Gender Inclusive Teaching and Learning: Transforming the Gendered Classroom

By Dina Refki & Esther Kim

As a society, we created artificial occupational dichotomies and segregated many occupations, rendering some as the exclusive domain of men and others as that of women. The legacy of exclusions continues today with many occupations that are gender dominated. Today, barriers to entry into these occupations and to success continue. For example, in 2023, women comprised only 10.8% of workers in construction, and in 2020-2021, men filled only 23% of public elementary and secondary school teacher positions. Progress to eliminate barriers to making these occupations gender integrated has been slow. This Research Note reports on a study on interventions to advance gender inclusive teaching and learning in higher education and promote success for students pursuing gender nontraditional fields of study.  

Gender occupational domination unfairly excludes and is a matter of economic justice. It is also a matter of addressing workforce needs, filling workforce shortages and preserving global competitiveness. 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) are drivers of creativity, innovation, and productivity. They are jobs of the future that are in high demand. The inability to fill gaps in those fields and leverage the full potential of the existing workforce represents a loss of intellectual, economic and social development. There is a critical need to advance gender equity in fields that remain gender dominated and create more equitable pathways to all occupations.  

The problem of occupational segregation starts early through gender socialization. The classroom is a site where one can witness glaring exclusionary behaviors and attitudes toward minoritized students. Ample evidence exists that point to how gendered classroom dynamics can hinder the ability of students pursuing gender nontraditional fields of study from thriving, how they can cultivate disconnectedness and interfere with building professional identities that position them for success in their chosen fields. The classroom can also be a locus of positive change.

With that in mind, the Center sought to answer two questions: 

1. What is the state of knowledge about gender inclusive classrooms today?
2. What are promising pedagogical practices and curricular reforms that cultivate gender inclusive classrooms? 

We synthesized the research literature and conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups with 13 faculty members and 11 students. Findings suggest that the gendered classroom erodes the pipeline to gender nontraditional occupations and destabilizes efforts to facilitate student success.  The negative features of the gendered classroom manifest in three dimensions; behavioral, structural and psychological.

Behavioral Dimension

In the behavioral dimension, gender minoritized students feel devaluation of technical competence; invisibility of their presence, denial of their reality, and pathologizing of their character, personality, communication style as well as their identity. Students felt a sense of disconnection from faculty. They believed that the faculty did not care about them. They struggled to feel heard; compelled to “yell and speak over people to get my point across.”  The perception that the playing field is not leveled and that one is not starting at the same base dominated the minds of many gender minoritized students. 

Women in male-dominated classrooms felt they must prove themselves because “the teacher will not assume that you have the same ability as the men in the classroom…you have to prove that you can.” Female students in STEM felt that male students get far more attention and coaching than their female counterparts.” This finding is supported by the literature that posit that the “cold and Chilly environments created by faculty permeate the entire climate and peers display “distrustful, and non-collaborative behaviors.”  

Psychological Dimension

In the psychological dimension, the impacts of negative behaviors and attitudes of faculty and peers toward gender minoritized groups create loneliness, lack of belonging, lack of self-confidence, doubts related to tokenism, feelings of intimidation, loss of interest, stereotype threats, inability to infiltrate peer groups, lack of practical and symbolic support, constricted access to resources and mentors, loss of identification with field and ultimately dropout. Students in our study voiced a sense of being out of place and reported experiencing the “imposter syndrome.”  

Structural Dimension

Finally, the structural characteristics of higher education do not provide sufficient incentives for faculty and administrators to enact reforms that rid the curricula from stereotyping and address heteronormativity that marginalizes minoritized groups. STEM fields specifically, often embrace a competitive culture, employ hierarchical teaching models that devalue students’ prior knowledge and experiences, privilege STEM majors and treat them as superior to other fields, apply a narrow epistemological lens that devalues diverse ways of knowing and treats STEM epistemology as universal truth. 

STEM education leaves no room for recognizing how social/political issues produce inequalities and how meritocracy is often an elusive ideal that does not always produce success regardless of hard work. Such conditions leave gender minoritized students vulnerable to forces outside of their control without efforts to neutralize them.

Gender Integrated teaching and learning is about giving equitable opportunity in teaching and learning, utilizing student-centered approaches; relying on ongoing dialogue with students; avoiding occurrence of gender stereotyping empowering students to counteract gender discrimination; increasing students’ participation in education and reducing drop out. Participants in our study highlighted several interventions that can advance the vision of gender integrated teaching and learning.

Intervention Strategies

Inclusive pedagogical practices cited in our findings included the utilization of the socio-collaborative learning model which recognizes the critical role of class cohesion in the teaching and learning process. Cohesion is conceived when there is positive emotional and social interaction and respect. Peer teaching fortifies bonds and working in teams reinforces a sense of accountability for collective success. The instructor provides regular assessment, support and scaffolding for students who need it and make space in the syllabus to diffuse anxiety and promote collaborative learning of difficult topics.

The system of study buddy reinforces the values of collaboration and peer support. The instructor humanizes self by sharing their own experiences and in the process deconstruct power dynamics and narrow the psychological distance between student and faculty. She creates a safe space where everyone is heard and where biases, social structures, power relationships are suppressed. The teacher is self-aware. He uses inclusive language and messages and promotes a growth mindset where struggle is normalized and success is viewed as a process where failure is normal. She reinforces the message that the classroom is a place to learn not to perform. 

Pedagogical approaches need to emphasize the process of learning and measure outcomes that are not rooted in performance. In doing so, the instructor rewards on-time assignments, accepts late assignments for full credit, provides opportunities to revise assignments, integrates different ways of engaging and participating beyond speaking and working in groups. Inclusive pedagogy perceives students as partners in the learning process, as co-creators of knowledge and as captains of their own learning ships. 

Instructors position themselves as facilitators of the learning process who do not have all the answers but are engaged with students in a collective journey of discovery. In a learning community, members co-create ground rules that govern codes of conduct.  

Participants also offered examples of interventions that can transform the curricula. These interventions included centering the students’ experiences by asking them to identify gaps in the syllabus and ways to fill these gaps. Inclusive curricular approaches leave room for the inclusion of modules that the students request and that reflect their lived experiences. Encouraging students to bring in their own knowledge, their culture, and their stories to the classroom, resonate with students and help them identify with their chosen fields. 

There is a need to shift from perceiving the syllabus as a legalistic document and making it more personal: a tailored and flexible roadmap that signals collaborative, communicative and collective orientation. The Syllabi need to motivate students to invest their full selves in the learning process by underscoring why the class matters and why they should show up. 

Faculty members have the responsibility to transform the dry, abstract materials by using engaging and socially relevant approaches to create a humanizing experience for students. Curriculum must recognize diverse identities and diverse cultures to create an inclusive safe space.  

Takeaways & Next Steps

The gender inclusive teaching and learning are not only about making the underrepresented gender visible, but it is about embedding and mainstreaming gender considerations in the curriculum and in the way an instructor teaches the material. In a gender inclusive model of teaching and learning, students recognize different ways of learning and interpretations of the material. They engage with the material through their own unique lens and experiences as well as through the lenses and experiences of their peers. They personalize the knowledge to their own background and immerse themselves in collaborative and collective learning spaces that value their perspectives and honor their experiences.

For further information about this study, please contact us at [email protected] and at 518-442-5127.