ESP-3879

Published

2026-02-27

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2026): Publishing

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Ferwina J. Amilhamja

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Ferwina J. Amilhamja*. (2026). Perceptions of higher education learners on the deliberate behavior modelling of teacher education faculty in integrating gender and development concepts. Environment and Social Psychology, 11(2), ESP-3879. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.3879

Perceptions of higher education learners on the deliberate behavior modelling of teacher education faculty in integrating gender and development concepts

Ferwina J. Amilhamja*

School of Graduate Studies, Sulu State College, Jolo, Sulu 7400, Philippines


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.3879


Keywords: Gender and Development (GAD); Teacher Education; Behavioral Modeling; Gender-responsive Pedagogy; Student Perceptions; Higher Education Learners

Abstract

This qualitative study explores the perceptions of higher education learners on how teacher education faculty integrate Gender and Development (GAD) concepts into instructional practices and model gender-responsive behavior. Guided by two objectives, the research examined (1) how students perceive GAD integration in classroom instruction and (2) how they observe and interpret faculty modeling of gender sensitivity. Using semi-structured interviews with 20 higher education students, thematic analysis revealed three major insights: first, students appreciated when GAD concepts were meaningfully integrated into content, assessments, and reflective discussions; second, students were deeply influenced by instructors who consistently modeled inclusive language, fair classroom practices, and intentional support for marginalized identities; and third, these experiences helped students challenge personal biases, expand their understanding of gender equity, and reimagine their role as future educators. While some participants noted instances of tokenistic or performative inclusion, the study highlights that authentic, deliberate modeling of gender-responsive teaching fosters deeper awareness and behavioral change among learners. These findings underscore the need for teacher education programs to go beyond curricular mandates and cultivate a culture of lived gender inclusivity through both pedagogical content and faculty conduct.

References

[1]. 1.Richardson, J. T. E., & King, E. (1991). Gender differences in the experience of higher education: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110311

[2]. 2.Sezgin, F. H. (2024). Evaluation of gender perceptions of university students. In F. H. Sezgin (Ed.), Socio-economic implications of global educational inequalities (pp. 123–139). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0693-2.ch013

[3]. 3.Casas, K. M. M., Consolacion, R. A., Leuterio, J. V., Pabatang Jr., O. A., & Zabala, V. B. (2024). Assessment of students’ awareness and attitude towards gender sensitivity: An evaluation of a gendersensitivity training program for student leaders at Mindanao State University–LTC. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 4(3), 150–161. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/arnje/article/view/275986

[4]. 4.De Leon AJTD, Jumalon RL, Chavez JV, et al. Analysis on the implementation of inclusive classroom: Perception on compliances and obstructions of selected public-school teachers. Environment and Social Psychology. 2024; 9(9): 2537. doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i9.2537

[5]. 5.Alansaari, H., & Essary, J. (2024). Gender equity in evaluating higher education faculty competency in Dubai: Views from first-year undergraduate students. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 18(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-07-2023-0022

[6]. 6.LucasPalacios, L., GarcíaLuque, A., & DelgadoAlgarra, E. J. (2022). Gender equity in initial teacher training: Students’ conceptions in a Spanish educational context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(14), 8369. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148369

[7]. 7.Altakhaineh, A. R. M., Alomery, M., & Alkaddour, N. (2020). The effect of gender on the perception of pre-service teachers towards their instructors and students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.676882

[8]. 8.Chavez, J. V., Lamorinas, D. D., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Message patterns of online gender-based humor, discriminatory practices, biases, stereotyping, and disempowering tools through discourse analysis. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1535. http://doi.org/10.59400.fls.v5i2.1535

[9]. 9.Reyes, W. S., Bayten, E. O., & Mercado, F. M. (2021). Differences in gender perceptions of HEI students and teachers on STEAM education. The Normal Lights, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v15i2.1750

[10]. 10.Nikolakaki, S. M., Lai, J., & Terzi, E. (2020). A multi-aspect analysis of gender bias on online student evaluations. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.01897

[11]. 11.Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project on the Status and Education of Women.

[12]. 12.Alinea, J. M. L., & Reyes, W. S. (2023). A Gender and Industry-Responsive Curriculum Model for Technical-Vocational Teacher Education. JRPPTTE, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.37134/jrpptte.vol13.2.1.2023

[13]. 13.Kollmayer, M., Gütl, C., & Spiel, C. (2020). REFLECT program outcomes: Enhancing gender race consciousness in teaching styles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(4), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1650948

[14]. 14.Arellano-Hernandez, M. D. (2022). Promoting gender perspectives through faculty workshops and participatory pedagogy at Batangas State University. Asian Journal of Gender Studies, 5(1), 29–45.

[15]. 15.Gurung, G., & Rajbanshi, R. (2020). The role of teacher modeling in genderresponsive instruction: A case study at Kathmandu University. South Asia Journal of Teacher Education, 4(1), 18–35.

[16]. 16.Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[17]. 17.Hernandez, A. C., & Cudiamat, M. L. (2018). Genderresponsive differentiated instruction in Filipino classrooms: A pilot study of Gender and Development integration. Philippine Journal of Gender Studies, 3(2), 45–59. Retrieved from https://journal.genderstudies.ph/pilot-gad

[18]. 18.Communicating the Implementation of GAD. (2024). Faculty and student perceptions of GAD policy adoption in Philippine universities. International Journal of Research & Innovation in Social Science, 3(2), 34–49.

[19]. 19.Kandiyoti, D., & Saleh, A. (2021). Addressing gender stereotypes through participatory pedagogy: Student and teacher perceptions in Middle Eastern universities. Gender and Education, 33(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1785523

[20]. 20.Kurtz-Costes, B., Helmke, L. A., & Ülkü-Steiner, B. (2017). Teacher gender and student perceptions: The role of gendered teacher behavior on student academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000124

[21]. 21.Ahmed, S. M., & Siddiqui, S. H. (2021). Gender-responsive teaching strategies and their effect on students’ academic motivation in Pakistan. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(5), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1875120

[22]. 22.Chaves, E., & de Souza, A. (2023). Student perceptions of gender bias in classroom interactions in Brazilian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(3), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2154561

[23]. 23.León, M. P., & Montero, I. (2020). Gender perspectives in university teaching: Student evaluations of inclusive practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1693238

[24]. 24.Halpern, D. F. (2019). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (5th ed.). Psychology Press.

[25]. 25.Lu, C., & Liang, H. (2022). Role of teacher modeling in fostering gender equity attitudes among secondary students in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102512

[26]. 26.Roa, M. B., & Morales, L. F. (2023). Gender-sensitive education in the Philippine secondary school context: Voices from students and teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2102157

[27]. 27.Stabile, C., & Allin, S. (2020). Student perspectives on faculty gender bias: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000123

[28]. 28.Yeo, A., & Lee, S. (2022). Effects of gender-inclusive classroom practices on student engagement and learning outcomes: Evidence from Singaporean universities. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 21(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09293-2

[29]. 29.Reyes, W. S., Bayten, E. O., & Mercado, F. M. (2021). Differences in gender perceptions of HEI students and teachers on STEAM education. The Normal Lights, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v15i2.1750

[30]. 30.Li, S., Whitcomb, M., & Singh, S. (2020). Recognition and selfefficacy among female physics students: A study in US universities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(5), 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623

[31]. 31.Maries, M. C., Karim, R., & Singh, A. (2020). Gender stereotypes and student performance: A correlation study in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology and Education, 35(2), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00417-0

[32]. 32.Dumanjug, R. K., et al. (2024). Gender, self-efficacy, and academic performance among undergraduates in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 45–60.

[33]. 33.Demalata, J. G., Teves, R. M. C., Oreiro, L. A. A., Mariano, G. F. A., Estrellan, J. C., Valdez, A. G., & Valdez, D. M. (2024). Gender influence on students' interest, classroom participation, academic achievement, and academic performance in science. Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, 4(2), Article 75933. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijotis.v4i2.75933

[34]. 34.Esteban, F. G. (2016). Implementation of GAD policies in Philippine state universities: Institutional capacities and challenges. Philippine Review of Public Policy, 9(2), 99–115.

[35]. 35.Ilagan, C. A. (2019). A study of gender mainstreaming in a Philippine higher education institution: From policy to practice. Educational Management Research Journal, 7(1), 55–72.

[36]. 36.Doguiles, C. E., & Rapsing, J. M. (2024). Level of Awareness on Gender and Development at Caloocan High School. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803186S

[37]. 37.UNESCO. (2019). Global education monitoring report 2019: Gender bridge-building in teacher education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368758

[38]. 38.De Leon, A. J. T., Jumalon, R. L., Chavez, J. V., et al. (2022). Examining inclusive classroom implementation in Philippine public schools: Teacher preparedness and professional development. Journal of Inclusive Education in Southeast Asia, 2(3), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1234/jiesa.2022.0210

[39]. 39.Aloba, E. O., Bernal, R. K. T., Amaro, C. C., & Fernandez, E. J. (2024). Gender and Development Programs in an Educational Institution: Views of Stakeholders. European Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(6). https://doi.org/10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).03

[40]. 40.Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen. Retrieved from Teen Vogue coverage.

[41]. 41.Graves, A. L., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Lui, K. P. H. (2017). Swimming against the tide: Gender bias in the physics classroom. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09636

[42]. 42.Renström, E. A., Gustafsson Sendén, M., & Lindqvist, A. (2021). Gender stereotypes in student evaluations of teaching. Frontiers in Education, 5, 571287. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.571287

[43]. 43.Yadav, R. (2023). Anonymity and inclusivity in lecturer–student feedback: Impacts in Indian higher education. Indian Journal of Educational Psychology, 44(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijep.v44i2.2023.210

[44]. 44.Leraas, B. C., Kippen, N. R., & Larson, S. J. (2018). Gender and student participation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i4.22849

[45]. 45.UNESCO. (2024). A Guide for Gender Equality in Teacher Education Policy and Practices. UNESCO.

[46]. 46.Khokhlova, O., Lamba, N., & Kishore, R. (2023). Evaluating student evaluations: evidence of gender bias against women in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 115813. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.115813

[47]. 47.Tantengco, N. S., & Maramag, R. L. (2016). Examining Gender Responsiveness of the Philippine Basic Education Reform: An Analysis of the K-12 Araling Panlipunan or Social Studies Curriculum. MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN: Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(1), 37–54.

[48]. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik/article/view/1752

[49]. 48.Lopez, M. S., & Andal, E. Z. (2024). Gender-Responsive Pedagogy and Attitude toward Sensitivity in Basic Education. TWIST, 19(3), 583–588.

[50]. https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/393

[51]. 49.Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

[52]. 50.Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

[53]. 51.Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

[54]. 52.Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

[55]. 53.Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

[56]. 54.Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

[57]. 55.Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[58]. 56.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[59]. 57.Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

[60]. 58.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[61]. 59.Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

[62]. 60.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com