International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(2) 6-28

An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Gender Equality Course with a Specific Focus on Faculties of Education

Çetin Toraman & Fatmanur Özen

pp. 6 - 28   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1902-09-0003.R1

Published online: June 27, 2019  |   Number of Views: 369  |  Number of Download: 930


In 2015, the Turkish Council of Higher Education declared that the gender equality course would be compulsory or elective in the education programs of universities.  This decision is considered to play an important role in ensuring gender equality. The present study was conducted in a faculty of education in Turkey which includes gender equality in its education program as a compulsory-elective course.  The aim was to investigate the opinions of the students of the faculty of education on the effects of the course on their views on gender. The comparison of the data collected through the Gender Equality Scale before and after the course shows that the participants were, unexpectedly, more likely to develop the opinion that men are superior to women after the course. Whereas the course did not affect participants’ approaches to the opinion that women are dependent on men. Whether teachers' gender perspectives or views on gender equality affect classroom practices; it is envisaged that gender perception, which is shaped by most patriarchal and conservative patterns, will be transferred to future generations through education and will adversely affect the demand for equality in the future. After the findings of this study were discussed with similar research results and then in the application of gender equality in higher education institutions, it was tried to give an idea about the issues to be considered.  

Keywords: Gender, gender equality, gender course, faculty of education, students of faculty of education

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Toraman, C. & Ozen, F. (2019). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Gender Equality Course with a Specific Focus on Faculties of Education . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), 6-28. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2019.201.1

Toraman, C. and Ozen, F. (2019). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Gender Equality Course with a Specific Focus on Faculties of Education . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), pp. 6-28.

Chicago 16th edition
Toraman, Cetin and Fatmanur Ozen (2019). "An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Gender Equality Course with a Specific Focus on Faculties of Education ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (2):6-28. doi:10.29329/epasr.2019.201.1.

  1. Acar-Erdol, T. & Gozutok, F. D. (2018). Development of gender equality curriculum and its reflective assessment. Turkish Journal of Education, 7(3), 117-135. doi:10.19128/turje.376480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Akgul, A. & Cevik, O. (2003). İstatistiksel analiz teknikleri: SPSS’te isletme yonetimi uygulamalari [Statistical analysis techniques: Business management applications in SPSS]. Ankara: Emek. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aliefendioglu, H. (2013). Turkiye’de ikinci dalga feminizm uzerine: Sorunlar, eylemler, orgutler ve yayinlar [On the second-wave feminism in Turkey: Challenges, actions, organizations and publications]. A. N. Eriskin (Ed.). In The personal is political (pp. 13-38). Kocaeli: Kult Nesriyat.  (Original publication, 1969). [Google Scholar]
  4. Altunbay, M. (2015). The perception of woman in Ottoman Empire in foreign travelogues between 16th and 19th centuries. The Journal of International Social Research, 8(41), 53-63. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  5. Amogne, A. M. (2015). Gender disparity analysis in anademic achievement at higher education preparatory schools: Case of South Wollo, Ethiopia. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(1), 50-58. doi: 10.5897/ERR2014.1975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Acedemic. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aydın, M., Bekar, E. O., Goren, S. Y. & Sungur, M. A. (2016). Attitudes of nursing students regarding to gender roles. AIBU Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 223-242. doi: 10.11616/   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Baykal, S. (1991). Universite ogrencilerinin cinsiyet rolleri ile ilgili kalip yargilarinin bazi degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi [Examination of stereotypes of university students on gender roles in terms of some variables]. Psikolojik Danısma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 1(2), 66-75. Retrieved from:   [Google Scholar]
  9. Berry, R. A. W. (2010). Preservice and early career teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, instructional accommodations, and fairness: three profiles. The Teacher Educator, 45(2), 75-95. doi: 10.1080/08878731003623677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Brown, H. A. (2015). Marx on gender and the family. G. Rastgeldi (Translate). Ankara: Dipnot. (Original publication, 2012). [Google Scholar]
  11. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and subversion of identity. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buyukozturk, S. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Manual of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: PegemAkademi. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buyukozturk, S., Kilic-Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S. & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel arastırma yontemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: PegemAkademi. [Google Scholar]
  14. Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cogition in second language grammer teaching. System, 27(1), 19-31. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00047-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. doi: 10.1017/S0261444803001903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Bozkurt, S. (2016). Ogrenme-ogretme kuram ve yaklasimlari. M. Onur, L. Yaycı & M. Sanal (Eds.). In Ögretim ilke ve yontemleri [Teaching principles and methods] (pp. 107-189). Ankara: PegemAkademi. [Google Scholar]
  17. Briggs, S. (2018). How to teach student about gender equality. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  18. Budak, H. & Kucuksen, K. (2018).“Gender role” attitudes of generation y in social transformation process of Turkey. Electronic Journal of Social Science, 17(66), 561-576. doi: 10.17755/esosder.335865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Can, I. & Buyukbayraktar, C. G. (2018). Men's attitudes related to gender roles. SEFAD, (39), 355-372. doi: 10.21497/sefad.443531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Cangoz, I. (2013). Students' communication gender awareness and views on gender-based violence. Galatasaray University Journal of Communication, 19, 41-64. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  21. Carignan, N., Sanders, M., Pourdavood, R. G. (2005). Racism and ethnocentrism: Social representations of preservice teachers in the context of multi- and intercultural education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(3), 1-19. doi:10.1177/160940690500400301  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Cetin, H. (2001). Devlet, ideoloji ve eğitim [The state, ideology and education]. CU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [CU Social Science Journal], 25(2), 201-211. Retrieved from:   [Google Scholar]
  23. Chevalier, A. (2007). Education, occupation and career expectations: Determinant of the gender pay gap for UK graduates. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 819-842. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00483.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy, and academic performance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 213-222. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  25. Council of Higher Education (YOK) Academy Women’s Studies Unit. (2016). Higher Education Institutions Gender Equality Attitude Certificate. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  26. Dayioglu, M. & Turut-Asik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher Education, 53(2), 255-277. doi: 10.1007/s10734-005-2464-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Demir, Z. (1997). Modern ve postmodern feminizm [Modern and postmodern feminism]. Istanbul: Iz. [Google Scholar]
  28. Diamond, M. (2002). Sex and gender are different: Sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 7(3), 320-334. Retrieved from: [Google Scholar]
  29. Donovan, J. (2001). Feminist theory. A. Bora, M. A. Gevrek & F. Sayilan (Translate). Istanbul: Iletisim. (Original publication, 1985). [Google Scholar]
  30. Engels, F. (2018). Der ursprung der familie, des privateigentums and des staats. M. Tuzel (Translate). Istanbul: Is Bankasi Kultur. (Original publication, 1884). [Google Scholar]
  31. Esen, Y. (2013). A study for gender developing gender sensitivity in pro-service teacher education. Education and Science, 38(169), 280-295. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  32. Gazioglu, E. (2014). The gender regime of the Black Sea region and women’s social status. Journal of Black Sea Studies, 40, 95-108. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  33. Gilbert, M. A. (2009). Defeating bigenderism: Changing gender assumptions in the twenty-first century. Hypatia, 24(3), 93–112. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01047.x   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Gough, K. (2012). Ailenin kokeni. R. R. Reiter (Ed.)., B. Abiral (Translate). In Toward an anthropology of woman (pp. 53-82). Ankara: Dipnot. (Original publication, 1975). [Google Scholar]
  35. Gozutok, F. D., Toraman, C. & Acar-Erdol, T. (2017). Development of gender equality scale. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 1036-1048. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2017.330240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Gurel, R. (2014). Sosyal pekistireclerin ve model davranislarinin, cocuklarin ahlaki yargilarinin sekillenmesindeki etkisi (Bandura ornegi) [The effect of social reinforcement and model behaviors on the shaping of moral judgment of children (Bandura example)]. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 12(28), 101-119. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  37. Hekman, S. J. (2016). Gender and Knowledge – Elements of a postmodern feminism. B. Balkiz & U. Tatlican (Trasnlate). İstanbul: Say. (Original publication, 1990).  [Google Scholar]
  38. Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Geder theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43(6), 455-464. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.455   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Heywood, A. (2014).  Political ideologies: An introduction. A. K. Bayram, O. Tufekci, H. Inanc, S. Akin & B. Kalkan (Translate).  Ankara: Adres. (Original publication, 2003). [Google Scholar]
  40. Higher Education Database (YOKSIS). (2019). Retrieved January 2, 2019 from:  [Google Scholar]
  41. Hindal, H., Reid, N. & Whitehead, R. (2013). Gender and learner characteristics. European Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 83-96. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.2.2.83   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Hogg, M. A. & Vaughan, G. M. (2017). Social psychology. I. Yildiz & A. Gelmez (Translate). Ankara: Utopya. (Original publication, 2014)  [Google Scholar]
  43. Iste MEB’in mudurleri. (2017, 15 December). Cumhuriyet.  Retrieved Jenuary 1, 2019 from:  [Google Scholar]
  44. Jarvis, H., Kantor, P. & Cloke, J. (2012). Cities and gender. Y. Temurturkan (Translate). Ankara: Dipnot. (Original publication, 2009). [Google Scholar]
  45. Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kalayci, N. & Hayirsever, F. (2014). An analysis of citizenship and democracy education text book in the context of gender equality and determining students’ perceptions on gender equality. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1065-1072. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.3.1813. 1066.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Kıran, E. & Avcı, M. G. (2018). Going beyond social boundries by sport: The movie Dangal and gender. Journal of the International Scientific Research, 3(2), 985-994. doi: 10.21733/ibad.486908  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NewYork: The Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  49. Korkmaz, I. (2013). Sosyal ogrenme kurami. B. Yesilyaprak (Ed.). In Gelisim ve ogrenme psikolojisi [Development and learning psychology] (pp. 246-269).  Ankara: PegemAkademi. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kreitz-Sandberg, S. (2013). Gender inclusion and horizontal gender segregation: Stakeholders' strategies and dilemmas in Swedish teachers' education, Gender and Education, 25(4), 444-465. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2013.772566 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  52. Macionis, J. J. (2012). Sociology.  V. Akan (Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel. (Original publication, 2010). [Google Scholar]
  53. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2017/18). National education statistics: Formal education. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  54. Nonviolent Education and Research Association. (2019). Toplumsal cinsiyet – Kavramlar. Retrieved February 1, 2019 from:  [Google Scholar]
  55. OECD. (2019). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA.  PISA: OECD. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  56. Okere, M. I. O. & Ndeke, G. C. W. (2012). Influence of gender and knowledge on secondary school students’ scientific creativity skills in Nakura District, Kenya. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 353-366. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.1.4.353  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Ozdamar, K. (2013). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi [Statistical data analysis with package programs]. Eskisehir: Nisan. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ozen, F. (2018). Investigation of the experiences of classroom teacher candidates in the reconstruction of gender role: A case study in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(8), 29-43. doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i8.3211 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Peter, C. & Mikayla, J. (2018). The reliability and validity of the anima-animus continuum scale. Education, 138(3), 264-270. Retrieved from   [Google Scholar]
  60. Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E. R. & Saxon, J. L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 396-404. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.396 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Reiter, R. R. (2012). Giris. R. R. Reiter (Ed.). B. Abiral (Translate). In Toward an anthropology of woman (pp. 7-17). Ankara: Dipnot. (Original publication, 1975). [Google Scholar]
  62. Rubin, G. (2016). Kadin ticareti: Cinsiyetin “ekonomi politigi” uzerine notlar. R. R. Reiter (Ed.). B. Abiral (Translate). In Toward an anthropology of woman (pp. 171-230). Ankara: Dipnot. (Original publication, 1975). [Google Scholar]
  63. Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning theories: An educational perspective. M. Sahin (Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel. (Original publication, 2007). [Google Scholar]
  64. Secgin, F. & Tural, A. (2011). Attitudes on gender roles of primary school teacher candidates. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Education Sciences, 6(4), 2446-2458.  Retrieved from: [Google Scholar]
  65. Senol, S. (2012). Arastirma ve ornekleme yontemleri [Research and sampling methods]. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  66. Simsek, O. F. (2007). Yapısal esitlik modellemesine giris: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamalari [Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications]. Istanbul: Ekinoks. [Google Scholar]
  67. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and sample practices]. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49-73. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ulkar, E. (2016, 24 March). Egitim fakultelerinin en onemli dort sorunu [The most important four problems of education faculties]. Hurriyet. Retrieved Jenuary 2, 2019 from:  [Google Scholar]
  69. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2015). A quide for gender equality in teacher education policy and practices. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  70. Unlu-Cetin, S. (2016). Investigation of gender role equality in family support and education guidebook integrated with early childhood education program (OBADER): A focus on father involvement. Current Research in Education, 2(2), 61-83. Retrieved from:    [Google Scholar]
  71. Unterhalter, E. (2005). Fragmented frameworks? Researching women, gender, education and development. S. Aikman & E. Unterhalter (Ed.). Beyond access: Developing gender equality in education içinde (pp. 15-35). Oxford: Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  72. Vatandas, C. (2007). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet rollerinin algılanışı [Perception of gender and gender roles]. Sosyoloji Konferansları [Sociology Conferences], 0(35), 29-56. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  73. Verge, T., Ferrer-Fons, M. &  González, M. J. (2018). Resistance to mainstreaming gender into the higher education curriculum. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 25(1), 86–101. doi: 10.1177/1350506816688237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  74. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from:  [Google Scholar]
  75. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences].  Ankara: Seckin. [Google Scholar]
  76. YOK Women's Studies Unit. (2015). “Toplumsal Cinsiyet Esitligine Duyarlı Universite Calistayi” duzenlendi. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from:  [Google Scholar]