IntroductionSouth Africa continues to struggle with high rates of HIV and AIDS. The general population has an HIV prevalence rate of 19% and the annual death rate due to AIDS-related causes is 200,000 (UNAIDS, 2013). Amongst the highest rates globally, 7% of South African youth between the ages of 15 and 24 years are HIV positive. They also have the lowest rates (14.3%) of national ARV treatment exposure (Human Sciences Research Council [HSRC], 2014). In the integrated national and provincial strategies laid out by the Department of Basic Education (DBE), the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), and the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC), teachers are thought to be well positioned to respond to the physical, emotional, and pedagogical impact of HIV and AIDS on learners' lives (DBE, 2012; DBE & DHET, 2011; SANAC, 2011). Specific curricular and professional requirements further outline teachers' responsibilities to address the intersecting influences of gender inequity, HIV stigma, and health behaviour (e.g., condom use, alcohol and drug use) on HIV transmission and prevention (DBE, 2000; 2011a; 2011b). While there are many possible approaches to addressing these issues, this article reports on the findings of a follow-up study with South African preservice teachers who were introduced to participatory visual approaches to HIV and AIDS education. Framing the study theoretically in Mitchell's (2014) concept of the "afterlife" of research interventions, this study asks: "What can we learn about HIV and AIDS education through a follow-up study with individuals previously trained in participatory visual methods?" Taking up the question, this article begins by describing Youth as Knowledge Producers (YAKP) as the research context and my connection to the project. This is followed by an outline of my data collection methods. The findings report on preservice teachers' reflections on learning participatory visual methods for HIV and AIDS education, how they have or plan to integrate these methods into their teaching, as well as on challenges they have experienced in applying a participatory visual approach. The findings are discussed in relation to what they might contribute to the development of HIV and AIDS teacher education.Teacher Education and HIV and AIDSThe DBE response to the epidemic is reliant on teachers. This is, however, far from straightforward for teachers themselves. Teaching about sex and the body in its sexualised form can pose fundamental challenges to teachers' identities, and threaten their authority in their classrooms (Baxen, 2010; Baxen & Breidlid, 2004). In the process of life orientation (LO) teaching, teachers may come into conflict with the nationally prescribed curriculum-which is rights-based and comprehensive-and their personal values about sexuality and gender (Ahmed, Flisher, Mathews, Mukoma, & Jansen, 2009; Helleve, Flisher, Onya, Mukoma, & Klepp, 2009). They may also have difficulties responding to the specific needs of learners who, for example, are not able-bodied or heterosexual (Chirawu, Hanass-Hancock, Aderemi, de Reus, & Henken, 2014; Francis, 2012). The emotional component of talking about relationships, love, illness, and death is often avoided by teachers (Naidoo, 2014). The use of didactic, teacher-centred methods can undermine the learner-centred approach advocated in the LO curriculum (Gibbs, Willan, Jama-Shai, Washington, & Jewkes, 2015). The dearth of in-service teacher education itself remains an issue. Francis and DePalma (2015), for example, found that many teachers responsible for sexual health education indicated that they have had no training or very minimal training in HIV and AIDS education content and pedagogy.Preservice teachers should be acquiring teaching knowledge and skills during a 4-year undergraduate, or 1-year postgraduate, programme at a higher education institution (HEI). However, numerous studies on teacher education conclude that HEIs are failing to prepare preservice teachers for the evolving South African school system impacted by HIV and AIDS (Clark, 2008; James-Traore, Finger, Daileader Ruland & Stephanie, 2004; Wilmot & Wood, 2012). …

中文翻译：

---

两年后：职前教师学习使用参与式视觉方法解决南非艾滋病流行的经验

简介南非继续在艾滋病毒和艾滋病高发地区挣扎。普通人群的艾滋病毒感染率为19％，由于与艾滋病相关的原因而导致的年死亡率为200,000（联合国艾滋病规划署，2013）。在全球发病率最高的国家中，年龄在15至24岁之间的南非青年中有7％是HIV阳性。他们在全国抗逆转录病毒治疗中的接触率也最低（14.3％）（人类科学研究委员会，2014年）。在基础教育部（DBE），高等教育和培训部（DHET）和南非国家艾滋病委员会（SANAC）制定的国家和省级综合战略中，认为教师具有良好的应对能力HIV和AIDS对学习者生活的生理，情感和教学影响（DBE，2012; DBE＆DHET，2011; SANAC，2011）。特定的课程和专业要求进一步概述了教师在应对性别不平等，艾滋病毒污名和健康行为（例如使用安全套，饮酒和吸毒）对艾滋病毒的传播和预防的交叉影响方面的责任（DBE，2000； 2011a； 2011b） 。尽管有许多解决这些问题的可能方法，但本文报告了与南非职前教师进行的一项后续研究的结果，这些教师被介绍了采用参与式视觉方法进行HIV和AIDS教育的方法。从Mitchell（2014）的研究干预“来世”概念对这项研究进行理论上的构想，该研究问道：“通过对先前接受过参与式视觉方法培训的个体进行的后续研究，我们可以从中了解到有关HIV和AIDS教育的信息吗？” 讨论这个问题后，本文首先将青年知识生产者（YAKP）描述为研究背景以及我与该项目的联系。接下来是我的数据收集方法的概述。调查结果报告了职前教师对学习参与式视觉方法进行艾滋病毒和艾滋病教育的反思，他们如何或计划将这些方法整合到教学中，以及他们在运用参与式视觉方法时遇到的挑战。对研究结果进行了讨论，探讨了它们可能对艾滋病毒和艾滋病教师教育的发展做出的贡献。教师教育以及艾滋病毒和艾滋病DBE对这一流行病的反应依赖于教师。但是，这对于老师们来说远非易事。关于性和性形式的身体的教学可能对教师的身份构成根本性挑战，并威胁他们在课堂上的权威（Baxen，2010； Baxen＆Breidlid，2004）。在面向生活（LO）的教学过程中，教师可能会与国家规定的课程（基于权利的综合课程）以及他们关于性与性别的个人价值观（Ahmed，Flisher，Mathews，Mukoma和Jansen， 2009； Helleve，Flisher，Onya，Mukoma和Klepp，2009年）。他们可能也难以满足学习者的特定需求，例如，他们身体不健全或异性恋（Chirawu，Hanass-Hancock，Aderemi，de Reus和Henken，2014； Francis，2012）。谈论人际关系，爱情，疾病，教师通常避免死亡（Naidoo，2014年）。以教学为中心，以教师为中心的方法的使用可能会破坏LO课程中提倡的以学习者为中心的方法（Gibbs，Willan，Jama-Shai，Washington和Jewkes，2015）。在职教师教育的匮乏本身仍然是一个问题。例如，弗朗西斯（Francis）和德帕尔玛（DePalma）（2015）发现，许多负责性健康教育的教师表示，他们没有接受过有关艾滋病毒和艾滋病教育内容和教学法的培训或仅有很少的培训。高等教育机构（HEI）的4年制本科或1年制研究生课程。然而，关于教师教育的大量研究得出的结论是，高等院校未能为受艾滋病毒和艾滋病影响的不断发展的南非学校系统做好准备（英语：Clark，2008； James-Traore，Finger，Daileader Ruland和Stephanie，2004； Wilmot和Wood，2012）。 。…