Psychology of the Gender-Equitable Environment: Research of Problems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/2292-2598.2020.08.03.31Keywords:
Egalitarian (equal) education, gender-equitable environment, non-discriminatory environment, gender, students, teachers, safe environment, psychological security.Abstract
The purpose of our study was to perform a comparative analysis of the level characteristics of the subjective perception of the egalitarian psychological well-being of participants in the educational process in mono- and heterogender educational space. The study used qualitative and quantitative methods to measure the level of psychological safety and psychological protection of participants in the educational process. The study relied on a questionnaire that was adapted to identify three indicators: “integrated indicator of the attitude to the educational environment”, “significant characteristics of the educational environment and the index of satisfaction with it”, “index of psychological security of the educational environment”. A pilot project that was developed on the basis of the Research Centre for Gender Education and Development of Pupils and Students of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine determined the educational vectors for building the psychology of an egalitarian safe, educational environment. The analysis found significant differences in the value of the coefficient of psychological well-being of participants in the educational process in all three models of organization of educational space. The masculine model revealed statistically significant signs of subjective psychological distress in cadets compared to the other two models. The satisfaction of parents and teachers with the level of psychological security in a gender-homogeneous educational environment is quite high. The model which reflects the feminine principle of forming study groups is subjectively perceived by students as psychologically safe.
References
Kіkіnezhdі OM. Gender identity in the ontogenesis of the personality: monograph. Ternopil: "The Teaching book - Bogdan"; 2011.
U.S. Department of State. Fact sheet: Promoting gender equality to achieve our national security and foreign policy objectives. Washington, DC; 2012. [cited 2020 Jun 8]: Available from https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/gwi/rls/ other/2012/187001.htm
Marushchenko O, Andrusyk O, Drozhzhyna T., editors. Gender pedagogical almanac. Kharkiv: Planet – Print; 2017.
Alexander GM, Wilcox T. Sex differences in early infancy. Child Dev Perspect 2012; 6: 400-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00247.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00247.x
Bleidorn W, Arslan RC, Denissen JJA, Rentfrow PJ, Gebauer JE, Potter J, Gosling SD. Age and gender differences in self-esteem – A cross-cultural window. J Pers Soc Psychol 2016; 111(3): 396-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078
Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Pham MN, Shackelford TK. How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2015; 41: 1082-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215590987 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215590987
Sharma RR, Sharma NP. Opening the gender diversity black box: causality of perceived gender equity and locus of control and mediation of work engagement in employee well-being. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 1371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01371
Williams P, Kern ML, Waters L. Exploring selective exposure and confirmation bias as processes underlying employee work happiness: an intervention study. Front Psychol 2016; 7: Article 878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00878 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00878
Hill PW, McQuillan J, Talbert E, Spiegel A, Gauthier G, Diamond J. Science possible selves and the desire to be a scientist: Mindsets, gender bias, and confidence during early adolescence. Social Sciences 2017; 6(2): 55-73. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6020055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6020055
Moller S, Stearns E, Southworth S, Potochnick S. Changing course: The gender gap in college selectivity and opportunities to learn in the high school curriculum. Gend Educ 2013; 25(7): 851-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.853028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.853028
Morales DX, Grineski SE, Collins TW. Effects of gender concordance in mentoring relationships on summer research experience outcomes for undergraduate students. Science Education 2018; 102(5): 1029-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21455
Kravets VP, Kikinezhdi OM, Shulha IM. To the problem of humanization of the educational space of the modern Ukrainian school. Osvitolohiya 2018; 7: 15-21. https://doi.org/10.28925/2226-3012.2018.7.1521 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28925/2226-3012.2018.7.1521
Hovorun T, Kikinezhdi O. Gender Psychology. Kyiv: Vydavnychyj centr “Akademija”; 2004.
Aikman S, Halai A, Rubagiza J. Conceptualising gender equality in research on education quality. Comp Educ 2011; 47(1): 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541675
Berekashvili N. The role of gender-biased perceptions in teacher-student interaction. J Child Lang 2012; 16(1): 39-51. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10057-012-0004-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10057-012-0004-x
Damarin S, Erchick DB. Toward clarifying the meanings of "gender" in mathematics education research. J Res Math Educ 2010; 41(4): 310-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.4.0310
Todor I. Gender in education: Teacher's perspective. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Studies 2010; 4(12): 45-52. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v04i12/53047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v04i12/53047
Namtip A, comp. Gender sensitivity: A training manual for sensitizing education managers, curriculum and material developers and media professionals to gender concerns. Paris: UNESCO; 2004.
Unterhalter E, North A. Responding to the gender and education Millennium Development Goals in South Africa and Kenya: Reflections on education rights, gender equality, and global justice. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 2011; 41(4): 495-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.581516 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.581516
Carlone HB, Scott CM, Lowder C. Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2014; 51(7): 836-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150
Donovan BM, Stuhlsatz MAM, Edelson DC, Buck Bracey ZE. Gendered genetics: How reading about the genetic basis of sex differences in biology textbooks could affect beliefs
associated with science gender disparities. Science Education 2019; 103(4): 719-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21502
Olsson A, Kopsida E, Sorjonen K, Savic I. Testosterone and estrogen impact social evaluations and vicarious emotions: A double-blind placebo-controlled study. Emotion 2016; 16(4): 515-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039765 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039765
Schmitt DP. The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are …it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In: VA Weekes-Shackelford, TK Shackelford, editors. The evolution of sexuality. New York, NY: Springer 2015; p. 221-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_11
Burke RJ. The Sandwich generation: Individual, family, organizational and societal challenges and opportunities. The Sandwich generation: Caring for oneself and others at home and at work. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785364969.00007
Fischer R, Schwartz S. Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. J Cross Cult Psychol 2011; 42: 1127-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381429 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381429
Grijalva E, Newman DA, Tay L, Donnellan MB, Harms PD, Robins RW, Yan T. Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 2015; 141(2): 261-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231
Zell E, Krizan Z, Teeter SR. Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist 2015; 70: 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208
Zentner M, Eagly AH. A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: Integration of concepts and evidence. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 2015; 26: 328-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1111599 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1111599
Ngo HY, Foley S, Ji MS, Loi R. Linking gender role orientation to subjective career success: the mediating role of psychological capital. J Career Assess 2014; 22(2): 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713493984 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713493984
David SA, Boniwell I, Ayers AC. In: The Future of Happiness,” in David SA, Boniwell I, Ayers AC, editors. Oxford Handbook of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013; p. 1067-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.001.0001
Drummond S, O’Driscoll MP, Brough P, Kalliath T, Siu OL, Timms C, Riley D, Sit C, Lo D. The relationship of social support with well-being outcomes via work–family conflict: moderating effects of gender, dependants and nationality. Human Relations 2017; 70: 544-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716662696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716662696
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
