MAGISTER

www.unioviedo.es/reunido

Magister 34 (2022) 45‑52

An Analysis of Primary School Teachers’ Knowledge of Gender Perspec‑ tives in Children’s and Young Adults’ Literature

* Lucía Rodríguez‑Olay

Universidad de Oviedo

KEYWORDS

Gender stereotype, perception, teacher, primary education

ABSTRACT

One of the fundamental objectives of our education system is the promotion and pursuit of equality. Given that teachers are key to achieving equality, it is essential to ascertain teachers’ knowledge of various gender issues and whether the training they receive is adequate and sufficient. This research is based on a quantitative analysis of an ad hoc survey of 72 primary school teachers. It considers teachers’ knowledge of gender issues in Children’s and Young Adults’ Literature, and how they approach them in the classroom. The results show that the main difference between male and female teachers mainly relates to the implementation of activities. The data also confirm the teachers’ awareness of their limited knowledge of gender issues and the need for training.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Estereotipo de género, percepciones, profesor, enseñanza primaria

Análisis del conocimiento del profesorado de primaria sobre la perspec‑ tiva de género en la literatura infantil y juvenil

RESUMEN

Uno de los objetivos fundamentales de nuestro sistema educativo es la promoción y la búsqueda de la igualdad. Por ello, teniendo en cuenta que la figura docente es clave para lograrlo, es fundamental averiguar cuál es el conocimiento que tiene el profesora‑ do sobre diversas cuestiones referidas al género y valorar, también, si la formación que recibe es adecuada y suficiente. En esta investigación, basada en un análisis cuantitativo realizado a partir de una encuesta elaborada ad hoc en la que participaron 72 docentes de primaria, se ha tratado de reflexionar sobre el conocimiento que tiene este colectivo sobre algunas cuestiones de género y su relación con la literatura infantil y juvenil y cómo se abordan en el aula. Los resultados muestran que la diferencia que existe entre el profesorado masculino y el femenino se refiere, principalmente, a la realización de actividades. Los datos también confirman la conciencia del profesorado sobre su escaso conocimiento sobre cuestiones de género y la necesidad de formarse al respecto.

*Autora de correspondencia: Lucía Rodríguez‑Olay; rodriguezolucia@uniovi.es Recibido: 25/02/2022 ‑ Aceptado: 17/05/2022

Revista de Formación del Profesorado e Investigación Educativa Facultad de Formación del Profesorado y Educación Universidad de Oviedo

Enero ‑ diciembre 2022 ISNN: 2340 - 4728

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0

Introduction

International bodies, such as UNESCO (2018), highlight the need for schools to offer new approaches that lead students to‑ ward a more egalitarian understanding of gender, helping soci‑ ety to overcome current gender stereotypes. In addition to cre‑ ating policies and learning environments which address these issues, teacher training is key to overcoming gender stereotypes and promoting equality (UNESCO, 2018). The Framework for Educational Action 2030 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 – ensure inclusive, equitable and quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all – also encom‑ passes the need to take explicit measures in education systems to end gender bias.

Education must be able to respond to the demands of society and, to this end, teachers must be well trained and have suffi‑ cient resources to be able to relate what happens in the classroom to what happens in the world (Boni et al., 2016; Boni and Cala‑ buig, 2017) while giving students an active and leading role in their own learning process (Marles et al., 2017).

Educating for gender equality means eliminating all forms of discrimination that prevent boys and girls from having equal opportunities. It is essential that teachers are educated on gender issues if we want to build a school that is a true agent of change (Aydemiri and Demirkan, 2018).

Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are constructs that shape people’s be‑ haviour. Gender stereotypes manifest themselves both in indi‑ viduals and in groups. Indeed, it is in a person’s environment where principles develop and end up being interpreted as abso‑ lute truths, even when they are not (Amurrio‑Vélez et al., 2012).

These types of ideas, which are fundamental for the develop‑ ment of human beings, should be addressed from an early age in order to try to avoid any type of inequality that may arise as a result of them. Around the ages of 10‑12, boys and girls begin to be more flexible and receptive to change and to breaking down stereotypes (Banse et al., 2010). For this reason, it is crucial to influence the education of students at this age because, although they tend to seek out patterns and activities that are related to their sex and which place more emphasis on the differences be‑ tween them, the influence of gender stereotypes and patterns de‑ pends on many factors related to their environment that can be addressed at school or at home (Martin and Ruble, 2010).

Schools, Teachers and Gender

It is from the 1980s onwards that the sociology of education begins to explore school as a vital space for educating people. Until then, although it was not considered to be a discriminatory institution, it had been shown to reinforce many gender stereo‑ types (Meyer, 2008).

Nowadays, the idea that the school is the place where a per‑ son receives their education is unquestioned. Therefore, “It is the task of the school to transmit knowledge devoid of gender ste‑ reotypes, a non‑sexist education in its students, and to achieve the personal growth of individuals stripped of all types of prej‑ udices” (Reinoso and Hernández, 2011, p.3). It was and still should be considered necessary to address and study different approaches to generating a truly egalitarian education (Antecol et al., 2015) since schools and teachers have an indisputable role in the social construction of gender (Blackburn and Pascoe, 2015; Pinedo et al., 2018).

Schools are complex structures (Stevens and Martell, 2019) and everything that teachers do as an active part of them is important. The gender‑related practices that teachers develop make up what is known as the “hidden curriculum”. The hidden curriculum constitutes the messages that boys and girls inter‑ nalise and the behaviours they identify as appropriate, correct and socially acceptable. As such, it is incredibly influential in the development of gender stereotypes (Moreno, 2009).

It is therefore necessary to carry out transformations that directly involve teachers, their learning and their awareness of gender issues. Teacher participation is particularly difficult due to the predominance of patriarchal structures and the lack of pedagogical proposals in this regard (Colás and Jiménez, 2006). Another barrier to teacher involvement is their lack of knowl‑ edge and training in gender issues (Gómez and Sánchez, 2017).

Consequently, for this whole process of change to be success‑ ful, it is crucial that teachers are well trained and have sufficient tools to be able to teach and thus contribute to creating a more inclusive and egalitarian society (Martínez, 2020).

Many of the stereotypical views of teachers stem from a lack of knowledge about the basic concepts and issues of gender stud‑ ies, which is essential to be able to carry out an effective interven‑ tion in the classroom. To address this lack of knowledge, we must start by recognising existing inequalities, then we must provide resources to address them (Þórðardóttir and Lárusdóttir, 2016).

Teachers who are not sufficiently trained in this area run the risk of being influenced by their personal experiences and trans‑ mitting them to their students through the hidden curriculum whereby personal values, thoughts or beliefs, in this case, about gender stereotypes, are implicitly conveyed (Hernández et al., 2013; Wingrave 2018).

Determining what knowledge teachers have about gender issues is the starting point to being able to assess their training when it comes to creating spaces and classrooms that promote equality (García‑Pérez et al., 2013). Likewise, several studies have shown that, despite the fact that teachers believe that they do not have gender biases (Ayala and Mateo, 2005; Rocha et al., 2010), the daily reality in schools shows that boys tend to receive more attention in class (Eliasson et al., 2016; Wolter et al., 2015), sexist jokes are made, and tasks are assigned depending on sex, with more active roles being encouraged for boys and more pas‑ sive roles for girls (Åhslund and Boström, 2018; Díaz de Greñu and Anguita, 2017). In this sense, research such as Glock and Kleen (2017) confirms that teachers do have stereotypes about how boys and girls behave and this implies that they believe they know how students will behave.

These gender stereotypes held by teachers influence stu‑ dents’ perceptions of themselves and their academic potential (Serrano‑Rodríguez, 2019). Similarly, it has been found that teachers often attribute more success to male students, and this results in a lower level of self‑confidence among female students (Sánchez et al. 2016).

In this regard, it is important to note here the various studies that have raised the differences between boys and girls and their attitude towards reading (Artola et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2012; Merisuo‑Storm, 2006; Merisuo‑Storm and Soininen, 2014). One of the common findings of this research is that girls, from an early age, have a more positive attitude towards reading (Martinot et al., 2015). Furthermore, in other studies this is reaffirmed by a loss of interest in reading by boys as they get older, as they consider it to be an activity for women and girls (Colley and Comber, 2003; Merisuo‑Storm, 2006; Plante et al., 2009; Steffens and Jelenec, 2011).

These ideas that are acquired in childhood are maintained as adults, hence teachers not only maintain this theory with their students but also transfer it to themselves.

Therefore, it is very important that metacognitive process‑ es are encouraged in which teachers can reflect on and become aware of their own beliefs in order to be able to modify or regu‑ late them (Plaza et al., 2015). For this reason, influencing teacher training with regard to gender and education issues is the obvi‑ ous starting point for building a truly co‑educational and egali‑ tarian school (García‑Pérez et al., 2011).

Children’s and Young Adult Literature and gender stereotypes.

For centuries, literature has been a central element in the transmission of a society’s predominant ideologies, values, traditions and culture (Mutekwe and Mutekwe, 2012; Rodrí‑ guez‑Gutiérrez and Gutiérrez‑Sebastián, 2013). It also connects us with other ways of thinking and living, which fosters toler‑ ance and respect (Reyzábal and Tenorio, 2004). Moreover, it is a fundamental part of the development of children’s socialisation and their identification with different gender roles, which will have an impact on their future academic or professional aspira‑ tions (Nhundu, 2007).

This study addresses the stereotypes that teachers may have internalised and linked to Children’s and Young Adult Litera‑ ture (hereinafter, CYAL). CYAL is an useful lens for this explora‑ tion because it is considered to play an important role in the so‑ cialisation and identification with various gender roles for boys and girls (Banse et al., 2010; Haruna‑Banke and Ozewe, 2017) which will influence their academic or professional aspirations (Åhslund and Boström, 2018; Gentrup and Rjosk, 2018; Hester de Boer et al., 2018;). Focusing on CYAL to determine the stereo‑ types teachers may or may not have is also justified by the fact that these texts help students develop the framework they use to interpret the world (Cerrillo, 2007).

Identifying, reflecting on and addressing these issues is es‑ sential for teachers to build a school where boys and girls have fun and feel that they can succeed without any gender barriers (Carrillo, 2017).

Objective

This study analyses the data from an ad hoc survey conducted at 17 state‑subsidised schools in Spain. The following objective has guided this research: to determine the knowledge, behaviour and attitudes of the fifth and sixth grade teachers from primary schools who participated in this study in relation to gender is‑ sues in CYAL.

Method

Participants

Seventy‑two fifth and sixth year teachers from 17 prima‑ ry state‑subsidised schools in Spain participated in this study. Teacher’s participation was voluntary. To encourage partici‑ pation, a letter was previously sent to the school management teams. The anonymity and confidentiality of the responses was assured both in the instrument itself and in the aforementioned letter. Both the pilot test and the final instrument were designed and applied through a Google form, as all participating teachers either use tablets or computers.

The 72 teachers were distributed as follows: 45.8% were male and 54.2% were female. Thirty‑nine teach in the fifth year of pri‑ mary school while 33 teach in the sixth year.

Data collection techniques and procedure

Based on the objective, a descriptive survey type study was carried out in three successive phases. In the first phase, an ad hoc questionnaire was created for the collection of informa‑ tion. This first instrument was tested before being sent to all teachers. In order to validate the questionnaires, two experts in CYAL and in gender and education reviewed the pilot and suggested improvements. Based on their feedback, a question‑ naire of six blocks was developed. The first block collects so‑ ciodemographic and professional data, and the other five deal with methodology, reading and gender. These experts were included to promote the knowledge and attitudes of teachers towards education from a gender perspective. Their answers to the questionnaire have been taken as a basic instrument of anal‑ ysis and, therefore, as a thread which has encouraged them to rethink their methodological approaches towards reading as an activity conducted in classrooms and more specifically towards the reading of CYAL.

A literature review on this issue was carried out, with two main focal points: on the one hand, school and teaching, and on the other hand, CYAL texts (Colás and Villaciervos, 2007; Co‑ lomer and Olid, 2009; Fernández‑Artigas et al., 2019; Lasarte and Aristizábal, 2014; McCabe et al., 2011).

This study focuses on block 5.1. and 5.2. “Gender Perspec‑ tive” as the main objective of the research is to determine, through CYAL texts, whether or not teachers have gender ste‑ reotypes and which ones.

Data Analysis

IBM SPSS 20 for Windows was the software used to perform all the analyses with a significance level of .05.

The degree of reliability of the questionnaire was analysed using Cronbach’s alpha statistic, obtaining a value of 0.796, which is considered to be between “good” and “acceptable” (George and Mallory, 2003; Gliem and Gliem, 2003).

For the calculation of this value, multiple choice and open‑ended questions were suppressed, which accounted for 7.5% of the total, as it was considered that both types of ques‑ tions should be used for further qualitative studies.

The descriptive statistics of the items were calculated: mean, standard deviation, asymmetry, kurtosis and range (Rendón‑Macías et al., 2016). Later, parametric statistics tests were applied since the items, except for two, present values of asymmetry and kurtosis in a range between ‑1 and 1. All the analyses were made in variables that collect the global average in block one (composed of two questions), the average in block two (composed of 19 questions), and the opinions by item. Spe‑ cifically, the student t‑test was applied to find out the differences between sexes.

Results

The average score of the items that make up the first block of analysis shows an opinion that is close to being in agreement (M

= 2.68; SD = 0.67). For items in this block, scores close to “fairly” agreed are also obtained, as can be seen in Appendix 1.

Therefore, the teachers who participated believe they have an acceptable level of knowledge about gender and that they carry out activities related to this issue.

Regarding block 5.2., they show a fairly high degree of agree‑ ment (M = 2.48; SD = 0.29). For items in this block, “Dealing with issues of gender or sexuality should only be done in the family setting” (M =1.42; SD = 0.76) and “gender issues should not be dealt with in schools” (M = 1.43; SD = 0.77) are the items that obtain the least average, expressing an opinion of little agreement.

Whereas the two items with the highest scores, representing a score of strong agreement, are: “Teachers need training on liter- ature from a gender perspective” (M = 3.13; SD = 0.79) and “More activities should be done that work on gender issues” (M = 3.28; SD = 0.70). The remaining items score in the middle.

These results highlight not only the importance of teacher training, but also the need that teachers admit exists for such training. Also, the fact that it is felt that more activities on gender issues should be carried out, demonstrates that those being cur‑ rently carried out are not sufficient.

Gender differences

In block one, no statistically significant differences are found [without assuming equality of variances, t (67.86) =.11 p > .05]. In fact, the averages in both men (SD = 0.54) and women (SD = 2.68) are 2.70, close to the fairly agreed ones. In block two, there are statistically significant differences [assuming equal variance, t (70) =‑2.08 p < 0.05]. Women score higher and closer to strong agreement (M = 2.53; SD = 0.32) than men (M = 2.39; SD = 0.25).

Statistically significant differences (p <.05) were found in four items: “It is effective to carry out activities to work on gender issues with students”; “Children’s and Young Adults’ Literature is a useful tool for working on gender issues”; “Students at this stage are more influenced by video games than by literature on gender issues”; and “More activities on gender issues should be carried out”. In the first three items, both men and women show “fairly good agree‑ ment”. However, in the case of women, it is significantly higher. In the fourth item, opinions are “very much in agreement” in both sexes, but again significantly higher in women. Appendix 2 shows the means by sex for each item and the statistically sig‑ nificant differences.

The average of 2.86 in the response to the item “It is neces- sary to develop or seek appropriate materials to address gender issues because they do not appear in textbooks” undoubtedly shows an in‑ terest in addressing these issues while indicating that teachers who really want to give their students a new vision that society does not always facilitate, assume their key role in disseminat‑ ing, through different materials or methodologies, models that break stereotypes and promote equality.

There are four items where there was a significant differ‑ ence between men and women. The four items where this dif‑ ference exists are: “It is effective to carry out activities to work on gender issues with students”; “Children’s and Young Adults’ Liter- ature is a useful tool for working on gender issues”; “Students from this age group are more influenced by video games than by literature on gender issues”; and “More activities on gender issues should be carried out”.

In the first three, both male and female teachers show opin‑ ions of “fairly good agreement”, whereas, it should be noted that, in the case of women, it is significantly higher. In the fourth item, the same happens. Although the responses show opinions

of “very much in agreement” in both sexes, women’s opinions are higher in number.

As we can observe, the difference in perception between male and female teachers regarding the usefulness and frequency of gender‑related activities reveals that female teachers consider them as more useful and recognize themselves as more active in implementing activities of this type.

Discussion

This study results can be interpreted as a sample of teachers’ perceptions in the final years of primary education on gender perspectives and their inclusion in educational practice, specifi‑ cally through CYAL.

As seen in this study, previous research has pointed to the influence of schools and teachers in contributing to the construc‑ tion of equality. In addition, and due to the influence that CYAL has on boys and girls, it is essential to reflect on the roles that ap‑ pear in it, how to deal with them and how to generate practices that allow us to change these stereotypes.

Bringing gender perspectives into schools is a change that would also encourage critical thinking among both students and teachers. This increase in critical thinking would, in turn, change behaviour throughout the educational community, by generating new and innovative educational practices (Rebollo, 2013). This will contribute to students taking a leading role in the teaching‑learning process, which will help improve their ac‑ ademic performance (Marles et al., 2017).

Taking all these issues into account, there are two aspects that are essential. On the one hand, it is vital that primary school teachers have various techniques and methodologies at their dis‑ posal, along with a wide repertoire of CYAL texts to use in the classroom (Álvarez‑Álvarez and Pascual‑Díez, 2019).

On the other hand, it is necessary for teachers to receive comprehensive training that helps them understand how to ap‑ proach subjects from a gender perspective and how to carry out activities that influence the construction of thought and the ed‑ ucation of boys and girls (Pinedo et al., 2018). Training teachers on gender and equality issues will contribute to improving their teaching competence and help to improve and change society through the education system (Martínez, 2020). Not having ade‑ quate training in this aspect leads to the false belief that it is not necessary to influence the issues that promote equality between men and women at school, because it has already been achieved and gender stereotypes have been overcome (Gómez‑Jarabo and Sánchez, 2017).

Conclusions

It could be said that the aim of this study has been fulfilled: to determine the knowledge, behaviour and attitudes of the fifth and sixth grade teachers from primary schools who participated in this study in relation to gender issues in CYAL.

The data show how, despite the fact that the role of the fami‑ ly is undeniable within the processes of promoting equality and co‑education (Equality Observatory, 2008), the group of teachers surveyed considers that the school is one of the most appropriate places to address these issues and that they cannot be dealt with only in the family setting.

The items primarily address the implementation of gen‑ der‑related activities and the need to increase their number and frequency. These items not only were explicitly linked to CYAL

themes, but also covered the influence of video games, film and advertising.

The results confirm the fundamental role of teachers in pro‑ moting reading enjoyment and preferences. In addition, these results stimulate reflection on the stereotypes that are being fostered both by the attitudes of the teachers themselves and by the readings that are being selected, since gender does influence the choice of readings by primary school pupils, as Artola et al. (2016) show in their study.

As has been pointed out, the perceptions we have of our‑ selves as readers, which are acquired in childhood, are main‑ tained as adults. Girls have a more positive attitude towards reading (Martinot et al., 2015) while boys lose interest in reading as they grow up: this idea may explain the results obtained on the work with CYAL

Data also confirm teachers’ perception that they need to learn more about gender issues. According to the data, they believe that they do not have sufficient information, resources or tools within the teaching‑learning process to enhance equal educa‑ tion. Research shows that there is a need for gender training to be able to respond to conflicts and violence and to work for diversity and equality (Gómez and Sánchez, 2017; Sánchez and Barea, 2019).

This study provides new data and shows how there is a dif‑ ference between the perceptions of male and female teachers and how CYAL is a valuable and powerful tool to work on gender issues in the classroom and to promote a culture of equality and equity.

This research opens up new avenues for future research into the role of teachers in the development of gender stereotypes in primary school pupils.

For future research and studies, it would be extremely use‑ ful if the questionnaire, prepared ad hoc, could be carried out in more schools, including public schools, in order to study how these issues and possible differences between teachers are being addressed by the teaching staff.

As for teachers, their knowledge and their training needs in relation to gender issues, it is of paramount importance for them to receive adequate training if they are to build a school that equally educates boys and girls and guides them in the develop‑ ment of a freer and fairer society.

Funding

This work has received no funding.

References

Åhslund, I & Boström, L. (2018).Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender Differences‑What about Boys and Girls in the Classroom? International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Re- search, 17(4), 28‑44. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.4.2

Álvarez‑Álvarez, C. & Pascual‑Díez, J. (2019). Estrategias didácticas en torno a la lectura empleadas en la formación inicial del profesorado en España. Ocnos, 18(3), 38‑47. https:// doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2019.18.3.2108

Amurrio‑Vélez, M., Larrinaga‑Rentería, A., Usategui‑Basozobal, E., & Del Valle, A.I. (2012). Los estereotipos de género en los/ las jóvenes y adolescentes. En XVII Congreso de Estudios Vas- cos: Gizarte aurrerapen iraunkorrerako berrikuntza = Innovación para el progreso social sostenible (Vitoria‑Gasteiz) (pp. 227‑248). Eusko Ikaskuntza

Antecol, H., Eren, O. & Ozbeklik, S. (2015). The Effect of Teacher Gender on Student Achievement in Primary School. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(1) 63‑89. https://doi.org/10.1086/677391

Artola, T., Sastre, S. & Barraca, J. (2016). Diferencias de género en actitudes e intereses lectores: una investigación con alum‑ nos españoles de primaria. Bordón, 69(1), 2‑26. https://doi. org/10.13042.

Ayala, A.I. & Mateo, P. L. (2005) (Coord.). Educar en relación, es- tereotipos y conflictos de género. Departamento de Educación y Ciencia del gobierno de Aragón.

Aydemiri, S. & Demirkan, Ö. (2018). Gender‑Aware Media Literacy Training: A Needs Analysis Study for Prospective Teachers Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 6‑30. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.1

Banse, R., Gawronski, B., Rebetez, C., Gutt, H. & Morton, B. (2010). The development of spontaneous gender stereotyp‑ ing in childhood: relations to stereotype knowledge and stereotype flexibility. Developmental Science, 13(2), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2009.00880.x

Blackburn, M. V., & Pascoe, C. J. (2015). K‑12 students in schools. In G. Wimberly (Ed.), LGBTQ issues in education: Advancing a research agenda (pp. 89‑104). American Educational Research. Boni, A. & Calabuig, C. (2017). Education for Global Citizenship at Universities. Journal of Studies in International Education,

21(1), 22‑38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315602926

Boni, A., Lopez‑Fogues, A. & Walker, M. (2016). Higher educa‑ tion and the post‑2015 agenda: a contribution from the hu‑ man development approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(1), 17‑28.

Carrillo, I. (2017). El compromiso ético y político con el derecho a la educación: entre discursos y realidades. Direito, Estado e Sociedade, 51, 78‑108. https://doi.org/10.17808/des.51.1030

Cerrillo, P. C. (2007). Literatura infantil y juvenil y educación lite- raria. Octaedro.

Colás, P. & Jiménez, R. (2006). Tipos de conciencia de género del profesorado en los contextos escolares. Revista de Educación, 340, 415‑444.

Colás, P. & Villaciervos, P. (2007). La interiorización de los este‑ reotipos de género en jóvenes y adolescentes. Revista de In- vestigación Educativa, 25(1), 35‑58.

Colley, A. & Comber, C. (2003). School subject preferences: age and gender differences revisited. Educational Studies, 29(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690303269

Colomer, T. & Olid, I. (2009). Princesitas con tatuaje: las nue‑ vas caras del sexismo en la ficción juvenil. Textos de Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura, 51, 55‑67. https://doi.org/10.5209/ dida.54082

Díaz de Greñu D. S. & Anguita, R. (2017). Estereotipos del pro‑ fesorado en torno al género y a la orientación sexual. Revis- ta Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 20(1), 219‑232. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop/20.1.228961

Eliasson, N., Sørensen, H., & Karlsson, K. G. (2016). Teacher– student interaction in contemporary science classrooms: Is participation still a question of gender? International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1655–1672. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09500693.2016.1213457

Fernández‑Artigas, E., Etxaniz, X. & Rodríguez‑Fernández, A. (2019). Imagen de la mujer en la Literatura Infantil y Juve‑ nil vasca contemporánea. Ocnos, 18(1), 63‑72. https://doi. org/10.18239/ocnos_2019.18.1.1902

García‑Pérez, R., Sala, A., Rodríguez, E. & Sabuco, A. (2013) For‑ mación inicial del profesorado sobre género y coeducación:

impactos metacognitivos de la inclusión curricular transver‑ sal sobre sexismo y homofobia. Cantó, 17 (1), 269‑287.

García‑Pérez, R.; Rebollo, M.A.; Vega, L.; Barragán, R.; Buzón,

O. & Piedra, J. (2011). El Patriarcado no es Transparen‑ te: Competencias del Profesorado para Reconocer la Des‑ igualdad. Cultura y Educación, 23(3), 385‑397. https://doi. org/10.1174/113564011797330298

Gentrup, S. & Rjosk, C. (2018). Pygmalion and the gender gap: do teacher expectations contribute to differences in achieve‑ ment between boys and girls at the beginning of schooling? Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3‑5), 295‑323. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550840;

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Gliem, J.A. & Gliem, R.R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Re- porting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert‑Type Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Con‑ tinuing, and Community Education. The Ohio State University. Glock, S. & Kleen, H. (2017). Gender and student misbehav‑ ior: Evidence from implicit and explicit measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 93‑103. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.

tate.2017.05.015

Gómez, I. & Sánchez, P. (2017). Formación del profesorado en cuestiones de género. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 43, 53‑68. http://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2017.43.53‑68

Gómez‑Jarabo, I. & Sánchez‑Delgado, P. (2017). La atención a la diversidad cultural y de género en la formación del profesorado. Innovación educativa, 27, 165‑185. https://doi. org/10.15304/ie.27.4095

Graham, S. Berninger, V. & Abbott, R. (2012). Are Attitudes To‑ ward Writing and Reading Separable Constructs? A Study with Primary Grade Children, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 51‑69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632732

Haruna‑Banke, L. & Ozewe, R. (2017). Stereotyping Gender in Children’s Literature. Quest Journals Journal of Research in Hu- manities and Social Science, 5(5), 77‑81.

Hernández, M. N., González, P.R. & Sánchez, S.V. (2013). Gender and Constructs from the Hidden Curriculum. Creative Edu- cation 4(12), 89–92. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.412A2013 Hester de Boer, A., Timmermans, A.C. & Van der Werf, M. (2018). The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta‑analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3‑5),

180‑200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550834 Lasarte, G. & Aristizábal, P. (2014). Leyendo el género: Maria‑

sun Landa. Ocnos, 12, 149‑169. https://doi.org/10.18239/oc‑ nos_2014.12.08

Marles, C., Peña, P. & Gómez, C. (2017). La lúdica como estra‑ tegia para la educación y cultura ambiental en el contexto universitario. Revista UNIMAR, 35(2), 283‑292.

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender develop‑ ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353–381. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511.

Martínez, M. (2020). Hacia una educación inclusiva: formación del profesorado de primaria enmarcada en los ODS que po‑ tencian la igualdad de género. Revista Iberoamericana de Edu- cación, 82(2), 27‑45. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie8223596

Martinot, D., Bagès, C. & Désert, M. (2012). French children’s awareness of gender stereotypes about mathematics and reading: when girls improve their reputation in math. Sex Roles 66, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199‑011‑0032‑3

McCabe, J.; Fairchild, E.; Grauerholz, L.; Pescosolido, B.A. & Tope, D. (2011). Gender in Twentieth‑Century Chil‑ dren’s Books: Patterns of Disparity in Titles and Central Characters. Gender and Society, 25(2), 197–226‑. https://doi. org/10.1177/0891243211398358

Merisuo‑Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 111‑125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600576039

Merisuo‑Storm, T. y Soininen, M. (19‑21 noviembre de 2012). Young boy ́s opinions about reading, literacy lessons and their reading competence. 5th International Conference of Educa‑ tion, Research and Innovation, Madrid. España.

Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non) interventions. Gender and Edu- cation, 20, 555‑570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802213115 Moreno, M. (2009). Como se enseña a ser niña: el sexismo en la es-

cuela. Icaria.

Mutekwe, E. y Mutekwe, C. (2012). Manifestations of the gender ideology in the zimbabwean school curriculum. Journal of Ed- ucational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(3), 193‑209.

Nhundu, T. J. (2007). Mitigating Gender‑typed Occupational Preferences of Zimbabwean Primary School Children: The Use of Biographical Sketches and Portrayals of Female Role Models. Sex Roles, 56(9), 639‑649. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199‑007‑9204‑6

Observatorio para la Igualdad de Oportunidades [Equality Ob‑ servatory]. (2008). Guía de coeducación: Síntesis sobre la educa- ción para la igualdad de oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres. Instituto de la mujer.

Pinedo, R. Arroyo, M.J. & Berzosa, I. (2018). Género y educación: detección de situaciones de desigualdad de género. Contex- tos educativos, 21, 35‑51 http://doi.org/10.18172/con.3306

Plante, I., Théorét, M. & Favreau, O. E. (2009). Student gender stereotypes: contrasting the perceived maleness and female‑ ness of mathematics and language. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410902971500

Plaza, M.V., González, L. & Meinardi, E. (2015). La reflexión me‑ tacognitiva como estrategia para trabajar las creencias de se‑ xualidad y género en la formación docente. Revista del IICE, 38, 63‑74. https://doi.org/10.34096/riice.n38.3461

Rebollo, M.A. (2013). La innovación educativa con perspectiva de género. Retos y desafíos para el profesorado. Editorial. Profesorado 17(3), 3‑8

Reinoso, I. & Hernández, J.C. (2011). La perspectiva de género en la educación. Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo, 3(27), 1‑11.

Rendón‑Macías, ME, Villasís‑Keever, MÁ. & Miranda‑Novales, MG. (2016). Estadística descriptiva. Revista Alergia México, 63(4), 397‑407. https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v63i4.230

Reyzábal, M. V. y Tenorio, P. (2004). El aprendizaje significativo de

la literatura. La Muralla.

Rocha, T. C., Labraña, P. A. & García, J. (2010). Expectativas del profesorado en relación al género cuando evalúan las capaci‑ dades metacognitivas de sus alumnos(a)s. En R. M. Rald Phi‑ lipp (Coord.), Investigaciones actuales de las mujeres y del género (pp. 217‑228). Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

Rodríguez‑Gutiérrez, B. y Gutiérrez‑Sebastián, R. (2013). Li‑ teratura y educación en valores. El problema de la utili‑ zación de la obra literaria como instrumento. Revista de Didácticas Específicas, 8, 30‑44. https://doi.org/10.15366/didac‑ ticas2020.22.001

Sánchez, B. & Barea, Z. (2019). La formación en género del pro‑ fesorado de educación primaria: asignatura pendiente del sistema educativo. Studium Educationis, 2, 71‑82. https://doi. org/10.7346/SE‑022019‑06

Sánchez, C., Chiva, O. & Ruiz, J. (2016). Tratamiento y evolución de los estereotipos de género en educación secundaria. Re- vista Digital de Educación Física, 42, 105‑114.

Serrano‑Rodríguez, N. (2019). Percepción, conocimiento y actitu- des que poseen los maestros de escuelas privadas respecto a la equidad de género. [Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad Ana G. Méndez. Recinto De Gurabo]. ProQuest Dissertations Pub‑ lishing.

Steffens, M. C. & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: implicit abili‑ ty stereotypes are self‑serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles 64, 324–335. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199‑010‑9924‑x

Stevens, K. & Martell, C. (2019). Feminist social studies teach‑ ers: The role of teachers’ backgrounds and beliefs in shaping

gender‑equitable practices. The Journal of Social Studies Re- search, 43, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2018.02.002

UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report gender review 2018: Meeting our commitments to gender equality in education. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/glo‑ bal‑education‑monitoring‑report‑gender‑review‑2018‑mee‑ ting‑our‑commitments‑gender/

Wingrave, M. (2018). Perceptions of Gender in the Early Years.

Gender and Education, 30(5), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/

09540253.2016.1258457

Wolter, I., Braun, E. & Hannover, B. (2015). Reading is for girls!? The negative impact of preschool teachers’ traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related motivation and skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1267), 1‑11. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.0126

Þórðardóttir, Þ. & Lárusdóttir, S.H. (2016). The day the gender system collapses will be a good day: Students’ memories of being girls or boys. Icelandic Journal of Education, 25(1), 129−147

Appendix 1. Descriptive statistics of the items that make up block 5.1 and block 5.2

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; K = Range; Sk = Skewness; Kurt = Kurtosis; SE = Standard error.

Appendix 2. Comparisons of means between sexes for each of the items

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; t = t‑value; df = degrees of freedom; p = p‑value