Sexual Identity and the LINC Classroom

Abstract

Instructors in the federally funded program of Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) are responsible for teaching both the English language and citizenship values to adult immigrants. The recent legalization of same-sex marriage implies that a gay and lesbian presence is an acknowledged fact of Canadian life, with gay rights now entrenched in the value system. This context led to questions of if, how, and why teachers do or do not address sexual diversity in the classroom. A preliminary study utilizing a survey questionnaire and semi-structured interview was carried out with Alberta LINC teachers to explore perceptions of sexual diversity in relation to their teaching. Results indicate that the learning environment is characterized by the invisibility of the issue. Various redresses are suggested: teachers can utilize an inquiry approach to identity and learner autonomy; publishers can produce materials that include sexual diversity; and teacher-training programs can revise syllabi and teaching approaches in core TESL classes.

Résumé

Les enseignants au programme Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC), financé par le gouvernement fédéral, sont responsables de l'enseignement de l'anglais et des valeurs de la citoyenneté aux immigrants adultes. La légalisation récente du mariage entre conjoints de même sexe signifie que la présence des gais et des lesbiennes est reconnue au Canada, et que les droits des gais font maintenant partie du système de valeurs. Dans ce contexte, on s'est interrogé sur les raisons qui motivent les professeurs du LINC à traiter ou non de la diversité sexuelle en classe et sur leur façon de le faire. À l'aide d'un questionnaire de sondage et d'entrevues semi-structurées, on a effectué une étude préliminaire auprès de professeurs du LINC en Alberta, afin d'examiner leurs perceptions de la diversité sexuelle en rapport avec leur façon d'enseigner. Les résultats indiquent un milieu d'apprentissage caractérisé par l'invisibilité de la question. Diverses mesures sont suggérées pour redresser la situation : les professeurs peuvent avoir recours à une méthode d'enquête sur l'identité et l'autonomie de l'apprenant; les éditeurs peuvent produire du matériel qui comprend la diversité sexuelle; et les programmes de formation des enseignants peuvent revoir les plans de cours et les méthodes d'enseignement dans les classes TESL (enseignants d'anglais langue seconde) de base.

The federally funded programof Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) was established in 1992 to facilitate the integration of adult immigrants and refugees into the Canadian way of life. To this end, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) enjoins English language programs to help newcomers gain citizenship knowledge so they can become participating members of Canadian society as quickly as possible (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2007). In other words, LINC teachers are expected to provide language instruction as well as the knowledge and skills needed to interact in Canada's increasingly diverse environment. Although the definition of what exactly constitutes Canadian citizenship values is left open to interpretation, an increasingly visible gay and lesbian presence would appear to form a generally accepted part of this diverse Canadian environment.

The Canadian census reveals that between 2001 and 2006 the number of self-reporting same-sex couples living together increased at five times the rate of opposite-sex couples (Statistics Canada, 2007). Moreover, in keeping with the anti-discrimination spirit of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005 (Library of Parliament, 2008). It would therefore seem reasonable to include sexual diversity in the LINC mandate of teaching informed and active citizenship.

Derwing and Thomson (2005) analyzed interviews with LINC teachers and program coordinators in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta to determine to what extent they believed they were including citizenship values in the classroom, and to what extent they felt it was their responsibility to do so. The interview questionnaire included 29 open-ended questions and 12 that were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Respondents reported that issues such as abortion and euthanasia 'needed to be approached carefully' (p. 52) because of their controversial nature and because of insufficient language proficiency on the part of the learners. Respondents also reported on a general lack of suitable resources, and little direction in terms of which aspects of culture and values they were expected to teach. None of Derwing and Thomson's respondents, however, brought up issues of sexual diversity.

Building on Derwing and Thomson's research, a preliminary study of the place of sexual diversity in the LINC classroom was recently carried out in Alberta. The study is situated within a theoretical framework that draws on queer theory and critical pedagogies.

Background

Critical work in teaching English to speakers of other languages regularly draws on postmodern theories which recognize that class, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality are complex constructs of different forms of identity. In other words, we tend to speak not of identity, but of multiple constructed identities that intersect and often conflict with one another (Hall, 1996). Cameron (2005), for example, explores the implications of the postmodern view on the language classroom, wherein linguistic gender differences in search of cultural universals are eschewed for 'local explanations' in specific contexts or 'communities of practice' (p. 484). She gives as example a group of Korean women who perceive the cultural contrast between themselves and women from other cultures as being more salient than 'anything they share simply by virtue of being women' (p. 488). Like gender identities, sexual identities are 'shown to be culturally and locally variable' (p. 494).

Constructed identities - teacher/student, for example - can also be relations of power (Norton, 1997) that may have as much or more consequence than those power relations embedded in class or ethnic identities. In other words, ESL classrooms are power-laden sites. Canagarajah (2004) notes that students may 'be so intimidated by the authority and power of the teacher that they desist from presenting identities that are not institutionally desired' (p. 120). In this context, the manner in which LINC addresses sexual diversity acquires particular relevance.

Kubota's (2004) critique of liberal multiculturalism supports Canagarajah's (2004) investigation of power relationships in second language acquisition. Both investigations speak strongly to motivation. If, as Canagarajah states, the learning of a language is motivated by 'the construction of the identities we desire and the communities we want to join,' and the manner of resolving these conflicts 'is at the heart of becoming a successful language learner' (p. 117), then sexual identity can be placed at the heart of language learning.

What is the actual situation in the LINC classroom of today? We can imagine that students already marginalized by virtue of culture and language might feel triply marginalized if they also self-identify as gay, although to my knowledge this issue has not been addressed by empirical research. Similarly, and perhaps of greater consequence, the question of whether or not teachers acknowledge Canada's gay reality does not appear to have been addressed.

Research questions

Do LINC teachers consider discussions of sexual diversity to be within their purview? To what extent are they comfortable with the topic, or do they consider it to be too controversial? Do they have enough information, and if not, are there practical strategies that could be made available to them? And if, as suggested by Derwing and Thomson, controversial topics tend to be avoided by teachers, what might be the pedagogical implications of avoidance with respect to sexual diversity? Perhaps of prime concern to teachers are which approaches might best address the interests of language learners.

Methodology

Research strategy and design

Instruments

For this study, a mixed methods approach was devised that incorporated a scalar survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) and semi-structured interview (see Appendix B) of LINC teachers' perceptions. Both the survey and interview questions were piloted, and modifications were made in response to reviewer suggestions.

The works of Dörnyei (2003) and Iarossi (2006) were consulted to construct the scalar survey. From an initial item pool of 35 items, 6 demographic questions and 17 close-ended multiple-choice items were chosen, with a 6-point forced-Likert scale adopted for 16 of the items, and a checklist for the other. The survey was administered using the online program Survey Monkey. The semi-structured interview was designed to take less than 30 minutes. During the interviews, it emerged that participants had not taken into account sexual diversity in their textbook assessments, so a limited content analysis of textbooks was also undertaken.

Participants

The listserv of the Alberta Teachers of English as a Second Language (ATESL) was used to solicit volunteers for both the survey and the interview. Participants were thus obtained through convenience samples of self-selected LINC instructors teaching across proficiency levels throughout the province of Alberta. A total of 32 valid survey responses were generated and 7 interviews transcribed and analyzed. Although demographic information was gathered (age, gender, years of teaching experience, teaching level, and region), the participant pool was not deemed large enough to attempt an analysis based on demographics.

Content analysis

A convenience sample of books on display at the 2007 ATESL conference was examined for Canadian content and heterosexist bias, as were textbooks currently in use in a leading LINC program in Edmonton. A total of six textbook series and nine individual books were examined, ranging from basic level to English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Using the chapter headings and indexes as guides, content was analyzed on the basis of pictorial and textual representations of family relationships and of marriage and other romantic relationships.

Data analysis

Frequency distributions of the survey data were calculated, and relevant features were identified, compared, and contrasted. Data uncovered in the survey were further explored in the interviews. A total of seven interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and verified by the participants, and the transcripts were segmented and organized into the salient themes that emerged.

Results

Representations of family and other relationships

Survey and interview respondents' perceptions of materials

When asked if LINCtextbooks adequately reflect Canadian values, 86.7% of the survey respondents agreed that they do, and 80.7% agreed that additional resources, such as newspapers and the internet, were readily accessible (see Table 1). Interviewees were less positive, with 42.9% reporting a lack of both core and supplemental resources. Of the seven teachers interviewed, three noted a general lack of Canadian content, echoing the earlier findings of Thomson and Derwing (2004). As for sexual diversity in the Canadian context, six of the seven teachers acknowledged a lack of ready access to relevant information. As Participant # 1 put it, 'I would have to specifically go out and look for it.'

Table 1.

Percentage of perceived availability of adequate materials by LINC teachers (N = 32)

Two participants mentioned that some of the books in their programs were out-of-date, and Participant # 6 complained about racial and cultural stereotyping, with portrayals of 'black-skinned individuals' either playing a musical instrument or playing a sport - 'performing, entertaining a crowd' - and Native Americans outfitted 'in full regalia of feathers and beads, never in a lawyer's office.' As for family structure, the nuclear family was the norm.

Interview participants and portrayals of the family.

When asked how they characterize marriage and other familial relationships in their lessons, four of the seven interview participants said they routinely refer to nuclear, blended, and extended families, as well as single parents, but all characterize couples as heterosexual. Two participants occasionally use role plays as open-ended exercises, with the students themselves determining their respective functions within the role play.

Participant # 1 disclosed that the day before she was interviewed, she had led a class discussion on love and marriage, and approval and disapproval of different kinds of relationships. When asked if she had mentioned same-sex relationships, she said no, but that it had not been a conscious avoidance - the students had not brought up the issue:

I guess I've just not thought about it . . . and I'm actually kicking myself when I think about it now. It should have been something that I should have brought up, because it's something that is part of the culture, and part of society.

Textbook analysis

The content analysis supported the interview participants' views of available textbooks. Family trees were a popular means of portraying family relationships. Of the series of textbooks examined at the publishers' display booths, only the photographs in Hanreddy and Whalley (2007) allow for an open interpretation of family relationships. The twoCanadian books examined, including one published as recently as 2007 (Rajabi & Spigarelli), depict uniquely heterosexual partnerships within nuclear families,. When the representative for the latter book was asked if her company had considered including depictions of the family that were open to interpretation, she replied that the company needed to be careful about cultural sensitivities.

Six of the nine textbooks examined in the LINCbookstore referredonly to heterosexual, nuclear families. Twoof the books purported to dealwith changes in marriage customs, but referred specifically to heterosexual husbands and wives. For instance, in Beglar and Murray (2002), a unit called 'Marriage: Traditions and trends' refers to arranged marriages and the erosion of customs, but does not mention same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples are mentioned in Numrich (2004), but only to debate whether or not they should be legally recognized as a family.

The role of the LINC teacher

All interviewees agreed that next to language teaching, their first responsibility is to help learners integrate into society by teaching Canadian culture and norms. Citizenship knowledge was variously characterized as including history, geography, banking, education, settlement issues, job environments, family, home, community, pragmatics, and Canadian law.

While 93.7% of the survey respondents replied that it is important to refer to Canadian law when talking about citizenship values, 35.5% felt that gay/lesbian issues fall outside the mandate of LINC, and 37.5% reported that they had never really thought about discussing gay issues in the classroom. The figures suggest that these respondents did not take into account the inclusion of gay and lesbian rights in Canadian legislation.

Topic avoidance

Survey respondents reported that on the whole, they are reasonably comfortable with the idea of discussing controversial issues, specifically politics, euthanasia, ethnicity/race, religion, and gay issues in the classroom. The lowest comfort level, 65.7%, was reported for political disagreements, and the highest comfort level, 81.2%, was reported for discussions of both euthanasia and gay issues. While 100% of survey respondents reported that they thought there was a place for controversy in the classroom, concern was also expressed that the topic of sexual diversity might arouse antagonistic comments (41.9%); that it might offend cultural or religious sensibilities (45.2%); and that students do not have the necessary linguistic skills to discuss the topic (48.4%). A minority of respondents, 16.1%, reported having personal moral concerns, and 12.9% felt ill equipped to discuss sexual diversity.

Six of the interview participants also expressed personal levels of comfort in dealing with gay/lesbian issues, but thought that LINC students in general hold more conservative social values than the average Canadian. Of these six participants, four expressed discomfort in face of potentially negative reaction from students. Three singled out Muslim students as particular sources of worry, and the fourth, Participant # 3, mentioned students from China as a source of worry because 'being gay is something that is not accepted in China.' Participant # 1 also said that not only was she unsure 'how the students would take it,' but that she avoided the topic for lack of information. Two participants further stated that they had never really thought about including gay issues in class discussions.

Like the survey respondents, five of the interview participants felt that there is a place for the discussion of gay/lesbian issues in the classroom, particularly with reference to Canadian law. Participant # 7 disagreed, expressing the view that 'sexuality in general' is inappropriate in a multicultural classroom. All said that although they did not tend to bring up the topic, they were willing to discuss it if the students brought it up. However, all seven interview participants reported that in their experience, students do not bring up the topic, neither in positive nor negative contexts.

When asked if they had ever had a student who identified as gay or lesbian, 71.9% of survey respondents replied that they did not know (see Table 2). All the interview participants gave the same response: they knew of no students who identified as gay or lesbian. Participant # 4 added that she really didn't want to know: 'It's nobody's business.'

Three interview participants believed, like the survey respondents, that the language proficiency of their students is not at a sufficiently high level to deal with the topic of sexual diversity. Participant # 6 brought up time constraints, saying she really did not have much time for preparation:

Table 2.

Percentage of perceived visibility of gay and lesbian students and colleagues (N = 32)

You spend so much time trying to make sure you cover all the grammar that you need to be doing, and making sure that they've all done their presentations, making sure they have knowledge about the city of Edmonton and how to access the Landlord and Tenants Board, covering all those bases - I mean those kind of things that I think are important, that it doesn't leave a whole lot of time.

The survey results indicate that most teachers do not discuss sexual diversity issues with their colleagues either. According to Table 3, 81.2% of survey respondents reported that they take part in such discussions no more than a few times a year, if at all. Gay colleagues were less invisible than gay students, although 56.3% of participants reported that they do not have or do not know if they have gay colleagues (see Table 2).

Teacher interest in pedagogical support

In general, the interview participants welcomed the idea of pedagogical support, citing the need to relay the image of a tolerant Canada. Even the participant who thought that sexuality was an inappropriate topic for the ESL classroom acknowledged that students still need to have concrete information about anti-discrimination laws. One thought it would be helpful if gay content were included in textbooks, particularly in depictions of family life. A second participant,

Table 3.

Percentage of Perceived Salience of Topic of Sexual Diversity (N = 32)

Participant # 3, also felt that while she agreed the issue should be raised when talking about the family, she felt ill-equipped to include a gay component unless it was included in the textbook: 'If there was a textbook that incorporated it, I would be interested in teaching it.' She went on to say that she would appreciate the time that would be saved if accurate information were provided, and that such information is important to prepare students for the workplace: 'I think just about every job I've been at I've known somebody who's been gay or lesbian.'

Participant # 1 said she would appreciate any help in the area that was made available. Because Alberta receives so many immigrants and sexuality is viewed so differently 'fromcountry to country and from culture to culture,' she felt it would be valuable for students to know the appropriate vocabulary and idioms for talking about sexuality. Participant # 2 said that although he was familiar with 'various gay communities,' he did not have the sort of explicit knowledge that would translate to other cultures:

What's it like to be gay in Ethiopia, and then move to a LINC classroom? Or to have spent the last ten years of your life in a refugee camp and realize you're gay and your entire family's Muslim? I wouldn't feel well informed.

He also believed the topic was relevant as it relates to the Charter of Rights, and that immigration service agencies should provide newcomers with the appropriate information. He went on to relate the issue to Canadian identity:

Even with the language that we use, we give people their space, their identity, to allow them to be who they are . . . We say, 'Why don't you. . .' or, 'Have you ever thought of. . .' We don't say, 'You should. . .' We tell through asking, so I think it's important because it's part of addressing culture.

Pedagogical Implications and Recommendations

Teacher perceptions of students

At first glance the statistics tabulating teachers' uneasiness with gay issues in the classroom appear to contradict the 81.2% who reported that they were comfortable with the topic. This latter statistic would also appear to contradict the 37.5% of respondents who reported that they had never really thought about discussing gay issues. On the other hand, the results might also indicate that although discussions of gay issues had not actually taken place in their classrooms, respondents were at least hypothetically comfortable with the idea. This interpretation is supported by the percentage of respondents who reported that the idea of discussing gay issues makes them nervous because of concerns over students' potential reactions.

If whiteness is the racial norm in North America and English the linguistic norm, heteronormativity is the sexual norm. Heteronormativity can erase queer sexual identities in the same way that an emphasis on commonality can erase non-white racial identities (Kubota, 2004). In this context, ignoring the gay reality in Canada because of feared student reaction may have an effect opposite to the desired one.

Attitudes towards gays and lesbians may be culturally or religiously motivated, but being gay or lesbian is not restricted to specific national or religious populations. Figures from Amnesty International (2008) cite numerous countries for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; punishment for homosexuality includes torture and, in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, even the death penalty. In this regard, queer learners are of primary concern to LINC teachers, as are heterosexual learners with queer family members. Of secondary concern are learners who do not identify as queer but are from countries where homophobia is institutionalized; as suggested by some of the interview participants, these learners might benefit from knowing the Canadian system of laws with regard to these issues.

The fact that being queer is generally considered to be controversial suggests that queer identity is sexualized in a way that heterosexuality is not. The inclusion of discussions of heterosexual marriages and nuclear families in the LINC curriculum, for example, was not cited by any of the participants as being controversial, indicating that heterosexuality is not hypersexualized in the way that same-sex relationships are.

Being heterosexual or queer is not comparable to a person's politics or religion, which are ideas and beliefs that are tied to an ethical or moral view of the world. Unlike the choice to undergo an abortion or euthanasia, sexuality is more analogous to "race" or ethnicity - it is not a matter of choice, but it does form part of one's identity.

Although concomitant data were not gathered in the survey, in general the interview participants reported that they perceived learners to be more socially conservative than teachers; in other words, teachers are comfortable discussing gay issues, but students probably would not be.

Nonetheless, if we were to accept that, on average, students hold more socially conservative views of sexual diversity than teachers and the average Canadian, it does not follow that individual students are socially conservative. Nor does it follow that all students, including those from Islamic countries, are heterosexual. Furthermore, if the narrative of anticipated intolerance in the classroom is accepted, one might consider how a gay student might feel in such an environment, especially a newcomer from a country where same-sex activities have been criminalized. One might also question whether it is appropriate to allow intolerance to determine course content.

What teachers can do

What sort of approach, then, might best address the interests of language learners?

The adult LINC classroom might well be the ideal place to help newcomers explore new identities in their new language and culture. Canagarajah (2006) suggests that learners be encouraged to not simply join a speech community, but taught 'to shuttle between communities' (p. 26). An inclusive environment that facilitates identity exploration can increase motivation for language acquisition (Canagarajah, 2004), which is, after all, the goal of language teaching. Such inclusion might also help learners understand popular culture (which includes gay characters in TV sitcoms and soap operas), as well as better prepare them for a workplace which, as noted above by Participant # 3, includes gay and lesbian people who are open about their sexuality.

Nelson (1999) draws on the work of Butler (1990, 1999) and Hall (1996) to argue that in an ESL context, a queer framework that emphasizes inquiry rather than inclusion can be particularly useful for discussing sexual identity. For example, questioning heteronormativity allows a circumvention of the debates over causality implied in the terms sexual preference (choice) and sexual orientation (innateness). As Nelson points out, inquiry, which does not presuppose any given answers, has practical classroom applications in that 'teachers are expected not to have all the answers but rather to frame questions, facilitate investigations, and explore what is not known' (p. 377). Avoiding labels such as husband and wife in depictions of male/ female relationships, for instance, could prompt open-ended discussions about Canadian marital norms.

Ó'Móchain (2006) also describes attempts to generate classroom inquiry into educationally and culturally appropriate ways of exploring gender and sexuality. In an English as a Foreign Language class in Japan, he juxtaposed the audiotaped life-history narratives of a local gay high school teacher and a local lesbian university student. He describes how the two narratives prompted a student to share a narrative about a transgendered schoolmate. Ó'Móchain concludes that using local queer narratives as teaching material could prove effective and meaningful within institutional contexts in which open discussions of sexuality might otherwise seem challenging or unfamiliar.

In an earlier study, Johnson (1995) examined patterns of communication in an intermediate-level ESL course that focused on social and cultural issues facing American university students. Of particular relevance is a transcript of student-teacher interactions during a discussion of gay pride week. In the discussion that took place, students initiated questions, determined the topic, and self-selected when to participate. The interaction that emerged was 'spontaneous, adaptive, and meaning-focused' (p. 106), all the while allowing students to carry out a range of language functions. Johnson's analysis highlights how teachers' interpretations and recasts can sometimes reflect their own understanding rather than that of their students.

In a study of two groups of learners studying EAP, one made up of African Americans and the other of Tamil students in Sri Lanka, Canagarajah (2004) discovered that both groups had developed 'safe houses' - metaphorical sites such as asides, note passing, and online discussions - where they could safely negotiate alternate identities 'without being penalized' (p. 120). Canagarajah suggests that by tapping into the strategies employed by students in these safe houses, teachers might help learners integrate identity negotiation with language acquisition, 'with positive consequences for their literacy development' (p. 118).

The accounts of classroom interactions noted above can serve as cautionary notes for teachers to not presuppose the thoughts and opinions of their students. Additionally, the suggested classroom tasks are useful examples of how topics about homosexuality might arise in the ESL classroom and how teachers can deal with them comfortably.

Teachers need not be experts on the subject to facilitate explorations of sexual identity. The number of self-identifying queer identities - lesbian, gay woman, dyke, butch, femme, gay man, same-gender loving, two-spirit, drag queen, bisexual, trans, and so on - indicates that there is no monolithic queer community (Griffin, D'Errico, Harro, & Schiff, 2007) to teach about.

Approaching sexual identity through inquiry, as suggested by Nelson (1999), has the effect of de-emphasizing moral values while validating individual learner experience and supporting learner autonomy. The engaged students in the scenarios described by Johnson (1995) and Ó'Móchain (2006) are helpful examples of such an approach. Still, if student expectations should 'disallow that type of inquiry or find it deeply incongruous' (Ó'Móchain, 2006, p. 53), might teachers then risk alienating their students?

As a solution to such a possibility, Curran (2006) suggests two approaches that elicit the sort of knowledge students already have: reframing and deconstruction. For example, a question such as, 'Is homosexuality a choice or are people born that way?' can be reframed as, 'What leads people to think they're straight or gay?' Reframing in this manner does not privilege heterosexuality above other sexualities, and underscores the notion of the fluidity of identities. This approach also offers students the possibility of maximizing their speaking opportunities.

In higher-level classes, deconstruction provides a language focus by unpacking discourse that 'would ordinarily be taken for granted within mainstream contexts' (Curran, 2006, p. 92). In other words, how a topic is treated in a particular textbook or DVD, or whether or not a book is Canadian, becomes less important than how the material is approached critically. Cultural norms and values can be unpacked to discover the assumptions embedded within them, and problematic binaries such as good/bad, normal/abnormal can be avoided.

To resist reinforcing the minority status of queer people (Nelson, 1999), it is important to incorporate references to queer identity throughout curricula, rather than to teach it in discrete, separate units. References to Canada's gay population can be made as a matter of course in discussions of human rights, marriage, and family matters. During role plays, students can be encouraged to explore for themselves the roles they choose, as a couple of interview participants in this study suggested. Related vocabulary, such as appropriate/inappropriate idioms and neutral/pejorative terms, can be included when pragmatics are being taught.

Joint responsibility

Canagarajah (2006) asks whether changes are best initiated 'at the macro level of educational policy or the micro level of classroom practice' (p. 16). Many LINC teachers are kept busy simply finding ways to teach survival English to their students (Derwing & Thomson, 2005). Is it then fair to place the entire burden of responsibility on the shoulders of teachers in the field? What about the responsibilities of ESL publishers? Teacher-training programs?

A cursory examination of LINC materials reveals a Canada that is multiculturally diverse and gender-equal, yet almost exclusively heterosexual. Textbook writers and publishers might consider producing materials that encourage inquiry rather than reproduce stereotypes, and content that provides open and inclusive depictions of family and other relationships, thus offering concrete support to teachers who work in already challenging situations. Teacher education programs, for their part, might examine their programs for heteronormative bias, and adjust them accordingly.

Teacher-education programs

In reference to teacher-training programs for schools, Kissen and Phillips (2002) point out that although 'teacher education programs have begun to teach teachers how to create classrooms free of racism, sexism, able-ism, and classism, little has been done to integrate preparation for sexual diversity into teacher education curriculum' (p. 169). Not addressing queer issues in the TESL classroom can have the unintended consequence of not adequately preparing teachers to acquaint their students with a truly contemporary view of Canada.

How can teacher-training programs become more proactive in addressing the issues herein discussed? A "professional"¹ queer could be invited into the TESL classroom to engage students directly, but such an approach would be no more useful than a 'leave-it-to-the experts' attitude in the ESL classroom, and as Lipkin (2002) points out, would hold little promise for institutional change. A more lasting and meaningful solution might be to revise syllabi and teaching approaches to include queer perspectives in core TESL classes, especially when issues of learner identity, learner autonomy, pragmatics, and cultural or settlement issues are addressed.

In the interests of supporting learner autonomy, teacher-training programs can prepare teachers to legitimate and validate the sexuality of their students; provide teachers with the language to explore sexual identity and engage in popular culture; make learners aware of pertinent Canadian laws; and prepare learners for critical thinking, especially in EAP classes.

Conclusion

This research was limited by both the small sample pool and the concern voiced by several reviewers of the pilot questions, that due to the nature of the study - that is, the topic of sexual identity - potential respondents might self-select on the basis of whether or not they had positive feelings about the matter. However, the questions that were raised in this study merit further exploration, and suggest that a larger representative sampling of teacher perceptions across Canada might be in order.

If this small-scale study is at all indicative of the larger picture, then what might prove most significant is the general absence of the existence of queer identity in teachers' consciousness and teacher-training programs, and the concomitant invisibility of gay students themselves (not to mention gay teachers). In short, the issue seems to be one largely characterized by invisibility. Just as Kubota (2004) critiques liberal multiculturalism for its erasure of racial difference, heteronormativity sends out subtle messages that because queer issues are avoided, they are unimportant.

There appears to be agreement among teachers and researchers alike that 'the most important component of citizenship preparation is language itself'" (Derwing & Thomson, 2005, p. 57). That said, LINC teachers are still expected to facilitate the integration of immigrants into the Canada of today, a Canada that includes an increasingly prominent queer presence. The notion that LINC students - specifically in Alberta - are more socially conservative than the average Canadian is an anecdotal stereotype, an unexamined assumption that warrants further research. The fact is, we do not really know what students think. As Johnson (1995) indicates, teachers' perceptions can sometimes reflect their own understanding of an issue rather than that of their students.

Nevertheless, should it be that newcomers from homophobic backgrounds are indeed as intolerant as some fear, then it becomes even more important that gay and lesbian students from these same homophobic backgrounds be provided with a safe and caring learning environment. Furthermore, because of the teacher/student power imbalance in the ESL classroom noted by Norton (1997) and Canagarajah (2004), and the LINC classroom in particular with its already-vulnerable population, students cannot be expected to bring up the topic of sexual diversity on their own.

Postscript

The underlying motive of the study was to raise awareness of gay and lesbian issues as they relate to LINC in particular, and ESL in general. Some of the participants in both the pilot study and the interview process reported that they found themselves reflecting on issues that they had not previously considered. It is hoped that the findings, limited as they are, will contribute in some small measure to the same sort of introspection by readers.