Science Teacher Candidates’ LGBTQ-Inclusive Praxis

• In Event: LGBT Inclusion in STEM: Transformative Possibilities for Teaching and Learning Research

Abstract

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) identifying students experience harsh realities in schools that influence health and educational outcomes (Robinson & Espelage, 2011). Little is known about the specific experiences of LGBTQ-identified students in science classrooms, but supportive teachers and LGBT-inclusive curriculum have been shown to correlate to improved student outcomes generally(Koskiw et al., 2012). The capacity of science initial license programs (ILPs) to prepare supportive teachers who enact LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum must be explored.

This paper examines the LGBTQ-inclusive praxis of science teacher candidates in a one year ILP. The questions guiding this study were:
1. What were science teacher candidates’ commitments to LGBTQ-inclusive praxis?
2. What were science teacher candidates’ enactments of LGBTQ-inclusive praxis?
3. What supports and barriers influenced candidates’ commitment to and enactment of LGBTQ-inclusive praxis?

This analysis was based on Pablo Friere’s notion of praxis as, “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Friere, 1970, p. 33). The target of the transformation itself was LGBTQ-inclusion drawing from Meyer (2011) and Kosciw et al. (2012) as pedagogies and curriculum that support positive health and educational outcomes for LGBTQ-identifying students.

The participants in this phenomenological case study were six secondary science teacher candidates. The primary data analyzed were from three semi-structured interviews and six assignments. Four categories of candidates’ commitment to LGBTQ-inclusive praxis were evident.
•LGBTQ-naïve. The candidate minimized the presence of and/or victimization of LGBTQ-identified students. The candidate did not make a commitment to LGBTQ-inclusive praxis.
•LGBTQ-aware. The candidate made a commitment to LGBTQ-identified students without indicating specific plans for LGBTQ-inclusive praxis.
•LGBTQ-supportive. The candidate made a commitment to LGBTQ-identified students and made specific commitments to LGBTQ-inclusive praxis in terms of classroom leadership.
•LBGTQ-inclusive. The candidate made a commitment to LGBTQ-identified students and specific commitments to LGBTQ- inclusive praxis in terms of classroom leadership and inclusive curriculum.
Five of the candidates enacted LGBTQ-inclusive classroom leadership pedagogies in their field placements. Two of those candidates were able to transform the curriculum in their field placements to make space for substantial LGBTQ curricular inclusion. One of the candidates was unable to enact specific LGBTQ-inclusive praxis in their field placements.

Generally supportive cooperating teachers; a minimum of an LGBTQ-accepting field placement; the ILP’s assignments; the opportunity to reflect one-on-one with program faculty; and past learning or experience with LGBTQ-people supported candidates’ commitments to and enactments of LGBTQ-inclusive praxis. The presence of an unsupportive cooperating teacher; LGBTQ-invisible field placements; a lack of pre-existing LGBTQ-inclusive science curriculum; and general constraints on time were barriers to candidates’ commitments and enactments of LGBTQ-inclusive praxis.

This study may inform science ILPs as they seek to prepare teachers to meet the needs of LGBTQ-identified science learners. Future research should follow teacher candidates into their early years of practice to understand the supports and barriers to LGBTQ-inclusive praxis that exist during the teacher induction period. Additionally, future research must explore students’ experiences and learning in classrooms in which science teachers enact LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogies.

Author

• Mary H. Hoelscher, Saint Paul Public Schools