I. Awareness of the existence of stereotypical traits and behaviours presented by male and female students.

The question of whether teachers observe differences in the behaviour and functioning of boys and girls during lessons has been discussed extensively. Generally, teachers were aware of a number of differences that could be defined as stereotypical behaviour among male and female students. However, there was also a group among the surveyed teachers who declared that they did not observe such behaviour among the students. They declared that boys and girls worked similarly during the lessons, achieving neither better nor worse results in any of the subjects analysed. Any differences that did occur were most often explained as a matter of chance or personal predisposition. This group of teachers also declared that educational problems possibly occur in both boys and in girls and that it is in no way dependent on the gender of the student. Teachers argued that the gender gap is slowly blurring. Interestingly, they only gave examples of girls resembling boys and no examples of boys resembling girls.

A lot of girls who are… tomboys, we laugh often, that they can play football with boys (…) (T25)

Stereotypically feminine and masculine school subjects. The context of the division of fields of study into those “typical” for girls and boys appeared in almost every teacher’s statement. What the teachers’ declarations had in common was that girls were assigned preferences for and better skills in the humanities and boys in mathematics.

Identifying gender differences in this respect, teachers quickly passed over them, stating that ‘Girls, maybe more humanists, like to tell stories more. Women scientists are rare’ (T1). Girls were associated with people who have greater ease in expressing their feelings, which facilitates their studies in the humanities and gives them greater freedom: ‘However, girls are more attracted to literature, and boys, however, to science, mathematics and computer science’ (T6). The humanities were, in fact, indisputably associated with girls, who were considered to have higher reading skills and a greater ability to express themselves. Teachers noticed their greater level of participation in the lessons and remembered their high skill level, while boys were considered not to be interested in humanities. In the eyes of teachers, girls perceive the surrounding reality differently and see more, unlike boys, who strive for concise statements, without the need to talk about their own feelings. Boys distinguished by their humanistic achievements or who are interested in activities related to this field were considered exceptional.

In turn, mathematics was almost unanimously recognised as the domain of boys; however, in this case, teachers more often recognised that boys and girls work differently. At the same time, they declared that girls and boys ultimately achieve similar results. There was even the perception that after the end of primary school, ‘girls are afraid of these more technical areas. They are more artistic, they choose law or journalism, and boys prefer strictly technical subjects, computer science, automation, robotics and so on’ (T13).

Emotionality and relationships. Another area where teachers noticed gender differences was the emotional sphere of girls as opposed to boys’ rationalism. Girls were generally considered to be more ‘complicated’. This is a challenge for teachers, and it makes it difficult for girls to benefit fully from the educational process: ‘She can solve the task at a very good level when she is alone, and when she is in the classroom, she practically falls to a quite low level’ (T1). On the one hand, girls were capable of creating good, advanced ideas; on the other hand, they were still treated as immature by their parents. They experienced difficulties related to the regulation of emotions and the search for their own identity, with a strong need for a relationship with the teacher:

(…) in adolescence she rebelled so much, she began to look completely different, she manifested her personality with her appearance, and the teacher who took her over in junior high said that it was impossible to force her to do anything (T7).

A characteristic feature of female students was the strong need to be accepted by the group and by the opposite sex, which, as teachers emphasised, was accompanied by high, unregulated emotions. Sometimes girls were excluded from their peer group because of their excessive maturity or, on the contrary, their insufficiently developed social skills. Girls’ disputes often also concerned social relations, ‘expectations that I want to have an exclusive friend’ (T8), were highly emotional, and they ‘tease[d] each other more’ (T19).

Uncertainty and striving for perfection. Girlish behaviour was dominated by modesty and the need to be perfect. In the teachers’ opinion, the girls tended to undermine their own achievements and skills: for example, ‘when I praised her painting and said it was very good, she had such a feeling that “er, not at all” as if she thought that I was saying it only to it be nice’ (T8). When they achieved success, they seemed to be embarrassed and intimidated by this fact; they tried to explain it by the lack of competition or the low level of difficulty of the task. Girls were often perceived as insecure and withdrawn.

They had a strong need to confirm their abilities—‘usually (girls) ask for verification of their behaviour’ (T11); they often expected and asked for feedback, not being sure of the quality of their own ideas. On the other hand, they did not hesitate to ask for help, thanks to which they were able to verify possible errors in thinking faster. The uncertainty of their own abilities made the girls choose standard paths to solve tasks or problems—‘they check everything very meticulously, step by step’ (T3), usually following the instructions carefully, fearing to make a mistake. This was especially visible during maths lessons. An undoubted advantage of such a manner of working, referred to as ‘such hard work’ (T19), was, according to the teachers, the lower number of errors in the results. The diligence shown with respect to their work—also visible, for example, when taking notes,—made it easier to find information faster when necessary: ‘Girls always have everything nice, aesthetically arranged, everything as it should be’ (T1). The girls’ strategy for action, based on regularity, diligence and following a well-known pattern, worked well enough to achieve satisfactory school achievements and pass subsequent exams. Unfortunately, as the teachers pointed out, there were also disadvantages to the above-mentioned way of functioning. One of them was the disproportionate effort put into solving the tasks, sometimes resulting in ‘getting lost’ in the calculations:

The girls just get lost in it; they count and they count, and they don’t see the goal they want to reach. And boys present it graphically somewhat faster; girls are less able to cope with it (T15).

The teachers also pointed to another disadvantage of the tendency to follow a pattern, which was avoiding combining. This, in turn, led to more frequent abandonment of answers by girls who were not sure: ‘girls give up faster. They say: “I couldn’t do it”, and they skip this task’ (T23).

Rationality and the need for agency. The functioning of boys, on the other hand, was dominated by rational elements, manifested in various areas. They were straightforward in action, which also translated into the ability to make decisions efficiently, and they were characterised by pragmatism of action, which was especially visible when carrying out specific commands. They preferred activities that ensured the simplest path, ‘as short as possible, by a short path and to the goal’ (T1), preferably devoid of emotional charge. The teachers emphasised a strong need for agency in boys, which was manifested, inter alia, by their ability to act outside the usual pattern. Male students were more likely to avoid writing down series of mathematical calculations, preferring shortcuts and counting in their mind. It was important for them to get the correct result in the shortest possible way: ‘They would tell me: why write it down? You can calculate it in your head’ (T3). Although this feature hindered the didactic process—‘this is their disadvantage, but in turn they have better ideas’ (T3)—it also led to the development of boys’ ability to create unusual, creative solutions to problems. Teachers often emphasised male students’ non-stereotypical thinking skills—‘boys always have a thousand ideas’ (T7); ‘they are up to something more often and it helps them more often’ (T23)—especially in maths lessons.

On the other hand, in Polish language lessons, the boys’ shortcuts did not work so well. Teachers emphasised the reluctance of male students to write essays in which the imagination or reading knowledge should be used: ‘there are no unnecessary sentences or words there’ (T25). According to teachers, boys more often declared their reluctance to learn the Polish language, arguing that with the lack of ideas for written works, they saw no sense in it, ‘because for them it (brief statement) is good and everything is needed quickly, briefly, concisely and to the point’ (T14). The desire to achieve a result quickly made the written forms they created short, specific and sometimes even sterile, which translated into lower results. Boys were much more frequently characterised by a lack of systematic and disciplined learning. In teachers’ opinions, they often had great intellectual potential but used it very little, neglecting learning if it required greater effort from them. Therefore, more often than girls, they took advantage of compensatory classes, and they were also more likely to suffer from dyslexic disorders. According to teachers, their careless attitude was present not only during the lessons when carrying out tasks but also at the stage of preparing for the lesson or supplying the necessary materials.

It follows from the above opinion that the boys were rarely “good pupils” who were always prepared for lessons. And if they were, they were usually rejected by their peer group or were disliked. Too much participation during classes, high achievement or interest in learning did not go hand in hand with acceptance by a group of male peers. However, attitudes proving boyish resistance to the applicable rules and a willingness to skip school requirements were far more frequent: ‘boys want less, prefer someone to get things done, someone replies, and they somehow survive on the girls’ backs until the break’ (T5). The necessary tasks, if any, were performed at the last possible date and followed the path of least resistance, in teachers’ judgement.

Leadership and domination. According to teachers, boyish rationality also manifested in the acceptance of the social order, which functioned very efficiently; they had a strong need for leadership. In a group of boys, there is usually a leader who is accepted by peers, and usually his ideas are implemented. Teachers emphasised that the disputes arising among boys, their high ambitions and tendencies to compete with each other did not affect the sense of solidarity and the ability to function in a group.

One of the symptoms of dominance among boys is the more frequent tendency to resolve conflicts through physical violence. The teachers took it for granted, giving it a kind of silent consent: ‘when it comes to bullying, yeah, guys know they fight’ (T19). The teachers also emphasised that ‘there is a gender division in this area because there is no physical violence (…) when it comes to girls’ (T19). Characteristic in teachers’ opinions was the rebellious behaviour of male students, which was observed much more often than similar behaviour among female students: ‘boys at some point rebel more than girls’ (T8). The rebellious behaviour most often described concerned a reluctance to comply with the existing educational rules or questioning the legitimacy of performing tasks related to the topic of the lesson: for example, ‘he just comes and demonstrates I will not write, I will not do, I will not read, everything is stupid and so on’ (T25). According to the teachers, non-conformism, typical of boys, was troublesome because on the one hand it made it difficult for the teacher to conduct lessons and for students to learn, and on the other hand, teachers incurred high emotional costs when trying to respond to it. Interestingly, teachers repeated many times that the boys described as the worst rascals were ultimately liked by them: ‘that rascal of mine came to hug me. Just when they handed me flowers, it was so nice’ (T8).

II. Identification of the causes of gender-stereotyped behaviour.

A small number of teachers experienced difficulties in identifying possible reasons for the behaviour manifested by girls and boys. However, in the statements of most teachers, two main areas of causes can be noticed.

Biological / psychological factors. Among biological factors, teachers look for causes in the different brain functions of girls and boys, the different course of their adolescence, temperamental differences and differences related to motor activities.

I recently read a great book called Gender of the Brain and there is some information about it. Even though we will bring up a boy and a girl in the same way, the differences will be somewhere due to the structure of the brain (T5).

A woman thinks in a complex way. Why? What for? And the guy already knows: that’s how it should be and that’s it. (T7).

Social factors. Among the social factors mentioned by scientists that may affect the behaviour of male and female students, the influence of electronic media and mass media, the influence of early school education, traditional upbringing in the family and, more broadly, stereotypes rooted in culture are mentioned. It is worth pointing to the fact that only a small group showed awareness of the impact of their own stereotypical beliefs on the actions taken (which corresponded to the low popularity of the belief that the reasons for differences observed in the behaviour of boys and girls are, among others, ingrained and culturally transferred gender stereotypes). However, a few people pointed out this important aspect, self-awareness, and that no one is free from stereotypes and that in order not to treat schoolgirls and students stereotypically, constant self-reflection is necessary:

Well, today I said to one boy during the lesson: ‘My God, how are you scribbling! Look, you write like a doctor with twenty-five years of experience’. And now I think I said stereotypically that a doctor’s scribble and prescription cannot be read. So it slipped out, I realised it today (T18).

III. Strategies undertaken in response to boys’ and girls’ stereotypical behaviour.

Only one person did not take any action to deal with the differences in the behaviour of boys and girls. The rest made various efforts and had strategies in response to the perceived differences in youths’ behaviour.

Conversations about stereotypes. Teachers mentioned strategies consisting of talking about stereotypes, encouraging boys and girls to go beyond schematic thinking and acting, and taking actions to eliminate the influence of stereotypes by universalising the experience of boys and girls as humanistic (with reference to social diversity). One of the most popular ways of dealing with differences in the behaviour of female and male students was talking about stereotypes, which appeared more often in humanities, in relation to the content of the curriculum:

When we discuss ‘Ballads and Romances’ for the first time and talk about the ideal of a woman, described as an angel, gentle and fragile, the girls are outraged: ’How come?’ And this is also a field of discussion about the fact that women have had rights for a little over a hundred years. Then I say: ’Girls, see what your great-grandmothers had to do’ (T8).

The examples given by teachers, however, focused on social changes and the achievements of women’s emancipation, as if ignoring the fact that stereotypes exist every day and we can observe them in the classroom. The lack of this connection made young people recognise the phenomenon of stereotyping as a concept that does not concern them directly because it relates to how it used to be and how it is in today’s adult world. In reference to the equality of women’s and men’s rights, which appeared in the context of discussing the causes of girls’ and boys’ different behaviour, the dominant message was that equal treatment means being treated in the same way (a reference to the outdated concept of equality rather than equity). The lack of reaction on the part of teachers to such an intuitive understanding of the concept of gender equality was noticeable.

Encourage going beyond the box. Another strategy was to encourage non-stereotypical behaviour and going beyond the well-established patterns of action within the behaviour stereotypically assigned to a specific gender. This happened both in response to specific behaviours in school or class and during conversations:

I try to persuade girls all the time to be more go-getting because they really do sometimes have a task well calculated but do not come forward with a well-solved task at all (T3).

In the examples and ways of coping that the teachers spoke about in the interviews, the key was the lack of reference to the functioning gender stereotypes as a possible cause of the observed behaviours. The teachers did not refer to this fact, with consequences for their actions, which focused on individual coping strategies for, for example, shyness in girls or careless handwriting in boys. Sometimes the chosen strategies, although well intentioned, seemed controversial to say the least, as they could potentially backfire or lead to even greater antagonism between boys and girls:

I ask the boys not to say anything at all. For example, when you need to run a maths app on their smartphones (…) I say, ’if anyone says anything, he’ll get a negative assessment right away’, and then I encourage the girls by asking which one will do it first (T3).

This is actually part of a strategy for apparent elimination of stereotypes, which focused on showing the same opportunities for boys and girls and not on differentiating behaviours or the requirements for them. The activities of teachers focused on showing social diversity, including that resulting from gender, but they did not take into account the existing stereotypes and the costs of the social non-conformity related to them as incurred by people who did not fit into gender stereotypes. Among the strategies, it was relatively popular to provide good examples (so-called role models) to show that it is possible to break gender stereotypes. This strategy was used both in the context of recalling historical figures to show a non-male perspective and overcome male domination in science and by referring to the teachers’ own examples:

First of all, I always tell them (the girls) that I am an engineer, so I also finished my technical studies; I made it. They can do it too. I tell them not to be afraid of it (T3).

This strategy can be effective, assuming that the selected examples are not simply tokenism [76]—i.e. exposing a person from a minority or disadvantaged group, which is supposed to prove equal status and in fact does not translate into a real change. The mere indication that there are women who do not fit the stereotypical image is definitely not enough to break the stereotypical perception of gender.

Summing up, it is worth appreciating the teachers’ commitment and good intentions aimed at equal (in the sense of fair) treatment of boys and girls and the attempts to counteract the effects of social stereotyping of gender described by some teachers. However, it is hard not to notice that the described ways of dealing with situations where teachers identified a problem did not take place in a way in which the situation was openly named (referring to gender stereotypes), which would have allowed the vicious circle of stereotypes and the self-fulfilling prophecy mentioned in the theoretical framework to be broken.

Teachers’ actions strengthening gender stereotypes. It happened that the surveyed teachers were so attached to the ‘delicate’ image of girls that they hardly accepted their behaviour that deviated from the customary belief:

I don’t remember any more whether any girl said she watched a nice romance or something, even with the older ones. Only The Witcher, Game of Thrones or James Bond is what everyone watches. (T25)

This also occurred in terms of clothing, which, as they observed with dissatisfaction, tended towards unification. The image was even associated with difficulty in accepting a pattern of behaviour that differed from the current one with respect to one’s own children. Forcing students into stereotypical roles also appeared in statements about them—for example, through quasi humorous phrases addressed to boys: ‘a bunch of rascals, as I say to them’ (T7). During the lessons, teachers declared that they tried to place students in groups based on their skills, but more often they declared that students decided how to arrange the teams. The choice of students was most often based on being the same gender.

Leaving students free to choose a group for work can strengthen gender polarisation, limiting the ability to develop skills in both girls and boys. Sometimes this situation is even exacerbated by giving children different tasks for each gender. When working in groups, for example, teachers offered girls reading topics that described only female characters while boys were given male characters. It is significant that several statements referred to the household in its traditional sense. Speaking of schoolgirls, teachers referred to roles that over the years have only been assigned to women: ‘These girls are not too girly, I would say. None of them knit, none of them sew any clothes, but that’s just the way it is’ (T25). Convinced that they work for the benefit of students, they often referred to stereotypical gender roles fulfilled by adults:

Girls give up a lot. For example, I say to a girl: try, you will also have to cope at home. If you don’t find what you have in the recipe, maybe you will use a replacement sometimes, right? I encourage them to be open (…) (T23).

The respondents’ statements also mentioned the stereotypical perception of girls as weaker. According to the teachers, they should be organised and cautious: ‘For example, my youngest daughter, I also have to keep reminding her about everything because she, for example, will forget her sports outfit. And someone might say, "What a girl she is, always forgetting something”‘ (T10). The only feature that distinguished girls was their beauty: ‘I always tell her (the female student), “You are so beautiful”‘ (T23).

IV. Awareness of gender bias in textbooks.

Lack of awareness of the existence of stereotypical content. Most of the surveyed teachers did not pay attention to the way in which femininity and masculinity are presented in textbooks and also concluded that they had never considered such content deeply. In their statements, however, one can notice internalised and partially unconscious gender stereotypes:

I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed anything like that. As for the content of the task, I don’t know—strong boys and here weak girls. Honestly, no, I didn’t notice (T22).

Most often, teachers declared that the division of roles was addressed in the educational content, defining it as a ‘partnership’, and that the textbooks did not show attachment to the traditional image of roles considered female and male. They seem to have completely missed the way in which the subject was presented. In the interviews, there were also statements that testified to the deepening of stereotypes by teachers who assumed in advance which school reading would be more appropriate for boys and which for girls.

Underestimating gender stereotypes. It often happened that teachers downplayed the stereotypical approach to male and female roles in school literature. Sometimes they justified the gender roles attributed with reference to cultural and historical heritage. Thus, they deepened the ‘traditional’ view of the behaviours and activities attributed to girls and boys. It also happened that teachers justified the stereotypical approach to gender in textbooks by the need to convey the content properly: ‘Because it’s so hard to say that Pawel was buying a dress’ (T7). Some of them downplayed and even deepened the mentioned approach by treating it carelessly and mockingly:

In one task, we laughed, because of course it was about losing weight. And a woman was losing weight, and that poor woman couldn’t lose weight. But in fact, there is no task about men losing weight (T19).

Despite the fact that the teachers often saw gender polarisation in the texts, they did not attach any importance to it, focusing only on the mathematical content. The Polish language teachers, on the other hand, if they saw differences in the presentation of gender roles in students’ reading books, had a stereotypical approach to students’ reading preferences.

Noticing gender stereotypes. Very rarely there were statements that proved teachers’ awareness of the existence of stereotypical content. Moreover, gender polarisation in school reading books was definitely noticed more often by the Polish language teachers. The vast majority of teachers’ statements concerned the presentation of girls and women and even their lack of their performance in school reading books. The respondents noticed that boys or men were almost always the heroes in books. It often happened that only male characters were discussed in lessons. Teachers sometimes tried to break this trend by also focusing students’ attention on these rarely appearing female historical heroes:

Emilia Plater, who died in defence of her homeland, and there are a few such heroines who really should be talked about (T16).

The surveyed teachers also pointed out that if female characters appeared in books, they were usually of little significance or required male help. The conversation during the interview also prompted the respondents to think more deeply about some issues regarding the approach to male and female roles. There were times when the teacher made a decision to pay more attention to these matters.

Seeing non-traditional representations of gender. Few—in fact, only two statements—showed that the non-stereotypical perception of gender roles was noticed in textbooks:

There is an interesting text in fourth grade: Dad cooks, cleans and looks a bit like mommy because he has a braid and so on. But he cooks best when mum goes to the pool. Dad cooks and looks after the baby (…) So somewhere here is the beginning of this detachment from the stereotype (T12).

More often, however, teachers noticed non-stereotypical content but they were not fully convinced about its importance and significance. They seem to have educated themselves through the writing in textbooks.