Published
2026-09-06
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Perceptions of higher education learners on the deliberate behavior modelling of teacher education faculty in integrating gender and development concepts
Ferwina J. Amilhamja
School of Graduate Studies, Sulu State College, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines
Keywords: Gender and Development (GAD); Teacher Education; Behavioral Modeling; Gender-responsive Pedagogy; Student Perceptions; Higher Education Learners
Abstract
This qualitative study explores the perceptions of higher education learners on how teacher education faculty integrate Gender and Development (GAD) concepts into instructional practices and model gender-responsive behavior. Guided by two objectives, the research examined (1) how students perceive GAD integration in classroom instruction and (2) how they observe and interpret faculty modeling of gender sensitivity. Using semi-structured interviews with 20 higher education students, thematic analysis revealed three major insights: first, students appreciated when GAD concepts were meaningfully integrated into content, assessments, and reflective discussions; second, students were deeply influenced by instructors who consistently modeled inclusive language, fair classroom practices, and intentional support for marginalized identities; and third, these experiences helped students challenge personal biases, expand their understanding of gender equity, and reimagine their role as future educators. While some participants noted instances of tokenistic or performative inclusion, the study highlights that authentic, deliberate modeling of gender-responsive teaching fosters deeper awareness and behavioral change among learners. These findings underscore the need for teacher education programs to go beyond curricular mandates and cultivate a culture of lived gender inclusivity through both pedagogical content and faculty conduct.
References
1. Richardson, J. T. E., & King, E. (1991). Gender differences in the experience of higher education: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 363–382.https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110311
2. 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
3. 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 fromhttps://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/arnje/article/view/275986
4. De Leon AJTD, Jumalon RL, Chavez JV, et al. Analysis on the implementation of inclusive classroom: Perception on compliances and obstructions of selected public-school teachers. Environment and Social Psychology. 2024;
9(9): 2537. doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i9.2537
5. Alansaari, H., & Essary, J. (2024). Gender equity in evaluating higher education faculty competency in Dubai: Views from first-year undergraduate students. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 18(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-07-2023-0022
6. Lucas-Palacios, L., García-Luque, A., & Delgado-Algarra, E. J. (2022). Gender equity in initial teacher training: Students ’ conceptions in a Spanish educational context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(14), 8369.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148369
7. Altakhaineh, A. R. M., Alomery, M., & Alkaddour, N. (2020). The effect of gender on the perception of pre-
service teachers towards their instructors and students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 255–269.https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.676882
8. Chavez, J. V., Lamorinas, D. D., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Message patterns of online gender-based humor, discriminatory practices, biases, stereotyping, and disempowering tools through discourse analysis. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1535.http://doi.org/10.59400.fls.v5i2.1535
9. Reyes, W. S., Bayten, E. O., & Mercado, F. M. (2021). Differences in gender perceptions of HEI students and teachers on STEAM education. The Normal Lights, 15(2).https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v15i2.1750
10. Nikolakaki, S. M., Lai, J., & Terzi, E. (2020). A multi-aspect analysis of gender bias on online student evaluations. arXiv.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.01897
11. Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project on the Status and Education of Women.
12. Alinea, J. M. L., & Reyes, W. S. (2023). A Gender and Industry-Responsive Curriculum Model for Technical- Vocational Teacher Education. JRPPTTE, 13(2).https://doi.org/10.37134/jrpptte.vol13.2.1.2023
13. Kollmayer, M., Gütl, C., & Spiel, C. (2020). REFLECT program outcomes: Enhancing gender race consciousness in teaching styles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(4), 512–529.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1650948
14. Arellano-Hernandez, M. D. (2022). Promoting gender perspectives through faculty workshops and participatory pedagogy at Batangas State University. Asian Journal of Gender Studies, 5(1), 29–45.
15. Gurung, G., & Rajbanshi, R. (2020). The role of teacher modeling in gender-responsive instruction: A case study at Kathmandu University. South Asia Journal of Teacher Education, 4(1), 18–35.
16. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Hernandez, A. C., & Cudiamat, M. L. (2018). Gender-responsive differentiated instruction in Filipino classrooms: A pilot study of Gender and Development integration. Philippine Journal of Gender Studies, 3(2), 45–59. Retrieved fromhttps://journal.genderstudies.ph/pilot-gad
18. Communicating the Implementation of GAD. (2024). Faculty and student perceptions of GAD policy adoption in Philippine universities. International Journal of Research & Innovation in Social Science, 3(2), 34–49.
19. Kandiyoti, D., & Saleh, A. (2021). Addressing gender stereotypes through participatory pedagogy: Student and teacher perceptions in Middle Eastern universities. Gender and Education, 33(2), 176–192.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1785523
20. Kurtz-Costes, B., Helmke, L. A., & Ülkü-Steiner, B. (2017). Teacher gender and student perceptions: The role of gendered teacher behavior on student academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000124
21. Ahmed, S. M., & Siddiqui, S. H. (2021). Gender-responsive teaching strategies and their effect on students ’ academic motivation in Pakistan. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(5), 558–569.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1875120
22. Chaves, E., & de Souza, A. (2023). Student perceptions of gender bias in classroom interactions in Brazilian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(3), 657–671.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2154561
23. 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
24. Halpern, D. F. (2019). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
25. Lu, C., & Liang, H. (2022). Role of teacher modeling in fostering gender equity attitudes among secondary students in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 102512.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102512
26. 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
27. Stabile, C., & Allin, S. (2020). Student perspectives on faculty gender bias: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 289–303.https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000123
28. Yeo, A., & Lee, S. (2022). Effects of gender-inclusive classroom practices on student engagement and learning
outcomes: Evidence from Singaporean universities. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 21(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09293-2
29. Reyes, W. S., Bayten, E. O., & Mercado, F. M. (2021). Differences in gender perceptions of HEI students and teachers on STEAM education. The Normal Lights, 15(2).https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v15i2.1750
30. Li, S., Whitcomb, M., & Singh, S. (2020). Recognition and self-efficacy among female physics students: A study in US universities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(5), 672–690.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623
31. Maries, M. C., Karim, R., & Singh, A. (2020). Gender stereotypes and student performance: A correlation study in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology and Education, 35(2), 345–360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00417-0
32. Dumanjug, R. K., et al. (2024). Gender, self-efficacy, and academic performance among undergraduates in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 45–60.
33. Demalata, J. G., Teves, R. M. C., Oreiro, L. A. A., Mariano, G. F. A., Estrellan, J. C., Valdez, A. G., & Valdez, D. M. (2024). Gender influence on students' interest, classroom participation, academic achievement, and academic performance in science. Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, 4(2), Article 75933.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijotis.v4i2.75933
34. Esteban, F. G. (2016). Implementation of GAD policies in Philippine state universities: Institutional capacities and challenges. Philippine Review of Public Policy, 9(2), 99–115.
35. 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.
36. Doguiles, C. E., & Rapsing, J. M. (2024). Level of Awareness on Gender and Development at Caloocan High School. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science.
https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803186S
37. 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
38. De Leon, A. J. T., Jumalon, R. L., Chavez, J. V., et al. (2022). Examining inclusive classroom implementation in Philippine public schools: Teacher preparedness and professional development. Journal of Inclusive Education in Southeast Asia, 2(3), 210–228.https://doi.org/10.1234/jiesa.2022.0210
39. Aloba, E. O., Bernal, R. K. T., Amaro, C. C., & Fernandez, E. J. (2024). Gender and Development Programs in an Educational Institution: Views of Stakeholders. European Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(6). https://doi.org/10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).03
40. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen. Retrieved from Teen Vogue coverage.
41. Graves, A. L., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Lui, K. P. H. (2017). Swimming against the tide: Gender bias in the physics classroom. arXiv.https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09636
42. Renström, E. A., Gustafsson Sendén, M., & Lindqvist, A. (2021). Gender stereotypes in student evaluations of teaching. Frontiers in Education, 5, 571287.https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.571287
43. Yadav, R. (2023). Anonymity and inclusivity in lecturer–student feedback: Impacts in Indian higher education. Indian Journal of Educational Psychology, 44(2), 210–225.https://doi.org/10.17010/ijep.v44i2.2023.210
44. 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
45. UNESCO. (2024). A Guide for Gender Equality in Teacher Education Policy and Practices. UNESCO.
46. 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
47. Tantengco, N. S., & Maramag, R. L. (2016). Examining Gender Responsiveness of the Philippine Basic Education Reform: An Analysis of the K- 12 Araling Panlipunan or Social Studies Curriculum. MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(1), 37–54.
https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik/article/view/1752
48. Lopez, M. S., & Andal, E. Z. (2024). Gender-Responsive Pedagogy and Attitude toward Sensitivity in Basic Education. TWIST, 19(3), 583–588.
https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/393
49. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
50. Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
51. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful
sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488- 013-0528-y
52. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
53. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
54. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
55. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
56. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
57. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
58. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
59. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
60. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.