Abstract
Studies of the representation of sexualities in textbooks have tended to focus on inclusion and coverage of diverse content through thematic analysis. This analysis of a sample of LO textbooks is framed by the systematic linguistic framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA), specifically Fairclough’s (2001) theory of discourse as ideological meanings encoded in text. The sections on sex education in three popularly used LO textbooks have been analysed to make explicit the heteronormative meanings conveyed through language used. This article provides insight into how the language in the LO texts function to legitimate the dominant discourse of a particular type of heterosexuality: monogamy for the primary purpose of reproduction. The implications of this bias are raised and recommendations for fair representation of LGBT sexual orientations are made.
Highlights
Analysis of sexuality in textbooks (Hogben & Waterman, 1997; Whatley 1992, Jennings & Sherwin 2007; Bazzul & Sykes, 2011; Temple, 2005, Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008, Irala et al, 2008, Suarez & Balaji, 2007) has focussed on inclusion and coverage of diverse content through thematic analysis. These studies have pointed out the heteronormative bias (Dalley & Campbell, 2006), the assumption of heterosexual learner identities, the underrepresentation of LGBT sexualities and the association of LGBT sexualities with negative contexts
Fairclough incorporates in his framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA) the notion of semiosis
The heterosexual discursive formation is achieved through a range of semiotic features such as repetition of specific words that achieve a heterosexual meaning; adversative conjunctions; the subordination of LGBT agency through the use of grammatical structures; stating conventional moral norms as universal facts; the projection of heterosexual images and the assumption of heterosexual learner identities
Summary
Analysis of sexuality in textbooks (Hogben & Waterman, 1997; Whatley 1992, Jennings & Sherwin 2007; Bazzul & Sykes, 2011; Temple, 2005, Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008, Irala et al, 2008, Suarez & Balaji, 2007) has focussed on inclusion and coverage of diverse content through thematic analysis. By counting the number of lines in each text and counting the lines that dealt with LGBT content, Macgillivray and Jennings discovered that the highest estimated percentage of coverage given to LGBT content in foundations of education textbooks was 0.70%, while the lowest was 0.08% (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008:179) In their investigation of heteronormativity in Biology 12 textbooks widely prescribed in Ontario schools, Bazzul and Sykes (2011) were struck by a general silence regarding issues of same-sex attraction and practices. Excerpts from the textbooks are cited in detail to enable validation of claims and interpretations of the authors of this article
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
