PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Gent] 

On: 5 March 2009 

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 769843846] 

Publisher Routledge 

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 

37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK 

Teachers and Teaching 

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713447546 

Gender in teaching: a literature review 

Elien Sabbe a ; Antonia Aelterman b 

a 

Department of Educational Affairs, Ghent University, Belgium b Department of Educational Sciences, Ghent 

University, Belgium 

Online Publication Date: 01 October 2007 

To cite this Article Sabbe, Elien and Aelterman, Antonia(2007)'Gender in teaching: a literature review',Teachers and 

Teaching,13:5,521 — 538 

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13540600701561729 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600701561729 

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf 

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or 

systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or 

distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. 

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents 

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses 

should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, 

actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly 

or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 

Vol. 13, No. 5, October 2007, pp. 521–538 

Gender in teaching: a literature review 

Elien Sabbe a * and Antonia Aelterman b 

a Department of Educational Affairs, Ghent University, Belgium; b Department of 

Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium 

CTAT_A_256029.sgm 

10.1080/13540600701561729 

Teachers 1354-0602 Original 2007 Taylor 5000000October ElienSabbe elien.sabbe@ugent.be 

and & Article and Francis (print)/1470-1278 Teaching 2007 (online) 

Downloaded By: [University of Gent] At: 10:19 5 March 2009 

Internationally, both in popular and scientific media, debates occasionally emerge concerning the 

possible (negative) consequences of feminisation tendencies in the teaching staff. In these discussions, 

various assumptions about the ‘nature’ of male and female teachers and masculinity and 

femininity are expressed. Male and female teachers are often presumed to differ in teaching styles, 

capacities and effects on both the teaching profession and the pupils. The arguments used in these 

debates only seldom refer to particular theoretical grounds or to empirical evidence. Moreover, 

apart from Sandra Acker’s essay ‘Gender and teachers’ work’ in 1995, educational research lacks 

an up-to-date review of teacher gender. Therefore, this article aims to provide insight into contemporary 

theoretical gender perspectives. It also intends to connect these with empirical research that 

takes teacher gender into account. Most of the research studies referred to in this article do not explicitly 

state their underlying theoretical principles. Yet, since these studies have distinct research foci, 

research questions, methodologies and conclusions, they appear to depart from a variety of gender 

conceptualisations. Therefore, in this article the differences between these conceptualisations will 

be examined and the divergent theoretical assumptions underlying these studies will be revealed. 

The two most widespread and disparate perspectives in gender theory are the essentialist perspectives 

on the one hand and the constructionist perspectives on the other. The differences between them 

are made up by the degree to which explanations are deterministic and focused on the individual 

rather than on the social and cultural level. Drawing upon this theoretical contrast, we divided the 

body of research on teacher gender into two divergent research traditions: sex differences research 

and gender dynamics research. The research questions, underlying theoretical principles and 

methodologies of these two traditions are examined. 

Keywords: Gender issues; Literature reviews; Sex differences; Teaching; Theories 

Gender theory 

A puzzling assortment of gender theories can be observed in scientific literature. 

Authors such as Aries (1996), Howard and Hollander (1997) and Risman (1998) 

*Corresponding author. Department of Educational Affairs, Ghent University, St. Pietersplein 7, 

9000 Gent, Belgium. Email: Elien.Sabbe@UGent.be 

ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/07/050521–18 

© 2007 Taylor & Francis 

DOI: 10.1080/13540600701561729

522 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman 

distinguish different theoretical approaches to gender. In most cases, the opposing 

perspectives can be identified as essentialist and constructionist. 

Essentialist perspectives 


Biological essentialist approaches to gender claim that innate differences between the 

sexes shape divergent social behaviours and characteristics. Maleness and femaleness 

are viewed as oppositional traits and are assumed to be inherent properties of, respectively, 

men and women (Anselmi & Law, 1998; Stanley, 2002). 

These biological perspectives got contested and the focus shifted from biology 

towards socialisation. According to socialisation models, individuals are not born 

with certain behavioural and personality characteristics, but learn role expectations 

imposed by a particular society (sex roles) through processes such as modelling, 

imitation and applications of rewards and punishments. 

In this sense, socialisation models can be considered a first step away from an 

individual and internal approach to gender towards the inclusion of social and societal 

factors. Yet, some variants of these models were seen as still being too deterministic 

because of their refutation of individual agency in the enactment of gender roles on 

the one hand (Francis, 1999; Skelton, 2001; Davies, 2002; Jackson & Scott, 2002; 

Stanley & Wise, 2002) and their emphasis on stability and continuity on the other 

hand (Risman, 1998; Edley, 2001; Stanley & Wise, 2002). Howard and Hollander 

(1997) conclude that the distinction between innate and learned characteristics is in 

some sense merely semantic. 

In spite of theoretical developments away from deterministic perspectives, 

essentialist thought is still firmly embedded in present-day habits, thoughts and social 

institutions (Howard & Hollander, 1997). The influence of these essentialist ideas— 

as we intend to show—is even present in contemporary scientific essays on male and 

female teachers. 

Constructionist perspectives 

To provide a less deterministic conceptualisation of gender, theoreticians turned to 

poststructuralist (Butler, 1990; Francis, 1999, 2001; Scott, 1999; Paechter, 2001; 

Davies, 2002), social-psychological (Deaux & Major, 1998), and ethnomethodological 

(Kessler & McKenna, 1978; West & Zimmerman, 1987) approaches to gender. 

Since we, like Jackson and Scott (2002), can conclude that the scholarship of the 

poststructuralist authors mentioned before strongly resembles the ethnomethodological 

theories and the social-psychological approaches of Deaux and Major (1998), we 

discuss these approaches together. Following Hacking’s (2000) distinction and explanation 

of constructionalism, constructivism and constructionism, we decided to use 

the latter label. 

After the so-called ‘cultural turn’ in the human and social sciences, meaning is 

thought to be produced (constructed) through human action and the interpretations 

of these actions, rather than being inherently found in the objects or behaviours. In

Gender in teaching 523 


every culture, there is a great diversity of meanings organising and regulating social 

practices as well as influencing our conduct. These meanings consequently have real, 

practical effects (Hall, 1997; Gergen, 2001). 

Consequently, constructionists claim that masculinity and femininity are not 

strictly biological (cf. essentialism). Gendered meanings are rather actively 

constructed through processes of ‘gender performance’ (poststructuralist term) or 

‘doing gender’ (ethnomethodological term). These two concepts refer to the double 

active role that individuals have. On the one hand, children and adults constantly 

have to ‘perform’ or ‘do’ their masculinity or femininity. On the other hand, if 

individuals do gender ‘correctly’, that is, within the terms made available within 

dominant discourse, they simultaneously sustain, reproduce and legitimate dominant 

gender discourses as well as the social order and the institutional arrangements that 

are based on them (West & Zimmerman, 1987). 

In contrast to socialisation theories, constructionists hold that the individual is not 

stamped in the uniform mould of society. Out of a multitude of conflicting, often 

contradictory and changing discourses in a particular society, individuals have to 

construct a (seemingly) unitary and coherent gender identity and gender performance 

(or gender doing) (Butler, 1990; Scott, 1999). Since gender is entwined with other 

powerful and influential variables such as sexuality, class, age and ethnicity, constructionists 

claim that it is no longer tenable to talk of masculinity and femininity in the 

singular; we should refer to masculinities and femininities in the plural as, for example, 

we do blacks, gays, working classes, etc. (Chodorow, 1994; Connell, 1995; 

Whitehead & Barrett, 2001). 

Constructionists also maintain that gender is situated in space, time and context 

(Butler, 1990; Whitehead & Barrett, 2001; Davies, 2002). One’s gender performance 

depends on the relative weight of three elements: (1) one’s self-definition and goals, 

(2) the beliefs and expectations of one’s interactional partner that act as self-fulfilling 

prophecies, and (3) the context in which the interaction takes place (Deaux & Major, 

1998). West and Zimmerman (1987) refer to this with the term ‘situated identities’ 

in contrast to ‘master identities’ that cut across all situations. 

Although one is not completely free to choose which discourse one wishes to operate 

in, an individual can also resist dominant discourse. Resistance has to do with 

power. Some discourses are more powerful than others (Paechter, 2001). In this 

respect, Connell (1995) stresses that recognising diversity in masculinities is not 

enough. We must also recognise the relations between the different kinds of masculinities 

including relations of alliance, dominance and subordination. His concept of 

‘hegemonic masculinity’ refers to the contemporary dominant discourse in Western 

society. 

Research on teaching and gender 

In this section of the article, we explore empirical studies on teachers and teaching 

that include gender and relate these studies to gender theory as discussed earlier. 

Recognising the dichotomy between essentialist and constructionist gender theory, it


is possible to roughly distinguish two traditions of research. The first group focuses 

on differences between male and female teachers. The second group investigates how 

teaching is imbued with dominant discourses and subjectivities of gender. The underlying 

assumptions are, we conclude, respectively consistent with essentialist and 

constructionist gender approaches. 

Sex differences research 


There is a group of studies that concentrate explicitly on differences between male 

and female teachers. This group includes studies that put sex differences at the centre 

of attention 1 as well as studies about, for example, teachers’ stress, subjective educational 

beliefs, etc., that check the obtained data in search of differences according to 

sex, age, schooling, and social class and comment on significant differences in the 

margin. 2 In contrast to explicitly focusing on sex or gender, this latter procedure is 

very common in mainstream research on teachers and it is consequently impossible 

to be exhaustive in the discussion of these studies. 

Underlying theoretical gender approaches 

The underlying theoretical frame concerning gender is almost never made explicit, 

but it can be argued that the goals as well as the ways of making gender operational, 

along with the interpretations and explanations of observed sex differences, illustrate 

these studies’ tendencies towards essentialism. Howard and Hollander (1997) warn 

that although the essentialist view on gender is less explicit in contemporary 

research, the underlying assumptions of studies are still often consistent with essentialism. 

First, the authors of these studies intend to discover differences or similarities 

between male and female teachers. In other words, they attempt to map how males 

and females actually differ, correspond, or ‘essentially are’. Gender is, furthermore, 

made operational by comparing two reciprocally exhaustive and homogenous categories 

that are founded on biological sex. Differences between the two categories are 

attributed to being a male or female and are presented as inherent characteristics of 

the group ‘men’ or the group ‘women’. 

Moreover, the frequent absence of interpretations or explanations of the discovered 

differences (Acker, 1994) suggests that it is crucial to look further than biological sex 

as a sufficiently explaining factor. Only a minority of studies undertake efforts to give 

an explanation for the observed differences by drawing upon traditional role patterns. 

These studies often depart from a socialisation model. But the influence of socialisation 

on teachers’ behaviour and opinions is assumed and not extracted from the 

answers of the respondents. In refraining from verifying how the various respondents 

react to the influence of the socialisation process, and without verifying how individuals 

give meaning to their roles and how they personally construct their gender 

performance and identity, an identical and passive (and, by consequence, deterministic) 

way of socialising is implicitly assumed.


Methodology 


A relatively large set of survey studies about male and female teachers’ educational 

beliefs or well-being exists within the body of research on sex differences (Stake & 

Katz, 1982; Harris et al., 1986; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Relich, 1996; Ross et al., 

1996; Montecinos & Nielsen, 1997; Rosenblatt et al., 1999). Next to these survey 

studies, there is a group of studies that concentrates on pupils’ evaluations and opinions 

or on pupils’ perceptions of their male and female teachers. These studies draw 

upon teacher evaluation forms (Feldman, 1993; Hancock et al., 1993, among others), 

surveys, pupils’ essays about a good teacher and interviews (McIntyre, 1988; 

Huberman, 1993; Lee et al., 1995; Brennan et al., 1996; Brookhart & Loadman, 

1996; Byrne, 1999; de Heus & Diekstra, 1999; Lens & De Jesus, 1999; Ma & 

MacMillan, 1999) or experiments (reviews by Feldman, 1992; Ashley, 2002, among 

others) that explore what characteristics pupils assign to (their) male and female 

teachers. A third group observes teachers (Good et al., 1973; Stake & Katz, 1982; 

Lush, 1997; Brady & Eisler, 1999; Bress, 2000). A fourth group compares the effects 

of male and female teachers on pupils (e.g. Mancus, 1992; Mallam, 1993; Ehrenberg 

et al., 1994; Warwick & Jatoi, 1994; Duru-bellat, 1995; Wilkinson, 1998; Hopf & 

Hatzichristou, 1999). Combinations of these various research approaches are 

common. 

Sex differences research was and continues to be controversial (Walsh, 1997). The 

way this group of studies operationalises gender is problematised. Sex is thought of 

as dichotomous and it is assumed that everyone falls into one (and only one) of two 

clearly distinct categories. This assumed dichotomy is often criticised. Howard and 

Hollander (1997) point out that not everyone fits perfectly into either. 

Furthermore, most sex differences research pays little to no attention to diversity 

within the categories of males or females. In neglecting these differences, it is 

suggested that the categories are homogenous. This does not seem to be the case. 

Differences within the categories and the overlap between them are often larger than 

the in-between differences (Howard & Hollander, 1997; Lott, 1997; Walsh, 1997; 

Epstein, 1999). Given these numerous interfering elements, the samples of respondents 

drawn upon in these studies are relatively small. Hence, the generalisability of 

the results can be seriously questioned. The possible high variation among males and 

among females and the contextual nature of gender seriously threaten the external 

validity of the results. 

Further, it is important to consider the magnitude and meaning of the differences 

found. The assumption that large differences between the sexes exist can be questioned 

seriously. The encountered differences between men and women are generally 

argued to be rather small (Lott, 1997). Epstein (1999) warns that even if differences 

are statistically significant, the actual differences might be very small and thus socially 

insignificant. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind the possibility of bias because 

of the tendency in scientific literature not to publish non-significant differences. 

Most important, sex difference research does not provide insight into reasons 

why gender differences occur. It refrains from investigating the elements that are


emphasised by constructionist theory, that is, the respondents’ individual, timebound 

and situational gender constructions and meaning attributions as well as 

other influential social positionings. 

The studies also differ profoundly concerning country, region, educational level 

(primary, secondary, higher education) and sample of respondents (level of teaching 

experience, age, subject, etc.). Additionally, the concrete topics these studies focus on, 

and the concepts used, are very diverse. Results from these studies are consequently 

fragmentary and comparison becomes very difficult or even impossible. 

General tendencies in the results 


Despite the small number of studies on comparable themes, the variety of social 

contexts, and the difficulties and inconsistencies that arise in compiling the results, it 

was possible to deduce some more or less general tendencies in sex differences 

research. 

The majority of studies on job satisfaction that were available to us do not report 

large differences between male and female teachers. However, in cases of difference, 

female teachers usually have higher scores of satisfaction than male teachers. 3 

Analogously, stress and burnout (especially the component depersonalisation) in 

general occur more with men than with women (Ma & MacMillan, 1992; Schwab, 

1995; Leithwood et al., 1999; Lens & De Jesus, 1999; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Hawe 

et al., 2000; Huang, 2001; Gursel et al., 2002). This was also the conclusion of a 

review on stress made by Byrne (1999). 

In survey research on teachers’ education-related opinions, a very weak tendency can 

be observed. For instance, Kalaian and Freeman (1994), Dey (1995), Singer (1996 

cited in Li, 1999) and Barber (2002) found that female teachers had a more nontraditional, 

personal and student-oriented approach than their male colleagues. 

From studies on the motivations to choose the teaching profession, one can generally 

deduce that women choose the profession somewhat earlier in their lives than men 

do. For men, the teaching profession is often not their first choice (Huberman, 1993; 

Montecinos & Nielsen, 1997). Although both men and women appear to choose the 

profession for rather altruistic reasons, namely to work with children, task-exclusive 

motives such as salary and the prestige of the profession appear to be more important 

to men (Montecinos & Nielsen, 1997; Johnston et al., 1999; Rosenblatt et al., 1999). 

Evaluation and perception research that looks at pupils’ perceptions of their teachers, 

suggests that male and female teachers are generally not valued in considerably 

different ways (Feldman, 1993). Nevertheless, when significant differences arise, 

women are more often held in higher regard than are men (Bennett, 1982; Feldman, 

1993; Hancock et al., 1993; Rowden & Carlson, 1996; Jules & Kutnick, 1997; 

Galguera, 1998; Leone-Perkins et al., 1999). There is little support for a samegendered 

preference (see reviews by Feldman, 1993; Hancock et al., 1993; Drevets 

et al., 1996; Galguera, 1998; Li, 1999; Centra & Gaubatz, 2000). 

With few exceptions, most empirical studies and reviews indicate that the sex of 

teachers has little if any effect on the achievement of pupils (Vroegh, 1976; Gold &


Reis, 1982; Mallam, 1993; Warwick & Jatoi, 1994; Lewis & Warin, 1998). However, 

there is a little evidence that girls develop more positive attitudes towards, for 

instance, mathematics or other traditionally non-typical female subjects when they 

are taught by a female teacher (Evetts, 1993; Mallam, 1993; Duru-Bellat, 1995; Li, 

1999). 

We conclude that so far sex difference research has not been able to uncover clear 

differences between male and female teachers. This supports the constructionist 

thesis that it is almost impossible to ascribe certain characteristics and effects to 

individuals exclusively based on their biological sex without considering the social 

and cultural context and the individuals’ personal gender constructions. 

Gender dynamics research 


Gender dynamics research consists of studies on the role gender plays in the choice 

to be a teacher, in professional experiences, careers, opinions, in teachers’ past and 

present professional identities, in popular images of teaching and teachers, in educational 

reforms, in negotiations on teachers’ salaries, and in the perceptions and the 

behaviour of those involved in education (such as pupils, school management, 

colleague-teachers, parents). 

Underlying theoretical gender approaches 

It is notable that when compared to the sex differences research, studies that fall 

under the ‘gender dynamics’ label often clearly define their underlying theoretical 

bases. A small group of researchers explicitly name their starting principles as 

constructionist (Grumet, 1988; Biklen, 1995; Weber & Mitchell, 1995; Benton 

Decorse & Vogtle, 1997; Ropers-Huilman, 1997; Sumsion, 1999; Fischman, 2000; 

Francis & Skelton, 2001; Gannerud, 2001; Cammack & Phillips, 2002). For most 

other studies in this category, it is the constructionist not the essentialist perspective 

that can be deduced from researchers’ explanations regarding the approach on gender 

that they take. 

First, uttered theoretical assumptions underlying the studies run parallel with the 

underlying principles of constructionism. Second, the phrasing of the research questions 

suggests that the ‘true nature’ of men and women is not only investigated in ways similar 

to those of the differences research, but also that these studies examine the causes 

of certain phenomena that have to do with gender. Third, by explicitly paying attention 

to individual allocations of meaning and to the context in the ‘Methodology’ section, 

two basic principles of the constructionist gender theory are recognised. On the one 

hand, the emphasis of these studies on subjective meaning points at recognition of individual 

agency or choice in the construction of performance and identity as man or 

woman and teacher. On the other hand, the fact that these studies take the context 

into account, indicates the circumstantial character of gender and points out that 

people’s behaviour not only depends on gender, but also on other social positions they 

hold (see further under the ‘Methodology’ section). Finally, in their interpretations, the


authors tend to refrain from suggesting that some findings are characteristic for men 

or women. Over and over again, a connection with traditional opinions, dominant 

images and stereotypical expectations of the teaching profession and gender is looked 

for. 

Methodology 


In most cases, the methodology used in these studies is not described extensively. The 

research instruments used in this group of studies are life history narratives, in-depth 

interviews, group discussions, personal biographical reflections, examinations of 

photographs, drawings, diaries, letters, and autobiographies of teachers (mostly 

women) or analyses of the way teaching and teachers are represented in products of 

popular culture like television programmes, films, cartoons, comics and even Barbie 

dolls (cf. Weber & Mitchell, 1995). Surveys are also used but rarely and often in 

combination with one or more of the various instruments mentioned above. 

Fischman (2000), for example, asked pre-service teachers to draw ‘real’ and ‘ideal’ 

images of teachers and subsequently had group discussions about their drawings. 

Additional data were collected from interviews with school boards, teacher trainers 

and teacher trainees, from observations of both classroom, school activities (ceremonies, 

informal gatherings) and activities outside the school (political demonstrations, 

field trips), from the analysis of the news and of public documents and, finally, from 

a questionnaire among 178 teacher trainees. 

Notwithstanding the diversity of methods, the instruments used in gender dynamics 

research share a focus on the gendered meaning that is attributed to teaching. 

These methodologies, therefore, seamlessly fit in with constructionist thought. The 

attention to contextual elements when focusing on personal subjectivities becomes 

evident in often recurring combinations of in-depth interviews and (participant) 

observation. In these ways, individuals’ (gender) constructions in their daily 

surroundings are respected in interaction with the specific school, the broader 

community, the family, the media and other social institutions (e.g. Munro, 1998). 

Because of the intensity of the research methods, the sample sizes in this group of 

studies are often relatively small. It is not unusual to see a study with samples of one 

or two teachers. As a result, no generalising statements can be made about male or 

female teachers, but this is neither the intent nor the value of these studies. The value 

of this research lies precisely in the uncovering of some general—often invisible— 

gender dynamics in the teaching profession that shape teachers’ professional environments, 

their professional identities, and the ways in which they are perceived by 

others. 

General tendencies in the results 

Although the influence cultural discourses have on individuals should not be taken 

for granted but should be studied in each separate case (Fischman, 2000), it is possible 

to observe some general tendencies with regard to these dynamics.



A common practice within this segment of literature is that the articles rigorously 

deconstruct mainstream research literature’s representation of teaching as gender 

neutral. They clearly point out that teaching is historically and culturally imbued with 

multiple discourses and subjectivities of gender. They show that these discourses and 

gender scripts have real consequences for male and female teachers’ identity 

constructions, work environments, professional opportunities and possibilities, and 

they illustrate how male and female teachers are perceived. The argument common 

to these studies is that it is essential to understand how these dominant discourses 

work in order to be able to deconstruct and resist them since ‘women teachers are at 

once captive and absent in discourse’ (Tamboukou, 2000, p. 475). 

Teaching is mainly associated with femininity, motherhood and caring. It is often 

defined as women’s true profession. A good teacher is often compared to a good 

mother who loves her children, takes care of them, and even sacrifices herself for them 

(e.g. see Acker, 1995). Teaching, like mothering, creates social expectations like 

altruism, self-sacrifice and dedication (Biklen, 1995; Duncan, 1996). Acker (1995) 

notes that these associations between teaching and ‘mothering’ stem from nineteenth-century 

instructions for middle-class mothers as well as theorists such as 

Fröbel. According to Meiners (2002) and Weber and Mitchell (1995), these associations 

still exist and, when applied to teaching, are derisively called the ‘Mothering 

discourse’ (Griffith & Smith, 1991), ‘the legacy of Lady Bountiful’ (Meiners, 2002), 

the image of ‘the angel of the classroom’ (Tamboukou, 2003), or ‘for the sake of the 

children/children first discourses’ (Duncan, 1996). Several studies and analyses 

(Grumet, 1988; Casey, 1990; Maguire & Weiner, 1994; Biklen, 1995; Munro, 1998; 

Weiler & Middleton, 1999; Coffey & Delamont, 2000; Gannerud, 2001; McCray 

et al., 2002; Phillips, 2002; Tamboukou, 2003) show how women teachers’ professional 

identities, experiences and working conditions were/are shaped by these 

(conflicting) gendered social expectations and stereotyped images of women teachers. 

On the one hand, these studies point out influences of the ‘Mothering discourse’ in 

the task conceptions of female teachers. Often, strong emphasis is put on the contact 

with their pupils, on liking children, on plans to save children and on teaching for the 

right reasons, that is, for the children and not for the money (Gannerud, 2001; 

Cammack & Phillips, 2002; McCray et al., 2002; Meiners, 2002). On the other hand, 

women teachers often feel frustrated and trapped in this taken for granted assumption 

of women much more than men being the right persons to carry the burden of caring 

responsibilities (Casey, 1990; Walkerdine, 1992; Tamboukou, 2003). Moreover, 

these caring discourses and images have proven to be devastating with regard to working 

conditions and career mobility of women teachers, since (women) teachers are 

portrayed as individuals who selflessly do what they do for the sake of the children 

rather than from any desire of personal monetary gain or worldly satisfaction (see 

Duncan, 1996; Munro, 1998; Tamboukou, 2003). 

Authors such as Grumet (1988), Biklen (1995), Coffey and Delamont (2000) and 

Tamboukou (2003) concisely reveal the inherent contradiction in women teachers’ 

professional lives between autonomy and power in the classroom, the school and the 

education system. Furthermore (feminist) female teachers mention that they



experience different forms of sexism coming from their (male) colleagues, school 

boards and pupils. They notice, for example, that their subject expertise or classroom 

management is questioned because of their femininity. On top of this, they 

experience forms of hostility and anger towards women. They notice this in the 

gender joking in the staffroom and in attempts by male teachers to put them ‘in 

their place’. They often feel treated as sex objects by their male colleagues as well as 

by their pupils (Joyce, 1987; Coulter, 1995; Bailey, 1996; Miller, 1997; Ropers- 

Huilman, 1997; Lahelma et al., 2000). 

Although literature with a gender perspective mainly focuses on female teachers, 

studies by Benton Decorse and Vogtle (1997), Sumsion (1999, 2000), Sargent 

(2000), Smedley and Pepperell (2000), Francis and Skelton (2001), Oyler et al. 

(2001), Cushman (2005) and Hansen and Mulholland (2005) clearly prove that male 

teachers are also burdened with gendered discourses that define them in certain ways 

and determine their roles. A theme that strongly comes to the foreground in interviews 

with male teachers is the atmosphere of mistrust men have to work in and the 

occurrence of allegations of paedophilia or homosexuality. Male teachers often spoke 

of their reserve with regard to physical contact with the pupils because their actions 

could be interpreted wrongly by others involved in education. They felt that it made 

a difference in the perception of others if they, for instance, placed a child on their 

laps. Their presence as men in an ‘occupation’ in which the care for young children 

is central, after all, does not fit with dominant associations between this ‘occupation’ 

and femininity. 

The gap between the perceptions of society with regard to masculinity on the one 

hand, and the ‘Mothering discourse’ in the education of young children on the other 

hand, also gives rise to tensions and contradictions in the professional selfunderstanding 

of these teachers. In one respect, the male teachers feel that their presence 

can counteract stereotypes by showing traditional feminine nurturing and caring 

behaviour. In another respect, they feel the pressure of third parties (e.g. single mothers) 

to function as a kind of traditional male role model (surrogate fathers). In short, 

male teachers constantly have to negotiate between being ‘real (traditional) men’ and 

being ‘good teachers’ (being counter-stereotypical and nurturing). 

A third theme that often occurs in these studies is the ‘gendered division of labour’. 

Men are often asked to carry out traditional male chores like lifting heavy things, 

acting as disciplinarians for difficult children or as representatives of other teachers to 

talk to the school board. In addition, a number of studies make mention of the ‘glass 

escalator’ for men in traditionally feminine professions. Men are generally able to get 

promoted to executive functions more easily than women, and are more often urged 

to do so. These experiences are consistent with the traditional association of 

hegemonic masculinity and power. 

Up till now, little research has been conducted on male teachers in secondary 

education. Yet, in the case studies of Roulston and Mills (2000) on male teachers in 

Australia who teach what are considered feminine subject areas such as music, men 

appear to distance themselves in their task conceptions as much as possible from 

anything that seems feminine. For them, acting successfully is often being able to


handle difficult male pupils. To this end, they make use of masculine symbols (such 

as heavy metal music, macho imagos that are derived from competitive sports). From 

the perspective of constructionist gender theories, these men are distancing themselves 

from all that is regarded as feminine as a kind of compensation for their 

feminine subject in order to be able to represent themselves as sufficiently masculine. 

Relating the two research traditions 


A significant observation concerning relations between the two groups of research 

(sex differences research and gender dynamics research) is that the two traditions 

have so far developed in isolation from one another. A citation analysis shows this 

distinctiveness: none of the theoretical texts in the ‘Constructionist Perspectives’ 

section of this article or the research studies included in the ‘Gender Dynamics 

Research’ section have been cited by studies that can be classified under the sex 

differences studies. The majority of the articles that cited gender dynamics studies 

were the gender dynamics studies or discussion papers that draw upon gender 

constructionist theory. However, despite the differences between the two research 

traditions, it is possible and even necessary to relate both traditions theoretically, 

methodologically and with regard to their conclusions. 

Theoretically, a multilevel perspective that integrates both essentialist and social 

constructionist approaches is widely accepted among gender theorists like Aries 

(1996), Howard and Hollander (1997), and Risman (1998). Although these 

researchers are particularly critical of strictly essentialist or deterministic understandings 

of gender, they all plead for an integration of the individual and social-structural 

level in gender theory development. 

Methodologically, an integration of both traditions leads to research that does not 

restrict itself to an individual-objective level (contrastive to differences research). It 

also directs itself to the subjective and societal level, which is an asset. Contrary to sex 

differences studies, gender dynamics research pays extensive attention to how power 

relations, social interaction patterns, and society’s dominant discourses shape the 

personal subjectivities of individuals who are being studied in a specific situation at a 

specific moment. The individual-objective approach of sex differences research only 

gives an insight into the resulting (sometimes different) behaviour, effects, identities, 

etc. of males and females involved in education. 

Since both research traditions study similar facets of the professional lives of teachers, 

they provide findings that can be interrelated. Whereas sex differences research 

can map possible likenesses and differences between male and female teachers and 

can have a kind of signalling function, gender dynamics research can provide deeper 

insight into explaining sex differences between male and female teachers through its 

analysis of ‘gendered’ dynamics in the teaching profession. 

Bringing together the findings of both research traditions yields a range of new 

understandings of gender dynamics in teachers’ professional lives and can raise questions 

that have not been adequately addressed to date in teacher research. Such integration 

can cause a shift in the research questions being posed in gender research on



teachers (cf. feminisation debate). It can evolve from the narrow focus of looking for 

differences between male and female teachers towards revealing and deconstructing 

persistent gender discourses in teachers’ professional identities and well-being, career 

decision-making processes and professional opportunities, task allocations, and ways 

teachers are perceived by stakeholders in education and in society as a whole. Moreover, 

such integration could also reveal the possibility that gendered discourses can 

be part of the explanation of observed tendencies in sex differences research such as 

slightly lower well-being scores of male teachers, different decision-making processes 

to becoming a teacher, divergent education-related opinions, different perceptions of 

pupils, parents and others involved in education on male and female teachers and 

varied working conditions. 

Applying a gender lens on every aspect of teachers’ professional lives, however, will 

not be relevant. Yet, it can be argued that mainstream research on segments of 

teachers’ lives including subjectivity, personal understanding and perception such as 

teachers’ well-being, professional identities, etc. should take gender dynamics into 

account. 

Conclusion 

The intention of this article was to identify and analyse existing studies on teachers 

and teaching in which attention was paid to teacher gender. Two opposed theoretical 

gender perspectives, that is, essentialism and constructionism, are applied as ‘theoretical 

lenses’ to examine these teacher gender studies. Contemporary teacher gender 

research was classified into two divergent traditions: sex differences research and 

gender dynamics research. 

In spite of the fact that few studies make their theoretical starting points explicit, 

we believe that we have demonstrated that the goals and research questions these two 

traditions formulate, the ways in which they conceptualise and operationalise gender, 

the methods they use and their interpretations and explications of the research results 

run parallel to, respectively, essentialist and constructionist perspectives. It is made 

obvious that teacher research on gender lacks an integration of the theoretical frameworks, 

methodologies and findings of both groups. 

With regard to the feminisation debate, it can be concluded that the assumptions 

made about possible differences between male and female teachers in their teaching 

styles, capacities, and effects on pupils’ achievement, well-being and attitudes, 

do not hold theoretically nor empirically. Sex differences research could not 

expose—apart from some weak tendencies—essential male and female ways of 

teaching or straightforward divergent effects on pupils. On the contrary, no or only 

small and mainly inconsistent differences between male and female teachers were 

discovered. 

Constructionist gender theory analogously points out that strictly focusing on the 

sex of teachers in the feminisation debate is too simplistic. Nevertheless, teaching 

should not be considered gender neutral either since the tradition of gender dynamics 

research clearly showed that teaching is imbued with gender. In fact, these studies


revealed the numerous ways in which culturally and socially constructed gender 

discourses shape the professional identities of (student) teachers, their working conditions 

and the way teaching and teachers are perceived. 

This article outlined possible ways to integrate both theoretical perspectives and 

research traditions and pleaded for a shift in gender research on teachers towards critically 

analysing and deconstructing ‘gendered’ discourses in teaching on the one hand 

and exploring gender dynamics in certain segments of mainstream teacher research 

on the other hand. 

Notes 


1. Such as Good et al., 1973; Vroegh, 1976; Bennett, 1982; Gold & Reis, 1982; Harris et al., 1986; 

McIntyre, 1988; Mancus, 1992; Evetts, 1993; Feldman, 1993; Hancock et al., 1993; Mallam, 

1993; Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Warwick & Jatoi, 1994; Duru-Bellat, 

1995; Lee et al., 1995; Brennan et al., 1996; Brookhart & Loadman, 1996; Relich, 1996; 

Rowden & Carlson, 1996; Jules & Kutnick, 1997; Lush, 1997; Montecinos & Nielsen, 1997; 

Galguera, 1998; Lewis & Warin, 1998; Brady & Eisler, 1999; Hopf & Hatzichristou, 1999; 

Johnston et al., 1999; Leone-Perkins et al., 1999; Li, 1999; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Bress, 2000. 

2. Such as Huberman, 1993; Dey, 1995; Drevets et al., 1996; Ross et al., 1996; Wilkinson, 1998; 

Byrne, 1999; de Heus & Diekstra, 1999; Lens & De Jesus, 1999; Ma & MacMillan, 1999; 

Hawe et al., 2000; Huang, 2001; Barber, 2002. 

3. Such as Lens & De Jesus, 1999; Ma & MacMillan, 1999; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Hawe et al., 

2000; Huang, 2001. 

References 

Acker, S. (1994) Gendered education. Sociological reflections on women, teaching and feminism 

(Buckingham, Open University Press). 

Acker, S. (1995) Gender and teachers’ work, in: M. W. Apple (Ed.) Review of research in education 

(Washington DC, American Educational Research Association), 99–162. 

Anselmi, D. L. & Law, A. L. (1998) Questions of gender: perspectives and paradoxes (London, 

McGraw Hill). 

Aries, E. (1996) Men and women in interaction: reconsidering the difference (Oxford, Oxford University 

Press). 

Ashley, M. (2002) Role models, classroom leadership and the gendered battle for hearts and 

minds, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, 

University of Exeter, 12–14 September. 

Bailey, L. (1996) The feminisation of a school? Women teachers in a boy’s school, Gender & 

Education, 8(2), 171–185. 

Barber, T. (2002) A special duty of care: exploring the narration and experience of teacher caring, 

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 383–395. 

Bennett, S. K. (1982) Student perceptions of and expectation for male and female instructors: 

evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation, Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 74(2), 170–179. 

Benton Decorse, C. J. & Vogtle, S. P. (1997) In a complex voice: the contradictions of male 

elementary teachers’ career choice and professional identity, Journal of Teacher Education, 

48(1), 37–46. 

Biklen, S. K. (1995) School work. gender and the cultural construction of teaching (New York, Teachers 

College Press).



‘ 

Brady, K. L. & Eisler, R. M. (1999) Sex and gender in the college classroom: a quantitative analysis 

of faculty–student interactions and perceptions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 

127–145. 

Brennan, M. D., Robinson, C. K. & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1996) Gender comparison of teachers’ 

sense of efficacy, Psychological Reports, 78, 122. 

Bress, P. (2000) Gender differences in teaching styles, Forum, 38(4), 26. 

Brookhart, S. M. & Loadman, W. E. (1996) Characteristics of male elementary teachers in the 

U.S.A., at teacher education program entry and exit, Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 

197–210. 

Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity (London, Routledge). 

Byrne, B. M. (1999) The nomological network of teacher burnout: a literature review and 

empirically validated model, in: R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds) Understanding 

and preventing teacher burnout: a sourcebook of international research and practice (New York, 

Cambridge University Press), 15–37. 

Cammack, J. C. & Phillips, D. K. (2002) Discourses and subjectivities of the gendered teacher, 

Gender and Education, 14(2), 123–133. 

Casey, K. (1990) Teacher as mother: curriculum theorizing in the life histories of contemporary 

women teachers, Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3), 301–311. 

Centra, J. A. & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000) Is there bias in student evaluations of teaching?, Journal of 

Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33. 

Chodorow, N. (1994) Femininities, masculinities, sexualities: Freud and beyond (Lexington, KY, 

University Press of Kentucky). 

Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2000) Feminism and the classroom teacher. Research, praxis and pedagogy 

(London, Routledge). 

Connell, R. W. (1995) Masculinities (Cambridge, Polity Press). 

Coulter, R. (1995) Struggling with sexism: experiences of feminist first-year teachers, Gender & 

Education, 7(1), 33–51. 

Cushman, P. (2005) Let’s hear it from the males: issues facing male primary school teachers, 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 227–240. 

Davies, B. (2002) Becoming male or female, in: S. Jackson & S. Scott (Eds) Gender: a sociological 

reader (London, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), 280–290. 

Deaux, K. & Major, B. (1998) A social-psychological model of gender, in: D. L. Anselmi & 

A. L. Law (Eds) Questions of gender: perspectives and paradoxes (London, McGraw Hill), 

367–375. 

de Heus, P. & Diekstra, R. F. W. (1999) Do teachers burn out more easily? A comparison 

of teachers with other social professions on work stress and burnout symptoms, in: R. 

Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds) Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: a 

sourcebook of international research and practice (New York, Cambridge University Press), 

269–284. 

Dey, E. L. (1995) The activities of undergraduate teaching faculty, Thought and Action, 11(1), 

43–62. 

Drevets, R. K., Benton, S. L. & Bradley, F. O. (1996) Students’ perceptions of parents’ 

and teachers’ qualities of interpersonal relations, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(6), 

787–803. 

Duncan, J. (1996) For the sake of the children as the worth of the teacher? The gendered 

discourses of the New Zealand national kindergarten teachers’ employment negotiations, 


Duru-Bellat, M. (1995) Filles et garçons à l’école, approches sociologiques et psycho-sociales, 

Revue Française de Pédagogique, 110, 75–109. 

Edley, N. (2001) Analysing masculinity: interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and 

subject positions, in: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds) Discourse as data: a guide for 

analysis (London, Sage Publications/The Open University), 189–228.



Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D. J. (1994) Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity 

matter? Evidence from NELS88. Working paper no. 4669 (Cambridge, National Bureau of 

Economic Research). 

Epstein, C. F. (1999) Similarity and difference: the sociology of gender distinctions, in: J. S. 

Chafetz (Ed.) Handbook of the sociology of gender (New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum), 

45–61. 

Evetts, J. (1993) Women in engineering: educational concomitants of a non-traditional career 

choice, Gender and Education, 5(2), 167–179. 

Feldman, A. (1992) College-students views of male and female college-teachers. 1. Evidence from 

social laboratory and experiments, Research in Higher Education, 33(3), 317–375. 

Feldman, A. (1993) College-students views of male and female college-teachers. 2. Evidence 

from students’ evaluations of their classroom teachers, Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 

151–211. 

Fischman, G. E. (2000) Imagining teachers: rethinking gender dynamics in teacher education (Oxford, 

Rowman & Littlefield). 

Francis, B. (1999) Modernist reductionism or post-structuralist relativism: can we move on? An 

evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research, Gender & Education, 

11(4), 381–394. 

Francis, B. (2001) Beyond postmodernism: feminist agency in educational research, in: B. Francis 

& C. Skelton (Eds) Investigating gender: contemporary perspectives in education (Buckingham, 

Open University Press), 67–76. 

Francis, B. & Skelton, C. (2001) Men teachers and the construction of heterosexual masculinity in 

the classroom, Sex Education, 1(1), 9–21. 

Galguera, T. (1998) Students’ attitudes toward teachers’ ethnicity, bilinguality and gender, 

Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 20(4), 411–428. 

Gannerud, E. (2001) A gender perspective on the work and lives of women primary school teachers, 

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 55–70. 

Gergen, K. J. (2001) Social construction in context (London, Sage). 

Gold, D. & Reis, M. (1982) Male teacher effects on young children: a theoretical and empirical 

consideration, Sex Roles, 8(5), 493–513. 

Good, T. L., Sikes, J. N. & Brophy, J. E. (1973) Effects of teacher sex and student sex on classroom 

interaction, Journal of Education Psychology, 65(1), 74–87. 

Griffith, A. I. & Smith, D. E. (1991) Constructing cultural knowledge: mothering as discourse, in: 

J. S. Gaskell & A. T. McLaren (Eds) Women and education (2nd edn) (Alberta, Detselig 

Enterprises Limited), 81–97. 

Grumet, M. R. (1988) Bitter milk: women and teaching (Amherst, MA, The University of Massachusetts 

Press). 

Gursel, M., Murat, S. A. & Sari, H. (2002) An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction 

between Turkish headteachers and teachers, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 

17(1), 35–45. 

Hacking, I. (2000) The social construction of what? (London/Cambridge, Harvard University Press). 

Hall, S. (1997) Representation: cultural representation and signifying practices (London, Sage). 

Hancock, G. R., Shannon, D. M. & Trentman, L. L. (1993) Student and teacher gender in rating 

of university faculty: results from five colleges of study, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in 

Education, 6, 235–248. 

Hansen, P. & Mulholland, J. A. (2005) Caring and elementary teaching—the concerns of male 

beginning teachers, Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 119–131. 

Harris, M. J., Rosenthal, S. & Snodgrass, S. E. (1986) The effects of teacher behavior expectations, 

gender, and behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept, Journal of 

Educational Research, 79(3), 174–179. 

Hawe, E., Tuck, B., Manthei, R., Adair, V. & Moore, D. (2000) Job satisfaction and stress in New 

Zealand primary teachers, New Zealand Journal of Educational Sciences, 35(2), 193–205.



Hopf, D. & Hatzichristou, C. (1999) Teacher gender-related influences in Greek schools, British 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 1–18. 

Howard, J. A. & Hollander, J. (1997) Gendered situations, gendered selves: a gender lens on social 

psychology (London, Sage). 

Huang, S.-Y. L. (2001) Teachers’ perceptions of high school environments, Learning Environments 

Research, 4(2), 159–173. 

Huberman, M. (1993) The lives of teachers (London, Cassell). 

Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Introduction: the gendering of sociology, in: S. Jackson & S. Scott 

(Eds) Gender: a sociological reader (London & New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), 

1–26. 

Johnston, J., Mc Keown, E. & Mc Ewen, A. (1999) Choosing primary teaching as a career: 

the perspectives of males and females in training, Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(1), 

55–64. 

Joyce, M. (1987) Being a feminist teacher, in: M. Lawn & G. Grace (Eds) Teachers: the culture and 

politics of work (London, The Falmer Press). 

Jules, V. & Kutnick, P. (1997) Student perceptions of a good teacher: the gender perspective, 

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 497–511. 

Kalaian, H. A. & Freeman, D. J. (1994) Gender differences in self-confidence and educational 

beliefs among secondary teacher candidates, Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6), 647–658. 

Kessler, S. J. & McKenna, W. (1978) Gender: an ethnomethodological approach (New York, John 

Wiley). 

Lahelma, E., Palmu, T. & Gordon, T. (2000) Intersecting power relations in teachers’ experiences 

of being sexualised or harassed by students, Sexualities, 3(4), 463–481. 

Lee, V. E., Loeb, S. & Marks, H. M. (1995) Gender differences in secondary school teachers’ 

control over classroom and school policy, American Journal of Education, 103, 259–301. 

Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D. & Leithwood, J. (1999) Teacher burnout: a critical 

challenge for leaders of restructuring schools, in: R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds) 

Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: a sourcebook of international research and practice 

(New York, Cambridge University Press), 85–114. 

Lens, W. & De Jesus, S. N. (1999) A psychosocial interpretation of teacher stress and burnout, in: 

R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds) Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: a 

sourcebook of international research and practice (New York, Cambridge University Press). 

Leone-Perkins, M., Schnuth, R. & Kanter, T. (1999) Preceptor–student interactions in ambulatory 

clerkship: gender differences in student evaluations of teaching, Teaching and Learning in 

Medicine, 11(3), 164–167. 

Lewis, C. & Warin, J. (1998) Gender differences: the child’s perspective, in: C. Owen, C. 

Cameron & P. Moss (Eds) Men as workers in services for young children: issues of a mixed 

gender workforce (London, The Institute of Education, University of London), 91–105. 

Li, Q. (1999) Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: a review, Educational 

Research, 41(1), 63–76. 

Lott, B. (1997) Cataloguing gender differences: science or politics?, in: M. R. Walsh (Ed.) Women, 

men and gender: ongoing debates (New Haven/London, Yale University Press), 25–56. 

Lush, B. (1997) Gender and teaching: a study of teacher gender and verbal interaction patterns in samesex 

and mixed-sex groups in the classroom. Postgraduate dissertation abstract (Surrey, English 

Language Institute, University of Surrey). 

Ma, X. & MacMillan, R. B. (1999) Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’ job satisfaction, 

Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39–47. 

Maguire, M. & Weiler, G. (1994) The place of women in teacher education: discourses of power, 

Educational Review, 46(2), 121–140. 

Mallam, W. A. (1993) Impact of school-type and sex of the teacher on female students’ attitudes 

toward mathematics in Nigerian secondary schools, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 

223–229.



Mancus, D. S. (1992) Influence of male teachers on elementary-school children’s stereotyping of 

teacher competence, Sex Roles, 26(3–4), 109–128. 

McCray, A. D., Sindelar, P. T., Kilgore, K. K. & Neal, L. I. (2002) African-American women’s 

decisions to become teachers: sociocultural perspectives, Qualitative Studies in Education, 

15(3), 269–290. 

McIntyre, L. L. (1988) Teacher gender: a predictor of special education referral?, Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 21(6), 382–383. 

Meiners, E. R. (2002) Disengaging from the Legacy of Lady Bountiful in teacher education classrooms, 


Miller, J. H. (1997) Gender issues embedded in the experience of student teaching: being treated 

like a sex object, Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 19–28. 

Montecinos, C. & Nielsen, L. E. (1997) Gender and cohort differences in university students’ 

decisions to become elementary teacher education major, Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 

47–54. 

Munro, P. (1998) Subject to fiction: women teachers’ life history narratives and the cultural politics of 

resistance (Buckingham, Open University Press). 

Oyler, C., Jennings, G. T. & Lozada, P. (2001) Silenced gender: the construction of a male 

primary educator, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 367–379. 

Paechter, C. (2001) Using poststructuralist ideas in gender theory and research, in: B. Francis & 

C. Skelton (Eds) Investigating gender: contemporary perspectives in education (Buckingham, 


Phillips, D. K. (2002) Female preservice teachers’ talk: illustrations of subjectivity, visions of 

‘nomadic’ space, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 9–27. 

Relich, J. (1996) Gender, self-concept and teachers of mathematics: effects on attitudes to teaching 

and learning, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 179–195. 

Risman, B. J. (1998) Gender vertigo: American families in transition (New Haven/London, Yale 

University Press). 

Ropers-Huilman, B. (1997) Constructing feminist teachers: complexities of identity, Gender & 

Education, 9(3), 327–344. 

Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I. & Ruvio, A. (1999) A gender-based framework of the experience of job 

insecurity and its effects on work attitudes, European Journal of Work and Organizational 

Psychology, 8(2), 197–217. 

Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B. & Gadalla, T. (1996) Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy, 

Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400. 

Roulston, K. & Mills, M. (2000) Male teachers in feminised teaching areas: marching to the beat 

of the men’s movement drums?, Oxford Review of Education, 26(2), 221–238. 

Rowden, G. V. & Carlson, R. E. (1996) Gender issues and students’ perceptions of instructors’ 

immediacy and evaluation of teaching and course, Psychological Reports, 78(3), 

835–839. 

Sargent, P. (2000) Real men or real teachers? Contradictions in the lives of men elementary 

teachers, Men and Masculinities, 2(4), 410–433. 

Schwab, R. L. (1995) Teacher stress and burnout, in: L. B. Anderson (Ed.) International encyclopedia 

of teaching and teacher education (Oxford, Pergamon), 52–57. 

Scott, J. W. (1999) Gender and the politics of history (New York, Columbia University Press). 

Skelton, C. (2001) Typical boys? Theorizing masculinity in educational settings, in: B. Francis & 

C. Skelton (Eds) Investigating gender: contemporary perspectives in education (Buckingham, 


Smedley, S. & Pepperell, S. (2000) No man’s land: caring and male student primary teachers, 

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(3), 259–277. 

Stake, J. E. & Katz, J. F. (1982) Teacher–pupil relationships in the elementary school classroom: 

teacher-gender and pupil-gender differences, American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 

465–471.



Stanley, L. (2002) Should ‘sex’ really be ‘gender’ or ‘gender’ really be ‘sex’?, in: S. Jackson & S. 

Scott (Eds) Gender: a sociological reader (London & New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis 

Group), 31–41. 

Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (2002) What’s wrong with socialisation?, in: S. Jackson & S. Scott (Eds) 

Gender: a sociological reader (London & New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), 

273–279. 

Sumsion, J. (1999) Critical reflections on the experience of a male early childhood worker, Gender 

and Education, 11(4), 455–468. 

Sumsion, J. (2000) Negotiating otherness: a male early childhood educator’s gender positioning, 

International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(2), 129–140. 

Tamboukou, M. (2000) The paradox of being a woman teacher, Gender and Education, 12(4), 

463–478. 

Tamboukou, M. (2003) Women, education and the self: a Foucauldian perspective (New York, 

Palgrave MacMillan). 

Vroegh, K. (1976) Sex of teacher and academic achievement: a review of research, Elementary 

School Journal, 76(7), 389–405. 

Walkerdine, V. (1992) Progressive pedagogy and political struggle, in: C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds), 

Feminisms and critical pedagogy (London/New York, Routledge, Chapman and Hall). 

Walsh, M. R. (1997) Women, men and gender: ongoing debates (New Haven/London, Yale University 

Press). 

Warwick, D. P. & Jatoi, H. (1994) Teacher gender and student achievement in Pakistan, Comparative 

Education Review, 38(3), 377–399. 

Weber, S. & Mitchell, C. (1995) That’s funny, you don’t look like a teacher. Interrogating images of 

identity in popular culture (London/Washington DC, The Falmer Press). 

Weiler, K. & Middleton, S. (1999) Telling women’s lives. Narrative inquiries in the history of women’s 

education (Buckingham, Open University Press). 

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987) Doing gender, Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. 

Whitehead, S. M. & Barrett, F. J. (2001) The masculinities reader (Oxford, Blackwell). 

Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1998) Dealing with diversity: achievement gaps in reading literacy among 

New Zealand students, Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 144–167.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?