Research Design

A qualitative study design was deployed to scrutinise education system’s role in perpetuating gender normative discourses and how children negotiate, reproduce or challenge these normative discourses. In my research the unit of analysis was the school, with a total of two primary schools. A qualitative research methodology (semi-structured group interviews, feminist CDA and observations) was deployed in order to explore the discursive

124

representations of masculinity and femininity in the anthology textbooks, teachers’

perceptions of gender roles, students’ views of gender discourses, gender dynamics in classrooms and school playgrounds, and lastly, children’s responses to normative and non-normative gender discourses. The use of qualitative methods was dictated by the theoretical and conceptual framework of my research as well as the nature of my research questions. In particular, the use of qualitative methods enabled me to place emphasis on the stories of the individuals and explore the nuances such as positionality and local context. Hence, my study required a qualitative methodology, for unravelling the experiences of the individuals and understanding gender performativity.

My research was conducted in two primary schools in Athens, capital city of Hellas. The two schools (school A and school B)¹⁷ were situated in two diverse areas of the city. School A is in the centre of Athens, (Pagrati area), whereas school B is located in the suburbs (Ano Liosia). This selection was made in order to explore the intersection of social class with gender, for an initial hypothesis that was made was that students at School B would be of lower socio-economic status than pupils at School A. However, the data collected showed very little or no asymmetries in terms of students’ socio-economic background. Therefore, the social class factor was excluded from the analysis. A selection had been made, prior to entering into the fieldwork, to focus exclusively on the third and fourth grade primary classrooms of each school. According to Parsons (2004) upper elementary pupils (aged 8-14) have reached a sufficient level of maturity to challenge gendered discourses. Thus, focusing on pupils of this age group would serve the purposes of my research. In total, 5 classrooms were observed, two classrooms (one third-grade and one fourth-grade) at School A and three classrooms (two third-grade and one fourth-grade classes) at school B.

17I was advised by the Ministry of Education not to use the names of the schools were my research took place in the interest of securing children’s anonymity.

125

It is necessary to synoptically refer to the structure of the Hellenic primary education system, for this will enable readers less familiar with the Hellenic education system to acquire a better understanding of the schools where I conducted my fieldwork. In Hellas, a child’s primary education spanning six years (grades 1-6). A normal school-day starts at 8.15 and finishes from 12.30 to 16.15, depending on the class and the school. The classes last between 30 and 80 minutes. The school year always starts in the second week of September and ends in the last week of June. The basic subjects taught in primary education include: Modern Greek Language (1 hour/day), Greek Literature (Anthologies) (2 hours/week), Mathematics (5 hours/week), Environmental Studies (2–4 hours/week), Physical Education (4 hours/week), Music (2 hours/week), Art (2 hours/week), Theatrical Studies (1 hour/week), Flexible Zone (3 hours/week) and English (2–4 hours/week). Additional subjects are also taught like Physics, Geography, History, Religious Education, Social and Political studies and second foreign language.

Unlike in the UK, the administration of primary education in Hellas is conducted hierarchically by (YPEPTH, 2000; Eurydice/CEDEFOP, 2002; Eurydice/Eurybase, 2003): 1) The Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (YPEPTH), 2) The Regional Education Directorates (Law 2986/2002), 3) The Directorates of Education (Prefecture), 4) The Education Offices (District), and 5) The School Unit.

The Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs (YPEPTH) is responsible for national education policy. Its main responsibilities include: prescribing the national curriculum, creating the conditions for meeting educational needs, appointing staff, controlling funding, proposing legislation, implementing the laws and the related administrative decisions. Under the supervision of YPEPTH is the National Education Council (ESYP), an independent administrative authority, which offers advice on educational

126

policy matters, plans the education system, outlines the general policy and makes proposals on matters referred to it by the Minister for National Education and Religious Affairs. At regional level, Regional Education Directorates take important administrative decisions and monitor primary education in the region. At prefecture level administration is exercised by The Directorates of Primary Education, which are responsible for the management and supervision of all primary schools in the prefecture (Stamelos, 2002). In addition to the above, the Heads of the Education Directorates and Offices are the administrative and disciplinary superiors of all primary education teachers and Principals of the schools. Lastly, at school unit level, each primary school is run by the Principal, the Deputy Principal and the Teachers Association in the school. The principal that is appointed to school by the Head of the Directorate of Education is responsible for the smooth running of the school; coordination of all school activities; compliance with legal regulations; circulars and official orders; and implementation of the decisions of the Teachers Association. The Principal participates in the evaluation of teachers and cooperates with the School Advisors. The Teachers Association, chair of which is the Principal of the school, comprises of all teachers in a particular school and is the collective body for drawing up guidelines for improving the implementation of education policy and improving the running of the school (Eurydice/Eurybase, 2003;

Eurydice/CEDEFOP, 2002).

In Hellas the curriculum had always had the form of a National Curriculum imposed on all teachers and schools across the country. The curriculum is prescribed by the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs and the same textbooks are used in all regions across the country. On the other hand, the classroom pedagogy is more focused on answers, which means that teachers and pupils are more concerned in finding the ‘facts’ or ‘right’

answers to a topic/problem. Within this classroom pedagogy teachers have to satisfy the curriculum expectations. Hence, it could be argued that a more individualistic, lectured-styled

127

approach governs the classroom pedagogy in the Hellenic primary schooling, as it was noted in the schools that I visited for the purposes of my research.

According to the official curriculum the purpose of primary education is multifaceted and aims to contribute to the overall, harmonious and balanced development of students’

intellectual potential, regardless of their gender and ethnicity so that they can ultimately evolve into integrated personalities and live creatively. More specifically, the elementary school should place emphasis on developing pupils’ creativity, building the necessary mechanisms that support the assimilation of knowledge, developing students’ physical skills, and improving their psychological and intellectual health. Furthermore, the elementary education must help students to learn the basic concepts and gradually develop their critical thinking, and their ability to speak and write. Educators are also responsible for making students familiar with the ethical, religious, national, humanitarian and other values and cultivate students’ aesthetic criterion so that they become able to appreciate works of art and express their own creativity through their own artistic creations (Law 1566).

The two schools (school A and school B) were situated in two diverse areas of Athens.

School A is in the centre of Athens, (Pagrati area), whereas school B is located in the suburbs (Ano Liosia). School A, a two storey building, was situated in a busy inner-city area amongst high-density housing area. The school consisted of 6 classes with a total of 141 students and 9 teachers. School B was larger for it was consisted of 8 classes with a total of 189 pupils and 11 teachers. It was situated in the suburbs of Athens in a low density housing area. Both Schools had a playground with a basketball court that pupils used to play football (see appendix VIII).

128

In tailoring my methodology I need to refer to the research questions that this study attempts to answer:

1. Does the Hellenic education system challenge or reinforce normative gender discourses through curriculum materials and classroom practices?

2. How do children negotiate, reproduce or challenge normative and non-normative gender discourses identified in school textbooks, and how do they deploy these discourses in their daily performances of gender on school playgrounds?

Therefore, my study explored six different aspects of the educational praxis vis-à-vis gender.

The first related to gender representations in the anthology textbooks. More specifically, I studied the latest two volumes of the anthology textbooks entitled: Anthologies. The first volume is for the third-grade students (aged 8-9 years old) and the second volume is for the fourth-grade students (aged 9-10 years old). The second part of my analysis aimed to develop an understanding of children’s social worlds and their quotidian schooling experiences.

Alongside semi-structured interviews with the pupils and the teachers one of the main methods deployed to understand children’s social worlds was through observations. The interviews with the teachers were based on a semi-structured interview format and scrutinised teachers’ views of gender roles and their classroom practices (see Appendix IX). The group interviews with the students provided an insight into children’s perceptions of gender asymmetries, their views of gender and their play activities (see Appendix X). In addition, the observations in classrooms (see Appendix XI) and school playgrounds (see Appendix XII) enabled me to explore the gender dynamics in students-teachers interactions and playground activities. Lastly, I analysed pupils’ responses to the feminist fairy tale of Snow White (Zipes, 1986) (see Appendix XIII, XIV) in order to explore how students relate to and understand non-normative gender discourses.

129 4.3 Sample and Sampling Strategy

As it was not possible to study the entire school population a decision was made to focus only the third- and fourth-grade primary school students, for upper elementary children have reached a developmental stage that enables them to challenge gendered discourses (Parsons, 2004). This was a crucial requirement in my study. Additionally, the decision for selecting the third-and fourth-grade classrooms based on the fact that the anthology textbooks for these levels had recently been revised (2007). Hence, the analysis of the anthology textbooks showed to what extent gender equality issues had been taken into consideration by education policy makers.

At the two schools where I conducted my qualitative research third and fourth grades consisted in total of five classrooms. In my research, participants were 5 teachers and 120 students. More specifically, from school A, two female teachers (one from grade three and one from grade four) and 41 students (17 boys and 24 girls) participated in my study. Slightly larger was the sample from school B, for 3 teachers and 79 students (33 boys and 46 girls) took part in my research. All pupils (in total 120) participated in classroom and playground observations, as well as in the discussion of the feminist fairy tale. However, in the group interviews I asked the teachers to select 8 boys and 8 girls from each class based on their willingness to take part in the research and their friendship groups. Organizing group interviews into friendship groups provides significant advantages, for it was presumed that student would feel more comfortable expressing their views freely. Thus, in the group interviews participated in total 80 students (40 boys and 40 girls).With the help of the teachers groups were organised based on pupils’ friendships. This way all participants would feel comfortable to express their views freely, for often in a group interview participants may feel they cannot give their true opinions if they are overly concerned as to what other

130

members of the group might think. On the other hand, other participants may feel that they have to give opinions that they feel will be respected by the group. As well, the presence of a dominant participant in a group can have a negative impact on the opinions of others, for some participants may not feel confident to express their opinion or they may even submit to the opinions of others in order to avoid conflict/argument.

In summary, a total of 120 students (41 boys and 79 girls) and five teachers (4 females and 1 male) participated in my study. However, due to the large number of participants and the limited time for conducting my research, from the total of 120 primary pupils 80 students (40 boys and 40 girls) were interviewed in a series of 5 mixed-gender group interviews.