Broadening Understanding: Students’ Perspectives on Respecting all Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities in University Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oppression and marginalization of people who identify as LGBTQ+ persist on university campuses despite their right to be free of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. In an attempt to highlight the real and detrimental impacts of normative heterosexual and cisgender ideologies on Ontarian students the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) has committed itself to elevating student voices on this issue. OUSA conducted a mixed-methods, primary research project to provide understanding of the opinions and experiences of LGBTQ+ identifying students. Student responses were collected using an online survey, which yielded 311 valid responses from university students across Ontario. While most results were positive, findings that a fifth of respondents felt uncomfortable in campus life, accompanied by responses implicating instructors as a source of this discomfort, suggest there is an on-going need for educators to work harder to incorporate diverse perspectives about both gender and sexual orientation into university curricula. Content analysis of open-ended survey responses was used to describe the barriers students experienced. Diversity orientation and course content were referenced most often among open-ended responses. Diversity orientation was also most often cited as a barrier and problematic assumptions were identified as barriers more often than course content. Training was most often identified as a solution, suggesting this is a strategy that faculty can adopt to increase their diversity orientation and decrease problematic assumptions. Educators must recognize their responsibility for facilitating safe, empowering classrooms; this research offers seven strategies for accomplishing this goal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".