Despite the equal talent of girls in STEM, they are less likely to choose STEM-related fields, a trend reflected in the labour market. To address this societal challenge in education, we developed the Gender Sensitive Education Checklist (GSEC) and corresponding workshop. This reflection tool for teachers focuses on 4 pillars on which teachers can focus. The GESC helps them make timely adjustments to their lessons, supporting all children, regardless of their gender, more effectively in their STEM careers.

The four pillars of the checklist

Awareness of gender biases is crucial for gender equity. Teachers should avoid a so called “gender blind” attitude (Garrahy, 2001) that overlooks gender differences and historical disparities. Recognizing how our thoughts and actions are changing, depending on the gender of the pupil that we’re interacting with, is the first step in creating gender-sensitive STEM lessons (Consuegra et al., 2013). Therefore, ‘awareness’ forms the first pillar of the Gender Sensitive Education Checklist (GSEC), which includes reflective questions for teachers.

The second pillar focuses on girls’ representation in technology. Early imaging and framing in STEM are often formed by stereotypes about boys’ superiority in STEM, which can deter girls (Brown, 2021). Therefor, critically examining study materials for these stereotypes and implementing positive female role models can influence attitudes of all students (Cheryan et al., 2011; Smeding 2012).

Classroom interactions, the third pillar, are influenced by gender biases (Consuegra et al., 2016). Stereotypical language (example: “I need 2 strong boys”) can reinforce existing stereotypes (Rhodes et al., 2019). Implementing small changes can boost girls’ interest in STEM, such as explicitly addressing the female word for a profession instead of the regular ‘male’ form (in Dutch: there is a female and male word for most professions).

The fourth pillar pertains to pedagogical methodologies. The integration of students’ personal experiences into the curriculum can enhance engagement and performance, particularly for those with diminished expectations of success (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009). A STEM curriculum contextualized within societal and experiential frameworks appears to be favored by female students as it strengthens the idea of being able to make a significant societal contribution.  Previous research suggests that female students exhibit heightened motivation when provided with opportunities to design and conduct their own investigations (Ardies et al, 2015).

The workshops

We organised workshops to foster gender sensitivity in STEM education, introducing the checklist. This two-hour workshop systematically overviewed all pillars: general gender awareness, imaging girls, classroom interactions, and teaching methods. Theoretical underpinnings and relevance were elucidated, punctuated with practical examples and participant interaction. The workshop’s design ensured effective elements like context-specific approaches and reflective practice. Utilizing appreciative inquiry we facilitated the transition from current reality to a gender-sensitive STEM future, resulting in tangible plans and growth areas.

Summarizing the results

This study, conducted with 58 participants who participated in the workshop using the GESC, aimed to support gender-sensitive teaching in STEM through a checklist and workshop. The checklist was found useful for organizing gender-sensitive lessons, and suggestions for wider dissemination were made. Most teachers found the workshop valuable and reported changes in their behaviour. However, these changes were self-reported and not measured directly. More professional development options are recommended, as one workshop may not lead to sustainable changes in attitudes and behaviour. Longer, more in-depth professional development courses could provide more support (Merchie et al., 2016). Despite some teachers expressing doubts about reusing the checklist, most participants gained new insights and intended to make behavioural changes for a more inclusive classroom. Thus, the checklist and workshop show promise in promoting gender sensitivity in STEM education.

We developed a checklist and accompanying workshop consisting of the four pillars, described previously in the abstract, that were the result of a literature review and. Both the workshop and the GESC were developed to support teachers in critically looking at their own practices and promoting more gender-sensitive teaching activities where possible. This led us to the following two research questions: • How do teachers and education professionals experience the checklist and the accompanying workshop? • What are teachers’ perceptions about their gender-sensitive teaching, and do they experience a difference after using the checklist and participating in a workshop? In the first phase, we designed the checklist and workshop, based on literature review. Next, the instrument was reviewed and re-designed through multiple feedback-loops. The study was conducted on a representative but relatively small group of 58 participants, including teachers and STEM expert-trainers of which 42 evaluated the workshop and checklist, who each evaluated the GESC and accompanying workshop by filling out questionnaires. In the first feedback loop, STEM expert-trainers reviewed the instrument and workshop. Based on their feedback, the instrument was revised and tested in a second feedback loop by teachers. A third version of the instrument was evaluated by student-teachers. Afterwards, a fourth and final version of the Gender Sensitive Education Scale was redesigned. After the workshop, we asked the participants to complete a questionnaire about the checklist and the workshop. In general, we surveyed teachers' perceived self-esteem about gender-sensitive teaching with two questions. For this, the respondents could indicate to what extent they agreed with questions about their gender-sensitive teaching. Next to open ended questions, participants indicated on a 5-point Likert scale about the usefulness and general clarity of the checklist. Finally, participants answered three open questions about their perceptions of the checklist. Moreover, the workshop was evaluated with a Likert scale questionnaire and open questions over the participants experiences.

Data was analysed about both the GESC and the accompanying workshop. A first conclusion points out that the checklist was found to be a useful and a practical tool to help organise teaching activities in a more gender-sensitive way. Post-workshop, most teachers felt they were already somewhat engaged in gender-sensitive teaching. The checklist was deemed easy to use and interpret by most participants, with 32 finding it helpful for organizing more gender-sensitive lessons. However, 13 doubted they would reuse it, citing reasons such as it being cumbersome or confusing. Despite this, they indicated they would still strive for more gender-sensitive lessons. Second, the workshop was found informative by almost all participants, providing new insights, and influencing future teaching practices. Mentioned changes included paying more attention to language and the representation of women in course materials. More complex adjustments in didactics or pedagogical approaches were less discussed, possibly due to their less immediate visibility or existing familiarity among teachers. A sidenote to these results is we didn’t measure teachers’ factual change in behaviour, nor their capabilities. We only examined their ambitions and self-indicated sense of growth in this subject. Nevertheless, multiple studies showed that teachers’ perceptions, self-efficacy, and ambitions to change their lessons can be seen as an indicator for actual change in teaching behaviour (Chen et al, 2021). In conclusion, most of the participants indicated that they had gained new insights during the workshop and by using the checklist, and showed intentions for behavioural changes in the classroom, to make this a more inclusive and ambitious place for all students. The checklist and workshop therefore seem promising in promoting more gender sensitivity in (STEM-)education.

Ardies,J., De Maeyer,S., & Gijbels,D. (2015). A longitudinal study on boys’ and girls’ career aspirations and interest in technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(3),366–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1060412 Brown,S.C. (2021). Unraveling bias: How prejudice has shaped children for generations and why it's time to break the cycle. BenBella Books. Chen,Y.L., Huang,LF., & Wu,P.C. (2021). Preservice preschool teachers’ self-efficacy in and need for STEM education professional development: STEM pedagogical belief as a mediator. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01055-3 Cheryan,S., Siy,J.O., Vichayapai,M., Drury,B.J., & Kim,S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6),656–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611405218 Consuegra,E., Engels,N., & Struyven,K. (2013). Gender differentiated classroom interaction: A systematic review and theoretical perspectives from appreciative learning approaches. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228,293–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.043 Consuegra,E., Engels,N., & Willegems,V. (2016). Using video-stimulated recall to investigate teacher awareness of explicit and implicit gendered thoughts on classroom interactions. Teachers and Teaching, 22(6),683-699. Garrahy,D.A. (2001). Three third-grade teachers' gender-related beliefs and behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 102,81–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/499694 Hulleman,C.S., & Harackiewicz,J.M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958),1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.11770 McGuire,L., Mulvey,K.L., Goff,E., Irvin,M.J., Winterbottom,M., Fields,G., ... & Rutland,A. (2020). STEM gender stereotypes from early childhood through adolescence at informal science centers. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 67,101-109. Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Hoe kan je de impact van professionalisering voor leraren in kaart brengen?. Departement Onderwijs en Vorming. Rhodes,M., Leslie,S.J., Yee,K.M., & Saunders,K. (2019). Subtle linguistic cues increase girls’ engagement in science. Psychological Science, 30(3),455–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618823670