The Problematic Nature of Assumptions in the Process of Creating Meaning and Understanding

CHAPTER: 4 - DATA ANALYSIS

4.2. A Description of the Research Site 1 Source of information

4.4.7. The Problematic Nature of Assumptions in the Process of Creating Meaning and Understanding

"Many primary school educators are under the false impression that their learners are not sexually active" (Teacher Y).

According to Teacher Y, assumptions like the one quoted above give rise to"a/alse sense ofhope" among teachers, as these continue to perpetuate ignorance about the consequences of such activity among learners. He was of the belief that such false perceptions of their learners' sexual profiles creates a feeling among educators, that it is not necessary to explore themes and issues pertaining to sexual relations within the classroom context. Such assumptions are dangerous, as they run the risk of learners continuing to engage in unsafe sexual practices.

Teacher X believed that the assumption that learners are too young to be exposed to any fonn of HIVIAIDS education, is problematic for a variety of reasons. Statistics reveal that the age of sexual debut amongst children, is becoming increasingly earlier.

Also, the National Policy on HIVIAIDS (1999) stipulates that age-appropriate HIVIAIDS education should be provided for all learners.

Teacher Z contended that the assumptions that teachers bring with them to the classroom, have a definite bearing on the way in which they engage with their learners on discussion and dialogue about HIV/AIDS.

"Take me for example. Islam prohibits any form ofsexual activity outside the realm of marriage. Comingfrom this background, there is no question in my mind that it is wrong for children to engage in sexual activity. This line ofthinking certainly

impacts on the way I speak and respond in the classroom context. I want the learners to know that it is wrong for them to engage in sexual relations, which is why I harp on abstinence" (Teacher Z).

This bears testimony to the fact that one's predispositions and preconceived notions, of what they believe to be acceptable and age-appropriate, certainly impacts on the meanings that are conveyed within the classroom context. The assumption by teachers, that learners are not sexually active, had enonnous implications for the selection of topics that were covered within the domain of HIVIAlDS, as well as on the approach that teachers employed in the execution of their lessons.

This once again highlighted evidence of the dominant ideology present within the classroom context, emanating from the teachers. Also evident was the fact that the teachers' beliefs, about what was sexually appropriate and inappropriate for children, influenced the selection of topics within the realm of HIVIAIDS education. In addition the way in which HIV/AIDS education was presented to learners, was influenced by the various ideologies and assumptions of the teachers. This supports Tatto's (1999) view that the process of meaning making can never be value-free or neutral.

4.4.8. Ambiguous Terms within the HIV/AIDS Discourse

The terms "Sex" and "Sexuality" commonly pose problems. They tend to be used inter-changeably. Many learners and educators use them synonymously. According to Van Rooyen and Louw (1994), sex refers to the act of sexual intercomse and, sexuality is a wider concept, referring to who we are as males and females, the way we dress, our behaviour, attitudes and relationships.

Teacher X stated that even though these terms are explained in the glossary section of many texts, the confusion between these two terms still prevails. She added that theoretical explanations existed, but practical examples, to support these, were not always there.

"It is even more difficult, for us teachers. to verbalize and explain to learner the difference between these two. Ifwe choose to use practical examples to illustrate the differences between these two, these are limited in that, our understanding ofsuch

To illustrate the difference between

the two terms, teacher Z used a spiderdiagram, where she wrote the heading "Sexuality"

on the middle of the chalkboard and asked learners what they understoodby the word. These were recordedas ideas emerging from the central theme. The teacherstarted by offering a definitionherself:

"It includes our sexual thoughts,

our experiences, ourfeelings, our ideasand our values. It has to do with our entireselfas a girl or boy, man or womanand includes things like the way wedress, move and speak. It is much morethan sex. What do you all think sexuality is?" (She lookedup at the class all expectantlywaiting for a response)

"I think_it

is when boys think about girls and girlsthink about boys" (The response of a male learner in the class).

"You are partially correct" (Teacher's

response and she repeated her definition offered above).

The educator was clearly, uncomfortable,

with learners having any thoughtsabout the opposite sex. When questioned

about why she brushed ofthe learner, she said that encouraging such responses,

would lead to the lesson, divergingfrom its intended course, and instead, would have led to otherdiscussions pertaining to feelings about the opposite sex.

The terms "Sexuality Education" and "sex information" were also used

synonymously, further intensifying the resistance offered and the negative light in which HIV/AIDS preventative education initiatives were construed. Teachers were reluctant to transmit information about the act of sex, as they believe this would contribute to promiscuous behaviours among their learners. In order to avoid the blame being cast onto them, they minimized the use of, or eliminated, such information from their lessons, altogether.

According to Van Rooyen and Louw (1994), sex information is where a child is given information without guidance or values or norms. On the other hand, they (Van Rooyen and Louw; 1994), contend that sexuality education includes information about sex, but in addition, encompasses values, norms and skills being taught. Since the latter is indicative of being embedded in values, the questions of whose values are given precedence, and to what extent these are congruent with the value systems of the learners, become inevitable. The process of making meaning can never be completely divorced from values.

The notion of "safe sex" was also viewed, as problematic, by all three educators.

"No sex with a partner is ever completely riskfree, even when using a condom, which can greatly reduce but never fully eliminate the risk" (Teacher Y).

This was the reason cited by educators X and Z, for not engaging in extensive

The tenn "promiscuous" was also considered as being a hugebone of contention among the three participants. Teacher Y felt that the tennhas negative connotations attached to it and is judgmental, accusatory and derogatory. He advocated the use of the tenn "multiple partners" instead. Teacher X believedthat presenting the tenn

"promiscuous" to learners, helped them rethink whetheror not it was appropriate to engage in such behaviours.

Teacher Z also preferred the use of the tenn "promiscuous", adding that learners need to be presented with the "hard core facts". By downplayingthe repercussions of having more than one sexual partner, she believed that educatorsare contributing to learners' decisions to become sexually active.

The use of the tenns "Sex" and "Sexuality" as being synonymousproved to be

problematic, as did the use of the tenns "SexualityEducation" and "Sex Infonnation".

Using these tenns interchangeably created much ambiguityamong both educators and learners. The confusion in meaning with regard as to what constituted "safe sex" and whether or not any sexual activity is completely safe, cameunder much introspection.

The negative connotations attached to the tenn, "promiscuous"was also highlighted.

A preferred substitute, that being "having multiple partners", was advocated instead.

This supports the idea that how educators communicateabout HIV/AIDS within the classroom context exerts a significant influence on the waylearners perceive the tenns and concepts being presented to them, and ultimately, on the process ofmaking meaning. The idea that certain tenns within the discourseon HIVI_{AIDS leave}

themselves being open to various interpretationsposes many challenges.

"Whose interpretation is more acceptable? How do the dominant ideologies that operate within the school context influence discourse on HIVIAIDS? How do these dominant ideologies manifest themselves within the classroom context?" These are some of the considerations that teachers need to bear in mind when they communicate about HIV/AIDS.

4.4.9. Use of Metaphors within the HIV/AIDS Discourse

"I admit that 1 sometimes talk around the topic, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like, condom use, masturbation as a healthy alternative, just to mention but a few" (Teacher Y).

Teacher Z feels that using metaphors is like"masking" pertinent issues within the HIVIAIDS discourse and he believes that this can give rise to all sorts of

misconceptions. He illustrated his sentiments with the example that follows:

"To die ofAIDS" conjures up the notion that AIDS is a disease. This is not true.

AIDS is a syndrome or a group ofillnesses, resulting from a weakening ofthe immune system. This weakening is caused by HIV, and opens the body to "opportunistic"

diseases - that is illnesses that take advantage ofweak immunity. Referring to AIDS as a "scourge or plague" implies that HIVIAIDS can be controlled. These are

sensational terms that fuel panic, discrimination and hopelessness. Even the use ofthe term "innocent victim" is problematic for me" (Teacher Z).

"r!

you do not be careful you too could become an innocent victim ", warned teacher

x.

The implication is that somebody else is guilty of something wrong, which may not necessarily be the case. This is yet another example that illustrates the deliberate choice of signs (language) on the part of the educator, to represent HIV and AIDS (the

This is in accordance with Pliskin (1997) who believes that as a result of the lack of language with which to discuss sexually transmitted diseases, talking around the topic is a common feature within the classroom context. "Selective teaching" is what occurs instead. The result can be disastrous, as has been indicated and documented, where such an approach leaves itself open to giving rise to, and perpetuating the many misconceptions and inaccuracies that permeate much of the discussion on HIV/AIDS within the school context. "Does selective teaching give rise to gaps in lmowledge among learners? Who decides which topics should be given precedence over others?

These questions are indicative of the various power relations that dominate much of the dialogue and discussion pertaining to HIV/AIDS within the classroom context.

The educator, in his or her supposed position of authority over the learners, selected the subject content as well as the learning activities. "What impact does this have on the way HIVIAIDS education is presented within the classroom context?