Attitudes toward gender equality and the acceptability of gender-based violence in a sample of future early childhood and primary teachers

Abstract

Gender equality education in the classroom is a very relevant tool to combat gender inequality and gender-based violence (GBV). The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes toward gender equality in the school context and the acceptability of GBV of a sample university education students. A total of 148 students enrolled in the final year in Primary Education (55.4%) and Early Childhood Education (44.6%) degrees in Spain participated in this study. The design was correlational and cross-sectional. Among other gathered data, the School Doing Gender/Teachers Scale (SDG/t) and the Acceptability of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women Scale (A-IPVAW) were administered. The results obtained showed that 74.3% of the future teachers believed they did not have sufficient knowledge of equality and coeducation, specifically regarding the design of equality plans and non-sexist language. Significant differences in the acceptability of GBV as a function of sexual orientation were found, with special emphasis on bisexual people, who in this study and elsewhere have exhibited the greatest degree of acceptability of GBV. Results highlighted the urgent need for more training in gender equality and coeducation in order to help shape a more feminist society and reduce GBV.

Keywords

coeducation gender-based violence gender equality feminism university

Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV) has its roots in gender inequality, which can and should be fought through the education of children and young people (Cobo, 2011; Fernández et al., 2016; Lappalainen and Lahelma, 2016), as research has shown that interventions aimed at adults to combat these problems have often proven fraught and ineffective (Päivinen et al., 2016). In other words, as a number of prior studies and reports have highlighted, campaigns against GBV should focus on primary prevention and seek to intervene directly and indirectly at the early stages of education (Aznar-Martínez, 2019; Davins et al., 2010; Davins et al., 2014a; Davins et al., 2014b; Lahelma, 2014; Pérez-Testor et al., 2007; UNESCO, 2018; World Health Organization [WHO], 2018).

According to a Dutch study involving 5148 teachers and 8870 pupils from secondary schools, teachers attribute gender and sexual preference to violence (Mooji, 2011), which proves that they are aware of this social problem. Despite teachers’ concerns, the relational model that they themselves display to their students, as well as the potentially differential treatment of boys and girls, can also affect the degree to which children accept GBV.

According to the Spanish Ministry for Equality (2019), 19.2% of Spanish boys and 6.6% of girls aged 14 to 18 justify GBV to one degree or another. Meanwhile, a study carried out with trainee teachers found that men were more likely than women to display cognitive distortions with regard to the issues of gender roles and intimate partner violence against women (Bonilla-Algovia and Rivas-Rivero, 2021). Coeducation and gender equality education in schools, starting in early childhood, is currently viewed as a very effective way to promote equality and to reduce GBV (Casanova and Roldán, 2016).

However, research suggests that teachers often lack the knowledge and skills they need to work with their students on issues related to gender equality (Cardona-Moltó and Miralles-Cardona, 2022; Martínez, 2011; Miralles-Cardona et al., 2021) and that they tend to feel unprepared to deal with these topics in the classroom (Spanish Ministry for Equality, 2019). A number of studies point to a lack of teacher training in gender equality as the underlying cause of difficulties in applying gender equality interventions in schools (Husso et al., 2012; Lahelma, 2014; Martino et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2015; Varela et al., 2024). This may be due to the fact that gender equality-oriented programs in schools are inevitably influenced by the sociocultural, political, economic, and family contexts in which they occur (Raza et al., 2019). The reasons for persistent inequality may lie in the fact that, even though education in gender equality has often been successful at improving professional skills, it has too often lagged behind when it comes to building emotional, social, and coeducational abilities (Lappalainen and Lahelma, 2016).

Indeed, there is growing scientific evidence in favor of acting in the early stages of education to fight inequality and to promote a more feminist society (Aragonés and Sevillano, 2020; UNESCO, 2018; WHO, 2018). Although the coeducational model has proven effective at various levels of the education system, including university teacher training programs (Aznar-Martínez et al., 2025), many teachers continue to instill one set of cultural and social models in boys and another in girls. These roles have negative long-term effects on both groups (Subirats, 2010, 2017). Lomas (2007) observed that despite the insistence of coeducational approaches on non-discriminatory, equal education for boys and girls and on equality of opportunity, in practice girls and boys continue to receive differential treatment at school. Certain underlying educational expectations about the adoption of roles defined by sex seem to have remained intact. That might be because gender equality education involves the deconstruction of traditional gender roles, which meanwhile continue to be transmitted in schools through the hidden curricula (Aragonés and Sevillano, 2020). For instance, some textbooks might cater more to male than female students, thus influencing girls’ future career choices (Incikabi and Ulusoy, 2019).

In this regard, the EURYDICE (2010) has observed that the school system continues to reproduce gender stereotypes through differences in teachers’ attitudes and expectations toward boys and girls (Acar-Erdol et al., 2022). For example, research has shown that mathematics continues to be perceived by teachers as a male domain (Hand et al., 2017; Lindner et al., 2022; Makarova and Herzog, 2015; Nurlu, 2017). Moreover, teachers are more likely to characterize girls than boys as agreeable (Laidra et al., 2007), and educators often hold stereotypical beliefs pertaining to sex roles and social expectations, sometimes framing knowledge in ways that could induce girls to have more positive attitudes toward languages and reading and boys towards science-related subjects (Gajda et al., 2022; Meece et al., 2006). In this same vein, a very recent study shows that gender gaps in competitiveness, self-confidence, and willingness to work with digital technologies could be related to stereotypes associating talent with men (Napp and Breda, 2022). Teachers tend to see girls as more organized, more self-directed, more confident and articulate, more able to conform, and more likely to ask for help (Younger et al., 1999) and therefore relate to them in these terms. A number of studies have shown that teachers tend to devote more attention to boys’ behavior than to girls’, and that they direct more questions to boys, give them more instructions, and criticize and scold them more often (Subirats, 2017). This tendency to interact more with boys remains in effect among the most academically advanced students in the group, and the difference in attention paid to boys and girls persists even when it comes to communication about school assignments, where teachers are much more likely to take the initiative to reach out to boys than to girls. The result is that, whether in the classroom or on the playground, girls are encouraged to adopt more passive roles and boys more active ones. Boys tend to impose their preferences for games, and girls tend to participate in open forums like class assemblies only when strictly necessary (Subirats, 2010). In fact, when choosing language to describe their students, teachers most often label boys as strong and rational and girls as sensitive, fragile, and emotional (Aslan, 2021; Gajda et al., 2022).

In behavioral terms, girls are more likely to follow established rules, and they tend to be more studious and to achieve better academic results (Burusic et al., 2012; Ciarrochi et al., 2007; Demie, 2001; Duckworth and Seligman, 2006; Gibb et al., 2008; Leeson et al., 2008; Steinmayr and Spinath, 2008). At the same time, however, they are socialized in the educational system to accept a secondary role in society and to believe that it is natural for them to be subordinate to boys and to receive less attention. In other words, while sexist discrimination does not lead to poorer academic results for girls, it does restrict their opportunities in other ways. Starting in early childhood, they undergo a long learning process that instills in them the belief that they are not the protagonists of public life, and this causes them to interiorize feelings of insecurity in public spaces. Although it is true that girls tend to be better adapted to learning activities (Buzhigeeva, 2004) and to have a more positive attitude toward school (Resing et al., 1999), greater self-discipline (Duckworth and Seligman, 2006), more effective self-regulation mechanisms (Matthews et al., 2009), and less of a tendency to avoid work (Steinmayr and Spinath, 2008), in the long term they have less success in their professional careers.

In light of the potential consequences of teachers’ attitudes, it is important for them to be aware of how they address boys and girls, of their own received notions and images with regard to gender, and of any potential gender-based differences in how they assess their students’ activities and behaviors (EURYDICE, 2010). According to Hyvönen (2008), teachers acknowledge that learning to collaborate with both genders requires practice and reflection. In order to address this imbalance between educational performance and professional results, it is necessary to act in schools to combat certain conceptions that affect teaching practices, to fight against ideas that cause teachers to treat boys and girls differently in class. It is critical for teachers to motivate students equally, regardless of their sex, to participate in class and to share responsibilities. As mentioned, teachers usually support gender equality in theory, but they are nonetheless influenced by gender stereotypes (Bosada, 2018).

At this regard, research shows that the tendency to advocate for true equality is more pronounced in women than in men (Piedra De la Cuadra et al., 2011), although other research has shown that most teachers of both sexes have sufficiently positive attitudes toward gender equity and embrace a model of social equality based on the promotion of peer roles and coeducational practices (Jular-Alba et al., 2021). With regards to trainee teachers, it also appears that women have stronger beliefs about equality than men (Haines et al., 2016; Hentschel et al., 2019), although both sexes have comparable views of gender roles in work and domestic responsibilities (Lindner et al., 2022).

As we have shown, the literature provides ample evidence of how the differences in teachers’ attitudes and expectations toward boys and girls can affect their students’ behaviors, attitudes, and levels of academic success. That is why we believe it is of interest to investigate the coming generation of teachers’ attitudes and expectations with regard to gender equality and coeducation. Research into this topic will shed light on the questions of how these future teachers are likely to affect their students and whether teacher training programs should be expanded to include more materials aimed at raising awareness of gender equality. With this in mind, the overarching aim of this study is to closely examine the attitudes toward gender equality in the school context and the beliefs as to the acceptability of GBV of students enrolled in the final year of degree programs in Early Childhood and Primary Education at Catalan universities.

In order to meet this overall goal, the study will attempt to meet the following objectives.

(1) To assess the attitudes to gender equality in the school context held by university students in the final year of degree programs in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education.

(2) To analyze the extent to which university students in the final year of degree programs in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education find GBV to be acceptable.

(3) To determine the relationships between sociodemographic variables (sex, age, sexual orientation, and degree program) and attitudes toward gender equality in the school context and the acceptability of GBV.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 148 university students enrolled in degree programs in primary education (55.4%) and early childhood education (44.6%), aged between 20 and 39 years (M = 22.06; SD = 2.26). The sample was made up of 137 women (92.6%) and 11 men (7.4%). Most of the participants in the sample were heterosexual (75%), but some homosexual (5.4%) and bisexual (19.6%) students were also included. The descriptive data is shown in the following section (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic information of the sample (N = 148).

Variable	Level	Counts	Percentage (%)
Degree program	Primary education	82	55.4
Degree program	Early childhood education	66	44.6
Sexual orientation	Heterosexual	111	75.0
	Homosexual	8	5.4
	Bisexual	29	19.6
Sex	Man	11	7.4
Sex	Woman	137	92.6

Instruments

This study uses a mixed methodology, gathering both quantitative and qualitative data. The instruments included both validated questionnaires that were selected for their suitability for collecting quantitative data and an ad hoc questionnaire designed to assess the participants’ knowledge and training needs with regard to coeducation. Specifically, the following questionnaires were administered.

(1) School Doing Gender/Teachers Scale (SDG/t) by Rebollo Catalan et al. (2011), which measures teachers’ attitudes with regard to gender equality in the school context. It is a self-report questionnaire made up of 30 items answered on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The scale is based on a three-factor model. The sociocultural factor (F1) has to do with equality policies and school organization. The relational factor (F2) deals with vertical links (between teachers and students) and horizontal ones (among teachers), as well as with types of discourse, language, and teaching praxis. Finally, the personal factor (F3) covers personal beliefs and values related to equality. The instrument has been found to have a very good degree of reliability (α = .92), indicating that the items have a high level of internal consistency. In the present research, a good level of reliability (α = .83) was obtained, exceeding the conventional threshold of .80 (George and Mallery, 2018).

(2) Acceptability of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women Scale (A-IPVAW) by Martín-Fernández et al. (2018), to measure beliefs as to the acceptability of violence against women. The questionnaire is made up of 20 items that assess three different types of violence: physical violence, coercion or verbal violence, and emotional violence (such as controlling behaviors). It is answered using a 3-point Likert scale: 0 = not acceptable, 1 = somewhat acceptable, and 2 = acceptable. An IRT analysis of the scale shows that it has an adequate fit to measure and discriminate beliefs about acceptability (M₂ (150) = 560.87, p < .001). This model yields three indicators: a = discrimination, b₁ = specific threshold parameter 1, b₂ = specific threshold parameter 2. Estimates b₁ and b₂ offer a more specific measurement of the degree to which violence against women is viewed as acceptable. As for reliability, the A-IPVAW scale obtained good scores for internal consistency (α = .89) in the original validation research. In our study, the degree of reliability (α = .59) obtained for this measure was poor according to George and Mallery’s (2018) cutoff criteria.

(3) Ad hoc questionnaire on prior knowledge of coeducation that uses a dichotomous scale to assess students’ perceptions and opinions about the presence or absence of content related to coeducation in the current curriculum. The instrument also includes three open-ended questions: “In what academic years and classes did you work on issues related to coeducation?”; “In what academic years and classes did you work on issues related to equality?”; “What aspects do you think should be covered in a training program for teachers on coeducation and equality?”.

(4) Sociodemographic variables: An initial questionnaire was administered to collect the following data: age, sex, sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual), and degree program (Early Childhood Education or Primary Education).

Procedure

For the purposes of data collection, a survey including all four of the questionnaires mentioned above was created using the SurveyMonkey online platform (SurveyMonkey Inc, n.d.). It was open for 4 weeks. It was administered in person while ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. The study design was descriptive and correlational.

The study participants were informed via an explanatory note at the beginning of the questionnaire that their information would be handled by experts and that the results obtained would be treated anonymously. The collection, processing, conservation, communication, and transfer of data were done in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Regulation (Regulation EU, 2016-679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016) and current Spanish regulations on personal data protection under Real Decreto 1720/2007, which sets out the regulations for the development of Organic Law 15/1999, on the protection of personal data.

The research project was also approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology, Educational Sciences and Sports Blanquerna (URL) [2021003P].

Data analysis

For the purposes of data analysis, participants who failed to complete the entire survey were eliminated. No atypical cases were eliminated. The descriptive, between-group comparison and correlational analyses of the quantitative data were carried out using the software program IBM SPSS Statistics v. 28.0.1 (IBM Corporation, 2022). In the statistical analysis process, the normality of the distribution was assessed and non-parametric tests were applied. Thus, the Mann–Whitney’s U test was used for between-group comparisons by sex and degree program. The Kruskal–Wallis’ test was employed for comparisons between sexual orientation groups, along with Holm’s post hoc analysis. Additionally, effect sizes were obtained using rank-biserial correlation, with the confidence interval set at 95%. For the qualitative data, a thematic analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions in the ad hoc questionnaire was carried out in order to make it possible to classify the participants’ knowledge of equality and coeducation, and the needs they had observed, into a series of categories.

Results

Descriptive statistics on the study variables and sociodemographic frequencies

The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Table 1.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the study variables. Overall, mean scores indicate generally high levels of attitudes favoring gender equality, both on the scale as a whole (M = 4.34, SD = 0.35) and on its individual dimensions, with the relational factor showing the lowest mean value (M = 4.10, SD = 0.43). Acceptability of GBV was very low (M = 0.04, SD = 0.06). Finally, participants demonstrated a high level of knowledge regarding coeducation and gender equality (M = 1.43, SD = 0.18).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of the study variables.

Variables	Mean	Std. Deviation	Variance	Min	Max
Total attitudes toward gender equality (SDG/t)	4.343	0.345	0.119	1.000	5.000
F1. Sociocultural (SDG/t)	4.482	0.366	0.134	1.000	5.000
F2. Relational (SDG/t)	4.096	0.433	0.188	1.000	5.000
F3. Personal (SDG/t)	4.451	0.431	0.186	1.000	5.000
Total GBV acceptability (A-IPVAW)	0.037	0.064	0.004	0.000	2.000
Total coeducation and gender equality knowledge (ad hoc)	1.433	0.175	0.031	1.000	2.000

Teachers’ attitudes toward gender equality in the school context (SDG/t)

In general, the participants displayed a positive attitude toward gender equality and an embrace of the teaching practices necessary to promote coeducation, especially in sociocultural and personal terms (as the highest scores were registered for these two factors). The lowest scores were for the relational factor. A closer look at the data shows some noteworthy tendencies in the responses to some of the individual items. For example, 21.62% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the use of masculine generic language, either for the sake of brevity or because they believed it was grammatically correct (item 12). Meanwhile, 9.46% said that they would not consider the use of non-sexist language as a criterion in the selection of teaching materials (item 11). Additionally, 13.5% of the participants said they disagreed with the need to communicate the use of sexist language in school documents to the school authorities (item 13). Furthermore, 14.9% reported that they only paid attention to whether a text featured sexist language if they were told to focus on this issue (item 14). Also worth noting is the fact that 7.44% said they disagreed with the need to avoid using traditional ideas of men and women in their explanations in class (item 15). Moreover, 31.76% were neutral on the question of including work on gender in the curriculum, while 7.43% said they did not think it was important for teaching materials to deal with gender issues (item 16). Finally, and importantly, 10.14% gave a neutral response to the item asking about ensuring the use of non-sexist language in workplace documents (item 17). It is worth noting that all of these items correspond to the relational factor of the model. Table 3 presents the Spearman's corrrelation coefficients among the SDG/t facotrs. As seen, all correlations were positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating moderate to strong associations between the sociocultural, relational and personal factors.

Acceptability of GBV

The results of this study reflect a high level of awareness among the participants of the unacceptability of sexist behaviors. Indeed, the mean level of acceptability of these behaviors (A-IPVAW) was very low (M = 0.037; SD = 0.064; S² = 0.004), as was the variance in the data. This lack of variability indicates a definite trend toward finding these concepts unacceptable. The specific indicators of acceptability (b₁ and b₂) were also similar. Here, in both cases, the mean scores (M(b₁) = 1. 028; M(b₂) = 1. 020) were close to the minimum possible values. These results suggest a low level of acceptability of GBV among the sample as a whole, although the parameters point to some specific cases where some members of the sample, albeit a minority, were willing to accept some of these conducts to an extent. Specifically, in response to item 2 (“I consider it acceptable for a man to shout at his partner if she is not treating him with respect.”) 22.6% of the sample said they believed it was “somewhat acceptable.” The distributions of the responses are broken down below according to degree program, sex, and sexual orientation (see Tables 4 –6).

Table 3.

Spearman’s correlations among SDG/t factors.

Variable	F2. Relational	F3. Personal
F1. Sociocultural	0.571***	0.441***
F2. Relational	—	0.462***
F3. Personal	—	—

Note. ***p < 0.001.

Table 4.

Levels of GBV acceptability by degree program.

Degree		Not acceptable	Somewhat acceptable	Acceptable	Total
Primary education	Freq.	67	14	1	82
Primary education	%	81.7%	17.1%	1.2%	100%
Early childhood education	Freq.	50	12	4	66
Early childhood education	%	75.7%	18.2%	6.1%	100%
Total	Freq.	117	26	5	148
Total	%	79.1%	17.6%	3.3%	100%

Table 5.

Levels of GBV acceptability by sex.

Sex		Not acceptable	Somewhat acceptable	Acceptable	Total
Man	Freq.	10	1	0	11
Man	%	90.9%	9.9%	0%	100%
Woman	Freq.	107	25	5	137
Woman	%	78.1%	18.3%	3.6%	100%
Total	Freq.	117	26	5	148
Total	%	79.0%	17.6%	3.4%	100%

Table 6.

Levels of GBV acceptability by sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation		Not acceptable	Somewhat acceptable	Acceptable	Total
Heterosexual	Freq.	109	2	0	111
Heterosexual	%	98.2%	1.8%	0.0%	100%
Homosexual	Freq.	7	1	0	8
Homosexual	%	87.5%	12.5%	0%	100%
Bisexual	Freq.	1	23	5	29
Bisexual	%	3.5%	79.3%	17.2%	100%
Total	Freq.	117	26	5	148
Total	%	79.0%	17.6%	3.4%	100%

Knowledge about coeducation and equality (ad hoc)

While the students in the study displayed a good deal of familiarity with the concept of coeducation, the percentages were lower when it came to the question of whether they had received specific training in this topic, either in equality in general or in coeducation in particular. More specifically, 95.95% of the participants reported having been familiar with the concept of coeducation prior to taking part in the study, but only 53.38% said they had explicitly studied the topics of equality and coeducation as part of their degree programs. Meanwhile, 74.3% of the students said they believed they had insufficient knowledge of equality and coeducation. In fact, 46.6% did not know what an equality plan was, and 71.6% did not believe they were equipped to design one. In the thematic analysis of the open-ended, qualitative items on the questionnaire, the students’ views of their training needs with regard to coeducation were summarized into the following categories.

• Knowledge/training/information: more training and information on equality, LGTBI, emotional education, coeducation, sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, identity and gender diversity, gender stereotypes, non-sexist language (guidelines for inclusive vocabulary), the history of sexism, micro-sexism, feminism, legislation on equality, the psychological impact of gender inequality.

• Resources/action protocols/teaching guides: guidelines for designing and implementing equality plans, resources and materials (games, stories) to use with children, aspects of coeducation adapted to each developmental stage of children, action protocols in case of gender-based discrimination, guidelines for working with families, guidelines for dealing with gender-related conflicts among students.

• Good practices: case studies with examples from schools, tools to assess coeducational praxis, strategies to detect and intervene in cases of inequality or sexism, specific coeducational actions to take in different subject areas.

Between-group comparisons

This section presents the outcomes of between-group comparisons as a function of to sex, degree program, and sexual orientation.

No statistically significant differences were found in either the acceptability of GBV or in attitudes toward gender equality and coeducation as a function of sex or of degree program. Indeed, men and women obtained similar values for total SDG/t (M(SD)_Men = 4.194 (0.464); M(SD)_Women = 4.355 (0.333); p = 0.322), sociocultural (M(SD)_Men = 4.355 (0.370); M(SD)_Women = 4.492 (0.365); p = 0.213), relational (M(SD)_Men = 3.900 (0.460); M(SD)_Women = 4.112 (0.429); p = 0.156), and personal (M(SD)_Men = 4.327 (0.677); M(SD)_Women = 4.461 (0.407); p = 0.860) factors. No significant differences between men and women were found in terms of GBV (M(SD)_Men = 0.027 (0.034); M(SD)_Women = 0.038 (0.066); p = 0.858).

Similarly, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between students enrolled in primary education and early childhood education degrees. In other words, students in the two degree programs recorded comparable scores for the following variables: total SDG/t (M(SD)_Primary = 4.358 (0.368); M(SD)_{Early childhood} = 4.323 (0.315); p = 0.193), sociocultural attitudes (M(SD)_Primary = 4.485 (0.397); M(SD)_{Early childhood} = 4.477 (0.326); p = 0.593), relational attitudes (M(SD)_Primary = 4.159 (0.420); M(SD)_{Early childhood} = 4.018 (0.440); p = 0.055), personal attitudes (M(SD)_Primary = 4.432 (0.452); M(SD)_{Early childhood} = 4.474 (0.405); p = 0.566), and GBV acceptability (M(SD)_Primary = 0.030 (0.052); M(SD)_{Early childhood} = 0.046 (0.076); p = 0.444).

However, significant differences were obtained between participants of differing sexual orientations (see Table 7). Regarding attitudes toward gender equality, the Kruskal–Wallis’ test indicated significant differences in the total SDG/t, with a large effect size. Specifically, post hoc analysis showed that bisexual participants scored significantly higher than heterosexual participants (p_Holm = 0.048). For sociocultural factor, significant differences with large effect sizes were also observed between the heterosexual and bisexual groups (p_Holm = 0.004), with heterosexual participants also registering lower scores. No significant differences were found between sexual orientation groups in relational and personal attitudes (p > 0.05). As for GBV acceptability, no significant differences were obtained for total A-IPVAW score. However, significant differences were found among the three groups of sexual orientations for acceptability indicators b₁ and b₂. The post hoc tests showed that the group of bisexual students displayed the highest level of acceptability of GBV, followed by the homosexual and the heterosexual groups. Thus, the heterosexual group registered the lowest degree of acceptance, according to these two indicators, and with very large effect sizes (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Results of between-group comparisons by sexual orientation.

Variables	Heterosexual (G1) M (SD)	Homosexual (G2) M (SD)	Bisexual (G3) M (SD)	H	p	r_rb [CI 95%] (G1-G2)	r_rb [CI 95%] (G1-G3)	r_rb [CI 95%] (G2-G3)
Total attitudes toward gender equality (SDG/t)	4.309 (0.332)	4.321 (0.475)	4.478 (0.332)	8.772	0.012*	−0.035 [−0.759–0.689]	−0.497 [−0.913–−0.081]	−0.462 [−1.253–0.329]
F1. Sociocultural	4.437 (0.358)	4.388 (0.514)	4.679 (0.285)	12.829	0.002**	0.139 [−0.584–0.863]	−0.683 [−1.103–−0.264]	−0.823 [−1.618 –−0.028]
F2. Relational	4.056 (0.424)	4.125 (0.537)	4.241 (0.420)	5.852	0.054	−0.161 [−0.885–0.563]	−0.432 [−0.847–−0.016]	−0.271 [−1.061–0.519]
F3. Personal	4.434 (0.415)	4.450 (0.507)	4.514 (0.477)	2.067	0.356	−0.036 [−0.760–0.687]	−0.184 [−0.597–−0.229]	−0.147 [−0.937–0.642]
Total GBV acceptability (A-IPVAW)	0.034 (0.062)	0.031 (0.037)	0.052 (0.076)	1.812	0.404	0.047 [−0.677–0.770]	−0.274 [−0.687–−0.140]	−0.320 [−1.111–0.470]
Indicator b₁	1.005 (0.018)	1.056 (0.018)	1.107 (0.022)	116.069	<0.001***	−2.670 [−3.458–−1.883]	−5.330 [−6.074–−4.587]	−2.660 [−3.508 –−1.812]
Indicator b₂	1.000 (0.000)	1.000 (0.000)	1.100 (0.000)	147.000	<0.001***	0.000 [0.000–0.000]	1.000 [1.000–1.000]	1.000 [1.000 –1.000]

Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; H: Kruskal–Wallis’ statistical value; p: probability value.

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

r_rb = Rank-biserial correlation indicating the effect size: r_rb ≈ 0.10 (small); r_rb ≈ 0.30 (medium); r_rb = ≈ 0.50 (large).

Discussion

The results with regard to the acceptability of GBV indicate that this sample of future teachers were largely aware of the unacceptability of sexist behaviors, a finding that echoes the results obtained by Bonilla-Algovia and Rivas-Rivero (2021) and Heras-Sevilla et al. (2021).

The results show that the group of bisexual students were significantly more likely to express acceptance of GBV than their homosexual and heterosexual peers. It is worth noting that prior studies have shown that bisexual women are especially vulnerable to intimate partner violence (Bermea et al., 2018; Coston, 2021; Walters et al., 2013), especially when the partner is a man (Coston, 2021). In fact, Walters et al. (2013) indicated that bisexual women were more likely than those of any other sexual orientation to experience intimate partner violence and found that approximately 90% of bisexual women reported having only male perpetrators of IPV. Other studies have shown that LGTBI people are especially susceptible to intimate partner violence (Heintz and Melendez, 2006; Whitfield et al., 2021) and less likely to receive help due to three critical barriers: a limited understanding of LGTBI IPV, implicit and explicit stigma, and systemic inequalities in the justice and educational systems (Calton et al., 2016). Given these prior studies and the results of our research, it might be the case that a greater acceptability of GBV among bisexuals and other LGTBI people puts them at greater risk, which should be addressed from an educational standpoint.

In general, the participants had a good attitude toward coeducation and the teaching actions necessary to promote gender equality, echoing the findings of previous studies (Jular-Alba et al., 2021; Miralles-Cardona, 2025; Piedra De la Cuadra et al., 2011; Şeren et al., 2025). No differences were found in attitudes toward coeducation as a function of sex, unlike in prior research (Bonilla-Algovia and Rivas-Rivero 2021; Haines et al., 2016; Hentschel et al., 2019; Jular-Alba et al., 2021; Piedra De la Cuadra et al., 2011) that found more positive attitudes among female teachers than males.

The lowest mean recorded in the three-factor model measuring attitudes toward coeducation was for the relational factor. More specifically, the lowest scores were for items dealing with the use of non-sexist language. In Spanish and Catalan, almost all nouns and adjectives—also articles—have a specific gender (either masculine or feminine). Historically, the masculine plural has been used to refer to women and men at the same time, but thanks to the feminist advances that have pointed out the invisibilization of women in language, this traditional usage is being questioned, although there is still a lot of resistance to change. This is likely why the students in the sample were more reluctant to show a positive attitude with regard to this issue. Linguistic sexism persists in educational settings (Cameron, 2023; Lira and Sandoval, 2012) as it does in the rest of society. Language is the means through which the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of a society are learned and reproduced. It is the vehicle through which people manifest their personalities, display their cultural capital, and indicate their belonging to social groups. Therefore, it is critical for language, too, to evolve along feminist lines.

Only half of the students in the sample report having dealt explicitly with issues of gender equality and coeducation within their degree programs, and 74.3% believe they lack the sufficient knowledge of these topics. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies (Fernández and Piedra, 2010), and they fly in the face of the supposed official importance currently attached to this issue by universities (EHEA, 2003; González and Wagenaar, 2003; Kortendiek, 2011).

While the results of this study do inspire a certain degree of optimism, one practical application of this research is that it points to a need to train future teachers in coeducation. Few such initiatives have been taken within Spanish teacher training programs, but those programs that have been carried out and assessed have yielded some positive results. Students who have received specific training have tended to adopt more positive attitudes toward coeducation, a finding that suggests that these types of training programs can be an effective way to change the perspectives of future teachers (Fernández and Piedra, 2010; Miralles-Cardona, 2025; Molina et al., 2025).

In fact, the importance of developing gender perspectives in university education has been highlighted by previous research in several countries (Kreitz-Sandberg, 2013; Langsten and Hassan, 2018; Lappalainen and Lahelma, 2016; Miralles-Cardona, 2025). Teacher training programs have a responsibility to raise their students’ awareness of gender issues and to provide them with the training they need to confront these topics in the classroom. In an effort to promote this transformation, the European Higher Educaction Area (EHEA, 2003) urged member states to reorganize their degree programs with an eye toward reducing gender inequality (González and Wagenaar, 2003). As part of the transition toward the EHEA, Spanish universities also took on an obligation to incorporate gender studies into teaching and research (Kortendiek, 2011). Despite the existence of these and other political and social measures aimed at increasing the presence of equality concerns in education, the changes that have been made have neither been sufficient nor sufficiently fast, and more work is required if the gender perspective is to be truly incorporated into educational institutions. In fact, there is still a lack of formally regulated gender education (Albury, 2014). Essential topics such as gender equality and power dynamics are not systematically addressed in teacher training programs, and a grasp of these issues is essential to understanding the social processes underlying education (Biesta et al., 2022; Miralles-Cardona, 2025).

The scores recorded in this study for the different factors of the SDG/t highlight the need to emphasize the relational aspect of coeducation in training programs. This finding is also supported by the qualitative results of the ad hoc questionnaire, where students highlighted the need for training in non-sexist language. Coeducational programs have been successful at encouraging people to overcome sexist attitudes and control their emotions. The programs have also been found to promote attitudes oriented towards greater gender equality in students, in addition to increasing the motivation of teachers (Lameiras et al., 2006).

Another important result of the study is the statistically significant positive correlation between the personal factor of the SDG/t and the relational and sociocultural factors in the same scale. That proves that personal beliefs, attitudes, and values that are interiorized through lifespan (especially in childhood) are essential when working as a teacher from an egalitarian perspective at school (UNESCO, 2018). Also the relational and sociocultural factors correlate positively, which proves the influence of gender expectations and relationships in the teaching practice and gender equality measures taken at school.

All these findings should be taken into account in the implementation of gender equality and coeducational programs within university teacher training degrees. Such initiatives must do more to address the relevant issues that the study has highlighted, such as gender stereotypes that shape the beliefs on how men and women should be, GBV as a socially accepted phenomenon, sexuality and sex education programs, and the mechanisms that educational centers can use to promote gender equality (Aznar-Martínez et al., 2025). It is essential to train prospective teachers to be able to identify sexist-language in school textbooks, stories, and other materials so that they are able to find alternatives. There is also a clear need to encourage more critical, constructive, and responsible thinking to ensure that students can recognize current and historical gender inequalities and discrimination, as well as the elements that maintain and reinforce them, all while placing a special emphasis in the women’s roles and achievements (Cardona-Moltó and Miralles-Cardona, 2022).

Furthermore, it is essential to give teacher trainees the tools they need to analyze how school spaces (such as the playground) can promote unequal relationships among boys and girls, and how these spaces and patterns can be modified (Subirats, 2017). Roleplaying activities can also be an effective tool to raise teachers’ awareness of how their expectations may cause them to treat boys and girls, and of how to identify everyday situations that lead to GBV. Finally, university teacher training programs should constantly strive to develop strategies to eradicate all forms of direct and indirect discrimination against women and other marginalized groups (Cardona-Moltó and Miralles-Cardona, 2022).

Among the limitations of the study, it should be noted that the small number of male participants limits the significance of the results of the intergroup comparisons by sex, even though the sample reflects the reality of the feminization of the teaching profession. Similarly, the significant differences observed by sexual orientation cannot be generalized due to the small sample size, which also implies a low degree of statistical power for the findings with regard to the bisexual participants. Meanwhile, in methodological terms, this study did not confirm the external validity of the instruments used. As such, it would be of interest to use an additional instrument to assess the acceptability of GBV in order to correlate the results with other measures of the same or related constructs, such as the justification of violence or attitudes toward violence. Additionally, the Cronbach’s alpha obtained for A-IPVAW measure was poor, which could limit the reliability of our findings on GBV acceptability. However, this internal consistency value could be explained by the small sample size and the limited variance in responses to some items, particularly those related with coercion, physical violence, and sexual violence. Finally, the use of the ad hoc questionnaire to assess knowledge of coeducation and gender equality limited the possibility to perform between-group comparisons and to examine correlations with the validated measures of attitudes toward gender equality (SDG/t) and GBV acceptability (A-IPVAW). The self-report nature of the measures used could also pose a limitation, and the specificity of the Spanish and Catalan linguistic context should be considered a potential obstacle to the generalizability of the results in this study.

One potential area for future research would be to continue to analyze the finding in our study, confirming the results of other researchers, that bisexual women are more likely than others to accept GBV, potentially meaning they are at a greater risk. Additionally, it would be of interest to repeat this study with a larger sample of students throughout Spain in order to establish clear guidelines on the need to include training in coeducation within the degree programs in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education at Spanish universities. The study could also be expanded throughout Europe and internationally in order to compare the situations in different countries and assess initiatives in education and gender equality. It might also be beneficial to study the victimization of LGTBI students in comparison to that of their heterosexual peers in order to incorporate more inclusive aspects into teaching protocols and the curriculum.

It is of vital importance to continue to research gender equality in the school context, as these results underscore the need to promote coeducation through teacher training. Gender equality education is a very relevant tool to promote freedom and equality and an effective way to prevent GBV by working with children to address certain socially accepted sexist beliefs from a critical perspective. Public authorities and policy makers in the educational field should guarantee that teacher training degrees treat gender equality as a core question in order to promote effective coeducational practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The present article has received editing assistance from Will Broomberg, as an English language expert in our institution (FPCEE - Ramon Llull University).

ORCID iDs

Berta Aznar-Martínez

Jaume Grané-Morcillo

Judith Lorente-De-Sanz

José A. Castillo-Garayoa

Ethical considerations

The study design was descriptive and correlational. It received the approval of the research ethics committee of Ramon Llull University [2021003P].

Consent to participate

All participants signed an online informed consent form before answering the questionnaire.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Ramon Llull University [2021-URL-Proj-036] and the Catalan Institute for Women-Blanquerna Chair for Adressing Gender-Based Violence and Equality Policies.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon reasonable request.*

Author biographies

Berta Aznar-Martínez holds a PhD in Psychology and degrees in Clinical Psychology and Primary Education. She is the director of the Catalan Institute for Women - Blanquerna Chair for addressing gender-based violence and equality policies. She is an associate Professor at the FPCEE Blanquerna and the University Institute Fundació Vidal i Barraquer (Ramon Llull University). She teaches in the Primary Education degree program, the Master’s programs in General Health Psychology and Family Therapy and in the PhD Program in Psychology at the Ramon Llull University. She is also a researcher in the Couple and Family Research Group (GRPF) and the research group on Pedagogy, Society, and Innovation supported by Information and Communication Technologies (PSITIC). Research lines: coeducation, gender equality, gender-based violence, and sex-affective education.

Jaume Grané-Morcillo is a Health psychologist and a PhD student at FPCEE Blanquerna. He was awarded a Predoctoral Fellowship FI-DGR by the Generalitat de Catalunya and is a research fellow in the Couple and Family Research Group (GRPF). Research lines: gender-based violence, resilience, couple resilience, dyadic coping.

Judith Lorente-De-Sanz holds a PhD in Psychology and is a Health psychologist at Fundació Vidal i Barraquer. She is an associate professor at FPCEE Blanquerna teaching in the Psychology degree program and the Master's program in General Health Psychology. She was awarded a Predoctoral Research Fellowship FI-DGR by the Generalitat de Catalunya and is a researcher in the Couple and Family Research Group (GRPF). Research lines: adoption, child psychology, gender-based violence.

José A. Castillo-Garayoa holds a PhD in Psychology, and he serves as a clinical psychologist at Invia, an association that works with abused young people. He also acts as Supervisor of the SOMIA family care team. He is a Professor at the FPCEE Blanquerna, teaching in the Psychology degree program, and he is a senior lecturer at the FPCEE Blanquerna. Research lines: gender-based violence, attachment, family and couple conflicts, abuse.

References

Acar-Erdol

Bostancioglu

Gözütok

(2022) Gender equality perceptions of preservice teachers: are they ready to teach it? Social Psychology of Education 25: 793–818.

Albury

(2014) Porn and sex education, porn as sex education. Porn Studies 1(1-2): 172–181.

Aragonés

Sevillano

(2020) La desigualdad ante el espejo del COVID-19. In: Moya

Willis

(eds) La Psicología Social Ante El COVID-19: Monográfico Del International Journal of Social Psychology (Revista De Psicología Social). Universidad de Granada.

Aslan

(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of gender: a metaphorical analysis of Male and female students. European Journal of Education Studies 8(2): 362–383.

Aznar-Martínez

(2019) La violencia en la relación de pareja. In: Pérez-Testor

(ed) Psicoterapia Psicoanalítica De Pareja. Barcelona: Herder, 191–222.

Aznar-Martínez

Grané-Morcillo

Lorente-De-Sanz

, et al. (2025) Efficacy assessment of a training pilot program on gender equality for teachers. Revista Fuentes 27(1): 31–46.

Bermea

Van Eeden-Moorefield

Khaw

(2018) A systematic review of research on intimate partner violence among bisexual women. Journal of Bisexuality 18(4): 399–424.

Biesta

Heugh

Cervinkova

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: publicness, social justice, and education; a south-north conversation. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1216–1233.

Bonilla-Algovia

Rivas-Rivero

(2021) Intimate partner violence against women: a study on the beliefs of trainee teachers in Spain and Latin America. International Journal of Psychological Research 14(2): 18–29.

10.

Bosada

(2018) Propuestas para educar en igualdad de género desde la Educación Infantil y Primaria. Available at: https://www.educaweb.com/noticia/2018/06/26/propuestas-educar-igualdadgenero-educacion-infantil-primaria-18509 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

11.

Burusic

Babarovic

Seric

(2012) Differences in elementary school achievement between girls and boys: does the teacher gender play a role? European Journal of Psychology of Education 27(4): 523–538.

12.

Buzhigeeva

(2004) Gender characteristics of children in the primary stage of instruction. Russian Education and Society 46(4): 76–88.

13.

Calton

Cattaneo

Gebhard

(2016) Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 17(5): 585–600.

14.

Cameron

(2023) Language, Sexism and Misogyny. New York: Routledge.

15.

Cardona-Moltó

Miralles-Cardona

(2022) Education for gender equality in teacher preparation: gender mainstreaming policy and practice in Spanish higher education. In: Boivin

Pacheco-Guffrey

(eds) Education as the Driving Force of Equity for the Marginalized. USA: IGI Global, 65–89.

16.

Casanova

Roldán

(2016) Alcances sobre la didáctica de la expresión oral y escrita en el aula de enseñanza media. Estudios Pedagogicos 42: 41–55.

17.

Ciarrochi

Heaven

Davies

(2007) The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: a longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality 41(6): 1161–1178.

18.

Cobo

(2011) ¿Educación para la libertad? las mujeres ante la reacción patriarcal. Revista interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado 25(2): 63–72.

19.

Coston

(2021) Power and inequality: intimate partner violence against bisexual and non-monosexual women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1): 381–405.

20.

Davins

Bartolomé

Salamero

, et al. (2010) Mujeres maltratadas y calidad de la relación de pareja. Aloma 27: 265–278.

21.

Davins

Hernández

Aznar-Martínez

, et al. (2014a) ¿Por qué no se separan? Aplicando la teoría de Fairbain al caso de una mujer maltratada. Temas de Psicoanálisis 7: 1–30.

22.

Davins

Salamero

Aznar-Martínez

, et al. (2014b) Acts of intimate partner violence and feelings of danger in battered women seeking help in Spanish specialized care unit. Journal of Family Violence 29(7): 703–712.

23.

Demie

(2001) Ethnic and gender differences in educational achievement and implications for school improvement strategies. Educational Research 43(1): 91–106.

24.

Duckworth

Seligman

(2006) Self-discipline gives girls the edge: gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1): 198–208.

25.

EHEA (2003) Realising the European higher education area In: Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. Berlin, DE, 19 September 2003. Available at: https://www.ehea.info/page-ministerial-conference-berlin-2003

26.

EURYDICE (2010) Diferencias de género en los resultados educativos: medidas adoptadas y situación actual en Europa. Informe de la Agencia Ejecutiva en el Ámbito Educativo y Cultural, Available at: https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/40271e21-ca1b-461e-ba23-88fe4d4b3fd4/language-es

27.

Fernández

Piedra

(2010) Efecto de una formación coeducativa sobre las actitudes hacia la igualdad en el futuro profesorado de Educación Primaria. Cultura Ciencia Deporte 5(15): 151–158.

28.

Fernández

Bedía

Cerdá

(2016) Medios y violencia simbólica contra las mujeres. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social(71): 818–832.

29.

Gajda

Bójko

Stoecker

(2022) The vicious circle of stereotypes: teachers’ awareness of and responses to students’ gender-stereotypical behaviour. PLoS One 17(6): e0269007.

30.

George

Mallery

(2018) Reliability analysis IBM SPSS Statistics 25 Step by Step. Routledge, 249–260.

31.

Gibb

Fergusson

Horwood

(2008) Effects of single-sex and coeducational schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of Education 52(3): 301–317.

32.

González

Wagenaar

(eds) (2003) Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Report. January: University of Deusto, ES.

33.

Haines

Deaux

Lofaro

(2016) The times they are a-changing or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly 40(3): 353–363.

34.

Hand

Rice

Greenlee

(2017) Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields. Social Psychology of Education 20(4): 929–945.

35.

Heintz

Melendez

(2006) Intimate partner violence and HIV/STD risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21(2): 193–208.

36.

Hentschel

Heilman

Peus

(2019) The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: a current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology 10(11): 1–19.

37.

Heras-Sevilla

Ortega-Sánchez

Rubia-Avi

(2021) Coeducation and citizenship: a study on initial teacher training in sexual equality and diversity. Sustainability 13(9): 5233.

38.

Husso

Virkki

Notko

, et al. (2012) Making sense of domestic violence intervention in professional health care. Health and Social Care in the Community 20(4): 347–355.

39.

Hyvönen

(2008) Teachers’ perceptions of boys’ and girls’ shared activities in the school context: towards a theory of collaborative play. Teachers and Teaching 14(5-6): 391–409.

40.

IBM Corporation (2022) IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac. Version 28.0.1. IBM Corp.

41.

Incikabi

Ulusoy

(2019) Gender bias and stereotypes in Australian, Singaporean and Turkish mathematics textbooks. Turkish Journal of Education 8(4): 298–317.

42.

Jular-Alba

Martín-Ramos

(2021) Attitudes towards gender equality and coeducation among secondary school teachers: a case of study in Madrid, Spain. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 19(55): 491–508.

43.

Kortendiek

(2011) Supporting the Bologna process by gender mainstreaming: a model for the integration of gender studies in higher education curricula. In: Grünberg

(ed) From Gender Studies to Gender IN Studies: Case Studies on Gender-Inclusive Curriculum in Higher Education. UNESCO-CEPES, 211–228.

44.

Kreitz-Sandberg

(2013) Gender inclusion and horizontal gender segregation: stakeholders' strategies and dilemmas in Swedish teachers' education. Gender and Education 25(4): 444–465.

45.

Lahelma

(2014) Troubling discourses on gender and education. Educational Research 56(2): 171-183.

46.

Laidra

Pullmann

Allik

(2007) Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: a cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences 42(3): 441–451.

47.

Lameiras

Carrera

Núñez

, et al. (2006) Evaluación de un programa de educación sexual con adolescentes: una perspectiva cualitativa. Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicologia 2(2): 193–204.

48.

Langsten

Hassan

(2018) Primary education completion in Egypt: trends and determinants. International Journal of Educational Development 59: 136–145.

49.

Lappalainen

Lahelma

(2016) Subtle discourses on equality in the Finnish curricula of upper secondary education: reflections of the imagined society. Journal of Curriculum Studies 48(5): 650–670.

50.

Leeson

Ciarrochi

Heaven

(2008) Cognitive ability, personality, and academic performance in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences 45(7): 630–635.

51.

Lindner

Makarova

Bernhard

, et al. (2022) Toward gender equality in education—teachers’ beliefs about gender and math. Education Sciences 12(6): 373.

52.

Lira

Sandoval

(2012) La formación en contexto: reflexiones y prácticas exitosas. In: México: Instituto Superior De Investigación Y Docencia Para El Magisterio.

53.

Lomas

(2007) ¿La escuela es un infierno? violencia escolar y construcción cultural de la masculinidad. Revista de Educación 342: 83–102.

54.

Makarova

Herzog

(2015) Trapped in the gender stereotype? The image of science among secondary school students and teachers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 34(2): 106–123.

55.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Marco

, et al. (2018) Measuring acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: development and validation of the A-IPVAW scale. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 10(1): 26–34.

56.

Martínez

(2011) El reto de la formación del profesorado para la igualdad. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 14(1): 43–51.

57.

Martino

Mills

Lingard

(2005) Interrogating single-sex classes as a strategy for addressing boys’ educational and social needs. Oxford Review of Education 31(2): 237–254.

58.

Matthews

Ponitz

Morrison

(2009) Early gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(3): 689–704.

59.

Meece

Glienke

Burg

(2006) Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology 44(5): 351–373.

60.

Miralles-Cardona

(2025) Teaching gender equality in teacher education: does existing practice actually support gender mainstreaming implementation? Frontiers in education 10: 1570115.

61.

Miralles-Cardona

Kitta

Cardona

, et al. (2021) STEM students’ perceptions of self-efficacy for a gender equality practice: a cross-cultural study. In: Satorre-Cuerda

(ed) Nuevos Retos Educativos En La Enseñanza Superior Frente Al Desafío COVID-19. Barcelona: Octaedro, 363–371.

62.

Molina

Íñiguez-Berrozpe

Renta-Davids

, et al. (2025) A research synthesis of effective programs to address gender-based violence in the school context: actors involved, and impacts achieved. Frontiers in education 10: 1593176.

63.

Mooji

(2011) Secondary school teachers' personal and school characteristics, experience of violence and perceived violence motives. Teachers and Teaching 17(2): 227–253.

64.

Napp

Breda

(2022) The stereotype that girls lack talent: a worldwide investigation. Science Advances 8(10): 1–11.

65.

Nurlu

(2017) Developing a teachers' gender stereotype scale toward mathematics. Lnternational Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 10(2): 287–299.

66.

Päivinen

Vall

Holma

(2016) Research on facilitating successful treatment processes in perpetrator programs. In: Ortiz

(ed) Domestic Violence: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Perspectives. Nova Science Publishers, 163–187.

67.

Pérez-Testor

Castillo

Davins

, et al. (2007) Personality profiles in a group of battered women: clinical and care implications. Journal of Family Violence 22(2): 73–80.

68.

Piedra de la Cuadra

Rebollo Catalán

MÁ

Fernández García

, et al. (2011) Gender differences in Spanish physical education teachers towards school doing gender AIESEP International Conference, 381–402.

69.

Raza

Kabir

Rashid

(2019) Factors affecting early grade educational attainment: Evidence from South Sudan. International Journal of Educational Development 65: 92–97.

70.

Rebollo Catalán

MDLA

García Pérez

Piedra de la Cuadra

, et al. (2011) Diagnóstico de la cultura de género en educación: actitudes del profesorado hacia la igualdad. Revista de Educación 355: 521–546.

71.

Resing

Bleichrodt

Dekker

(1999) Measuring personality traits in the classroom. European Journal of Personality 13(6): 493–509.

72.

Şeren

Çetinkaya

Yıldırım

(2025) Promoting gender equality in preservice teachers through creative drama activities integrated with children’s picture books: a mixed‐methods research. European Journal of Education 60(1): e70039.

73.

Spanish Ministry for Equality (2019) Macroencuesta de Violencia contra la Mujer 2019. Report of the Government Delegation against Gender-based Violence.

74.

Stanley

Nguyen

Wilson

, et al. (2015) Storytelling, values and perceived resilience among Chinese, Vietnamese, American and German prospective teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(8): 520–529.

75.

Steinmayr

Spinath

(2008) Sex differences in school achievement: what are the roles of personality and achievement motivation? European Journal of Personality 22(3): 185–209.

76.

Subirats

(2010) ¿coeducación o escuela segregada? Un viejo y persistente debate. Revista de Sociología de la Educación 3(1): 143–158.

77.

Subirats

(2017) Coeducación, Apuesta Por La Libertad. Barcelona: Octaedro.

78.

SurveyMonkey Inc (n.d.) SurveyMonkey platform. SurveyMonkey Inc.

79.

UNESCO (2018) La reducción de las desigualdades, centro de la Reunión Mundial sobre Educación. Available at: https://es.unesco.org/news/reduccion-desigualdades-centro-reunion-mundial-educacion (accessed 22 September 2025).

80.

Varela

Alonso-Ruido

Regueiro

(2024) Los planes de estudio en Educación Superior: ¿es el género una prioridad? Revista Fuentes 1(26): 95–108.

81.

Walters

Chen

Breidig

(2013) The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Report of the national center for injury prevention and control, USA, January. Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/137400 (accessed 9 November 2025)

82.

Whitfield

Coulter

Langenderfer-Magruder

, et al. (2021) Experiences of intimate partner violence among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: the intersection of gender, race, and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(11-12): 6040–6064.

83.

WHO (2018) Género y salud. Available at: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/gender (accessed 22 September 2025).

84.

Younger

Warrington

Williams

(1999) The gender gap and classroom interactions: reality and rhetoric? British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(3): 325–341.