Berta Aznar-Martínez Universidad Ramon Llull (España). Facultad de Psicología, Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte (FPCEE), Blanquern (España) |
|
Jaume Grané-Morcillo[1] Universidad Ramon Llull (España). Facultad de Psicología, Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte (FPCEE), Blanquern (España) |
|
Judith Lorente-De-Sanz Universidad Ramon Llull (España). Facultad de Psicología, Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte (FPCEE), Blanquern (España) |
|
Carles Pérez-Testor Universidad Ramon Llull (España). Facultad de Psicología, Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte (FPCEE), Blanquern (España) |
|
José A. Castillo-Garayoa Universidad Ramon Llull
(España). Facultad de Psicología, Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte
(FPCEE), Blanquern (España) |
Abstract
Background.
Gender equality education in schools
is the most effective tool to combat inequality and gender-based violence
(GBV). Teachers often lack the necessary equality knowledge and skills. Objective. The aim of this study was to
develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot gender equality
programme for prospective teachers. Method.
Data was collected from a sample of 113 university students of Early Childhood
Education (41.6%) and Primary Education (58.4%) degrees, aged between 21 and 40
years (M=22.46; SD=2.45). Through a longitudinal design, the effectiveness of
the training programme was analysed in the following topics: coeducational
attitudes, acceptability of GBV and knowledge about gender equality. The
Wilcoxon contrast test, including significance and effect size, a Spearman Correlation and Linear
Regression analyses were conducted. Results.
Statistically significant changes between pre and post measures were obtained:
an increase in socio-cultural and relational coeducational attitudes and also in equality knowledge, as well as a decrease in GBV
acceptability. According to the findings from linear regression analysis,
student teachers who scored higher in coeducational attitudes tended to show
lower acceptability of GBV. Conclusions.
The need for further designs of training programmes on gender equality is
emphasised, and policy-makers and public authorities
are called upon to raise awareness of the importance of Gender Equality
Teaching (GET) and to develop clear guidelines for universities to address
these issues.
Resumen
Antecedentes. La educación en
igualdad de género en las escuelas es la medida más eficaz para combatir la
desigualdad y la violencia de género (VdG). El
profesorado frecuentemente carece de los conocimientos y competencias
necesarios en materia de igualdad. Objetivo.
El objetivo de este estudio era desarrollar, aplicar y evaluar la eficacia
de un programa piloto de igualdad de género para futuro profesorado. Método. Los datos fueron recogidos de
una muestra de 113 estudiantes universitarios de las titulaciones de Educación
Infantil (41,6%) y Educación Primaria (58,4%), con edades comprendidas entre
los 21 y los 40 años (M=22,46; DT=2,45). Mediante un diseño longitudinal, se
analizó la eficacia del programa de formación en los siguientes temas:
actitudes coeducativas, aceptabilidad de la violencia de género y conocimientos
sobre igualdad de género. Los análisis incluyeron la prueba de contraste de
Wilcoxon, pruebas de significación y de magnitud de cambio, Correlación de
Spearman y Regresión lineal. Resultados.
Se obtuvieron cambios estadísticamente significativos entre las medidas pre y
post: un aumento de las actitudes coeducativas socioculturales y relacionales y
también de los conocimientos sobre igualdad, así como una disminución de la
aceptabilidad de la violencia de género. Según los resultados del análisis de
regresión lineal, los estudiantes de educación que puntuaron más alto en
actitudes coeducativas tendieron a mostrar una menor aceptabilidad de la
violencia de género. Conclusiones.
Se enfatiza la necesidad de seguir diseñando programas de formación sobre
igualdad de género, así como la relevancia de que se formulen políticas y
recomendaciones por parte de las autoridades educativas en
relación a la coeducación junto con directrices claras para que las
universidades puedan abordar estas cuestiones.
Palabras clave / Keywords
igualdad de
género, enseñanza, educación, formación, violencia de género, proyecto piloto,
eficacia.
gender equality, teaching, education, training, programme, gender-based
violence, pilot, effectiveness.
1. Introduction
Although it is well known at the
societal level that gender equality is important for the healthy development of
girls and boys (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization [UNESCO], 2018b) different forms of gender discrimination nonetheless
persist (European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2014; 2023).
Specifically, the domain of violence towards women, which can take different
forms (physical, sexual, psychological or economic), has been recognized as one
of the most troubling manifestations of gender inequality (EIGE, 2023). This
continuing disparity negatively affects girls' access to certain spheres, their
participation in the community, and their social and professional development
(Cin & Walker, 2016). Even at universities, female academics often miss
opportunities because of longstanding patriarchal structures, distrust in
women’s professional expertise and unchanged systemic constraints (Hirsu et al., 2021).
According to UNESCO (2015), in order
to meet the urgent need for teachers who can exercise their privileged position
to enhance equality, it is important to ensure gender equity within teacher
training institutions. University-based teacher training programmes have a
responsibility to raise their students’ awareness of gender issues and provide
them with the training they need to confront gender challenges in the
classroom. Considering that education is an authentic instrument of social
transformation, teacher training in feminist theory and criticism is essential (Madruga, 2024).
In an attempt to bring about this
much needed transformation of teacher training, the European Council of
Ministers of Higher Education (European Higher Education Area [EHEA], 2003)
urged member states to reorganize their degree programmes with an eye toward
reducing inequality between men and women (González & Wagenaar,
2003). As part of the transition toward the EHEA, Spanish universities also took on an
obligation to incorporate gender studies into teaching and research (Kortendiek, 2011). According to Prat Grau and Flintoff
(2012), European universities’ task of drafting equality policies offers an
ideal opportunity to revisit the issue of gender in education. Classrooms and
educational institutions represent a context of critical importance, because
teachers’ attitudes play a fundamental role in the reproduction or elimination
of sexist stereotypes and in promoting change. Through the discourses they
adopt and their interactions with students, teachers are in a unique position
either to maintain and perpetuate inequality or, conversely, to educate for
equality of opportunity. This equality, in turn, has been recognized as key to
the eradication of gender-based violence (GBV) (Dlamini, 2021). This is because
GBV has its roots in the idea of women being inferior and subordinate to
men, a belief which is strengthened by gender stereotypes. Even though there are political and social measures in
place calling for equality in education, there is still a lack of formally
regulated gender education (Albury, 2014) and of measurement instruments
capable of evaluating the process itself to show evidence of progress on
mainstreaming gender implementation (DeJaeghere,
2015).
Research suggests that teachers are
often also lacking in the knowledge and skills they need to work with their
students on issues related to gender equality (Anguita-Martínez,
2011) and that they tend to feel unprepared to deal with these topics in the
classroom (Ministry for Equality, 2019). As noted, a number of studies point to
a dearth of teacher training in gender equality as the underlying cause of
limitations for the application of gender equality-oriented interventions in
schools (Husso et al., 2012; Lahelma,
2014; Martino et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2015). The project Educating
Teachers for Gender Equality (EIGE, 2016) provided evidence that a significant
percentage of teachers and instructors across countries have not been educated
in how to mainstream gender equality in the educational processes (Cardona-Moltó & Miralles-Cardona, 2022). Indeed, various
studies show that university students finish their training period without
adequate competence when it comes to gender equity (Pendergast et al., 2011),
and teachers report unrealistic perceptions of their own abilities to implement
sustainable gender equality practices (Miralles-Cardona et al., 2021). Despite
these shortcomings, many studies have found that professional development
programmes can offer teachers the support they need to explore and gain deeper
insight into gender and gender-based issues (Jones, 2022).
As an example of an effective
practice, the UN Women Training Centre’s Annual Report (2016) observed that
training can be a powerful strategy to move individually and collectively
towards gender equality through raising awareness, empowering learning, building
knowledge, and developing skills. The report stresses that preservice teachers
must acquire the knowledge and resources they need to incorporate a gender
perspective into their future teaching. Indeed, the need to boost the inclusion
of gender perspectives in university education has been identified in studies
in several countries (Kreitz-Sandberg, 2013; Langsten & Hassan, 2018; Lappalainen
& Lahelma, 2016).
Research on effective Gender
Equality Training (GET) is quite scarce on an international level. Among the
few publications on the topic is a Taiwanese study that assessed the
introduction of gender issues into the general curriculum of universities, finding
that the most important concerns for students were gender awareness, awareness
of gender equality and the creation of a teaching atmosphere of mutual respect
(Shih & Wang, 2022). Elsewhere, observations of a gender equality course
conducted at a Turkish university proved that perceptions of gender are still
shaped by patriarchal and conservative patterns that will be transferred to
future generations through education unless universities do more to train
teachers (Toraman & Özen,
2019). Kollmayer et al. (2020) evaluate a training
program for secondary school teachers, concluding that the gender stereotypes
that influence the choice that adolescents make of their future profession can
be reduced. In their conclusions, they advocate training teachers from previous
educational stages on gender issues, a call that is in line with the approach
of our study.
In the Spanish context, Gómez et al. (2016) conducted
a critical analysis of the extent to which a gender perspective is included in
teacher education. The study found that such training hardly exists in Spain, since only 11 out of the 44 existing teacher training
programmes in our country examined in the study offered courses related to
gender in their study plans, and they were generally elective subjects. More
recent reviews have concluded that gender training is offered in 26.3% of
primary education degrees at public universities (Resa, 2023) and in 22.4% of
early childhood, primary and social education degrees, including public and
private universities (Varela et al., 2024). These data corroborate the
continuing lack of critical awareness of gender equality and the resistance to
including it in teacher training (Fondón & Alzás, 2023; González-Pérez, 2018). Several investigations have come up with different findings with regards
to this issue in Spain. For instance, one of
the few existing studies found that students tend to express a desire for
faculty members to take on greater responsibility to effectively and
authentically integrate concerns related to equality between men and women into
their teaching practices (López Francés et al.,
2016). Another recent publication underscored students’ perception that
instances of discrimination by university faculty persist today, whether in the
form of sexist stereotypes, the use of discriminatory language or preferential
treatment driven by gender (Ruiz et al., 2018). It should also be noted
that different programs have focused specifically on strengthening the
knowledge of future early childhood and primary school teachers on education
for equality or on familiarizing teachers with legislation on gender equality
and GBV (Gavilán-Martín et al., 2023; Suberviola, 2023). Gavilán-Martín et
al. (2023) specifically focus on increasing future primary school teachers'
knowledge of legislation on gender equality and GBV. It is also worth
highlighting that students tend to think that the curriculum does not offer
them enough training on issues of gender (Monroe et al., 2008; Sanabrias-Moreno et al., 2022; Varela et al., 2024). It is especially critical, then, for university degree
programmes to expand their curricula to foster gender equality competence
development.
Gender equality education in schools
is currently viewed as the most effective way to promote equality, starting in
early childhood, and to reduce GBV. (Casanova & Roldán, 2016), and there is
growing scientific evidence in favor of acting in the
early stages of education to fight inequality and to promote a more feminist
society (Aragonés & Sevillano, 2020; UNESCO,
2018a; World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). That is why teachers should feel
equipped to address gender issues, and university programmes must provide the
necessary training. According to Vanner et al. (2022), effective feminist
pedagogy to fight GBV should utilize action-oriented strategies and curricula
rooted in both the systemic contexts of GBV and the intersectional lived
experiences of students and teachers. Gender equality programmes have been
shown to help students overcome sexist attitudes, control their emotions and
adopt attitudes oriented towards greater gender equality, in addition to
increasing the motivation of teachers (Lameiras et
al., 2006).
As has been shown, there is growing
evidence for the importance of gender education at all levels. Therefore, the
aim of this study is to implement and assess the effectiveness of a gender
equality programme for fourth-year university students enrolled in Early
Childhood and Primary Education programmes.
The specific objectives of the study
are the following:
1)
To
assess the knowledge and attitudes with regard to gender equality held by the
fourth-year university Early Childhood Education and Primary Education students
before and after completing a gender equality pilot programme.
2)
To analyze the changes in the sample of university students’
views of the acceptability of GBV after completing the gender equality
programme and their satisfaction.
2. Method
2.1. Equality training programme
The programme was designed for fourth-year
university students of Early Childhood Education and Primary Education at the
Faculty of Psychology, Educational and Sport Sciences. The training consisted
of five sessions addressing core gender equality concepts in the school
context, based on extensive bibliographical research conducted by the research
team in the six months prior to the training sessions. The aim of the program
was to promote GET at schools and the specific objectives were to raise
awareness about the impact of gender stereotypes on children's development, to
give knowledge about the issue of GBV, to address the key points of
affective-sexual education and show the mechanisms that allow us to promote
gender equality at schools. The “flipped classroom” methodology (Sergis et al., 2018) was used in the programme, meaning
that prior to each session students watched and read materials that had been
uploaded to a website created specifically for this purpose. Talbert (2012)
notes that the flipped classroom method shows promise for making the university
classroom experience more interactive, inclusive, and effective. In the case of
gender equality teaching (GET), this method creates a good atmosphere that
allows students to reflect and that helps promote attitudinal change with regard
to relevant topics. The sessions were based on group discussion and case
studies in order to promote reflective, critical and active learning. They were
conducted in two separate groups, one of Early Childhood students and another
of Primary students. The themes were selected based on group discussions in
which the researchers and professors of the faculty with expertise on gender
issues were involved and the results of the needs assessment with students
(pre-measures) were also taken into account. The sequence of course contents
was the following:
Session 1: Lectures on pornography consumption and sexual-affective education (5
hours - December). This session was carried out by four renowned experts on
pornography consumption and its consequences for interpersonal relationships,
as well as four school boards members with expertise with sexual-affective
programmes.
Session 2: Deconstructing gender stereotypes (2 hours - February). This
session was led by an associate professor from the university’s Education
department whose expertise is in gender equality and feminist theory. Using a
structure of case studies and analysis of examples, the students held group
discussions about presence and implications of gender roles, especially with
regards children and adolescents.
Session 3: Understanding GVB (2 hours - March). This session was guided by an
associate professor and a PhD student from the Psychology department, both
experts in GBV. It addressed the phenomenon from a social and educational
perspective and analysed various real cases in both stages (Early Childhood and
Primary).
Session 4: Programmes on sexual-affective education (2 hours - April). This
session was conducted by an associate professor and a PhD student from the
university’s Education and Psychology departments, both experts on
sexual-affective programmes. Based on a gender equality perspective, various
programmes were analysed in small groups, who then shared their work with the
group as a whole.
Session 5: School mechanisms to promote gender equality (2 hours - May). This
session was conducted by an associate professor from the Education department,
expert in school organization and gender equality. The focus was on the most
important mechanisms that school administrators and teaching staff should consider
adopting to promote gender equality in schools (equity plans, non-sexist
language, space distribution, relationships with families, non-discrimination,
among others).
2.2. Participants
All
participants were selected through non-probabilistic intentional sampling (Hibberts et al., 2012). The inclusion criteria were as
follows: age of majority and currently enrolled in Primary Education or the
Early Childhood Education degrees. All university students who met these
criteria were invited to participate in the study, thereby minimizing selection
bias. The initial sample
(pre-measurement) was made up of 148 university students (92.6% females and
7.4% males) enrolled in degree programmes in Early Childhood Education (44.6%)
and Primary Education (55.4%), aged between 20 and 39 years (M=22.06; SD=2.26).
The post-measurement sample consisted of 113 university students (93.8% females
and 6.2% males) of Early Childhood Education (41.6%) and Primary Education
(58.4%) degrees, aged between 21 and 40 years (M=22.46; SD=2.45). All
participants in the post-sample had responded to the pre-measure. Also, it
should be noted that the ages of the participants between the pre- and
post-measures may have changed slightly due to the time lapse between the two
measures. As can be seen in the Flow chart of the samples’ recruitment (see
Figure 1), the completion rate of the questionnaires in both pre (89.7%) and
post measures (87.6%) were satisfactory.
Table 1
Sociodemographic
characteristics of the sample (N = 73)
Variable |
Level |
Frequency |
Percentage
(%) |
|||||
Degree |
|
Early childhood education |
|
33 |
|
45.2 |
|
|
|
Primary education |
|
40 |
|
54.8 |
|
||
Sexual orientation |
|
Heterosexual |
|
52 |
|
71.2 |
|
|
|
Homosexual |
|
4 |
|
5.5 |
|
||
|
Bisexual |
|
17 |
|
23.3 |
|
||
Sex |
|
Man |
|
3 |
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
Woman |
|
70 |
|
95.9 |
|
||
There were participants who only
answered either the pre or the post measure. For this reason, through the
anonymised identification code, the complete responses on both measures were
matched, resulting in a sample of 73 participants (see Figure 1). Thus, the
response rate on both measures was suboptimal (49.3%). Therefore, the final
sample (pre-post study) consisted of 73 Early Childhood Education (45.2%) and
Primary Education (54.8%) university students (95.9% females and 4.1% males),
aged between 21 and 40 years (M=22.40; SD=2.43). Regarding the ethical
considerations, all participants gave their informed consent and were informed
about anonymity, confidentiality, voluntariness and the right to withdraw their
participation at any point in the research process, in accordance with EU
Regulation 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). The right of
withdrawal may explain the loss of responses in both measures. Also, the
research project was approved by the Faculty of
Psychology, Educational Sciences and Sports Blanquerna
(URL) ethics committee [2021003P].
Figure 1
Flow
chart of sample’s study
2.3. Measures
The following instruments were used
to assess the efficacy of the programme:
1.
School
Doing Gender / Teachers Scale (SDG/t) by Rebollo-Catalán
et al. (2011), which measures teachers’ attitudes with regard
to gender equality in the school context. It is a self-report
questionnaire made up of 30 items answered on a five-point Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree
and 5=strongly agree. The scale is
based on a three-factor model. The sociocultural factor (F1) has to do with
equality policies and school organization. The relational factor (F2) deals
with vertical links (between teachers and students) and horizontal ones (among
teachers), as well as with types of discourse, language and teaching praxis. Finally, the personal factor
(F3) covers personal beliefs and values related to equality. The instrument has
been found to have a very good degree of reliability (α = 0.92), indicating
that the items have a high level of internal consistency.
2.
Acceptability
of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women Scale (A-IPVAW) by Martín-Fernández
et al. (2018), to measure beliefs as to the acceptability of violence against
women. The questionnaire is made up of 20 items that assess attitudes toward
three different types of violence: physical violence and coercion, and verbal
violence and emotional violence (such as controlling behaviors).
It is answered using a three-point Likert scale: 1=not acceptable, 2=somewhat
acceptable and 3=acceptable. An
IRT analysis of the scale shows that it has an adequate fit to measure and
discriminate beliefs about acceptability (M2 (150) = 560.87, p <
.001). This model yields three indicators: a=discrimination, b1=specific
threshold parameter 1, b2=specific threshold parameter 2. Indicators
b1 and b2 offer a more specific measurement of the degree
to which violence against women is viewed as acceptable.
3.
Ad
hoc pre-test questionnaire on prior knowledge of coeducation, which uses a
dichotomous scale to assess students’ perceptions and opinions with regard to
the presence or absence of content related to coeducation in the current
curriculum (e.g. “In previous years of the degree I have worked on themes of
coeducation”), as well as their perception of their own readiness to work to
include gender equality in their future teaching practice (e.g. “I know what a
school Equality Plan is”, “I would be able to design a school Equality Plan”).
4.
Ad
hoc post-test questionnaire: including most of the questions posed in the ad
hoc pre-test questionnaire (dichotomous scale) and additional questions
designed to assess participants’ opinions and their degree of satisfaction with
the course (5 stars rating scale).
5.
Sociodemographic
variables: in the pre-test questionnaire, the following data were collected:
identification code, age, sex, sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual) and degree programme (Early Childhood Education or Primary
Education).
2.4. Procedure
Following a longitudinal assessment
design, the instruments were administered one month before the start of the
training programme (T1: pre-test in November) and one month after finishing the
training (T2: post-test in June) through an online survey. The web-based
questionnaire was distributed by email to the students. All responses were
tracked through an anonymized
identification code in order to match pre- and post- data. No personal data was
obtained.
2.5. Data collection and analysis
In order to collect data, a survey including all five of the
questionnaires mentioned above was created using the platform Survey-Monkey. Thus, the instruments
were administered online under the same conditions for all participants, as
both pre- and post-responses were carried out during class time. The average
response time was 15 minutes. Also, to ensure the replicability and external validity
of this study, the instruments were administered following the same
instructions, language and item order of both original psychometric
validations. For the purposes of data analysis, participants who failed to
complete the entire survey were eliminated, as were duplicate responses (see
Figure 1). No atypical cases were eliminated. Pre- and post-test data was matched
using an alphanumeric identification code (ID), identifying participants who
had completed both measures. Data analysis was carried out on this final sample
(N=73). The descriptive and correlational analyses of the quantitative data
were carried out using the software programme SPSS Statistics 28. In the statistical analysis process, the
normality of distribution of the quantitative variables was calculated. Due to
the non-normal distribution obtained (p < .05), a non-parametric Wilcoxon’s
test was carried out to assess changes between T1 and T2 with regards the
attitudes toward coeducation, the acceptance of GBV, the changes in the
knowledge of equality and coeducation, and the satisfaction with the
implemented programme. The result for Levene's test for homogeneity of
variances was satisfactory (p > .05). The effect size of the pre-post
differences was calculated using Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1992). Also, linear
regression analysis was applied to identify the factors affecting the
acceptability of GBV or coeducational attitudes, respectively. However, prior
to the regression analysis, Spearman Correlation analysis was performed to
identify whether there was any multicollinearity–one of the main assumptions of
analysis–between independent variables.
3. Results
3.1. Knowledge and attitudes with regard to gender equality (SDG/t)
In terms of the participants’ knowledge before
taking the course, 74.3% of the sample at the time of the pre-test believed
that they did not know enough about either coeducation or equality, meaning
that only 26.7% felt they did have the knowledge they needed about these
topics. There was a statistically significant improvement at the time of the
post-test, as 65.5% believed they had sufficient knowledge of gender equality
issues (W=-4.536; p≤.001). Additionally, prior to the training course only
28.4% said they felt capable of defining an equality plan, while after
completing the course 67.2% expressed confidence in this ability (W=-3.683;
p≤.001). Finally, in pre-test, 24.3% of the participants said they believed
that true equality would never be achieved in the school system, while the
number expressing a lack of hope dropped in the post-test to 15.9% (W=-1,225;
p=.221; p>.05). These descriptive results point to higher levels of
knowledge in the post-test of coeducation, equality and school equality plans.
Regarding to attitudes toward coeducation, the
Wilcoxon test showed that there was a significant difference between the pre-
and post-tests, with the participants scoring higher for coeducational
attitudes after completing the training course (Z=-2.583; p=.010; p≤.01). Thus,
coeducational attitudes increased after the training. There was also a
significant change in the sociocultural factor (Z=-3.269; p≤.001) and the
relational factor (Z=-3.715; p≤.001), with significantly higher values recorded
for the post-test in both cases (see Figure 2). However, no significant
differences were found between the pre- and post-test scores for the personal
factor (Z=-1.629; p=.103; p>.05). The item analysis showed that there were
significant improvements in the following specific coeducational beliefs and
attitudes (see Appendix, Table A1): “Equality laws
benefit women over men” “Equality laws disadvantage boys”, “Educational
materials can be good even if they contain sexist elements”, “Gender laws can
benefit men as well as women”, “In class, I use the masculine general for
economy of language and because it is correct”, “Gender is not something I work
on in my academic programme”, “I try to use non-sexist language in my work
documents”, “I am ashamed of sexist jokes that ridicule women”, “I like to work
more with girls because they are more studious”, “I like to work more with boys
because they are more dynamic”, “It is excessive to create the figure of a
person responsible for coeducation at a school”, “Filling out surveys on sexism
is useless”, “I do not know why the position of the person responsible for
coeducation has been created”. The outcomes of the effect size (Cohen’s d)
indicated low levels of practical significance in the variables for which
statistical significance was recorded. It is worth highlighting that the item
“It is excessive to create the figure of a person responsible for coeducation
at a school”, Cohen’s d indicates a huge effect size, which is evidence of a
strong degree of practical significance of the change in this belief.
Figure 2
Pre- and post-test comparison of attitudes toward
coeducation (SDG/t) factors and total score
Note. School Doing Gender / Teachers Scale [SDG/t].
3.2. Acceptability of GBV (A-IPVAW)
and training’s satisfaction
The Wilcoxon test also
showed a significant difference between the pre- and post-tests for the general
measurement of GBV acceptability (Z=-4.199; p≤.001), as well as for the
specific indicator of acceptability b1 (Z=-4.458; p≤.001). The participants’
acceptance of GBV decreased in the post-test (see Appendix, Table A2). The
item-by-item analysis made it possible to identify the specific areas in which
this decrease in acceptance occurred. The items that saw the biggest changes
asked about whether it was acceptable for someone to shout at his partner if
she is not treating him with respect (Z=-3.0; p=.003; p<.01); to set limits
on how his partner dresses (Z=-2.0; p=.046; p<.05); to send messages or
images of his partner without her permission (Z=-2.0; p=.046; p<.05); to
constantly reproach his partner for the mistakes she has made during an
argument (Z=-3.153; p=.002; p<.01). In terms of effect size (Cohen’s d),
there were low levels of practical significance for the variables that showed
statistical significance, with the exception of the item “to send messages or
images of his partner without her permission”. Therefore, the GBV acceptability
decreased after the training.
Spearman’s correlation
showed significant and negative correlations between acceptability of GBV and
coeducational attitudes (r=-.192; p=.042; p<.05) and also with personal
factor of SDG/t (r=-.204; p=.030; p<.05). On the one hand, linear regression
models showed that acceptability of GBV (A-IPVAW scores) at T2 had a
significant predictive value for coeducational attitudes at T2 (SDG/t scores)
in both males and females (Model, adjusted R2=.116, F=15.661,
p≤.001). Also, results obtained showed that A-IPVAW scores predict
significantly the scores of the SDG/t factors, specifically: sociocultural
(Model, adjusted R2=.052, F=7.179, p=.008; p<.01); relational
(Model, adjusted R2=.068, F=9.119, p=.003; p<.01) and personal
(Model, adjusted R2=.088, F=11.824, p=.003; p<.01). On the other hand,
linear regression models were also carried out to analyze
the prediction power of coeducational attitudes for acceptability of GBV.
Again, outcomes showed that SDG/t scores had a significant predictive value for
A-IPVAW scores (Model, adjusted R2=.116, F=15.661, p≤.001), as same
as sociocultural (Model, adjusted R2=.052, F=7.179, p=.008;
p<.01), relational (Model, adjusted R2=.068, F=9.119, p=.003; p<.01) and
personal (Model, adjusted R2=.088, F=11.824, p=.003; p<.01)
factors. Thus, high scores of acceptability of GBV are a predictor of less
coeducational attitudes, in both total scale and factor scores. However,
non-significant regression models were found between T1 and T2 data, due to low
values of GBV acceptability obtained at baseline. Therefore, a linear
association between GBV acceptability and coeducational attitudes was
demonstrated. Conversely, coeducational attitudes also showed a significant
linear association
with lower GBV acceptability. Thus, the relationship between these two
variables has been proven to be bidirectional.
With regards to the training’s satisfaction
degree, data obtained in post-measure (n=113) showed
an excellent satisfaction degree with the training in general (4.3 out of 5
stars). Specifically, session 2 (Deconstructing gender stereotypes) was the
best assessed (4.4 stars). Furthermore, 83.2% of the post-mediation
participants indicated that there is no need to include anything else in the
coeducational training programme. In terms of aspects for improvement, the
qualitative information from the final feedback indicated that it would be
necessary to explain the most common gender roles in the teaching staff, gender
diversity (non-binary perspective) and more specific tools on how to deal with
coeducation in tutoring sessions with parents, as well as the inclusion of more
specific information on how to design teaching interventions based on
coeducation.
4. Discussion
4.1. Knowledge and attitudes with regard to gender equality (SDG/t)
The first objective of
this study was to assess any changes in the participants’ attitudes toward
coeducation. The results show an improvement in these attitudes that is both
statistically and practically significant. Specifically, there was an increase
in the subscales measuring sociocultural and relational attitudes. The former
subscale assesses knowledge related to organizational measures schools can take
to promote gender equality, while the latter deals with personal relations
between teachers and students that strive for equality between men and women.
It stands to reason that changes in these areas would be easier and faster to
achieve than changes to factors such as beliefs and values, whose
transformation requires a greater amount of time and impact. The personal
subscale that measures these more deeply rooted factors did not yield any
statistically significant changes, but it is likely that longer periods of
training would be effective at making changes in these areas as well.
These results lend
support to the idea that the main reason teachers have difficulties in applying
gender equality competence development in schools is the paucity of teacher
training (Husso et al., 2012; Lahelma,
2014; Martino et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2015) due a resistance to
including gender issues in teacher training programs (Fondón
& Alzás, 2023; González-Pérez, 2018). Therefore, teachers’ ability to work on these issues could
be fostered by university programmes like this one. In this sense, as the UN
Women Training Centre’s Annual Report (2016) stated, training is the most
powerful strategy to move towards gender equality.
The results also show that the pilot programme
improved the participants’ knowledge of coeducation, gender equality and
equality plans. Much as Rands (2009) observed, we truly believe that the
implementation of good gender equality practices requires a systematic teaching
process through which consciousness moves from stereotyped to committed gender
conceptualization modes, the very kind of change that this programme has
facilitated. According to relevant international organizations as UNESCO
(2018a) and the World Health Organization [WHO] (2018), it is crucial to act at
the early stages of education to fight inequality and to promote a more
feminist society, and the best way to accomplish this by is empowering teachers
by providing them with accurate knowledge and good practices.
4.2. Acceptability of GBV (A-IPVAW)
and training’s satisfaction
The results for the
second objective show a decrease in the participants’ acceptance of GBV after
completing the coeducation programme and a high level of satisfaction. Echoing
an earlier study by Casanova and Roldan (2016), these results suggest that
gender equality education is the most effective way to promote healthy
relationships between men and women and to reduce GBV.
The programme has
shown itself to be effective. In light of this, it is clear that there is a
need to develop and assess training programmes of this type in order to improve
teaching practices and to help teachers feel more prepared to deal with
everyday challenges. For instance, programs like the one carried out by Gavilán-Martín et al. (2023) that specifically focus on
increasing future primary school teachers' knowledge of legislation on GBV
would also be useful in this purpose.
4.3. Practical implications
With regard to the practical implications of the study, it has been
demonstrated that gender equality programmes can be an effective way for future
(or current) teachers to gain the competences they need to work on gender
perspective with their students, both from an attitudinal and conceptual
perspective. This would lead to a relevant
change in students’ perception that the curriculum does not them enough
training on gender issues (Sanabrias-Moreno et al.,
2022; Varela et al., 2024). Thanks to these personal
and professional competences, teachers are better able to create an environment
of gender equality in their classrooms and foster critical thinking in their
pupils. This critical thinking ability will lead students to better understand
the roots of inequality and help equip them to change their environment and
fight for a society based on gender equality principles. As Ruiz and
Vidal (2024) suggest, reflecting on men’s and women’s socialization with
children and adolescents in the school context is the best way to defy gender
mandates.
Our results showed significant and
negative correlations between acceptability of GBV and coeducational attitudes.
It proves that gender equality education skills are related with attitudes
towards violence against women; a high level of acceptability of GBV is
incompatible with developing coeducational attitudes. Although the
coeducational model has proven effective at various levels of the education
system, many teachers continue to instill one set of
cultural and social models in boys and another in girls (Subirats,
2017), and it is due to
beliefs and acceptability of stereotypes that they have interiorized about the
nature of men and women. An important implication of these results is to
promote healthy relationships between girls and boys and eradicate sexist
stereotypes at schools when teaching children, due to the difficulty to change
these beliefs in adulthood (Fernández et al., 2016; Lappalainen
& Lahelma, 2016).
4.4. Limitations and future research
Among the limitations of the study,
it has to be acknowledged that the size of the sample
is small, so the results, even though they are statistically and practically
significant, cannot be extrapolated. In terms of the gender distribution of the
sample, there were only 4.1% male participants. This result is in line with
gender patterns in primary education (Heinz et al., 2023) and highlights the need for greater
inclusion of males in primary education, as prospective male and female
teachers have very similar motivational factors, such as intrinsic, altruistic
and child-centred care. Another limitation is the low level of participation by
men in the programme and in the study, but this a reflection of the still
feminized profession of teaching, especially in the first key stages of the
educational system. While it is true that the sample is too small, this was
intended as a pilot programme that will be further replicated with a bigger
sample. Thus, the sample size and the non-probabilistic intentional
sampling method followed in this study could limit the representativeness of
the sample and the generalizability of the results. It
is also important to mention that the social background of most students is
middle-upper class and that most of the participants have families with
university studies as well. This can also have an influence on the results that
should be acknowledged.
As future lines of research, it
would be of great interest to conduct qualitative research as it would be
essential to know the participants' thoughts and perceptions about their
training in gender equality and the programme. Furthermore, the evidence from
this study expands our understanding of how prospective teachers perceive coeducation and
gender-based violence. These findings could be explored in future
research by asking specific questions. It would also
be desirable to design GET programs that address other relevant issues,
like educating children in joint responsibility in domestic and family work,
and assess their efficacy so that this field can develop further and overcome
the current resistance. Specific interventions for vulnerable populations, for
instance in contexts at risk of social exclusion, are also needed and should be
developed and assessed.
5. Conclusions
Due to the promising results of the
programme, it will be implemented again in the next academic years for students
in all four years of the Early Childhood Education and Primary Education degree
programmes at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational and Sports Science Blanquerna (Ramon Llull University). The cooperative design
of the program among gender-issues experts, its focus on relevant themes and
its active and reflective methodology contributes for the adequacy of the
program in different educational contexts. The methodology of flipped classroom has been shown to be a suitable methodology to work on GET, as long as the
materials and tasks are relevant and meaningful for students and are properly
selected. The following sequence of the core contents has been effective: 1) the
negative consequences of gender stereotypes, 2) the connection between
stereotypes and GBV, 3) how gender inequality can interfere in the development
of healthy sexuality, 4) which mechanisms can be used in school to foster equality
between boys and girls (future men and women). With regards to this last point,
the priority aspects that must be addressed are: the occupation and use of
space by boys and girls, avoiding sexist language in school settings, the
reference knowledge that is transmitted, avoiding differential interactions
with boys and girls and the design of equality plans (Aznar-Martínez & Ahufinger, 2024).
GET is the most relevant tool to promote freedom and equality, and it is an
essential way to prevent GBV. It is important to take into account that
persistent inequality is sometimes due to the fact that the implementation of
gender equality-oriented programmes in schools are inevitably influenced by the
socio-cultural, political, economic and family contexts (Raza et al., 2019).
For instance, the decrease in gender inequality in access to higher education
is greater in elite than non-elite higher education (Wu et al., 2020).
These
are aspects that should be taken into account by GET programmes, and they point
to a need for further research on equality issues to inform the work of both
policy-makers and teachers (Moreau & Brownhill, 2017). We truly believe that GET programs are relevant to the overall purpose
of gender equality. Despite of this, the coeducational perspective should go
beyond and should permeate the mental framework of all teachers, subjects,
spaces and methodological decisions. In this vein,
EIGE (2016) states that effective GET requires not only the development of
specific gender competence, but also institutional commitment and
organizational strategies, all in order to design a well-defined framework to
embed gender competence development in study plans. That is why it is
imperative that policy-makers and public authorities in the field of education
and teacher training raise awareness on the importance of GET and develop clear
guidelines for universities to address these topics.
Contribución de los autores
Berta Aznar-Martínez: conceptualización, administración del proyecto,
adquisición de financiación, escritura del borrador original, metodología,
supervisión, validación, visualización. Jaume Grané-Morcillo: metodología, recopilación y gestión de datos,
análisis de datos, escritura del borrador original. Judith Lorente-De-Sanz: recopilación y gestión de datos, recursos,
software, escritura del borrador original. Carles Pérez-Testor: escritura (revisión y edición),
supervisión, validación. José A. Castillo-Garayoa: escritura (revisión y edición), supervisión,
validación.
Disclosure statement
The authors declared that the research was conducted in the
absence of any potential conflict of interest.
Funding
This project has been funded by the Ramon Llull University
[Grant number: 2021-URL-Proj-036].
References
Albury, K. (2014). Porn and sex
education, porn as sex education. Porn Studies, 1(1-2),
172-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2013.863654
Anguita-Martínez,
R. (2011). El reto de la formación del profesorado para la igualdad. Revista electrónica interuniversitaria de
formación del profesorado 14(1),
43-51.
Aragonés, J. I.,
& Sevillano, V. (2020). La desigualdad ante el espejo del COVID-19. In Moya & Willis (Eds.) La psicología social ante el COVID-19:
Monográfico Del International Journal of Social Psychology (Revista
de Psicología Social). Universidad de Granada.
Aznar-Martínez, B.
& Ahufinger Sanclemente, N. (2024). Guía para la observación e implementación de
prácticas coeducativas en contextos escolares:
¿Estamos trabajando hacia la igualdad entre niñas y niños?. Fundació Universitat Oberta de
Catalunya (FUOC).
Cardona-Moltó, M. C., & Miralles-Cardona, C. (2022). Education for gender equality in
teacher preparation: Gender mainstreaming policy and practice in Spanish higher
education. In Education as the Driving
Force of Equity for the Marginalized (pp. 65-89). IGI Global.
Casanova, R.,
& Roldán, Y. (2016). Alcances sobre la didáctica de la expresión oral y
escrita en el aula de enseñanza media. Estudios
pedagógicos, 42, 41-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000300005
Cin, F. M., & Walker, M. (2016). Reconsidering girls’ education in Turkey from a
capabilities and feminist perspective.
International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.02.007
Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
DeJaeghere, J. (2015). Reframing gender and
education for the post-2015 Agenda: A critical capability approach. In Routledge handbook of international
education and development (pp. 63-77). Routledge.
Dlamini, N. J. (2021). Gender-based
violence, twin pandemic to COVID-19. Critical
Sociology, 47(4-5), 583-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975465
European Higher Education Area. (2003, 19
September). Realising the European higher education area. Communiqué of the
conference of ministers responsible for higher education in Berlin on 19
September 2003. Berlin Communiqué. http://www.ehea.info/page-ministerial-conference-berlin-2003
European Institute for Gender Equality.
(2014). Estimating the cost of
gender-based violence in the European Union. EIGE. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/estimating-costs-in-european-union
European Institute for Gender Equality.
(2016). Gender Equality Training: Gender
Mainstreaming Toolkit. Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2839/638858
European Institute for Gender Equality.
(2023). Gender inequality index. 2023 report.
EIGE. https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/gender-equality-index-2023-towards-green-transition-transport-and-energy
Fernández, E. G.,
Bedía, R. C., & Cerdá, M. E. (2016). The media and the symbolic violence
against women. Revista Latina de
Comunicación Social, 71, 818-832. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1122
Fondón, A., & Alzás, T. (2023). Educación en igualdad y sociología de las
relaciones de género: resistencias culturales de la transformación social. Revista de Sociología de la Educación-RASE,
16(1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.7203/rase.16.1.16647
Gavilán-Martín,
D., Fernández-Herrero, J., & Urrea-Solano, M. (2023). The Integration of Gender Equality
Policies in the Training of Future Teachers: A Pending Task. In Challenges of the Educational System in
Contemporary Society (pp. 149-166). IGI Global. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8156-1.ch010
Gómez, S., Ayuste,
A., Menéndez, M.., & Merino, E. (2016). Educación y género en la formación
docente en un enfoque de equidad y democracia. In I. Carrillo (Coord.), Democracia y educación en la formación
docente (pp. 117-140). Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya.
González-Pérez, T.
(2018). Políticas educativas igualitarias en España. La igualdad de género en
los estudios de magisterio. Archivos
Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 26(2),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2764
González, J., & Wagenaar,
R. (Eds.). (2003). Tuning
educational structures in Europe. University of Deusto.
Heinz, M., Keane, E., & Davison, K.
(2023). Gender in initial teacher education: entry patterns, intersectionality
and a dialectic rationale for diverse masculinities in schooling. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(1), 134-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1890709
Hibberts, M., Burke Johnson, R., & Hudson,
K. (2012). Common survey sampling techniques. Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences, 53-74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_5
Hirsu, L., Quezada-Reyes, Z., & Hashemi, L.
(2021). Moving SDG5
forward: women’s public engagement activities in higher education. Higher Education, 81(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00597-0
Husso, M., Virkki,
T., Notko, M., Holma, J., Laitila, A., & Mäntysaari, M.
(2012). Making sense of domestic violence intervention in professional health
care. Health & Social Care in the
Community, 20(4), 347-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01034.x
Jones, S. (2022). Storying gender
equality in Northwest Uganda: Educators develop contextually-and culturally
responsive stories in professional development courses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111, 103600.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103600
Kollmayer, M., Schultes, M. T., Lüftenegger, M., Finsterwald, M.,
Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2020, July). REFLECT–A teacher training program
to promote gender equality in schools. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 136). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00136
Kortendiek, B. (2011). Supporting the Bologna
process by gender mainstreaming: A model for the integration of gender studies
in higher education curricula. In Grünberg
L (ed.) From Gender Studies to Gender IN Studies: Case Studies on
Gender-Inclusive Curriculum in Higher Education (pp. 211-228). Unesco-CEPES.
Kreitz-Sandberg, S. (2013). Gender inclusion
and horizontal gender segregation: stakeholders' strategies and dilemmas in
Swedish teachers' education. Gender and
Education, 25(4), 444-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.772566
Lahelma, E. (2014). Troubling discourses on
gender and education. Educational Research, 56(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898913
Lameiras Fernández, M., Carrera Fernández, M. V., Núñez Mangana, A. M., &
Rodríguez Castro, Y. (2006). Evaluación de un programa de educación sexual con
adolescentes: una perspectiva cualitativa. Diversitas: Perspectivas en psicología, 2(2),
193-204.
Langsten, R., & Hassan, T. (2018). Primary
education completion in Egypt: Trends and determinants. International Journal of Educational
Development, 59, 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.013
Lappalainen, S., & Lahelma,
E. (2016). Subtle discourses on equality in the Finnish curricula of upper
secondary education: reflections of the imagined society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5),
650-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1069399
López Francés, I.
L., Viana-Orta, M. I., & Sánchez-Sánchez, B. (2016). La equidad de género
en el ámbito universitario: ¿un reto resuelto?. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de
Formación del Profesorado, 19(2), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.19.2.211531
Madruga Bajo, M.
(2024). La crítica feminista como fundamento de la coeducación. La urgente
necesidad del estudio del pensamiento feminista, Cuestiones de Género: de la igualdad y la diferencia, 19, 56-75. https://doi.org/10.18002/cg.i19.8275.
Martín-Fernández,
M., Gracia, E., Marco, M., Vargas, V., Santirso, F.
A., & Lila, M. (2018). Measuring acceptability of intimate partner violence
against women: Development and validation of the A-IPVAW scale. European Journal of Psychology Applied to
Legal Context, 10(1), 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a3
Martino, W., Mills, M., & Lingard,
B. (2005). Interrogating single‐sex classes as a strategy for
addressing boys’ educational and social needs. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117843
Ministry for Equality. (2019). Macroencuesta de Violencia contra la Mujer
2019. https://violenciagenero.igualdad.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/macroencuesta2015/Macroencuesta2019/home.htm
Miralles-Cardona, C., Chiner, E.,
& Cardona-Moltó, M. C. (2021). Measurement Invariance of the Sensitive
Assessment for Gender Equality (SAGE) Index Across Degree: Findings from two
Teacher Education Programmes in Spain. Journal of new approaches in educational research, 10(1), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.611
Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T.,
& Alexander, A. (2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the
trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives
on politics, 6(2), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080572
Moreau, M. P., & Brownhill, S.
(2017). Teachers and educational policies: Negotiating discourses of male role
modelling. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 67, 370-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.001
Prat Grau, M., & Flintoff, A.
(2012). Tomando el pulso a la perspectiva de género: un estudio de caso en una
institución universitaria de formación de profesorado de educación física. Revista electrónica interuniversitaria de
formación del profesorado, 42(15), 1-200.
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh,
J. (2011). Pre-service
student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: an insight into the making of teachers. Australian journal of teacher education, 36(12),
46-57. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n12.6
Rands, K. (2009). Mathematical inqu [ee] ry:
Beyond ‘add-queers-and-stir’elementary mathematics
education. Sex Education, 9(2),
181-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810902829646
Raza, W. A., Kabir, M. M., &
Rashid, R. (2019). Factors affecting early grade educational attainment:
Evidence from South Sudan. International Journal of Educational Development,
65, 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.004
Rebollo-Catalán, M. D. L. Á., García Pérez, R., Piedra de la Cuadra,
J., & Vega Caro, L. (2011). Diagnóstico de la cultura de género en
educación: actitudes del profesorado hacia la igualdad. Revista de educación, 355, 521-546. https://doi.org/10-4438/1988-592X-RE-2010-355-035
Resa, A. (2023). Igualdad de género y formación inicial del profesorado en
España: entre la utopía y la realidad. Profesorado,
27(1), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v27i1.21192
Ruiz, M. Á. M.,
Merma-Molina, G., & Ramos, M. A. Á. (2018). La brecha de género en la
academia universitaria: inequidad de oportunidades de participación,
capacitación y promoción.
Momento-Diálogos em Educação, 27(3), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.14295/momento.v27i3.8318
Ruiz Cerezo, I.
& Vidal, R. (2024). Impacto de los contenidos consumidos durante la
adolescencia en el proceso de socialización. Cuestiones de Género: de la igualdad y la diferencia, 19, 133-166.
https://doi.org/10.18002/cg.i19.8321
Sanabrias-Moreno, D., Sánchez Zafra, M., Zagalaz-Sánchez,
M. L., & Cachón-Zagalaz, J. (2022). Análisis de
la formación en igualdad de género y compromiso con los estudios del futuro
profesorado. Publicaciones, 52(2), 77-115. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v52i2.26379
Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., & Pelliccione, L.
(2018). Investigating
the impact of Flipped Classroom on students' learning experiences: A
Self-Determination Theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior,
78, 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.011
Shih, Y. H., & Wang, R. J. (2022).
Incorporating gender issues into the classroom: Study on the teaching of
gender-related courses in the general curriculum of Taiwan’s
universities. Policy Futures in
Education, 20(1), 44-55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211009641
Stanley, N., Nguyen, K., Wilson, H.,
Stanley, L., Rank, A., & Wang, Y. (2015). Storytelling, Values and
Perceived Resilience among Chinese, Vietnamese, American and German Prospective
Teachers. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 3(8),
520-529. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.030807
Suberviola, I. (2023). La educación en y
para la igualdad en la formación inicial de las licenciaturas de educación
preescolar y primaria a través de la investigación-acción. Perspectiva Agenda
2030. Cuestiones de género de la igualdad
y la diferencia, 18, 449-463. https://doi.org/10.18002/cg.i18.7513
Subirats, M.
(2017). Coeducació,
aposta per la llibertat. Editorial Octaedro
Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom.
Colleagues, 9(1), 1-2.
Toraman, C., & Ozen,
F. (2019). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Gender Equality Course
with a Specific Focus on Faculties of Education. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), 6-28.
https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.201.1
UN Women Training Centre. (2016). UN Women Training Centre 2015 Annual Report.
UNWOMEN. https://trainingcentre.unwomen.org/RESOURCES_LIBRARY/Resou rces_Centre/ANNUAL_REPORT_UNW-2016_web.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. (2015). Education
for All 2000-2015: achievements and challenges. UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. (2018a). La
reducción de las desigualdades, centro de la Reunión Mundial sobre Educación. UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. (2018b). Comprehensive
sexuality education to prevent gender-based violence. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/comprehensive-sexuality-education-prevent-gender-based-violence
Vanner, C., Holloway, A., & Almanssori, S. (2022). Teaching and learning with power and
privilege: Student and teacher identity in education about gender-based
violence. Teaching and Teacher Education,
116, 103755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103755
Varela, C., Alonso-Ruido,
P., & Regueiro, B. (2024). Los planes de
estudio en Educación Superior: ¿Es el género una prioridad? Revista Fuentes, 1(26), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2024.24014
World Health Organization.
(2018). Género y salud. https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/gender.
Wu, L., Yan, K.,
& Zhang, Y. (2020). Higher education expansion and inequality in educational
opportunities in China. Higher
Education, 80(3), 549-570.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00498-2
Appendix
Table A1
Wilcoxon’s test pre-post comparison
for coeducational attitudes (SDG/t)
|
Pre MPre (SDPre) |
Post MPost (SDPost) |
pa |
db |
Factors/items |
||||
F1.
Socio-cultural factor |
4.52 (0.32) |
4.65 (0.32) |
.001*** |
-0.291 |
Equality laws benefit women over men (-) |
4.14 (0.89) |
4.38 (0.78) |
.038* |
-0.204 |
Equality laws disadvantage boys (-) |
4.45 (0.75) |
4.66 (0.63) |
.046* |
-0.215 |
Educational materials can be good even if they
contain sexist elements (-) |
4.29 (0.79) |
4.52 (0.69) |
.042* |
-0.219 |
Equality laws have been needed for a long time now |
4.74 (0.62) |
4.77 (0.72) |
.532 |
-0.032 |
Gender laws can benefit men as well as women |
4.04 (0.87) |
4.40 (0.80) |
.001*** |
-0.305 |
Gender laws address a non-existent problem in
schools (-) |
4.44 (0.73) |
4.52 (0.97) |
.488 |
-0.066 |
It makes no difference whether a teacher is
homosexual or heterosexual |
4.84 (0.44) |
4.86 (0.61) |
.516 |
-0.027 |
When schools switched to coeducational schooling,
discipline problems began (-) |
4.62 (0.76) |
4.60 (0.78) |
.750 |
0.018 |
Mixed schooling generates more problems than it
solves (-) |
4.70 (0.78) |
4.77 (0.59) |
.395 |
-0.072 |
It seems logical that science should be the
responsibility of male teachers (-) |
4.90 (0.38) |
4.97 (0.16) |
.096 |
-0.170 |
F2. Relational factor |
4.15 (0.40) |
4.35 (0.41) |
.001*** |
-0.357 |
I use non-sexist language as a criterion for the
selection of teaching materials |
4.01 (1.16) |
4.19 (1.10) |
.274 |
-0.112 |
In class, I use the masculine general for economy of
language and because it is correct (-) |
3.44 (1.00) |
3.86 (1.02) |
.002** |
-0.294 |
I inform the management team of the use of sexist
language in a school document |
3.68 (0.96) |
3.81 (1.06) |
.340 |
-0.091 |
I only notice if a text contains sexist language
when someone calls my attention to it (-) |
3.82 (0.96) |
4.11 (0.92) |
.057 |
-0.218 |
I avoid using traditional images/stereotypes of men
and women in my explanations |
4.04 (0.87) |
4.19 (0.91) |
.260 |
-0.119 |
Gender is not something I work with in my academic programme (-) |
3.84 (0.94) |
4.19 (0.86) |
.003** |
-0.274 |
I try to use non-sexist language in my work
documents |
4.41 (0.72) |
4.62 (0.54) |
.042* |
-0.232 |
It takes me longer to explain a concept to girls
than to boys (-) |
4.79 (0.47) |
4.79 (0.53) |
.976 |
0.000 |
I don't relate well with lesbian teachers because
they are more aggressive (-) |
4.95 (0.23) |
4.99 (0.12) |
.083 |
-0.156 |
I am ashamed of sexist jokes that ridicule women |
4.47 (1.03) |
4.75 (0.72) |
.015* |
-0.218 |
F3. Personal factor |
4.54 (0.34) |
4.46 (0.24) |
.103 |
0.192 |
Boys solve practical problems/activities before
girls do (-) |
4.73 (0.69) |
4.84 (0.44) |
.241 |
-0.134 |
I like to work more with girls because they are more
studious (-) |
4.33 (0.88) |
4.62 (0.79) |
.026* |
-0.244 |
I like to work more with boys because they are more
dynamic (-) |
4.51 (0.71) |
4.75 (0.57) |
.017* |
-0.263 |
It is excessive to create the figure of a person
responsible for coeducation at a school (-) |
3.97 (0.97) |
1.45 (0.85) |
.001*** |
1.952 |
Men are more capable of working in management
positions (-) |
4.96 (0.20) |
4.95 (0.23) |
.705 |
0.033 |
Boys are more prepared for some subjects than girls
(-) |
4.82 (0.42) |
4.92 (0.27) |
.052 |
-0.020 |
Filling out surveys on sexism is useless (-) |
4.10 (0.96) |
4.45 (0.83) |
.002** |
-0.275 |
Management and leadership are innate in boys (-) |
4.85 (0.46) |
4.93 (0.25) |
.225 |
-0.152 |
Working with girls is more complicated because they
are easily distracted (-) |
4.93 (0.30) |
4.93 (0.30) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
I do not know why the position of the person
responsible for coeducation has been created (-) |
4.18 (1.02) |
4.74 (0.55) |
.001*** |
-0.483 |
Coeducational attitudes (SDG/t) |
4.40 (0.28) |
4.484 (0.23) |
.010** |
-0.232 |
Note. School Doing Gender /
Teachers Scale (SDG/t), a Significance level (p): ≤.05*;
≤.01**; ≤.001***, b Cohen’s effect size (d): >.20 small; >.50
medium; >.80 large; >1.40 huge.
Table A2
Wilcoxon’s test pre-post comparison
for GBV acceptability (A-IPVAW)
Items |
Pre MPre (SDPre) |
Post MPost (SDPost) |
pa |
db |
to
shout at his partner if she is constantly nagging/arguing |
1.08 (0.28) |
1.03 (0.16) |
.102 |
0.155 |
to shout at his partner if she is not treating him
with respect |
1.30
(0.55) |
1.14
(0.35) |
.003** |
0.248 |
to set limits on how his partner dresses |
1.05
(0.23) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.046* |
0.218 |
to set limits on where his partner goes |
1.04
(0.20) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.083 |
0.200 |
to push someone into having sex if she has been
flirting with him all night |
1.03
(0.23) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.317 |
0.128 |
to monitor his partner’s mobile phone |
1.01
(0.12) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.317 |
0.085 |
to push someone into having sex if she has been
dating him |
1.03
(0.16) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.157 |
0.183 |
to threaten to leave his partner in order to get something
he wants |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.01
(0.12) |
.317 |
-0.085 |
to hit his partner if she has been unfaithful |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to hit his partner if she is constantly
nagging/arguing |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to push someone into having sex if he has spent a
lot of money on her |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to hit his partner if she is not treating him with
respect |
1.01
(0.12) |
1.00
(0.00) |
.317 |
0.085 |
to prevent his partner from seeing family and
friends |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
not to allow his partner to work or study |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to tell his partner what she can or cannot do |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to throw/smash objects during an argument |
1.03
(0.16) |
1.01
(0.12) |
.317 |
0.099 |
to record his partner with a mobile phone or video
camera. or take pictures of her without her knowledge |
1.07
(0.30) |
1.04
(0.20) |
.414 |
0.082 |
to send messages or images of his partner without
her permission |
1.08
(0.28) |
1.03
(0.16) |
.046* |
0.155 |
to threaten to hurt his partner or others if she
leaves him |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.00
(0.00) |
1.000 |
0.000 |
to constantly reproach his partner for the mistakes
she has made during an argument |
1.21
(0.44) |
1.03
(0.16) |
.002** |
0.383 |
Acceptability
(A-IPVAW) |
17.00
(1.18) |
16.49
(0.51) |
.001*** |
0.396 |
Note. Acceptability of
Intimate Partner Violence Against Women Scale (A-IPVAW), a
Significance level (p): ≤.05*; ≤.01**; ≤.001***, b Cohen’s effect
size (d): >.20 small; >.50 medium; >.80 large; >1.40 huge.