of the 3rd December 2010 bill].Warsaw:PolskieTowarzystwoPrawaAntydyskryminacyjnego.

Kulick,D(2014)‘Languageanddesire’,inEhrlich,S,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds)Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,68–84.

Kurpios,P(2002)Poszukiwani, poszukiwane. Geje i lesbijki a rzeczywistość PRL [Wanted men, wanted women. Gay and lesbian people in the Polish People’s Republic]. Availableat:http://web.archive.org/web/20120103223357/http://www.dk.uni.wroc.pl/texty/prl_02.pdf(accessed8June2015).

Labov,W(1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.

104 | References

Labov,W(2008)‘Oralnarrativesofpersonalexperience’,inHoganP(ed)Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lave,JandWenger,E(1991)Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Law,KWKandChan,AHN(2004)Gender role stereotyping in Hong Kong’s primary school Chinese language subject textbooks.AsianJournalofWomen’sStudies10/1:49–69.

Lazar,M(1999)‘Familylifeadvertisementsandthenarrativeofheterosexualsociality’,inChew,PandKramer-Dahl,A(eds)Reading Culture: Textual Practices in Singapore.Singapore:TimesAcademicPress,145–162.

Lazar,M(2002)‘Consumingpersonalrelationships:Theachievementoffeminineself-identitythroughother-centredness’,inLitosseliti,LandSunderland,J(eds),Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,111–128.

Lazar,M(2003)Semiosis,socialchangeandgovernance:Acriticalsemioticanalysisofanationalcampaign.Social Semiotics13/2:201–221.

Lazar,M(2014)‘Feministcriticaldiscourseanalysis:relevanceforcurrentgenderandlanguageresearch’,inEhrlich,S,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds),The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,180–199.

Lee,JFKandCollins,P(2009)AustralianEnglish-languagetextbooks:Thegenderissues.Gender and Education21/4:353–370.

Lee,JFKandCollins,P(2010)Constructionofgender:acomparisonofAustralianandHongKongEnglishlanguagetextbooks.Journal of Gender Studies19/2:121–137.

Lee,S(2001)Gender bias in Taiwan’s EFL classrooms: a classroom observation study.UnpublishedPhDdissertation,UniversityofMississippi.Availableat:http://search.proquest.com/docview/275609947/13BAC117C5614ACE5F8/1?accountid=14505(Limitedaccess;checked11June2015.)

Liddicoat,AJ(2009)Communication as culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication.AustralianJournalofLinguistics29/1:115–133.

Lillis,T(2009)‘Bringingwriters’voicestowritingresearch:Talkaroundtexts’,inCarter,A,Lillis,TandParkin,S(eds)Why Writing Matters: Issues of Access and Identity in Writing Research and Pedagogy. Studies in Written Language and Literacy(12).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,169–187.

Linke,G(2007)‘Linguisticaspectsofgenderintheforeignlanguageclassroom’,inDecke-Cornill,HandVolkmann,L(eds)Gender Studies and Foreign Language Teaching.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,137–159.

Madill,A,Widdicombe,SandBarkham,M(2001)Thepotentialofconversationanalysisforpsychotherapyresearch.The Counseling Psychologist29:413–434.

Martínez-Roldán,CM(2005)Examiningbilingualchildren’sgenderideologiesthroughcriticaldiscourseanalysis.Critical Inquiry in Language Studies2/3:157–178.

Maynard,S,MacKay,SandSmyth,F(2008)Asurveyofyoungpeople’sreading:thinkingaboutfiction.New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship 14/1:45–65.

McMahill,C(2001)‘Self-expression,genderandcommunity:aJapanesefeministEnglishclass’,inPavlenko,A,Blackledge,A,Piller,IandTeutsch-Dwyer,M(eds),Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender.Berlin:Moutin,307–344.

Menard-Warwick,J,Mori,MandWilliams,S(2014)‘Languageandgenderineducationalcontexts’,inEhrlichS,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds)The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,471–490.

Merrett,FandWheldall,K(1992)Teachers’useofpraiseandreprimandstoboysandgirls.Education Review44/1:73–79.

Meyer,EJ(2010)Gender and Sexual Diversity in Schools: An Introduction.London:Springer.

Miceli,MS(2006)‘Schoolsandthesocialcontrolofsexuality’,inSeidman,S,Fischer,NandMeeks,C(eds),Handbook of the New Sexuality Studies.London:Routledge,357–364.

Mills,S(2008)Language and Sexism.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Milroy,L(1980)Language and Social Networks.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.

Mitchell,JC(1984)‘Casestudies’,inEllen,RF(ed)ASA Research Methods in Social Anthropology. Vol. 1: Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct.SanDiego:AcademicPress,237–241.

References | 105

Mizielińska,J,Abramowicz,MandStasińska,A(2014)Rodziny z Wyboru w Polsce. Życie Rodzinne Osób Nieheteroseksualnych. [Families of Choice in Poland. Family Life of Non-Heterosexual People in Poland]. Warsaw:InstytutPsychologiiPolskiejAkademiiNauk.

Mizielińska,JandStasińska,A(2013)Od„wrogarodziny”dojednejzjejform:Rodzinyzwyboruwewspółczesnympolskimdyskursieprasowym[Fromtheenemyofthefamilytooneofitsforms.FamiliesofchoiceincontemporaryPolishpressdiscourse].InterAlia. Journal of Queer Studies8:105–128.

Money,JandEhrhardt,AA(1972)Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity From Conception To Maturity. Oxford:JohnHopkinsPress.

Monk,D(2011)Challenginghomophobicbullyinginschools:thepoliticsofprogress.International Journal of Law in Context7/2:181–207.

Morrish,E(2002)‘Thecaseoftheindefinitepronoun:Discourseandtheconcealmentoflesbianidentityinclass’,inLitosseliti,LandSunderland,J(eds)Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,177–192.

Morrish,EandSauntson,H(2007)New Perspectives on Language and Sexual Identity.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Motschenbacher,H(2010)Language, Gender and Sexual Identity: Poststructuralist Perspectives. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Motschenbacher,H(2011)Takingqueerlinguisticsfurther:sociolinguisticsandcriticalheteronormativityresearch.International Journal of the Sociology of Language212:149–179.

Mullany,L(2007)Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Mullany,L(2010)‘Genderedidentitiesintheprofessionalworkplace:Negotiatingtheglassceiling’,inLlamas,CandWatt,D(eds)Language and Identities.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,179–190.

Munro,F(1987)Female and male participation in small group interaction in the ESOL classroom.Unpublishedtermproject.GraduateDiplomainTESOL,SydneyCollegeofAdvancedEducation.

Mustapha,ASandMills,S(eds)(2015)Gender Representations in Learning Materials: International Perspectives.London:Routledge.

Nelson,CD(1999)SexualidentitiesinESL:Queertheoryandclassroominquiry.TESOL Quarterly33/3:371–391.

Nelson,CD(2006)Queerinquiryinlanguageeducation.Journal of Language, Identity and Education5/1:1–9.

Nelson,CD(2007)‘Queerthinkingaboutlanguageteaching’,inDecke-Cornill,HandVolkmann,L(eds)Gender Studies and Foreign Language Teaching.Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,63–76.

Nelson,CD(2009)Sexual Identities in English Language Education: Classroom Conversations.NewYork:Routledge.

Nelson,CD(2012)Emergingqueerepistemologiesinstudiesof‘gay’-studentdiscourses.Journal of Language and Sexuality1/1:79–105.

Norris,S(2004)Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework.London:Routledge.

Norton,B(2000)Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change.Harlow:Pearson.

Norton,BandToohey,K(eds)(2004)Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

O’Dwyer,C(2012)DoestheEUhelporhindergay-rightsmovementsinpost-communistEurope?ThecaseofPoland.East European Politics28/4:332–352.

O’Mochain,R(2006)Discussinggenderandsexualityinacontext-appropriateway:QueernarrativesinanEFLcollegeclassroominJapan.Journal of Language, Identity & Education5/1:51–66.

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)(2012)Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools.Paris:OECDPublishing.(Availableat:www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf).

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)(2015)Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen.Paris:OECDPublishing.(www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264225442-en).

Pavlenko,A(2004)‘Genderandsexualityinforeignandsecondlanguageeducation:Criticalandfeministapproaches’,inNorton,BandToohey,K(eds),Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,53–71.

106 | References

Pavlenko,AandPiller,I(2001)‘Newdirectionsinthestudyofmultilingualism,secondlanguagelearning,andgender’,inPavlenko,A,Blackledge,A,Piller,IandTeutsch-Dwyer,M(eds),Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender.Berlin:Mouton.

Pavlenko,AandPiller,I(2007)‘Languageeducationandgender’,inMay,S(ed)Encyclopaedia of Language and Education.Volume1.NewYork:Springer,57–69.

Pawelczyk,J(submitted)‘Itwasn’tbecauseawomancouldn’tdoaman’sjob’:UncoveringgenderideologiesinthecontextofinterviewswithAmericanfemaleandmalewarveterans.Gender and Language.

Pawelczyk,J(2011)Talk as Therapy: Psychotherapy in a Linguistic Perspective.NewYork:DeGruyterMouton.

Pawelczyk,JandPakuła,Ł(2015)‘ConstructinggenderandsexualityintheEFLclassroominPoland:Textbookconstructionandclassroomnegotiation?’,inMustapha,ASandMills,S(eds)Gender Representation in Learning Materials: International Perspectives.London:Routledge,193–211.

Pawelczyk,J,Pakuła,ŁandSunderland,J(2014)IssuesofpowerinrelationtogenderandsexualityintheEFLclassroom–anoverview.Journal of Gender and Power1/1:49–66.

Peirce,BN(1995)Socialidentity,investment,andlanguagelearning.TESOL Quarterly29/1:9–31.

Pennycook,A(1990a)Towardsacriticalappliedlinguisticsforthe1990s.Issues in Applied Linguistics1:8–28.

Pennycook,A(1990b)Criticalpedagogyandsecondlanguageeducation.System18/3:303–314.

Pennycook,A(1994)The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.London:Longman.

Philips,SU(2014)‘Thepowerofgenderideologiesindiscourse’,inEhrlich,S,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds),The Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,297–315.

Pihlaja,S(2008)‘Wouldyouliketodancewithme,Miwa?’:GenderrolesandtheEFLtext.The School House16/1:2–9.

Piotrowska,JandGrzybek,A(2009)Raport. Kobiety dla Polski. Polska dla kobiet. 20 lat transformacji 1989–2009. [Report. Poland for Women. Women for Poland. 20 Years after the Transformation 1989–2009].Warsaw:FundacjaFeminoteka.

Politzer,R(1983)Anexploratorystudyofself-reportedlanguagelearningbehaviorsandtheirrelationshiptoachievement.Studies in Second Language Acquisition6:54–68.

Porreca,K(1984)SexismincurrentESLtextbooks.TESOL Quarterly18/4:705–724.

Poteat,VP,Aragon,SR,Espelage,DLandKoenig,BW(2009)Psychosocialconcernsofsexualminorityyouth:Complexityandcautioningroupdifferences.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology77/1:196–201.

Queen,R(2014)‘Languageandsexualidentities’,inEhrlichS,Meyerhoff,MandHolmes,J(eds)The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,203–219.

Rampton,B(1994)Politicsandchangeinresearchinappliedlinguistics.Applied Linguistics16/2:233–256.

Rapley,TJ(2001)Theart(fulness)ofopen-endedinterviewing:someconsiderationsonanalyzinginterviews.Qualitative Research1/3:303–323.

Regnerus,M(2012)Howdifferentaretheadultchildrenofparentswhohavesame-sexrelationships?FindingsfromtheNewFamilyStructuresStudy.Social Science Research41/4:752–770.

Rient,R,Seklecka,E,Walczak,M,Walicka,AandZierkiewicz,E(eds)(2014)Męskość i kobiecość w lekturach szkolnych. Analiza treści lektur w szkole podstawowej i gimnazjum z perspektywy równości płci. Raport z badań. [Masculinity and femininity in school set books. Primary and middle school set book content analysis from the perspective of gender equality].Wrocław:FundacjaPunktWidzenia.

Ripley,M,Anderson,E,McCormack,MandRockett,B(2012)Heteronormativityintheuniversityclassroom:noveltyattachmentandcontentsubstitutionamonggay-friendlystudents.Sociology of Education85/2:121–130.

Rivers,I(2011)Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPressUSA.

Rosario,M,Schrimshaw,EWandHunter,J(2012)Riskfactorsforhomelessnessamonglesbian,gay,andbisexualyouths:Adevelopmentalmilestoneapproach.Children and Youth Services Review34/1:186–193.

Ryan,T(2005)Whenyoureflectareyoualsobeingreflexive?The Ontario Action Researcher8/1:2.

References | 107

Sacks,H(1992)Lectures on Conversation,Vol.IandVol.II.Oxford:Blackwell.

Sadker,MandSadker,D(1985)Sexismintheschoolroomofthe’80s.Psychology Today,March1985,54–57.

Sarangi,SandRoberts,C(eds)(1999)Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation, and management settings.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter(Language,PowerandSocialProcessSeries).

Sarangi,S(2002)‘Discoursepractitionersasacommunityofinterprofessionalpractice:someinsightsfromhealthcommunicationresearch’,inCandlin,CN(ed)Research and Practice in Professional Discourse.HongKong:CityUniversityofHongKongPress,95–135.

Sauntson,H(2011)Approaches to Gender and Spoken Classroom Discourse.Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Sauntson,H(2008)‘ThecontributionsofQueerTheorytogenderandlanguageresearch’,inHarrington,K,Litosseliti,L,Sauntson,HandSunderland,J(eds)Gender and Language Research Methodologies.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,271–282.

Schegloff,EA,Jefferson,G,Sacks,H(1977)Thepreferenceforself-correctionintheorganizationofrepairinconversation.Language53,361–382.

Schmitz,B(1984)Guidelinesforreviewingforeignlanguagetextbooksforsexbias.Women’s Studies Quarterly12/3:7–9.

Seidman,S(1995)‘Deconstructingqueertheoryortheunder-theorizationofthesocialandtheethical’,inNicholson,LandSeidman,S(eds)Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,116–141.

Shattuck,J(1996)The interplay between EFL textbooks, teacher behaviour and gender. MAdissertation,LancasterUniversity,UK.

Siegal,M(1994)‘Secondlanguagelearning,identityandresistance:WhitewomenstudyingJapaneseinJapan’,inBucholtz,M,Liang,AC,Sutton,LandHines,C(eds)Cultural Performance: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference.Berkeley:BerkeleyWomenandLanguageGroup,642–650.

Siegal,M(1996)Theroleoflearnersubjectivityinsecondlanguagesociolinguisticcompetency:WesternwomenlearningJapanese.Applied Linguistics17/3:356–382.

Silverman,D(ed)(2011)Qualitative Research(3rdedition).London:Sage.

Skonieczna,J(2014)Sprawdzian (z) WdŻ, czyli jak wygląda edukacja seksualna w polskich szkołach [Putting Family Life Education classes to the test: What does sexual education in Polish schools look like?]Warsaw:GrupaEdukatorówSeksualnychPonton.

Spelman,E(1988).Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought.Boston:BeaconPress.

Spender,D(1980)‘Talkinginclass’,inSpender,DandSarah,E(eds)Learning to Lose.London:TheWomen’sPress,148–154.

Spender,D(1982)Invisible Women: the schooling scandal.London:TheWomen’sPress.

Środa,M(2014)O gender i innych potworach. Warsaw:CzarnaOwieczka.

StaintonRogers,WandStaintonRogers,R(2001)The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality: An introduction.Maidenhead:McGraw-HillEducation.

Sunderland,J(1996)Gendered discourse in the foreign language classroom: teacher–student and student–teacher talk, and the social construction of children’s femininities and masculinities.PhDthesis,LancasterUniversity,UK.

Sunderland,J(1998)Girlsbeingquiet:aproblemfortheforeignlanguageclassroom?Language Teaching Research2/1:48–82.

Sunderland,J(2000a)Newunderstandingsofgenderandlanguageclassroomresearch:texts,teachertalkandstudenttalk.Language Teaching Research4/2:149–173.

Sunderland,J(2000b)Issuesoflanguageandgenderinsecondandforeignlanguageeducation.Language Teaching33/4:203–223.

Sunderland,J,Cowley,M,AbdulRahim,F,Leontzakou,CandShattuck,J(2002)‘Fromrepresentationtowardsdiscursivepractices:genderintheforeignlanguagetextbookrevisited’,inLitosseliti,LandSunderland,J(eds),Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,223–255.

Sunderland,J(2004)Gendered Discourses.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Sunderland,J(2011)Language, Gender and Children’s Fiction.London:Continuum.

108 | References

Sunderland,J(2014)Gender representation in language textbooks: Moving on.PlenarytalkgivenatYoungLinguists’MeetinginPoznań2014.

Sunderland,J(2015a)‘Similaritiesanddistinctionsingenderandlanguagestudy’,inJule,A(ed)Shifting Visions: Gender and Discourses.NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,5–26.

Sunderland,J(2015b)‘Gender(representation)inforeignlanguagetextbooks:avoidingpitfallsandmovingon’,inMustapha,SandMills,S(eds)Gender Representations in Learning Materials: International Perspectives.London:Routledge,19–34.

Swann,JandGraddol,D(1988)Genderinequalitiesinclassroomtalk.English in Education22/1:48–65.

Swann,J(2011)‘Talkcontrol:Anillustrationfromtheclassroomofproblemsinanalysingmaledominanceofconversation’,inCoates,JandPichler,P(eds)Language and Gender. A Reader(2ndedition).Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,161–170.

Świerszcz,J(ed)(2012)Lekcja równości: postawy i potrzeby kadry szkolnej i młodzieży wobec homofobii w szkole [Lesson of equality: the attitudes and needs of teachers and students towards homophobia in school].Warsaw:KampaniaPrzeciwHomofobii.

Talbot,M(1995)‘Asyntheticsisterhood:Falsefriendsinateenagemagazine’,inHall,KandBucholtz,M(eds)Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self.NewYork:Routledge,143–165.

Talbot,M(1998)Language and Gender.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Talbot,M(2010)Language and Gender (2ndedition).Cambridge:PolityPress.

Thonus,T(1999)Dominanceinacademicwritingtutorials:gender,languageproficiency,andtheofferingofsuggestions.Discourse & Society10:225–248.

Thornbury,S(1999)Window-dressingvscross-dressingintheEFLsub-culture.Folio5/2:15–17.

Tomasik,K(2012)Gejerel. Mniejszości seksualne w PRL-u. [Gejerel. Sexual minorities in the People’s Republic of Poland].Warsaw:WydawnictwoKrytykiPolitycznej.

Toohey,K(2000)Learning English at School: Identity, social relations, and classroom practice.Vol.20.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Toomey,RB,McGuire,JKandRussell,ST(2012)Heteronormativity,schoolclimates,andperceivedsafetyforgendernonconformingpeers.Journal of Adolescence35/1:187–196.

Trudgill,P(1972)Sex,covertprestigeandlinguisticchangeintheurbanBritishEnglishofNorwich.Language in Society1:179–195.

Unsworth,LandCléirigh,C(2009)‘Multimodalityandreading:Theconstructionofmeaningthroughimage-textinteraction’,inJewitt,C(ed)The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis.London:Routledge,151–163.

VanLeeuwen,T(2008)Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Vestergaard,TandSchrøder,K(1985)The Language of Advertising.NewYork:Blackwell.

Weeks,J(2009)Sexuality(3rdedition).London:Routledge.

Wilkinson,S(2011).Analysingfocusgroupdata’,inSilverman,D(ed)Qualitative Research(3rdedition).London:Sage,168–184.

Willett,J(1995)BecomingfirstgradersinanL2:AnethnographicstudyofL2socialization.TESOL Quarterly29/3:473–503.

Williams,T,Connolly,J,Pepler,DandCraig,W(2005)Peervictimization,socialsupport,andpsychosocialadjustmentofsexualminorityadolescents.Journal of Youth and Adolescence34/5:471–482.

Wodak,R(2009)‘Thediscourse-historicalapproach(DHA)’,inWodak,RandMeyer,M(eds)Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis(2ndedition).London:Sage,87–121.

Yang,CCR(2014)Gender Representation in Hong Kong Primary English Language Textbooks: A Study of Two Widely-used Textbook Series.PhDthesis,LancasterUniversity.

Yepez,ME(1994)Anobservationofgender-specificteacherbehaviorintheESLclassroom.Sex Roles301/2:121–133.

Żukowski,T(ed)(2004)Szkoła Otwartości [School of openmindedness].Warsaw:Stowarzyszenie‘OtwartaRzeczpospolita’.

Appendices | 109

10AppendixA:Focusgroupquestions/prompts(withteachers)Cel:chcielibyśmysiędowiedzieć,jakPaństwooceniaciewizerunekkobietimężczyznwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiegoorazodniesieniadonichpodczaszajęćzjęzykaangielskiego.

[Aim:We’dliketoknowhowyouassessrepresentationsofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooksandhowyourefertothemduringyourclasses]

Question Prompts

1 Trzytematynarozgrzewkędowyboruwzależnościodtypugrupy[threewarm-uptopicsdependingonthetypeofgroup]

■■ Czypapierowaksiążkaumarła?Czye-bookiprzyczyniąsiędozanikudrukuksiążekwogóle?[hastheprintedbookdiedoutalready?Doe-bookscontributetothedisappearanceofprintedbooksingeneral?]

■■ JakczęstoczytaciePaństwoksiążki,książkinauczycieladołączonedoksiążekucznia?[howoftendoyoureadbooks?Teacherbooks?]

2 JakiejestPaństwaogólnezdanienatematwizerunkukobietimężczyznwpodręcznikach?[what’syouropinionontherepresentationofwomenandmenintextbooks?]

■■ Równeilości?[equalnumbers?]

■■ CzyPaństwutosiępodoba?[doyoulikeit?]

■■ Czyzwracacienatouwagępodczaszajęć?[doyouorienttoitduringclasses?]

■■ Czyuczniowiezwracająnatouwagę?[dostudentspayattentiontothis?]

■■ Czydziewczynkisąlepszewuczeniusięjęzykówobcych?[aregirlsbetteratlanguages?]

3 CzyuważaciePaństwo,żewćwiczeniachgramatycznychwykorzystywanesąstereotypowewizerunkikobietimężczyzn?[doyouthinkthatstereotypicalimagesofwomenandmenareusedingrammarexercises]

■■ Rozdajemystr.7zeStarland3iprośbaokomentarz:„Odnoszącsiędowcześniejszegopytania,jakoceniaciePaństwotećwiczenia?”[wegiveoutourpromptandreferbacktothepreviousquestion:howdoyouassesstheseexercises?]

4 Uczeniezdańwarunkowych(2)zapomocągenderu.[teachingconditionalsentencesviagender]

IfIwereananimal.I’dbe…;IfIwereaflower,I’dbe…;IfIwereacolour,I’dbe…;IfIwereafooditem,I’dbe…

Girlsonly(IfIwereaflower,I’dbe…)andtheotheronebyboysonly(IfIwereacar,I’dbe…).

CzyuważaciePaństwo,żejesttospontaniczne,czysłużytocelomnauczania?[doyouthinkit’sspontaneousordoesitserveteachingpurposes?]

■■ 10/str.61(Starland3)„CzyuważaciePaństwo,żetastrategiajestskutecznawnauczaniu?”[doyouthinkthatthisstrategyiseffectiveinteaching?]

■■ irównieżwpodobnymćwiczeniu–81(Starland3)[andalsointhisexercise]

110 | Appendices

5 Czynauczycieljęzykaangielskiegopowinienprzykładaćuwagędoreprezentacjikobietimężczyznzarównowdialogach,jakinaobrazkach?

[doesanEFLteacherhavetofocusonrepresentationsofwomenandmenbothindialoguesandpictures?]

■■ NEZ3str.10;str.18

■■ Czyroląnauczycielajęzykaangielskiegojestzwracanieuwaginareprezentacjekobietimężczyznwtakichsytuacjach?[isitateacher’sroletofocusonsuchrepresentationsintextbooks?]

■■ Czyuczniowiesamikomentujątocozastająwpodręczniku?[dostudentssometimescommentonsuchrepresentationsontheirown?]

■■ CoPaństwosądzicieotakiejstrategiićwiczeniadialogów?POKAZAĆWYCINEKZTB[whatdoyouthinkaboutthisstrategyofpractisingdialogues?SHOWANEXTRACTFROMTB]

6 CoPaństwomyślicieotymtekście?

[whatdoyouthinkaboutthistext?]

■■ NEZ3str.45

■■ Jakważnejestnauczanieszerokopojętejkulturyanglosaskiejnalekcjachjęzykaangielskiego?[howimportantisteachingofthebroadlyconceivedanglophoneculture?]

■■ Czytakieteksty,Państwazdaniem,odzwierciedlająrzeczywistość?[dosuchtextsmirrorthereality,inyouropinion?]

7 CzyobrazkitowarzyszącetemućwiczeniusądlaPaństwaproblematyczne?

[aretheaccompanyingpicturesproblematictoyou?]

■■ NMSUIstr.160

■■ CzynaPaństwazajęciachmająmiejscepodobnesytuacje?[dosimilarsituationsoccurduringyourclasses?]

■■ Czyuczniowiesamizauważająnierównereprezentacjekobietimężczyznwpodręcznikach?[dostudentssometimesnoticeimbalancesintherepresentationofwomenandmenontheirown?]

Appendices | 111

AppendixB:Focusgroupquestions/prompts(withstudents)Cel:chcielibyśmysiędowiedziećjakoceniaciewizerunekkobietimężczyznwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiegoorazodniesieniadonichpodczaszajęćzjęzykaangielskiego.

[Aim:We’dliketoknowhowyouassessrepresentationsofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooksandhowyourefertothemduringyourclasses]

Question Prompts

1 Tematynarozgrzewkę[warm-uptopics]

■■ Czypapierowaksiążkaumarła?Czye-bookiprzyczyniąsiędozanikudrukuksiążekwogóle?[hastheprintedbookdiedoutalready?Doe-bookscontributetothedisappearanceofprintedbooksingeneral?]

■■ JakczęstoczytaciePaństwoksiążki,książkinauczycieladołączonedoksiążekucznia?[howoftendoyoureadbooks?Teacherbooks?]

2 Jakiejestwaszeogólnezdanienatematwizerunkukobietimężczyznwpodręcznikach?[what’syouropinionontherepresentationofwomenandmenintextbooks?]

■■ Równeilości?[equalnumbers?]

■■ CzyPaństwutosiępodoba?[doyoulikeit?]

■■ Czyzwracacienatouwagępodczaszajęć?[doyouorienttoitduringclasses?]

■■ Czyuczniowiezwracająnatouwagę?[dostudentspayattentiontothis?]

■■ Czydziewczynkisąlepszewuczeniusięjęzykówobcych?[aregirlsbetteratlanguages?]

3 CzyuważaciePaństwo,żewćwiczeniachgramatycznychwykorzystywanesąstereotypowewizerunkikobietimężczyzn?[doyouthinkthatstereotypicalimagesofwomenandmenareusedingrammarexercises]

■■ Rozdajemystr.7zeStarland3iprośbaokomentarz:„Odnoszącsiędowcześniejszegopytania,jakoceniaciePaństwotećwiczenia?”[wegiveoutourpromptandreferbacktothepreviousquestion:howdoyouassesstheseexercises?]

4 CoPaństwomyślicieotymtekście?[whatdoyouthinkaboutthistext?]

■■ NEZ3str.45

■■ Jakważnejestnauczanieszerokopojętejkulturyanglosaskiejnalekcjachjęzykaangielskiego?[howimportantisteachingofthebroadlyconceivedanglophoneculture?]

■■ Czytakieteksty,Państwazdaniem,odzwierciedlająrzeczywistość?[dosuchtextsmirrorthereality,inyouropinion?]

5 CzyobrazkitowarzyszącetemućwiczeniusądlaPaństwaproblematyczne?

[aretheaccompanyingpicturesproblematictoyou?]

■■ NMSUIstr.160

■■ CzynaPaństwazajęciachmająmiejscepodobnesytuacje?[dosimilarsituationsoccurduringyourclasses?]

■■ Czyuczniowiesamizauważająnierównereprezentacjekobietimężczyznwpodręcznikach?[dostudentssometimesnoticeimbalancesinrepresentationofwomenandmenontheirown?]

112 | Appendices

AppendixC:QuestionsandpromptsforMinistryofEducationreviewersRECENZENT1[reviewer1]

1. Jakważnejestprzedstawianietreścikulturowychwpodręcznikach?[Howimportantisittopresentculturalknowledgeintextbooks?]

2. CzymogłabyPaniprzedstawićramyczasowezmianspołecznychpokazanychwpodręcznikach?[Couldyouprovideuswithatimeframeofsocialchangesasreflectedintextbooks?]

3. Ilurecenzentówoceniapodręcznik?[Howmanyreviewersreviewonetextbook?]

4. CzyjestPaniszczególniewyczulonajakorecenzentkanapewienrodzajstereotypówwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiego?[AreyoupersonallysensitivetoacertaintypeofstereotypeinEFLtextbooks?]

5. Czykryterium‘stereotypy’znajdujesięwarkuszurecenzji?[Doesthecriterionof‘stereotypes’figureinMinistryofEducationreviewerforms?]

6. Czyistniejąogólnerekomendacjeministerialnedotyczącerównegowizerunkukobietimężczyznwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiego?[ArethereanyrecommendationsissuedbytheMinistryofEducationregardingrepresentationsofwomenandmenintextbooks?]

7. CzyspotkałasięPanizjakimikolwiektożsamościami,którebyłybynie-heteroseksualnewpodręcznikach?[Haveyouevercomeacrossidentitieswhichcouldbenon-heterosexualintextbooks?]

8. CzyzauważaPanipostępwsposobie,wjakiprzedstawianesąkobietyimężczyźniwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiego?[HaveyounoticedanyimprovementwithregardtothewaysinwhichwomenandmenarerepresentedinEFLtextbooks?]

9. ComyśliPaniotymdialogu?(wykorzystanydialogzgrupfokusowych;New English Zone 3)?[Whatdoyouthinkaboutthisdialogue?(dialoguefromNew English Zone 3–alsousedduringfocusgroups]

10. CzyjakorecenzentkazwracaPaniuwagęnastereotypyzawartewćwiczeniachleksykalno-gramatycznych?[Doyou,asareviewer,payattentiontostereotypesinlexico-grammarexercises?]

11. Czywprogramachnauczaniaprzyszłychnauczycielijęzykaangielskiegomówisięcośogender bias,onormatywności?[Doteachertrainingcoursessayanythingaboutgender bias,normativity?]

12. Czynauczycielombrakujeświadomościdotyczącejwizerunkukobietimężczyznwpodręcznikachdonaukijęzykaangielskiego?[DoteacherslackawarenessregardingrepresentationsofwomenandmeninEFLtextbooks?]

13. Czyistniejeroom for improvementwedukacjiprzyszłychnauczycielijęzykaangielskiego,jeżelichodzioichzachowaniewpodczaszajęć?[Isthereanyroom for improvementwhenitcomestotheirbehaviourduringteaching?]

14. CzymożePanizarekomendowaćpodręcznik,któryjestprogresywny,jeżelichodziowizerunekkobietimężczyzn?[Couldyourecommendatextbookwhichisprogressivewithrespecttorepresentationsofwomenandmen?]

Appendices | 113

RECENZENT2[reviewer2]

15. JakPaniwidzikwestieprzedstawianiakulturywksiążkachdonauczaniajęzykaangielskiego;czywprocesierecenzowaniajesttoważnyaspekt,naktóryzwracasięuwagę?[WhatisyouropiniononintroducingcultureinEFLtextbooks?Isitanimportantaspectwhenreviewingtextbooks?]

16. Czyocenaaspektówkulturyznajdujesięwformularzachdorecenzji?[Doreviewerformsaskyoutoevaluateculturalaspects?]

17. Czymetodyilościowepokazują,żejestjednakwięcejmężczyznreprezentowanychwpodręcznikachniżkobiet?Czytojestproblematyczneprzedstawianierólpłci?[Doquantitativemethodsshowthattherearemoremenrepresentedintextbooks?Isitaproblematicrepresentationofgenderroles?]

18. Czywprocesierecenzowaniapodręcznikazwracasięteżuwagęnato,jakrolekobietimężczyznsąprzedstawiane?[Inthecourseofreviewingatextbook,doyoupayattentiontohowgenderrolesaredepicted?]

19. Czyrolekobietimężczyznprzedstawianesąinaczejwpodręcznikachtzw.lokalnychiglobalnych?[Aregenderrolesrepresentedinadifferentwayintheso-calledlocalandglobaltextbooks?]

20. Czylipodręcznikniejesttylkowykorzystywanydonaukijęzykaper se,aleuczymysięteżczegośosobie,oświecienasotaczającym?[Sothetextbookisnotusedonlytoteachlanguageper se butwealsolearnsomethingaboutourselves?Aboutthesurroundingworld?]

21. ComyśliPaniotymdialogu?(wykorzystanydialogzgrupfokusowych;New English Zone 3)?[Whatdoyouthinkaboutthisdialogue?(adialoguefromNew English Zone 3alsousedduringfocusgroups)]

22. CzynaprzestrzenilatzauważyłaPani,żecośsięzmienia,jeżelichodzioprzedstawianiekobietimężczyzn?[Hasanythingchangedwithregardtotherepresentationofwomenandmenwithinthespanofsometime?]

23. Czypodwpływemuwagrecenzentówpodręcznikjestmodyfikowany?[Aretextbooksmodifiedduetoreviewercomments?]

24. Czycośpowinnosięzmienić,jeżelichodzioprzedstawianierodzinwpodręcznikach?[ShouldanythingchangewithregardtotherepresentationoffamiliesinEFLtextbooks?]

25. Wydajesię,żejeżeliuczeńniemawsparciawpodręcznikuczyteżwnauczycielu,jeżelichodziojego/jejrodzinę,toczujesięzniechęconydonauki?[Itseemsthatastudentwhodoesnotseesupportinthetextbookortheteacher,whenitcomestotheirfamily,theyfeeldiscouraged?]

26. CzywPaniopiniipowinnybyćprzedstawianeróżnetypyrodzin?[Inyouropinion,shoulddifferenttypesoffamiliesbedepicted?]

27. CzyprzygotowujePaniprzyszłychanglistówdopracy?[Doyouteachonteachereducationcourses?]

28. Czyjestmiejscewszkoleniunauczycielinapodnoszenieichświadomości,jeżelichodziokwestiespołeczne?[Isthereanyroomforraisingteacherawarenessofsocialissuesduringsuchcourses?]

29. Dlaczegotaksiędzieje,żeinterkulturowość,chociażjesttakważna,niezwracasięnaniąuwagipodczaszajęćzjęzykaangielskiego?[Whydoesithappenthatdespiteinterculturalismbeingsoimportant,littleattentionispaidtoitduringEFLclasses?]

114 | Appendices

AppendixD:MinistryofEducationreviewerforms75

Published:28August2014

Opiniamerytoryczno-dydaktyczna76

pozytywna negatywna warunkowa

Danerzeczoznawcy

Imięinazwiskorzeczoznawcy

Adresdokorespondencji

Telefon,email

Dataotrzymaniapodręcznikadoopinii

Danedotycząceopiniowanegopodręcznika

Tytułpodręcznika

Autor/autorzy

Wydawca

Tytułserii

Numerczęścipodręcznika/Liczbawszystkichczęścipodręcznika

Liczbastron

Postaćpodręcznika tradycyjna

e-book

podręcznikmultimedialny

75Alsoavailableat:http://men.gov.pl/pl/zycie-szkoly/ksztalcenie-ogolne/podreczniki-i-programy-nauczania(accessed16June2015).76Wzóropiniiopracowanyzgodniezart.22aoustawyzdnia7września1991r.osystemieoświaty(Dz.U.z2004r.,Nr256,poz.2572zpóźn.zm.)oraz§2ust.1–5,§4ust.

1i2pkt1–4rozporządzeniaMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejzdnia8lipca2014r.wsprawiedopuszczaniadoużytkuszkolnegopodręczników(Dz.U.z2014r.,poz.909).

Appendices | 115

Przeznaczeniepodręcznika:

Rodzajzajęćedukacyjnych/przedmiot

Etapedukacyjny I II III IV

Typszkoły Szkołapodstawowa

Gimnazjum

Liceumogólnokształcące,liceumprofilowane,technikum

Zasadniczaszkołazawodowa

Zakreskształcenia Podstawowy

Rozszerzony

Niedotyczy

Podręcznikprzeznaczonydookreślonegowpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnegopoziomuzaawansowaniaumiejętnościjęzykowych

KlasyI-IIISP

KlasyIV-VISP

Gimnazjum Szkołyponadgimnazjalne

I II III.0 III.1 IV.0 IV.1P IV.1R IV.2

WskaliESOKJpodręcznikodpowiadapoziomowi

PoziompodstawowyA1A2

PoziomsamodzielnościB1B2

PoziombiegłościC1C2

(dotyczypodręcznikadojęzykaobcegonowożytnegoipodręcznikadojęzykamniejszościnarodowej,etnicznejijęzykaregionalnego)

Czydopodręcznikadołączonesąnagraniadźwiękowenaelektronicznymnośnikudanych,rozwijającesprawnośćrozumieniazesłuchu,stanowiąceintegralnączęśćpodręcznika?

TAK NIE

I.Ocenakoncepcjiopracowaniapodręcznikawydawanegowczęściach,wszczególnościrozkładuiuwzględnieniatreścinauczaniawpozostałychczęściachpodręcznika

Czykoncepcjapodręcznikawydawanegowczęściachobejmujewszystkietreścinauczaniaokreślonewpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnegodlaodpowiednichzajęćedukacyjnychwdanymetapieedukacyjnym?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

II.Ocenazgodnościtreścipodręcznikazpodstawąprogramowąkształceniaogólnego

1. CzypodręcznikjestzgodnyzpodstawąprogramowąkształceniaogólnegookreślonąwrozporządzeniuMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejzdnia27sierpnia2012r.wsprawiepodstawyprogramowejwychowaniaprzedszkolnegoorazkształceniaogólnegowposzczególnychtypachszkół(Dz.U.z2012r.,poz.977zpóźn.zm.)

TAK NIE

2. Czypodręcznikumożliwiarealizacjęcelówkształceniaokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowej?

TAK NIE

3. Czypodręcznikumożliwiarealizacjęwymagańszczegółowychokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowej?

TAK NIE

4. Czypodręcznikzawierausystematyzowanąprezentacjętreścinauczaniaustalonychwpodstawieprogramowej?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

116 | Appendices

III. Czypodręcznikzawierapytania,polecenia,zadaniaićwiczeniawymagająceuzupełnianiawpodręczniku?–wprzypadkupodręcznikawpostacipapierowej

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

IV. Czypodręcznikzawieraodwołaniaipoleceniawymagającekorzystaniazopracowanychprzezokreślonegowydawcędodatkowychmateriałówdydaktycznychprzeznaczonychdlaucznia?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

V. Czypodręcznikzawieramateriałyitreściocharakterzereklamowym? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

VI.Ocenapostacielektronicznejpodręcznika

1. Czypodręcznikzawieraopissposobuuruchomieniaalboopissposobuinstalacjiiuruchomienia?

TAK NIE

2. Czypodręcznikzawierasystempomocyzawierającyopisużytkowaniapodręcznika? TAK NIE

3. Czypodręcznikzawieramechanizmynawigacjiiwyszukiwania,wtymwszczególnościspistreściiskorowidzwpostacihiperłączy?

TAK NIE

4. Czypodręcznikzawieraopcjędrukowaniatreścipodręcznika,zwyłączeniemdynamicznychelementówmultimedialnych,którychwydrukowanieniejestmożliwe?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

VII.Szczegółowaocenapoprawnościpodwzględemmerytorycznymiszczegółowaocenaprzydatnościdydaktycznej

1. Czypodręcznikjestpoprawnypodwzględemmerytorycznym,dydaktycznymiwychowawczym?Wszczególności:

a. Czyuwzględniaaktualnystanwiedzynaukowej,wtymmetodycznej? TAK NIE

b. Czyjestprzystosowanydodanegopoziomukształceniapodwzględemstopniatrudności,formyprzekazu,właściwegodoborupojęć,nazw,terminówisposobuichwyjaśniania?

TAK NIE

c. Czyzawieramateriałrzeczowyimateriałilustracyjnyodpowiednidoprzedstawianychtreścinauczania?

TAK NIE

d. Czymalogicznąkonstrukcję? TAK NIE

Appendices | 117

Uzasadnienieoceny:

2. Czypodręcznikzawierazakresmateriałurzeczowegoimateriałuilustracyjnegoodpowiednidoliczbygodzinprzewidzianychwramowymplanienauczania?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

3. Czyzawierapropozycjedziałańedukacyjnychaktywizującychimotywującychuczniów? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

4. Czyumożliwiauczniomzezróżnicowanymimożliwościaminabycieumiejętnościokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnego?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

5. Czyzawieratreścizgodnezprzepisamiprawa,wtymratyfikowanymiumowamimiędzynarodowymi?77

TAK NIE

(jeśliNIE,proszępodać,jakietreścisąniezgodne)Uzasadnienieoceny:

6. Czymaprzejrzystąszatęgraficzną? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

7. Czyzawieraopissprawdzianuiegzaminów,októrychmowawart.9ust.1pkt1,2i3lit.bicustawyzdnia7września1991r.osystemieoświatyorazzadańegzaminacyjnychwykorzystanychwarkuszachegzaminacyjnychsprawdzianuiegzaminów?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

77KonstytucjaRzeczypospolitejPolskiej,PowszechnaDeklaracjaPrawCzłowieka,MiędzynarodowyPaktPrawObywatelskichiPolitycznych,KonwencjaoPrawachDzieckaorazinneumowyikonwencje,którychpostanowieniadotyczązakresutreścinauczaniadlaposzczególnychprzedmiotów.

118 | Appendices

8. Czywprzypadkupytań,poleceń,zadańićwiczeńzawartychwpodręcznikuwpostacipapierowej,wymagającychudzieleniaprzezuczniapisemnejodpowiedzi:

–podręcznikzawierainformację,żeodpowiedzitejnienależyumieszczaćwpodręczniku;

–miejscawzadaniachićwiczeniach,którepowinnybyćwypełnioneprzezucznia,sązaciemnioneiprzedstawionewsposóbuniemożliwiającyuczniowiwpisanieodpowiedziwtymmiejscu?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

(wprzypadkupodręcznikówdohistoriiigeografii)

9. Czyzawieratreścizgodnezzaleceniamidwustronnychkomisjipodręcznikowychorazinnychkomisjiizespołówdosprawpodręczników,działającychnapodstawiemiędzypaństwowychumówdotyczącychwspółpracywzakresieedukacjilubporozumieńkomitetównarodowychUNESCO?

TAK NIE

(jeśliNIE,proszępodać,jakietreścisąniezgodne)

Uzasadnienieoceny:

Ogólnaopiniaopodręczniku

Wady

Zalety

Konkluzjakwalifikacyjna

Podręcznikmożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego

pozytywna

Podręcznikniemożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego

negatywna

Uzasadnienie:

Podręcznikmożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego,podwarunkiemdokonaniawskazanychwopiniipoprawek78

warunkowa

Wykazbłędówznajdującychsięwpodręcznikuorazkoniecznychdowprowadzeniapoprawek(należywymienićwszystkiebłędyznumeramistron,naktórychsięznajdują)

Dataipodpis

78Uwaga:Rzeczoznawcajestzobowiązanydowskazaniawszystkichusterekopiniowanegopodręcznikaorazdoocenyostatecznejwersjitekstuiilustracji,pokońcowymopracowaniu.

Appendices | 119

Published:18July2012

Opiniamerytoryczno-dydaktyczna79

pozytywna negatywna warunkowa

Danerzeczoznawcy

Imięinazwiskorzeczoznawcy

Adresdokorespondencji

Telefon,email

Dataotrzymaniapodręcznikadoopinii

Danedotycząceopiniowanegopodręcznika

Tytułpodręcznika

Autor/autorzy

Wydawca

Tytułserii

Pozycjawserii/Liczbapodręcznikówserii

Liczbastron

Formapodręcznika tradycyjna

e-book

podręcznikmultimedialny

Przeznaczeniepodręcznika:

Rodzajzajęćedukacyjnych/przedmiot

Etapedukacyjny I II III IV

Typszkoły Szkołapodstawowa

Gimnazjum

Liceumogólnokształcące,liceumprofilowane,technikum

Zasadniczaszkołazawodowa

Zakreskształcenia Podstawowy

Rozszerzony

Niedotyczy

79ZgodniezrozporządzeniemMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejzdnia21czerwca2012r.wsprawiedopuszczaniadoużytkuwszkoleprogramówwychowaniaprzedszkolnegoiprogramównauczaniaorazdopuszczaniadoużytkuszkolnegopodręczników(Poz.752).

120 | Appendices

Podręcznikzgodnyzpodstawąprogramowąkształceniaogólnegookreślonąw:

rozporządzeniuMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejiSportuzdnia26lutego2002r.wsprawiepodstawyprogramowejwychowaniaprzedszkolnegoorazkształceniaogólnegowposzczególnychtypachszkół

(Dz.U.Nr51,poz.458,zpóźn.zm.)

rozporządzeniuMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejzdnia27sierpnia2012r.wsprawiepodstawyprogramowejwychowaniaprzedszkolnegoorazkształceniaogólnegowposzczególnychtypachszkół

(Poz.977)

Podręcznikprzeznaczonydookreślonegowpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnegopoziomuzaawansowaniaumiejętnościjęzykowych

KlasyI-IIISP

KlasyIV-VISP

Gimnazjum Szkołyponadgimnazjalne

I II III.0 III.1 IV.0 IV.1P IV.1R IV.2

WskaliESOKJpodręcznikodpowiadapoziomowi

PoziompodstawowyA1A2

PoziomsamodzielnościB1B2

PoziombiegłościC1C2

I.Ocenakoncepcjiserii

Czyseria/koncepcjaseriiobejmujewszystkietreścinauczaniaokreślonewpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnegodlaodpowiednichzajęćedukacyjnychwdanymetapieedukacyjnym?80

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

II.Ocenaformyelektronicznejpodręcznika81

1. Czypodręcznikzawieraopissposobuuruchomieniaalboopissposobuinstalacjiiuruchomienia?

TAK NIE

2. Czypodręcznikposiadasystempomocyzawierającyopisużytkowaniapodręcznika? TAK NIE

3. Czypodręcznikzawieramechanizmynawigacjiiwyszukiwania,wtymwszczególnościspistreściiskorowidzwpostacihiperłączy?

TAK NIE

4. Czypodręcznikzawieraopcjędrukowaniatreścipodręcznika,zwyłączeniemdynamicznychelementówmultimedialnych,którychwydrukowanieniejestmożliwe?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

III.Ocenazgodnościtreścipodręcznikazpodstawąprogramowąkształceniaogólnego

1. Czypodręcznikumożliwiarealizacjęcelówkształceniaokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowej?

TAK NIE

2. Czypodręcznikumożliwiarealizacjęwymagańszczegółowychokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowej?

TAK NIE

3. Czypodręcznikprzedstawiawybranedlatejczęściseriiwymaganiaszczegółowewsposóbusystematyzowany?

TAK NIE NIEDOTYCZY

80Zgodniez§6ust.1rozporządzeniaMinistraEdukacjiNarodowejzdnia21czerwca2012r.wsprawiedopuszczaniadoużytkuwszkoleprogramówwychowaniaprzedszkolnegoiprogramównauczaniaorazdopuszczaniadoużytkuszkolnegopodręczników(poz.752).

81Zgodniez§9ww.rozporządzenia.

Appendices | 121

Uzasadnienieoceny:

IV.Szczegółowaocenapoprawnościpodwzględemmerytorycznymiszczegółowaocenaprzydatnościdydaktycznej82

1. Czypodręcznikjestpoprawnypodwzględemmerytorycznym,dydaktycznymiwychowawczym?Wszczególności:

a. Czyuwzględniaaktualnystanwiedzynaukowej,wtymmetodycznej? TAK NIE

b. Czyjestprzystosowanydodanegopoziomukształceniapodwzględemstopniatrudności,formyprzekazu,właściwegodoborupojęć,nazw,terminówisposobuichwyjaśniania?

TAK NIE

c. Czyzawieramateriałrzeczowyimateriałilustracyjnyodpowiednidoprzedstawianychtreścinauczania?

TAK NIE

d. Czymalogicznąkonstrukcję? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

2. Czyzawierazakresmateriałurzeczowegoimateriałuilustracyjnegoodpowiednidoliczbygodzinprzewidzianychwramowymplanienauczania?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

3. Czyzawierapropozycjedziałańedukacyjnychaktywizującychimotywującychuczniów? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

4. Czyumożliwiauczniomzezróżnicowanymimożliwościaminabycieumiejętnościokreślonychwpodstawieprogramowejkształceniaogólnego?

TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

5. Czymaprzejrzystąszatęgraficznąijestpoprawnypodwzględemedytorskim? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

82Zgodniez§6ust.8i9ww.rozporządzenia.

122 | Appendices

6. Czyzawieramateriałreklamowyinnyniżinformacjeopublikacjachedukacyjnych? TAK NIE

Uzasadnienieoceny:

7. Czyzawieratreścizgodnezprzepisamiprawa,wtymratyfikowanymiumowamimiędzynarodowymi?83

TAK NIE


(wprzypadkupodręcznikówdohistoriiigeografii)

8. Czyzawieratreścizgodnezzaleceniamidwustronnychkomisjipodręcznikowychorazinnychkomisjiizespołówdosprawpodręczników,działającychnapodstawiemiędzypaństwowychumówdotyczącychwspółpracywzakresieedukacjilubporozumieńkomitetównarodowychUNESCO?

TAK NIE


Ogólnaopiniaopodręczniku

Wady

Zalety

Konkluzjakwalifikacyjna

Podręcznikmożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego

pozytywna

Podręcznikniemożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego

negatywna

Uzasadnienie:

Podręcznikmożebyćdopuszczonydoużytkuszkolnegoprzezministrawłaściwegodosprawoświatyiwychowaniadokształceniaogólnego,podwarunkiemdokonaniawskazanychwopiniipoprawek84

warunkowa

Wykazbłędówznajdującychsięwpodręcznikuorazkoniecznychdowprowadzeniapoprawek(należywymienićwszystkiebłędyznumeramistron,naktórychsięznajdują)

Dataipodpis

83KonstytucjaRzeczypospolitejPolskiej,PowszechnaDeklaracjaPrawCzłowieka,MiędzynarodowyPaktPrawObywatelskichiPolitycznych,KonwencjaoPrawachDzieckaorazinneumowyikonwencje,którychpostanowieniadotyczązakresutreścinauczaniadlaposzczególnychprzedmiotów.

84Uwaga:Rzeczoznawcajestzobowiązanydowskazaniawszystkichusterekopiniowanegopodręcznikaorazdoocenyostatecznejwersjitekstuiilustracji,pokońcowymopracowaniu.

Appendices | 123

AppendixE:TranscriptionsystemsWithtwoexceptions(seebelow),allextractsfromtheclassroomdiscourse(Chapter6),allthreefocusgroupsandbothinterviews(Chapter7)havebeentranscribedusingbroadlyorthographicconventions,toaidreadability.Theyhavealsobeenlightlyedited,soforexamplemostrepetitionsandhesitationshavebeenremoved,asthefocusisthecontentofwhatwassaid(‘what’ratherthan‘how’),andoverlappingspeechhasnotbeenindicated.

Thefollowingabbreviationswereused:

S–student

Ss–students

MS–malestudent

FS–femalestudent

T–teacher

Wherestudents’nameswereindicatedbytheteachers,wehaveusedabbreviated,anonymisedversionsofthese,toshowcontinuityoftalk.

Utterancesinbroadlytheformofgrammaticalsentencesstartwithacapitalletterandconcludewithafullstop.Thisincludes‘truncated’sentencessuchas‘Hedid.’(Ifthismeans,say,‘HewenttoŁodz.’).Italsoincludessentence-utterancesduringwhichanotherclassroomparticipantspeaks.Inthiscasethefirstpartofthefirstspeaker’sutteranceconcludeswiththreedots(…)andstartsagainafterthesecondspeaker’sutterancewithalower-caseletter.

Incompletesentencesconcludewithfourdots.

Phrasesand‘minimalresponses’suchas‘mhm’startwithalower-caseletteranddonotconcludewithafullstop.Laughterisshowninlowercase,intheformof‘hehheh’or‘haha’.

Questionmarksandexclamationmarkshavebeenusedtoindicatewhenaquestionisbeingaskedoranexclamationproduced.

Pauseshavebeenindicatedwithacommaoroccasionallyadash.

TheexceptionstotheaboveareExtract1andanexampleattheendofChapter6whichusetwoofthetranscriptionsymbolscommonlyappliedinconversationanalysis(seeJefferson,2004):

[]Squarebracketsindicatethestartandendoftheoverlappingspeech.

=‘Latching’,i.e.toshow‘nogap,nooverlap’betweentwoutterances.

Thenumbersnexttothelines(Extract1,Chapter6)donotindicatetheturnsbutareusedtofacilitatedatadiscussionthatfollowstheExtract.

Polishisinitalicsthroughoutexceptintheformsintheappendices.

124 | Appendices

AppendixF:Consentform(forparents)DescriptionoftheresearchprojectundertakenbyLancasterUniversity(UnitedKingdom)andtheFacultyofEnglish(AdamMickiewiczUniversityinPoznań)fundedbytheBritishCouncilwithintheEnglishLanguageTeachingResearchPartnershipsscheme.

Theprojectseekstoscrutinizehowgender,asalientsocialconstruct,isrepresentedinESLcoursebooks,andifandhowthisrepresentationisaddressedandreceivedbystudentsandteachersduringESLclasses.Thispartoftheresearchprojectconsistsoftwostages.First,ESLmaterialswillbesubjecttocriticalscrutiny.Second,theresearcherswillconductnon-participantobservationsofatleastfiveteachingsessions,oneofwhichwillbeaudio-recorded.Therecordingisanintegralpartoftheproject;fileswillbesavedinanarchiveandusedonlyforresearchpurposes.Forfurtherinformationontheproject,pleasecontactDrhab.JoannaPawelczyk,prof.UAM([email protected]),ŁukaszPakuła([email protected])orJaneSunderland([email protected]).

Theresearchers’promise:

■■ WewillnotpublishanyrealnamesoraddressesinanyProjectreports,orgivethemouttothepublic;

■■ Wewillprotect,tothebestofourability,theconfidentialityofpeoplewehaverecorded;

■■ Thematerialsandtaperecordingsmadeaspartoftheresearchwillbeusedonlyforeducational/scholarlypurposes(notforprofit);

■■ Nocopiesofthesetapesortranscriptswillbemade,andnothingfromthemwillbepublishedwithouttheconsentoftheresearchers.Thetapeswillbeencrypted.Shouldyouhaveanydoubts,enquiries,pleasee-mailthemusingthecontactdetailsprovidedabove.

■■ Participantsareallowedtowithdrawatanypointoftheresearch.

■■ Parentscanoptoutwithinaweeksincethecommencementoftheproject.

Theparentorlegalguardianofthepersonrecordedagrees:

■■ Iconsenttotheresearcherspublishingtranscriptsfromtherecordingsmadewithmychildforresearchpurposes–aslongastheresearchersanonymisemychild’snames,addressesandanyotheridentifyinginformation.

■■ Iunderstandthattheresearchersarenotmakingtherecordingsforfinancialbenefits,andIdonotexpecttobepaidtoallowmychildtoparticipateintherecordingseither.

■■ Thefilecontainingtherecording,andanytranscript,istheresultofmyconsentandavoluntaryrecordingofmychild’sspeechonthepartofmychild.

■■ IfIimposeanyotherrestrictionsontheuseoftheserecordingsIwillmakethemclear.Ihavetherighttorequesttoseethetranscriptandtobegivenanagreed-uponperiodoftime(e.g.aweek),withtheresearchers,tohaveanypartoftherecordingdeleted.

■■ ShouldIhaveanycomplaintsabouttheprocess,IcancontactProf.ElenaSemino,HeadoftheDepartmentofLinguisticsandEnglishLanguage,LancasterUniversity([email protected],+441524594176).

Parents’/legalguardians’consent:

■■ Ifyouconsenttoyourchildparticipatingintherecordings,pleasedonottakeanyaction.Shouldyoudecideotherwise,pleasestateitclearlyandreturntheconsentformtotheresearchers.

Appendices | 125

126 | Appendices

www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications

ISBN 978-0-86355-776-7

© British Council 2015 / F119 The British Council is the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities.

With a focus on Poland, Łukasz Pakuła, Joanna Pawelczyk and Jane Sunderland empirically explore gender and sexuality in relation to classroom interaction and textbooks in the primary and secondary English language classroom. Based on data from a range of classrooms, the book shows how gender stereotyping in textbooks has not disappeared, that heterosexuality is the only sexuality in evidence and that heteronormativity is salient. Importantly, though, through teacher- and student-talk and classroom interaction generally, these representations can be and are negotiated and challenged. The book also offers practical suggestions for teachers, educators and publishers to make the English language classroom a truly inclusive social space.

Łukasz Pakuła is affiliated with the Faculty of English and a lecturer in Gender Studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. His research interests include: language, gender, and sexuality; identities in educational settings; critical (meta) lexicography and identity construction in reference works (e.g. dictionaries), as well as Corpus Linguistics working in tandem with Critical Discourse Analysis. He publishes internationally, both in journals and edited collections. He has also co-edited a volume on interdisciplinary linguistics and regularly presents his research at international conferences and congresses.

Joanna Pawelczyk is Associate Professor of Sociolinguistics at the Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. Her primary research interests are in language, gender and sexuality issues, discourses of psychotherapy and discourse analysis. She has published in a range of international journals and edited collections on gender, psychotherapy and identity. She is the author of Talk as Therapy: Psychotherapy in a Linguistic Perspective (2011). She is presently a member of the advisory board of the International Gender and Language Association.

Jane Sunderland is an Honorary Reader in Gender and Discourse at Lancaster University, UK. Her main research interests are in the area of language, discourse, gender and sexuality, but she is also interested in academic discourse, doctoral education and the notion of adaptation. Her monographs include Gendered Discourses (2004) and Language, Gender and Children’s Fiction (2011). She is currently co-authoring a book called Children’s Literacy Practices: Harry Potter and Beyond (provisional title). She is a past President of the International Gender and Language Association (IGALA).

www.teachingenglish.org.uk

www.britishcouncil.org/englishagenda

www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish

www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglishteens

www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglishkids


9 780863 557767

www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications

gender and sexuality in english language education. focus on poland

Documents