Content uploaded by Frank Asbrock
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank Asbrock on Aug 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Michael can’t read!”—Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes and Boys’ Reading Self-Concept
Jan Retelsdorf
Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany
Katja Schwartz
University of Kiel, Germany
Frank Asbrock
Philipps University Marburg, Germany
In press in
Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI: 10.1037/a0037107
This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jan Retelsdorf, Leibniz Institute for
Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstr. 62, D-24118 Kiel, Germany. Tel.: +49
431 8803077; fax: +49 431 8805242. E-mail address: jretelsdorf@ipn.uni-kiel.de.
The research reported in this article is part of the project “Self-concept, Motivation, and
Literacy: Development of Student Reading Behavior”, directed by Jens Möller (Christian-
Albrechts-University of Kiel). The project was funded by the German Research Foundation
(DFG; Mo 648/15-1/15-3). We would like to thank Stephen McLaren for his editorial support
during preparation of this manuscript.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 2
Abstract
According to expectancy-value theory, the gender stereotypes of significant others such as
parents, peers or teachers affect students’ competence beliefs, values, and achievement-related
behavior. Stereotypically, gender beliefs about reading favor girls. The aim of this study was
to investigate whether teachers’ gender stereotype in relation to reading—their belief that girls
outperform boys—has a negative effect on the reading self-concept of boys, but not girls. We
drew on a longitudinal study comprising two occasions of data collection: toward the
beginning of grade 5 (T1) and in the second half of grade 6 (T2). Our sample consisted of 54
teachers and 1,358 students. Using multilevel modeling, controlling for T1 reading self-
concept, reading achievement, and school track, a negative association between teachers’
gender stereotype at T1 and boys’ reading self-concept at T2 was recorded, as expected. For
girls this association did not yield a significant result. Thus, our results provide empirical
support for the idea that gender differences in self-concept, may be due to the stereotypical
beliefs of teachers as significant others. In concluding, we discuss what teachers can do to
counteract the effects of their own gender stereotypes.
Keywords: gender stereotypes; reading self-concept
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 3
“Michael can’t read!”—Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes and Boys’ Reading Self-Concept
Gender differences in students’ academic self-concepts often exceed differences in actual
achievement (Hyde & Durik, 2005). Drawing on expectancy-value theory (e.g., Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) one compelling explanation of this discrepancy is
that self-concepts develop, inter alia, as a function of the gender beliefs or stereotypes of
significant others such as parents, peers, or teachers. Stereotypes are very powerful in
shaping biased expectations of and behaviors toward groups, especially in regard to broad
categories like gender (Schneider, 2004). Such expectations and behaviors can in turn affect
the self-concept of members of the stereotyped group. This is in line with the assumption of
social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) that widely-held stereotypes about social groups
can influence a person’s view of her- or himself. People derive their identity in part from the
social group they belong to and therefore from socially shared beliefs about their group’s
characteristics (cf. Tajfel, 1981). For example, girls may develop a positive verbal self-
concept due in part to their knowledge of the social belief that girls and women are good at
language-related tasks. Regarding educational outcomes and gender, the question as to which
group is negatively stereotyped, depends on the domain (Plante, De la Sablonnière, Aronson,
& Théorêt, 2013). Whereas there has been some research on the negative effects of
stereotyping for girls in mathematics (see e.g., Nguyen & Ryan, 2008 for a review), little is
known about the negative effects of stereotypes for boys in reading. In this longitudinal
study, we aimed to investigate the relation of teachers’ gender stereotypes about reading as a
stereotypically female academic outcome (Schmenk, 2004) to students’ self-concept in
reading. There has as yet not been much research testing the assumption of expectancy-value
theory, that teachers’ gender stereotypes may explain gender differences in students’ reading
self-concept.
Gender Differences in the Development of Language-Related Self-Concepts
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 4
Gender is believed to play an important role in shaping students’ ability self-concepts
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Meece, Bower Glienke, & Burg, 2006; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Since ability self-concepts are highly domain specific (Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, &
Baumert, 2006; Möller, Retelsdorf, Köller, & Marsh, 2011) the question as to which gender is
advantaged and which disadvantaged, depends of course on the particular domain. Typically,
ability self-concept is higher for the gender that is stereotypically favored in a particular
domain (Watt & Eccles, 2008). Thus, boys are believed to have higher mathematics and
related self-concepts, and girls to have higher language-related self-concepts. Indeed, there is
compelling evidence that girls report higher confidence in their language abilities than do
boys (Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Ireson &
Hallam, 2009; Wigfield et al., 1997) although not all studies have found such differences
(Anderman et al., 2001; Evans, Copping, Rowley, & Kurtz-Costes, 2011; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2004). Moreover, there is even some evidence from longitudinal studies that these
gender differences increase over time. Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, and Wigfield (2002)
reported such a widening gap between girls’ and boys’ language-related self-concept from
grades 1 to 12. In another longitudinal study, Archambault, Eccles, and Vida (2010)
identified seven groups of children with distinct trajectories of language-related self-concept.
They found a higher proportion of girls maintained the highest and most stable self-concepts
over time; conversely a higher proportion of boys indicated substantial self-concept decline.
These results also indicated an increasing gender difference over time. It is also noteworthy,
however, that self-concepts decline for both boys and girls over time. Thus, the widening
gender gap would appear to be a result of the steeper decline within the group of boys.
A promising approach to the explanation of gender differences in self-concept is
provided by Eccles’ expectancy-value theory of achievement-related choices (e.g., Eccles et
al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This theory, which provides a
general model for the explanation of achievement-related choices and behaviors, has a
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 5
particular focus on the understanding of gender differences. The model deals with the
question, under which circumstances a person will undertake a challenging achievement task.
This is explained in terms of high value of the task and high expectation of success.
Moreover, the model also provides a valuable framework for the explanation of gender
differences in ability self-concepts that are closely related to one core variable of the model—
expectation of success. According to expectancy-value theory, a person’s self-concept is
shaped not only by his or her previous achievement, but also by a variety of social and
cultural factors. These factors comprise cultural gender roles that prescribe certain behaviors
as appropriate or inappropriate for males or females, as well as gender stereotypes. Moreover,
the behaviors and beliefs of significant others, such as peers, parents, and teachers play an
important role in shaping students’ self-concepts. In the present research, we focused on the
role of teachers, as there is some evidence that teachers can contribute to the gender gap. For
example, they may pay more attention to boys than to girls (DeZolt & Hull, 2001) and
communicate overall more with boys than with girls—in particular, approving boys’
academic behavior and disapproving their social behavior more frequently (Swinson &
Harrop, 2009). However, there has been little research directly connecting teachers’ gender
beliefs with student outcomes. The present research addresses this lacuna by investigating the
effect of teachers’ gender stereotypes about reading on students’ self-concepts.
Gender Stereotypes in Education
Stereotypes can be broadly defined as “shared beliefs about personality traits and
behaviors of group members” (Fiedler & Bless, 2001, p. 123). Stereotyping results from
categorizing individuals into groups, according to their presumed common attributes. While
stereotypes can function as cognitive schemas to facilitate social interactions with unknown
individuals, as overgeneralizations of traits for a group in general, they also shape
expectations and behaviors. Consensually shared stereotypes within a culture can serve as
social norms for behavior toward the stereotyped group (e.g., Asbrock, Nieuwoudt, Duckitt,
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 6
& Sibley, 2011; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). In respect of gender, the two groups, males
and females, are presumed to differ in their traits, abilities, and motivation (cf. Schmenk,
2004). The latter two are of particular interest in education while, as mentioned above,
stereotypes depend on the particular domain that is being considered. Research investigating
gender stereotypes in the educational context has mainly focused on stereotype threat—a
phenomenon describing how stereotypes can become self-fulfilling in a particular situation
(Aronson & Steele, 2005; Steele, 1997). Stereotype threat means a situational threat due to a
negative stereotype about one’s own group (Steele, 1997). In the educational context,
stereotyped persons will feel extra pressure not to fail in a situation where academic
competence is relevant. Regarding gender, there is quite strong evidence—mainly from
experimental research—for the negative impact of stereotype threat on the performance of
girls or women in mathematics tests (e.g., Nguyen & Ryan, 2008 for a review). Moreover, in
a recent study Hartley and Sutton (2013) investigate the role of stereotype threat in boys’
general academic underachievement. In one study, they show that girls and boys believed
that girls academically outperform boys, and also thought that adults believed this. In a
second study, they manipulate stereotype threat by telling the children in their sample that
boys tend to perform lower than girls at school. This manipulation negatively affected the
boys’ performance in reading, writing, and mathematics but had no effect on girls’
performance.
Moreover, Plante et al. (2013) have investigated students’ own gender stereotypes and
their associations with self-concept, task values, and achievement in a naturalistic setting.
They tested the hypothesis from expectancy-value theory (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) that
the relationship between gender stereotypes and academic outcomes is mediated by students’
self-concepts and task values in the corresponding domain. In their cross-sectional study they
found that effects of gender stereotypes on achievement in mathematics and language arts
were mediated by students’ self-concepts and task values. However, Plante et al. (2013) only
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 7
investigated the students’ own stereotypes. Thus, the idea of expectancy-value theory, that
the gender beliefs of significant others affect students’ self-concept development, could not be
tested. Generally, this is an under-researched issue. Even though stereotypes have been a
“hot topic” in general, as Jussim, Eccles, and Madon (1996) realize, only a few studies have
investigated the effects of stereotypes of significant others in more naturalistic settings. To
the best of our knowledge, there has not been much development in the research since this
conclusion was drawn. One notable exception is research showing that parents’ stereotypic
beliefs affect children’s perceptions of their ability. For example, Jacobs and Eccles (1992)
have shown that across three domains—mathematics, sports, and social domain—mothers’
gender stereotypes either lead to an overestimated perception of their child’s ability, if the
child is stereotypically favored, or to an underestimation of their child’s ability, if the child is
stereotypically disadvantaged. In turn, the mothers’ perceptions of their child’s ability affect
the children’s own perception of their ability. Similarly, Tiedemann (2000) found that
mothers’ and fathers’ gender stereotypes predicted their beliefs about their child's abilities,
which in turn were related to their child’s self-perceptions of ability. More recently, Rouland,
Rowley, and Kurtz-Costes (2013) found that parents’ gender stereotypes were related to their
attributions for their children’s academic successes and failures that in turn were related to the
children’s own self-beliefs.
However, less is known about the effects of stereotypes in other groups of significant
others. In the educational context, of course, one of the most important groups is that of
teachers, because they interact with children on a daily basis, instruct them, judge them,
and—as a consequence—develop evaluations of the children’s cognitive and social
development and long-term career prospects. Indeed, there has been a vast amount of
research on the related issue of teacher expectations for low- and high-achieving students (for
a review see Jussim & Harber, 2005). While there has been some research on student gender
as a potential moderator of teacher expectation effects (e.g., de Boer, Bosker, & van der Werf,
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 8
2010), there are less studies on teachers’ explicit beliefs about boys’ and girls’ different
domain specific abilities. Such beliefs, however, may have significant consequences on
students’ outcomes. Teachers acting upon gender stereotypes could—consciously or
unconsciously—shape social interactions in class by, for example, creating a warm and
challenging atmosphere for students from positively stereotyped groups and a cold and less
challenging environment for students from negatively stereotyped groups (Aronson & Steele,
2005). Moreover, in one of the few studies on teachers’ explicit gender stereotypes
Tiedemann (2002) found that they are related to the teachers’ beliefs about effort and ability
in mathematics. Effects on student outcomes, however, have not been investigated in that
study.
In research into the effects of teachers’ gender stereotypes, one should be aware of the
particular age of the students participating in the investigation. There is some research
showing that with increasing age, children become more and more aware of widely-held
stereotypes (Martinot, Bagès, & Désert, 2012; McKown & Weinstein, 2003) and are more
likely to endorse traditional stereotypes themselves (Rowley, Kurtz-Costes, Mistry, &
Feagans, 2007). Even more important, in relation to the present research, is that students in
late childhood or early adolescence become more and more aware of other persons’
stereotypes. In a study by Kurtz-Costes, Rowley, Harris-Britt, and Woods (2008), for
example, middle school children seemed to be more aware of adult stereotypes than were
elementary school children. Thus, even though teachers may, of course, shape students’ self-
concepts at a young age, the focus of the present research on investigating the effects of
teacher stereotypes in late childhood seemed appropriate.
The Present Investigation
Drawing on the idea that the gender-related beliefs and actions of significant others
such as peers, parents, and teachers may affect the development of students’ academic self-
concept (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), we aimed to investigate
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 9
the relation of teachers’ gender stereotypes to students’ reading self-concept. We followed a
longitudinal design with two waves of data collection. Our study went beyond previous
research, as we investigated the consequences of teachers’ explicit gender beliefs for the
development of reading self-concept as a relatively stable personal characteristic. We
analyzed the effect of teachers’ stereotypes on reading self-concept over and above previous
reading achievement. This is important, because it is obvious that prior academic
achievement is influential in the formation of subsequent self-concept (Shavelson, Hubner, &
Stanton, 1976); this is also true in the domain of reading (Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2014).
Moreover, to account for the possible influence of ability-grouping on students’ self-concept
(e.g., Marsh et al., 2008) we included the aggregated between-level achievement and reading
self-concept as well as school track into our data analysis. In Germany, after elementary
school, students are assigned to different types of school; these aim to prepare students either
for a vocational apprenticeship (non-academic track schools) or for university entrance
(academic track schools).
Since gender beliefs about reading stereotypically favor girls (Plante et al., 2013;
Schmenk, 2004), we expected that the negative gender stereotypes of boys’ reading abilities
would affect their reading self-concept. For girls, however, the expectations were less clear.
On the one hand, there is evidence that even positive stereotypes can have negative effects,
because high expectations may lead to so-called “choking under pressure”, which results in
lower performance (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000). On the other hand, girls’ reading self-
concepts are quite positive (Archambault et al., 2010) and the effects of stereotypes are
generally expected to be rather small, so that a significant effect of teachers’ gender
stereotype on girls’ reading self-concept was not expected.
Method
Sample and Procedure
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 10
Our sample stemmed from the larger longitudinal project LISA (in the German:
“Lesen in der Sekundarstufe” [Reading in secondary school]), which mainly deals with the
individual and contextual determinants of reading comprehension (e.g., Retelsdorf, Becker,
Köller, & Möller, 2012; Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2011). This study drew on a sample of
N = 1,508 secondary school students from 60 classes, drawn as representative of the federal
state of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Data collection was performed by trained research
students and took place as group tests, carried out in class during regular lessons. The student
questionnaire including the reading self-concept measure and the reading achievement tests
was administered toward the beginning of grade 5, a few weeks after the beginning of the
school year (T1) and again after an interval of approximately 18 months, in the second half of
grade 6 (T2). Moreover, within 14 days of the data collection among the students at T1 all 60
German language teachers were asked to work on a teacher questionnaire including the items
measuring their gender stereotypes; N = 54 teachers answered (66 % female). Thereby, it is
the established practice in secondary school that teachers usually change only every two
years. In this study, only those students were included for whom teacher data also were
available; this reduced the sample to n = 1,358 students (49 % girls; girls’ age at T1: M =
10.96, SD = 0.61; boys’ age at T1: M = 10.82, SD = 0.51; 36 % at academic track schools).
Applying t-tests for reading achievement and reading self-concept and χ²-tests for students’
gender, we tested whether the excluded students differed in the study variables from the
included students. None of these tests yielded significant results (p ≥ .135).
Measures
Reading Self-Concept
We assessed reading self-concept with a subscale from the ‘Habitual Reading
Motivation Questionnaire’ (Möller & Bonerad, 2007) that comprises four items measuring
students’ evaluations of their own reading skills. Thus, the self-concept items refer to the
comprehension of texts rather than to more basic reading skills (e.g., “Generally,
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 11
understanding texts is easy for me.”). Students rated their agreement with each item on a 4-
point Likert-type scale anchored at 1 (“does not apply to me”) and 4 (“applies to me”).
Cronbach’s α measures were sufficient at both waves of data collection (αT1 = .74, αT2 = .75).
Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes
Teachers at T1 were asked to answer three questions measuring their gender
stereotypes about reading. They were asked if boys or girls read better, read more, and have
more fun reading. Each answer was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, anchored at “boys
much better/more” (1) and “girls much better/more” (5). The reliability of the scale was good
(α = .87).
Reading Achievement
In this study, we used reading comprehension tests from the German section of the
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (Bos et al., 2005). The students’ task was to
read several texts and answer questions on the texts’ content. The questions mainly focused
on students’ skills in forming a broad and general understanding of the texts and in retrieving
information from the texts. The test comprised of 27 items—mainly multiple-choice items
with four possible answers, but some open-format questions have also been included. The
item parameters were estimated by applying the partial credit model, because some items
were scored polytomously. We estimated weighted likelihood estimates (WLE) as subjects’
ability scores using ConQuest (Wu, Adams, & Wilson, 1998). The WLE-reliability of the
reading tests was sufficient (.82).
Statistical Analyses
We analyzed the association between teachers’ gender stereotypes and students’ self-
concept by means of multiple group multilevel modeling, using Mplus 7.1 (Muthén &
Muthén, 2013). Thereby, every teacher taught one class in our sample so that between-
teacher and between-class effects are the same. Reading self-concept at T1, reading
achievement, and teachers’ gender stereotype were standardized (M = 0, SD = 1). Reading
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 12
self-concept at T2 was standardized at the T1 mean and standard deviation of reading self-
concept. To test our assumption that teachers’ gender stereotypes affect boys’ but not girls’
self-concept, we specified a multiple group model with gender as a grouping variable. Since
every teacher, however, teaches boys and girls, we had to deal with the situation that the
grouping variable was within-level. Thus, within each cluster there could be varying random
effects for boys and girls that cannot be directly specified as multiple group multilevel
models. Asparouhov and Muthén (2012) have suggested introducing latent variables that
represent this variation in between-level random effects. This approach also allows proper
accounting for the covariance between the two group specific cluster effects. We tested a
series of models predicting reading self-concept at T2 using this approach. In the first model,
we included reading self-concept at T1 and teachers’ gender stereotypes as predictors. In the
second model, we additionally controlled for students’ reading achievement at T1. Third, we
additionally included aggregated scores of reading self-concept and reading achievement at
T1, and school track as between-level covariates. The aggregated data were not standardized
again at between level.
We evaluated effect sizes to facilitate the interpretation of our results, following
Tymm’s proposal (2004) for calculating effect sizes in multilevel models. The effect size Δ
can be interpreted similarly to Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988), and is calculated using the
unstandardized regression coefficient in the multilevel model, the standard deviation of the
predictor variable at between level, and the residual standard deviation at within level.
Due to missing data we used multiple imputed data in all analyses as a state-of-the-art
approach to address this problem (cf. Graham, 2009). On average, 11 % of the data per
variable were missing. Multiple imputation was applied to create m = 20 complete data sets
using Mplus 7.1 (see Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath, 2007 for a discussion on the sufficient
number of imputations). All subsequent analyses were then conducted 20 times, and the
results were combined automatically in Mplus.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 13
Results
Descriptive Statistics
As presented in Table 1, students’ reading self-concept was above the theoretical mean
of 2.5 at T1 and T2, indicating that students were quite confident in their reading skills.
Moreover, boys had a higher reading self-concept than girls at T1, whereas girls had a higher
reading self-concept than boys at T2. However, none of these differences yielded significance
in a Wald chi-square test: χ²(1) ≤ 3.714, p ≥ .054. Girls also gained higher reading achievement
scores at T1. Finally, the relatively high score of teachers’ gender stereotypes indicated that
on average, the teachers believed that girls had higher reading abilities than boys.
Multilevel Analyses
We estimated the intraclass correlation (ICC) for reading self-concept at T2 testing the
proportion of total variance that can be attributed to between-class differences resulting in an
ICC of .114. Thus, with more than 10 % a substantial amount of the variance in reading self-
concept goes back to differences between classes.
The results of our multiple group multilevel analyses are presented in Table 2. First,
we tested a model (Model 1) in which reading self-concept at T1 was included as a within-
level predictor and teachers’ gender stereotype as a between-level predictor of reading self-
concept at T2. For boys and girls, reading self-concept proved to be a significant predictor;
thus indicating a certain stability of reading self-concept. Moreover, as expected, a significant
negative effect of teachers’ gender stereotypes on students’ reading self-concept was recorded
for boys but not for girls (effect sizes: Δboys = -.28, Δgirls = -.01). The difference between boys
and girls was tested by applying a Wald chi-square test, which indicated that the association
between teachers’ gender stereotype and reading self-concept was significantly stronger for
boys than for girls (χ² = 11.05, df = 1, p < .001). In Model 2 we additionally included reading
achievement at T1 as a within-level predictor; this also proved to be a significant predictor of
reading self-concept at T2. The effect of reading self-concept at T1 was still significant, but
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 14
slightly smaller than in Model 1. Moreover, the negative effect of teachers’ gender stereotype
was again recorded for boys but not for girls (effect sizes: Δboys = -.25, Δgirls = -.03). Again,
this difference was significant (χ² = 6.10, df = 1, p < .05). Finally, we tested a third model
(Model 3), in which we additionally included aggregate scores of reading achievement at T1
and reading self-concept at T1 and school track as between-level covariates. None of these
additional variables yielded significance. Moreover, the effects of the within-level predictors
and teachers’ gender stereotype were similar to those in Model 2 (effect sizes: Δboys = -.23,
Δgirls = -.04). The Wald chi-square test comparing the effect of teachers’ gender stereotype
between boys and girls, again was significant (χ² = 3.94, df = 1, p < .05).
To illustrate the differential associations between teachers’ gender stereotypes and
students’ reading self-concept, simple slopes were plotted for the results of Model 2 for boys
and for girls (Figure 1). We chose this model because the additional predictors in Model 3
did not contribute to the prediction of reading self-concept at T2. Therefore, we understand
Model 2 to be the most relevant model; it also meets the claim of parsimony. The simple
slope analysis for Model 3, however, resulted in a similar pattern. Stronger gender
stereotypes—such as, that teachers believe that girls outperform boys in reading—are
associated with boys’ lower reading self-concept, whereas girls’ reading self-concept was
unaffected by teachers’ stereotype.
As an exploratory analysis we also tested whether teachers’ gender or the interaction
teachers’ gender × teachers’ gender stereotype had different effects on boys’ and girls’
reading self-concept at T2. In line with the assumption of the so-called same-sex teacher
advantage (for a detailed discussion see Neugebauer, Helbig, & Landmann, 2011) one might
have expected that boys’ reading self-concept would benefit from a male teacher and girls’
reading self-concept might benefit from a female teacher. Moreover, these benefits could be
due to different gender stereotypes, depending on the teachers’ gender. However, neither
teachers’ gender nor the interaction term were significant predictors of boys’ and girls’
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 15
reading self-concepts (p ≥ .154). Moreover, the results of the model, including teachers’
gender and their interaction, were by and large the same as the results of Model 3.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate whether teachers’ stereotypes affected
students’ self-concepts in reading, a stereotypically female domain. We expected teachers’
gender stereotypes about students’ reading abilities—namely, that girls perform better in
reading tasks—to negatively affect boys’ but not girls’ reading self-concepts. Therefore, we
drew on longitudinal data comprising two waves of data collection to predict students’
reading self-concept at the end of grade 6 with the previously (beginning of grade 5) reported
teacher stereotypes, controlling for previous reading self-concept. Our hypothesis was
corroborated: boys’ reading self-concept in grade 6 was lower for students whose teachers
reported high scores for gender stereotypes. No effect was recorded for girls. Moreover, the
effect was also robust when students’ previous achievement on individual and class level, and
school track, were included. Thus, our results have shown that teachers’ gender stereotypes
negatively affect boys’ reading self-concept over and above their actual performance.
Additionally, our results indicate that, on average, teachers’ reading stereotypes favor girls.
Consequently it is possible that even less stereotyped teachers favor girls over boys in the
reading domain, indicating that the total effect of gender stereotypes might be greater than we
can show in our analyses. However, this interpretation is rather speculative and needs further
research.
Before discussing the implications of our findings in more detail, we first discuss the
absence of gender differences in the mean level of reading self-concept. This finding is in
line with other research that does not support the assumption of gender differences in
language-related self-concepts (Anderman et al., 2001; Evans et al., 2011; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2004). One possible explanation deals with the particular age of our students.
Conjecturally, at the onset of puberty the intensification of gender differences is only
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 16
beginning. Although there is no evidence for such gender intensification in longitudinal
studies (Jacobs et al., 2002), our results do suggest the tendency for an opposing trend in girls’
and boys’ reading self-concept, favoring girls. Another explanation, provided by Skaalvik
and Skaalvik (2004), deals with the idea that gender differences in self-concepts are based on
perceptions of individual strength and weaknesses across different domains—similarly to
what is proposed in dimensional comparison theory (Möller & Marsh, 2013). Thus, gender
differences would not become obvious in group comparisons within a single domain but only
in comparisons of self-concepts in different domains. Our data however do not allow for
analyses along these lines. Regardless of this question of group differences, our results
nevertheless provide some evidence that variability in reading self-concept development may
be explained in part by teachers’ gender stereotypes. In the remainder of this paper we
discuss the implications of these findings.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Our findings help our understanding of the development of reading self-concept in
secondary school, and contribute to our knowledge of possible reasons for gender differences
in self-concept. However, even though our study comprised longitudinal data, and we were
able to control for important predictors of reading self-concept, we cannot draw causal
conclusions, since we cannot rule out the effects of unobserved variables. Our study,
however, complements experimental data on the consequences of specific stereotype content
(e.g., Becker & Asbrock, 2012; Cuddy et al., 2007) by providing high external validity, due to
the naturalistic setting in actual school life. The results support the assumption of expectancy-
value theory, that gender beliefs of significant others play an important role in shaping
students’ ability self-concepts. We found evidence that, in addition to parents’ (Jacobs &
Eccles, 1992; Tiedemann, 2000) and students’ own (Plante et al., 2013) stereotypes, teachers’
gender stereotypes also play an important role in shaping students’ self-concepts—over and
above students’ actual achievement. Consequently, these stereotypes might explain to some
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 17
extent why gender differences in language-related self-concept increase over time
(Archambault et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2002). However, these effects were rather small in
terms of Cohen’s (1988) classification of effect sizes. At least in children of the age of 10
years and older, however, reading self-concept seems to be quite stable (Retelsdorf et al.,
2014), so that large effects cannot be expected and thus, even small effects may still be of
practical relevance. This might be even more relevant when taking into account that teachers’
stereotypes are a rather distal determinant of students’ self-concept compared to their
achievement or other student level variables. It might be interesting though, to test the
relations of teachers’ gender stereotypes with younger students’ self-concept development.
Jacobs et al. (2002) reported much greater decreases of language self-concept from grade 1 to
grade 5 than from grade 6 to grade 12—particularly for boys. Thus, there might be sensitive
developmental stages in which environmental influences have particularly pronounced effects
on children’s self-concept—however, younger students may not be aware of teachers’
stereotypes (e.g., Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007). Moreover, there may be greater cumulative
effects over a longer period of time.
Another open question deals with the mediating processes. We were not able to
investigate such processes between teachers’ gender stereotypes and students’ reading self-
concept. Thus, we do not know whether teachers who think that boys are less able to read
than girls actually treat boys and girls differently. However, it seems plausible that teachers’
beliefs would influence their own behavior in classroom, as indicated by experimental studies
on the effects of specific stereotypes on outgroup-directed behavior (e.g., Becker & Asbrock,
2012; Cuddy et al., 2007; for an overview see Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011). As a
consequence, boys’ reading self-concept might suffer from teachers’ behavior even when
their reading abilities are similar to girls’ abilities. As Rubie-Davies, Hattie, and Hamilton
(2006) discuss, there is some evidence that teachers who hold stereotypes regarding particular
groups will alter their practices and limit opportunities to learn for negatively stereotyped
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 18
students. This is in line with research on the effects of incompetence-stereotypes: Groups
perceived as incompetent are ignored or excluded more than other groups (Cuddy et al.,
2011). Moreover, teachers believing in a certain stereotype may tend to make remarks or to
behave in ways that make these stereotypes more salient in class, thus indicating stereotype
threat (Aronson & Steele, 2005). Apart from teachers’ classroom behavior, increasing
awareness of widely-held stereotypes (McKown & Weinstein, 2003) and developing
knowledge of adults’ stereotypes (Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007) may shape the students’ own
gender beliefs. As a further consequence, they may react by adapting their own self-concept
to these gender beliefs (cf. Kurtz-Costes et al., 2008).
Another question deals with the problem of the accuracy of teachers’ gender beliefs:
the so-called “kernel of truth” of their gender stereotype. It could be argued that, taking into
account recent results from large-scale assessments (cf. Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker,
2012; OECD, 2010), teachers’ beliefs of girls outperforming boys in reading are to some
extent true. This problem is somehow connected to the argument that teacher expectations
have an impact on students’ achievement simply because their expectations are accurate
(Jussim & Harber, 2005). According to our results, this would mean that there is a negative
effect of teachers’ gender stereotype on boys’ reading self-concept just because boys do in
fact have lower reading abilities. These lower abilities should then lead to boys’ decreasing
reading self-concept. Similarly, since boys are likely to show declining motivation related to
language-related tasks in grade 5 and grade 6 (cf. Jacobs et al., 2002) our results may reflect
teachers’ accurate appraisal of boys’ declining language-related motivation. In this study,
however, we controlled for individual achievement as well as for mean class achievement, so
that teachers’ gender stereotypes have been shown to exert an additional effect on students’
reading self-concept that goes beyond the effect of actual achievement. Moreover, the teacher
questions on gender stereotypes were generally worded, not related to the particular classes
they were teaching. Considering that the teachers completed the questionnaire only a few
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 19
weeks after they first met their students, it seems plausible to assume that the teachers’ beliefs
about gender differences were not affected by the individual students’ motivational declines.
An important question that arises from our findings is what teachers can do to
counteract the reported relation between their own stereotypes and boys’ reading self-concept.
Generally, it is a good idea to counteract prior gender stereotypes and make the expectation
clear in class that boys and girls perform equally well (Hartley & Sutton, 2013). Moreover,
during their teacher education, teachers should be apprised of the fact that their beliefs do
have consequences and that, consciously or not, they may be prone to certain biases in their
treatment of boys and girls. Although cultural stereotypes are widely shared, and guide
behavioral reactions, people can choose to overcome this automatic effect (Fiske, 2004).
Most research investigating similar discriminatory behavior in class has dealt with girls in
mathematics and science and thus the question here is, whether language teachers behave
similarly. We cannot answer this question yet, due to the lack of research in language
teaching, but it would appear that certain rules for teachers’ classroom behavior, as
summarized by Woolfolk (2010) should be introduced in the near future.
However, it should be noted that there is strong evidence that in general, teachers
interact more frequently with boys than with girls (Jones & Dindia, 2004). This difference
has mainly been found in relation to negative interactions such as criticism, while no
difference in positive interactions such as praise or acceptance has been found.
Unfortunately, Jones and Dindia did not test the effects of domain or school subject, so their
meta-analysis does not provide information on differences in mathematics and language
teaching. In a study by Worrall and Tsarna (1987), the self-reported classroom interactions of
science and language teachers were compared. These authors found that girls are relatively
favored in language subjects, compared with boys, whereas no differences in science have
been reported. Regarding the question as to what teachers can do, Woolfolk (2010) suggests a
kind of checklist on how to avoid discriminatory behavior in the classroom. First of all, she
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 20
encourages teachers to be aware of bias in their own behavior. Do the teachers group boys
and girls for certain tasks? Do they prefer boys or girls when asking questions regarding
particular topics—e.g., boys for technical and girls for social issues? Second, she asks
teachers to check their teaching material for gender inequalities, such as presenting traditional
role models. Third, teachers should have a critical look at general inequalities at the school—
for example, if there is biased advice regarding course selection. Fourth, teachers should use
gender neutral language whenever possible. Fifth, teachers should introduce role models that
do not represent traditional gender roles.
Conclusion
Our study complements previous research by investigating the effects of teachers’
stereotypes on students’ reading self-concept, drawing on a relatively large sample tested in a
naturalistic setting. Our results suggest that not only do gender stereotypes have short-term
effects like those investigated in the framework of stereotype threat theory (cf. Aronson &
Steele, 2005), but they can also explain the long-term development of reading self-concept as
a relatively stable personal characteristic. In our study, boys were the disadvantaged group.
Therefore we would like to follow Hartley and Sutton (2013) in noting that these results have
to be considered in the light of general male advantage in society, such as the gender pay gap
that still persists (e.g., Council of the European Union, 2010; Drago & Williams, 2010).
However, it should not be the aim to pit males’ advantages in one area against their
disadvantages in another area. We should encourage and enable our teachers to counteract
prior gender stereotypes and to become aware of their own potentially discriminatory
behaviors. One important condition for an equitable educational system is that teachers
should become aware of and resistant to stereotypes.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 21
References
Anderman, E. M., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Roeser, R. W., Wigfield, A., & Blumenfeld, P.
C. (2001). Learning to value mathematics and reading: Relations to mastery and
performance-oriented instructional practices. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
26, 76–95. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1043
Archambault, I., Eccles, J. S., & Vida, M. N. (2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective
value in literacy. Joint trajectories from grades 1 through 12. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 804–816. doi: 10.1037/a0021075
Aronson, J., M., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic
competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436–456). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Asbrock, F., Nieuwoudt, C., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Societal stereotypes and the
legitimation of intergroup behaviour in Germany and New Zealand. Analysis of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 11, 154–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01242.x
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Multiple group multilevel analysis. Mplus Web
Notes, No. 16. Retrieved from
www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote16.pdf
Becker, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2012). What triggers helping versus harming of ambivalent
groups? Effects of the relative salience of warmth versus competence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.015
Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R., Voss, A., et al. (2005).
IGLU. Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. [Scale
handbook of the German PIRLS study]. Münster: Waxmann.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 22
Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual
performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological
Science, 11, 399–402. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00277
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Council of the European Union. (2010). The gender pay gap in the member states of the
European Union. Quantitative and qualitative indicators: Summary of the Belgian
Presidency Report 2010. Brussels, Belgium: Council of the European Union.
Retrieved from http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st16/st16881-
ad01.en10.pdf
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors form intergroup
affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence
judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
31, 73–98. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004
de Boer, H., Bosker, R. J., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2010). Sustainability of teacher
expectation bias effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 168–179. doi: 10.1037/a0017289
DeZolt, D. M., & Hull, S. H. (2001). Classroom and school climate. In J. Worell (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of women and gender. Sex similarities and differences and the impact of
society on gender (pp. 257–264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Drago, R., & Williams, C. (2010). The gender wage gap 2009. Washington, DC: Institute for
Women's Policy Research. Retrieved from www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-
gender-wage-gap-2009/at_download/file
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 23
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of
high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 382–393. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al.
(1983). Expectations, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Perspectives on achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1993). Age and gender
differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child
Development, 64, 830–847. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02946.x
Evans, A. B., Copping, K. E., Rowley, S. J., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2011). Academic self-
concept in black adolescents: Do race and gender stereotypes matter? Self and Identity,
10, 263–277. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2010.485358
Fiedler, K., & Bless, H. (2001). Social cognition. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe (Eds.),
Introduction to social psychology. A European perspective (pp. 115–149). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). What's in a category? Responsibility, intent, and the avoidability of bias
against outgroups. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp.
127–140). New York: Guilford.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really
needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention
Science, 8, 206–213. doi: 10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 24
Hartley, B. L., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). A stereotype threat account of boys’ academic
underachievement. Child Development, . doi: 10.1111/cdev.12079
Hyde, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2005). Gender, competence, and motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C.
S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 375–391). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with
achievement and ability grouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19, 201–213.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.001
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers' gender-role stereotypic beliefs on
mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 932–944. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in
children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades
one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00421
Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the
classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74, 443–471. doi:
10.3102/00346543074004443
Jussim, L., Eccles, J. S., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 281–388). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 9, 131–155. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 25
Kurtz-Costes, B., Rowley, S. J., Harris-Britt, A., & Woods, T. A. (2008). Gender stereotypes
about mathematics and science and self-perceptions of ability in late childhood and
early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 386–409. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0001
Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Hau, K.-T., O’Mara, A. J., et al. (2008).
The big-fish-little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory,
methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319–350.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration of
multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation
and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403–456. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00380.x
Martinot, D., Bagès, C., & Désert, M. (2012). French children’s awareness of gender
stereotypes about mathematics and reading: When girls improve their reputation in
math. Sex Roles, 66, 210–219. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0032-3
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype
consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74, 489–515. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.7402012
Meece, J. L., Bower Glienke, B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of
School Psychology, 44, 351–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004
Möller, J., & Bonerad, E.-M. (2007). Fragebogen zur habituellen Lesemotivation. [Habitual
reading motivation questionnaire]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54, 259–
267.
Möller, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review,
120, 544–560. doi: 10.1037/a0032459
Möller, J., Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2011). The Reciprocal I/E Model: An
integration of models of relations between academic achievement and self-concept.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 26
American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1315–1346. doi:
10.3102/0002831211419649
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international
results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus Version 7.1 [Computer software]. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Muzzatti, B., & Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and stereotype threat
susceptibility in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43, 747–759. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.747
Neugebauer, M., Helbig, M., & Landmann, A. (2011). Unmasking the myth of the same-sex
teacher advantage. European Sociological Review, 27, 669–689. doi:
10.1093/esr/jcq038
Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi: 10.1037/a0012702
OECD. (2010). OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Student
performance in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: OECD. Paris,
France: OECD. doi: 10.1787/9789264091450-en
Plante, I., De la Sablonnière, R., Aronson, J. M., & Théorêt, M. (2013). Gender stereotype
endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and
task values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 225–235. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.004
Retelsdorf, J., Becker, M., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2012). Reading development in a tracked
school system: A longitudinal study over 3 years using propensity score matching.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 647–671. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2011.02051.x
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 27
Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2011). On the effects of motivation on reading
performance growth in secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 21, 550–559. doi:
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.001
Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2014). Reading achievement and reading self-
concept—testing the reciprocal effects model. Learning and Instruction, 29, 21–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.004
Rouland, K. K., Rowley, S. J., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2013). Self-views of African-American
youth are related to the gender stereotypes and ability attributions of their parents. Self
and Identity, 12, 382–399. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2012.682360
Rowley, S. J., Kurtz-Costes, B., Mistry, R., & Feagans, L. (2007). Social status as a predictor
of race and gender stereotypes in late childhood and early adolescence. Social
Development, 16, 150–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00376.x
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J. A. C., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students:
Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 429–444. doi: 10.1348/000709905X53589
Schmenk, B. (2004). Language learning: A feminine domain? The role of stereotyping in
constructing gendered learner identities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 514–524. doi:
10.2307/3588352
Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. doi: 10.2307/1170010
Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept,
performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles, 50, 241–252. doi:
10.1023/B:SERS.0000015555.40976.e6
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 28
Swinson, J., & Harrop, A. (2009). Teacher talk directed to boys and girls and its relationship
to their behaviour. Educational Studies, 35, 515–524. doi:
10.1080/03055690902883913
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.),
Intergroup behavior (pp. 144–167). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents' gender stereotypes and teachers' beliefs as predictors of
children's concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 144–151. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144
Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers' gender stereotypes as determinants of teacher perceptions in
elementary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 49–62. doi:
10.1023/A:1020518104346
Tymms, P. (2004). Effect sizes in multilevel models. In I. Schagen & K. Elliot (Eds.), But
what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 55–66).
London, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Watt, H. M. G., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2008). Gender and occupational outcomes:
Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences. Washington,
D.C.: APA Books.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan,
C., et al. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values
across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 451–469. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.451
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 29
Woolfolk, A. E. (2010). Educational psychology. Columbus, OH: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers' reported practices towards girls and boys in
science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300–312. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8279.1987.tb00859.x
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1998). ConQuest: Generalized item response
modeling software [Computer Software]. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 30
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Study Variables
overall
girls
boys
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Reading self-concept T1
3.03
0.70
2.99
0.71
3.08
0.68
Reading self-concept T2
3.08
0.63
3.10
0.61
3.06
0.65
Reading achievement T1
-0.05
1.12
0.01
1.02
-0.11
1.09
Teachers’ gender stereotype
3.91
0.60
-
-
-
-
Note. Weighted likelihood estimates (WLE) have been estimated as subjects’ ability scores
for reading achievement. Nteachers = 54, Nstudents = 1358.
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 31
Table 2
Results of the Multiple Group Multilevel Analyses Predicting Reading Self-Concept at T2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
girls
boys
girls
boys
girls
boys
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
within level
Reading self-concept T1
.456
.030
.474
.035
.387
.032
.389
.033
.389
.033
.378
.035
Reading achievement T1
.243
.030
.273
.037
.257
.037
.254
.046
between level
Teachers’ gender stereotype T1
-.003
.026
-.103
.035
-.012
.024
-.090
.033
-.013
.024
-.082
.034
Reading self-concept T1
.044
.156
.017
.149
Reading achievement T1
-.053
.095
-.006
.106
School track
-.019
.088
.113
.096
Note. All variables but the dummies have been standardized (Reading self-concept T2 was standardized at the mean at standard deviation of
Reading self-concept T1); school track was dummy-coded (0 = non-academic track, 1 = academic track). Bold printed parameters are significant
(p < .05, Nteachers = 54, Nstudents = 1358).
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 32
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Relation between teachers’ gender stereotype on boys’ and girls’ reading self-
concept at T2 (from Model 2 in Table 1; all variables have been standardized).
TEACHERS’ GENDER STEREOTYPES AND BOYS’ READING SELF-CONCEPT 33
Figure 1
-0,20
-0,10
0,00
0,10
0,20
-1,50 -1,00 -0,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50
Students' reading self-concept T2
Teachers' gender stereotype
boys
girls
