Higher Education Learners' Perceptions of Gender-Responsive Behavioral Modeling Among Teacher Education Faculty
Main Article Content
Abstract
Gender-responsive education has become an essential component of teacher preparation, as it promotes inclusive, equitable, and respectful learning environments. This study explored higher education learners' perceptions of gender-responsive behavioral modeling demonstrated by teacher education faculty. Specifically, it examined how learners perceived the integration of Gender and Development (GAD) principles into instructional practices and how they interpreted faculty members' gender-responsive behaviors in classroom settings. Employing a qualitative descriptive research design, the study involved 15 higher education learners enrolled in teacher education programs from selected higher education institutions in the Philippines. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. The findings revealed that learners perceived gender-responsive behavioral modeling through the meaningful integration of GAD principles, inclusive communication, equitable classroom participation, proactive advocacy for diversity, and respectful faculty–student interactions. Participants emphasized that authentic and consistent gender-responsive practices fostered psychological safety, reflective learning, empathy, and the development of inclusive professional identities as future educators. Conversely, superficial or compliance-driven implementation of gender-related concepts was perceived as limiting learners' engagement and understanding. Overall, the study highlights the critical role of teacher education faculty as behavioral models whose instructional and interpersonal practices shape learners' perspectives on gender equity, ethical responsibility, and inclusive teaching. The findings underscore the importance of strengthening faculty development initiatives that promote reflective pedagogy and the sustained integration of gender-responsive practices within teacher education programs...
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2),77–101.https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 328-352.
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.
Casas, K. M. M., Consolacion, R. A., Leuterio, J. V., Pabatang Jr., O. A., & Zabala, V. B. (2024). Assessment of students’ awareness and attitude towards gender sensitivity: An evaluation of a gender-sensitivity training program for student leaders at Mindanao State University–LTC. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 4(3), 150–161. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/arnje/article/view/275986
Colorafi, K. J., & Evans, B. (2016). Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(4), 16-25.
Doyle, L., McCabe, C., Keogh, B., Brady, A., & McCann, M. (2020). An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. Journal of research in nursing, 25(5), 443-455.
Ilagan, C. A. (2019). A study of gender mainstreaming in a Philippine higher education institution: From policy to practice. Educational Management Research Journal, 7(1), 55–72.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Khokhlova, O., Lamba, N., & Kishore, R. (2023). Evaluating student evaluations: evidence of gender bias against women in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 115813. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.115813
León, M. P., & Montero, I. (2020). Gender perspectives in university teaching: Student evaluations of inclusive practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1693238
Leraas, B. C., Kippen, N. R., & Larson, S. J. (2018). Gender and student participation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i4.22849
Roa, M. B., & Morales, L. F. (2023). Gender-sensitive education in the Philippine secondary school context: Voices from students and teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2102157
Sezgin, F. H. (2024). Evaluation of gender perceptions of university students. In F. H. Sezgin (Ed.), Socio-economic implications of global educational inequalities (pp. 123–139). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0693-2.ch013
UNESCO. (2019). Global education monitoring report 2019: Gender bridge-building in teacher education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368758
UNESCO. (2024). A Guide for Gender Equality in Teacher Education Policy and Practices. UNESCO..