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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.410

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1304 978 39
PDF Downloads 547 413 4