Educational Outcomes Michelle L. Kusel Dawn Simounet Graduate Student Graduate Student Loyola University Chicago Loyola University Chicago Dr. John P. Dugan Assistant Professor, Higher Education Loyola University Chicago Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, & National Association of Campus Activities MSL/ NCLP, 2009
transgender college students with their lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) peers (Pusch, 2005; Renn, 2007). • Current research focuses on qualitative identity development and campus climate issues (Bieschke, Eberz, & Wilson, 2000; Carter, 2000; Pusch, 2005). • The amount of students identifying as transgender or questioning their gender identity is increasing on campus (Beemyn, 2003; McKinney, 2005). • The lack of comprehensive knowledge contributes to a variety of gaps in what practitioners know about transgender students and the extent to which they can purposefully address student needs.
identities do not comply with binary assumptions (Beemyn, 2003; Carter, 2000; Ekins & King, 2006; Rands, 2009; Renn & Bilodeau, 2005) and whose birth sex deviates from their internal identification (Bilodeau, 2005). – Male-to-female (MtF) or female-to-male (FtM) individuals whose anatomical features fit a prescribed male or female definition, but their gender identity does not match their biological sex (Beemyn, 2003; Bilodeau, 2005; Carter, 2000). – Intersexed refers to individuals whose anatomical features do not fit the prescribed definitions of male or female (Dreger, 2007).
hostile and stresses the importance of environmental factors in mediating that perception, but the extent to which within-group differences exists remains unclear. Identity Development • Bilodeau (2005) adapted D’Augelli’s (1994) sexual orientation identity development lifespan model for transgender college students.
belonging, campus climate), engage (e.g., mentoring relationships, community service involvement, student group involvement, leadership experiences, interactions across difference, academic learning experiences), and develop (e.g., cognitive complexity, leadership efficacy, social responsibility) within the collegiate environment? 2. Are there significant within group differences (i.e., male to female, female to male, intersexed) among transgender college students’ perceptions, engagement, and/ or development in the collegiate environment? 3. Are there significant between group differences among transgender, LGB, and/or heterosexual college students’ perceptions, engagement, and/ or development in the collegiate environment? Research Questions
reflect three criteria: 1. Those examined in the limited existing research on transgender college students, 2. engagement experiences consistent with influential measures from college impact research and principals of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and 3. identified core outcomes of higher education (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association, 2004).
115,632 • Return Rate = 34% This Study • 91 transgender identified participants – 29 Female-to-Male – 9 Male-to-Female – 19 Intersexed – 34 Preferred Not to Say • Mean age = 22 • 32% students of color • Matched Random Samples of LGB and Heterosexual students
in the MSL survey instrument and cannot capture the full array of perceptions, engagement experiences, and educational outcomes associated with the collegiate experience. • The sample size of transgender students in this research is small and limits the types of statistical analyses that can be conducted. Limitations
outcomes reported by transgender students bolster previous calls for increased support mechanisms in the college environment (Beemyn, 2005a; Beemyn, Curtis et al., 2005; Beemyn, Domingue et al., 2005). 2. Findings related to variation in faculty mentoring and positional leadership rates by transgender sub-identifications suggest the incredible power of normative assumptions regarding masculinity and the fear of ambiguity. 3. Results have implications for the design of future quantitative research on transgender and LGB students. Transgender sub- identities demonstrated more similarities than differences in collegiate perceptions, engagement, and educational outcomes suggesting the appropriateness of examining the population as a whole. Implications
Kusel email@example.com Graduate Student Loyola University Chicago Dawn Simounet firstname.lastname@example.org Graduate Student Loyola University Chicago Dr. John P. Dugan email@example.com Assistant Professor, Higher Education Loyola University Chicago