University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

(USC Thesis Other)

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Gender Beyond the Binary:
Transgender Student Success and the Role of Faculty
by
Chinako Miyamoto Belanger

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Chinako Miyamoto Belanger 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Chinako Miyamoto Belanger certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Tracy Tambascia
Dr. Cathy Krop
Dr. Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
Transgender students do not experience the women’s college environment in the same ways as
their cisgender counterparts. Although gender is a salient identity for women’s colleges, policies,
practices, and physical spaces have historically centered and privileged those who conform to the
gender binary. Researchers suggest that transgender student support should be included into the
zeitgeist of institutional conversation at women’s colleges, as transgender students are frequently
misgendered, are harmed by unclear campus policies, and are not represented in the curriculum.
This study employed a Clark and Estes gap analysis to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of faculty at women’s colleges and addressed whether these influences
facilitated or created barriers for transgender student success. This explanatory sequential mixed-
methods study revealed that the gaps in knowledge and organizational influences were prevalent,
and gaps in the motivational influences were validated to a lesser extent. The knowledge
influences addressed faculty members’ familiarity with terminology related to transgender
identities and institutional admission policies, their ability to incorporate transgender inclusive
content into their curriculum, and deconstructing biases around gender. The motivational
influences pointed to the ways that being an inclusive educator contributed to faculty members’
self-schema and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive classroom management practices.
Finally, the organizational influences addressed access to support services for transgender
students, professional development for faculty, and discordance among campus stakeholders in
their acceptance of transgender students. The study concludes with recommendations based on
the validated gaps and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to carry out the
recommendations.
Keywords: transgender, non-binary, women, women’s college, student success, faculty

v

Dedication
To all of the transgender and non-binary students who unabashedly show up as their full and
vibrant selves on our campuses and to the countless transgender, non-binary, and questioning
students whose stories we do not know, I thought of you often throughout this journey.
Transgender individuals, particularly Black transgender women, disproportionately experience
serious, often fatal, violence. The Human Rights Campaign reported that 2020 was the deadliest
year to be a transgender person in the United States. I dedicate this work to these individuals who
senselessly lost their lives at the hands of patriarchy, white supremacy, and transphobia. May
their memories be a blessing.

vi

Acknowledgements
It is not lost on me that this dissertation was written largely during a time when many of
us have been sequestered in our homes to keep our communities safe. During a lonely and
uncertain time in our history, the presence of so many individuals encouraged me to reach this
point of the journey, albeit from a distance. I would first like to give thanks to my dissertation
committee. I could not have asked for a more brilliant, compassionate, and supportive
dissertation chair in Dr. Eric Canny. Thank you for shepherding me through this process, sending
me Taylor Swift videos at just the right moments, and for believing in the importance of my
study. Dr. Tracy Tambascia, you are a powerful role model, and you challenged me to push
beyond what I thought were the limits of my work. Dr. Cathy Krop, I am grateful for your
feedback and expertise, as it brought my study together when it was still in a very rough state. I
would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Carey Regur for her feedback as our capstone assistant;
thank you for your attention to every detail. I was blessed to have learned from the most
incredible faculty during my time in this program, most notably Dr. Rebecca Lundeen, Dr.
Courtney Malloy, and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox.
To my dearest friends and future doctors, Jamie Bone, Farhad Tajali, Jordan Chroman,
and Astin Godwin, I cherish our friendship, which is the best thing that I have gained from this
journey. And to the rest of Cohort 12, I share my joy in making it to this point with you.
I cannot possibly list all of the extraordinary women from Mount Saint Mary’s University
who have shared their wisdom, encouragement, and strength with me. Dr. Jane Lingua, Dr.
Laura Crow, and Dr. Rosalyn Kempf, your mentorship has had a lasting impact on me
professionally, personally, and spiritually. Dr. Ann McElaney-Johnson, thank you for giving me
the nudge and blessing that I needed to endeavor in this direction for my dissertation. Dr. Mari

vii

Wadsworth, your spirit was present, especially when things got hard. Brittney, Karla, and Laura,
I am so blessed to work alongside you; you inspire me, make me laugh, and keep me grounded.
Maryann, Sandy, and Veronica, thank you for constantly checking up on me. Robin and
Kimberly, you are the most wonderful friends, co-conspirators, and cheerleaders that anyone
could ask for. The heart and soul of this work comes from the indomitable spirit of Bernadette
Robert, who is the source of so much goodness in this world.
I give thanks to my immediate family, Mom, Dad, Obaachan, and George, and my in-
laws, Tomomi, Paul, Melissa, Jim, and Kristin. To my partner and husband, Dan, I love you, and
I am grateful for your deep well of patience and love, for seeing me through the worst parts of
this journey (the self-doubt, anxiety, and frustration), for never doing my homework, and for
your constant reminders that the best is yet to come.
Finally, this study would not have been possible without the generosity of the many
faculty members at women’s colleges who provided their valuable insights.

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………... iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………… v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Global Context and Mission ............................................................................................... 2
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 8
Global Performance Goal ................................................................................................... 9
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 10
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 10
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 12
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 12
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 14
Queer Theory as the Theoretical Framework to Understanding Gender .......................... 14
The Evolution of Women’s Colleges ................................................................................ 16
The Co-Curricular Experience for Transgender Students ................................................ 21
The Classroom Experience for Transgender Students ...................................................... 29
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework .................................................... 34

ix

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 51
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 52
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 53
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 53
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 56
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 59
Ethics……. ........................................................................................................................ 60
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 62
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 62
Results and Findings of Knowledge Influences ................................................................ 66
Results and Findings of Motivational Influences ............................................................. 87
Results and Findings of Organizational Influences .......................................................... 96
Synthesis of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ........................... 112
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 114
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 114
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 130
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 144
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 145
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 146
References ................................................................................................................................... 148
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 158
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 160

x

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 162
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 164
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................. 165
Appendix F.................................................................................................................................. 166

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Field Focus, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 11
Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment 39
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences and Assessment 44
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment 49
Table 5: Survey Respondents by Region (United States) 64
Table 6: Survey Respondents by Number of Years Teaching at Institution 65
Table 7: Description of Interview Participants 66
Table 8: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences 67
Table 9: Coded Survey Data of Definitions of “Women” 68
Table 10: Knowledge of Institutional Admission Policy from Survey Respondents 76
Table 11: Knowledge of Institutional Admission Policy from Interview Participants 78
Table 12: Survey Data of Familiarity with Terminology for Transgender Identities 79
Table 13: Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences 88
Table 14: Faculty Self-Schema and Supporting Transgender Students 89
Table 15: Self-Efficacy with Using Terminology for Transgender Identities 93
Table 16: Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences 97
Table 17: Coded Data of Visible Ways of Demonstrating Support for Transgender Students 98
Table 18: Availability of Professional Development Opportunities for Faculty 100
Table 19: Coded Survey Data of Faculty Perceptions of Campus Climate 102
Table 20: Faculty Assumptions of Gender Identity 104
Table 21: Chi-Squared Test Relating Region and Perceived Access to Education 108
Table 22: Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 113

xii

Table 23: Recommendations for Assumed Knowledge Influences 116
Table 24: Recommendations for Assumed Motivation Influences 123
Table 25: Recommendations for Assumed Organizational Influences 126
Table 26: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 132
Table 27: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 134
Table 28: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 135
Table 29: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 140
Table 30: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 141

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Diagram of Sex and Gender, n.d. 4
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework – Gap Analysis 50

1

Chapter One: Introduction
The current body of literature shows that colleges and universities are hostile
environments for transgender students. Transgender college students experience higher rates of
harassment, violence, and discrimination within the college environment, and extant research
points to administrators, faculty, and staff who do not understand the specific needs of
transgender students (Goldberg et al., 2018; James et al., 2016). Researchers suggest that
transgender student support needs to be included into the zeitgeist of institutional conversation
on college campuses (Goldberg et al., 2018; James et al., 2016; Seelman, 2014). Transgender
students report that they are misgendered by faculty when faculty do not address them by their
chosen name and pronouns (Brckalorenz et al., 2017), and they lack access to restrooms and
residence hall spaces that align with their gender identity (Goldberg et al., 2018; Seelman, 2014).
For transgender students attending single-sex institutions, namely women’s colleges, this
disparity is especially salient (Freitas, 2017; Marine, 2011). According to The Report of the 2015
U.S. Transgender Survey, 24% of transgender students in college or vocational schools were
verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted (James et al., 2016). The survey results further
illustrate that 16% of these respondents left their institution because they experienced
harassment. This problem of unsafe campus climates for transgender students is important to
address in order to mitigate issues of equity, inclusion, and access, especially as transgender
students comprise a significant population on college campuses (Goldberg et al., 2018; James et
al., 2016; Seelman, 2014). By addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences for this problem of practice, women’s colleges may better serve transgender students.
2

Global Context and Mission
This study was a field study of women’s colleges in the United States. During the 2020-
2021 academic year, there were 34 women’s colleges in the United States. Historically, women’s
colleges were founded to educate women when access to higher education was limited.
Influenced by women’s liberation movements, modern-day women’s college serve to empower
women inside the classroom and in their communities more broadly.
A recent study of women’s colleges found that women’s colleges are more diverse than
co-educational institutions (Sax et al., 2015). Women’s colleges enroll a higher proportion of
African American/Black students, Chicano/Latino students, and a significantly higher proportion
of Asian American students relative to other four-year institutions (Sax et al., 2015). Due to
changing national demographics, women’s colleges may need to consider an evolving
demographic at their institutions.
Many women’s colleges have been tasked with rewriting their admission policies to
consider transgender students in the admission process. Of the 34 women’s colleges in the
United States, 22 articulated their admission policy to specify whether they admit or do not admit
transgender individuals. Women’s colleges may need to deliberate beyond the physiological and
juridical definitions of “woman” and examine the psychological and social constructs of gender
to decide whether they will include transgender women, transgender men, gender non-
conforming, and intersex people on their campuses.
Related Literature
This section will highlight four topics that ground this study: definitions for sex and
gender, admission policies at women’s colleges, faculty members’ classroom management
practices and understandings of transgender students, and using queer theory as a lens to
3

understand this problem of practice. Terminology related to sex and gender continue to evolve.
Thus, it is important to have a common language and understanding around the vocabulary.
Admission policies at women’s colleges are not consistent, with each institution implementing a
policy based on their institution’s mission and values. There is a dearth of research on the
experiences of transgender students specifically at women’s colleges, but the literature points to
emerging findings with faculty at co-educational colleges and universities. Finally, queer theory
will be introduced as the theoretical framework for this study.
Understanding the Constructs of Gender
Gender is a salient characteristic at women’s colleges. This section discusses the nuances
of sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and gender expression as separate and independent
constructs. While constructs around gender continue to evolve, the American Psychological
Association (APA) offers definitions that clarify term that will be used throughout this study.
APA (2012) defines sex as the biological traits that distinguish between male and female such as
“sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia” (p.11).
Although the two terms are often conflated, APA (2012) differentiates sex from gender in that
gender or gender identity “refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture
associates with a person’s biological sex” (p.11). Thus, sex is a biological construct that is
assigned at birth, while gender is a fluid and social construct. A third component, gender
expression, “refers to an individual’s presentation – including physical appearance, clothing
choice, and accessories” (APA, 2015, p.861). APA articulates that gender expression does not
necessarily need to align with their gender identity or sex assigned at birth. While this study
focuses on gender exclusively, it would be remiss if it did not mention how sexual orientation
can be considered within the gender spectrum. Sexual orientation is defined by as “the sex of
4

those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted” (APA, 2012, p.11). Figure 1 describes
the four components of gender: biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual
orientation.

Figure 1
Diagram of Sex and Gender, n.d.
SEX (anatomy, chromosomes, hormones)

MALE INTERSEX FEMALE

GENDER IDENTITY (attitudes, feelings, and behaviors)

GENDER QUEER/BIGENDER/GENDER FLUID/
MAN TWO SPIRIT/NON-BINARY WOMAN

GENDER EXPRESSION (presentation, physical appearance, clothing choice)

MASCULINE ANDROGYNOUS FEMININE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ATTRACTED TO WOMEN BISEXUAL/ASEXUAL ATTRACTED TO MEN

Note. Adapted from Diagram of Sex and Gender, by Center for Gender Sanity, n. d.
(http://www.gendersanity.com/diagram.html). In the public domain.

5

In understanding the four components of sex and gender, it should be noted that each
construct behaves independently. Therefore, one may be assigned female at birth and identify as
female, have an outward appearance that is androgynous, and be attracted to both women and
men. This study focuses on transgender students. Researchers define transgender as an umbrella
term to describe an individual whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at
birth (Stryker, 2008). In particular, this study focuses on the experiences of transgender women,
or individuals who are assigned male at birth and identify as female, transgender men, who are
individuals assigned female at birth and identify as male, and non-binary individuals, who are
people who are assigned male or female at birth but whose gender identity does not fall into one
of those two categories. The term, cisgender, describes an individual whose sex assigned at birth
aligns with their gender identity and who “conforms to gender-based expectations of society”
(Garvey et al., 2015, p. 531). For example, a cisgender woman is a person who was assigned
female at birth and identifies as female. Although terminology and language are ever-evolving,
faculty at women’s colleges should have knowledge of the constructs of gender in order to
support transgender and cisgender students alike.
Policies at Women’s Colleges
Women’s colleges do not implement their admission policies consistently (Campus Pride,
n.d.; Nanney & Brunsma, 2017; Perifmos, 2008). As of Fall 2020, there were 34 women’s
colleges in the United States. Campus Pride (n.d.) compiled data from 18 women’s colleges to
assess the scope of their transgender student admission policies. The results showed that 13 of
these women’s colleges had formal admission policies that admit some transgender students, two
women’s colleges were in the process of developing an admission policy that considered
transgender students, and three women’s colleges adopted policies that banned transgender men
6

and would dismiss any student who transitioned from female to male after being admitted
(Campus Pride, n.d).
Nanney and Brunsma (2017) found that admission policies at women’s colleges navigate
the tension between a juridical definition of who “counts” as a woman and the institution’s
political and moral values. The researchers studied nine women’s colleges with admissions
policies that acknowledge transgender students and found that an individual who is considering
attending a women’s college may fall under 13 different categories of “woman.” These
categories range from an individual who is assigned female at birth and identifies as female with
legal documentation (cisgender woman), assigned female at birth and identifies as genderqueer,
assigned female at birth and identifies as male, and assigned intersex at birth and identifies as
female to list a few (Nanney & Brunsma, 2017). Inconsistent admission policies can create
uncertain campus climates where transgender students must navigate ambiguous institutional
processes and put the onus of clarifying these policies on the student.
Faculty Support for Transgender Students
Faculty have an effect on the success and persistence of transgender college students. A
qualitative study found that that formal and informal interactions with faculty contributed to
whether transgender student felt supported while attending their institution (Linley et al., 2016).
The study found that formal interactions such as confronting bias in the classroom, using
inclusive language, and recognizing students by their appropriate pronouns contribute to LGBTQ
students feeling supported with their academics as well as their career choices and personal
wellbeing (Linley et al., 2016). Of the 60 interview participants in their study, 35 participants
indicated that they had at least one faculty member who demonstrated support for LGBTQ
students in formal and informal ways. Participants in the study revealed that having faculty who
7

openly identify as LGBTQ or as allies to the LGBTQ community increased their sense of
belonging at their institution.
However, some faculty argue that colleges and universities do not provide adequate
professional development to address practices that support transgender students (Seelman, 2014).
Trainings that address how to include LGBTQ content into the curriculum aggregate transgender
identities with lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer identities, undermining the unique experiences of
individuals whose gender falls outside of the binary of male and female. While transgender
identities fall under the LGBTQ umbrella, Seelman (2014) suggests that faculty must be more
cognizant of the areas where transgender identities both diverge and converge with LGBQ
identities.
Furrow (2012) found that faculty have agency over curriculum development and the
overall classroom environment. The study revealed that faculty and student participants agreed
that representation of LGBTQ identities in the curriculum helps to understand and challenge
stereotypes of the LGBTQ community. Establishing ground rules that address safety and
inclusion that are explicit in class syllabi and then enforcing inclusive behaviors throughout the
year are correlated to transgender student inclusion (Furrow, 2012). These studies point to the
ways that faculty at co-educational institutions can impact transgender students’ success and
inclusion. Yet, there is little research as to how these practices may have an effect on the
experiences of transgender students at women’s colleges, if at all. This points to a need to study
faculty members’ knowledge and motivational influences around transgender students at
women’s colleges as well as the organizational barriers that may or may not influence
transgender student success.
8

Queer Theory as a Lens to Understanding Transgender Students at Women’s Colleges
As women’s colleges broaden their definition of who counts as a woman, this study will
use a lens informed by queer theory to understand the nuances of this problem of practice. Queer
theory works to destabilize the links between biological sex, gender identity, and sexuality to
interrogate the systems that give power to privileged groups and marginalize minoritized groups
(Butler, 1990). Through their policies, procedures, values, and physical structures, colleges and
universities continue to perpetuate the concept of biological determinism, or the belief that
biological and physiological attributes determine an individual’s gender (Catalano & Griffin,
2016). While women’s colleges are admitting increasing numbers of transgender students on
their campuses, transgender students are not readily accepted into the campus environment
(Freitas, 2017; Hart & Lester, 2011; Marine, 2011; Nanney & Brunsma, 2017). Miller-Bernal
and Poulson (2006) studied the history of women’s colleges and found that institutions were
created in response to a society that marginalized women. However, as these institutions evolved
with a broader understanding of gender by admitting transgender students, Miller-Bernal and
Poulson (2006) found that the policies, practices, and structures at women’s colleges continued
to center cisgender women and did not create the appropriate systems that would consider
transgender students. By employing queer theory as a way to interrogate these systems, women’s
colleges can mitigate the gaps in knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences to
address this problem of practice.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to address the issue of transgender student success on college campuses for
a variety of reasons. James et al.’s (2016) Report of the U.S. Transgender Survey is the most
recent and comprehensive study on transgender individuals. The report identifies the increased
9

rates of psychological distress and physical violence among transgender college students as a
significant problem (James et al., 2016). The evidence highlights that 53% of transgender
individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 were experiencing serious psychological distress such
as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, and transgender individuals of the same age group
are 12 times more likely to attempt suicide compared to cisgender individuals. A study by
Swanbrow Becker et al. (2017) found that transgender college students were more likely to
attempt suicide compared to cisgender college students who identified as heterosexual and
cisgender college students who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). The data in this study
concluded that 55% of transgender college students have attempted suicide in their lifetime
compared to 19% and 44% of cisgender heterosexual college students and cisgender LGB
students, respectively. A recent mixed-methods study questioned whether it is beneficial or
detrimental for transgender college students to be out to their peers, faculty, and staff (Goldberg
et al., 2018). The results indicated that being out has positive benefits to an individual’s mental
health, but because college campus climates remain unsafe for transgender students, it also
places them at greater risk for discrimination, harassment, and violence. If colleges and
universities do not find ways to better support transgender students, they will continue to be at
risk for safety issues and barriers to student success.
Global Performance Goal
In the next five years, women’s colleges will support the retention and persistence of
transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are inclusive of transgender
individuals. To evaluate whether women’s colleges are meeting their mission of promoting the
education and success of women, this study will use the Campus Pride Index to assess whether
institutions are meeting the appropriate standards to support transgender students. According to
10

the Campus Pride Index (n.d.), the eight areas of LGBTQ campus inclusion include: (a) policy
inclusion; (b) support and institutional commitment; (c) academic life; (d) student life; (e)
housing and residence life; (f) campus safety; (g) counseling and health; (h) recruitment and
retention. Appendix A outlines the details of the eight areas of the Campus Pride Index for
LGBTQ campus inclusion.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Several stakeholder groups contribute to the attainment of the global performance goal.
The first stakeholder group are the students. While transgender students are centered in this
work, their cisgender peers also contribute to the overall goal. A second stakeholder group are
staff and senior administrators. Administrative offices are often the first point of entry into the
university environment, and staff should be prepared to support transgender students. The final
stakeholder group are the faculty, who have direct contact with students and have agency over
classroom management practices and curriculum that are integrated to foster a more gender
inclusive environment for all students.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1 summarizes the field focus, global goal, and performance goals for this study.

11

Table 1
Field Focus, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Field Focus
Women’s colleges serve to educate women and empower women to become leaders in their
communities.
Global Goal
In the next five years, women’s colleges will support the retention and persistence of
transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are inclusive of transgender
individuals.
Students Staff/Administrators Faculty
By 2023, all students will
have the opportunity to
participate in events,
programs, and trainings that
increase awareness of the
experiences and concerns of
transgender students (i.e. Safe
Zone trainings and LGBTQ
clubs and organizations).
By 2025, staff and
administrators will provide
gender-inclusive spaces on
campus, including gender-
inclusive residence halls,
restrooms, and locker rooms.
By 2024, all faculty will
successfully integrate
gender-inclusive classroom
management practices such
as using a student’s chosen
name and pronouns and
integrate transgender-
inclusive content into the
curriculum.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While three distinct stakeholder groups have been described, the main stakeholder group
that this study focused on was the faculty, who have direct access to and make an impact on the
student experience. The goal for faculty is that by 2024, all faculty at women’s colleges will
successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom management practices such as using a
student’s chosen name and pronouns and integrate transgender-inclusive content into the
curriculum.
12

Purpose of the Project and Questions
This study was conducted within the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis to identify the areas that women’s colleges are supporting or not supporting transgender
students’ success. The research questions that guide this study were as follows:
1. What knowledge do faculty at a women’s college need around the topic of gender, and
more specifically, transgender identities, to ensure transgender student success?
2. How could motivational influences affect how faculty at a women’s college challenge or
support attitudes around gender?
3. What organizational influences can impede or facilitate in increasing transgender student
success at a women’s college?
4. What are the recommendations for addressing transgender student success at women’s
colleges?
Methodological Framework
A modified gap analysis served as the methodological approach for this study. Clark and
Estes (2008) posit that gaps in performance are attributed to three distinct influences: a lack of
knowledge or skills, a lack of motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO). In order to conduct
a systematic gap analysis, organizations identify organizational goals, assess current
organizational performance, identify the barriers to achieving goals, understand how the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences can impede or facilitate goal attainment,
and then implement and evaluate proposed solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Queer theory (Bem,
1993) was layered as the theoretical foundation to assess the underlying KMO factors to address
this problem of practice.
13

Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with an
overview of women’s colleges and their mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as supporting
literature that affirms the need for gender-inclusive policies, procedures, and spaces for students
on a college campus. Chapter Two provides an in-depth review of the current literature
surrounding transgender student success. Topics include: the evolution of women’s colleges, the
classroom experience, the co-curricular experience, and recommended practices. Chapter Two
also describes the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that potentially serve as
barriers to transgender student success. Additionally, Chapter Three details the methodology for
selecting participants, data collection, and analysis. Data and results are assessed and analyzed in
Chapter Four. Finally, Chapter Five offers solutions based on data and literature for closing
perceived gaps and gives recommendations that include an implementation and evaluation plan
to address transgender student success at women’s colleges.

14

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review examines the root causes of the myriad challenges that transgender
students face at women’s colleges. The review begins with an overview of queer theory, which is
the theoretical framework that grounds this study. This is followed by an overview of the history
of women’s colleges and an investigation of the current issues that transgender students face at
women’s colleges. To fully understand the campus climate, the study explores influences outside
the classroom environment including relationships with peers, sex-segregated spaces, and legal
issues for transgender students. The review then examines transgender students’ experiences in
the classroom. This section includes the role of faculty relationships, the classroom environment,
and academic records as influences to transgender student success. Finally, the literature review
explores how Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework will be used as a conceptual
framework to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on transgender
student success at women’s colleges.
Queer Theory as the Theoretical Framework to Understanding Gender
This study uses queer theory as the paradigm for understanding the inequities that
transgender college students experience in comparison to their cisgender peers. Queer theory
seeks to de-pathologize difference by disrupting normalized ideas around sexuality and gender
(Abes & Kasch, 2007; Barker, 1997; Butler, 1990; de Lauretis, 1991; Warner, 1993). Queer
theory asserts that gender and sexuality are fluid rather than fixed (de Lauretis, 1991), and
gender and sexuality do not exist in a binary (Butler, 1990; Warner, 1993). Thus, gender and
sexuality are socially constructed and are performed by individuals to fit into accepted gender
roles (Butler, 1990; de Lauretis, 1991; Warner, 1993). Institutions have centered cisgender and
heterosexual identities as the norm, as scientific discourse privileges cisgender, heterosexual
15

binaries (Butler, 1990; Warner, 1993). Gender is especially salient at women’s colleges that have
historically defined acceptance into their institutions based on normative constructs of sex and
gender identity, and societal norms of gender do not consider individuals whose gender is fluid
(Nanney & Brunsma, 2017). Thus, queer theory provides a foundation for women’s colleges to
evolve in their policies, practices, and spaces for transgender students.
Gender Schema Theory
While queer theory articulates how gender is performed, gender schema theory explains
why individuals perform gender in the ways that they do. Bem’s (1981) gender schema theory
explains how individuals understand gender, or gender schema, by exploring how they organize
information based on gender categories. Bem (1981) asserts that children are socialized to
understand gender as binary and fixed. Privilege and power constructs develop as children
respond to the social cues they receive from adults when they behave in ways that affirm or go
against gender norms.
For transgender individuals, there is a process of coming into a different gender identity
and coming out to others as a gender different from the one assigned at birth. Lips (2016) affirms
that gender schema develops in childhood, but nascent research points to a need to study how
gender schema affects adolescents and young adults. Generational differences exist among
transgender individuals, with younger generations coming out as transgender at younger ages
(Beemyn & Rankin, 2011, 2016; Flores et al., 2016). Beemyn and Rankin’s (2011) mixed-
methods study of 3,500 surveys and 400 interviews found that while younger and older
transgender respondents indicated that they felt different as early as ages four or five, those who
were born between 1940 and 1980 repressed their feelings until later in life. Their rationale
harkens back to Bem’s (1981) gender schema theory. Older respondents expressed that they were
16

punished if they did not align with societal norms of gender (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011).
Respondents in their twenties and thirties came out as transgender much earlier because
information and support about transgender identities was more readily available. A recent study
from the Williams Institute estimates that over 205,000 individuals living in the United States
between the ages 18 to 24 identify as transgender (Flores et al., 2016). With a growing number of
young adults identifying as transgender at women’s colleges and within the general population,
institutions may need to consider whether their current practices are either rewarding or
punishing individuals based on normative gender roles.
Queer Theory as a Form of Activism
Queer theory offers a lens to reconcile the erasure of those who identify outside the
gender binary. Rooted in both scholarship and activism, queer theory destabilizes the links
between sex assigned at birth, gender identity, gender expression, and sexuality and resists
exclusion based on sexuality and gender (Bem, 1981; Butler, 1990; Carr et al., 2017). If gender
is fluid rather than fixed and binary, society can celebrate humans as a diverse coalition of
individuals and center those who identify outside the gender binary (de Lauretis, 1991). Thus,
institutions may need to interrogate processes, policies, and thinking that normalizes cisgender
and heterosexual identities and marginalizes transgender and queer identities (Marine &
Nicolazzo, 2015; Nicolazzo, 2016). As women’s colleges renegotiate the boundaries of who is
included on their campuses, queer theory offers one approach that can inform updated policies
and practices that are more inclusive of transgender students.
The Evolution of Women’s Colleges
While women’s colleges have evolved over time, their fundamental purpose of educating
and empowering women have remained consistent. Women’s colleges were born out of an
17

assumption that men and women hold different societal roles, thus reinforcing the need to have
separate means for education (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006; Sax et al., 2015). In the early 19
th

century, women had limited opportunities to attend postsecondary education because of the
belief that the role of women was to take care of the home (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006).
Mills College and Mount Holyoke, which were founded in the mid-1800s as female seminaries,
gave way to vocation-specific training such as teaching and nursing to provide opportunities for
women to receive an education and become more independent (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006).
Presently, women make up the majority of college-educated adults (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019, Table 303.40) and the majority of the college-educated US workforce
(Fry, 2019). Women’s colleges have evolved not only in the nature of what they teach, but also
whom they teach. The following section investigates a deeper understanding of the history of
women’s colleges, how they have changed in light of transgender student admissions, and the
impact that transgender students have at a women’s college.
The Changing Role of Women’s Colleges
Women’s colleges are not simply institutions that are absent of men; they are spaces where
women’s ideas, talents, and perspectives are affirmed. Women’s colleges were founded to meet
the educational needs of women, who were historically excluded from receiving advanced
degrees in programs that were as academically rigorous as the educational opportunities that
were afforded to men (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006; Sax et al., 2015). The proliferation of
women’s colleges was a response to the views that were centered around biological essentialism,
purporting that women and men possessed fixed attributes (Grosz, 1995). In the late 19
th
century,
a study by former Harvard professor, Edward Clarke, posited that women’s reproductive systems
18

caused them to be unfit for rigorous academic study (Clarke, n.d.). While Clarke’s research was
refuted, a woman’s biology continues to inform the policies and practices at women’s colleges.
The beneficial outcomes of attending a women’s college are well-documented. Researchers
found that the benefits of attending a women’s college compared to co-educational institutions
are three-fold: increased academic attainment, increased academic self-efficacy, and increased
racial, ethnic, and economic diversity (Renn, 2017; Sax et al., 2015). Sax et al. (2015) used data
from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) to compare how students attending
women’s college compared to their peers who attended co-educational institutions. They
attributed increased rates of academic self-efficacy for students attending women’s colleges to a
higher likelihood that students will have regular communication with faculty, an ability to work
with faculty on research projects, and a higher likelihood that students will be able to study what
interests them (Sax et al., 2015). The study also found that students who attend women’s college
today are more racially and ethnically diverse and come from lower income demographics, a
shift since the 1970s when attendees were more white and wealthier (Sax et al., 2015).
Even with the benefits of attending a women’s college, enrollment is on the decline. The
number of women’s colleges has declined from nearly 230 women’s colleges in the United
States in the 1960s to 34 women’s colleges in 2020 (Women’s College Coalition, 2020). Today,
only 3% of women consider applying to a women’s college (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2015).
Sax et al. (2015) argue that lower rates of satisfaction with the overall student experience at
women’s colleges are barriers to long-term viability. Scholars have found that decreased
enrollment and the subsequent financial challenges have resulted in women’s colleges becoming
co-educational (Griffen & Daniels, 2006; Miller-Bernal, 2006; Semel & Sadovnik, 2006) or have
closed altogether (Moylan, 2006). For the remaining women’s colleges in the United States, an
19

increasing number of institutions are considering how an expanded definition of gender affects
their enrollment and campus culture.
Because gender is a salient identity at a women’s college, institutions continue to negotiate
the boundaries of who is included in the category of “woman.” Nanney’s (2017) modified
grounded theory study of online posts for a women’s college alumnae group revealed that
multiple interpretations of women’s college exist. Nanney synthesized their findings of women’s
colleges into one of three categories: women’s colleges as spaces that exclude men, spaces that
accept any individual who has experience gender-based discrimination, and spaces that protect
the founding vision of educating cisgender women.
Perifmos’ (2008) analysis of case law drew similar conclusions and found that biological and
juridical constructs serve as the foundation for admission policies at women’s colleges. While
federal law protects individuals on the basis of their sex, transgender individuals are not
considered because there are no federal protections for gender identity. Weber (2016) also
analyzed the various admission policies at women’s colleges and concluded that institutions can
draw from theoretical frameworks such as social constructivism and queer theory to expand the
definition of “woman.”
Informed by these theoretical frameworks, student activism continues to push women’s
colleges to evolve in their policies, procedures, and understandings of gender (Weber, 2016).
Hart and Lester (2017) examined the admission policies at women’s colleges and questioned
whether women’s colleges are slowly shifting away from being single-sex institutions as they
expand their policies to admit transgender women, transgender men, and those who identify as
non-binary, agender, or gender-fluid. This new iteration of women’s colleges brings a new
perspective to why a student may choose to attend a women’s college.
20

Transgender Students at Women’s Colleges
Transgender students who attend women’s colleges do not experience campus life in the
same way as their cisgender peers. Hart and Lester (2011) explored the dualities of invisibility
and hyper-visibility for transgender students at women’s colleges. In their qualitative study,
transgender students reported that discourse inside and outside of the classroom largely centers
around the cisgender female experience. Institutional mission statements and strategic plans that
focus on educating and empowering women may exclude the transgender men and non-binary
individuals who are not admitted to some women’s colleges (Nanney & Brunsma, 2017).
Meanwhile, other researchers corroborate the sense of hypervisibility for transgender students.
Transgender students create their own space and visibility through social and educational
programming opportunities because institutions lack these spaces (Nicolazzo, 2016). In another
qualitative study, Marine (2011) found varying levels of support for transgender students among
Student Affairs professionals at women’s colleges. Attitudes ranged from administrators who did
not support transgender students, particularly transgender men at a women’s college, to those
who were strongly supportive of transgender students and were self-reflective in their own biases
regarding gender (Marine, 2011). A central theme that emerges from these studies is the refusal
to acknowledge transgender women as real women.
With a growing masculine presence at women’s colleges, there is a growing debate of
preserving women’s colleges as a space that is exclusively for women. Nanney’s (2017) study
reveals the dissonance among women’s college alumnae, who struggle to accept transgender
women and transgender men as members of their alma mater. Employing a document analysis of
discussion threads in a women’s college alumnae group, varying attitudes exist among alumnae
when considering a transgender student admission policy (Nanney, 2017). According to the
21

study, a majority of alumnae reported acceptance of transgender individuals while a small group
of alumnae expressed concern that the inclusion of transgender individuals would change how
women are centered at the institution. Such concerns reveal the intractable issues of navigating
old and new ways of defining gender.
There is some research that studies the experiences of transgender students at women’s
colleges. The researcher attempted to find research using the following key words,
“transgender,” “students,” “women’s colleges,” “single-sex institutions,” and “admissions.”
While prominent studies of the experiences of transgender college students point to campuses as
being hostile environments (Goldberg et al., 2018; James et al., 2016) emerging research
suggests that women’s colleges may be more welcoming of transgender students at their
campuses (Freitas, 2017). Based on a sample of 184 transgender students, the study showed that
on a 4-point scale, transgender students at women’s colleges rated their level of support on
average at a 2.94, compared to transgender students attending coeducational institutions who
rated their level of support as an average of 2.76 (Freitas, 2017). While there are issues that may
need to be studied further, women’s colleges may offer solutions to understanding transgender
student inclusion in ways that co-educational institutions may not.
The Co-Curricular Experience for Transgender Students
The following section provides an overview of how transgender students experience
campus life outside of the classroom. The literature review will first discuss the ways that peers
act as both barriers and facilitators to transgender student inclusion. Spaces such as residence
halls, restrooms, and locker rooms are centered in the broader zeitgeist when discussing the
transgender community, and college campuses may also need to consider how sex-segregated
22

spaces impact transgender students. Finally, this section concludes with a discussion on how
legal precedence may impact institutional policies and procedures.
Peers as Barriers to Transgender Student Success
For transgender students, coming out is a life-long process where individuals
continuously negotiate their own identities vis-à-vis society’s expectations of being male or
female. Nicolazzo’s (2017) ethnographic study of transgender college students points to the
exhausting nature of having to publicly declare one’s identity as a way to assuage their cisgender
peers’ curiosity and concern. One participant in Nicolazzo’s study, Jackson, who identified as
agender, described the unsettling feeling when their cisgender peers would to guess their gender.
Nicolazzo (2017) posits that such attempts to figure out a person’s gender reinforces a trope that
transgender individuals are trying to deceive people into believing that they are something that
they are not. Goldberg and Kuvalanka (2019) found that transgender students negotiate the
tension of self-advocating and educating their peers about being a transgender person but also
struggle with being scrutinized by their peers, who may struggle to understand. This tension
exists even in spaces that may be assumed to be safe.
Researchers have found that LGBTQ resource centers and student organizations can be
unwelcoming environments for transgender students (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019; Marine &
Nicolazzo, 2016). Even within LGBTQ spaces, cisgender identities are prioritized, as programs
and resources often advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexual minorities over those
who identify as transgender (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019; Marine & Nicolazzo, 2016). In a
study of 678 first-year college students from 209 colleges and universities, Stolzenberg and
Hughes (2017) found that transgender college students were more likely to turn to online social
networks for support compared to the national average. The study found LGBTQ resource
23

centers predominantly centered cisgender identities. Because transgender students were less
likely to find affinity groups on their campuses, nearly 40% of transgender students turned to
online social networks for emotional support for six or more hours a week (Stolzenberg &
Hughes, 2017).
There are psychological consequences when transgender students come out, or disclose
their identity as transgender, to family, friends, classmates, and co-workers. A 2019 study from
the Williams Institute explored the unique risk factors that contribute to suicidal ideation and
suicide attempts among transgender adults (Herman et al., 2019). Using secondary data from the
2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, Herman et al. (2019) found that individuals who disclosed their
transgender identity were more likely to have suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide, both in
their lifetimes and within the past year, compared to transgender individuals who had not
disclosed their transgender status. According to the study, transgender individuals who had not
revealed their transgender status to classmates had on average 38.2 suicide attempts over their
lifetime compared to 46.8 suicide attempts for those who were out to all of their classmates
(Herman et al., 2019). Regardless of a transgender individual’s outness, it is notable that the
number of suicide attempts is significantly higher than the national average. According to the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the age-adjusted rate
of suicide attempts among Americans is 5.8 suicide attempts over a lifetime (SAMHSA, 2017).
Similarly, Seelman (2016) used secondary data from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey
and concluded that interpersonal victimization by classmates contributed to increased rates of
suicide attempts. The study found that 30% of transgender college and graduate students
experienced interpersonal victimization by classmates (James et al., 2016). Seelman (2016)
constructed a sequential logistic regression model that concluded that of the transgender students
24

who experienced interpersonal victimization by classmates, 55.1% had attempted suicide. The
data reveals that transgender students experience significant psychological distress simply
because of their identity as transgender, and the research correlates increased rates of suicidal
ideations to relationships with classmates. While this data is troubling, there is a growing body of
scholarship that suggest promising practices that may facilitate positive relationships with peers.
Peers as Facilitators to Transgender Student Success
Students are exposed to ideas and experiences that challenge or affirm personal values
during their college years. In a qualitative study that examined the likelihood of bystander
intervention when observing LGBT discrimination, researchers found that college students with
at least one LGBT friend were more likely to intervene if they witnessed LGBT discrimination
compared to students who did not know anyone who identifies as LGBT (Dessel et al., 2017).
Similarly, Barbir et al. (2017) employed Allport’s (1954, 1979) social contact theory to study
whether cisgender students’ attitudes were more positive if they knew of transgender individuals.
Allport (1954, 1979) hypothesized that prejudice can be reduced when individuals in majority
groups have contact with individuals who identify as a member of a minority group.
Stronger relationships, such as friendships, can change behavior and attitudes towards
minoritized groups. Barbir et al.’s (2016) quantitative study confirmed that having at least one
transgender friend had an impact on significantly greater positive intentions and significantly
fewer negative intentions towards the transgender community. Barbir et al.’s (2016) student
concluded that cisgender college students with zero friends who identified as transgender had a
less favorable impression of transgender individuals (2.42 on a Likert scale) compared to
cisgender college students with at least one friend who identifies as transgender (1.87). Walters
and Rehma (2013) found that individuals who were acquainted with at least one transgender
25

individual also contributed to increased empathy towards the transgender community compared
to individuals who did not know anyone who is transgender. Respondents who were acquainted
with transgender individuals and had at least one friend who identified as transgender reported
even more significant empathy towards the transgender community (Walters & Rehma, 2013).
Thus, cisgender students benefit greatly from transgender students’ presence on campus in ways
that may have a greater impact on attitudes around the transgender community more broadly.
Similarly, emerging research suggests that transgender students can benefit from
relationships with their cisgender peers. According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey,
transgender individuals who had attended some college or university reported that 15% of all of
their classmates knew that they were transgender, 10% reported that most of their classmates
knew, and 28% reported that some knew that they were transgender (James et al., 2016). Of the
respondents who were currently attending a college or university, 56% reported that their
classmates were supportive. While the negative effects of being out as transgender are still
significant as discussed in the previous section, James et al. (2016) suggest that the trend towards
more positive experiences with peers may be a generational shift, with younger transgender
individuals reporting more positive experiences with peers compared to older respondents.
Sex-Segregated Spaces
As colleges and universities consider the ways in which they can support transgender
student students, they need to consider the ways in which binary notions of gender create barriers
that impact the safety and well-being of transgender students. Students are often segregated by
sex when they are assigned roommates for on-campus living, and restroom accommodations are
often split into male or female unless a single-occupancy restroom is available (Seelman, 2014;
Seelman, 2016). Thus, selecting a residence hall space or using a restroom that is rooted in
26

binary and normative understandings of gender may be problematic for individuals who fall
outside of gender norms.
On-campus Housing
Binary notions of gender prevent transgender students from accessing on-campus housing
that is accessible and equitable (Goldberg et al., 2018; Seelman, 2014; Seelman, 2016).
Providing gender-inclusive housing, or housing options that allow students to live with
roommates based on gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth, is an important step to
providing equitable spaces for transgender students (Goldberg et al., 2018). In a mixed-methods
study of 507 transgender and gender non-conforming students, researchers found that while
colleges are moving towards offering different types of gender-inclusive housing options,
students reported that these types of options were limited, and appropriate procedures were not in
place to ensure safety, education, and care in these spaces (Goldberg et al., 2018). Transgender
students experience difficulties navigating the on-campus housing process (Seelman, 2014).
Using secondary data from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), Seelman
(2014) found that 21% of transgender students were denied on-campus housing due to being
transgender or gender non-conforming. Often, Seelman (2014) notes, it was due to a lack of
gender-inclusive housing or practices that considered gender identity in the room selection
process.
A more recent study by Seelman (2016) posits that the persistent, inadequate access to
on-campus housing and gender-inclusive restrooms is related to psychological risks such as
suicidal ideations and attempted suicide. The study showed that transgender students who were
denied restroom and on-campus housing accommodations due to their transgender identity were
1.32 times more likely to attempt suicide compared to transgender students who were not denied
27

access to those facilities (Seelman, 2016). Without reasonable housing accommodations,
Seelman (2016) argues that transgender students will continue to experience exclusion from the
campus community, and compared to their cisgender peers, they are at greater risk for serious
mental health issues. Gender-segregated spaces are not limited to on-campus housing. Greater
national attention has focused on access to sex-segregated public restrooms.
Restrooms and Locker Rooms
Restroom access continues to pose safety issues and barriers to inclusion for transgender
students (Goldberg et al., 2018; James et al., 2016; Kosciw et al, 2014). Transgender students
experience discrimination and harassment when accessing gender-segregated public restrooms
(James et al., 2016). In a mixed-methods study of over 27,000 transgender individuals in the
United States, James et al. (2016) found that 24% of respondents were questioned while using a
public restroom, 12% were verbally harassed, sexually assaulted, or physically harmed, and 59%
reported that they avoided using public restrooms altogether for fear of their safety. Transgender
students are less likely to be able to use a restroom that aligns with their gender identity
compared to cisgender students (Kosciw et al., 2013). A 2013 climate student of nearly 8,000
transgender students between the ages of 12 and 21 revealed that 59.2% of transgender students
were required to use a restroom or locker room that aligned with their sex assigned at birth rather
than their gender identity (Kosciw et al., 2013). Having access to gender inclusive restrooms is
important for transgender students (Goldberg et al., 2018). A mixed-methods study of 507
transgender and gender non-conforming college students found that most campus buildings
lacked gender inclusive facilities, which left respondents with few options when they needed to
use the restroom on campus (Goldberg et al., 2018). Colleges and universities may need to
28

address solutions to mitigate issues of safety for college students as they navigate issues of
access to spaces on campus.
Policies as the Legal Framework to Understanding Gender
Institutional and federal policies are designed to protect students, but in the absence of
explicit policies that prohibit discrimination for marginalized identities, students continue to be
at risk for violence and harassment (Stolzenberg & Hughes, 2017). Evidence from both the legal
and higher education fields argue that the lack of transparent policies that specifically address
protections for transgender students will place them at risk and at a significant disadvantage for
success in life (Goldberg et al., 2018; Kraschel, 2012; Stolzenberg & Hughes, 2017).
Federal policies such as Title IX problematize issues of access and inclusion for
transgender students (Hasenbush et al., 2018; Marine, 2017). Title IX guidance from the Office
of Civil Rights under the Department of Justice informs how institutions expand or limit the
definition of gender, and in turn, include or exclude transgender students under their protection
(Marine, 2017). The 2016 Dear Colleague Letter outlined specific guidelines and mandated all
schools that receive federal funding to allow students to use the restrooms that aligned with their
gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth (Lhamon & Gupta, 2016). Furthermore, this
guidance obligated schools to take “responsibility to provide a safe, nondiscriminatory
environment for all students, including transgender students” (p. 2). Less than a year later, the
federal guidance was rescinded under a new administration, proposing that access to sex-
segregated spaces based on gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth was unconstitutional,
leaving states and local school districts to develop their own policies (Battle & Wheeler, 2017).
Emerging studies indicate that localities that have gender inclusive public
accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances (GIPANDOs) have lower victimization rates
29

compared to localities that do not have such policies, and localities that later adopt GIPANDOs
saw significantly lower rates of victimization within 24 months (Hasenbush et al., 2018). Data
shows that inclusive policies lead to better community outcomes and a sense of safety for
transgender individuals, but these policies are not consistently supported or adopted. In the
absence of clear policies, transgender students need to determine how to navigate gender-
segregated spaces on college campuses.
The Classroom Experience for Transgender Students
A lack of understanding around a broad and nuanced understanding of gender may create
a chilling effect on the classroom environment for transgender students. This section of the
literature review will discuss how the curriculum, academic records, and faculty act as barriers to
transgender student inclusion. Academic integration is paramount to college student retention
(Tinto, 1993), yet transgender students struggle with multiple stressors that cisgender students do
not face (Sanlo & Espinoza, 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2018). This section will conclude with
emerging research that offers insight into ways that faculty can act as facilitators to transgender
student inclusion.
Curriculum as Barriers to Transgender Student Success
Transgender students do not see their experiences represented in the college curriculum.
Duran and Nicolazzo (2017) found that transgender students felt invisibilized because the
curriculum did not address transgender issues. In a qualitative study of students, faculty, and
staff within a consortium of colleges and universities in Colorado, students and faculty alike
expressed minimal content within the curriculum that addresses transgender issues (Seelman,
2014). While they noticed some content regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues, visibility of
transgender identities was allotted to one class session, if at all (Seelman, 2014). Garvey and
30

Rankin (2015) studied the impact of overall campus climate, curriculum, and campus resources
on LGBT students. Transgender students reported negative perceptions of the curriculum
compared to cisgender students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (Garvey &
Rankin, 2015). The study affirmed Garvey and Rankin’s (2015) hypothesis that a hostile
classroom environment and a lack of inclusive course content hinders a transgender student’s
likelihood of coming out.
Research suggests that a minimal amount of content on transgender identities has a
positive impact on understanding the transgender community. Walters and Rehma (2013)
researched the impact of incorporating content about gender in a film studies course. In the
study, Walters and Rehma (2013) found that individuals who watched short video clips of a
documentary on transgender identities were more likely to be empathetic towards the transgender
community compared to students who were not exposed to the videos. Watching 14 minutes of
the video increased students’ empathy towards transgender individuals, and watching 28 minutes
of the video clips significantly impacted students’ empathy towards and understanding of the
transgender community (Walters & Rehma, 2013).
Studies reveal that some academic majors are more conducive to transgender inclusive
content while other academic majors are seen as unwelcoming (Brckalorenz et al., 2017; Duran
& Nicolazzo, 2016; Pryor, 2015). Arts and social sciences are perceived as more inclusive, while
business, health sciences, math, and engineering majors are perceived as less inclusive
(Brckalorenz et al., 2017). For transgender students at women’s colleges, this may be an area of
particular interest where gender disparity in STEM fields is already apparent (Beede et al.,
2011). The experiences of the transgender community should be infused throughout the
curriculum, including courses, majors, and minors to support the transgender student experience.
31

Academic Records as Barriers to Transgender Student Success
For transgender college students, trans-inclusive academic and campus record keeping is
not a matter of preference - it is a matter of safety and dignity. Colleges and universities have not
designed a solution that allows students to self-identify their gender identity on standardized
process and forms in a way that is consistent and accessible (Beemyn & Brauer, 2015; Goldberg
et al., 2018; Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019; Linley & Kilgo, 2018). Transgender students wish to
use a name different than their legal name because they fear being outed in class (Goldberg et al.,
2018). One participant in the study explained that because their institution does not have a
standardized process for updating their name and gender identity, they feel embarrassed when
professors call roll, and they need to explain why their birth name is not consistent with their
gender identity and gender expression (Goldberg et al., 2018). Even when a university adopts a
system for students to update their records with a chosen name, the process is inadequate
(Goldberg et al., 2018; Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019). In one study, a student remarked that the
name change process was not publicized widely, and not all transgender students knew that this
was an option (Goldberg et al., 2018), while a participant felt frustrated that they had updated
their information, but rosters continue to reflect their birth name (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019).
Beemyn and Brauer (2015) evaluated the campus information systems at colleges and
universities and found that the major information management systems have the capacity to
adopt changes that would allow transgender students to change their names and gender identity,
but institutions have not implemented these processes consistently. These challenges point to an
organizational gap that can be addressed to ensure the safety and inclusion of transgender
students.
32

Faculty as Barriers to Transgender Student Success
Transgender students struggle in the classroom in ways that their cisgender peers do not.
Astin’s (1993) seminal research on college student development places faculty interactions as
one of the most critical influences on college student success. Transgender students feel
stigmatized and excluded from the classroom experience when faculty knowingly or
inadvertently misgender an individual by using pronouns that do not align with their gender
identity and use a name legal name rather than their chosen name (Brckalorenz et al., 2017).
Misgendering occurs when an individual makes assumptions about a person’s gender based on
the person’s physical characteristics such as height, build, facial features, and tone of voice. As a
result, they may use the wrong pronouns or attempt to correct someone when they introduce
themselves.
Faculty members’ willingness to ask for a student’s personal pronouns and use of correct
pronouns is inconsistent (Pryor, 2015; Goldberg, 2019; Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019). In a
qualitative study of five transgender students at a major Midwest public institution, one
transgender male student recounted an experience with a faculty member who referred to him as
“a freak” while other faculty would repeatedly use feminine pronouns despite his requests to be
referred by male pronouns (Pryor, 2015). Another student in the same study recounted an
experience with faculty members who used his correct pronouns and would correct other
students in the classroom if they used incorrect pronouns. A study of 93 transgender graduate
students found that 45% of respondents reported that faculty misgendered them “often,” and 33%
reported being misgendered “often” (Goldberg, 2019). Participants in Goldberg’s (2019) study
noted that some faculty would ask students to share pronouns and chosen names at the start of a
new term but felt disheartened when faculty did not follow through on requests to use proper
33

pronouns or chosen names consistently. Goldberg (2019) concluded that non-binary individuals
were increasingly misgendered compared to transgender individuals with binary gender
identities. The current body of literature suggests that a lack of consistent follow-through with
using correct pronouns and chosen names impacts transgender student inclusion.
Faculty as Facilitators to Transgender Student Success
Faculty create inclusive environments for transgender students by modeling strategies to
confront transphobic behaviors and promote inclusive practices (Furrow, 2012; Goldberg et al.,
2018; Linley et al., 2016). Faculty who placed a high value on emotional and psychological
safety in the classroom are more likely to model positive classroom behaviors such as setting
guidelines when engaging in conversations around LGBTQ student issues (Furrow, 2012). A
qualitative study of faculty teaching a first-year composition course found that practices such as
setting classroom norms on how to address conflict, intervening when intolerant comments are
made, availing themselves to students as allies, and being vulnerable with students helped
establish an inclusive classroom environment (Furrow, 2012). Faculty who demonstrated a
commitment to learning about transgender student issues, ask students to share their pronouns
and preferred names, and correct themselves when they misgender a student contribute to a
transgender student’s persistence and resilience in school (Goldberg et al., 2018). A mixed
methods study of 91 transgender graduate students found that 67% of students had concerns
about physical and psychological safety on campus, but positive relationships with their faculty
and advisors who demonstrated a commitment to learning more about transgender identities and
used correct pronouns and names for students were a contributing factor to their resilience as
students and persistence in their program (Goldberg et al., 2018). Linley et al. (2016) posit that
faculty can leverage their positionality as individuals who have a significant influence on their
34

students by being open about their own sexuality or their position as allies. In their qualitative
study, LGBTQ college students felt a greater sense of belonging at their institution when they
saw faculty who attended on-campus events with their same-sex partners, attended events that
were sponsored by LGBTQ student organizations, or posted a sign on their door stating that they
had received training to be an LGBTQ ally.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) explain that gaps in performance are attributed to three distinct
factors: a lack of knowledge or skills, a lack of motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO).
Krathwohl (2002) defines the knowledge influences using four cognitive knowledge dimensions:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. In the factual knowledge dimension, an
individual first understand the basic components that are needed to solve a problem such as
terminology, details, and elements. Conceptual knowledge, Krathwohl (2002) argues, builds
upon the elements that an individual learns in the factual knowledge dimension to classify how
elements are interrelated within a larger structure; examples of conceptual knowledge include the
knowledge of principles, theories, models, and structure. Procedural knowledge, or the ways that
an individual understands how to do something, is reflected in the knowledge of specific skills,
techniques, methods, and selection of procedures. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is the
knowledge of one’s own thinking, or self-knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). The three indexes of
motivation include an individual’s choice, persistence, and mental effort when engaging in a task
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy, value, and prior knowledge are all factors that
can be considered when analyzing the underlying motivations that can help mitigate performance
gaps (Rueda, 2011). The organizational factors of the KMO model focus on the resources,
processes, and workplace culture that influence stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
35

Knowledge Influences
In order for faculty to deliver gender-inclusive classroom management practices that
support transgender student success, it is necessary to identify existing knowledge gaps.
Krathwohl and Anderson (2002) posit that there are four categories of knowledge, which span a
range from concrete to abstract. The first category, according to Krathwohl and Anderson
(2002), is factual knowledge, which represents the most basic elements such as terminology or
specific details that one should be familiar with in order to understand a specific problem of
practice. This may include knowing the admission policy at the institution, conjugating the
singular “they” pronoun, or knowing the terminology that is related to transgender identities such
as AFAB (assigned female at birth), AMAB (assigned male at birth), MTF (male to female), or
FTM (female to male). Conceptual knowledge refers to the interrelationships of the basic
elements that are acquired from factual knowledge. Faculty may use this type of knowledge to
differentiate sex and gender or to determine the relevance of sex and gender in the context of a
women’s college. Procedural knowledge is the ability to complete a task. For this knowledge
category, faculty will be able to integrate practices like asking for chosen names and pronouns
during the first class meeting, integrate LGBTQ content into their curriculum, or reporting acts
of discrimination or violence to appropriate university officials. Metacognitive knowledge is the
awareness of one’s own cognition. Faculty need to deconstruct their own biases around
transgender identities and identify strategies for retaining transgender students in their
classrooms. Each cognitive domain is needed to mitigate gaps in transgender student inclusion.

36

Terminology as Building Blocks to Understanding Gender
Faculty need to factually understand the terminology related to gender in order to support
transgender students. In the factual knowledge dimension, one needs to master the basic
elements of a discipline or problem (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2002). Mastery of basic
terminology aids in mastery of more complex knowledge dimensions such as conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2002). As discussed
previously in Chapter One, terminology in this area is ever-changing, but acknowledging the
nuances of terminology is germane to understanding transgender identities. In doing so, faculty
may need to consider how language facilitates or impedes transgender student inclusion in their
classrooms. Beemyn (2019) acknowledges that terminology is evolving and contested even
among individuals in the transgender community to be more inclusive of transgender individuals
who identify across the spectrum of gender non-conformity including non-binary, genderqueer,
genderfluid, and agender individuals.
Studies find that misgendering and misusing terminology are forms of microaggression
towards transgender individuals (Seelman et al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2017). Seelman et al.
(2017) found that microaggressions are as harmful as blatant victimization, leading to lower self-
esteem, stress, and anxiety among transgender college students. Addressing students with
affirming and appropriate language is fundamental to an inclusive classroom environment (Singh
et al., 2013). When faculty use students’ correct pronouns and chosen names, rather than
pronouns associated with sex assigned at birth or legal names, they create an inclusive classroom
environment for transgender students.

37

Classroom Management Practices as Facilitators or Barriers to Transgender Student Success
To provide a positive classroom environment, faculty will need to know the process of
how to implement practices that promote transgender student inclusion. Procedural knowledge
focuses on whether an individual is able to incorporate subject-specific skills into their practice
(Krathwohl & Anderson, 2002). Thus, procedural knowledge is the necessary domain for faculty
to determine the appropriate practices and procedures that promote an inclusive classroom
environment. Studies have affirmed the need for faculty to establish expectations around safety
and inclusion in their class syllabi and as a group during the first class (Furrow, 2012; Seelman,
2014). For faculty, social modeling is an effective strategy to increase cultural competency
around transgender identities because it motivates students to adopt appropriate behaviors
through reinforcement rather than punishment and helps students build more complex
understandings about gender identity (Bandura, 2005). While the practice of asking students for
their personal pronouns and chosen names during the first class meeting appears to be in vogue,
transgender students in several studies argue that this practice may be affirming for transgender
students who are confident with their identity but harmful if a student is still questioning their
identity (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019; Nicolazzo, 2017).
Deconstructing Personal Biases to Understand Gender
Faculty need the metacognitive knowledge to deconstruct their own biases around gender
in order to support transgender students’ success in the classroom. Krathwohl and Anderson
(2002) explain that metacognitive knowledge is the highest order of learning and describes an
individual’s self-knowledge and the knowledge of one’s own cognitive processes. Faculty at
women’s colleges need to understand how they came to their own understanding of womanhood
using its biological, juridical, and social definitions and how these constructs may or may not
38

support transgender student success. While the experiences of student affairs professionals
(Freitas, 2017), current students (Hart & Lester, 2011), and alumnae (Nanney, 2017) at women’s
colleges have been studied, no study to date has examined how faculty define womanhood at a
women’s college. Through an interrogation of this concept of womanhood, faculty will also need
to deconstruct how their own biases and experiences show up in their behaviors in the classroom.
Table 2 provides the assumed knowledge influences that affect faculty at women’s
colleges for transgender student inclusion. The table also outlines possible assessment methods.

39

Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment
Global Goal
In the next five years, women’s colleges will support the retention and persistence of
transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are inclusive of transgender
individuals.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2025, all faculty will successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom management
practices such as using a student’s chosen name and pronouns and incorporating LGBTQ
content into the curriculum.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Assessment
Faculty can deconstruct their
own biases of what it means
to be a woman.
Metacognitive knowledge Faculty were asked to define
what it means to be a woman
in an open-ended question on
the survey. Interview
participants will then be
asked the same question to
uncover additional nuances to
their definition.
Faculty are familiar with
terminology related to
transgender identities.
Factual knowledge Faculty were asked to rate
their level of understanding
terminology using a Likert-
type survey.
Faculty are familiar with their
institution’s transgender
student admission policy.
Factual knowledge Faculty were asked to
respond whether they knew
their institution’s admission
policy via a survey. Interview
participants were also asked
about their knowledge of an
admission policy.
Faculty need to know
processes to integrate
inclusive classroom
management practices.
Procedural knowledge Faculty were asked during an
interview to share how they
manage a classroom that is
inclusive of transgender
students, if at all.

40

Motivational Influences
Motivational influences need to be addressed in order to help faculty create an inclusive
classroom environment for transgender students. Clark and Estes (2008) explain that there are
three facets of motivated performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active
choice refers to an individual’s willingness to complete a given task (Clark & Estes, 2008). For
this study, the researcher examined whether faculty are willing to implement inclusive classroom
management practices. If an individual chooses to complete a task, motivation theories examine
whether the individual persists even in the face of distractions or barriers and whether they will
exert mental effort if the task is complex (Clark & Estes, 2008). As the availing research
suggests, gender and the issues that transgender individuals face are complex.
Expectancy Value Theory
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) posit that an individual’s expectancy for success and their
value for the task work in concert to predict a learner’s choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) explain that there are four components to expectancy value.
Attainment value is the desire to gain mastery at a given task. Intrinsic value is the satisfaction of
accomplishing a task for the sake of doing it. Utility value is the usefulness of a task in relation
to one’s goals, and finally, cost value is the perceived effort that one needs to exert in order to
complete a task. Rueda (2011) relates an individual’s motivation to complete a task with the
associated value of doing so.
Expectancy value theory can be used to examine whether faculty value the need to
incorporate inclusive practices and adopt policies, processes, and procedures that center
transgender students. Using expectancy value theory as a theoretical lens, it is critical to uncover
41

the specific motivational factors that preclude campus stakeholders from attending trainings that
address transgender student inclusion.
Attainment value and faculty self-schema. Faculty should consider their own identity
and ideals as it relates to creating an inclusive classroom environment for transgender students.
Wigfield (1994) explains that individuals assign importance on a task based on their own self-
concept and competence in a domain. Attainment value and motivation are enhanced when an
individual feels that successful completion of a task is tied to their identity (Pintrich, 2003). As
previously discussed in this chapter, transgender students experience faculty as both facilitators
and barriers to success (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2019; Pryor, 2015). Graybill and Proctor (2016)
examined the effects of faculty who were openly LGBTQ or identified as an ally to the LGBTQ
community both in and out of the classroom. Participants in this qualitative study, who all
identified as LGBTQ, revealed that faculty members who actively demonstrated support for the
LGBTQ community also served as mentors who helped them persist and navigate an otherwise
hostile campus environment. Faculty members who actively demonstrate the ability to employ
inclusive practices such confronting homophobic and transphobic language, including LGBTQ
content in the curriculum, and using correct pronouns and chosen names were perceived as
individuals who supported students’ success (Graybill & Proctor, 2016).
Faculty do not consistently employ inclusive classroom management practices. In
attainment value theory, Eccles (2006) and Mayer (2011) posit that individuals who do not value
a particular task or do not see a task as contributing to their personal or professional identity, are
less likely to choose the task, persist if the task is difficulty, or exert mental effort into the task.
Mayer (2011) incorporates Eccles’ expectancy value theory to expand on the notion of
motivation. Notably, motivation relies on the individual’s interest, beliefs, attributions, mastery,
42

and partnership in relation to the task at hand (Mayer, 2011). Thus, faculty needed to consider
whether incorporating inclusive classroom management practices affirm and contribute to their
self-schema as a faculty member.
Self-Efficacy
Faculty should feel efficacious in their ability to use correct pronouns and names and
model inclusive behavior in the classroom. Bandura’s (1977) seminal article on self-efficacy
explains that the belief that one can successfully accomplish a task is a strong indicator of
performance. As discussed in the review, transgender students feel excluded when faculty do not
use the correct pronouns and names, even when a student repeatedly reminds the faculty member
to do so. In a qualitative study of transgender students who withdrew from their college or
university due to harassment or nonsupport, repeated misgendering was a common concern
(Goldberg et al., 2019). In the study, one non-binary participant explained that some faculty
would try to use their correct pronouns and name but would eventually give up or complain that
it was too difficult to remember (Goldberg et al., 2019).
Faculty need a strong belief that they are prepared with the appropriate training and
education to effectively support transgender students. This belief in having the proper tools to
complete a task is central to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 2005; Pajares, 2006). When an
individual has confidence to complete a task, they are more likely to persist even if the task is
challenging (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is expressed through successful
completion of tasks, modeling behaviors, and having positive beliefs of one’s abilities (Bandura,
2005; Pajares, 2006). As discussed in the literature review, faculty can model positive behaviors
in the classroom to promote student success (Furrow, 2012; Goldberg et al., 2018; Linley et al.,
2016). If faculty believe that they can successfully use correct pronouns and names, intervene
43

when conflict arises, and incorporate LGBTQ content into their curriculum, then it is more likely
that they will persist even if the task is difficult.
Table 3 provides a summary of the motivation influences that may affect faculty at
women’s colleges. The table details the global goal, the stakeholder goal, the motivation
influence, the motivation type, and how motivation was assessed.

44

Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Assessment
Global Goal
In the next five years, women’s colleges will support the retention and persistence of
transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are inclusive of transgender
individuals.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2025, all faculty will successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom management
practices such as using a student’s chosen name and pronouns and incorporating LGBTQ
content into the curriculum
Motivation Influence Motivation Type Motivation Assessment
Faculty members’ self-
schema is shaped by the
ability to be inclusive of
transgender students.
Expectancy Value Theory
(Attainment Value)
Faculty were asked to rate
their level of agreement about
mastering inclusive
classroom management
practices using a Likert-type
survey item. Interview
participants were asked to
describe how their pedagogy
is influenced by teaching
specifically at a women’s
college.
Faculty are efficacious in
their ability to incorporate
content and practices that are
inclusive of transgender
students.
Self-Efficacy Theory Faculty were asked to rate
their level of agreement about
efficacy in using terminology
related to transgender
identities. Faculty were asked
during an interview to share
their level of efficacy in
implementing classroom
management practices that
are inclusive of transgender
students.

45

Organizational Influences
Women’s colleges have an internal culture that is distinct from co-educational
institutions. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that the third component for assessing performance
gaps are organizational influences. As discussed in the previous sections, women’s colleges have
evolved over time as they engage with the world around them. Women’s colleges are
recognizing the need to expand their idea of gender in order to serve a larger society that is
moving from a binary understanding of gender to one that moves across a vast spectrum. While
organizational culture may be ambiguous on its face, Schein (2017) explains that cultures evolve
from the cumulative experiences gained from the ways that an organizational engages with the
external environment and adapts to change. Women’s colleges will need to assess how culture
impedes or facilitates performance.
As women’s colleges consider or begin to implement new admission policies that are
inclusive of transgender students, they will need to assess how organizational culture, cultural
artifacts, and external influences will guide their decision-making. Erez and Gati (2004) propose
that organizations should account for the high-level factors such as historical events, scientific
discoveries, and public sentiment that affect the broader context. For transgender individuals,
state and local-level laws that include gender identity as a protected group have given visibility
to the issue of transgender rights. A study conducted by the Williams Institute found that over
70% of respondents to a survey on attitudes towards transgender people agreed that the United
States was shifting to be more tolerant of transgender individuals (Luhur et al., 2019).
A crisis is often the antecedent to change at higher levels (Schneider et al., 1996). Erez
and Gati (2004) explain that organizations need to consider how change can be implemented
from the bottom-up, where individual efforts mobilize to a higher-level phenomenon. Grassroots
46

student activism is an example of bottom-up change. The highly publicized case of Calliope
Wong, a transgender woman who was denied admission to Smith College because she had not
transitioned biomedically or legally as a woman, was the impetus to change at Smith (Weber,
2019). Unless women’s colleges are able to reshape their culture to be wholly inclusive of
transgender students through their beliefs and values, changing organizational culture will prove
difficult.
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Organizational influences include cultural models, which are internal values, beliefs, and
attitudes that are rooted within the organization and are often invisible (Gallimore & Goldberg,
2011; Schein, 2017). Sustained organizational change, Schneider et al. (1996) posit, requires the
meticulous analysis of these visible manifestations, which in turn impact the cultural model.
Cultural settings are the processes, practices, policies, and structures of an organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011). Schein (2017) argues that these observable elements, or
artifacts, reflect an organization’s values and priorities, which in turn become the foundation of
the organization’s collective vision and motivation for its stakeholders.
Transgender students as valued members of the community. Beyond accepting
transgender students for enrollment, women’s colleges need to develop a culture of care for
transgender students, which begins with the basic understanding of all of the different individuals
who ascribe to the identity of “woman.” Cultural models are the values and beliefs that are
deeply embedded within an organization (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Schein, 2004). Cultural models guide institutional decision-making, but they are often difficult to
change because they are invisible and unconscious (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). The absence of a definition of who is counted as a woma, or
47

perhaps a lack of evolution of the definition of women, leaves transgender students left out from
institutional consideration.
Like other minoritized identities, transgender students are framed in a deficit-based
narrative and are described as being born in the wrong body, confused, and in need of help
(Goldberg et al., 2018; Nicolazzo, 2016). Nanney (2017) found that some women’s college
alumnae refused to accept transgender women as “real” women because they lack the biology
that would legitimize their femininity and that being born with male biology and living as a man,
even as a child, gives them privileges that a cisgender woman does not have. While women’s
colleges value the education of women, the lack of support for transgender students creates an
environment that fails to set all students up for success. Contradictions between what is
expressed and what is demonstrated in practice creates an environment that also shapes
organizational culture (Erez & Gati, 2004). Women’s colleges need to reconcile previous cultural
models to one that now includes a broader definition of who is valued at a women’s college.
Inclusive policies and practices for transgender students. Women’s colleges need to
evaluate whether policies, practices, and physical spaces consider transgender students on their
campuses. Cultural settings are the institutional artifacts that inform how stakeholders are
introduced to the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) defines the cultural model as
the who, what, when, where, and how an organization prioritizes and normalizes its day-to-day
operations. As transgender students are initiated into the campus climate, institutions will need to
address the individuals who are trained to support transgender student success, what institutional
artifacts signal whether transgender identities are represented in the campus environment, where
transgender students can go to access equitable spaces, and how they are able to access the
resources to ensure their success.
48

While women’s colleges have evolved to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse
student body, the cultural setting as manifested in the policies, practices, and physical spaces do
not accommodate transgender students. A study of transgender students who transfer colleges or
withdraw from institutions altogether found that transgender students left because they could not
find social and educational spaces that were conducive and safe for learning (Goldberg et al.,
2019). As previously discussed, restroom spaces and on-campus housing act as institutional
barriers to inclusion for transgender students. Additionally, faculty need to work in concert with
the registrar and other academic offices to establish protocol to obtain class rosters that have
students’ chosen names and pronouns. Schein (2017) asserts that changes in institutional policies
and practices result in a shift in culture. As women’s colleges engage in the change process to
become more inclusive of transgender students, Kezar (2000) advises institutions to conduct
internal self-audits and to assess the campus culture.
Table 4 summarizes the organizational influences that may affect faculty at women’s
colleges. The table details the global goal, the stakeholder goal, the assumed organizational
influences, the organization influence type, and how the organization was assessed.
49

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment
Global Goal
In the next five years, women’s colleges will support the retention and persistence of
transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are inclusive of transgender
individuals.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2025, all faculty will successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom management
practices such as using a student’s chosen name and pronouns and incorporating LGBTQ
content into the curriculum
Organizational Influence Organizational Influence
Type
Assessment of the
Organization
Women’s colleges provide
access to information about
support services for
transgender students.
Cultural setting Faculty were asked to
disclose what types of
support services were
available for transgender
students in an open-ended
survey item.
The values of external
stakeholders (alumnae,
donors, surrounding
community, parents and
family) and current
administrators/staff/faculty/
students are aligned
Cultural model Faculty were asked in an
open-ended survey item and
during interviews whether
they believe that their
institution promotes a culture
of inclusion for transgender
students.

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of a study represents the interrelated factors of a problem of
practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A conceptual framework is unique to each problem of
practice, as different factors and variables were used to inform the research (Maxwell, 2013).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework served as the methodological approach for this
study. As discussed in the previous section, Clark and Estes (2008) posit that gaps in
performance are attributed to three distinct factors: a lack of knowledge or skills, a lack of
50

motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO). In order to conduct a systematic gap analysis,
organizations should identify organizational goals, assess current organizational performance,
identify the barriers to achieving goals, understand how the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences can impede or facilitate goal attainment, and then implement and
evaluate proposed solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). As reflected in the Figure 2 below, this study
sought to assess the underlying KMO factors to address the issue of transgender student success
at women’s colleges.

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework – Gap Analysis

51

Conclusion
As evidenced in the literature, there are gaps in the success of transgender college
students at women’s colleges. The research points to the influences that affect whether
transgender students are recruited and retained in order to complete their degrees. There are
opportunities and barriers for transgender student success both inside and outside of the
classroom environment, although arguably, the academic and co-curricular experiences are
inextricably tied to student success. Currently, there is limited research on the ways that faculty
influence student success among LGBTQ students. However, there is a paucity of research on
the role of faculty that is specific to the success of transgender students. Studies that address the
experiences of transgender students at women’s colleges, where gender is at the forefront of the
educational experience, is especially lacking.

52

Chapter Three: Methods
Chapter Two provided the context to understanding transgender students’ experiences on
college campuses and the conceptual framework that will guide the study. Chapter Three outlines
the methodology that was used to conduct the research. The researcher also considered their
worldview and positionality and how this influenced the way that they approach the problem of
practice. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion on the ethical considerations of
conducting this study.
The researcher employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach to
investigate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on transgender student
success at women’s colleges. Integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods allows a
researcher to gain additional insight into a problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). During the
first phase of data collection, the researcher collected quantitative data using a survey. Several of
the survey items were influenced by Kelley et al.’s (2008) survey of critical intervention in
LGBTQ health among second-year researchers. Interviews allowed further clarity to understand
the nuances of this problem of practice.
The participating stakeholders for the study were faculty who taught at a women’s
college. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explain that during the first phase, the results from the
quantitative data informs the types of participants who are selected for the qualitative phase. In
the second phase, the researcher conducted interviews with ten participants who completed the
survey in the first phase. In the sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, the qualitative
phase of data collection allows the researcher to discover additional, nuanced causes of a
problem of practice (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Ultimately, the study sought to address
53

barriers and facilitators to transgender student success at women’s colleges and the role of
faculty.
The Researcher
The researcher approached this study based on their experiences of working at a women’s
college and having insight on developing a transgender student admission policy at their
institution. The researcher identifies as a straight, cisgender woman of color. The researcher
acknowledged that their identity as a heterosexual and cisgender individual precludes them from
having a profound understanding of both sexual and gender minorities. However, the researcher
identifies as an accomplice to the LGBTQ community and actively seeks to interrogate the
systemic barriers for marginalized communities, even if the individual does not belong to those
communities (Clemens, 2017). The researcher approached this study from a post-modernist
worldview where gender is understood as a social construct that is fluid and non-binary.
Research Questions
This study was conducted within the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis to identify the areas that faculty at women’s colleges were meeting or not meeting the
needs of transgender students. The gap analysis framework posits that individuals perceive
problems and solutions based on their positionality, identities, and lived experiences (Clark &
Estes, 2008). To mitigate the gaps in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that facilitate or impede transgender student success, the research questions that guided this study
were as follows:
1. What knowledge do faculty, staff, and administrators at a women’s college need around
the topic of gender, and more specifically, transgender identities, to ensure transgender
student success?
54

2. How could motivational influences affect how faculty, staff, and administrators at a
women’s college challenge or support attitudes around gender?
3. What organizational influences can impede or facilitate in increasing transgender student
success at a women’s college?
4. What are the recommended actions that women’s colleges can take in order to ensure
transgender student success?
Participating Stakeholders
Although various institutional stakeholders impact transgender student success at
women’s colleges, faculty were the stakeholder population for this study. As discussed in the
literature review, faculty impact the ways that transgender students feel a sense of belonging on
campus. While studies have examined experiences in the classroom from the perspective of
transgender students, there is a dearth of research on how faculty perceive themselves as agents
to transgender student success. Participants for this study fell under the following inclusion
criteria: must currently teach at a women’s college and has been teaching at their current
institution for at least one year. Because transgender student inclusion is an emergent topic,
participants were current faculty at a women’s college, which allowed them to speak to the
present-day issues that exist at their specific institution. Therefore, faculty members who
currently were not teaching at a women’s college were excluded from this study even if they
taught at a women’s college previously. Additionally, participants needed to have taught at their
institution for at least one year so they could speak cogently on their campus climate. The
following sections outline the recruitment strategies and rationale for the quantitative survey and
the qualitative interviews.
55

Survey Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. Faculty who were currently teaching at a women’s college.
Criterion 2. Faculty who taught at a women’s college for at least one year.
Recruitment Strategy for the Quantitative Survey and Rationale
The survey for this study used non-probability, snowball sampling. Pazzaglia et al.
(2016) explain that non-probability sampling can be used when the population in the sample is
not known. An accessible list of the entire population of faculty at women’s colleges did not
exist at the time of this study. Thus, the researcher collected faculty members’ email addresses
listed on institutions’ public websites and invited participants to forward the survey to other
colleagues. Requests for participation were sent out via Qualtrics in October 2020. The survey
was open for two weeks, and a reminder email was sent to participants who had not completed
the survey after one week. Creswell and Creswell (2018) explain that the quantitative and
qualitative phases in an explanatory mixed-methods study are distinct so that the survey results
inform the questions that are used in the qualitative phase. Thus, the response period for the
survey was limited so that the researcher was able to analyze the data with ample time to adjust
the instrumentation for the qualitative phase. Once the researcher analyzed the data from the
surveys, participants were purposefully selected to take part in an interview.
Interview Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. Faculty who completed the quantitative survey.
Criterion 2. Faculty who were currently teaching at a women’s college.
Recruitment Strategy for the Qualitative Interviews and Rationale
Interviews were conducted as the second phase of the study. Qualitative studies situate
the researcher as an observer to understand the ways that individuals make sense of the world
56

around them and consider how experiences help to construct meaning (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Given that the study explored all women’s colleges, data from the quantitative phase
informed who was selected to participate in the interviews. This qualitative phase employed a
grounded theory approach where there was a constant comparison of data that took place during
the data collection process (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). In grounded theory, sampling takes place
through theoretical sampling until it reaches a point of saturation, or when information gathered
from the interviews is redundant (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ten participants were selected to participate in the interviews. For the interviews,
sampling was non-probability, non-random, and purposeful (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants taught at a variety of women’s colleges: different
geographic locations, religiously affiliated and non-religiously affiliated, large and small
institutions. Personal demographic characteristics that were consider included gender identity,
number of years taught at current institution (1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10+ years), what
discipline they taught (STEM, Psychology, Education, Social Sciences, Political Science, etc.),
and position held (adjunct, tenure track, tenure, etc.). The diversity of the participants allowed
the researcher to test and search for deviant and comparable experiences.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
In an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, data collection takes place in two
distinct phases. The survey was used to address the some of the knowledge, attitudes, and
experiences that faculty have regarding transgender students in their classrooms. Specifically, the
survey addressed the extent to which faculty members agreed or disagreed whether transgender
students are afforded the same level of support as cisgender students, the degree to which faculty
felt efficacious to implement inclusive classroom management practices, the degree to which
57

they valued transgender student inclusion in the classroom, and their knowledge of support
services offered at their institution. In the second phase, the researcher conducted interviews with
faculty members to gain a deeper understanding about the role of women’s colleges and how
they may or may not provide a supportive climate for transgender students and the strategies that
they used to create an inclusive classroom environment.
Survey Instrument
The survey for this study utilized some questions that were adapted from Kelley et al.’s
(2008) survey of knowledge, attitudes, and experiences of critical intervention in LGBTQ health
among second-year medical students. The researchers in this study did not find an appropriate
validated tool, so the survey was designed to give a broad characterization of knowledge,
attitudes, and experiences of a range of LGBT health issues (Kelley et al., 2008). The researcher
for this study supplemented questions around self-efficacy and organizational influences to
ensure that knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were addressed.
Robinson and Leonard (2019) explain that surveys should be constructed at a fifth-grade
reading level for more technical subjects. With this in mind, language in the survey was
simplified as much as possible, and definitions were provided for terminology that may have
been unfamiliar to all participants. Terminology such as “cisgender” was defined within the
survey item with the understanding that not all faculty would know the definition of this term.
The content of the survey items was designed to probe participants on a sensitive subject
that they may have felt more open to answering in an anonymous forum rather than in a focus
group, interview, or other qualitative means. Questions such as “I believe that being transgender
is immoral” and then asking participants to respond via a scale was more approachable than
asking them in person to describe why they may or may not believe that being transgender is
58

immoral. Thus, the survey captured attitudes, knowledge and experiences in a more robust and
honest way. The survey protocol is provided is Appendix B.
Survey Procedures
Data collection began after approval was granted by the institutional research board
(IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC) during the Fall 2020 semester. The survey
responses were administered electronically via Qualtrics. After participants were informed about
the purpose of the study, they provided informed consent to participate in the study. The survey
was emailed to participants in early October. A follow up email was sent to participants who had
not completed the survey one week after the original distribution. The survey closed in two
weeks until the survey reached a large, representative sample size. Data was stored on Dropbox
and destroyed at the conclusion of the study.
Interview protocol
A semi-structured approach allowed the participant to co-construct meaning and the
world around them because this approach was more flexible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
questions in the interview protocol were guided by the four research questions, which were
separated into distinct categories: knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, and
recommendations for addressing transgender student inclusion at women’s colleges. For the
questions related to faculty members’ knowledge influences, participants were asked to define
gender, deconstruct their own biases related to gender, and consider the strategies that they use to
address barriers and biases that influence transgender student success. The second set of
questions pointed to faculty member’s self-efficacy in implementing inclusive classroom
management practices and discussed the value of a campus environment that is inclusive of
transgender students at a women’s college. Finally, questions about organizational influences
59

asked participants to discuss how their institution had been successful in ensuring transgender
student success and how the institutions can improve. The interview protocol is provided in
Appendix B.
Interview procedures
In an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, interviews take place after the survey.
After participants were selected, the interviews took place between November 2020 and
December 2020. Because participants were from different geographic locations, interviews were
conducted using the video conferencing software, Zoom. Prior to each interview, participants
provided informed consent about their willingness to participate in the study. Each participant
engaged in one 60-minute interview with the researcher.
Following each interview, the researcher wrote a detailed memo as part of the audit trail.
In a grounded theory approach, theoretical memos, or reflective notes, play an important role in
the coding process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the
memoing process allows the researcher to develop themes, analyze emerging relationships
among the various themes, and search for deviant cases. The researcher conducted interviews
until they reached a point of theoretical saturation.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the study, the methodology needs to be
rigorous and absent of bias. Given that the researcher currently worked at a women’s college,
they may assume some of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect
transgender student success. To mitigate this bias, the researcher employed member checking
throughout the data collection process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
both qualitative and quantitative methods, the researcher relied on subject matter experts in the
60

field to provide feedback on the researcher’s potential bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). In the qualitative phase of the study, the researcher used member checking to
go back to a participant and asked follow up or clarifying questions if needed (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell 2016).
McEwan and McEwan (2003) explain that quantitative studies can ensure external
validity by ensuring a large and random sample size. As such, survey data should anticipate an
acceptable margin of error and confidence level. According to an initial mining of faculty data
that will be gathered from women’s colleges’ institutional websites, it was assumed that there
were approximately 5,000 faculty members at women’s colleges. To guarantee a 5% margin of
error and a 95% confidence level, the study needed at least 357 participants. Additionally,
Creswell & Creswell (2018) state that surveys need to meet content and construct validity. This
was accomplished by adapting a survey that was already used in a previous study by other
researchers. External validity was met through the transparency of the study methods, sample,
and sites (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Ethics
All researchers must follow the guidelines as outlined by the University of Southern
California (USC) Institutional Research Board (IRB) (n. d.). When a study uses human subjects,
researchers need to ensure protection from harm, the right to privacy, and informed consent
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher provided participants
with a description of the purpose and methods of the study in advance. To promote transparency,
the researcher explained the benefits and risks of participating in the study and gave participants
an opportunity to ask questions should they arise.
61

The researcher took precautions to ensure anonymity for all individuals who participated
in an interview. After all interviews were complete, the researcher stripped identifying
information from the transcripts and created pseudonyms for interview participants and the
institutions where they taught. To ensure confidentiality, all electronic documentation will be
destroyed after 6 months. The 6-month window allows the researcher to conduct any follow up
analysis for the study if needed.

62

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of transgender student success at women’s colleges, specifically in the classroom
environment. The study focused on faculty who currently teach at a women’s colleges and
examined classroom management practices, curriculum, and institutional policies and
procedures. This study asked the following questions:
1. What knowledge do faculty, staff, and administrators at a women’s college need
around the topic of gender, and more specifically, transgender identities, to ensure
transgender student success?
2. How could motivational influences affect how faculty, staff, and administrators at a
women’s college challenge or support attitudes around gender?
3. What organizational influences can impede or facilitate in increasing transgender
student success at a women’s college?
4. What are the recommendations for addressing transgender student success at
women’s colleges?
This chapter begins with an overview of the participating stakeholders of the study.
Results and findings are presented and categorized by the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences from the survey and interview data. Finally, the researcher describes
two emerging themes that were connected to the findings.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for this study were faculty who were teaching at a
women’s college. For this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, a survey was distributed
63

to participants first. In the survey, respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate
in a follow up interview to probe into the nuances of this problem of practice.
Survey Participants
Names and email addresses for faculty were sourced through each institution’s public
webpage. Email addresses for faculty at one institution were not available on their website. In
total, 5,041 individuals received an invitation to participate. Those who were invited to
participate in the survey were also asked to contact the researcher via email if they wished to
forward the survey to a colleague who met the criteria for participation. Only one faculty
member from the original list of participants asked for the survey to be forwarded to a colleague.
Thus, nearly all survey responses were garnered through the initial list of participants that the
researcher gathered. The survey yielded 544 responses over a three-week period. During the first
week of the survey collection period, three institutions requested that the researcher not use data
from faculty who teach at their institution. Thus, 18 completed surveys were removed, and their
institutions are not represented in this study. Additionally, 13 responses were removed because
respondents did not currently teach at a women’s college. In total, 513 responses were used for
this study, and 30 of the 34 women’s colleges in the United States were represented. This met the
threshold of ensuring a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.
To provide additional context for survey participants, the researcher ran a frequency
distribution analysis to provide an accurate account of the sample population. Women’s colleges
in the Northeast and the South account for 33.3% of women’s colleges in the United States
respectively. Among the survey participants, 45.4% of participants currently teach at a women’s
college in the Northeast, and 22.2% of participants in this study teach in the South. Women’s
colleges in the Midwest account for 21.2% of all women’s colleges in the United States, and
64

19.4% of the participants in this study teach in the Midwest. Finally, women’s colleges in the
West represent 12.2% of all women’s college, and 10.1% of respondents currently teach in this
region. Responses for this question were optional, and 15 individuals (2.9% of respondents)
declined to state the region where they currently teach. For this study, respondents in the
Northeast were slightly overrepresented while respondents in the South were slightly
underrepresented. Table 5 summarizes the number of faculty who participated in the study by
region.

Table 5
Demographic Information of Survey Respondents by Region (United States)
Region Frequency Percentage
Northeast 233 45.4%
Midwest 99 19.4%
South 114 22.2%
West 52 10.1%
Decline to state 15 2.9%

65

Table 6 describes the number of years that faculty have taught at the institution. Of the
survey respondents, faculty who had taught at their institution for over 10 years made up 43.7%
of the respondents. Faculty who had taught between three and five years represented 20.6% of
respondents, and faculty who had taught between six and nine years made up 20.3% of survey
respondents.

Table 6
Demographic Information of Survey Respondents by Number of Years Teaching at Institution
Number of Years Frequency Percentage
0-2 years 66 12.9%
3-5 years 106 20.6%
6-9 years 104 20.3%
10+ years 224 43.7%
Decline to state 13 2.5%

Interview Participants
Survey participants indicated whether they wished to participate in the interview phase of
the study. Of the 513 survey respondents, 165 faculty members indicated a willingness to
participate in a follow up interview with the researcher. The researcher selected participants who
represented a broad range of characteristics such as the location of their institution, number of
years at the institution, gender identity, and discipline. As a result, 16 invitations were sent, and
10 individuals agreed to participate in an interview. Table 7 provides the participants’
pseudonym, pronouns, number of years at their institution, region of the institution where they
teach, and pseudonym for their institution. Additional demographic information was purposely
omitted to ensure that participants could not be identified.

66

Table 7
Description of Interview Participants
Name Pronouns Years at Institution Region Institution
Sage They/them/their 3-5 years Northeast Northeastern Women’s
College 1
Gray He/him/his 10+ years Northeast Northeastern Women’s
College 2
Navy They/them/their 1-2 years Northeast Northeastern Women’s
College 3
Sienna She/her/hers 6-10 years Midwest Midwestern Women’s
College 1
Azure She/her/hers 3-5 years Midwest Midwestern Women’s
College 2
Coral She/her/hers 1-2 years Midwest Midwestern Women’s
College 3
Emerald Ze/zer/zers 1-2 years South Southern Women’s
College 1
Garnet He/him/his;
They/them/their
6-10 years South Southern Women’s
College 2
Jade She/her/hers 6-10 years West Western Women’s
College 1
Hunter He/him/his 6-10 years West Western Women’s
College 2

Results and Findings of Knowledge Influences
The assumed knowledge influences for faculty to support transgender student success
were: faculty members’ metacognition by deconstructing the category of “woman,” factual
knowledge of the institution’s admission policy and terminology related to transgender identities,
and procedural knowledge, which investigated whether faculty are able to implement inclusive
classroom management practices. This section discusses how respondents defined “woman,”
their awareness of terminology related to transgender identities and institutional policies that
affect transgender students, how faculty introduced pronouns to their students, and how faculty
incorporated content related to transgender identities into their curriculum. This section will
conclude with a synthesis of the findings. Table 8 provides an overview of the knowledge
67

influences that were revealed in the findings, whether the influence was validated as a gap, and
whether the influence was newly identified during data collection.

Table 8
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Influence Validated as a Gap? Newly identified?
Knowledge Influence 1. Faculty can deconstruct
their own biases of what it means to be a
woman
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 2. Faculty are familiar
with terminology related to transgender
identities.
No No
Knowledge Influence 3. Faculty are familiar
with their institution’s transgender student
admission policy.
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 4. Faculty can incorporate
classroom management practices that are
inclusive of transgender students.
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 5. Faculty can incorporate
transgender inclusive content into their
curriculum.
Yes Yes

Who Counts as Woman
As discussed in the literature review, “woman” is a contested term with numerous
definitions ranging from biological, psychological, juridical, and social. The findings will first
focus on data gathered from the survey and will then triangulate the survey findings with data
gathered from interview participants. To address the first research question of what knowledge
faculty have about gender, an open-ended survey item asked faculty to define the term, “woman”
in their own words. The goal for this influence was for 100% of faculty in both the survey and
the interviews to deconstruct their biases of what it means to be a woman. There were 375
written responses to this survey item, and of these responses, 19 participants stated that they did
68

not wish to define the term. The researcher coded participants’ open-ended responses into four
broad categories: self-identified, biologically, socially constructed, and alternate definitions.
Table 9 provides an overview of the frequencies and percentages of how often each category was
used from the open-ended survey responses.

Table 9
Coded Survey Data of Definitions of “Woman”
Category Frequency Percentage
Self-identified 255 56.7%
Biological 65 14.4%
Socially constructed 62 13.8%
Alternate definition 49 10.9%
Did not wish to define 19 4.2%

69

As will be discussed later in this section, interview participants had similar definitions of
“woman,” and some interview participants described multiple definitions of what it means to be
a woman. Seven of the 10 participants defined woman as an identity that is self-defined. Three of
the 10 participants said defined woman as a biological construct, although biology was not the
exclusive definition that they used. Three of the 10 participants also defined “woman” as socially
constructed. The following sections will explore the various definitions that faculty used to
define “woman” and will demonstrate that faculty are not unanimous in their ability to
deconstruct their biases.
Woman as Self-Identified
As described above, 56.7% of survey respondents defined “woman” as a designation that
an individual identifies for themselves. Succinctly, survey respondents shared: “A woman is a
person who identifies as a woman, period.” A woman is “a person who introduces or re-
introduces themselves as a woman.” “Everyone who uses the term has a right to define it for
themselves.” However, even within the category of defining woman based on self-identification,
there were some nuances.
While the simple definition of woman as “one who identifies as woman,” resonated with
a majority of survey respondents, others elaborated on the multiplicity of social and cultural
contexts that influence how an individual may define “woman.” In one response, a faculty
member rejected a singular characteristic that defines what it means to be a woman: “Everyone
who defines themselves as a woman defines what it means to be a woman by their actions. I
reject the notion that there are inherently ‘womanly’ behaviors and traits.” Expanding on the
theme of holding multiple characteristics, another survey respondent wrote,
70

Woman can be defined in multiple ways. It can be referring to the biological sex of
female. It can be referring to one’s gender identity, which may be interpreted and
experienced differently for everyone. I think the term woman is socially and culturally
constructed and means different things to everyone. We should allow people the
opportunity to explore and define the term however it best suits them.
The ambiguous nature of the term “woman” raised questions for some respondents.
Some survey respondents expressed that they were unsure of whether their definitions
were accurate. For example, one individual responded, “I really don’t have a good definition.
Perhaps, a woman is someone who identifies as female.” Another wrote, “Whoever identifies
with the social norms that typically define a woman, I guess? Really not sure.” One respondent
acknowledged discordance with drawing a firm boundary between how one defines the term for
themself and one’s biology:
In a strict sense, a person who identifies themselves to be “female” would be a “woman.”
I do believe people should be free to express whatever gender makes them most
comfortable and who they truly are. To be completely honest, I am still learning all of the
different potential identities people may have, so there is part of me that still believe
anatomy plays a role (i.e., someone who has a vagina and/or has potential to bear children
is more “woman” than “man’), but that shouldn’t be who they are forced to be their
whole lives or express that if that isn’t who they are.
Indeed, extricating biology from psychology when defining woman was challenging for some
faculty.
71

Woman as Defined by Biology
When asked to define “woman,” 14.4% of the responses from the survey used a
biological definition or at least included biology as part of how they defined the term. Survey
respondents wrote that a woman is “biologically born with female anatomy and hormones,”
“born at birth with a vagina,” “a person with female reproductive organs,” or simply, “XX.”
Another respondent wrote, “I’m a biologist, so my definition of binary sex is based on the
presence or absence of a sex specific reproductive organ.” Other respondents distinguished the
differences between sex and gender.
According to the diagram of sex and gender presented in Figure 1 of Chapter One of this
study, sex and gender are separate constructs. One faculty member explained in their open-ended
response:
I distinguish sex and gender. Sex is biological and gender is social. In terms of sex, then,
a rough definition is having two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome. In terms of
gender, I count anyone who calls herself a woman as one.
Other survey responses pointed to the other components of sex and gender as noted in Figure 1.
One respondent noted that a woman is, “biologically, a human being with XX genes. In terms of
gender, this term has become quite blurry and porous from showing external signs (clothing,
behaviour) to expressing identity.” Another survey respondent shared, “‘woman’ is a label that is
at one end of a continuous scale that can be used to describe the biological, emotional,
psychosocial, gender identity, and gender preference dimensions of a human being.” These
responses acknowledge that biology is one component of defining “woman” and allude to the
need to consider other aspects of gender.
72

Woman as Socially Constructed
While it was mentioned less frequently than self-identification or the biological definition
of gender, 13.8% of faculty who responded to the survey regarded “woman” as a social
construct. One respondent wrote, “woman is a complex construct consisting of biological and
cultural elements associated with having feminine qualities in our society.” Another remarked,
“woman is a gender social construct. It refers to an identity that is either assigned to a person at
birth or chosen by a person. The term comes with social expectation and norms.” Specific to
womanhood, patriarchy was also considered in the social construction of “woman.” One
respondent explained,
It's a gender identity that one is socialized into or intentionally takes on, which, like all
gender identities, is impossible to define in a traditional logical criterion-based manner
but instead requires careful categorical reasoning. Because of the diversity of those
socialized into it, it is distinct from femininity, but is still strongly associated with
femininity, which is in turn associated with aspects such as deference, empathy,
caregiving, wisdom, protection of one's family or the vulnerable, innocence, domestic
labor, sexual availability, and others. There is of course a tension between qualities that
our patriarchal society would impose on women and on femininity and those that women
claim for themselves.
Thus, in considering gender from a lens informed by queer theory, one ought to acknowledge the
existence of what is accepted as normal by society and then consider how institutions can de-
center cisgender, patriarchal, and heteronormative systems to create more inclusive institutions.
73

Other Definitions of Woman
Several definitions did not fall into one of the categories above yet still merit discussion.
Without naming queer theory as a lens, several responses spoke to the de-centering of normative,
essentialist constructs of gender. One individual wrote, “To me, it’s identifying as and with a
marginalized gender. It’s about being aware of the historical and current fights for protection,
access, and rights.” Another explained, “I take ‘woman’ to be an ‘essentially-contested concept,’
such that the continual renegotiation of its definition(s) is essential to its meaning. ‘Woman’ for
this reason is largely relative to context and contrast.”
Evolving Understandings of Woman
An emerging theme that came from this survey item was that individuals’ understanding
of woman has evolved over time. One response from the survey summarized this concept and
stated,
I am not certain that I can, cleanly. If I had to [define “woman”], I would begin by saying
that the word points to a range of identities around which I would not care to draw a hard
boundary. I would continue by acknowledging that my default mental image is deeply
conditioned by the mainstream presentation of cis women in a violently masculine
culture. I would also acknowledge that my understanding of the word begins with the
perception of a biological binary, but is no longer controlled by that perception. But
honestly, I feel like my understanding of the words "man" and "woman" is in flux, and
has been for quite some time now.
Thus, an evolution of the definition of woman has become more expansive for respondents rather
than limiting their understanding.

74

Findings from the Interviews Related to the Definition of Woman
After gathering the responses from the survey, interview participants were asked how
they arrived at their definition of “woman” rather than simply defining it. Their responses
confirmed emerging survey findings that their definition of woman evolved over time. Four of
the 10 participants spoke to this theme in the interviews. Sienna explained that during her first
year working at Midwestern Women’s College 1, “somebody was talking about gender dynamics
in the classroom and I’m like, ‘what are you talking about?’ It’s a women’s college. Women’s
college means one gender, so there’s no gender dynamics.” After auditing a graduate-level
Women’s Studies class at her institution, Sienna explained that arriving at a definition is personal
to the individuals and acknowledged that “there are so many different experiences and, and I
don’t know that’s there’s one right answer. And I know that whatever answer I come up with is
going to be wrong for people.” Coral from Midwestern Women’s College 3 similarly agreed and
stated that as her understanding of “woman” evolved, she saw less of a need to have a perfect
definition. Coral shared,
I think that as with a lot of people, I started out knowing, thinking that I knew exactly
what it meant and only over time have I started messing with it to the point where I’m not
even sure I have a good definition anymore because I’m not sure it’s the kind of thing we
need or want - to have a pure, perfect, ongoing definition about.
Jade from Western Women’s College 1 reflected on how her evolving definition of woman
became more expansive to include transgender and non-binary individuals in ways that she had
not previously considered. She explained,
75

I had a strong, I mean, a wide variation of what it meant to be a woman, but I didn’t
realize that I wasn’t thinking about trans women when I was thinking of woman… Some
of my languaging around it, like, I realized that I still wasn’t broad enough.
Jade also reflected on numerous personal experiences that shaped her evolving definition of who
counts as a woman. Jade explained that her interactions with a student she taught who came out
to her as transgender and being on a committee that was tasked to write a transgender student
admission policy were significant in reshaping her definition of woman. She concluded by
remarking,
Trans people and non-binary people are on a spectrum as well… We all have so many
different ways of expressing our gender and defining our gender and labeling our gender
and all of that… Like there’s all kinds of genders and just let everybody have their own.
To summarize, in considering the knowledge influences that impact transgender student success,
the findings point to the challenges of having a shared definition of what it means to be a woman
but also the opportunities that exist for definitions to change over time.
Who is Eligible to Attend a Women’s College
Faculty were asked if they were aware of whether their institution’s admission policy
admitted transgender students. The goal for this influence was for at least 90% of faculty to know
whether their institution had a policy that considered transgender students in the admission
process. The results from the survey showed that almost 70% of faculty responded that their
institution did have a policy that admitted transgender students. Conversely, only 5.6% of faculty
responded that their institution did not have a policy that considered transgender students for
admission. However, nearly a quarter of the respondents stated that they were unsure of whether
76

their institution had such a policy, which demonstrates a gap for this influence. The results are
summarized below in Table 10.

Table 10
Knowledge of Institutional Admission Policy from Survey Respondents
Does the women’s college where you currently teach have a policy for admitting transgender
students?
Count Percent
Yes 255 69.9%
No 28 5.6%
Unsure 122 24.5%

77

To triangulate this data, interview participants were also asked this same question, which
gave further insight into whether faculty are aware of their institution’s admission policy. Of the
10 interview participants, three participants stated that they were aware of their policy, three
participants stated that they looked up the policy on their institutional website prior to the
interview, three participants stated that their institution did not have a policy, and one participant
stated that they were not aware of what their policy stated. Thus, the survey and interview data
reveal that there is a gap in knowledge for this influence.
The interviews shed some light into why faculty members may not be aware of an
admission policy at their institution. Garnet, at Southern Women’s College 2, stated “I had to
look [the policy] up because although I was in the faculty meeting where we approved it, I
couldn’t remember what we actually approved.” Subsequently, they looked up the policy prior to
the interview. Similarly, Azure explained, “I know I knew generally that we have trans students
at our university and in our college for women, but to be honest, I hadn’t looked at the policy
before.” After reading the policy, Azure shared, “I was really impressed at what we do have
online… We have a very clear public facing policy that the public can access if they’re looking
into possibly coming to Midwestern Women’s College 2.” Emerald also looked up the policy at
zers institution, and stated, “I had to seek that [information] out” on the institutional website.
Navy stated that they were not aware of the institutional policy but knew that one had been
adopted. They noted that the policy was not well-received by the students because the students
felt that the policy was not inclusive enough. Navy recalled, “I know that I actually couldn’t tell
you what [the policy] is today. I know that the students – it’s upsetting to the students, whatever
it is.” This points to a possible gap in communication between administration and faculty. Table
11 summarizes responses from all of the interview participants.
78

Table 11
Knowledge of Institutional Admission Policy from Interview Participants
Name Institution
Sage Northeastern Women’s
College 1
Aware of the institutional policy
Gray Northeastern Women’s
College 2
Aware of the institutional policy
Navy Northeastern Women’s
College 3
Unaware of the details of the current institutional
policy
Sienna Midwestern Women’s
College 1
Institution has not adopted a policy. “I’m sure it’s
being talked about and it’s been talked about, but
it’s not, I don’t think an issue that the college is
ready to move on.”
Azure Midwestern Women’s
College 2
Was not aware of a policy and looked it up on
institutional website prior to interview.
Coral Midwestern Women’s
College 3
Institution has not adopted a policy. “I believe we
have no formal written policy, but I do know that
we have at least an informal policy because I’ve
heard it directly from our President.”
Emerald Southern Women’s
College 1
Was aware that a policy was approved but did not
recall details. Looked up the policy on website
prior to interview
Garnet Southern Women’s
College 2
Was not aware of a policy and looked it up on
institutional website prior to the interview.
Jade Western Women’s
College 1
Served on committee that made a
recommendation for the institution’s admission
policy.
Hunter Western Women’s
College 2
Institution has not adopted a policy. Men are
eligible for admission. “We don’t have a separate
trans admission policy because both men,
women, and uh, trans students just are able to
apply just the normal channels, the normal way.”

Familiarity with Terminology
Another survey item asked faculty to gauge their knowledge that describes transgender
identities. Respondents overwhelmingly responded that they strongly agreed or agreed to the
following survey item: “I am familiar with terminology that describes transgender identities. For
example, transgender, cisgender, nonbinary, FTM, and MTF.” Faculty were asked to rate their
79

responses on a four-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). Of the 487
respondents, faculty rated their agreement on average at a 3.5. Table 12 summarizes the results.

Table 12
Survey Data of Familiarity with Terminology for Transgender Identities
I am familiar with terminology that describes transgender identities. For example:
transgender, cisgender, nonbinary, FTM, and MTF
Count Percent
Strongly disagree 20 4.1%
Disagree 18 3.7%
Agree 161 32.9%
Strongly agree 290 59.3%

80

The findings show that faculty have significant knowledge of terminology related to
transgender identities. This proves to be an asset for faculty, who are staying current on evolving
terminology.
Implementing Inclusive Classroom Management Practices
Finally, faculty were asked to reflect on their pedagogy and how they have implemented
classroom management practices that are inclusive of transgender students. Data was compiled
from both the survey and interviews. Two themes emerged from the responses: pronoun usage
and inclusive curricula.
The Importance of Pronouns
Acknowledging students by their correct pronouns was most frequently cited as a way to
create an inclusive classroom environment for all students. In an open-ended survey item, faculty
were asked to explain the ways that their institution demonstrates a commitment to supporting
transgender students. Of the 369 responses, 20% of the survey respondents stated that
acknowledging and sharing pronouns was an important step in creating an inclusive campus
environment. Survey respondents revealed: “It is a common practice to share pronouns when
introducing oneself on campus.” “We ask for and respect using pronouns from each student.”
“Additionally, faculty are encouraged to provide their pronouns to demonstrate sensitivity.” It
was significant to note that faculty were aware that the practice of sharing pronouns happened
not only in the classroom but in other contexts at the institution as well. Respondents explained
that pronoun usage was not only a norm but an institutional policy. One faculty member wrote,
“It is a stated requirement that we as faculty use and respect students’ pronouns.” Another wrote
that “we have a preferred pronoun policy.” While pronouns came up as a theme in only 20% of
81

the survey responses, data from the interviews revealed that this practice was important to their
classroom management.
A majority of interview participants that asked for students’ pronouns and chosen name
to create an inclusive classroom environment. Six of the 10 participants stated that they ask
students to share their names and pronouns at the start or prior to the start of the term. Of the six
participants, two faculty members, Sage and Navy, also gave students the opportunity to reshare
their pronouns and names during the term. Sage explains, “during a normal term, I give students
an opportunity in the middle of it to reintroduce themselves to the, uh, group in case something
has changed.” Sage incorporated another practice: “If they give me “she/they” (pronouns), I only
use “they” with them because I’m pretty sure nobody else is going to. And normally that helps
them figure out if they actually like it.” Navy acknowledged that an individual’s pronouns and
chosen name may change in the middle of a term:
If the summary information changes over the course of the semester, please email me –
clear instructions, kind of, for how to update that. I did forget to do that this semester, but
when I’m on it, I remember to include some instructions for how to update it, if that
changes.
These practices allude to the fluidity of forming one’s gender identity and that pronouns can
change at any point in time.
One strategy for role modeling the practice of sharing pronouns, faculty who responded
to the open-ended survey item explained that they include their pronouns in their email signature,
and now, in their Zoom screen names. Survey respondents wrote: “Faculty are encouraged to
include their own pronouns in correspondence to normalize the practice.” “Even our president
has her pronouns in her email signature now, which is a big deal here.” Three respondents noted
82

that they have added their pronouns to their Zoom screen names. One respondent explained, “It
is common for faculty to write their pronouns next to their names on Zoom calls.” Pronoun usage
in the classroom was a frequent theme that was shared during the interviews.
While this was an outlier from other responses, not all faculty embraced the practice of
asking students for their pronouns. Gray, a long-time professor at Northeastern Women’s
College 2, explained that his acceptance of pronoun usage changed over time, partly due to
changes in the organizational culture and a shifting demographic at the institution. During the
interview, Gray explained that he used to refer to all students as “she” because
It was a culture in the college of, of, using, ‘she,’ uh like a doctor or a scientist. And then
when you refer back to it, you use ‘she.’ And I know at first it seemed a bit, um, artificial,
but very quickly, I adapted to it.
Centering cisgender women, Gray suggested, was a practice that occurred within the context of a
women’s college. Gray described, “when I talk about the students in the class, I often talk as if
they’re all, I used to often talk as if they were all female. And I suppose I sometimes still do.” As
more students at his institution were openly transgender or non-binary, he explained that he
started using “they” as a gender neutral pronoun and that “I shouldn’t use female pronouns as the
default pronoun.” Gray acknowledged that this shift was not inherently natural: “I’m old. So, uh,
I’m used to, I’m used to, you know – I didn’t grow up in an environment like this. It’ll be an
adjustment for me, but that’s alright. I don’t mind adjusting.” Gray’s experience is important to
address, as it underscores the process that faculty experience as they shift their understanding of
gender but also the ways that misgendering has a negative impact on transgender and gender
diverse students who are becoming a large presence at women’s colleges.
83

While the practice of asking for and sharing pronouns was largely accepted by faculty,
interview participants explained that pronouns and chosen names were not being enforced
consistently. Emerald, who shared that ze experienced unwelcome incidents for using ze/zer/zers
pronouns, said,
I think it was Shakespeare that said, “a rose by any other name would smell so sweet,”
but I disagree. My name is important to me because it’s what I’m called. And so, I think
that an inclusive classroom starts there. Call people what they wish to be called.
Sage reflected on a similar experience:
I think about just how often I get misgendered by somebody after they know my
pronouns, but they clearly aren’t paying attention to it. And then they say “he/him” or
“she/her” and then they don’t refer to me correctly at all. Even in Zoom meetings, right?
Where the name is just, right there in the corner.
As with Gray’s experience with unlearning and learning to acknowledge a vast spectrum of
gender, Sage advised their colleagues, “it takes work and you actually have to slow down how
quickly you talk to make sure you don’t fuck it up. Yeah. I mean, I think that’s, that's the big
thing. Like, slow down.” Here, Sage describes the challenge of breaking habits that have
traditionally centered female and male identities and shifting language to including non-binary
pronouns requires an earnest, conscientious effort in order to ensure that all students feel
included in the classroom environment. The inconsistency between the accepted practice of
sharing pronouns and the successful implementation demonstrates that there is a gap in
knowledge for this influence.
84

The Importance of an Inclusive Curriculum
Faculty members’ ability or inability to incorporate transgender identities and scholarship
was a significant finding that was not addressed prior to the study and was added as the fifth
knowledge influence. Incorporating transgender identities into the curriculum was the second
most frequently cited example of how faculty have implemented inclusive classroom
management practices in the survey data. For this influence, the goal was for at least 90% of
faculty to incorporate transgender inclusive content into their curriculum. According to the
survey responses, only 15% of faculty shared that their institutions were actively seeking ways to
include transgender identities into majors, courses, and assignments. A faculty member in the
healthcare field said in their survey response, “In every class I teach, I identify myself as
cisgender and straight while teaching on queer populations and denial of healthcare. I teach
nursing students, and trans and racial topics form the foundation of the classes.” Another faculty
member shared that “course offerings and class discussions across a number of disciplines
frequently engage topics related to transgender identity and position.” Others in the survey
responses noted that such courses were required through general education: “We talk about
gender as a construct and read a piece about students at women’s colleges as part of the required
first-year seminar.” Such responses highlight the variety of ways that transgender identities can
be incorporated throughout the curriculum.
To get a better understanding of specific ways that transgender identities can be included
into the curriculum, interview participants were asked to reflect on how they support transgender
inclusion in their classrooms. Five participants gave specific examples of an assignment they
designed to address transgender identities, two participants discussed how they would like to
incorporate this more into their curriculum, and three participants did not mention this as a
85

strategy. The five faculty gave examples of various exercises or projects that they created. One
of these faculty members, Jade, explained:
I think that if we don’t set the tone as faculty, then students won’t know what they can
address or talk about. Or, you know, so I think in some ways it’s up to us, but in other
ways we need to catch up to, what, where the students are.
While interview data revealed that half of the faculty were able to incorporate transgender
inclusive content into their curriculum, this still falls short of the goal of ensuring that at least
90% of faculty could do so.
Because identity is a salient aspect of a women’s college, faculty professed to the need to
address issues of gender even if their educational backgrounds did not prepare them to do so.
Coral, who teaches theology, lamented that theology in the western culture is “extremely white
dominated and extremely male dominated.” The challenge, Coral explained, was finding
materials that spoke to the transgender experience while still being accessible to her students,
who take her class as an introduction to religious studies. Coral shared, “So many of them have
books that are only really meant to be read by grad students, and my students can’t. They, they
wouldn’t be able to sort that text out.” Admittedly, Coral also acknowledged that she may need
to do more research on her own to find more inclusive texts: “I could have just not looked and be
completely overlooking someone who has done an amazing job, but, uh, clearly it’s something I
have to think about because I haven’t.” Coral ended her thought by sharing, “You know, we’re
exposing our own biases during this.” Other faculty considered their own privileges and how that
shaped the ways they structured their courses.
Similarly, Garnet, reflected on the need to include more diversity into their courses. Even
with an awareness that transgender identities ought to be included, they stated,
86

The transgender narrative is not one that I’ve included in my teaching. Uh, and it’s one
that I need to start incorporating. I mean, I’ll, I’ll be perfectly honest. I’m, you know,
I’m, really working from a position of ignorance. I know very little about transgender
history. I know very little about what has shaped it. Um, it’s something that I have to
work into my history classes, I think, more systematically in the same way that I’ve
worked in, um, the experiences of students of color, communities of color differently.
There’s just a lot that, there’s a lot that middle-aged white guys like me did not learn back
in the nineties.
Garnet and Coral’s responses point to the fact that not all faculty have the training or expertise to
incorporate transgender experiences into their teachings, yet both express a deep commitment to
doing so.
Summary of Knowledge Influences
The knowledge influences for supporting transgender student inclusion were complex
and yielded abundant results. For conceptual knowledge, the data revealed that there is not a
single, monolithic way that faculty define and understand the construct of woman. This begs the
question of whether there is a correct way of defining “woman” or if there are some definitions
that are more suitable than others.
Faculty were tested in their factual knowledge and were asked whether they knew their
institution’s admission policy. The reasoning behind asking this question was two-fold: to
determine whether institutional policies are communicated with faculty and to determine whether
faculty were aware of who was eligible, and thus would be in attendance, in their classrooms.
While an overwhelming majority of faculty were aware of their institutional admission policy,
the gaps in knowledge appeared when delving into the reasons for not knowing the policy. The
87

interviews shed light into possible reasons for not knowing. The data points to faculty not staying
up to date on what is happening more broadly at the institution, or perhaps, institutions making
decisions regarding admissions but not apprising faculty.
A second survey item that addressed faculty knowledge asked faculty to rate their
familiarity with terminology of transgender identities. Faculty overwhelmingly rated their
knowledge as very high, which alludes to faculty members undergoing personal or professional
development coupled with greater visibility of transgender students on their campuses. This will
be discussed later in the organizational influences. Faculty rate themselves as having great
familiarity with terminology. Self-efficacy and confidence in using these terms will be discussed
in the motivational influence section.
Finally, to measure procedural knowledge, faculty members described how they
incorporated practices that were inclusive of transgender identities. Faculty overwhelmingly
incorporate the practice of asking for students’ pronouns and chosen names, and many included
transgender voices into their curriculum. However, as discussed in this section, incorporating
such practices merely as a performative measure can be insincere or even harmful.
Results and Findings of Motivational Influences
The assumed motivational influences for faculty to support transgender student success
are attainment value, or the ability to master inclusive practices to lead to a greater sense of
competence, and self-efficacy, an individual’s belief that they are capable of implementing
inclusive practices. This section will discuss the ways that teaching at a women’s college
influences faculty members’ pedagogy and faculty beliefs around implementing inclusive
practices. Table 13 provides an overview of the assumed motivational influence, whether the
influence was validated as a gap, and whether it was a newly identified influence.
88

Table 13
Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences
Assumed Influence Validated as a Gap? Newly identified?
Motivational Influence 1. Faculty members’
self-schema is shaped by the ability to be
inclusive of transgender students.
No No
Motivational Influence 2. Faculty are
efficacious in their ability to incorporate content
and practices that are inclusive of transgender
students.
Yes No

Faculty Self-Schema and Supporting Transgender Students
A central question for faculty was whether they would support transgender students even
if they believed that being transgender was immoral. Wigfield and Eccles (1992, 2000) assert
that an individual’s expectancy for success and their value for a given task predicts choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Thus, if faculty believe in the importance of teaching transgender
students as part of their identity as an educator, faculty will be motivated to engage in these
efforts even when it is difficult. The goal for this influence was for 90% of survey respondents to
agree that they would support transgender students even if they believed that being transgender
was immoral. The survey results revealed that 99.2% faculty strongly agreed or agreed that they
should support transgender students, even if it conflicted with their personal values, thereby
demonstrating that a gap for this influence did not exist. The results are promising, as faculty
overwhelmingly believe that their identity is tied to supporting transgender students regardless of
personal values. The results for this survey item are synthesized in Table 14.

89

Table 14
Faculty Self-Schema and Supporting Transgender Students
Faculty should support transgender students even if they believe that being transgender is
immoral.
Count Percent
Strongly disagree (1) 3 0.6%
Disagree (2) 1 0.2%
Agree (3) 51 10.5%
Strongly agree (4) 430 88.7%

Teaching at a Women’s College
To better understand how individuals develop their identity, or self-schema, as a faculty
member, interview participants were asked to reflect on whether teaching at a women’s college,
specifically, influenced their pedagogy if at all. Of the ten interview participants, nine faculty
members stated that teaching at a women’s college influenced their pedagogy, and one faculty
member said that it did not. However, all ten reflected on their identity and pedagogy while
serving as faculty at a women’s college. Three themes emerged: the prominence of gender in the
classroom, facilitating and building consensus, and relationships outside of the classroom. This
section ends with a discussion on the impact of transgender and gender diverse students on
faculty members’ pedagogy and self-schema.
The Prominence of Gender in the Classroom
In developing their identity as faculty, interview participants agreed that they were
cognizant of gender in their classrooms and their responsibility to manage the presence of a
diversity of genders. Interestingly, faculty did not frame gender as the absence of men or
masculinity but the awareness of womanhood and a broad spectrum of minoritized gender
identities. Sienna explains, “I’m able to bring gender into a lot of the conversations in a way
90

that’s very intentional.” The classroom environment was considered a space where students
could reject normative ideals of gender that students may have been conditioned to believe prior
to attending a women’s college. Jade offered the following explanation:
A women’s college isn’t doing women a favor if it allows women to remain in this sort
of, having these attitudes of, you know, not consciously and explicitly fostering voice and
feeling. So that’s the work that I, when I teach, um, when I teach women in the
undergraduate programs, is we consciously and explicitly talk about voice, and using,
you know, other emotions that women aren’t considered to have access to, like rage.
This intentionality or centering, as Sienna and Jade described, played a significant role in
shaping their identity as faculty. Turning away from centering gender in the classroom context,
thus, was seen a disservice to students.
As discussed in the previous section, the evolving understanding of gender required
faculty to interrogate their own biases and constructs of gender. Azure and Sage described their
students as being ahead of the faculty in their understanding of transgender issues. Students at
Azure’s institution were the impetus to transgender student inclusion. Azure stated, “It’s just that
from our students’ eyes, this is a big issue and, um, something that we’re not doing well that we
need to work on.” Sage affirmed Azure’s observations, noting “the students are much further
ahead than the faculty are. Students are further ahead than the administration.” While Sage notes
that this is not true of all students, those with more conservative backgrounds “get acculturated
really quick.” When asked how this impacts faculty, Sage suggested that the students “expect
their faculty to be right where they are. And if they’re not right where they are, then they need
the faculty to show that they will listen, that they are willing to respond to vastly changing
political situations.” Navy summarized their identity as a faculty member and shared, “I often
91

attribute my changes in pedagogy to being a better and more inclusive teacher on a whole, and
not just on the sort of binary gender axis.”
Facilitating and Building Consensus in the Classroom
Faculty who had experience working in co-educational settings noted an absence of
confrontation and the presence of consensus building in their classrooms. Five faculty members
discussed their identity as a facilitator in the classroom. Sage’s students were described as
“ambitious students who want to take over the world, and so there’s a tenacity about them.”
Navy echoed similar sentiments:
The students here feel, like, emboldened to participate and they’re told consistently that
they’re going to change the world and that their work really matters, and their ideas are
important. Um, that is an exciting, I mean, it’s an exciting environment to teach in
because I can do a lot more of, of back and forth kind of things.
For Sage, their classroom environment was shaped by students who want to engage with their
faculty and their peers, which they found was different in a co-educational setting. Sage
recounted an experience with a guest lecturer from a co-educational institution:
So, they get these guest lecturers who are doing the lecture thing because that’s how you
control the boys, you know?... And I have to, like, try to interrupt them and get them to
engage the students more because they’re not used to having to do it.
Coral and Garnet reflected on their disciplines, which they describe on being male
dominated. Coral shared, “It has made me able to ask bigger and more evocative questions than I
would’ve felt comfortable asking in a co-educational classroom.” Coral attributed this shift to
having female and gender diverse students who were willing to be more vulnerable with their
lived experiences. Coral explained, “they’ll go deep in a way that I don’t know that I ever got to
92

see with my male students or my male-identified students.” Garnet described his experience with
men at co-educational institutions as being, “in your face” and “confrontational.” Conversely,
Garnet experienced a different classroom environment that was predominantly female:
I see, I mean, sometimes disturbingly, I see a tendency to back down when confronted,
uh, when challenged, but I also, you know, am very gratified that very often, what I see is
a willingness to work towards consensus, to actually engage in discussion and work
towards goals as opposed to staking out a position and trying to defend it.
For Garnet, this resulted in the need to provide a gendered experience that was lacking in
their classroom. They explain, “I mean, one of things that it actually really has done in the last
six of seven years is that I’ve found myself playing more of the man in the classroom than I ever
did in my co-ed classes.” Garnet reasoned that a women’s college is not reflective of society at
large: “I think it’s valuable to also have to deal with the way that privileged white men like me
are going to, you know, engage with you once you leave the comforting confines of Southern
Women’s College 2.” As a faculty member, Garnet also considered their own gender identity and
remarked, “I’m struck by the number of times where I’ve sat there, and I’ve looked at myself out
of body teaching and thinking, ‘Wow. You’re arguing like a man. Are you doing this
deliberately?’” The notion that faculty also wrestle with their gender identity in this environment
was an emerging theme from the interviews.
Faculty Self-Efficacy in Addressing Transgender Identities in the Classroom
Faculty were asked to rate their confidence in using terminology that described
transgender identities. The goal for this influence was for 90% of survey respondents to state that
they felt efficacious in using terminology related to transgender identities. According to the
survey, 83.1% of faculty strongly agreed or agreed that they were confident in doing so,
93

indicating that there is a gap in motivation for this influence. Interview data, which will be
presented later in this section corroborates this finding. The results are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15
Self-Efficacy with Using Terminology for Transgender Identities
I am comfortable using terminology that describes transgender identities. For example:
transgender, cisgender, nonbinary, FTM, and MTF
Count Percent
Strongly disagree (1) 15 3.1%
Disagree (2) 67 13.8%
Agree (3) 196 40.2%
Strongly agree (4) 209 42.9%

94

Prior to this question, faculty were asked to reflect on their familiarity with terminology
that addresses transgender identities. As alluded in Table 11 of the knowledge influences,
familiarity with terms does not necessarily relate to one’s confidence or efficacy in using the
terms. Faculty rated themselves higher in their knowledge of terminology compared to their
ability to use the terms. Comparing the two results, 92.2% of faculty strongly agreed or agreed to
their knowledge of terminology describing transgender identities compared to 83.1% of faculty
who strongly agreed or agreed when asked about their comfort in using the terms. Thus, faculty
felt less efficacious in their ability to use the terms rather than simply having knowledge of the
terms. The survey results did not reveal why the discrepancy existed, but data from the
interviews may give some additional insight.
Gray, who was introduced earlier as a faculty member who had to shift his centering of
normative understandings of women to one that was more gender inclusive, grappled with how
his institution was moving away from normative feminine ideals:
I feel something has been lost in the focus on transgender, because it has lost the focus on
women, young women’s space, a special class of issues that can’t be addressed nearly as
clearly in a coeducational institution, uh, I mean, in a not traditionally women’s college
institution. And I feel that, uh, these issues are in danger of being marginalized. Um, but,
uh, the faculty members who have said that have gotten enormous, um, resistance and
blame from, um, from the transgender movement.
All the while, Gray feels that he will still be able to support transgender students, even though it
may not align with his own beliefs. When asked how he envisions a classroom environment that
is inclusive of transgender and gender diverse students, he responded, “I will use whatever
pronoun you prefer, and um, I respect the experience of transgender students when it’s relevant
95

to the teaching mission.” Other interview participants described their challenges with
implementing inclusive practices that centered the transgender community.
Bandura’s (1977) theory on self-efficacy asserts that individuals with high efficacy will
choose to complete a task, persist even when the task is difficult, and exert mental effort into the
chosen task. Emerald, a faculty member at Southern Women’s College 1, explained how ze
incorporated an extra credit activity in one of their courses that allowed students to explore
various identities, including being transgender or queer. When asked whether ze felt confident in
incorporating this practice or other inclusive practices into zer curriculum, Emerald simply
responded, “I don’t.” Emerald’s response in particular highlights how self-efficacy predicts
whether an individual will persist even if the task is difficult. For Emerald, the barrier to feeling
confident in assigning activities that spoke to different lived experiences was rooted in where the
institution was situated. Emerald, undeterred, proclaimed:
The thing is, you know, what, the same way I was blessed with this [job], I’ll be blessed
with another one… I currently teach in the South where the Bible is still law, and every
time you give the assignment, your job hangs in the balance. But you know that even
when you do it, at what point do we become bold educators?
Emerald’s identity as a bold educator informed zer ability to persist and continue teaching zer
students about transgender and queer identities even when there was great risk to do so. Thus,
confidence in using certain terminology or implementing practices that are inclusive of
transgender students may not necessarily predict self-efficacy.
Summary of Motivational Influences
Two motivational influences impact faculty members’ ability to create an inclusive
classroom environment for students: attainment value and self-efficacy. Attainment value and
96

motivation are enhanced when faculty can successfully complete a task and if that task is
connected to their identity (Pintrich, 2003). Thus, if faculty are able to successfully navigate an
inclusive classroom environment that considers transgender students, their self-schema as faculty
members is enhanced. Faculty demonstrated an ability to bring in issues of gender in a way that
was intentional and constructive. Additionally, they saw themselves as facilitators and creating a
classroom environment that prioritized meaningful dialogue. As discussed in the literature
review, faculty who supported students outside of the classroom, especially when faculty
expressed support for LGBTQ issues, students were more likely to persist and navigate a hostile
campus environment (Graybill & Proctor, 2015). For the interview participants, supporting
students outside of the classroom and feeling connected on a personal level increased their self-
schema as faculty.
Finally, survey data and findings from the interview suggest that faculty have high self-
efficacy in creating inclusive classroom environments. While this may be difficult to varying
degrees for individual faculty members, the data suggests that there is a willingness and desire to
persist even if the task is difficult. Discussion in the organizational influences may address
barriers that faculty face in creating environments that are inclusive of transgender students.
Results and Findings of Organizational Influences
This section discusses the assumed organizational influence to transgender student
inclusion. The organizational influences that were studied were: what is visible (cultural models)
and what is invisible (cultural settings). This section concludes with a discussion on two
emerging themes: the salience of geography and the intersections of race and gender. Table 16
provides a summary of the assumed organizational influences that will be discussed in this
section.
97

Table 16
Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences
Assumed Influence Validated as a Gap? Newly identified?
Organizational Influence 1. Women’s colleges
provide access to information about support
services for transgender students.
Yes No
Organizational Influence 2. Women’s colleges
provide faculty with professional development
opportunities to learn more about transgender
student inclusion.
Yes Yes
Organizational Influence 3. The values of
external stakeholders (alumnae, donors,
surrounding community, parents and family)
and current administrators/staff/faculty/ students
are aligned.
Yes No
Organizational Influence 4. Women’s colleges
across the country are aligned in their support of
transgender students.
Emerging finding Yes
Organizational Influence 5. Women’s colleges
consider the intersectional needs of transgender
students.
Emerging finding Yes

What is Visible
An open-ended survey item asked faculty to describe the ways that their institution
demonstrates a commitment to transgender student inclusion. The results highlight myriad ways
that institutions support transgender students. This section will focus on support services for
transgender students and professional development opportunities. The researcher coded 369
responses and determined 8 categories. The results are summarized in Table 17 with the
frequencies that each category was mentioned.

98

Table 17
Coded Data of Visible Ways of Demonstrating Support for Transgender Students
In what ways does your institution demonstrate a commitment to supporting transgender
students, if at all?
Frequency Percentage
Student Life (clubs/organizations, social and
educational events)
121 24.3%
Professional development opportunities 93 18.7%
Admission policy that considers transgender students 92 18.4%
Institutional policies (harassment and bullying
policies that includes gender identity)
37 7.4%
Physical spaces (gender inclusive restrooms and
locker rooms)
33 6.6%
Mental health support (trans inclusive counseling
staff)
27 5.4%
Institutional standing committee specific to LGBTQ
concerns
24 4.8%
Educational recordkeeping (ability to change alias for
emails and other educational records)
22 4.4%
Unaware or institution does not demonstrate
commitment
50 10.0%

Support Services for Transgender Students
One survey item asked faculty to respond to the availability of institutional support
services for transgender students. The goal for this influence was for 90% of facility to report
that they were aware of support services for transgender students at their institution. More than
half of the faculty, 64% of the 500 respondents, stated that support services were available at
their institution. Almost a third of the respondents stated that they were unsure whether support
services were available, and 6% stated that no support services were available. The results were
mirrored in the interviews where seven of the 10 faculty listed various support services for
LGBTQ students at their institution. Therefore, this influence was identified as an organizational
gap.
99

Examples of various support services were discussed in the open-ended response. As
reflected in Table 14, these support services include clubs and organizations focused on LGBTQ
identities, mental health support, and policies that allow students to self-select their chosen
names and pronouns to be reflected in emails, learning management systems (LMS), diplomas,
and other educational records. Best practices have been well-documented, as evidenced in the
literature review. However, the contingency of faculty who are unaware of support services or
responded that the institution provides no support services gives some pause.
Institutions with conservative values may need to grapple with issues of inclusion more
than institutions with progressive values. Sienna categorizes her institution and the demographics
of the community as “a tough community.” When pressed to consider why the institution has not
been as forthcoming in addressing transgender student inclusion, she shared, “I don’t know that
we’re talking about it. Because if we talk about it, then we’re going to have to talk about the
other stuff, like admitting trans students.” Sienna’s response attests to the fact that women’s
colleges as a whole are not progressing in the same direction or at the same time.
Professional Development Opportunities for Faculty
Survey participants were asked whether professional development opportunities that
addressed transgender inclusion were available at their institution. Nearly half of the 500
respondents said that there are a few opportunities at their institutions. Nearly a quarter, 115
respondents or 23%, stated that they are unsure of whether such opportunities are available.
About 15% said that no opportunities were available, and 12% said that there are many
opportunities available. Table 18 summarizes the results.

100

Table 18
Availability of Professional Development Opportunities for Faculty
Does your institution provide faculty with professional development opportunities to learn
more about supporting transgender students in the classroom?
Count Percent
There are many opportunities offered 61 12.2%
There are a few opportunities offered 247 49.4%
The institution provides no opportunities 77 15.4%
Unsure 115 23.0%

Notably missing from the data is whether faculty attend these trainings or if institutions
require faculty to attend. The open-ended responses gave some insight. Of the coded responses,
two respondents noted that there was mandatory training for diversity and inclusion topics that
also touched on transgender identities, five respondents stated that ally trainings and other
professional development and continuing education opportunities were optional. The remaining
86 respondents did not state whether their trainings were mandatory or optional. Interview
participants gave some insight on trainings for faculty.
Without requisite training about basic transgender issues and terminology can have a
chilling effect on the classroom environment. Sage expressed frustration that the systems in place
to support transgender student success were ineffective when they were not enforced by requisite
training for faculty that underscore why these practices are important for transgender student
inclusion. Sage reflected how they felt when an online training about transgender issues was not
made mandatory by their institution:
So, they allow students to have pronouns in their Zoom, right? They allow students to
have an alias for their email. They allow students to go use whatever locker room they
want. That’s the end of it. And the students don’t expect the college to be any better.
101

They don’t expect to be getting what they deserve. They’re so used to how bad it is. And
it’s so sad, right? They’re so used to being misgendered. They’re so used to the
microaggressions. They have acclimated themselves and they’re basically like, we’ll do
some things for each other, but, you know, it’s heartbreaking.
While institutions may adopt policies and procedures that consider transgender students, these
practices do not eliminate the harm that is caused when the root cause of the issue, transphobia
and cisnormativity, are not addressed.
Optional trainings may be attended by faculty who wish to learn more, but institutions
should consider targeting faculty who are creating a harmful environment for transgender
students. Jade noticed that her institution did not make enough of an effort to educate faculty
who were not in support of transgender students. After presenting on transgender student issues
at a faculty meeting, she observed,
There were some things that were brought up where it was pretty clear that, you know, it
was pretty clear that some people were uncomfortable with trans students being in their
classroom or adjusting to that. And I don’t think we necessarily targeted those people, or
you know, did more about that.
Jade’s comment highlights the need to engage faculty who are not aligned with the institution’s
direction of admitting transgender students and speaks to an earlier point that even within an
institution that has support systems for transgender students in place, individual faculty members
may be unsupportive of such efforts based on their personal beliefs.
What is Invisible
An open-ended survey item asked faculty to describe the climate of their institution for
transgender students. The researcher coded 379 responses and categorized them into one of the
102

following: positive, neutral, and negative. Responses such as “open,” “welcoming,”
“supportive,” and responses that described inclusive support systems were coded as “Positive.”
Responses such as “chilly,” “hostile,” and responses that described a lack of support and access
were coded as “Negative.” Responses that described support in some areas and not others and
responses that alluded to the need for more support in certain aspects of campus life were coded
as “Mixed.” Respondents who shared that they did not have enough information to make a
decision were coded as “Unsure.” Two themes emerged from this data: competing attitudes
among campus stakeholders and the tension between conserving history and forging ahead.
Table 19 summarizes the results.

Table 19
Coded Survey Data of Faculty Perceptions of Campus Climate for Transgender Students
How would you describe your institution’s campus climate for transgender students?
Count Percent
Positive 165 43.5%
Negative 30 7.9%
Mixed 163 43.0%
Unsure 21 5.6%

Discordance Among Campus Stakeholders
The influence that addressed the cultural model of women’s colleges was whether the
values of external and internal stakeholders were aligned. The goal for this influence was for
100% of survey and interview participants to agree that values were aligned. Survey respondents
noted that pockets of the institution are supportive of transgender students while others are not.
In some cases, survey respondents noted that faculty were more accepting of transgender
students while students were not. One faculty member explained, “The students tend to be more
103

conservative than faculty, and I am certain that there is a faction that would be unwelcoming.
However, this faction is small… This minority likely makes life difficulty [sic] for transgender
students.” Another faculty member shared,
There are students who believe that trans-women are not women, and there are students
who argue that trans-men should leave the college (of their own volition) after
transitioning. I believe both of these belief sets are in the minority, but nevertheless cause
a lot of friction among students with different views.
Conversely, some faculty observed that students were more inclusive of transgender students
compared to faculty. Survey respondents shared, “I think the student culture is supportive of
transgender students more so than the faculty culture.” The campus climate is “much better from
students than faculty. I think faculty are still making it very hard for trans/nb students.” One
faculty member posed an observation that may hint at barriers to inclusion by sharing the
challenges of staying up to date on evolving language and practices. They shared,
I think it's basically supportive institutionally and the student body is great, but many
individual faculty members aren't on board or don't care; they don't ask for or don't
remember pronouns and in other ways make trans students feel less welcome. I have to
admit, it's a learning curve for all of us because norms change quickly (i.e. we're no
longer supposed to ask for "preferred" pronouns and now students have said not to put
any student on the spot by asking for pronouns in general) -- it's confusing, and the stakes
for mistakes feel high.
This observation speaks to the harm that may be caused whether mistakes or intentional or
unintentional but also alludes to the importance of staying current with best practices. Overall,
the responses indicate that even if most individuals are supportive of transgender students, the
104

minority who do not support transgender inclusion have a multiplying effect of harm for the
entire campus community.
Conserving History While Forging Ahead
The open-ended and responses from the survey and data from the interviews revealed that
there is a tension between preserving history and the desire to become more inclusive of
transgender and gender diverse students. Over half of the faculty who responded to the survey
stated that they assumed that their students were cisgender unless informed otherwise. Table 20
summarizes the results.

Table 20
Faculty Assumptions of Gender Identity
When I first meet a student, I assume that they are cisgender (their sex assigned at birth aligns
with their gender identity.
Count Percent
Strongly disagree 46 9.4%
Disagree 184 37.7%
Agree 233 47.7%
Strongly agree 25 5.1%

105

Assumed and accepted cisnormativity will continue to create an environment where
cisgender and non-binary individuals, who now are accepted into women’s colleges, are othered
and marginalized. Centering the historical and normative definitions of gender creates an
uncertain campus climate for transgender students. One survey respondent described their
institution as “apparently welcoming but still operating under the assumption that all students
identify as women and use she/her pronouns.” Another faculty member remarked, “the legacy of
using female pronouns in many college publications may alienate these students.”
Such observations were confirmed by responses from the interview participants. Sage
explained that the concept of “conserving” not only addressed conservative ideals pose as
barriers to transgender inclusion but conserving traditions that define women’s colleges. Sage
explains, “when you’re trying to conserve a practice, when you’re trying to conserve, um, and
institution, the values that you care about and you see that it’s there’s something else coming in.”
Some institutions are intentionally holding on to their traditions while others find ways to expand
and evolve to include the transgender students at their institutions. During the interviews, one
faculty member revealed that their institution continues to hold on to cisnormative traditions
such as a Big Sis/Little Sis program while another faculty member noted a change to using
“sibling” and “siblinghood” rather than “sister” or “sisterhood.” However, altering traditions
may feel threatening to some campus stakeholders.
Faculty report that alumni are also an influential stakeholder group that may be a barrier
to transgender student inclusion. As older alumni may have experienced college life without
considering the presence of transgender students, nor have participated dialogue that may have
occurred during the gradual shift towards inclusion, uprooting old traditions may feel
invalidating to their experience at a women’s college. One faculty member remarked, “We have
106

an unspoken policy for admitting transgender students. It’s not in writing because of fear of
pushback from alums.” This sentiment is also felt by some faculty. While their institution is
moving towards more inclusion, one faculty member observed, “there are some on the faculty
that are less comfortable with transgender students, and many alumnae that are skeptical of the
embrace of transgender students.”
Current faculty members may need to confront their own biases and apprehension of an
evolving women’s college environment. One faculty member grappled with the historical context
of women’s colleges and the fear of falling away from the values of a women’s education:
It is a balancing act in some ways, because women are still marginalized in some ways in
access to education and professional development, and a women's college's mission is to
empower and develop women leaders and scholars. Transgender individuals are also
marginalized and women's colleges can serve to empower and develop all marginalized
genders. However, at the same time, neutralizing woman-centered language feels to many
like stepping back from the core mission for one marginalized group in favor of another.
As women’s colleges conserve traditions and expand their acceptance of who counts as a
member of their community, they may need to reconsider their new identity moving forward.
Emerging Themes
Two themes emerged during this study that were tangential to the organizational
influences. First, the researcher hypothesized that the location of the institution may impact
whether transgender students could be successful in that environment. This hypothesis was
confirmed by triangulating survey data and interview data. The second theme that emerged
points to a need to consider the intersectional identities of transgender students, which is
particularly salient given the current political climate and racial reckoning in the United States.
107

These two themes will be discussed in the following sections and revisited in Chapter Five as
recommendations.
The Salience of Geography
Through the coding process, the researcher noted responses that alluded to the geographic
location of the institution as having an impact on transgender student inclusion. For example, as
one faculty member was describing the campus climate for transgender students as part of the
open-response in the survey, they noted, “We have a handful of transgender students on campus,
but they often struggle to successfully survive in a sometimes hostile enviremonet [sic] not just
on our campus but in a very red state.” Another survey participant echoed, “Officially, [we are]
very supportive. Unofficially, work remains. This is a conservative region of the US and many
students (and some faculty and staff) reflect this conservatism.” In the interviews, Jade, who
teaches in the Western region of the United States, remarked,
I think it puts pressure on the institution to, like, if the institution is in [a liberal city], and
they’re wanting to be like, you know, regressive or something, then even other
community members… would be like, ‘I dunno. That’s a little old fashioned there, don’t
you think?’ You know, whereas in the Bible Belt, that might not be the case where a
university would feel pressure the other way, like to maintain a traditional view.
Thus, there appeared to be a potential relationship between the region where the institution is
located and whether faculty believe that transgender students will be successful.
Using survey data to triangulate this assertion, a chi-square test of independence was
performed to examine the relation between geographic location and faculty perceptions of access
to education for transgender students. The relation between these variables was subtle but
statistically significant, X²(9, N = 481) = 33.1, p < .05.
108

Table 21
Chi-Squared Test of Relationship Between Region and Perception of Access to Education
Access to education is the same for transgender students as for cisgender
students at a women’s college.
Region Strongly
disagree
Strongly agree Disagree Agree
Northeast 23.8% 38.2% 43.2% 58.1%
Midwest 4.8% 22.1% 25.8% 12.8%
South 42.9% 29.4% 22.1% 19.0%
West 28.6% 10.3% 8.9% 10.1%

Chi-square 33.1
P-value 0.000128
Sample size 481

The data revealed that faculty who teach at women’s colleges in the Northeast agree that
access to education is the same for transgender students as for cisgender students. Conversely,
faculty who teach at women’s colleges in the South strongly disagree that access to education is
the same for both transgender and cisgender students. The data presents a unique opportunity for
future research.
The Intersection of Race and Gender
Faculty were cognizant of the broader landscape of higher education and the racial
reckoning that is taking place at their institutions. Faculty observed that women’s colleges are
navigating an environment where they are educating increasingly diverse students with
intersectional identities. As evidenced in the literature, Sax et al. (2015) reported that women’s
colleges are more racially diverse compared to co-ed four-year institutions. The need to address
the changing student population is salient. Faculty observed that their institutions were
prioritizing the need to address systemic issues of racism on their campuses, which hinders the
need to address gender equity. One faculty member noted a lack of focus on transgender student
109

issues in order to address racism on campus. They observed, “the campus is currently focused on
issues of racial injustice and problems with racism on campus, and I think the issue of
transgender students isn’t currently as much on the radar.” Another faculty member was troubled
by how their institution was handling issues of race and gender. They explained that their
institution is “institutionally exclusionary due to ignorance, institutional
racism/transgenderphobia, or blind adherence to societal ‘norms.’” For transgender students with
multiple minoritized identities, institutions that are grappling with racism and other forms of
discrimination may be especially difficult. As one faculty member observed, “there’s a fair
amount of bigotry on campus (e.g. Islamophobia, racism), so I expect the climate isn’t great for
transgender students.” However, for women’s colleges that are attempting to reconcile
institutional racism, some faculty see opportunities for inclusion for all minoritized students.
Faculty recognized the urgency in addressing issues of systemic and institutional racism
as demographics, politics, and society have changed. Garnet characterized their institution as
having “origins as an upper-class, white woman’s college.” They reflected that “the college
today as a practical matter is very different than what our history has been, but we haven’t
always done a good job of engaging that history… and it is hard to move beyond your history.”
Garnet reflected on their identity as an educator:
I am what historically this country has been built around, and you know, part of being a
good teacher is recognizing that one, your life experience is not the life experience of
everybody and you ought to go out and learn a little bit more about other people’s
experiences. And then, two… the one constant is that everything always changes, and it’s
going to continue to evolve, negatively, positively, sideways… and your job as an
educator is to figure out how to meet the needs of that new generation. And transgender
110

students are just, you know, I think it’s another, it’s another example of how we, as
educators have to think about how we can meet the needs of these students.
For Azure, reconciling institutional racism and considering inclusion for all students
happened abruptly. She reflected, “with the murder of George Floyd, I think there was already
some internal things that had happened at our university and faculty meetings, um, that I think
highlighted that we still have a lot of growth to do as faculty.” Azure considered the impact of
addressing systemic racism and the effect that it may have on all minoritized identities. She
concluded, “Along with that comes, um, greater awareness of, like, who’s voices aren’t being
heard… if [faculty] don’t continue to push ourselves to evolve, wherever we might be, that it’s
really a disservice to our students.” Indeed, women’s colleges have evolved both in their
demographics and their purpose. As Garnet and Azure explained, faculty view this as a critical
juncture for women’s colleges.
Jade, who advocated for a more inclusive admission policy while serving on her
institution’s admission policy task force, recognized the fear that women’s colleges may have if
they consider all transgender and non-binary individuals into the institution, regardless of gender
identity. She concluded the interview with these remarks:
The fear is the thing that stops you from doing the thing that will actually make you more
viable as an institution. Just like, I think this fear around, you know, whiteness
disappearing, is the thing that’s killing our country. It’s the thing that’s like, destroying
our country. Um, and I think that fear around, ‘well, if we’re more inclusive, we’re going
to disappear as a women’s institution.’ Yeah. It could happen. But then again, maybe you
become an institution of inclusivity that bolsters all people.
111

As the number of women’s colleges continues to decline, institutions may need to consider their
next steps.
Summary of Organizational Influences
Gallimore and Goldberg (2011) assert that visible and invisible artifacts shape the
organizational culture. For women’s colleges, there are indications of visible support for
transgender students through admission policies, professional development, the ability to self-
select pronouns and chosen names in their LMS, clubs and organizations, and gender inclusive
restrooms and locker rooms. However, faculty responses indicate the strong influence of the
invisible structures that impede inclusion for transgender students. While inclusive practices
point to some consideration of how to include transgender students at women’s colleges, the data
shows that these efforts are not enough and that there is still more room for improvement.
Women’s colleges continue to retain an identity that defines woman as a narrow construct and
centers white, cisnormative ideals of womanhood and femininity, creating an environment where
transgender students may experience the campus environment as an anomaly, as “other.” To
what degree, then, can women’s colleges assert themselves as empowering and paving the way
towards gender and racial equity when there are documented instances of hostility and
invisibilization of transgender students? To what degree does the effect of invisibilization and
harm impact transgender students who hold intersectional identities of race, socioeconomic
status, ability, or immigration status? While this study examined the many knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences that examine transgender inclusion, these additional
questions remain unanswered and may be considered for future research.
112

Synthesis of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
After analyzing the data for the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for
transgender student inclusion and the role of faculty, three areas were identified as a major need,
three areas were identified as a minor need, two influences were identified as unknown, and one
influence was identified as an asset. Faculty provided a comprehensive understanding of
transgender students in their classrooms as well as an extensive overview of women’s colleges at
large. The study revealed that the greatest barriers to inclusion were institutions’ inability move
away from cisnormative definitions of women and reconsidering traditions that are more
inclusion of transgender and nonbinary students. The results for the assumed KMO influences
are summarized in Table 22.
113

Table 22
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Assumed Influence Validated as a Gap? Newly identified?
Knowledge Influence 1. Faculty can deconstruct
their own biases of what it means to be a woman.
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 2. Faculty are familiar with
terminology related to transgender identities.
No No
Knowledge Influence 3. Faculty are familiar with
their institution’s transgender student admission
policy.
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 4. Faculty can incorporate
classroom management practices that are inclusive of
transgender students.
Yes No
Knowledge Influence 5. Faculty can incorporate
transgender inclusive content into their curriculum.
Yes Yes
Motivational Influence 1. Faculty members’ self-
schema is shaped by the ability to be inclusive of
transgender students.
No No
Motivational Influence 2. Faculty are efficacious in
their ability to incorporate content and practices that
are inclusive of transgender students.
Yes No
Organizational Influence 1. Women’s colleges
provide access to information about support services
for transgender students.
Yes No
Organizational Influence 2. Women’s colleges
provide faculty with professional development
opportunities to learn more about transgender student
inclusion.
Yes Yes
Organizational Influence 3. The values of external
stakeholders (alumnae, donors, surrounding
community, parents and family), current
administrators/staff/faculty/ students are aligned.
Yes No
Organizational Influence 4. Women’s colleges across
the country are aligned in their support of
transgender students.
No Yes
Organizational Influence 5. Women’s colleges
consider the intersectional needs of transgender
students.
No Yes

114

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter Four synthesized the results and findings of this study into three influences:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational. Some of the results were validated while others were
invalidated, and the study also revealed additional influences to consider. Compartmentalizing
the findings into knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences allowed the researcher
to address the existing gaps and provide recommendations that will allow faculty at women’s
colleges to support transgender student success.
As outlined in Chapter One, the global goal for this study is for women’s colleges to
support the retention and persistence of transgender students by integrating policies and practices
that are inclusive of transgender individuals over the next five years. By 2024, the goal is for all
faculty at women’s colleges to successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom management
practices such as using a student’s chosen name and pronouns and integrate LGBTQ content into
the curriculum. This chapter will provide evidence-based recommendations based on current
literature as well as the findings from the study. Following the recommendations, the researcher
will present an integrated implementation and evaluation plan based on Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model. Finally, the chapter will conclude with limitations and
delimitations for the study and considerations for future research.
Recommendations for Practice
This section addresses the specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
that were addressed in Chapter Four. Each set of recommendations will identify the assumed
influences, answer whether the influence was validated as a gap according to the findings,
support and cite with existing literature, and provide a recommendation to mitigate gaps. The
knowledge recommendations serve to address faculty members’ lack of consistency in
115

implementing inclusive practices in the classroom and incorporating transgender-inclusive
content into the curriculum. The motivational recommendations address lack of self-efficacy
among faculty in implementing such practices. As evidenced in the recommendations that
follow, the responsibility of carrying out the recommendations falls on the organization. While
there are specific organizational recommendations that attend to the lack of accountability in
providing trainings around transgender student inclusion and disparate attitudes and support for
transgender students among internal and external stakeholders, the organization plays a key role
in ensuring that the knowledge and motivation recommendations are executed.
Knowledge Recommendations
The findings from this study affirm that faculty members’ understanding of gender and
transgender students is shaped by personal experiences, biases, and environmental factors. The
findings revealed that faculty possessed the factual knowledge that is needed to understand
transgender identities. However, there was a need to mitigate the gaps for procedural and
metacognitive knowledge. Krathwohl and Anderson (2010) assert that factual knowledge
provides the foundation for higher order learning such as the conceptual and procedural
knowledge dimensions. With this in mind, the recommendations serve to address the
interdependence of basic facts about gender and then focus on the skills, techniques, and
methods that faculty need in order to carry out a given task (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2010).
Table 23 synthesizes the recommendations for the knowledge influences.
116

Table 23
Recommendations for Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Principle and Citation Recommendation
Faculty are familiar
with terminology
related to
transgender identities
(Factual).
N Learning and motivation is
enhanced when working
memory capacity is not
overloaded (Mayer, 2011).
Faculty should utilize job
aids that provide definitions
for terminology and outlines
policies pertinent to
transgender students.
Faculty are familiar
with their
institution’s
transgender student
admission policy
(Factual).
Y
Faculty can
incorporate
classroom
management
practices that are
inclusive of
transgender students
(Procedural).
Y Faculty who value on
emotional and psychological
safety in the classroom are
more likely to model positive
classroom behaviors (Furrow,
2012).
Motivation is enhanced when
an individual values the task
(Ambrose & Bridges, 2010).
Faculty should co-create
classroom norms with
students.
Faculty can
incorporate
transgender inclusive
content into their
curriculum
(Procedural).
Y Transgender-inclusive content
in the curriculum is beneficial
to transgender and cisgender
students alike (Goldberg et al.,
2018)
Faculty should audit all
majors and ensure that
curriculum includes content
about transgender identities.
Faculty can
deconstruct their
own biases of what it
means to be a
woman
(Metacognitive).
Y Prior knowledge either helps
or hinders learning (Ambrose
& Bridges, 2014; Mayer,
2011).

Faculty should examine the
role of gender and develop
tools to enhance the
effectiveness of their
pedagogy through faculty
learning communities.

Utilize Job Aids on Terminology and Policies

Faculty should utilize job aids that define terminology and outline institutional policies
that relate to transgender students. Krathwohl and Anderson (2010) assert that terminology
117

provides the foundation to build upon more complex knowledge dimensions. Findings from the
study revealed that 92.2% of faculty who participated in the survey agreed (32.9%) or strongly
agreed (59.3%) that they were familiar with terminology that describes transgender identities.
While this points to an asset for faculty, accepted language and terminology is subject to change.
Beemyn (2019) explained that terminology for transgender identities is rapidly changing
and is contested even within the transgender community. For example, Knutson et al. (2019)
examined best practices for mental health professionals and warned of previously accepted
terminology such as preferred pronouns or preferred names have recently come under scrutiny
for perpetuating biased language. Preferred pronouns, Knutson et al. (2019) argue, are not
arbitrarily selected but rather a reflection of their authentic self that is non-negotiable. In this
study, one interview participant, Sage, recalled an example when the term, trans*, fell out of
favor within the transgender community. Sage shared, “I remember when the asterisk went away
from trans, right? And some people missed that that had happened.” Sage affirmed the need to
refresh educational resources stating, “part of the problem is you can't educate people quickly
enough.” Sage’s feedback addresses a lack of updated, relevant knowledge of terminology. The
need for job aids points to the interconnectedness between knowledge and organizational
influences, as institutions have responsibility for providing faculty with the information they
need to reduce cognitive load.
Faculty members’ factual knowledge of their institutional admission policies was a
validated gap in the study. The survey revealed that 24.5% of faculty were unsure of whether a
policy that considered transgender students for admission existed at their institution. Data from
the interviews also echoed these results with three of the 10 interview participants stating that
they had to research their institution’s policy prior to the interview. Nanney and Brunsma’s
118

(2017) research revealed that admission policies at women’s colleges articulate the institution’s
political and moral values and found that women’s colleges adopt a wide range of possible
policies. To reduce extraneous cognitive load, Mayer (2011) proposes that organizations need to
remove barriers that would preclude learners from attaining information. By creating a job aid
and distributing it widely, faculty can find relevant information without having to figure out how
to get this information on their own.
Therefore, the recommendation is for faculty to utilize a job aid that includes institutional
policies that address transgender students, which includes admission policies. This may also be
expanded to include non-discrimination policies, name change policies, and pronoun policies. If
such policies currently do not exist, as evidenced in the survey data where 5.6% of respondents
stated that admission policies that consider transgender students do not exist, institutions need to
consider adopting such policies to clarify their stance on transgender student admission and
inclusion.
Provide Opportunities for Students and Faculty to Co-Create Classroom Norms
The results from the study showed that faculty are not consistent when implementing
inclusive practices such as asking for pronouns and using pronouns and chosen names correctly.
The survey data showed that faculty may be aware of best practices, but interview participants
were aware that colleagues would continue to misgender or deadname students in the classroom.
To address this knowledge gap, faculty should co-create classroom norms that specifically
addresses transgender student inclusion.
Extant research shows that opportunities to co-create the learning experience has positive
impacts on both faculty and students. Quinn et al. (2014) studied highly effective teachers in K-
12 schools and found that teachers who implemented a co-creative perspective into their
119

classrooms saw more order, increased interest among students, and students who were more
open to expressing ideas and increased engagement among all students. When students and
faculty co-create norms, there is shared accountability when norms are broken (Quinn et al.,
2014). While some women’s colleges may include diversity statements in syllabi, classroom
norms are not prescriptive.
Co-creating norms can have an impact on transgender student success and persistence.
The literature points to increased student persistence and resilience for transgender students
when faculty demonstrate a commitment to learning about transgender student issues, allowing
students to share chosen names and pronouns, and correcting themselves when they misgender a
student (Goldberg et al., 2018) Thus, for faculty at women’s colleges, the first class meeting
should set expectations to how students and faculty should address one another, how to repair
harm when mistakes are made, and provide options to revisit shared classroom norms throughout
the term. As this study reveals, some faculty already incorporate this as part of their practice, and
it is recommended that women’s colleges set this as a standard for all faculty.
Audit Majors to Ensure Transgender Inclusive Content
According to the findings from this study, faculty are experiencing challenges with
incorporating transgender inclusive content into their curriculum. The survey data revealed that
only 15% of faculty were actively seeking ways to include transgender identities into majors,
courses, and assignments. While five of the 10 faculty who were interviewed gave examples of
assignments or courses where they were able to include content about transgender identities, two
faculty members stated that this was a significant challenge citing a lack of training in
incorporating transgender inclusive content as part of their training as educators.
120

The current body of literature suggests that colleges and universities are not prioritizing
transgender inclusive content into the curriculum (Goldberg et al., 2018) even though minimal
efforts at including transgender inclusive content increases empathy towards transgender
individuals among cisgender students (Walters & Rehma, 2013). The recommendation for this
gap in knowledge is to audit all majors to ensure transgender inclusive content and assignments
are represented in the curriculum. The Campus Pride Index offers guiding questions to increase
LGBTQ inclusion in the classroom. Faculty may consider whether their institution has an
LGBTQ academic offering, whether the institution makes a concerted effort to including
LGBTQ content into existing course offerings, and whether the institution actively recruits
faculty who engage in LGBTQ-related scholarship (Campus Pride, n.d.). As women’s colleges
conduct this audit, they should also reconsider the ways that heteronormative and cisnormative
content impacts institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Understanding
that some academic majors are more conducive to transgender inclusive content than others
(Brckalorenz et al., 2017; Duran & Nicolazzo, 2016; Pryor, 2015), auditing all majors for trans-
inclusive content is especially important in order to address gaps in why some majors may have
challenges with ensuring inclusive content into the curriculum.
Create Faculty Learning Communities to Deconstruct Gender
Consistent with the current literature on women’s colleges, the findings from this study
found that faculty are grappling with the construct of “woman,” reconciling their own biases that
are rooted in binary gender norms, and subsequently, reimagining a classroom where students
represent a vast spectrum of gender. The open responses from the survey indicated that there is a
wide range of definitions for woman from “woman” as a self-identified term, a biological
construct, a social construct, to alternate definitions such as a person who is “strong.” Interview
121

participants expanded on their thought process and reflected on how they arrived at their
definition of “woman” and how teaching at a women’s college impacts their pedagogy. The
recommendation to promote metacognition is for institutional leaders to provide opportunities
for faculty to reflect on gender. This will be accomplished through the creation of a faculty
learning community (FLC) that is comprised of a diverse group of faculty members who are
committed to examining gender and its implications in the classroom and developing tools that
will enhance and innovate their teaching practice.
FLCs provide opportunities for faculty to develop networks with colleagues outside of
their disciplines to address a specific topic or theme. Considine et al. (2014) studied an FLC that
was tasked with addressing a diverse student body and encouraging faculty to adapt the
pedagogy to their students’ needs. Their study found that faculty who participated in the FLC
reflected on their own biases and became aware of the need for culturally responsive pedagogy
(Considine et al., 2014). As faculty consider new ways of teaching and incorporating inclusive
practices and content into their classrooms, they must reflect on how their prior knowledge may
contribute or hinder their ability to adapt their pedagogy to be more inclusive of transgender
students. Strategies to enhance metacognition include having faculty identify their prior
knowledge of transgender students, debrief with other faculty on what practices and strategies
work or do not work, and collaborating and participating in discussions about their strategies to
incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy (Ambrose & Bridges, 2014; Mayer, 2011). Faculty
who participated in an FLC had the added benefit of breaking out of siloed workspaces and
learning strategies from colleagues from various disciplines and experiences with the institution
(Considine et al., 2014).
122

For this proposed recommendation, faculty should consider using the interview questions
used for this study as guiding prompts. For example, by asking “how did you arrive at your
definition of woman?” faculty will consider how their life experiences have shaped their current
understanding of womanhood. Next, they may consider the question, “how does teaching at a
women’s college specifically impact your pedagogy, if at all?” to reflect on whether gender plays
a role in their classroom environment. To gauge the impact, students should also give input on
whether new practices are having a positive impact on the classroom environment. While this
recommendation may not impact faculty who do not opt into the FLC, there may be great
benefits for faculty who are highly motivated to enhance metacognition. This will be further
discussed in the organizational recommendations.
Motivation Recommendation
Table 24 represents the assumed motivation influences, whether the influence was
validated as a gap according to the findings, supports and cites with existing literature, and
provides a recommendation to mitigate gaps. The findings from this study found that there was
no gap in participants’ beliefs that the adoption of classroom management practices that are
inclusive of transgender students will lead to a greater sense of competence and self-schema as
an educator. However, the data validated that some faculty lack self-efficacy in their ability to
incorporate content and practices that are inclusive of transgender students. Women’s colleges
cannot solely rely on the faculty who are highly motivated to seek additional strategies to support
transgender students. Again, the organization should be held accountable for ensuring that the
motivation recommendation is executed. The recommendation for increasing faculty self-
efficacy is based on Pajares’ (2006) research that emphasized the importance of receiving
modeling behaviors, appropriate scaffolding of tasks, and frequent, targeted feedback.
123

Table 24
Recommendations for Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Principle and Citation Recommendation
Faculty members’ self-
schema is shaped by the
ability to be inclusive of
transgender students.
N
Faculty are efficacious in
their ability to
incorporate content and
practices that are
inclusive of transgender
students.
Y Modeling, scaffolding
tasks, and frequent,
targeted feedback increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).
Faculty should receive
mentorship from
colleagues who are
knowledgeable in
implementing inclusive
classroom experiences for
transgender students.

Mentorship to Increase Self-Efficacy

While faculty possess the factual knowledge about terminology that describes
transgender individuals, the survey results show that fewer faculty feel confident in using
terminology. The survey results revealed that only 7.8% of faculty disagreed or strongly
disagreed with familiarity with terminology that describes transgender identities, yet 16.9% of
faculty disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were comfortable using terminology. The
interviews revealed that self-efficacy among faculty was varied. When one interview participant,
Emerald, was asked whether ze felt confident in incorporating assignments that were inclusive of
transgender identities, ze responded that ze did not feel confident but would continue doing so
even if it was difficult for zer. Conversely, Sage, Azure, and Jade responded that they felt very
efficacious in their ability to incorporate such practices. Therefore, the recommendation is to
provide faculty at women’s colleges with a mentor to develop outcomes for their practice, model
124

various approaches to creating an inclusive classroom environment for transgender students, and
provide targeted and frequent feedback.
Formal faculty mentor programs are effective in providing less experienced faculty with
the tools to improve their pedagogical knowledge. In a study conducted to study the effect of a
faculty mentor program to implement new technology in the classroom, mentors assisted new
faculty to integrate new programs and learning management systems (Baran, 2015). The study
showed that there were six critical strategies that faculty mentors followed to support mentees:
determine needs, explore new strategies, scaffold learning, provide feedback, connect new
knowledge to current context, and evaluate the outcome. Baran (2015) found that mentors and
mentees alike benefited from the relationship, noting that mentors were more motivated to
staying abreast of new technology and mentees felt more confident in their teaching ability. Bean
et al.’s (2014) study of faculty mentor program drew comparable conclusions on the reciprocal
benefits of a mentor and mentee relationship. Bean et al. (2014) emphasized how mentees
benefitted significantly in acquiring new skill sets that allowed them to address conflict in the
classroom. A faculty mentor program would have positive impacts on faculty who wish to
increase their efficacy in creating inclusive classroom environments.
For this recommendation, faculty mentors can provide guidance that will increase
efficacy for faculty who do not feel confident in using certain terminology or implementing
specific practices, and ultimately, transgender students will feel more included in the classroom.
Researchers have provided best practices to create trans-inclusive classrooms. Mentors can
scaffold tasks by first introducing mentees to terminology and gender inclusive pronouns and
later model how to ask students for their pronouns during the first class meeting. Mentors and
mentees can then role play or work on case studies where a faculty member would intervene if a
125

member of the class made a transphobic remark or what they would do if they accidentally
misgendered a student. As the literature suggests, faculty mentors provide safe, confidential
spaces for newer, inexperienced faculty to work through challenges in the classroom (Baran,
2015; Bean et al., 2014). Thus, a mentor program can increase efficacy among faculty to create
inclusive classroom spaces for transgender students.
Organizational Recommendations
The organizational influences serve as the foundation to mitigating the gaps that impact
transgender student success at women’s colleges. According to the findings of this study,
women’s colleges are not consistent in disseminating information about student support services
and providing training and professional development related to transgender students’ needs to
faculty. The study also revealed that institutional stakeholders are not aligned in their support for
transgender students. Table 25 synthesizes the assumed organizational influences, identifies
whether the influence was validated as a gap, sets the priority for the influence, and provides
recommendations based on existing literature.

126

Table 25
Recommendations for Assumed Organizational Influences
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Principle and Citation Recommendation
Women’s colleges
provide access to
information about
support services for
transgender students.
Y Sustained organizational change
requires the meticulous analysis
of visible manifestations, which
in turn impact the cultural
model (Schneider et al., 1996).
Women’s colleges
should conduct an audit
of available support
services for transgender
students
Women’s colleges need
to develop and
disseminate a job aid on
institutional and
community resources for
transgender students
Women’s colleges
provide faculty with
professional
development
opportunities to learn
more about
transgender student
inclusion.
Y Organizations must create a
culture of organizational
learning by aligning learning to
quality and continuous
improvement (Schwandt &
Marquardt, 1999)
If an individual believes that
there are tangible benefits to
completing the task, they will
choose to do it, even if doing so
comes at a cost (Eccles, 2006).
Women’s colleges
should mandate annual
training for all faculty
and provide
opportunities for faculty
to attend conferences and
trainings that support
LGBTQ inclusion in the
classroom.
The values of external
stakeholders (alumnae,
donors, surrounding
community, parents
and family), current
administrators/staff/
faculty/ students are
aligned.
Y Mission, strategy, and
leadership influences
organizational change and are
the factors that respond to the
external environment (Burke,
2018).
Clear and candid
communication is essential to
progress (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Women’s colleges
should hold town hall
meetings to discuss how
the institution will affirm
its commitment to its
identity as a women’s
college that is inclusive
of transgender students.
Women’s colleges
across the country are
aligned in their
support of transgender
students.
N

127

Table 25, continued

Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Principle and Citation Recommendation
Women’s colleges
consider the
intersectional needs of
transgender students.
N

Conduct an Audit of Available Support Services and Develop a Job Aid for Dissemination

Faculty should be aware of the resources and institutional supports that contribute to
transgender student success at women’s colleges. According to the findings from this study,
nearly a third of the faculty who responded to the survey (29.6%) stated that they were unsure
whether their institution provided support services for transgender students. As faculty create
inclusive, safe spaces, transgender students may turn to faculty for guidance on a variety of
campus concerns such as gender-inclusive restrooms, trans-inclusive health care and counseling,
or LGBTQ student clubs and organizations. Women’s colleges need to align the visible
manifestations of the organization in order to support organizational change (Schneider et al.,
2016). The recommendation is for women’s colleges to conduct an audit of available support
services for transgender students and create a job aid for faculty and staff to use to support
transgender students.
While researchers have suggested best practices, women’s colleges are not providing
consistent support services for transgender students. According to Rockenbach et al. (2017),
religiously affiliated institutions are especially hostile environments for transgender students.
Access to physical spaces, support services for mental health, access to trans-sensitive health
care, and explicit policies that address discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender
identity, and gender expression promote a student’s sense of belonging (Goldberg et al., 2018).
128

As previously discussed, the Campus Pride Index (n.d.) provides an accessible scorecard for
institutions to benchmark LGBTQ inclusion. Criteria for LGBTQ Inclusion Factors are included
in Appendix A. In prioritizing changes in the cultural setting, women’s colleges will articulate
their support for transgender students. Schein (2017) would argue that this commitment will
become the
For faculty at women’s colleges, being available to students outside of the classroom
environment came up as a recurring theme in the interviews. All faculty members acknowledged
that they benefit when they have relationships with their students that extend beyond the
classroom environment. On interview participant, Coral, shared, “I would rather be more
engaged with students in hopes that I can contribute in some way to their health or safety if they
need it rather than less engaged.” Similarly, Hunter said, “I’d say the majority of faculty occupy
kind of a middle place in the sense that we are available more than I have ever been available by
phone, by video chat outside of class.” Although faculty may not directly advise transgender
students with specific concerns regarding support services, it is recommended that women’s
colleges should develop handouts or job aids that refer students to the appropriate resources.
Professional Development to Support Transgender Student Inclusion
Women’s colleges should establish the expectation that all institutional stakeholders will
have a basic understanding of transgender identities. According to the findings from this study,
mandatory diversity trainings cover a broad range of topics but do not focus specifically on
gender diversity and issues specific to the transgender community. Schwandt & Marquardt
(1999) assert that organizations must create a culture of organizational learning by aligning
learning to quality and continuous improvement. Thus, institutional leaders at women’s colleges
need to provide faculty and staff with resources to ensure that they understand basic concepts
129

around gender, current terminology, institutional support services for transgender students, and
best practices to combat transphobic rhetoric.
Women’s colleges should prioritize organizational learning by allowing faculty, staff, and
students to have the requisite time that is needed to complete the trainings, process the
information, and put learning into practice. Rueda (2011) relates an individual’s motivation to
complete a task with the associated value of doing so. Engaging in new tasks requires sacrifice of
time and energy, but if an individual believes that there are tangible benefits to completing the
task, they will choose to do it, even if doing so comes at a cost (Eccles, 2006). Participants from
a mixed-methods study of 510 transgender college students noted that they observed the same
faculty attending cultural competency trainings on campus, but faculty members who could
benefit from cultural competency trainings and other campus constituents such as campus
security, dining services, and financial aid staff were noticeably absent (Goldberg et al., 2018).
Institutional leaders will need to recruit trainers and subject matter experts who are able to adapt
their content to faculty, staff, and students who interact with transgender students in different
capacities. For trainings to be successful, women’s colleges must ensure that trainings are
available and mandated to all institutional stakeholders.
Townhall Meetings with Internal and External Stakeholders
Students, staff, faculty, alumni, and other stakeholders at women’s colleges have varying
levels of acceptance for transgender students. As evidenced in the data from this study, some
faculty perceive students to be more accepting of transgender students while others perceive
faculty to be more accepting than students. Nanney (2017) found that older alumni were fervent
in their desire to conserve practices and ideology rooted in second-wave feminism, and the
inclusion of transgender students threatened a history that previously centered and empowered
130

cisgender women. As public sentiment shifts to include a diversity within the category of
“woman,” Burke (2008) would argue that women’s colleges need to reaffirm their mission,
strategy, and leadership to respond to the external environment. The recommendation is for
institutional leaders at women’s colleges to conduct a townhall meeting with current faculty,
staff, and students as well as alumni, trustees, and other external stakeholders.
Institutional leaders at women’s colleges should clearly communicate their acceptance of
and support for transgender students. Admission policies at women’s colleges have only
included transgender students in recent years. Mills College in Oakland, California was the first
to adopt such a policy in 2014. Organizational change is complex, and institutional stakeholders
need to learn new approaches in order for change to take place (Kezar, 2000). Leaders will need
to create avenues for discussion as women’s colleges consider the most effective and inclusive
ways to support transgender students.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan employs the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Expanding on Kirkpatrick’s (1998) seminal research
on training and evaluation, the New World Kirkpatrick model incorporates new elements into the
four levels of evaluation to account for informal, on-the-job learning that takes place in an
organizational setting (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the New World Kirkpatrick Model,
the desired outcomes serve as the foundation to training programs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick
2016). Therefore, in the updated model, Level 4 (Results) is introduced first; followed by Level 3
(Behavior); Level 2 (Learning); and Level 1 (Reaction). Scaffolding the four levels in this
manner allows the outcomes to drive all aspects of implementation and evaluation process.

131

Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
The field focus of women’s colleges is to educate women and empower women to
become leaders in their communities. The global goal is for women’s colleges will support the
retention and persistence of transgender students by integrating policies and practices that are
inclusive of transgender individuals. Thus, this study explored the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of faculty who teach at women’s colleges in their effort to support
transgender student success. If faculty are able to successfully implement inclusive classroom
management practices and incorporate content that is inclusive of transgender identities into the
curriculum, this will promote the retention and persistence of transgender students at women’s
colleges. The goal is for faculty to successfully integrate gender-inclusive classroom
management practices such as using a student’s chosen name and pronouns and integrate
LGBTQ content into the curriculum.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Women’s colleges need to articulate the desired results that drive recommendations,
trainings, and new programs that support the organizational mission. Table 26 outlines the
outcomes, disaggregated by the external and internal outcomes, and the metrics and data
collection methods that will be used to assess the outcomes. As individual women’s colleges
successfully meet the internal outcomes, the external outcomes will be achieved over time to
move the entire field.

132

Table 26
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Data Collection Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased graduation numbers
of transgender students at
women’s colleges.
Number of transgender
students who persist to
graduation.
Consult with institutional
planning and research
department for data for
individual institutions.
Consult with Women’s
College Coalition for data for
the field.
Increased retention of
transgender students at
women’s colleges.
Percentage of transgender
students who are retained
from year to year.
Consult with institutional
planning and research
department for data for
individual institutions.
Consult with Women’s
College Coalition for data for
the field.
Increased recruitment of
transgender students who
attend women’s colleges.
Number of transgender
students who attend women’s
colleges from year to year.
Consult with institutional
planning and research
department for data for
individual institutions.
Consult with Women’s
College Coalition for data for
the field.
Internal Outcomes
Increased representation of
transgender identities in the
curriculum.
Percentage of majors that
have incorporated content
related to transgender
identities and/or content from
transgender scholars.
Audit and annual survey of
all majors at the institutional
level.
Increased faculty awareness
of behaviors contributing to
transgender discrimination
and microaggressions in the
classroom.
Results from student
feedback of faculty.
Analyze results from midterm
and end of course surveys.
Increased recruitment and
retention of transgender
faculty.
Number of transgender
faculty who teach at women’s
colleges.
Solicit data from the
Women’s College Coalition
(WCC), the Association for
the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE), and the
American Association of
University Professors
(AAUP).
133

Level 3: Behavior
To achieve the organizational results outlined in Level 4, women’s colleges need to
account for a cogent plan that bridges trainings to the organizational results. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) argue that organizations often overlook the systems that hold them
accountable. This section details the critical behaviors, required drivers, and organizational
support that will ensure transgender student success at women’s colleges.
Critical Behavior
The stakeholders for this study were faculty who teach at women’s colleges. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) post that critical behaviors are the demonstrable actions that facilitate the
outcomes in Level 4. Table 27 outlines the critical behaviors, metrics, data collection methods,
and timing.

134

Table 27
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Data Collection
Method(s)
Timing
1. Faculty will
address
transphobic
behaviors and
microaggressions
that arise in the
classroom
environment.
Frequency of
incidents that are
reported by faculty.
Classroom
observations
Midyear and end of
term surveys from
students.
On-going – Every
semester
2. Faculty will
participate in
trainings that
address
transgender
student inclusion.
Number of faculty
who attend trainings
Evidence that the
trainings are
occurring.
Provost and
institutional standing
committee for
transgender inclusion
will review the types
of opportunities that
are available to
faculty.
Focus groups with
faculty who have
participated in the
trainings.
Annually
3. Faculty will
incorporate trans-
inclusive content
into their
curriculum.
Number of courses
that incorporate
trans-inclusive
content.
Provost will audit and
review courses that
incorporate trans-
inclusive content.
Annually

Required Drivers

To ensure that the critical behaviors are being enforced, institutional leaders and the
organization more broadly need to support faculty and develop a system of accountability.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) assert that organizations need to create systems of support
and accountability so that stakeholders can meet the critical behaviors. These processes and
systems, defined as critical drivers, fall into four categories: reinforcing, encouraging,
135

rewarding, and monitoring (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 28 outlines the required
drivers that support the critical behaviors for faculty at women’s colleges.

Table 28
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
Provide faculty with professional
development opportunities related to
transgender student success.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Provide faculty with accessible library
of resources, which include articles
and job aids about the transgender
community.
On-going 1, 2, 3
Provide faculty with resources and job
aids on inclusive classroom
management practices.
On-going 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Experienced faculty serve as a model
to less experienced faculty.
Once a semester 1, 2, 3
Provide feedback to faculty from
institutional leaders, peers, and
students.
Once a semester 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Incentives for experienced faculty who
serve as models to inexperienced
faculty.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgement of
accomplishments during convocations,
email, external website, and other
media.
On-going 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Develop a reporting system for
incidents of transphobic behaviors and
microaggressions.
On-going 1, 2, 3
Establish standards for faculty
behaviors and pedagogy.
Annual 1, 2, 3

136

Organizational Support

Women’s colleges should make a compelling argument to address the need to support
transgender students. Transgender students are not experiencing the college environment in the
same ways as their cisgender peers both inside the classroom (Brckalorenz et al., 2017; Duran &
Nicolazzo, 2016; Goldberg et al., 2018; Pryor, 2015; Seelman, 2014) and outside of the
classroom (Goldberg et al., 2018; Hart & Lester, 2011; Marine, 2011; Nicolazzo, 2016).
Transgender students also experience higher rates of physical, sexual, and verbal harassment,
with nearly 16% of transgender students choosing to leave college due to the severity of
harassment (James et al., 2016). As women’s colleges write their admission policies to include
transgender students, they will need to consider the systems that treat transgender students
differently from cisgender students.
The drivers outlined in Table 25 need to be supported by the institution as a whole.
Women’s colleges must clearly articulate their support for transgender student success by
establishing policies, procedures, and physical spaces that recognize that gender exists beyond
binary and normative definitions. Women’s colleges should identify faculty who are experienced
in incorporating trans-inclusive classroom management practices to serve as mentors and models
for faculty who may be inexperienced in this area. Experienced faculty who serve as mentors
should be compensated accordingly through course releases or other forms of renumeration.
Asynchronous and synchronous trainings, informal dialogues, videos, journals, and job aids
should be readily available and vetted through a standing committee that focuses on transgender
student success. Finally, women’s colleges need to have a clear and supportive process for
handling complaints if students experience transphobic behaviors or microaggressions.
137

It is necessary that women’s colleges develop a comprehensive, sustainable system where
faculty have the appropriate tools to support and ensure transgender student success. Kotter
(2012) asserts that the first step in the change process is to create a sense of urgency that appeals
to the logical and emotional senses to enact change. Since the 1960’s, there has been a significant
decline in women’s colleges, with many either closing their doors or merging with other colleges
to become co-educational (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006). By Fall 2021, citing a national
decrease in women’s colleges, Converse College will become a co-educational institution,
leaving only 33 women’s colleges in the United States. For women’s colleges to remain viable,
they will need to clearly articulate their mission and vision for educating and empowering
women in ways that co-educational institutions cannot. By expanding the definition of woman
and demonstrating how women’s colleges are uniquely prepared to engage in the zeitgeist of
conversation in higher education to challenge the gender binary and become more inclusive
institutions.
Level 2: Learning
Stakeholders at women’s colleges need to establish clear learning goals that guide the
design and delivery of a training or program. By completing the recommended solutions, faculty
will be able to perform the following:
1. Define terminology that is germane to understanding transgender identities (Factual)
2. Recognize transphobic rhetoric, behaviors, and microaggressions in the classroom
environment (Conceptual)
3. Respond when transphobic rhetoric, behaviors, and microaggressions occur in the
classroom environment (Conceptual, Procedural)
4. Integrate trans-inclusive content into their curriculum (Procedural)
138

5. Deconstruct their biases around gender (Metacognitive)
6. Become confident in their ability to implement inclusive classroom management
practices (Self-Efficacy)
7. Value the importance of gender diversity in the classroom (Value)
Program
To achieve the learning goals outlined above, faculty will participate in training programs
designed to develop a shared understanding of transgender identities and increase faculty
members’ ability to implement practices that create a more inclusive classroom environment for
transgender students. Trainings will utilize asynchronous and synchronous learning, so that
faculty can both participate in self-guided learning and collaborate and process with their peers.
The asynchronous modules will be designed so that it can be completed in two hours. Faculty
will also participate in three live sessions, either in-person or through video-conferencing
software if in-person trainings are not permitted. Each of the live sessions will last two hours.
The time commitment for this training program is eight hours, and faculty will also have the
opportunity to participate in additional trainings if they wish to expand their knowledge.
The asynchronous training will focus on foundational concepts related to transgender
individuals. The training will cover six broad topics: key concepts around gender, sex, and
sexual orientation; an introduction to the transgender community; local, state, and federal laws
pertaining to gender and sexual orientation; pronoun usage and terminology related to
transgender identities; frameworks for creating gender-inclusive classrooms; and how to be an
ally to the transgender community. At the end of each module, faculty will reflect what they
learned, and at the conclusion of the asynchronous material, faculty will provide feedback on the
course so that the course can be improved over time.
139

The synchronous trainings will focus on modeling, case studies, and role playing to
demonstrate their knowledge of practices that contribute to transgender student success at a
women’s college and demonstrate whether they retained the information in the asynchronous
course materials. During the first in-person training, faculty will reflect on what they learned in
the asynchronous modules and identify potential barriers that transgender students may face in
the classroom environment. The second in-person training will focus on brainstorming ways to
include transgender inclusive content into the curriculum and identify potential opportunities for
interdisciplinary collaboration. In the final training, faculty will explore inclusion from an
intersectional lens to interrogate the ways that gender, race, ethnicity, ability, family formation,
faith, and class impact the ways that students navigate the women’s college environment.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) assert that there are five components of learning that
need to be addressed to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program: knowledge, skills,
attitudes, confidence, and commitment. In Level 2 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model,
formative and summative assessments are used to evaluate whether participants have met the
learning goals of the training or program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 29 provides
the methods and activities and the timing of the activities for each of the five components of
learning.

140

Table 29
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks of key concepts using
multiple choice and open-ended questions.
At the end of each module of the
asynchronous training.
Knowledge checks of key concepts through
discussions during activities.
Throughout in-person trainings.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Use of case studies. Throughout the asynchronous modules.
Role play scenarios with trainers/facilitators
and peers.
During in-person trainings.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Feedback on course content. At the end of the asynchronous training.
Pre- and post-survey about the value of
transgender student inclusion.
Before and after in-person training.
Feedback from facilitators/trainers and
participants.
At the end of each in-person training.
Confidence “I think I can do this on the job.”
Reflection prompts (open-ended questions). After each asynchronous module.
Role play activities. During in-person trainings.
Discussions following practice activities and
feedback.
After activities during the in-person trainings.
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment. At the end of the training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Individually developed action plan. During in-person training.
Retrospective pre- and post-assessment. At the end of training.

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 measures the degree to which participants are satisfied with the training and
whether participants believe that the training is relevant to their professional practice
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reaction data will be collected at two stages, formative and
summative. Formative evaluation methods include completion rates of asynchronous modules,
observations by trainers and facilitators of the in-person trainings, and brief pulse-checks
throughout the in-person trainings. Surveys will be administered immediately after completion of
the training and a follow up survey two weeks after the final in-person training. Table 30
141

identifies the methods of collecting reaction data to measure engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction.

Table 30
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion rate of asynchronous modules. On-going during the period that asynchronous
training is available to faculty.
Observation by facilitators and trainers. During the in-person trainings.
Brief pulse-checks with participants through
discussions.
During the in-person trainings.
Relevance
Brief pulse-checks with participants through
short questionnaires.
During the in-person trainings.
Asynchronous and synchronous training
evaluations.
After the training.
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluation of each module and in-person
trainings.
After the training event.
Asynchronous course evaluation. 2 weeks after the completion of all trainings.
In-person course evaluation. 2 weeks after the conclusion of all trainings.

Evaluation Tools

Immediately following the program implementation. During the asynchronous and in-
person trainings, participant attendance and engagement will be monitored by the facilitators of
the trainings. The asynchronous modules will be available on the institution’s learning
management system, where time spent on each module, responses to activities, and completion
of activities will be tracked. The in-person trainings will be co-taught by facilitators and trainers
who are subject matter experts on transgender inclusion. Some facilitators will take on the role of
dedicated observers to monitor classroom dynamics and engagement. Trainers will also observe
participants during the sessions and conduct brief pulse-checks so they can quickly adjust the
142

curriculum as needed and tend to the needs of the participants as they engage in the activities.
The dedicated observers will complete a checklist that records observations related to
participants’ engagement during the in-person trainings. A sample checklist is included in
Appendix D. Dedicated observers and pulse-checks are especially helpful if the training is
implemented at an organization for the first time (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
At the end of the three in-person trainings, participants will complete a short survey to
evaluate faculty members’ experience with the training program. The survey will ask participants
to reflect on their satisfaction with the training and evaluate whether the trainings were relevant
to their practice. Appendix E provides sample items for the end of training surveys. The
checklists from the dedicated observers and the results from the post-training surveys will be
submitted to institutional leaders and made available to all faculty.
Delayed response following the program implementation. Two weeks following the
completion of all trainings, faculty will be asked to respond to a final follow up survey to reflect
on their experiences. The survey will assess whether faculty members believed that the trainings
were relevant, gave them confidence to be more inclusive educators, and whether they saw a
change in their behavior as it relates to transgender student inclusion. The survey items will
include Likert-type responses and open-ended responses and will evaluate all four levels of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model. The survey will solicit information on whether faculty members
were satisfied with the training and whether it was relevant to their role as educators (Level 1);
faculty members’ levels of knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment to
transgender student success (Level 2); faculty members’ ability to connect the trainings to the
critical behaviors necessary to support transgender student success (Level 3); and the extent to
143

which the trainings align with the organizational goals (Level 4). Appendix F provides sample
items for the final survey.
Data Analysis and Reporting
As institutional leaders gather and analyze the data from this proposed implementation
plan, they should consider how the data will be made available to the faculty who participated in
the trainings as well a wider audience. The report should highlight the extent and the frequency
that faculty participated in the trainings, examples of faculty members’ action plans as discussed
in Level 2 (Commitment), whether academic majors increased the number of trans-inclusive
content into their curriculum, and anecdotal responses from students and whether they noticed a
change in faculty members’ classroom management practices. The report will also highlight
whether retention and graduation rates of transgender students and whether admissions has been
meeting goals of increasing the number of transgender students who are admitted to the
institution. The institution’s standing committee for transgender student success will present this
to the entire campus community on an annual basis, and a summary of the report will be posted
on the institution’s external website. By making this information publicly available to internal
stakeholders and prospective students, women’s colleges will be held accountable for their
commitment to ensuring transgender student success.
Summary of Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a comprehensive, actionable plan that will
allow women’s colleges to prepare faculty to be more inclusive of transgender students and
ultimately retain and support transgender students towards graduation. In this model, women’s
colleges always have the outcomes in mind as required drivers, critical behaviors, learning
outcomes, activities, and reactions flow down (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). If faculty are
144

successful in leveraging these new tools to support more inclusive pedagogy, women’s colleges
may comport themselves as safe, inclusive spaces for transgender students in ways that co-
educational institutions may not. The recommendations and subsequent implementation and
evaluation plan presented in this chapter will facilitate conversations at women’s colleges as they
continue reflecting on who is included at a women’s college and how women’s colleges are
uniquely situated to lead higher education in creating safe, inclusive, and equitable spaces,
policies, and practices for gender-diverse individuals.
Limitations and Delimitations
Throughout the implementation of this study, the researcher needed to consider the
factors that may expose potential weaknesses. Limitations are the factors that are beyond the
researcher’s control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While triangulation of data through survey
analysis and interviews mitigated some potential limitations, some aspects of a study cannot be
controlled (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Response bias, or the effect
that nonresponses may have on a study, was a limitation to the study (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). For this study, some participants may have chosen to not respond to the survey because
they assumed that their beliefs are not socially desirable. Thus, survey responses could favor
individuals who used inclusive classroom management practices or had a positive opinion of
transgender individuals. Additionally, while the researcher employed a grounded theory
approach to this study to achieve saturation, the sample may not reflect the diverse opinions and
experiences of all faculty members who teach at women’s college.
Researcher bias was a potential limitation to the study. In order to mitigate potential
researcher bias, the researcher engaged in reflexivity, or self-reflection, to consider how
positionality, gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity, influenced the ways that they
145

approached the study and interpreted the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As stated, the
researcher’s identity as a straight, cisgender woman of color may have impacted their
understanding of transgender students.
Delimitations are the factors that the researcher set in order to create a manageable study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While many stakeholders needed to be considered in order to
address transgender student success at women’s colleges, the researcher purposefully selected
faculty as the stakeholders for this study. As evidenced in the literature review, faculty
interactions are one factor in understanding a sense of belonging and success in college. LGBTQ
students who have supportive faculty contributed to increased class participation, increased
confidence in their academic and career choices, and personal well-being (Linley et al., 2016).
Thus, this study focused on faculty as the specific stakeholder group.
Future Research
While this study focused on faculty as the stakeholders who contribute to transgender
student success at women’s colleges and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact faculty, there are many opportunities for future research. Many
institutional stakeholders impact the student experience at a women’s college. The knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact student affairs professionals, student
services professionals such as staff who work in financial aid or academic advisors, support staff
like those who work in facilities or food services, and senior administrators, may also be
considered. Applying this framework to different stakeholder groups may provide a more
comprehensive plan to ensure transgender student success.
This study also revealed the need to consider the broader environmental influences that
affect transgender student success. As evidenced in the findings from Chapter Four, there was a
146

statistically significant correlation between the region where the women’s college was located
and whether faculty believed that transgender students were afforded the same chances for
success in their college journey. One suggestion for future research would be to use the
ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to center the student and investigate how their
communities, the broader society, and changes over time impact their chances for success.
Finally, future research should consider the intersectional identities of transgender
students. As higher education reconciles the pervasiveness of racism that affects society as a
whole, researchers may want to study the ways that individuals who identify as queer,
transgender, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (QTBIPOC) experience the women’s college
environment compared to white transgender students. Additional considerations include ability
and disability, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, and immigration status. Therefore, it is
recommended that future studies consider the intersectional identities of transgender students,
paying particular attention to transgender students who hold multiple minoritized identities.
Conclusion
In recognizing the full humanity of transgender individuals, women’s colleges continue
to grapple with the need to extricate themselves from the constructed borders of gender while
still preserving the salience of womanhood. The underlying questions remain - who are women’s
colleges serving when cisgender women and transgender individuals are pitted against each
other, and who holds responsibility for policing the bodies of the students who walk through
their doors? Transgender students are forced to comport themselves to fit in into the inadequate
policies, practices, and spaces created by institutional leaders, external stakeholders, and
historical figures who hold power at women’s colleges. Thus, studying the individuals who hold
power in the classroom environment, the esteemed faculty, brings women’s colleges one step
147

closer to addressing the systems that need to be reimagined in order to create inclusive spaces for
all students.
The future of women’s colleges is fraught with the unknown. Taken one way, single-
gender institutions and the gender binary may become obsolete. However, as evidenced by this
study, there is a groundswell of support by faculty to leverage women’s colleges as institutions
that can give voice to transgender and non-binary individuals, provided that the field as a whole
moves together in supporting this call to action.

148

References
American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with
lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42.
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with
transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.
Ambrose, S. A., & Bridges, J. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles
for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change:
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Baran, E. (2016). Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional
development model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 45-71.
Barbir, L. A., Vandevender, A. W., & Cohn, T. J. (2016). Friendships, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions of cisgender heterosexuals toward transgender individuals. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Mental Health, 1-18.
Battle, S., & Wheeler, T. E. (2017). Dear colleague letter. US Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division and US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.
Bean, N. M., Lucas, L., & Hyers, L. L. (2014). Mentoring in higher education should be the
norm to assure success: Lessons learned from the faculty mentoring program, West
Chester University, 2008-2011. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(1),
56-73.
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011).
149

Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration,
4(11), 1-11.
Beemyn, G. (2019). Trans people in higher education. SUNY Press.
Beemyn, G., & Brauer, D. (2015). Trans-inclusive college records: Meeting the needs of an
increasingly diverse US student population. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2, 478-
487.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. R. (2011). The lives of transgender people. Columbia University
Press.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. R. (2016). Creating a gender-inclusive campus. In S. Tobias & Y.
Martinez-San Miguel (Eds.), Trans studies: The challenge to hetero/homo normativities
(pp. 21-32). Rutgers University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality.
Yale University Press.
Brckalorenz, A., Garvey, J. C., Hurtado, S. S., & Latopolski, K. (2017). High-impact practices
and student-faculty interactions for gender-variant students. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education. 10(4). 350-365.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development, Harvard University Press.
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change theory & practice. SAGE.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Routledge.
Campus Pride. (n.d.). Women’s colleges with trans-inclusive policies, Retrieved from
https://www.campuspride.org/tpc/womens-colleges/
Carr, B. B., Hagai, E. B., Zurbriggen, E. L. (2017). Queering Bem: Theoretical intersections
between Sandra Bem’s scholarship and queer theory. Sex Roles, 76, 655-668.
150

Catalano, D. C. J., & Griffin, P. (2016). Sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression. In M.
Adams, L.E. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & Joshi, K. Y. (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and
social justice (3
rd
ed., pp. 183-211). Routledge.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clarke, E. (n.d.). Sex in education; or, a fair chance for girls. Project Gutenberg.
Clemens, C. (2017). Ally or accomplice? The language of activism. Retrieved from
https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/ally-or-accomplice-the-language-of-
activism
Considine, J. R., Mihalick, J. E., Mogi-Hein, Y. R., Penick-Parks, M. W., & Van Auken, P. M.
(2013). “Who am I to bring diversity into the classroom?” Learning communities wrestle
with creating inclusive college classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 14(4). 18-30.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
de Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of
Feminist Cultural Studies, 3(2), iii-xviii.
Dessel, A. B., Goodman, K. D., & Woodford, M. R. (2017). LGBT discrimination on campus
and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 10(2), 101-116.
Duran A., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Exploring the ways trans* collegians navigate academic,
romantic, and social relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 526-
544.
151

Eccles, J. S. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583-598.
Freitas, A. (2017). Beyond acceptance: Serving the needs of transgender students at women's
colleges, Diversity & Social Justice in Higher Education, 39(39), 294-314.
Fry, R. (2019). U.S. women near milestone in the college-educated labor force. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/20/u-s-women-near-milestone-in-the-
college-educated-labor-force/
Furrow, H. (2012). LGBT students in the college composition classroom. Journal of
Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 6, 145-159.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2015). The influence of campus experiences on the level of
outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of Homosexuality.
62(3). 374-393.
Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ
community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
29(6), 527-541.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
152

research, Routledge.
Goldberg, A. E., Beemyn, G., & Smith, J. Z. (2018). What is needed, what is valued: Trans
students' perspectives on trans-inclusive policies and practices in higher education.
Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation. DOI:10.1080/10474412.2018.1
Goldberg, A. E., & Kuvalanka, K. (2019). Transgender graduate students’ experiences in higher
education: A mixed-methods exploratory study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 12(1), 38-51.
Graybill, E. C., & Proctor, S. K. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited
representation in school support personnel journals. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 9-
16.
Grosz, E. A. (1995). Space, time, and perversion: Essays on the politics of bodies. Routledge.
Hart, J., & Lester, J. (2011). Starring students: Gender performance at a women’s college,
NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 4(2), 193-217.
Hasenbush, A., Flores, A. R., & Herman, J. L. (2018). Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in
public accommodations: A review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public
restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
16(1), 70-83.
Herman, J. L., Brown, T. N. T., & Haas, A. P. (2019). Suicide thoughts and attempts among
transgender adults: Findings from the U.S. Transgender Survey. UCLA School of Law,
Williams Institute.
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report
of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
153

Kelley, L., Chou, C. L., Dibble, S. L., & Robertson, P. A. (2008). A critical intervention in
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health: Knowledge and attitude outcomes among
second-year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 20(3), 248-253.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership-bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, 5(3),
6-11.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Knutson, D., Koch, J., & Goldbach, C. (2019). Recommended terminology, pronouns and
documentation for work with transgender and non-binary populations. Practice
Innovations, 4(4), 214-224.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.
Kraschel, K. (2012). Trans-cending spaces in women’s only spaces: Title IX cannot be the basis
for exclusion. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 35, 463-485.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's
taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.
Lhamon, C., & Gupta, V. (2014). Dear colleague letter: Civic rights in juvenile justice residential
facilities. US Department of Justice.
Linley, J. L., & Kilgo, C. A. (2018). Expanding agency: Centering gender identity in college and
university student records systems. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 359-
365.
Linley, J. L., Nguyen, D., Brazelton, G. B., Becker, B., Renn, K., & Woodford, M. (2016).
Faculty as sources of support for LGBTQ college students. College Teaching, 64(2), 55-
63.

154

Luhur, W., Lozano-Verduzco, I., & Shaw, A. (2020). PUBLIC OPINION OF TRANSGENDER
RIGHTS.
Marine, S. B. (2011). “Our college is changing”: Women’s college student affairs administrators
and transgender students. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1165-1186.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller-Bernal, L., & Poulson, S. L. (2006). Challenged by coeducation: Women’s colleges
since the 1960s. Vanderbilt University Press.
Nanney, M. (2017). “I’m part of the community too”: Women’s alumnae responses to
transgender admittance policies. Advances in Gender Research, 24, 133-154.
Nanney, M., & Brunsma, D. L. (2017), Determining gender through transgender admittance
policies at U.S. women’s colleges. Gender & Society, 31(2), 145-170.
Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). “Just go in looking good”: The resilience, resistance, and kinship-building
of trans* college students. Journal of College Student Development, 57(5), 538-556.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3). REL 20160160. Regional
Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
Perifmos, C. (2008). The changing faces of women’s colleges: Striking a balance between
transgender rights and women’s colleges. Journal of Law and Gender, 15, 141-168.
155

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Pomona College. (2019). Faculty Handbook. Retrieved from:
https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/faculty-handbook.pdf.
Preston, M. J., & Hoffman, G. D. (2015). Traditionally heterogendered institutions: Discourses
surrounding LGBTQ students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12, 64-86.
Pryor, J. T. (2015). Out in the classroom: Transgender student experiences at a large public
university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 440-455.
Quinn, R. E., Heynoski, K., Thomas, M., & Spreitzer, G. (2014). Co-creating the classroom
experience to transform learning and change lives. Research in Organizational Change
and Development, 22, 25-54.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing qualitative survey questions. SAGE.
Rockenbach, A. N., Lo, M. A., & Mayhew, M. J. (2017). How LGBT college students perceive
and engage the campus religious and spiritual climate. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(4),
488-508.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Sanlo, R., & Espinoza, L. (2012). Risk and retention: Are LGBTQ students staying in your
community college? College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 475-481.
Sax, L. J., Berdan Lozano, J., & Quinn Vandenboom, C. (2014). Who attends a women’s
college? Identifying unique characteristics and patterns of change, 1971-2011. Report to
the Women’s College Coalition. Graduate School of Education & Information Studies,
UCLA.
156

Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Organizational learning. CRC Press.
Seelman, K. (2014). Recommendations of transgender students, staff, and faculty in the USA for
improving college campuses. Gender and Education, 26(6), 618-635.
Seelman, K. (2016). Transgender adults’ access to college bathrooms and housing and the
relationship to suicidality. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(10), 1378-1399.
Seelman, K. L., Woodford, M. R., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Victimization and microaggressions
targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological
distress. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1-2), 112-125.
Stolzenberg, E. B., & Hughes, B. (2017). The experiences of incoming transgender college
students: New data on gender identity. Liberal Education, 103(2), n2.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2017). National Survey on Drug
Use and Health. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHFFR2017/NSDUHFFR2017.pdf
Swanbrow Becker, M. A., Nemeth Roberts, S. F., Ritts, S. M., Branagan, W. T., Warner, A. R.,
& Clark, S. L. (2017). Supporting transgender college students: Implications for clinical
intervention and campus prevention. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. 31(2).
155-176.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2
nd
ed.).
Chicago University Press.

157

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Table 303.40:
Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status,
sex, and age: Selected years, 1970 through 2027. In U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (2019 ed.).
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.40.asp
Walters, A. S., & Rehma, K. (2013). Avenue T: Using film as entree in teaching about
transgender. Sex Education, 13(3), 336-348.
Weber, S. (2019). (In)visibility and protest: Trans men, trans women, and nonbinary students at
New England women’s colleges. In G. Beemyn (Ed.), Trans people in higher education
(pp. 185-210). SUNY Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wilkinson, L., Pearson, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Educational attainment of transgender adults: Does
the timing of transgender identity milestones matter? Social Science Research, 74, 146-
160.
Woodford, M. R., Joslin, J. Y. Pitcher, E. N., & Renn, K. A. (2017). A mixed methods inquiry
into trans* environmental microaggressions on college campuses: Experiences and
outcomes. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1-2), 95-111.
Women’s College Coalition. (n.d.). Find a College. Retrieved from:
https://www.womenscolleges.org/colleges.

158

Appendix A
Campus Pride Index LGBTQ Inclusion Factors
LGBTQ Policy Inclusion
a. Non-discrimination statement inclusive of sexual orientation
b. Non-discrimination statement inclusive of gender identity/expression
c. Health insurance coverage to employees’ same sex partner
d. Accessible, simple process for students to change their name on university records
and documents
e. Accessible, simple process for students to change their gender identity on
university records and documents
f. Students have option to self-identify sexual orientation on admission application
or post enrollment forms
g. Students have option to self-identify gender identity/expression on admission
application or post enrollment forms
LGBTQ Support & Institutional Commitment
h. Resource center/office with responsibilities for LGBTQ students
i. Paid staff with responsibilities for LGBTQ support services
j. Ally program or Safe Space/Safe Zone
k. Actively seek to employ diversity of faculty & staff including visible, out LGBTQ
people
l. Standing advisory committee that deals with LGBTQ issues
m. LGBTQ alumni group

2. LGBTQ Academic Life
a. LGBTQ studies program
b. LGBTQ specific course offerings
c. Actively recruit faculty for LGBTQ-related academic scholarship
d. New faculty/staff training opportunities on sexual orientation issues
e. New faculty/staff training opportunities on gender identity issues
f. LGBTQ faculty/staff organization

3. LGBTQ Student Life
a. LGBTQ & Ally student organization
b. LGBTQ & Ally graduate student organization
c. LGBTQ social fraternity/sorority
d. Regularly plans LGBTQ social activities
e. Regularly plans educational events on transgender issues
f. Regularly offers educational events surrounding intersectionality of identities for
LGBTQ people
159

g. LGBTQ-inclusive career services

4. LGBTQ Housing and Residence Life
a. LGBTQ living space, theme floors and/or living-learning community
b. Roommate matching for LGBTQ students to find LGBTQ-friendly roommate
c. Gender-inclusive housing for new students
d. Gender-inclusive housing for returning students
e. Gender-inclusive/single occupancy restroom facilities in campus housing
f. Gender-inclusive/single occupancy shower facilities in campus housing
g. Trains residence life and housing staff at all levels on LGBTQ issues and
concerns

5. LGBTQ Campus Safety
a. Procedure for reporting LGBTQ related bias incidents and hate crimes
b. Active ongoing training for hate crime prevention
c. Active outreach to LGBTQ students and student organization
d. Trains campus police on sexual orientation issues
e. Trains campus police on gender identity/expression issues
f. Supports victims of LGBTQ sexual violence and partner violence

6. LGBTQ Counseling and Health
a. Trans-inclusive trained counseling staff
b. LGBTQ counseling/support groups
c. Free, anonymous and accessible HIV/STI testing
d. LGBTQ-inclusive health information and safer sex materials available
e. Trans-inclusive student health insurance policy which covers ongoing counseling
services
f. Trans-inclusive student health insurance policy which covers hormone
replacement therapy

7. LGBTQ Recruitment and Retention
a. Annually participates in LGBTQ admission fairs
b. LGBTQ student scholarships
c. LGBTQ mentoring program to welcome and assist LGBTQ students in
transitioning to academic and college life
d. Special Lavender or Rainbow Graduation ceremony for LGBTQ students and
allies
e. Admission counselors receive LGBTQ-inclusive training and resources

160

Appendix B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Survey Item Response Options
1. Do you currently teach at a women’s college? Yes, No
2. How many years have you been teaching at
your institution?
1-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10+
3. What region is your institution located? Northeast, Midwest, South, West,
Outside of the United States, Unsure
4. Does your institution have a policy for
admitting transgender students?
Yes, No, Unsure
5. I have taught at least one transgender student
while teaching at my current institution.
Yes, No, Unsure
6. I know at least one transgender person in my
personal life.
Yes, No, Unsure
7. My institution provides support services for
transgender students.
Yes, No, Unsure
Please rate your level of agreement to the following statements:
8. When I first meet a student, I assume that they
are a cisgender (their sex assigned at birth
aligns with their gender identity).
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
9. I feel comfortable teaching students who I
know are transgender.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
10. I feel comfortable teaching students whose
gender expression is ambiguous.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
11. Faculty should support transgender students
even if they believe that being transgender is
immoral.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
12. As a faculty member, I feel it is important to
know about my students’ gender identity to
help them succeed.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
13. Access to education should be the same for
transgender students as for cisgender students
at a women’s college.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
14. Access to education is the same for
transgender students as for cisgender students
at a women’s college.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
15. Transgender students need more support from
faculty with their academics compared to their
cisgender peers.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
16. Transgender students are less likely than their
cisgender peers to be successful students.
Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree
Open-Ended Questions
17. In your own words, how would you define “woman”?
18. How would you describe your institution’s campus climate for transgender students?
161

19. How does your institution demonstrate a commitment to supporting transgender
students, if at all?
20. What additional steps can your institution take to ensure transgender student inclusion?

162

Appendix C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. Your perspective and experience as a
faculty member at a women’s college will be very useful as I study the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that address transgender student success at women’s colleges.

All of the data that is gathered will be confidential and kept in a secure place, and your insights
will not be shared with others. I wanted to confirm that it is okay that I record our Zoom meeting
and record using a voice recorder so that it helps me accurately gather information and reflect on
our discussion. Please be assured that you will not be identified in written materials, and if
quotations are used from our conversation today, I will use a pseudonym for you. At this point, I
wanted to get your consent to record our conversation today. There is no pressure for you to
complete this interview, and we can stop the interview at any point. Do you have any questions
for me at this point?

Interview Questions
1. First, can you tell me about your role at your institution?
2. Can you share what you do both in your responsibilities in teaching courses as well as
other responsibilities that you may have outside the classroom?
3. Some would say that faculty members are involved in their students’ success outside of
the classroom. How do you see your role at your institution?
a. And more specifically, can you please speak to ways that you demonstrate
support for transgender students outside the classroom?
4. Considering the significant decline in women’s colleges in the United States (from 230 in
the 1960’s to 34 in 2020), can you describe what you believe to be the role of women’s
colleges in providing postsecondary education?
5. Please describe the ways in which teaching at a women’s college influences your
teaching practices, if at all.
6. In your own words, how would you define the category of “woman”?
7. Can you please share your institution’s admission policy for transgender students, if you
are aware of whether your institution has one if at all?
8. How do you think that the presence or absence of a transgender student admission policy
affects your practice as a faculty member at a women’s college, if at all?
9. Can you speak to the ways in which having transgender students in your classroom
enhances the overall educational experience, if at all?
10. Conversely, what challenges have you experienced with having transgender students in
your classroom?
11. As your role as a faculty member, can you talk about your strategies to address barriers
and biases that cisgender students may have of transgender students?
a. How have you developed these skills over the years?
12. To what degree you feel confident in your ability to incorporate practices that consider
students on a vast spectrum of gender and gender identities in your classroom?
163

13. What practices have you incorporated, or have thought about incorporating, into your
practice that would create an inclusive classroom environment for transgender students?
14. What do you think transgender students need from the institution to succeed that is
different, if at all, from cisgender students?
15. Please provide examples of the ways that your institution has demonstrated how it
supports transgender student inclusion, if at all.
16. What additional steps can your institution take to ensure transgender student success?

164

Appendix D
SAMPLE OBSERVER CHECKLIST
This checklist will be completed by the dedicated observers following the in-person trainings.
Observers will check the first column if the participant met each criterion. Observers may
provide additional comments for each criterion.
Criterion Observer Comments
Participant appeared engaged during the
training session, discussions, and
activities.

Participant was open to feedback from
trainers and peers.

Participant gave feedback to peers.
Participant asked questions if they were
unclear about a particular concept
covered during the training.

Participant demonstrated knowledge of
the concepts covered during the training.

165

Appendix E
EXAMPLE SURVEY ITEMS IMMEDIATELY AFTER TRAINING

For each question below, circle the response that best characterizes how you feel about the
statement.

Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
1. The training held my
interest.
1 2 3 4
2. I found value in the training
that I received.
1 2 3 4
3. I would recommend this
training to other faculty.
1 2 3 4
4. I believe it is important for
me to incorporate what I
learned during the training
into my practice.
1 2 3 4
5. The feedback I received
during the trainings
increased my confidence to
do my job well.
1 2 3 4

What part of this training was most beneficial?

What part of the training needs improvement?

What are the three main takeaways you learned from this training?

166

Appendix F
EXAMPLE SURVEY ITEMS AFTER DELAYED RESPONSE
For each question below, circle the response that best characterizes how you feel about the
statement.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
Completing the training was a
good use of my time.
1 2 3 4
I have had opportunities to apply
what I learned during the
training into my practice.
1 2 3 4
I have applied what I learned
from the training to improve my
pedagogy.
1 2 3 4
I am confident that I can apply
what I learned during the
training into my practice.
1 2 3 4
I would recommend this training
to other faculty.
1 2 3 4

1. What challenges are you facing in implementing what you learned during the training, if
at all?

2. If you are experiencing challenges with implementing what you learned during the
training, what are some possible solutions?

3. Please provide additional feedback to improve this training.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Transgender students do not experience the women’s college environment in the same ways as their cisgender counterparts. Although gender is a salient identity for women’s colleges, policies, practices, and physical spaces have historically centered and privileged those who conform to the gender binary. Researchers suggest that transgender student support should be included into the zeitgeist of institutional conversation at women’s colleges, as transgender students are frequently misgendered, are harmed by unclear campus policies, and are not represented in the curriculum. This study employed a Clark and Estes gap analysis to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of faculty at women’s colleges and addressed whether these influences facilitated or created barriers for transgender student success. This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study revealed that the gaps in knowledge and organizational influences were prevalent, and gaps in the motivational influences were validated to a lesser extent. The knowledge influences addressed faculty members’ familiarity with terminology related to transgender identities and institutional admission policies, their ability to incorporate transgender inclusive content into their curriculum, and deconstructing biases around gender. The motivational influences pointed to the ways that being an inclusive educator contributed to faculty members’ self-schema and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive classroom management practices. Finally, the organizational influences addressed access to support services for transgender students, professional development for faculty, and discordance among campus stakeholders in their acceptance of transgender students. The study concludes with recommendations based on the validated gaps and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to carry out the recommendations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Multi-platform delivery in today’s modern news organizations: challenges and successes of converging student newsrooms, an assessment study

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Belanger, Chinako Miyamoto (author)

Core Title Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/26/2021

Defense Date 04/05/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty,non-binary,OAI-PMH Harvest,student success,transgender,Women,women’s college

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email chinako.miyamoto@gmail.com,chinako_miyamoto@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-453459

Unique identifier UC11668659

Identifier etd-BelangerCh-9544.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-453459 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BelangerCh-9544.pdf

Dmrecord 453459

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Belanger, Chinako Miyamoto

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA