The Role of Gender-Biased Perceptions in Teacher-Student Interaction

Open access

The Role of Gender-Biased Perceptions in Teacher-Student Interaction

Differences in teacher perceptions depending on student gender and their impact on teacher-student interaction was the focus of the study. The questions addressed were: the characteristics that teachers encourage and discourage in girls and boys; the patterns of their responses to students of different genders; perception of pupils' academic achievement, learning skills and giftedness; distribution of attention between girls and boys. The study revealed that in spite of better school results, girls' skills and talents are underestimated, expectations towards them are low and their behavior is restricted to stereotyped feminine roles. The majority of those surveyed support the idea that sex determines different abilities in different learning skills as regards school subjects. While girls, in teachers' opinion, insignificantly exceed boys in the humanities, boys entirely outdo girls in natural sciences and math. Teachers totally deny girls' abilities in sports. At the same time, most teachers are hardly aware of being gender-biased themselves.

Bem, S.L. (1993). The lenses of gender. Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Berekashvili, N. (2011). Gender bias in Georgian school teachers' attitudes and behavior. In XV European Conference on Developmental Psychology ECDP (pp. 465-474.). Bologna: Medimond International Proceeding.

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Education Psychology, 75 (5), 631-661.

Carli, L.L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55 (1), 81-99.

Caruthers, L. (2005). Classroom interactions and achievement. Mid-Atlantic Research for Education & Learning. Retrieved from:

Chapman, A. (2002). Gender Bias in Education. Research Room. Retrieved from:

Connell, R.W. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on sex, class and cult ure. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.

Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior. A social-role interpretation. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ecclees, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In L.C. Wilkinson & C.B. Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79-114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1987). Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper & Row.

Good, T.L. & Findley, M.J. (1985). Sex role expectations and achievement. In J.B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 271-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hallinan, M.T. & Sørensen, A.B. (1987). Ability grouping and sex differences in mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 60 (2), 63-72.

McCormick, P. (1995). Are girls taught to fail? U.S. Catholic, 60 (2), 38-42.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 176-179.

Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership, 56 (7), 22-26.

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Klein, S. (1991). The issues of gender bias in elementary and secondary education. The Review of Research in Education, 17 (7), 269-334

Scott, E. & McCollum, H. (1993). Making it happen: Gender equitable classrooms. In S.K. Biklen & D. Pollard (Eds.), Gender and Education. Part 1 (pp. 174-190). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reay, D. (2001). ‘Spice Girls’, ‘Nice Girls’, ‘Girlies’, and ‘Tomboys’: Gender discourses, girls' cultures and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education, 13 (2), 153-166.

Shelley S.S. (2000). The relationship among teacher expectations, teacher attitudes toward the TAAS, and student achievement. Denton, TX: University of North Texas. Retrieved from:

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.359

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 586 586 71
PDF Downloads 252 252 32