The teaching–learning process in schools consists of collective collaboration and interaction among teachers and learners. The teacher is expected to be competent and also to cooperate with the learners. The learners need to be attentive and curious about what they learn. This learning largely takes place through the textbooks used in schools. The role of the textbooks is vital because it is through them that learners are introduced to the world around them. The information, ideas, images, and other socio-cultural and religious content conveyed through the textbooks often form the basic thought patterns of the learners because they are considered as something of an authority for children (Mustapha, 2013). This importance that is attached to textbooks is the reason that it is commonly believed in Asian countries that whatever is printed on the pages of a textbook is necessarily practical and true (Islam & Asadullah, 2018). Consequently, the contents of the textbooks are internalized by the learners. Mirza (2004), while analyzing the attitudes of learners toward textbook images, found that learners saw these images as being role models for them.

As the textbooks are formatted in accordance with the intellectual needs of a particular audience, care is often taken to include as many important aspects as possible. Apart from educational content, gender equality has increasingly become a crucial factor to be taken into account following the emergence of feministic scholarship claiming that men and women should be equally represented in textbooks. Accordingly, efforts have been made to incorporate equal representation of males and females in the textbooks. A number of research studies have been conducted to analyze gender portrayal in textbooks at different school levels in different countries. These works have examined the portrayal of gender in various categories and pointed out areas where one gender, usually the female, is under-represented, and have recommended strategies to overcome it. Porreca (1984), Mirza (2004), Lee and Collins (2006), Hameed (2012), and Mahmood and Kausar (2018) are some of the works that have analyzed gender bias in textbooks in different countries. The results reveal that these books are biased in terms of character count and traditional roles.

It is common practice for teachers to convey, explain, and interpret the contents and information provided in textbooks. A teacher’s philosophy and his/her verbal and non-verbal communication play vital roles in the construction of social norms (Gosselin, 2007). Research on classroom practices in developing countries reveal that teachers often reproduce gender stereotypes instead of challenging them (Page & Jha, 2009). Sunderland also believes that “the most non-sexist textbook can become sexist in the hands of a teacher with sexist attitudes” (1994, p. 64). This is why the analysis of teachers’ perceptions is instrumental to gender-related matters on many grounds. First, the teachers have a firsthand knowledge of the books as they teach them; hence they are well versed in the contents. Second, based on their experience of teaching, they can easily and appropriately identify areas of under-representation and accordingly offer strategies to address gender bias. Third, they are in close interaction with their students and can readily pinpoint areas where they are more influenced by gender discrimination and areas where it matters less. Fourth, they can also express their own opinions and perceptions, which may have a considerable influence on their learners. Last, in the context of the present study, as discrimination in textbooks is often against the female gender (Islam & Asadullah, 2018; Mahmood & Kausar, 2018; Mirza & Rana, 1999; Porreca, 1984), it is worthwhile to investigate the opinions of female teachers in this regard. The clear importance of the factors highlighted above is why the current work is devoted to the collection and examination of the perceptions of female teachers with reference to gender representation in textbooks. The research is conducted in the context of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

While there has been considerable research into the area of textbooks in general, teachers’ perceptions (particularly female teachers) regarding gender have seldom been separately investigated and remain a relatively neglected field of inquiry in the context of Pakistan. Although in the developed world research has been conducted on the gender perceptions of teachers and learners, in Pakistan most of the studies are based on gender analysis of textbooks only and the perceptions of teachers have not been separately analyzed. In the following pages, a review of studies on textbooks and teachers’ perceptions is presented.

Sunderland et al. (2000) based their study on three projects (MA dissertations) to analyze what teachers actually do with the texts. Their purpose was to go beyond mere textbook analysis, as textbooks can be treated in many different ways, even contrary to the intentions of the authors. The focus of their study was therefore not on textbooks but on what teachers did with the textbooks during their actual classroom lessons. The specific questions that they aimed to answer in their study were how teachers talked about biased texts and how they dealt with such texts in the classroom. In order to determine how teachers dealt with certain texts, the researchers selected certain texts which they termed “gender-critical points” (Sunderland et al., 2000, p. 261), meaning texts that were either biased (traditional), or progressive (non-traditional), or that could be considered as one or the other depending on how they were taught.

In one of the projects, the researchers observed three teachers in EFL classrooms in Portugal. Their observation revealed that the teachers explained a given text differently. They also pointed out that teachers ignored even obviously gendered texts. On the other hand, in the second project conducted in Greece, the study found that a progressive text was undermined by another group of teachers. In the third project of their study, the researchers observed teachers in England and found that apparently biased texts were not discussed as such by the teachers and hence their discriminatory message was overlooked. From these results, the researchers further developed the ideas of endorsement (supporting gendered discourse) and subversion (undermining or criticizing gendered discourse) (Sunderland et al., 2000, p. 277). Their overall conclusion was that different teachers’ responses to the same biased and progressive texts were different.

Mirza (2004) conducted a gender analysis of secondary school textbooks in Pakistan. In addition, he also collected data from other important stakeholders such as board officials, parents, students, and a few teachers through questionnaires and focus-group discussions. He found that most of these textbooks contained stereotypical depictions of both genders, particularly the female. In the focus-group discussion, the majority of officials said that as there is a gender disparity in the society, the same is reflected in the textbooks in the form of the traditional and stereotypical roles assigned to women. They contended that textbook images are taken by the students as role models and these roles reflect a disparity between males and females. The officials recommended inclusion of more female characters, models, activities, and variety of occupations in order to promote gender equality in textbooks. Mirza (2004) employed a broader approach to gender analysis by including textbook compilers, parents, and students along with the textbooks themselves in an endeavor to understand gender discrimination in a broader context. However, his work did not touch upon specific areas of gender bias in textbooks and, in particular, paid little if any attention to the notion of dealing with gender-biased texts from a teacher’s perspective. This is the aspect explored in the current study.

In a study, Ullah and Ali (2012) collected data from personnel involved in curriculum and textbook design, as well as a few teachers, in order to determine their perceptions regarding gender bias in educational settings and textbooks. They found that despite the policies and initiatives of the government to remove gender bias, it continues to be found in the textbooks because the people responsible for curriculum and textbook compilation have traditional ideas and seem to support them. According to the researchers, not only men but some women also agreed with the current biased representation of women in textbooks but they were of the opinion that it did not matter if women characters were few in number, as it (according to the women) did not convey an idea of discrimination against females. In terms of professions and sports also, according to the researchers, the participants held traditional beliefs of allowing more variety to boys and men and limiting the choices of women and girls. The researchers concluded that the curriculum experts and textbook designers need to be sensitized to the issues of gender bias in textbooks through training.

Lo’s (2015) study aimed at examining the perceptions of school teachers regarding gender bias in a classroom setting in Toronto, Canada. She collected data from three school teachers (having expertise in gender-related matters and committed to challenging gender stereotypes) through semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed that the first and most important thing for a teacher was his/her strong commitment and resolution to challenge gender stereotypes. Second, the teachers emphasized the need not only to generate conversation regarding gender equality in the classroom setting but also to integrate the same in lessons and curricula. In addition, the participants advocated a classroom environment congenial to gender expression and exploration.

Based on the findings, Lo recommends pre-service training as being essential for teachers, not only to become conscious of gender bias in general but also to become aware of their own conscious/unconscious biases and stereotypes. Along with this, the researcher also proposes affiliations and alliances among like-minded teachers in the domain of challenging gender stereotypes to further strengthen their work. Lastly, Lo suggests the creation of a teacher-based database where teachers can interact and share their lesson plans and other activities on gender stereotypes.

In Pakistan, many studies have been conducted on gender, but their scope is limited to the analysis of textbooks. Hussain (2009) analyzed English textbooks at Higher Secondary School Certificate Level, Hameed (2012) examined elementary-level textbooks from two different publishing companies, Jabeen, Chaudhary and Omar (2014) conducted a content analysis of primary level school textbooks, Ullah and Haque (2016) analyzed school textbooks from classes 1 to 8, while Mahmood and Kausar (2018) investigated gender representation in secondary school English textbooks in Pakistan.

As far as teachers’ perceptions are concerned, few studies have been conducted in the context of Pakistan and no separate research has been specifically done in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Mirza (2004), and Ullah and Ali (2012) included some teachers in their analysis, but their work did not fully focus on perceptions. The present study aimed at conducting a separate study to examine the perceptions of a larger sample of female teachers from the province to further identify their attitudes toward gender bias. Most importantly, the current study also attempted to identify the strategies used (if any) by the teachers to explain biased texts to students, an aspect barely examined in previous studies of this issue in Pakistan.

A mixed-method approach was employed in the present study for collecting and analyzing data. First, for quantitative data, a questionnaire was administered to the teachers. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that, on some items, the respondents did not take a clear position, and particularly in the last open-ended questions, most of the teachers did not write any answers. The researcher then, in order to get a clear picture of the matter, collected qualitative data by conducting interviews with ten teachers.

The English textbooks at the secondary level are prepared by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Textbook Board subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education. They are used in all secondary schools throughout the province and there are separate schools for male and female learners in the province at this level. These textbooks contain essays, short stories, and poems, followed by exercises.

The subjects of the study were the female English-language secondary school teachers of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Peshawar. For convenient and timely completion of the work, a sample of fifty female teachers was randomly selected from twenty-five different schools, selecting two teachers from each school. The rationale for the selection of Peshawar was that, being the provincial capital, it attracts teachers from all over the province hailing from different backgrounds. Hence, the findings of the study can be generalized to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as a whole. There were ten statements in the questionnaire (see Appendix A). The first set of three statements was related to gender bias in the textbooks (generally) as well as conveyed through male dominant characters and language. The second group of three statements aimed at identifying the responses of the teachers regarding the impact of gender-biased content and language on the learners. The three statements in the last set were related to the revision of textbooks from the point of view of both content and language for equal representation of men and women. One open-ended question was included at the end of the questionnaire which was about the use of any strategy by the teachers in explaining a biased text to learners.

As discussed earlier, when some items in the questionnaire did not yield conclusive results, and the last open-ended question was returned mostly unanswered, the researcher used interviews to collect qualitative data from a group of ten teachers who were easily available and gave their consent. Four questions were prepared by the researcher in advance to be discussed with the participants (see Appendix B). The interviews were recorded by the researcher using a recording device and later transcribed. The questions were about the teachers’ views of the textbooks regarding gender representation, their personal view of the place of both genders in society, their discussion of gender-biased texts with learners and the strategies used by them in such discussions, and their suggestions for equal representation of males and females in the textbooks. Each teacher was interviewed for about twenty minutes, and the researcher also took notes along with the recording. Later, as the recordings were listened to and transcribed, the notes were also consulted for a thorough understanding.

The completed questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively. The responses of the teachers were counted for each statement individually under the headings of agreement, disagreement, and neutral. The percentage for each option was then determined and results are presented in tables.

The first research question involved the portrayal of gender in the English textbooks from the teachers’ perspective, and three statements were drawn up to address this issue. The results of the collected data are presented in the following tables:

In response to the first statement that English textbooks are gender biased, the teachers agreed, disagreed, and remained neutral in equal numbers. In response to the second statement, an overwhelming majority (80%) of the teachers agreed that male characters are dominant in the English textbooks. Responding to the third statement, 40% of the participants disagreed, while a majority of 54% agreed that the language of the textbooks favors the male gender.

The second research question in this study was with reference to the influence of gender bias on the learners. The results are illustrated below:

Regarding the influence of gender bias on the learners (Statement 4), the respondents agreed, disagreed, and remained neutral in almost equal numbers. Similarly, in response to the fifth statement, they did not think that dominant male/female characters have more influence on the learners. The majority, however, expressed their disagreement with Statement 6 regarding language not influencing learners.

The third research question concerned the revision of textbooks for equal representation of both genders. Three statements were based on this in the questionnaire: the first regarding the overall revision of textbooks to include both genders, and the second and third specifically about the revision of the contents (characters/ personalities) and language of the textbooks, respectively. The results are displayed in the following table:

In response to Statement 7, a majority of the respondents (58%) disagreed with the statement, thereby agreeing with the revision of textbooks. Similarly, responding to Statement 8, 54% of the teachers expressed their agreement with the revision of textbooks to include equal numbers of male and female personalities. An overwhelming majority also agreed that the language of the textbooks should mention both genders equally, as shown in the responses to Statement 9.

The last question asked the teachers to mention strategies they employed while explaining a biased text to the learners. This was an open-ended question, and most teachers returned it unanswered; only a few mentioned some strategies, and some respondents, instead of outlining strategies, generally recommended suggestions for gender equality. The strategies pointed out were: the roles of the teacher as a neutral observer and the use of gender-neutral words such as “person” and “member”. As this question did not elicit clear, conclusive results, the researcher conducted interviews with ten of the teachers, not only to find answers for this question but to collect qualitative data regarding gender bias in textbooks and classroom settings. The data collected through this process is presented and analyzed in the next section of the study.

The results of the study provide a deeper understanding of the complex working of gender bias in textbooks. On the one hand, looking at responses to Statement 1, (Table 1), the respondents agreed, disagreed, and remained neutral in almost equal numbers, thus not taking any clear position regarding gender bias in textbooks. On the other hand, most of them confirmed the presence of bias in terms of dominant male characters in the second statement. The aspect of greater visibility and dominance of the male gender, and hence poor visibility of the female, is the most researched aspect in textbooks analysis. Studies (Hameed, 2012; Mahmood & Kausar, 2018; Mirza, 2004; Porreca, 1984) have confirmed not only the over-representation of men but also their dominance in the English textbooks. Similarly, the female teachers in the present study also agreed that the language of the textbooks favors the male gender.

The overall results of the data regarding the second set of statements (Table 2) is that, according to the female teachers, learners are not influenced by gender-biased content in the textbooks as they agreed, disagreed, and remained neutral in almost equal numbers. A majority of the teachers (40%), however, expressed their disagreement with Statement 6, thereby agreeing that gender-biased language can influence learners. Experts and researchers in gender studies also suggest that it can affect learners. Sunderland (1992) is of the opinion that gender stereotypes in textbooks can influence learners, particularly female learners, in a number of ways. Harashima (2005) is also of the view that, as it is often difficult for female students to identify with stereotypical characters, gender-biased texts may diminish their motivation to study.

In response to the third set of statements (Table 3) regarding the revision of textbooks for equal representation of men and women, the respondents agreed that the books need revision. Porreca (1984), Mirza (2004), Hameed (2012), Islam and Asadullah (2018), and Mahmood and Kausar (2018) in their studies on textbooks arrived at the same conclusion, that textbooks need revision to minimize, if not eliminate, gender bias.

As some of the items in the questionnaire did not produce conclusive results and most of the teachers returned the last open-ended question unanswered, as mentioned earlier, the researcher conducted interviews with ten teachers. Analysis of the transcribed data revealed some new interesting aspects while confirming some of the results of the questionnaires.

Most of the teachers were of the opinion that it was difficult to comment on the textbooks as a whole, to categorize them as either gender biased or gender neutral, as it involved so many variables. This is why in response to the first statement in the questionnaire the teachers did not take a clear position and their responses were divided. According to them, they are better equipped to comment on individual aspects of books, such as character count and occupational roles. The respondents confirmed the results of Statement 2 in particular, that there are more male dominant characters in the textbooks than female.

Regarding their personal view of the place of men and women in society, some teachers demonstrated traditional and stereotypical attitudes about the dominance and supremacy of the male gender. A respondent said: “If the male gender is dominant it is okay, because the male has a dominant place in Islam.”

Such attitudes both create and perpetuate gender bias, as an association of male dominance with religion and culture is not only sensitive but also difficult to change or even question in societies such as Pakistan where these attitudes are ingrained in the national culture and religion. Similarly, another participant opined that “The male is the dominant creature. It does not have any influence on learning whether male or female are dominant in textbooks.”

Similar findings are revealed by Mirza (2004) while describing the results of a focus group in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He points out that the respondents exhibited more traditional attitudes, considered changes in the books as enough, and termed equality as not necessarily involving similarity of roles.

As pointed out earlier, such notions of male dominance are due to the strong grounding of the people in religion and culture. This is why the textbooks of the area still exhibit a strong male dominant portrayal even in the modern world, as pointed out by Mahmood and Kausar (2018) and Islam and Asadullah (2018). Although it is a common pattern in textbooks as well as in other aspects of society that males are often dominant and females suffer, it is evident here from the responses of the female teachers that women also play their part in maintaining and naturalizing gender order (Ullah & Ali, 2012). The researchers termed the attitudes of curriculum designers and head teachers as “gender blindness” in so far as they are themselves conforming to gender-discriminatory beliefs (Ullah & Ali, 2012, p. 223). They also reported that a female subject specialist had similar ideas, pointing out that women were created as inferior. This gives support to the contention that, although the patriarchal structure of the world may be responsible for discrimination against women, at the same time women also play a role in promoting such attitudes by not only accepting them but also condoning and perpetuating them.

Regarding the strategies and techniques used by the teachers to explain gender bias in the textbooks and classroom settings, a majority of the teachers indicated their reliance on textbook material and said they teach whatever is in the books;

We (teachers) teach the (text) books as they are. We have to teach, explain, and solve exercises as provided so hardly pay any attention to it (gender bias).

Similarly, most of them expressed unawareness of the presence of linguistic bias in terms of the words and expressions used to glorify one gender (male) and lower the status of the other (female). For example, adjective such as “brave,” “strong,” and “rational” are used for men and “emotional,” “pretty,” and “sweet” for women. Because of this unawareness, the participants did not mention any concrete, applicable strategies that they used while explaining biased texts to the learners. They, however, confirmed that they talked to the learners regarding gender equality occasionally and when such a lesson was included in the texts.

Additionally, the respondents also pointed out the lack of time that could be devoted to finding and discussing gender bias as they were busy during most of the class time teaching the prescribed material and solving the exercises. Sunderland et al. also point out such behavior by teachers by saying that they might not notice gender bias in texts, might not think it important enough to be discussed, or might ignore it “for any other pedagogical reason that has nothing to do with gender” (2000, p. 281). This explains why most of the teachers did not respond to the last question in the questionnaire, as most of them were unaware of the bias embedded in the language of the textbooks; for example, issues such as the use of generic expressions, order of mention, and the nouns and adjectives used for both the genders, as pointed out in different earlier works (Porreca, 1984; Stockdale, 2006; Hameed, 2012). Unless they are aware of the effect of such instances of biased language, they cannot understand it and hence cannot discuss it with the learners. Their reliance on textbook material and lack of time are valid issues to be considered by curriculum designers and the authorities concerned.

The teachers, while outlining suggestions for the equitable inclusion of both genders, laid emphasis on content rather than language, mirroring the results of the questionnaire; in other words, the addition of more female personalities/characters:

More female characters should be added in the textbooks along with males for balance.

Some suggested the inclusion of motivational female figures for the learners. With reference to the design and compilation of textbooks, it was suggested that neutral values be kept in mind. By neutral values, they meant using words such as “person” instead of “man,” and using pairs such as “he/she” and the plural pronoun “they”. Additionally, it was pointed out that female writers should be encouraged to participate in the process.

This study concluded that as far as bias in terms of male dominant characters is concerned, the female teachers confirmed that it exists. They also believed that the language of the textbooks favors the male gender and that the content as well as the language of English textbooks needs revision for equal inclusion of both genders. The teachers, however, did not agree that learners are influenced by gender-biased texts, hence expressing their unawareness. At the same time, it was found that they themselves have gender-biased beliefs and perceptions as far as male dominance in textbooks and society is concerned. As regards the employment of strategies in explaining biased texts to the students, the teachers only reported occasionally talking to the learners regarding gender equality and did not pinpoint any techniques to deal with bias ingrained in language. They did, however, put forward some suggestions for removing gender bias from the textbooks.

The findings of the study revealed that the main focus tends to be on the contents of textbooks, thereby neglecting the equally or maybe even more important aspect of linguistic bias. Male dominance in characters is just one variable among a host of others. More importantly, biased language conveyed through the structure (words and expressions) of the language make the learners more vulnerable to internalizing gender bias in an unconscious manner, which may become an integral part of the learners’ language in the long run, an issue that needs to be addressed.

Many studies have highlighted the general issue of gender bias in textbooks, but the current study adds a new dimension to this gender analysis in the Pakistani context by including the perceptions of female teachers. More studies are needed to further highlight instances of gender discrimination in the teaching–learning process. Another possible avenue for future research may be to include the learner to get a more comprehensive picture of the whole process. In addition, it would also be worthwhile to examine what teachers and learners actually do with biased texts in the classroom.