Gender Representation in Learning Materials

International Perspectives

Abolaji S. Mustapha, Sara Mills

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781138499126
• eBook ISBN: 9781317653240
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Research in Education
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Representations of gender in learning materials convey an implicit message to students about attitudes towards culturally appropriate gender roles for women and men. This collection takes a linguistic approach to exploring theories about gender representation within the sphere of education and textbooks, and their effects on readers and students within an international context.

In the opening section, contributors discuss theories of representation and effect, challenging the conventional Althusserian model of interpellation, and acknowledging the challenges of applying Western feminist models within an international context. Following chapters provide detailed analyses focusing on a number of different countries: Australia, Japan, Brazil, Finland, Russia, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Germany, Qatar, Tanzania, and Poland. Through linguistic analysis of vocabulary associated with women and men, content analysis of what women and men say in textbooks, and discourse analysis of the types of linguistic moves associated with women and men, contributors evaluate the extent to which gendered representations in textbooks perpetuate stereotypical gender roles, what the impact may be on learners, and the ways that both teachers and learners interact and engage with these texts.

Part I
Theories of Representation in Relation to Textbooks

1 Gender Representation in Learning Materials in an International Context

Abolaji S. Mustapha and Sara Mills

This chapter aims to give an overview of research on gender representation in foreign-language textbooks and then proceeds to examine the way that in an international context this research has been drawn on in different ways. Sunderland (2000) has provided a starting point for this research. In a (2000) overview article, she focuses on language and gender in second- and foreign-language education, highlighting areas such as gender and language learning; gender, language learning and ability; second/foreign-language acquisition and language skills such as motivation/investment; and language learning styles and strategies and classroom interaction. She also examines English as a nonsexist language; teaching materials; language testing; teachers, professional organisations and gender; what teachers can do; teacher action and teacher education; new theorisations of language and gender; language learners’ identities; masculinities; and language learning.

As Sunderland rightly observes, her review is quite selective and restricted to second and foreign-language education although, in passing, she lists some works on first language learning (e.g. German, French and Spanish). It is the aim of this book to extend Sunderland’s work to examine the way that these issues have been explored within an international context.

Background

Government bodies in Europe, America and Asia and, in some developing countries, some international organisations have become more interested in recent years in the area of gender and education. This interest is in response to the United Nations human rights programmes which aim to bring about gender equality in and through education for females and males, not only in terms of parity (gender-balance in enrolment) but also in the quality of education on offer for girls and boys. In fact, the UN, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Ford Foundation, among others, have called for and sponsored research in the area. For example, the Ford Foundation funded a research project into gender representation in textbooks used for learners in China and also funded the follow-up studies that saw the publications of gender-fair textbooks for its education sector (Zhao 2002; Zhang 2002; Ross and Shi 2003).

Another reason for this international focus on gender education is closely associated with the activities of the feminist movement. Cameron (1998) details the way that research in gender, representation and textbooks was sparked off in the United States and in the UK by the feminist movement in the 1960s. Feminist researchers called for a combination of reflection and practice that they referred to as ‘praxis’ and a need for experts in various areas of language teaching to transform social injustice through research and analysis of pedagogical practices within classroom, schools, communities and society at large (Davis and Skilton-Sylvester 2004:398 cited in Mukundan and Nimehchisalem 2008:156).

The responses that have attended the findings of many of these studies in Europe, America and some parts of Asia, such as the revising of gender-biased texts and the production of guidelines that ensure gender-fairness in textbooks, also encouraged further studies. Gender fairness in learning materials advocates equal treatment and representation of both sexes. This approach argues against the use of gender stereotypes.

One common denominator for all these studies is the belief that learning materials are gender biased, a feature that is inimical to the achievement of gender equality. This type of biased representation might directly or indirectly shape gender identities that will not augur well for the educational goals of our contemporary society, especially the need for gender equality in education and the empowerment of women for social, economic and national development. In addition, the teachers’ role (their talk with students around the text) in the classroom has been brought under scrutiny as their part in entrenching the dominant culture (gender unfairness) of society also contributes towards gender inequality.

Holmes (2009:03) argues that ‘social institutions such as family, school, the workplace and the media teach us that girls should act in certain ways, such as being caring and boys in different ways, such as being strong and independent’. These representations of boys and girls can be brought into sharp focus in the classroom and can be part of ‘talk about the text’, so that even the most stereotypical image can in fact be the foundation for consciousness-raising discussions around gender roles.

The Importance of Textbooks

The place of textbooks in socializing learners cannot be overemphasized, especially as textbooks are often viewed by learners as authoritative (Foshay 1990; Robson 2001; Westbury 1990). In addition, textbooks serve as a ‘means to facilitate the integration of content about ethnically, racially and culturally diverse populations’ (Sileo and Prater 1998:05). To Mustedanagic (2010), whenever a text is read, an interpretation is made by readers when they try to make sense of the text. Stressing the place of textbooks, Mukundan and Nimehchisalem (2008) note that the textbooks young people focus on repeatedly during the classroom practice, follow-up assignments and preparation for examinations exert an influence on learners in terms of the quality of education they receive and their understanding of social equality. Both Poulou (1997) and Treichler and Frank (1989) report that linguistic sexism in textbooks has damaging pedagogical consequences for women and girls.

The role that textbooks play in educating learners has attracted the attention of other scholars. For example, Stromquist, Lee and Brock-Utne (1998:83) note that ‘educational institutions are powerful ideological institutions that transmit dominant values, and function as mechanisms of social control…schools transmit values that not only reproduce social class but also…the formal school system contributes to the reproduction of gender inequalities through such mechanisms as selective access to schooling, the content of what is being taught and what is not and how it is taught and the kinds of knowledge men and women (and boys and girls) get’. Stromquist, Lee and Brock-Utne (1998) claim that few studies have explored the effects textbooks have on learners; consequently, they call for longitudinal research tracing influences over time. They conclude that observers and educators acknowledge that textbooks and curricular content leave lasting influences in our memories as phrases and stories heard and as roles which we see represented for men and women and which presumably form part of the possibilities for individual gender construction (Stromquist et al. (1998:83–97).

The Hidden Curriculum

Many studies have therefore focused on the ‘hidden curriculum’ in relation to gender. Stromquist et al. (1998:398) note that the informal or hidden curriculum is the knowledge that is transmitted through the roles men and women play in the staffing of schools, the way teachers treat male and female students and the manner in which adults interact with others. Another dimension of the hidden curriculum is the expectations teachers have of boys and girls regarding occupational and family roles, the differential vocational advice given to boys and girls, the behavioural norms and disciplinary sanctions enforced at school and the re-creation within the school of norms and values concerning masculinity and femininity by the peer group (Levinson 1997). Stromquist et al. (1998:401) further distinguish between two kinds of curriculum from a feminist perspective: the nonsexist curriculum—one that is free of gender stereotypes and other forms of distortions—and an antisexist curriculum—one that seeks to challenge stereotypes and to build a new way of perceiving and establishing social relations between men and women.

Stromquist et al. (1998) argue that textbooks play a significant role in the transmission of this informal curriculum. In addition to certain subjects, knowledge and skills, books disseminate sexual bias, prejudice and discrimination through the ways in which men and women are depicted in stories and illustrations, as if these roles and values were simply the way that the world naturally is. Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewind (1991) aim to produce gender-balanced curriculum and textbooks (which requires collaborated effort and cooperation) that will alter the contents of the present gender-biased curriculum and textbooks so that males and females can see themselves represented as sources of help and support, share their learning experiences and recognise their own potential within the educational institution, the family and the labour market.

Working towards gender equality in education should not only focus on equal access to or provision of education to men and women (gender parity). Instead, the content of education and the hidden curriculum should be given further attention. Improving on school enrolment among boys and girls should be pursued, especially in developing countries where the enrolment gap between boys and girls is often very wide. However, considering the way ‘school narratives are constructed in basic terms that contrast and oppose masculinity and femininity’ particularly ‘the oppression of women by men should not be seen as a non-issue’; rather, this is a crucial issue that demands urgent attention. Therefore, because ‘the formal curriculum, through textbook content and instructional dynamics, continues to promote the creation of gendered identities of an asymmetrical nature…textbooks should continue to be a prime target in strategies to modify the curriculum’ (Stromquist et al. 1998:405).

For Renner (1997), it is important to eliminate sexism in the language used in textbooks in order to provide an environment where every pupil can learn on equal terms. Mills (1995:95) argues that the use of gender-free language contributes to the acceptance of each human being, without foregrounding gender and without privileging males as the norm against which women are judged. Similarly, Stromquist et al. (1998:405) note that the creation of a new social identity by means of school interventions requires the courage to discard traditional elements that lead to the oppression of women, whether in the name of culture or religion.

In what follows, we review three phases of research on the topic of gender representation in textbooks and the methodological issues that have arisen before suggesting areas for further research and improvements.

The first-phase studies create awareness of gender imbalance in learning materials; the second-phase studies serve as follow-up studies, assessing responses and reforms in learning materials; and the third phase focuses on extending the focus beyond textbook representations to talk around the text in the classroom.

First-Phase Studies

From the 1960s onwards, many studies (Cincotta 1978; Hellinger 1980; Hingley 1983; Schmitz 1975; U’ren 1971) indicated that language textbooks were biased, representing men in relation to occupations and public and social life, portraying them as decision makers in companies, corporations and government bodies. By contrast, women were rendered invisible or were represented either in secondary roles within the private sphere or in far fewer numbers within the public sphere. For example, Cincotta (1978) reveals that in textbooks both males and females performed gender stereotypical activities; Hartman and Judd (1978) shows that men were more visible than women; women tended to be represented as stereotypically emotional and were more likely than male characters to be the butt of jokes; Hellinger (1980) found that males were overrepresented. Porecca (1984) reported that men tended to occupy both more powerful roles and a greater range of occupational roles than women.

From the studies carried out thus far (Kanemaru 1998; Talansky 1986; in Greece, Poulou 1997; Mukundan 2003; in Malaysia, Chandran and Abdullah 2003; Seng 2003; in Spain, Cerezal 1991; in Jamaica, Bailey and Parkes 1995; Whiteley 1996; among others) the analysis of gender imbalance in textbooks focuses on invisibility (fewer males than females), occupational stereotyping (females in fewer and more menial occupational roles); relationship stereotyping (women represented more in relation to men than men to women); personal characteristic stereotyping (women as emotional and timid); disempowering discourse roles (more males talking first); and degradation (blatant sexism to the point of misogyny) (Sunderland 1994:55–56).

Subsequently, guidelines for bringing about change were developed. For example, McCormick’s (1994) guidelines which were intended for teaching staff offers what Mustedanagic (2010) calls theoretical and practical guidelines for implementing a nonsexist classroom environment. UNESCO produced guidelines for text authors and publishers. Mills (1995) also provided guidelines for gender-free language within the university context. In Sweden, the country’s guidelines (LPO 94) under the Swedish National Agency for Education stipulates that ‘The school should promote an understanding for others and the ability to empathize. Activities should be characterised by care of the individual’s well-being and development. No one should be subject to discrimination at school based on gender, ethnic belonging, religion or other belief, sexual orientation or disability, or subject to other degrading treatment’ (cited in Mustedanagic 2008:03). Most of these first-phase studies are thus largely content based (analysis of the linguistic and nonlinguistic representations in the textbooks) and do not address interactions between teachers and learners in the classroom.

Second-Phase Research/Studies

Sunderland (1994b) reports changes in some of the textbooks she examined in Britain, where newer grammar books from 1988 upwards encourage readers to avoid gender-specific language. According to Blumerg (2007), by the 1990s various second-generation studies began to analyse the persistence of gender bias in a variety of fields. Most showed modest improvements (sometimes very modest), focusing on texts at the secondary level, children’s illustrated books and teacher training textbooks. For example, Zittleman and Sadker (2002) followed up the classic Sadker and Sadker (1980) study of gender bias in teacher-training materials. The study, according to Blumerg (2007), involved 23 textbooks published from 1998 to 2001. Using the 1980 study evaluation methods, they found progress to be ‘minimal’ and disappointing. But despite the quantitative data showing that textbooks are far from gender equitable, they found that the current textbooks were less offensive than those published 20 years before.

In a similar way, Mukundan and Nimehchisalem (2008) followed up on earlier studies by Seng (2003) and Chandran and Adbudllah (2003) in Malaysia, while Healy (2009) followed up on studies undertaken in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s (Byrd 2001; Hartman and Judd 1978; Jones et al. 1997; Porecca 1984). These studies assess progress made in ensuring gender balance in textbooks and further suggest areas that were not dealt with by authors and publishers. For example, Healy (2009) reports that in the textbook that she examined, the authors have managed to represent both sexes fairly evenly in the amount of talk, thus avoiding gender bias. Similarly, Sano, Iida and Hardy (2001) notes that although recent moves toward gender equality might have changed lexical choices made in Japanese EFL junior high school textbooks and might have prompted the exclusion of explicitly stereotypical representations regarding gender roles, implicit and metalinguistic messages in the existing texts suggest the need for a further thorough analysis to evaluate the balance of gender representation. Their study reports that ‘obviously, gender-imbalanced language has been substantially eliminated from EFL textbooks since 1990. There are no occurrences of gender-biased language such as chairman…[however]…reading through the texts reveals prominence in the number of features focusing on male characters’ (Sano, Iida and Hardy 2001:903–904).

Sweden and China appear to have achieved a higher measure of success. Blumerg (2007) describes the initiative in China (funded by the Ford Foundation and resulting in the development of 49 sets of nonbiased primary and secondary school teaching materials, covering 20 subjects). The overall findings, according to Blumerg (2007:22), show, however, that elimination of gender bias in Chinese textbooks is not an easy prospect, despite official state policy aiming to achieve gender equity in education (see Zhao 2002; Zhang 2002; Yi 2002; Li 2003; Ross and Shi 2003). More success has been reported in Latin America (Costa Rica, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and the Caribbean; see Gozalez 1990; Drayton 1997, among others).

One focus of research in gender representations in textbook studies has been on methods of data collection and analysis. The argument surrounds heterogeneity of methods (content analysis, linguistic analysis, narrative approach, systemic functional approach, computer concordancing, collocation, transitivity, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, role analysis, critical image analysis, elicitation method and task method) that have been used by various researchers in this field of study. Lee (2011) notes that researchers around the globe have used their own methodology in analysis. To Lee (2011:149), in the past two decades the research assessing gender-role portrayal in school textbooks has continued to be markedly heterogeneous.

Some studies (e.g. Graci 1989; Gupta and Lee 1990; Hsu 1992; Hunter and Chick 2005; Lee and Collins 2008; Lesikin 2001) have concentrated on quantifiable features for analysis—the number of female and male characters is a common feature of analysis. Other studies (e.g. Poulou 1997; Johansson and Malmsjo 2009; Stockdale 2006) have tended to examine less easily quantifiable features, such as the extent to which male or female characters are primarily responsible for ‘requesting’, ‘seeking information’ and ‘giving directives’. Lesikin (1998), for example, applies systemic function grammar to the analysis of EFL textbooks to analyse processes and agency. Thomson and Otsuji (2003) examine Japanese business textbooks from both macro- (social practices) and micro- (linguistic discourses) level perspectives, using Critical Discourse Analysis as the framework of the study. Schmitz (1975) proposes four categories for detecting sexism: exclusion (the proportion of content about males and females); subordination (subordinate roles or occupations assigned to women); distortion (the reinforcement of gender stereotypes); and degradation (condescending statements or generalizations about women). Another development in methods of gender analysis in school textbooks is computer concordancing (e.g. Carrol and Kowitz 1994; Baker 2014). Lee (2011) concludes that if individual researchers continue to use their own research methods, it will be diffi...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part I Theories of Representation in Relation to Textbooks
• Part II Textual Analysis
• Part III Beyond the Text
• Contributors
• Bibliography
• Index