Are Progressive Texts Necessarily Disruptive? Investigating Teacher Engagement with Gendered Textbooks in Ugandan Classrooms

Abstract

Background

Undergirding the dominant research focus on gender representation in textbooks is the assumption that making texts progressive in their construction of gender is a panacea for equality in the classroom. As this study demonstrates, however, textbooks containing traditional representations of gender can be used to challenge biases, while textbooks with progressive representations can be undermined. This suggests that “fixing” gender in textbooks to make them progressive does not guarantee how teachers enact them in the classroom. Indeed, the predominant focus on texts, rather than teachers’ gender knowledge base, has had little impact on classroom practice. This justifies the shift to “teacher talk around the text,” which, as scholars argue, should be the focus of research.

Purpose and Research Questions

This study, which goes beyond the dominant focus on textbooks to draw attention to how teachers take them up, was guided by the following research questions: How do teachers use gendered textbooks in the classroom? What discourses and practices circulate? What informs teacher selection of textbooks? Is gender one of the considerations?

Context

The study was situated in Uganda, a multiethnic patriarchal developing country in East Africa.

Research Design

A qualitative case study approach was taken up with two cases, specifically an affluent girls’ single-sex school and a less affluent mixed school. This illuminated how gender is constructed in relation to other socially constructed categories.

Data Collection and Analysis

The investigation involved textual analysis, classroom observations, and interviews, which were analyzed using feminist poststructural discourse analysis to identify and name discourses and discursive practices cited during the classroom interactions.

Findings/Results

Overall, the teachers’ use of textbooks in both cases challenged previous research, which assumed that teachers necessarily take up gender as constructed in textbooks. This overlooked teachers’ gendered truths, which, as shown in my study, informed how they took up and/or rejected both traditional and transgressive texts. Traditional gendered texts, which illuminated dominant realities, surprisingly offered more disruptive potential for engaging with gendered hierarchies than did progressive texts, which constructed marginal realities and/or realities incongruent with dominant truths.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The study has implications for teacher education in Uganda, which should prepare teachers by unsettling the taken-for-granted gender knowledge base, through disrupting traditional gendered ways of thinking/discourses. This will create possibility for producing teachers who can critically navigate gendered texts, by deconstructing gendered power relations during classroom engagement with texts. Indeed, as research has indicated, teachers are capable of challenging gender bias if well prepared. It will also be useful for researchers to observe lessons in which expert teachers engage with gendered textbooks, providing a model to inform teacher education.