Session Information
ERG SES D 03, Interactive Poster Session
Poster Session
Contribution
Comprehensive sexuality education(CSE) is a new paradigm of sexuality education worldwide. CSE aims to encourage youth to maintain their sexual health and empower them to promote gender equality(Braeken and Cardinal, 2008). However, in South Korean schools, sexuality education has majorly focused on biological issues, and considered as comparatively subsidiary compared to other subjects such as English and Mathematics. In this situation, sexuality educators trained from Sexuality education center for youth, women’s associations, and gender equality center began to promote CSE in schools. This study investigates educational practices by sexuality educators from those agencies. Making use of sexuality educators’ interview data and curricular documents, it explores comprehensive sexuality education in schools. It also reveals what educators think of effects of the CSE along with challenges that they face in practice.
Comprehensive sexuality education is a new approach in sexuality education which has been promoted by United Nations Population Fund(UNFPA), and International Planned Parenthood Federation(IPPF). Different from youth sexuality education paradigms which emphasized biological sex knowledge, morality, and danger in youth sexuality, CSE emphasizes the matter of gender and sexual rights of teenagers and provides comprehensive information about sex, gender, and sexuality to youth(Haberland and Rogow, 2014). IPPF(2010) also provides criteria for CSE by mentioning “Seven Essential Components of Comprehensive Sexuality Education” such as Gender, Sexual and reproductive health and HIV, Sexual rights and sexual citizenship, Pleasure, Violence, Diversity and Relationship. In this vein, UNFPA(2014) specifies that CSE should have a gender- sensitive focus and basis in values and human rights, and provide thorough and accurate information about human rights, gender norms and power in relationships(UNFPA, 2014). In this aspect, CSE is often called as a critical sexuality education which promotes gender equality by revealing skewed sex, gender and sexuality system(Jones, 2011).
Diverse studies revealed that South Korea is a society where gender inequality is a serious issue(Kim, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2015). For example, according to the 2015 Global Gender Gap Report written by World Economic Forum, South Korea ranked 115th out of 145 countries. South Korea is also known as a sexually conservative country where queers are deemed as invisible and often publicly abhorred. To cope with these issues, Ministry of education strengthened school sexuality education and made 15 hours of it mandatory by law. However, since there were no specific guidelines about how to enforce sexuality education, school nurses have focused on biological sex education fragmentarily and teachers from other subjects such as Korean literature and Science who are not professional sexuality educators, have taught sexuality education.
Under this circumstance, Sexuality education center for youth, Women’s associations, and Gender equality center began to send sexuality educators who could promote CSE out to schools. According to Kim(2012), nearly 30% of middle and high school students were begun to be taught by these professional sexuality educators from 2012. This is a significant change in South Korea since it sets the new direction of sexuality education curriculum in South Korea. Moreover, this change also has a global implication, since it provides an opportunity to better understand CSE in a sexually conservative society.
The research questions are as follows: First, how sexuality educators practice CSE in middle and high schools? Second, what are the drawbacks and effects of CSE implemented in middle and high schools? With these research questions in mind, we explored the experiences of sexuality educators practicing comprehensive sexuality education(CSE) in South Korean schools by examining their curriculum document data and interview data.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Braeken, D., & Cardinal, M. (2008). Comprehensive Sexuality Education as a Means of Promoting Sexual Health. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20(1–2), 50–62. Haberland, N., & Rogow, D.(2014). Sexuality Education: Emerging Trends in Evidence and Practice. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 25-21. IPPF. (2010). IPPF Framework for Comprehensive Sexuality Education. UK: IPPF. Jones, T(2011). A Sexuality Education Discourses Framework: Conservative, Liberal, Critical and Postmodern. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6, 133-175. Kim. Y., & Kim, D.(2012). Political issues upon Youth health on the gender sensitive perspective. Korean women’s development institute report. Lee-Mok, so hee. (2014). Gender-Sensitive Sex Education for the Youth in Korea. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(2), 173–184. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. UNFPA(2014). Operational guidance for comprehensive sexuality education. New York: United Nations Population Fund. World Economic Forum(2015). The Global Gender Gap Report 2015. http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.