Research paper / Artículo científico
The (mis)match
between sexuality education programs in school and the expectations of
Ecuadorian adolescents
El (des)encuentro entre los programas de educaci= ón sexual en los Colegios y las expectativas de los adolescentes ecuatorianos<= o:p>
1 Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Educational Sciences, Univers=
ity
of Cuenca, Cuenca Ecuador.
2 Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy & Centre for t=
he
Social Study of Migration and Refugees, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
3 Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Gent, Belgi=
um.
Autor para correspondencia:
jessica.castillo@ucuenca.edu.ec
Fecha de recepción: 18 de juni=
o de
2019 - Fecha de aceptación: 23 de octubre de 2019
ABSTRACT
Considering the relevance of adolescents’ voices in the design and
implementation of sexuality education programs, the current study explores
adolescents’ perceptions of ongoing sexuality education they are receiving =
at
school (SSE) and perceptions about their teachers’ professionalism towards =
this
topic (SEPT) in Ecuador. A multi-stage stratified cluster sampling procedu=
re
was followed to involve 702 adolescents between 11 and 19 years old<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:9.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> in the study. Participants perceptions of SSE and SEPT were assessed b=
ased
on a Likert scale survey encompassing 15 closed=
and 4
open questions. Responses were analyzed in relation to their gender, parent=
al
migration status, age and geographical location. Adolescents expressed high
satisfaction with
sexuality education received at school (SSE) and were mildly satisfied about
their teachers’ competences regarding sexuality education (SEPT).
Palabras
clave: Educac=
ión en
sexualidad, profesionalismo docente, satisfacción de los adolescentes, Ecua=
dor.
RESUMEN
Considerando la
relevancia de las voces de los adolescentes en el diseño e implementación de
los programas de educación en sexualidad, el estudio actual explora las
percepciones de los adolescentes sobre la educación sexual actual que recib=
en
en la escuela (SSE) y las percepciones sobre el profesionalismo de sus doce=
ntes
con respecto a este tema (SEPT) en Ecuador. Mediante un procedimiento de
muestreo por grupos estratificados en varias etapas se involucró a 702
adolescentes entre 11 y 19 años de edad en el estudio. Las percepciones de =
los
participantes de SSE y SEPT se evaluaron en base a una encuesta tipo Likert=
con
15 preguntas cerradas y 4 preguntas abiertas. Las respuestas se analizaron =
en
relación con su género, estado migratorio de los padres, edad y ubicación
geográfica. Los adolescentes expresaron un nivel alto de satisfacción con la
educación sexual recibida en la escuela (SSE) y un nivel medio de satisfacc=
ión
con las competencias de sus maestros con respecto a la educación sexual (SE=
PT).
Los análisis de regresión logística multinomial
revelaron ligeras diferencias en relación con las variables sociodemográfic=
as.
Las respuestas a las preguntas abiertas reflejaron la fuerte influencia de =
un
enfoque biológico en la educación en sexualidad. Dados los niveles de
satisfacción en SSE y SEPT, y los contrastes entre el enfoque biológico y el
marco ecuatoriano general, los resultados tienen implicaciones claras para =
el
diseño y la implementación de futuros programas de educación en sexualidad =
y la
capacitación de propuestas de maestros.
Keywor=
ds: Educación en sexualidad,
profesionalismo de docentes, satisfacción de los adolescentes, Ecuador.
1. &nbs=
p;
INTRODUCTION
In =
most
countries, the school system is considered a formal setting for the
implementation of sexuality education in adolescents, as schools represent a
safe environment, and large groups of adolescents from diverse backgrounds =
can
be targeted (Bay-Cheng, 2003; Thomas & Aggleton, 2016). Moreover, t=
he
role of the school in providing sexuality education is supported by parents=
, as
well as by the majority of adolescents (Wa=
lters
& Hayes, 2007). Nevertheless, sexuality education in a school
context is challenging. In the present article, we examined how the design =
of
sexuality education programs is aligned with students’ expectations and pro=
be
students’ perceptions about their teachers’ expertise in this field.
The
design of sexuality education programs
The relevance of providing sexuality education wit=
hin
the school context is inexorably intertwined with the attention paid to its
design and implementation process. Discussions about an appropriate design =
for
sexuality education in schools - in terms of content, time, methodology,
evaluation, and expected outcomes - reflect a variety of challenges. By definition is the design of sexuality educ=
ation
programs in schools linked to cultural values (Walters
& Hayes, 2007), as well as to myths and stereotypes about sexual=
ity
and sexuality education (Das, 2014).
Discussions reiterate concerns, pressures and censures about what sexuality
education should (not) imply and how it should be included into the school
curriculum (Bay-Cheng, 2003; Walters &
Hayes, 2007; Das, 2014).
=
Deb=
ates
about sexuality education in schools mirror two main controversies. First,
recent approaches of sexuality education have shifted from a focus on isola=
ted
and concrete aspects of sexuality (e.g., contraceptives, STDs - sexually
transmitted diseases, AIDS - acquired immu=
ne
deficiency syndrome, etc.), strongly based on health interventions <=
/span>(Darré et al., =
2015), t=
o a
holistic view focusing on gender and sexuality rights (IPPF, 2009) and promoting a “whole school” approach (Thomas & Aggleton, 2016). H=
owever,
despite these changes, scholars have concluded that most current sexuality
education programs in schools still concentrate on technical, physical and =
risk
aspects related to sex (Giami et al., 2006; Kirby, Obasi, & Laris,=
2006;
Darré et al., 2015). Second, there =
are
deliberations about how sexuality education should be nested within the sch=
ool
curriculum: (a) as a stand-alone subject within the curriculum, often offer=
ed
as elective course (Walters & Hayes, 2=
007)
and taught by “experts”; (b) integrated within an existing mainstream subje=
ct
(such as biology); or (c) as a transversal axis within the curriculum, mean=
ing
that sexuality education should be embedded in every subject. Consequently,
schoolteachers should be able to address it within their subjects (Martin,
2007) even in every space or moment of the school, aiming at a “whole schoo=
l”
approach; (d) a combination of these diverse modalities. Such a combination
could be a transversal axe design but could also result in defining a speci=
fic
sexuality education course in the curriculum (Thomas
& Aggleton, 2016).
While it has been argued that the sensitive nature of sexuality
education influences the approach of program design, a standardized proposa=
l is
still not available. There seems to exist a consensus about the inclusion of
the following components: (a) cognitive components building on a
scientific-based knowledge; (b) affective components introducing values
attitudes and beliefs; and (c) behavioral components introducing the
development of skills (Forrest et al.
2004; Allen, 2005; Giami et al., 2006; Allen, 2008; Helmich, 2009; Barr
=
Bei=
ng
context-sensitive also requires that sexuality education programs are align=
ed
with adolescents’ specific circumstances and unique characteristics (DiCenso, Guyatt, Willan, & Griffith, 2002;
Helmich, 2009; MacDonald et al.<=
/i>,
2011; Schmidt et al., 2015; S=
imovska, & Kane, 2015<=
/span>; Thomas & Aggleton, 2016=
). Literature points at the need to teach sexuality education in a
developmentally appropriate way, acknowledging that adolescents’ development
may differ in specific cultures and contexts (World
Health Organization, 2010; Muhanguzi
& Ninsiima, 2011; Das, 2014; Thomas & Aggleton, 2016).
Teachers’ point of view on sexuality education
Key to ensure school-based sexuality education programs succeeding in
encompassing adolescents’ needs and interests is the professional role of
teachers. While well-prepared teachers are key to effective sexuality educa=
tion
(Barr et al., 2014), research concludes that a majority of teachers assigne=
d to
teach sexuality education have received little or no formal related training
and do not feel empowered for this responsibility (Cohen, Byers, Sears, & Weaver=
, 2004;
Walters & Hayes, 2007; Das, 2014). At the same time, rese=
arch
shows that adolescents are aware of this weakness in teacher competences
Adolescents’ voices about sexuality education
Adolescents’ voices are hardly heard in the design of sexuality
education programs (DeMaria et al., 2009=
).
While an understanding of the target group is crucial in view of adolescent=
s’
engagement in the curriculum (Allen, 2008)=
,
their voices remain largely absent in decisions about the sexuality educati=
on
curriculum in the formal educational system (Bay-Cheng,
2003; MacDonald et al., 2011=
;
Thomas & Aggleton, 2016), since=
in
most cases, adults are those who design and decide on sexuality education
programs (Santelli et al., 2006; Giami et al., 2006; Hirst=
,
2008).
The same gap is noted in the research literature. Available research
focuses mainly on outcomes, particularly in adolescents´ behavior after
sexuality education (Suellentrop, 2011),
with a focus mainly on the use of contraceptives or abstinence approaches <=
span
style=3D'mso-no-proof:yes'>(Kirby, 2002; Wilson, Goodson, Pruitt, Buhi=
,
& Davis‐Gunnels, 2005; Rijsdijk et al., 2011; Haberland & Rogow, 2015) and on the
obstacles when implementing sexuality education in schools (Eisenberg et al., 2013;
Yet, very little is known about the fit between sexuality education
provided and adolescents’ expectations. Therefore, the current study aimed =
at
examining the perspectives of adolescents’ students about the sexuality
education implemented in their school context. Two research questions were =
put
forward: (1) To what extent are adolescents sati=
sfied
with the sexuality education they receive in schools? a=
nd
(2) To what extent do adolescents consider their teachers performing well w=
hen
addressing sexuality education? To answer these questions, we measured,
firstly, adolescents’ satisfaction with the sexuality education they have b=
een
receiving (SSE-Satisfaction Sexuality Education), and, secondly, adolescent=
s’
perceptions about the Sexuality Educational Teachers’ Professionalism (SEPT=
-Sexuality
Education Professionalism of Teachers).
Since sexuality is a complex human dimension, its conceptualization
differs according to contexts, groups and even individuals. To be sensitive=
to
these differences, the present study also tackled background variables such=
as
gender, age, geographical location and the situation of adolescents with
emigrated parents. Participants’ geographical location calls for particular
attention, given the context of the study (Ecuador), where we note, as in o=
ther
Latin American contexts, the emergence of ‘new ruralit=
ies’
and its influence on adolescents’ sexuality (Pascual,
2013). The variable ‘adolescents with emigrated
parents’ refers to a growing group of Ecuadorian children and
adolescents whose parents have emigrated while they themselves stay in the =
home
country (Jokhan, 2008).
2. &nbs=
p;
METHODS
The study was conducted in Ecuador, a country with=
one
of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Latin-America (Castro & Salinas, 2017). In Ecuador,=
the
recognition of adolescents’ rights on sexuality education is embedded in the
constitution, with schools as major
stakeholders through the implementation of the Comprehensive Sexuality
Education (CSE) framework (Educativo, 2012=
).
CSE, that is incorporated as a compulsory part of mains=
tream
curriculum, goes beyond a narrow focus on abstinence and contracepti=
ves,
and incorporates gender rights, is explicitly secular in nature, and consi=
ders
sexuality as inherent to human beings. M=
oreover,
CSE is designed in a way that it guarantees the development of inter-related
knowledge, skills and attitudes, at all educational levels, and both in pub=
lic
and private schools. To reach this goal=
, a str=
ategy
was put forward by the Ministry of Education that puts CSE as a transversal
axis within the school curriculum. This suggests that every teacher, at any
educational level and responsible for any subject, should be able to address
sexuality education in his/her classroom.
Participants in the pre=
sent
study are adolescents attending public secondary schools from urban and rur=
al
areas in cantons of Azuay province in Ecuador. A multi-stage stratified clu=
ster
sampling procedure was followed. In the sampling procedure, we only included
schools offering both upper basic educational (8th, 9th
and 10th grade) and secondary education (1st, 2n=
d
and 3rd).
In a first sampling ste=
p,
on the basis of demographic information of the Azuay region, eight cantons =
(50%
of all cantons) were selected with the highest rates of international
emigration (INEC, 2010). Further, o=
n the
basis of the Azuay public schools’ database (Ministry
of Education of Ecuador, 2012), 18 schools were randomly selected fr=
om
these eight cantons:
·&nb=
sp; From five cantons: one urban and one rural high sc=
hool
(10 in total);
·&nb=
sp; From two rural cantons: one school from each canto=
n (2
in total); and
·&nb=
sp; From the capital canton: two urban, two rural, and=
two
urban-rural schools (6 in total).
In a second step, three
clusters of classes were selected from each school:
·&nb=
sp; cluster 1: 8th-9th grade cla=
sses[1=
] (early adolescence);
·&nb=
sp; cluster 2: 10th grade classes and 1
·&nb=
sp; cluster 3: 2nd and 3rd year secondary education class=
es
(late adolescence).
Thirdly, each cluster w=
as
screened in collaboration with a teacher or psychologist. For each cluster,=
the
class with the largest proportion of students with emigrated parents was
selected. Fourthly, to ensure the gender balance and avoid stigmatization of
adolescents with emigrated parents, we randomly selected eight girls and ei=
ght
boys from the class with the largest proportion of students with emigrated
parents. In this phase, the random selection focused on developing a subgro=
up
of at least fifteen adolescents.
The final sample consis=
ted
of 780 adolescents between 11 and 19 years old. Considering the aim of the
current study, we only included the data of those adolescents who reported =
in
the survey they already received sexuality education during high school,
bringing the final number of participants to 702.
The final sample reflec=
ts
the demographics characteristics of the population in Azuay in terms of gen=
der,
age and geographical location (INEC, 2010)=
.
Yet, regarding the emigration status of the parents, we purposively include=
d a
larger proportion (see Table 1).
Authorization for this
study was obtained from the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, and ethical
clearance from the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and
Educational Sciences of Ghent University. Once authorit=
ies of
the schools verified the authorization letter of the local authorities and =
the
Ministry of Education, all selected schools accepted to participate in the
study. Trained researchers administrated the survey in each school.<=
span
style=3D'background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow'>
Survey administration
started by informing adolescents about the study aims. The study conditions
were explained (voluntary participation, the right to withdraw from
participation at any time, confidentiality and anonymity), and contact
information of the researcher was given in case of further information or
assistance needed. Next, adolescents were invited to give their informed
consent by signing a form. Two schools requested to obtain first individual
parents’/guardians’ authorization for underage adolescents prior to the sur=
vey
administration. From these schools, 30 and 31 adolescents respectively (o=
f the 45
in each high school) received parental consent and participated.
After obtaining informed
consent, adolescents completed the survey individually, in a classroom and =
in
the presence of their classroom mates and the researcher. Instrument
administration took on average twenty minutes. After completion, participan=
ts
received a free snack and a drink.
To conduct the study, a
survey consisting of two scales was designed (Annex 1). One scale evaluated=
the
level of satisfaction of adolescents as to the sexuality education they
received at school (SSE). Building on the general guidelines for curriculum
design from the Ministry of Education of Ecuador (Ministerio Education, 2012), 4 items and 2 open-ended questions
were presented to the adolescents (e.g., items: during sexuality education classes, topics being
addressed, were interesting for me; during the class, I felt comfortable wh=
en
sexuality education topics were addressed; open-ended questions: in which
courses have you received sexuality education; what did you like the most a=
bout
the sexuality education classes you participated in?). Adolescents rated each
scale item on a 6-point Likert scale, expressin=
g their
agreement (1 ‘strongly disagree’ – 6 ‘totally agree’). Cronbach’s
α reflected an acceptabl=
e to
good level of internal consistence (α=3D0.73).
The second scale assess=
ed
adolescents’ perceptions of the Sexuality Education Professionalism of Teac=
hers
(SEPT). The scale consisted of 6 items and was developed on the base of
=
Additionally, background
questions were presented to get information about adolescents’ background
characteristics (gender, age, geographical location and migration status of=
the
parents).
=
A pilot version of the
survey was reviewed by two experts, resulting in three scale items being
revised. Next, this first pilot version was tested, involving 72 adolescent
students from three different public high schools (not included in the curr=
ent
sample) to check completeness, comprehensibility and feasibility of the
instrument. After pilot testing, two items were reformulated, three items w=
ere
enriched with a clarification and two open questions were incorporated. The
structure and the format of the questionnaire were qualified as adequate.
=
On the base of a
descriptive data analysis, a first picture was developed of SSE and SEPT,
focusing on potential differences related to gender, age, geographical loca=
tion
and parents’ migration status. Since
the data reflected overall high scores, the original L=
ikert
scale from 1-6 was re-coded into three new, discrete variables:=
1, 2
and 3. Collapsing scale levels is often applied in research related to
sensitive topics, when respondents select a smaller range of values within a
broader scale (see e.g., Matthias, Lubben,
Atchison, & Schweitzer, 1997). We applied the Linacre (2002) guidelines to collapse res=
ponse
values categories. The recoding is as follows: the value 1 indicates that
adolescents agree to a lesser extent, while 3 indicates=
that the respondents totally agree with a statement. Frequencies and
percentages were calculated based on the re-categorized scale. In addition,=
the
answers to the two open questions included in the SSE scale were clustered =
into
categories by grouping responses belonging
=
to the same dimension or topic. Next, a freq=
uency
analysis was carried out.
Thereafter, inferential statistics were applied to explore differenc=
es
in adolescents’ perceptions (SSE and SEPT) considering their background
variables. A multinomial logistic regression was carried out to study possi=
ble
associations between the predictor variables and the outcome variables in a
regression model. In the regression model, main effects of gender, parental
migration status, age and geographical location were entered as predictors =
for
the dependent variable SSE and SEPT scores.
3.&n=
bsp;
RESULTS
The
socio-demographic characteristics of the study sample are presented in Tabl=
e 1.
Descriptive analyses showed that the largest proportion=
of
respondents were highly satisfied with the sexuality education they
received at school (SSE) (see Table 2).
Student
background variables reflected some differences in SSE, especially for the
urban rural group (variable geographical location) and in the female group
(variable gender) who mainly expressed total agreement. In relation to the
variable SEPT, a large proportion of adolescent expressed mild agreement wi=
th
their teachers’ competences regarding sexuality education (SEPT), but with
minor differences in comparison to the proportion to less agreement and tot=
al
agreement. Student background variables seemed to reflect slight difference=
s in
SEPT, especially in the late adolescence group (variable age), as they most=
ly
expressed disagreement.
Responses to the
open-ended questions are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Results showed that
adolescents strongly indicated biological sciences as the main school subje=
ct
through which sexuality education is provided. Participants also showed that
they mostly liked topics related to sexual health; the topic they liked less
was pleasure.
Information
of the model fitting is presented in Table 5. The likelihood ratio results =
show
that gender and geographical location of schools were significantly associa=
ted
with SSE and SEPT, and age was significantly associated with SEPT, therefore
the null hypothesis is rejected with a probability of 5%. The χ
Concerning adolescents’ satisfaction with the sexuality education
received (SSE), two background variables were independently and significant=
ly
associated (Table 6): gender and geographical location. Female adolescents =
were
1.83 times more satisfied with the sexuality education they received compar=
ed
to males; adolescents from urban and rural areas were 0.23 and 0.32 times
respectively less satisfied compared to those from urban- rural areas. No
associations were found with adolescents’ age and migra=
ted
parents for SSE.
As to adolescents’ perceptions of their teachers’ professionalism
(SEPT), three background variables were significantly associated: gender, a=
ge
and geographical location. Female adolescents were 1.50 times more mildly a=
gree
with their teachers’ competences on sexuality education compared to males.
Participants belonging to middle adolescence were more likely to express
satisfaction in 2.84 times in comparison with late adolescence group.
Adolescents from urban areas were 0.34 times less satisfied compared to tho=
se
from urban-rural areas. No associations were found with adolescents’ parent=
al
migration status.
4.&n=
bsp;
DISCUSSION
Building on Ecuadorian adolescents’ perceptions, t=
his
study examined two key aspects in the field of sexuality education in schoo=
ls:
adolescents’ satisfaction with sexuality education received in their school
(SSE) and their views about the professionalism of their teachers delivering
sexuality education (SEPT). The findings of this study reiterate the concern
about the perspectives of the target group being disregarded in the design =
and
implementation of sexuality education. In addition, the present research ad=
ds
to the literature on the possible impact of specific background characteris=
tics
onto the studied variables.
Overall, the empirical findin=
gs
revealed that adolescents are rather highly satisfied with the sexuality
education they receive in school, with the highest scores the actual sexual=
ity
education they received (SSE), and somehow lower scores regarding the
professionalism of their teachers (SEPT).
The rather high scores are in contrast with most literature where
students generally express dissatisfaction with the received sexuality
education (Alldred, 2007), mainly because of the too strong=
focus
on the biological foundations of sexuality (Walters
& Hayes, 2007) or the irrelevant, =
boring,
repetitive, ‘too scientific’ and little realistic content (Allen, 2005;
To explain these
results, we might have to consider the Ecuadorian context. Since learner’s
engagement is influenced by broader cultural dynamics (Adams Tucker et al., 2016) and cultural values often be=
come
legitimized through institutional mechanisms resulting in practice codes for
teachers and health professionals (Shoveller,
This finding cou=
ld
lead to a biased sexuality education approach and result in a limited
conception of human sexuality in adolescents, perpetuating existing problem=
s related
with adolescents’ sexuality or even generating new inconveniences. The form=
er
is also in contradiction with the high teenage pregnancy rate in Ecuador.
=
Our
findings about boys’ dissatisfaction with sexuality education and teachers’
demeanor are consistent with earlier research (Lupton
& Tulloch, 1996; Hilton, 2003;
Muhanguzi & Ninsiima, 2011), an=
d can
be explained by cultural patterns influencing boys’ and girls’ sexuality
behavior whereby they are exposed to different experiences and information
about sexuality (Allen, 2005). Measor (2004) states that boys learn more=
about
sexuality from sources excluding adults (media, commercial sources or peers=
), which
may create tensions with the actual sexuality education content and the way
teachers handle this in schools. Also, boys are reported to be concerned ab=
out
being ignorant or having inadequate sexual competences (Forrest et al., 2004; =
Alldred,
2007), where mass media can answer these concerns in an anonymous wa=
y (Lupton & Tulloch, 1996).
Findings from the older age group’s perceptions about their teachers’
professionalism (SEPT) suggest a possible mismatch between the sexuality
‘career’ of adolescents and how they think adults (i.e., their teachers)
perceive it. On average, Ecuadorian adolescents of this age group are often
already involved in sexual activity (INEC,=
2014),
which may lead to more mature and complex needs (Allen, 2008). In contrast, older adolescents do not reflect hig=
her
scores as to their perceived needs related to sexuality education, which may
indicate that they are especially sensitive when it comes to the person
addressing sexuality education, rather than to its content.
Our assumption that adolescents with migrating parents would express
higher needs regarding sexuality education was not confirmed. A possible
explanation is that the physical separation from (a) parent(s) does not
necessarily imply a total breakdown of the parental relationship (Olwig, 1999). Further, parental emigration is abundan=
t in
the Ecuadorian framework, especially in the region where we set up this
research, which might have led to establishing strong social networks that =
are
sufficiently robust to counter the potential vulnerability of these
adolescents. Nevertheless, these adolescents still tend to be stigmatized as
“children from migrating parents” - as opposed to children from the nuclear
family (Pedone, 2006), which could evoke other =
needs
related to sexuality education, but this requires further in-depth analysis=
.
=
The
variable geographical location had a minimal impact on SSE, with higher nee=
ds
expressed by adolescents living in urban-rural areas compared to those from
urban and rural regions. Findings of other studies are rather inconsistent,
with some studies reporting adolescent risky sexual behavior either in urba=
n or
rural areas (Folayan et al., 2015)<=
/span>,
and others specifically indicate early sexual debut and childbearing among
rural female adolescents (Doyle et al.<=
/i>,
2012). Yet, these findings urge us to reconsider the labels urban and rural (Levine &=
amp;
Coupey, 2003) as in Ecuador - comparable to many Latin-Americ=
an
countries - a ‘new rurality’ can be observed, s=
howing
a pattern of cultural behavior that is increasingly similar to that typical=
ly
found in urbanized settings (Pascual, 2013=
).
Future research is needed to refine these findings, and to check whether the
small differences observed are really relevant and/or interact with other
variables, such as the socio-economic status.
Although we observed high lev=
els
of satisfaction in adolescents about the sexuality education received (SSE)=
and
the professionalism of their teachers, we stress that our findings have to =
be
interpreted with caution. When we start from a holistic approach towards
sexuality education, the adolescents seem satisfied with a biased approach
towards their sexuality education. This might result in a narrow vision and=
a constraint
of the realistic comprehension of the concept of sexuality as a natural par=
t of
human development (UNESCO, 2015). Building on the criteria =
put
forward in the international literature, this might not equip young people =
with
the knowledge and skills to make conscious, healthy and responsible choices
about their sexuality and relationships. Providing sexuality education from=
a
holistic perspective is grounded in human rights – including the rights of =
the child, and the empowerment of children and young
people – (UNESCO, 2009), what also =
is specified
in the Ecuadorian legal framework for children and young people (CNIG, 2019).
4.1. =
Limitations<=
/span>
Some limitations of the present study should be
considered. First, the results are limited to the Ecuadorian context and
involved respondents from a specific geographical sub-region. Second, the s=
tudy
only involved students from public schools, reaching predominantly adolesce=
nts
from families with a low or middle socio-economic status. In private schools
(some belonging to religious orders or international schools), sexuality
education programs might have been implemented differently, which might evo=
ke
other results. Thirdly, adolescents might have experienced difficulties to
express their real thoughts regarding sexuality education and concerning th=
eir
teachers when being questioned in their school setting. Fourth, we have to =
be
aware of the fact that participating adolescents might not have been famili=
ar
with the definition of human sexuality as used in the survey and may have
started from their (narrow) vision of what sexuality and/or sexuality educa=
tion
implied, or they might have been unaware
as to what topics actually can be addressed in sexuality education in schoo=
ls.
4.2. Implications=
Our findings have implications for policy makers and researchers. Fi=
rst,
the local context has to be taken in account when designing or re-designing
sexuality education projects. Second, the current study questions whether t=
he
Ecuadorian approach of sexuality education in its holistic approach has ind=
eed
been implemented. The findings can be used to push reflection about the
state-of-the-art, particularly given the high rates of early pregnancy and
gender violence. Third, this study can inspire research and practices to li=
sten
to adolescents’ voices with regard to sexuality education, in particular to
recognize adolescents as sexual beings with sexual rights. Fourth, sexuality
education needs to be included in the professional development of teachers,=
to improve
their knowledge and skills, to enable them to answer difficult questions, to
address sensitive matters, and to acknowledge students’ sexuality education
interests. Fifth, the findings indicate differences in participants’ sexual=
ity
education needs as related to certain background variables, such as gender,
age, and geographical location but not for the migration status of parents.
Sexuality education programs in schools need to consider these different
subgroups’ needs and characteristics.
5.&n= bsp; CONCLUSION<= o:p>
Adolescents participating in =
the
present study expressed rather high satisfaction with sexuality education
received at school and less, but still high satisfaction with their teacher=
s’
competences regarding sexuality education. Yet, their satisfaction is framed
within a biological sexuality education approach. Sexuality education needs=
to
be transformed to encompass other aspects of human sexuality in this target
group. Eventually, sexuality education would need to be different for boys =
and
girls. These aspects call for a stronger attention to sexuality education i=
n the
Ecuadorian formal education system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS=
The study was supported by the Institutional Cooperation Programme (IUC) between the University of Cuenca (Ecu=
ador)
and the Flemish Universities through funding by the Flemish Interuniversity
Council (VLIR-UOS).
REFERENCES
Adams Tucker, L.,
George, G., Reardon, C., & Panday, S. (2016=
). Learning the basics: young people’s engagement with sexuality
education at secondary schools. Sex Education, 16(4), 337-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.=
2015.1091768
Alldred, P., & David M. E. (2007).<=
/span> Get real about sex: The politics and practice =
of
sex education. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Allen, L. (2005). Say everything: Exploring young
people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 5(4), 389-404.
Allen, L. (2008). They think you shouldn’t be havi=
ng
sex anyway: Young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education
content. Sexualities, 11(5), 573-94.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing
self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307-337.
Barr, E. M., Goldfa=
rb,
E. S., Russell, S., Seabert, D., Wallen,
M., & Wilson, K. L. (2014). Improving sexuality
education: The development of teacher‐preparation
standards. Journal of school health<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:9.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:"Tim=
es New Roman";
color:#222222;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>, =
84(6), 396-415.
Bay-Cheng, L. (2003). The trouble of teen sex: The construction of
adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(1), 61-74.
Castro, M., & Salinas, S. (2017). Diagnóstico=
de
situación del embarazo en la adolescencia en la subregión andina 2016 - 201=
7.=
Recuperado
de https://www.orasconhu.org/node/3283
CNIG (Consejo Nacional para la Igualdad
Intergeneracional) (2019) "Niñez, situación y derechos". <=
span
class=3DGramE>Quito-Ecuador. Retrieved from:
https://www.igualdad.gob.ec/ninez-y-su-situacion/.
Cohen, J., Byers, S., Sears, H., & Weaver, A.
(2004). Sexual
health education: Attitudes, knowledge, and comfort of teachers in New
Brunswick Schools. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13(1),
1-15
Darré, S., Jerve=
s,
E., Castillo, J., & Enzlin, P. (2015). Sexuality education in Latin =
America.
In: Ponzetti, J. (Ed.). Evidence-Based Appro=
aches
to Sexuality Education: A Global Perspective (pp. 277-291). New York, U=
SA:
Taylor & Francis.
Das, A., (2014). Sexuality education in India:
Examining the rhetoric, rethinking the future. Sex Education, 14(2), 210-224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14681811.2013.866546
DeMaria, L., Galár=
raga,
O., Campero, L., & Walker, D. (2009). Educación sobre sexualidad y
prevención del VIH: Un diagnóstico para América Latina y el Caribe. =
Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública,<=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:9.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:ES-EC'> 26(6), 485-493.
DiCenso, =
A., Guyatt, G., Willan, A., &=
amp; Griffith, L., (2002). Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies amo=
ng
adolescents: Systematic review of randomised
controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324(7351), 1426-1430.
Doyle, A. M., Mavedzenge, S. N., Plummer, M. L., & Ross, D. A.
(2012). The sexual behaviour =
of
adolescents in sub‐Saharan
Africa: patterns and trends from national surveys. Tropical Medicine & International H=
ealth, 17(7), 796-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.136=
5-3156.2012.03005.x
Ministerio
de Educación del Ecuador. (2012). Constitución de la República, Ley Orgá=
nica
de Educación Intercultural y Reglamento General. Quito, Ecuador.
Eisenberg,
M., Madsen, N., Oliphant,
J., & Sieving, R. (2013). Barriers to providing the sexuality education that teachers believe students need. Journal of Sch=
ool
Health, 83(5),=
335-342.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ josh.12036
Folayan, M. O., Adebajo, S., Adeyemi, A.,=
& Ogungbemi, K. M. (2015). Differences in sexual practi=
ces,
sexual behavior and HIV risk profile between adolescents and young persons =
in
rural and urban Nigeria. PloS one
Forrest, S., Strange, V., Oakley, A., & RIPPLE=
Study
Team. 2004. What do young people want from sex education? The results of a
needs assessment from a peer‐led sex education program. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, 6(4=
), 337-354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13691050310001645050
Giami, =
A., Ohlrichs, Y., Quilliam, S=
., Wellings, K., Pacey, A., & Wylie, K. (2006). Sex
education in schools is insufficient to support adolescents in the 21st
century: A summary of sexual and relationship therapy’s inaugural debate. 8=
th
Congress of the European Federation of Sexology in Prague, 5 June 2006. =
Sexual
and Relationship Therapy, 21(4),
485-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990601019515
Haberland
Helleve, A., Flish=
er,
A., Onya, H., Mũkoma<=
/span>,
W., & Klepp, K. (2011). Can "any" teacher t=
each
sexuality and HIV/AIDS? Perspectives of South African l=
ife orientation
teachers. Sex Education: Se=
xuality,
Society and Learning, 11(1), 13-26.
Helmich, J. (2009). What is comprehensive sexuality
education? Going WAAAAAY beyond abstinence and condoms.=
American Journal of Sexuality Education, 4(1), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1554612090287=
0315
Hilton, G. (2003). Listening t=
o the boys:
English boys’ views on the desirable characteristics of teachers of sex
education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(1), 33-45. https://d=
oi.org/10.1080/
1468181032000052144
Hirst, =
J.
(2008). Developing sexual competence? Exploring strateg=
ies
for the provision of effective sexualities and relationships education. Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 8(4), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/146818108024=
33929
H=
uberman,=
A.
M., Grounauer, M. M., & Marti, J. (1993). =
The lives of teach=
ers. London, UK: Teache=
rs
College Press.
Hunt, A., &
Instituto Nacional de
Estadísticas Censos (INEC). (2010). Resultados Censo Azuay 2010.
Instituto Nacional de
Estadísticas y Censos (INEC). (2014). Resultados demografía y salud sexu=
al y
reproductiva. Re=
trieved
from http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/msp-e-inec-presentan-resultados-de-d=
emografia-y-salud-sexual-y-reproductiva/.
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)=
. (2009). From
evidence to action: Advocating for comprehensive sexuality education. L=
ondon,
UK: International Planned Parenthood Federation. Recup=
erado
de: https://www.ippf.org/resource/ evidence-action-advocating-comprehensive=
-sexuality-education
Jokhan, M. (2008). Parental absence as a consequence of migration:
Reviewing the literature. Social and Economic Studies, 89-117.
Kehily, M. (2002). Sexing the subject: Teachers,
pedagogies and sex education. Sex Education: Sexuality,
Society and Learning, 2(3), 215-31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181022000025785
Kirby, D. (2002). The impact of
schools and school programs upon adolescent sexual behavior. Jour=
nal
of Sex Research, 39(1), 27-33.
Kirby, D., Obasi, A., =
& Laris, B. (2006). The effectiveness of sex
education and HIV education interventions in schools in developing countrie=
s.
Technical Report Series-World Health Organization, 938,
103-50.
Levine, S., & Coupey, S.
(2003). Adolescent substance use, sexual behavior, and metropolitan status:=
Is
‘urban’ a risk factor? Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(5), 3=
50-355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00016-8
Linacre, J. (2002). Optimizing
rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measureme=
nt,
3(1), 85-106.
Lupton, D., & Tulloch, J. (1996). ‘All red in the face’: students’ views on school<=
/span>‐ba=
sed
HIV/AIDS and sexuality education. The Sociological Review, 44=
(2),
252-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1996.tb00424.x
MacDonald, J. A., Gagnon, A., Mitchell, C., Di
Martín, O. (2007). =
¿Sexualidad en la escuela? Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Matthias, R., Lubben, =
J.,
Atchison, K., & Schweitzer, S. (1997). Sexual activity and satisfaction
among very old adults: Results from a community-dwelling medicare
population survey. The Gerontologist, 37(1), 6-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/37.1.6
Measor, =
L.
(2004). Young people’s views of sex education: Gender, information and
knowledge. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 4(=
2),
153-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810410001678338
Milton, J., Berne, L., Peppar=
d,
J., Patton, W., Hunt, L., & Wright, S. (2001). Teaching sexuality educa=
tion
in high schools: What qualities do Australian teachers’ value? Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 1(2), 175-186. https=
://doi.org/10.1080/
14681810120052597
Ministry of Education of Ecuador. Muhanguzi Olwig, =
K.
(1999). Narratives of the children left behind: Home and identity in globalised c=
aribbean
families. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(2), 267-284. h=
ttps://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976685 Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., &
Grace, M. (2004).
Controversial issues ‐ García-Pascual
Pedone, C. (2006). Los cambios familiares y
educativos en los actuales contextos migratorios ecuatorianos: Una perspect=
iva
transatlántica. Athenea Digital. Revista de Pensamiento e Investigación Social, (10), 154-171.Pr=
eston,
M. (2013). ‘Very very<=
/span>
risky’: Sexuality education teachers’ definition of sexuality and teaching =
and
learning responsibilities. American Journal of Sexuality Education, =
8(1-2),
18-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2013.790223
Rijsdijk, L. E., Bos, A. E., Ruiter, R. A.=
, Leerlooijer, J. N., de Haas, B., & Schaalma,
H. P. (2011). The world starts with me: A multilevel evaluation of a
comprehensive sex education program targeting adolescents in Uganda.=
=
BMC Public Health, 11(1), 1-12. https://=
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-334
Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers,
D., & Schleifer, R. (2006). Abstinence and
abstinence-only education: A review of US policies and programs. =
Journal of Adolescent Health<=
/i>, 38(1), 72-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.006
Schmidt, S., Wandersman, A.,
& Hills, K. (2015).
Evidence-based sexuality education programs in schools: Do they align with =
the
national sexuality education standards? American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 10(2), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2015=
.1025937
Shoveller
S=
imovska,=
V.,
& Kane, R. (2015). Sexuality education in different contexts:
limitations and possibilities.
Suellentrop, K. (2011). What works 2011-2012: Curriculum-b=
ased
programs that help prevent teen pregnancy. Washington D.C., USA: Nation=
al
Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Avail=
able
at http/Thenationalcampaign.Org/ Resource/What-Works.
Tenorio-Ambrossi, R. (2004). La intimidad desnuda.
Sexualidad y cultura indígena. Quito, Ecuador: Ed. Abya-Yala=
.
Thomas, F., & Aggleton,
P. (2016).
School-based sex and relationships education: Current knowledge and emerging
themes. In: Sundaram V., S=
auntson
H. (Eds). Global perspectives and key debate=
s in sex
and relationships education: Addressing issues of gender, sexuality, plural=
ity
and power, 13-29. London, UK: Palgrave Pivot.
UNESCO. (2015). Emerging evidence, lessons and practic=
e in
comprehensive sexuality education. A global review. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/i=
mages/
0024/002431/243106e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2009). International tech=
nical
guidance on sexuality education. An
evidence-informed approach for schools, teachers and health educators.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183281e.pdf.
Walters, A., & Hayes, D. (2007).=
Teaching about sexuality: Balancing contradictory=
social
messages with professional standards. American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 2(2), 27-49.
Wilson, K., Goodson, P., Pruitt, B., Buhi, E., & Davis‐Gunnels,=
E.
(2005). A review of 21 curricula for abstinence‐only=
‐until‐marriage programs.<=
/span>
Journal of School Health, 75(3), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.11=
11/j.1746-1561.2005.00003.x
World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Standards for sexuality education in
Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities a=
nd
specialists. Cologne, Germany: Federal Centre for Health Education
ANEXO
Questionnaire to assess students’ perceptions regarding sexual educa=
tion
Dear
Student, this questionnaire aims to know your perceptions about sexual
education. Please read the questions given below and answer them in the most
accurate way. Your answers will be strictly confidential. Please answer all
questions.
<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>[1] Average ages: Basic education: 8th grad=
e:
12 years old; 9th grade: 13 years; 10th grade: 14 yea=
rs;
secondary education: 1st grade: 15 years old; 2nd gra=
de:
16 years; 3rd grade: 17 years.
|
MASKANA, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2=
1–31,
2019 https://publicaciones.ucue=
nca.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/maskana/article/view/2787 <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'=
>doi: 10.18537/mskn.10.02.04 © Author(s) 2019. CC
Attribution 4.0 License. |
|
J. Castillo et al.: Sexuality education programs and expectat=
ions
of adolescents
<= o:p>
MASKANA,
Vol. 10, No. 2, 21–31, 2019
J. Castillo et al.: Sexuality education programs and expectat=
ions
of adolescents