Exploring Gender Stereotyping in Online Learning Platforms: An Empirical Study of Indonesian Pedagogical Discourse

Introduction

E-learning or learning with technology has been a phenomenon across the globe and has had a revolutionary effect worldwide (Liu & Wilson, 2001). The digital world has been changing the world of learning, and learning has been influencing global development. As stated by Booth, Godman, and Kirkup (2010), humans nowadays are living in a fast-changing environment in which technology provides the digital tools and systems to support many aspects of life, including all areas of research, scholarship, and education.

An online learning platform is one of the digital tools providing materials to support student learning and literacy. Learners can access learning materials that provide educational content, activities, and support for the management of learning programs using a combination of information and technology communication, with access from anywhere and at any time. While several such online platforms exist, this study investigates one in particular. This platform is the pioneer of online learning platform in Indonesia which provides e-learning content for K-12 students. It has been officially established and incorporated in 2007 with SR Score 81.752 based on startupranking.com. On March 2015, this platform was one of 12 companies representing Indonesia in the CeBIT 2015 event, the largest technology exhibition in the world which is held every year in Germany (WNI, 2020).

However, most stakeholders are aware that the learning materials used by online learning platforms are determined by considering several values that can be explicitly and implicitly represented. As stated by Widodo (2017), English Language Teaching (ELT) materials mostly constitute implicit-explicit moral and cultural values and gender differences that may lead to gender stereotyping representation that should be taken into account. Gender stereotyping in online learning platform language materials is not only an interesting issue to study but is also critical to address. The reason is that representation of gender stereotypes can affect children’s affective and cognitive development (Meyer, 2010). Sexist terminology appearing in instructional materials, particularly words and expressions suggesting unequal perception of a particular sex, may influence children’s minds (Lee, 2014).

As society tends to impose specific representations of boys and girls in particular roles, the issue of analyzing the representation of gender in language materials has become one of major concern to scholars in a variety of areas, including language policy (Sczesny, Formanowicz, & Moser, 2016), sociology (Breckenridge, Yang, & Poon, 2019), education and learning (Lee, 2018; Wang, 2019), and linguistics (Beatty-Martínez & Dussias, 2019). Textbooks, as one of the most important language materials, still reveal the presence of gender stereotypes. A study by Lestariyana, Widodo, and Sulistiyo (2020) investigated the visibility of female characters in the two English textbooks mandated by the government for use by junior high schools in Indonesia. The study found that the visibility of female characters is still very low as compared to the males.

Another study by Ariyanto (2018) critically investigated how female and male characters are depicted in the ELT junior high school textbook published by the Indonesian Ministry of National Education. The textbook includes attitudes as social values of English usage presented in the form of visual or written texts. An English teacher may use the textbook as the context of students’ social actions. However gender equality as one social value is not adequately represented in the book. Previous studies of gender and language materials such as textbooks around the world have revealed that gender stereotyping is still strongly reflected in the textbook contents with examples from Hong Kong (Yang, 2016), Australia (Lee & Collins, 2010), Iran (Amini & Birjandi, 2012), Japan (Lee, 2019), Arab countries (Al-Qatawneh & Al Rawashdeh, 2019), and Indonesia (Ariyanto, 2018), among others.

However, while studies of textbooks are clearly widespread, there has been limited research into online language teaching materials. It is necessary to critically address the issue of gender stereotypes in online learning platforms’ materials as an alternative used by learners in learning a (foreign) language. This study aims to address this issue by analyzing the representation of gender stereotyping in language materials used on one online learning platform in Indonesia, focusing on English language materials for elementary school 4^th to 6^th grade and junior high school 7^th to 9^th grade.

As a form of learning material, language plays an essential role in making learners understand the content of the materials. The research gap lies in the fact that previous studies have mostly scrutinized language materials in textbooks, while the present study aims to analyze language materials on an online learning platform as the learning source, using Sara Mills’ theory of feminist stylistic linguistics as the analytical tool to find out how gender stereotypes are represented in the language. The results of this study should contribute to critical pedagogical discourse in Indonesia and will also, hopefully, contribute perspectives to the development of language materials and considerations of how both girls and boys should ideally be represented.

Literature Review

Feminist Stylistic Approach

The unequal representation of females and males reflecting society’s assumptions and perceptions about specific genders may have an impact beyond that of merely personal opinions. Such perceptions may appear at higher, institutional levels (Mills, 2008). Therefore, in this study, a feminist stylistic approach was adopted to investigate the representation of stereotypes in online learning materials. The feminist stylistic approach is suitable approach to investigate how gender is represented in language materials and how females and their positions are portrayed compared to males (Kristina, 2020). Mills (2005) maintains that feminist stylistics addresses not only the masculine language represented in texts but also considers contextual elements. According to her, the language aspects of both textual and contextual units are fundamental in analyzing the linguistic units of literary texts. Her theory of feminist stylistic approach defines three levels in analyzing language stereotypes; (a) word-level analysis; sexism in language and sexism in its meaning; (b) sentence and phrase level; naming, sexual harassment of women, self-pitying, and euphemism; and (3) discourse analysis; characterization, fragmentation, focalization, and schemata. Things that need to be considered are whether the sexism in language simply reflects the world or whether there is a case to be made for language affecting the way people perceive the world (Mills, 2005, p. 62). Therefore, the analysis of sexism in language does not only concern on the objecting the difference in language concerning the difference between both males and females but rather on the differences which have effects.

As Mills states, there are three impacts resulting from the use of sexist language: Females are made to feel alienated or that they are not being addressed; the factors that make women see themselves negatively influence their expectations of what women and men can do; and the language used can confuse both female and male readers. To further illustrate the aspects that will be investigated in this study, the following table presents specific gender sexism issues in language materials:

Table 1

Feminist Stylistics Linguistics level of analysis

Research Method

This study used a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach to investigate the extent of gender stereotypes represented in online learning materials and also employed a critical pedagogical perspective (critical pedagogy claims that school knowledge is socially constructed) to further analyze the learning materials. This study investigated the representation of gender stereotypes on one online learning platform in Indonesia. This platform is recommended by the Indonesian government because it follows the 2013 curriculum currently used in Indonesian education and provides teaching materials and exercises for all subjects, including English, from elementary to secondary levels. This study focuses on elementary (4th, 5th, and 6th) and junior school (7th, 8th, and 9th) levels. Elementary and junior school students are considered as young learners who tend to follow and accept what is written in the teaching materials, so gender stereotype exposure will lead them to accept and retain these conceptions.

This study collected verbal artifacts in the form of written texts by observing entire sets of materials and exercises. The materials were chosen because they represent gender stereotyping in different topics at elementary and junior high school. The researchers categorized the data by theme and analyzed them based on Sara Mills (2005) feminist stylistic linguistics theory. This approach was selected in order to understand how women are positioned in a language compared to males (Kristina, 2020). Mills (2005) defines three language levels: word-level analysis, sentence and phrase-level analysis, and discourse-level analysis. The three aspects of analysis were applied to all the materials, consisting of several themes.

Results

The findings of this study only reveal sexist language and meaning at the word level since the other levels where stereotype could exist (phrase, sentence, and discourse) do not exist in the online learning materials. As shown in Table 2 below, underrepresentation of females is the first issue highlighted by this study. The data analysis found that female stereotype in language is highly represented at the word level. The authors noted that online learning platform materials for both elementary and junior high school sometimes still show the stereotyping phenomena. The distribution of gender stereotypes in the textual data of online platform materials for elementary school level grades 4–6 is described in Table 2 below.

Table 2

The distribution of gender stereotypes in the textual data of online platform materials for grades 4– 6, elementary school level

Patterns in the way women are addressed based on name and androcentrism are highlighted in the following tables.

The patterns presented in Table 3 show how woman are addressed and shows how sexism in meaning is represented in the online learning platform materials for Grade 3. The table shows that in addressing women, instead of using a neutral term like Ms., the dialogue and phrasing still address adult females using Mrs. or Miss, usages that address women in terms of their marital status and are not gender-neutral. Women might choose whether to use their husband’s surname after the Mrs. title or not. “Grace” in “Mrs. Grace” is a feminine given name. Meanwhile, in the case of “Shandy” in “Mrs. Shandy,” whether she used her husband’s surname or her own name cannot be identified because “Shandy” is a unisex given name. However, it is different from the use of Mr. with which both married and unmarried males can be addressed.

Table 3

Written text: Sexism in its meaning in names and androcentric

As with Table 3, Table 4 shows how women are addressed in a sexist way in the online learning materials for Grade 8, not in a neutral way. Here, women are still addressed using Mrs. or Miss. As mentioned previously, Mrs. and Miss address women in terms of their marital status, and therefore are not gender-neutral. Women might choose whether to use their husband’s surname after the Mrs. title or not. “Grace” in “Mrs. Grace” and “Titik” in “Mrs. Titik” are feminine given names.

Table 4

Written text: Sexism in meaning in names and androcentrism

The patterns described in Table 5 above are asking about somebody’s profession and the text shows language sexism in generic nouns. Sexist language in generic nouns is marked by a specific term, such as the use of the word “man” in “policeman” which tends to be male-oriented. Table 5 clearly emphasized that “policeman,” “postman,” and “policewoman” are overtly used to indicate specific occupational roles for a particular sex. As stated by Mills (2005), if language is still male-oriented, it can be inferred that sexist language is construed clearly. Instead of using terms specific to men or women, gender-free language should be used.

Table 5

Written text 2. Language sexism in generic nouns

The text in Table 6 shows language sexism in generic pronouns, which is marked by labeling males and females based on specific professions. The pattern dialogue in Table 6 above is talking about male occupational roles as scientists. Males rather than females are represented as having the specific profession of scientist (Mills, 2005). Although the online platform does not represent women as having traditional female occupations such as secretary, nurse, and librarians, neither does it represent them in specifically “male” professions such as professor, scientist, or engineer.

Table 6

Written: Language sexism in generic pronouns

The text in Table 7 shows language sexism in women as the mark form. The word is categorized as language sexism in women as the mark form when there is affixes that refer to females. It emphasizes deviation from universal male forms, such as “lady,” “-ess,” “-ette,” “-enne,” and “trix.” In Table 7 above, the affix “-ess” can be seen in the task for 8th-grade students. The marked gender “princess” is apparently intended to shows people that the term refers to girl instead of male using a term known to be derogatory or trivializing. When the attribute “princess” is changed to a male attribute “prince,” the term does not to show the existence of the girls

Table 7

Written text: Language sexism in woman as the mark form

Discussion

This analysis of an online learning platform mostly used by learners in Indonesia demonstrates to some extent a sexist position towards the female gender. Sexism in written form appeared at the word level using generic nouns, pronouns, women as mark form, names, and androcentrism. Notably, gender fairness in the avoidance of sexist language in the representation of women has not been adequately addressed in online language materials. The findings show that online materials for both elementary and junior high school students covertly display language sexism in the tasks or practices. The writers of these language materials appear to have not handled the issue of gender bias fairly, especially based on the principles of feminist stylistic linguistics advocated by Mills and presented herein. The findings of this study, in the word-level analysis, shows the word choice of Mrs. or Miss is frequently used in the language material. The material maker of the online learning platform’s word choices reflect gender stereotyping based on the marital status issue. According to Stafford and Kline (1996, p. 216), “in American society, the titles of Mrs. and Miss are generally used to differentiate woman according to marital status and to identify women in terms of their relationship to a particular man.” The use of Mrs. can be followed by her husband’s surname to show the unity and commitment of the marriage or accompanied by her own name for self-enhancement (Stafford & Kline, 1996). The use of the husband’s surname is the result of tradition, which builds a social construction. Tradition forces a married woman to adopt the name of her husband and to use the title Mrs. (Stafford & Kline, 1996). It is different from the use of Mr. because here the word applies to all males, both married and unmarried. In the present study, the presented character gives her name as Mrs. Grace in the language teaching material. The other name, Mrs. Shandy, cannot be identified because “Shandy” is a unisex given name, and the language teaching material lacks social context. The term Ms. can be employed to avoid the differentiation of married status and the identification of women. The use of Ms. to address women, as an equivalence of the male Mr., might reduce gender inequality and stereotyping since it does not reveal marital status.

This present study also found the use of generic nouns in the online learning platform’s teaching material. The addition of specific male or female suffixes in a particular occupation shows the sexist language. As McConnell and Fazio (1996, p. 1011) stated, “Gender-marked language can have an impact on perceivers’ of social targets”. It leads to stereotypes of masculine and feminine occupations. Masculine occupational titles can bias a perceiver’s perception of the target’s personality characteristics in a masculine-congruent manner (McConnell & Fazio, 1996). To reduce the use of sexist language in the language teaching material, the authors might use the person-suffix: “person-suffix titles might serve as a language marker for perceivers to consider the possibility that the target may not be male” (McConnell & Fazio, 1996, p. 1008).

In Indonesia, gender equality in the usage of language material on online learning platforms does not appear to be critically translated into training materials and questions. This evidence shows that the authors of online learning platform materials need to implement gender equality into the language used for those materials; in this way, covert gender bias or stereotypical representations would be eliminated. In line with Dahmardeh and Kim (2020), the representation of gender stereotypes across the world involves an imbalanced depiction of both girls and boys. Although the Indonesian government has introduced regulations regarding gender fairness in every aspect of life, the representation of women in online learning materials is not equal. The developers of these materials should promote and be aware of language materials that are free from sexism and this should be a significant consideration (Lee, 2019).

Conclusions and Suggestions

It is vital to present gender fairness in language material. Teaching materials, including those provided by online learning platforms, have to pay attention to gender equality representation. To build and improve students’ awareness, students should play an active role as both users and participants in the learning activity process (Widodo, 2017, p. 149). This study reveals that one of the main online learning platforms in Indonesia still represents gender stereotypes at the word level, both in sexist language and in meaning. In contrast, the other level of stereotypes cannot be identified in the online learning materials. This is because Indonesian language teaching materials lack social and cultural context. The texts in the language teaching material are brief and tend to take short cuts. Authors should provide social and cultural context in the texts to avoid ambiguous or unidentified meanings.

Promoting language to be free from gender stereotypes should be the concern of all. It is necessary for material makers to represent the gender fairly in language materials to prevent language learners from absorbing gender misrepresentations. However, avoiding gender stereotypes in language can be challenging. One solution is using gender-free language (Mills, 2005, pp. 73–74); replacing Miss and Mrs. with Ms. would reduce sexist language in the teaching materials. The “Ms.” title to address both married and unmarried women is equivalent to the “Mr.” title for males since it does not show marital status. The replacement of male and female suffixes in occupational titles with person suffixes can also avoid language sexism. It is more neutral than perceiving a specific occupation as having masculine or feminine characteristics.

The importance of gender equality in learning materials has to be a particular concern in education. With regard to the classroom context, the teachers’ function to convey the content of the textbook may have the opportunity to control the textbook gender bias. In the same situation in relation to online learning platforms, special supervision from both parents or teachers is needed because each student can access such materials at home and learn independently without teacher supervision. Results of the study suggest that the authors or developers of teaching materials must consider the evidence from this research and build gender equality into the learning materials, especially in online learning platforms. It is the authors and material developers who choose the wording that indicates gender equality. It is also the authors and material developers who must consider the issue of gender equality in social context usages, such as in dialogues, speech bubbles, and visual materials. Further studies critically examining gender equality and bias as social values in ELT online learning material in the EFL context would help in furthering progress on this issue.

References

• Al-Qatawneh, S., & Al Rawashdeh, A. (2019). Gender representation in the Arabic language textbook for the ninth grade approved by the Ministry of Education for use in schools in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 90–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.001 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.001]
• Amini, M., & Birjandi, P. (2012). Gender bias in the Iranian high school EFL textbooks. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 134–147. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p134 [https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p134]
• Ariyanto, S. (2018). A portrait of gender bias in the prescribed Indonesian ELT textbook for junior high school students. Sexuality & Culture, 22(4), 1054–1076. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9512-8 [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9512-8]
• Beatty-Martínez, A. L., & Dussias, P. E. (2019). Revisiting masculine and feminine Grammatical gender in Spanish: Linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 751. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00751 [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00751]
• Booth, S., Goodman, S., & Kirkup, G. (Eds.). (2010). Gender issues in learning and working with information technology: Social constructs and cultural contexts. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-813-5 [https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-813-5]
• Breckenridge, J., Yang, T., & Poon, A. W. C. (2019). Is gender important? Victimisation and perpetration of intimate partner violence in mainland China. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(1), 31–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12572 [https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12572]
• Dahmardeh, M., & Kim, S.D. (2020). Gender representation in Iranian English language coursebooks: Is sexism still alive? English Today, 36(1), 12–22. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0266078419000117 [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078419000117]
• Giaschi, P. (2000). Gender positioning in education: A critical image analysis of ESL texts. TESL Canada Journal, 18(1), 32–46. [https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v18i1.898]
• Kristina, D. (2020). Analisis wacana dan pengajaranya. Jogyakarta, Indonesia: Pustaka Pelajar.
• Law, K. W. K., & Chan, A. H. N. (2004). Gender role stereotyping in Hong Kong’s primary school Chinese language subject textbooks. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 10(1), 49–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2004.11665965 [https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2004.11665965]
• Ldli, G., & Zhenzhou, Z. (2002). Children, gender, and language teaching materials. Chinese Education & Society, 35(5), 34–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-193 2350534 [https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932350534]
• Lee, J. F. K. (2014). A hidden curriculum in Japanese EFL textbooks: Gender representation. Linguistics and Education, 27, 39–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linge d.2014.07.002 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.07.002]
• Lee, J. F. K. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks – a corpus study. Gender and Education, 30(3), 379–395. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.201 6.1214690 [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1214690]
• Lee, J. F. K. (2019). In the pursuit of a gender-equal society: Do Japanese EFL textbooks play a role? Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 204–217. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1080/09589236.2018.1423956 [https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2018.1423956]
• Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2010). Construction of gender: A comparison of Australian and Hong Kong English language textbooks. Journal of Gender Studies, 19(2), 121–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09589231003695856 [https://doi.org/10.1080/09589231003695856]
• Lestariyana, R. P. D., Widodo, H. P., & Sulistiyo, U. (2020). Female Representation in Government-Mandated English Language Textbooks Used in Indonesian Junior High Schools. Sexuality & Culture, 24(4), 1150–1166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12119-020-09752-2 [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09752-2]
• Liu, J., & Wilson, D. (2001). Developing women in a digital world. Women in Management Review, 16(8), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420110411701 [https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420110411701]
• McConnell, A. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as Men and People: Effects of Gender-Marked Language. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1004–1013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962210003 [https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962210003]
• Meyer, E. J. (2010). Gender and sexual diversity in schools. New York, NY: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8559-7]
• Mills, S. (2005). Feminist Stylistics (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis e-Library.
• Mills, S. (2008). Language and Sexism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Nkosi, Z. P. (2013). Exploring gender stereotypes in secondary school literary texts. South African Journal of African Languages, 33(2), 133–142. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1080/02572117.2013.871453 [https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2013.871453]
• Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 25. doi:https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025 [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025]
• Stafford, L., & Kline, S. L. (1996). Women’s surnames and titles: Men’s and women’s views. Communication Research Reports, 13(2), 214–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08824099609362089 [https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099609362089]
• Wang, H. (2019). Stereotyped English language use and identity in Asian teaching assistants: A poststructuralist perspective. RELC Journal, 51(2), 294–308. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1177/0033688218815703 [https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218815703]
• Widodo, H. P. (2017). Situating moral and cultural values in ELT materials: The Southeast Asian context. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
• WNI, E. (2020, August 5). 15 Best Websites or Apps to Support Studying Online. Whats New Indonesia. Retrieved from https://whatsnewindonesia.com/best-websites-or-apps-to-support-studying- online/
• Yang, C. C. R. (2016). Are males and females still portrayed stereotypically? Visual analyses of gender in two Hong Kong primary English Language textbook series. Gender and Education, 28(5), 674–692. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1103839 [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1103839]