That’s so homophobic? Australian young people’s perspectives on homophobic language use in secondary schools

Abstract

It is generally accepted that hearing homophobic language can be detrimental to the well-being of same-sex attracted young people. Writing Themselves In 3, a survey of Australian same-sex attracted young people, found that almost half of the respondents reported hearing such language on a regular basis, and considered it offensive. Less is known however about heterosexual young people’s experiences. Homophobic language use is often assumed to be motivated by prejudice, but this topic has not been well studied. Using interviews and an online discussion with young people aged 16–21 years, this study explored heterosexual young people’s perspectives on homophobic language use at school. Contrary to the framing often used in anti-homophobia education, the meaning of this form of language was seen to largely depend on the context in which it was employed, frequently functioning to reinforce masculine gender norms, particularly for popular male students. Furthermore, while many heterosexual participants in this study used homophobic language regularly, they did not see themselves as homophobic and viewed school policies against the use of homophobic language as largely ineffective. Findings suggest that heterosexual young people may respond more favourably to anti-homophobia education if these programmes acknowledge the variety of meanings and functions of language commonly understood to be homophobic in character.     

Cohesion and coherence in theory and reading research

What is the relationship between cohesion and coherence? Researchers in the field of Applied Linguistics have traditionally attempted to list and define the cohesive devices in English which provide the basis for coherent text. Schema theoreticians, on the other hand, have argued that coherence is primary, that readers look for coherence given their existing schemata and extra-linguistic knowledge of the world and only then do they recognise cohesion. This paper looks at these two approaches in the light of the conflict which has grown up around the relationship between the concepts of cohesion and coherence and suggests that the positions taken are the result of a theoretically different starting point. If the researcher is primarily interested in linguistic analysis then she will begin with cohesion whereas, if human psychology in the reading process is the main focus then it will be more natural to look at coherence. However, it seems to be at least intuitively obvious that both the text itself and the reader have a part to play in the reading process, that reading is simultaneously data-driven and concept-driven. It is suggested that these two approaches would benefit from being a part of a larger theory of the reading process. In this context the work of Ruqaiya Hasan is reviewed as the most thorough attempt to provide a theory of text which accounts for both cohesion and coherence. Secondly, data are presented which suggest that a theory which integrates cohesion and coherence is necessary. Two studies are reported: an informal classroom experiment on the influence of pronominal reference on comprehension and an analysis of the results of a test designed to examine the relationships between theoretical constructs hypothesised to constitute (at least part of) the superordinate term “reading comprehension”.     

Improving Academic Program Assessment: A Mixed Methods Study

Starting with the premise that better assessment leads to more informed decisions about student learning, we investigated the factors that lead to assessment improvement. We used “meta-assessment” (i.e., evaluating the assessment process) to identify academic programs in which the assessment process had improved over a two-year period. The use of both quantitative and qualitative methods allowed us to understand the factors leading to assessment improvement better. Through these efforts, we discovered that a program’s assessment environment and use of resources were the predominant factors leading to improvement. One resource in particular, assessment consultation, was the most cited reason for improved assessment.