Gender Diversity and Inclusive Education Among Women School Stakeholders in Selected Schools of Cavite: A Grounded Theory Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i6.2399Abstract
The study delved into the lived experiences of women in selected schools of the province of Cavite. The paper utilized grounded theory to propose an explanation on how gender diversity and inclusive education are being understood and appreciated by women in education. The study looked into the manner by which women engaged gender issues that continue to modify and shape the system of education and its environment and eventually craft a way of understanding and implementing education that is inclusive, respectful, soberly value-driven and person-centered. The participants of the research are ten (10) women coming from the education sector. Two (2) of them are professional parents who are also officers of the parents and teachers association. Two (2) of them are graduating students in college who are also leaders in their respective departments. Two (2) are administrators who are also engaged in research and extension. And four (4) are teachers and lecturers coming from the secondary and tertiary level. Six (6) of these women are also members of the focus group for gender awareness and promotion of women’s rights in schools. Results show that women in education claimed that the process of gender diversity and inclusive education is all about a dynamic, person-centered and context-sensitive consideration of gender issues and challenges within the system of education. Women believe that education informs the understanding of gender and vice-versa. Women defined, interpreted and communicated the dynamic meaning of diversity and inclusion within their experience of womanhood, the human person, family-based values, the school and its community.
Keywords: Women, gender, diversity, inclusion, education.
References
Agenor, P. and Canuto, O. (2015). Gender equality and economic growth in Brazil: A long-run analysis. In Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 43, pp. 155-172.
Barry, G. and Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering grounded theory. California Sage Publications, California, U.S.A.
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage Publications, U.S.A.
Bilbao, P. P., Lucido, P. I., Iringan, T. C., and Javier, R. B. (2008). Curriculum development. Manila: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.
Bowen, G.A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. In International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5, No. 3.
Branisa, B., Klasen, S. and Ziegler, M. (2013). Gender inequality in social institutions and gendered development outcomes. In World Development, Vol. 45, pp. 252-68.
Buchanan, M.T. (2006). Factors that impede curriculum change: A preliminary report. In British Journal of Religious Education, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 51–63.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, 2
CHED Memorandum Order, Number 1, Series of 2015.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 4
Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (2009). Shaping the school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes and promises, 2
flores, G. Y. (2016). Understanding curriculum change among basic education teachers in Calabarzon. In Eidos, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Gause, C. P. (2011). Diversity, equity and inclusive education: A voice from the margins. In Transgressions: Cultural Studies and Education. Vol. 65. McGill University, Canada.
Gavino-Gumba, B. (2013). Gender Equality in a Higher Educational Institution: A Case in the Philippines. In Journal of Education, Arts and Humanities, Vol 1 (3), pp. 27-32.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers.Sage Publications, London.
Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice, 9
Kelly, A.V. (2010). The curriculum: Theory and practice, 6
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A users guide, 3rdEdition. Sage Publicaitons, USA.
Montalbo, M. (1995). John Paul II’s philosophy of the person. Avenues. 4, 1-36.
Padgett, D. K. (2004). Coming of age: Theoretical thinking, social responsibility, and a global perspective in qualitative research. In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), The qualitative research experience (pp. 297-315). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PCW (2016). A Handbook on the application of the enhanced gender mainstreaming evaluation framework. PCW Publications, Manila.
Ruggs, Enrica & Hebl, Michelle. (2012) Diversity, Inclusion, and Cultural Awareness for Classroom and Outreach Education. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Apply Research to Practice (ARP) Resources.
Reeves, H. and Baden, S. (2000). Gender and development: Concepts and definitions. In Bridge.Institute of Development Studies. U.K
Singh, S. (2007). Deconstructing ‘gender and development’ for ‘identities of women’. In The International Journal of Social Welfare,16: 100–109.
Stotsky, J.G., Shibuya, S., Kolovich, L., and Kebhaj, S. (2016). International Monetary Fund (IMF) Working paper: Trends in gender equality and women’s advancement. IMF Publications, U.S.A.
UNGEI (2010). Equity and inclusion in education: A guide to support the education sector plan preparation, revision and appraisal. Ungei, New York.
UNESCO (2015). Education for all 2000 – 2015: Achievements and Challenges. Unesco Publishing, Paris, France.
UN (2014). World Survey on the role of women in development: Gender equality and sustainable development. United Nations Publications, U.S.A.
Wallace, S. (2009). Oxford dictionary of education. Oxford University Press.
Wojtyla, K. (2001) Persona e atto. Bompiani, Testi a Fronte. (Girgenti G. e Mikulska P., Traduttori) Osoba I Czyn (Published in Poland in 1969).
