View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'I Want to Be Like You … ' Using Women Scientists to Challenge Stereotypes and Gender Biases in Childhood

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'I Want to Be Like You … ' Using Women Scientists to Challenge Stereotypes and Gender Biases in Childhood
Language: English
Authors: Ana Jurado Gallego (ORCID 0009-0009-3994-0474), Mª Elena González Alfaya (ORCID 0000-0001-8264-3680), Rosario Mérida Serrano (ORCID 0000-0001-9389-3263)
Source: Gender and Education. 2025 37(1):80-99.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Sex Stereotypes, Gender Bias, Childrens Attitudes, Science Programs, Women Scientists, Foreign Countries, Content Analysis, Biographies, Freehand Drawing, Power Structure, Gender Differences, Program Effectiveness, Knowledge Level, Early Childhood Education, Preschool Children, Elementary Schools, Preschool Education
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2024.2418136
ISSN: 0954-0253
1360-0516
Abstract: In this study, carried out in different provinces of Spain, we assess the impact of a co-educational science program conducted with children aged 3-6, whose objective is to deconstruct gender stereotypes in science by studying the biographies of female scientists. The evaluative methodology we use is based on analysing the opinions the pupils expressed at a school assembly, and we have applied content analysis to explore how much the pupils learnt about the female scientists, through 401 drawings. The main findings are: (1) 5-year-old children have sexist stereotypes related to the distribution of power between women and men; (2) the program is effective, because the pupils increase their knowledge and enrich their notions of female scientists and their contributions to science; and (3) the pupils do not illustrate situations of indirect inequality among scientists in their drawings, because they only perceive the injustice existing in situations of direct inequality.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1459800
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHOxL_r7qjb9F4bWu1h52ONAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHrqWB3137VJc-ASUgIBEICBmw6oxi11GWRg0R6LmVWW47mJc1ZEio0JFekPWxIL0-B_SbjsioByUITk056wJ3zW85upzbdNrlY_7e35RwXAdB5a-fZz42syJGspZ9VkfchxU-GiSFeE6aQGH8PsbMbCE4dmZzGznBFcTXe1tVm7P4ohVtyFAc08zgSVC5Co-fRH57Z3wlWW25nv1OJ8onjLQW-g3Qcr1m4v3fgB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182633922;gae01jan.25;2025Feb05.01:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182633922-1">'I want to be like you ... ' Using women scientists to challenge stereotypes and gender biases in childhood </title> <p>In this study, carried out in different provinces of Spain, we assess the impact of a co-educational science program conducted with children aged 3–6, whose objective is to deconstruct gender stereotypes in science by studying the biographies of female scientists. The evaluative methodology we use is based on analysing the opinions the pupils expressed at a school assembly, and we have applied content analysis to explore how much the pupils learnt about the female scientists, through 401 drawings. The main findings are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) 5-year-old children have sexist stereotypes related to the distribution of power between women and men; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) the program is effective, because the pupils increase their knowledge and enrich their notions of female scientists and their contributions to science; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) the pupils do not illustrate situations of indirect inequality among scientists in their drawings, because they only perceive the injustice existing in situations of direct inequality.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood education; gender and science; coeducation; women scientists; coeducational programs</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>National studies within Spain, such as 'Cientificas en Cifras' (Women and Science Unit and FECYT [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref4">61</reflink>]) and international studies such as those by the UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref5">60</reflink>]) or 'The Gender Gap in Science' (Tomassini [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref6">59</reflink>]) have confirmed that pupils aged 3–6 hold gender stereotypes, due to their socialization in a patriarchal society and school. Other authors subscribe to the idea that 'Gender socialisation begins in childhood and is assimilated through schools. Children imbibe gender concepts through textbooks and classroom experiences, which either reinforce their social perceptions or influence them to critique inequalities and bias'. (Košir and Lakshminarayanan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>], 69). With the intention counteracting the above the alliance of the fourth objective of the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]), referring to education and quality, and the fifth objective related to gender equality, speak of the need to use feminist education as a tool to work towards equality and social transformation (Benstead [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]). Various projects developed in the European context such as STEAM and KidsINNScience, provide teaching strategies to help bring science closer to children (Lyttleton-Smith [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]). However, there have been few experiences of educational innovation and research to foster inclusive science with a gender perspective in very young pupils (Areljung [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]). It is therefore necessary to implement scientific co-educational programs in school, starting from the pre-school level, to help children identify gender inequalities and challenge their sexist stereotypes related to science (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]). This article describes the impact of a coeducational science program carried out in Spain in the second cycle of Early Childhood Education (3–6 years).</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-3">2. Women and science</hd> <p>The segregation of women as regards careers in science has been widely investigated (Arifin Mim [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref13">54</reflink>]; O'Donnell [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>]), and the conclusion is that the current situation of women in science is reflected in two main ways (Bukstein and Gandelman [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]). First, there is horizontal segregation, which can be seen in the underrepresentation of women in certain areas and occupations (for example, the area of STEM) (Van der Linden et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]), and which is of vital relevance for the development of today's technological society to include female talent and achieve a higher level of technological development and social justice. Secondly, there is vertical segregation, which refers to the difficulties women encounter for being appointed to positions of responsibility and leadership in the field of science. This phenomenon, popularly known as the 'glass ceiling', refers to the impediments that women must overcome to ascend to managerial positions, the so called 'sticky floor' which summarizes the difficulties encountered when leaving the private sphere of the home environment or when joining a job outside those typically associated with women and the 'leaking pipeline', which alludes to the fact that the proportion of women in managerial positions in the company becomes smaller and smaller as one moves up the management hierarchy (Shabsough, Semerci, and Ergeneli [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref17">53</reflink>]). All of these are metaphors that explain the barriers that women face for their promotion and professional development in science (Machocho Mwang'ombe and Mwingi [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both types of segregation of women in the field of science have been analysed by feminist theory (Crossman [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]), focusing on the gender biases that affect science as a social construct, as well as the consequences that derive from them: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) the low popularity of careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) among women (Arandia, Zuza, and Guisasola [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]; Chachashvili-Bolotin, Milner-Bolotin, and Lissitsa [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; Khanyane, Mokuku, and Nthathakane [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]; Vázquez and Manassero [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref24">63</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>) the existing androcentric biases in science (Bailey, LaFrance, and Dovidio [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>) the invisibility of women's achievements in textbooks (Košir and Lakshminarayanan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>) the absence of a gender perspective in the teacher training curriculum (McNeill and Knight [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>) the underrepresentation of women as scientific models for girls' vocational choices (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref32">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>These gender biases produce situations of inequality between women and men in science, which have been corroborated by numerous international reports such as the one carried out by National Science Board and National Science Foundation ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>]). At the same time, in university degrees in Spain, female children in Engineering, Industry and Construction make up just 29.5% of the pupils population, a figure which falls to 14.1% for Computer Science.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-4">3. Science isn't for women: social learning built from childhood</hd> <p>These figures are due, among other reasons, to the fact that our society continues to apply differentiated socialization according to gender (Mashiya [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]). The reproduction and transmission of stereotypes often operates at a subconscious level, permeating through multiple socialization processes within the framework of the patriarchal culture (Wingrave [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref35">64</reflink>]). In this way, girls increasingly reject studies in the different fields of science for a wide range of reasons, such as family pressure, stereotypes, expectations, and a lack of role models (King et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Ferrer Pérez and Bosch Fiol ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]), gender identity manifests itself around the age of 3–4, and feeds on the stereotypes transmitted through the different socializing agents (Spinner, Cameron, and Calogero [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref38">57</reflink>]). Likewise, Bian, Sarah-Jane, and Cimpian ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]) showed that 6-year-old girls already play down their own abilities, skills, and self-motivation for achievement, as a result of an impoverished image of themselves derived from gender stereotypes. These are acquired early on and have an immediate effect on their vocational interests, in which science is often considered as highly complex and unsuited to their gender. Girls perceive themselves as less competent than boys when it comes to initiating scientific challenges, and gradually form the idea that research, scientific and technological work is not for them. Solís-Espallargas ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref40">56</reflink>]) added that early education can play a key role in deconstructing these gender stereotypes, which are at the root of this rejection of scientific vocations by girls, and are carried on into adulthood. Along these lines, Maphanga et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]) demonstrated that sexist stereotypes and the lack of knowledge about female scientists are what initially deter girls from choosing a career in science, thus accounting for the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref42">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the studies by Cheryan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]), another factor which influences the underrepresentation of women in science are the so-called 'masculine' cultures in STEM fields, which, through a range of more or less explicit messages, make women feel they do not belong in this field and will not succeed in it. A number of systemic sociocultural factors shape masculine cultures in STEM, the most influential of which are gender stereotypes related to science. Science has been branded with a widespread, enduring stereotype as an inherently 'masculine' activity (Lane, Goh, and Driver-Linn [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]), which is constructed from childhood onwards.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-5">4. The need for coeducational schooling</hd> <p>This situation is aggravated by the lack of gender perspective in the curriculum, materials and teaching resources employed in education. López Navajas ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]) states that 93% of the references named in Spanish secondary school textbooks are male. Košir and Lakshminarayanan ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]) add that the sexist content found in textbooks needs to be analyzed and teachers need more training in gender issues (Aguilar Ródenas [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Maddison and Shaw ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]), gender socialization begins in childhood and is assimilated through schools. Children imbibe gender concepts through textbooks and classroom experiences, and these can either reinforce their social perceptions or influence them to critique inequalities and bias. For this reason, we need to move from a model of the mixed nursery school, which admits boys and girls but does not give any guarantee of equality between genders, towards that of the co-educational school which actively promotes equal opportunities between girls and boys.</p> <p>One of the key challenges mentioned by Aragonés-González, Rosser-Limiñana, and Gil-González ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]) for the transition from a mixed school to a truly co-educational school is how to present an inclusive idea of science which highlights and makes more visible female achievements in science. With the aim of reducing the gender gap in science starting at school, a number of initiatives have been launched, such as the 'STEAM Alliance for female talent', a Spanish government proposal to promote scientific and technological vocations among girls and young women (MEFP [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]), and European projects such as STEAM (published and implemented for the first time in 2008 by Georgette Yakman) or KidsINNScience (started in 2009), which present teaching strategies aimed at bringing science closer to children (Mosquera, Puig, and Blanco [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]). However, these programs are applied in late childhood, adolescence and the pre-university stage, and there are few examples of educational innovation and research experiences which promote inclusive science, with a gender perspective, among very young children (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]; Siry and Max [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref53">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Authors such as Spinner, Cameron, and Calogero ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref54">57</reflink>]) identify the stage from 3 to 6 as a period of sensitivity in which a child's gender identity is formed, and propose a co-educational intervention focused on an egalitarian model of scientific literacy, in which girls are exposed, from an early age, to role models which may guide their subsequent vocational choices; as Dhindsa and Siti-Zahrani Binti Haji Md ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>], 903–906) point out, 'The role of teachers in minimizing the unpleasant experiences and poor performance outcomes is key and can contribute to changing students' attitudes toward science'.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-6">5. Coeducational science in early childhood</hd> <p>The aim of the co-education program in science 'INFACIENCIA: from today's girls to tomorrow's scientists' is to provide role models of female scientists, showing their lives and most relevant contributions, for pupils aged 3–6. The program involves searching for information, exploring, experimenting, identifying situations of inequality, drawing conclusions, and generating excitement about the careers of these extraordinary women. The educational methodology used is feminist, critical and reflective, and it incorporates the pupils' own opinions (Maddison and Shaw [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]), using the following phases:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Democratic choice of the female scientist to learn about.</emph> The 3- to 6-year-old pupils meet at an assembly in which they propose, explore, ask, question and give their opinions, and then choose the female scientist by majority vote.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Family and community collaboration.</emph> The pupils ask their family and the educational community to help and suggest female researchers whose lives and findings they can learn about.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Use of Project-Based Learning methodology</emph> (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref57">40</reflink>]). The pupils, cooperating in groups, express their ideas and beliefs about the female scientist; these are taken as initial hypotheses, which, following the stages of the scientific method of observation, exploration, contrasting and experimenting, their initial hypotheses about the scientist will be refuted or verified. This method of active learning focuses on the children's own interests and questions. In this way, through play and guided discovery, they become more enthusiastic about the project.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Communication with the rest of the community.</emph> What the children learn, and how they have learned it, are presented, in different formats, to the rest of the educational community, and steps are suggested to transform and achieve greater fairness as to how women are treated in the field of science.</item> </ulist> <p>The research analyses the impact of implementing the co-educational science program 'INFACIENCIA: from today's girls to tomorrow's scientists' with 3- to 6-year-old pupils (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]). The program aims to increase the pupils' knowledge about the lives and contributions of eminent female scientists, so that girls can transcend the gender stereotypes that could put them off studying science. Its ultimate purpose is to help the pupils acquire an inclusive view of science, which values, recognizes and celebrates female talent (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref59">40</reflink>]). The empirical study is presented below.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-7">6. Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182633922-8">6.1. Context</hd> <p>This co-educational program has been implemented continuously from the 2017/2018 school year to the present (2023/2024 school year), with the support of the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) and the Spanish Ministry of Equality (Institute of Women). Nine state-run or subsidized Early Childhood and Primary schools in the cities of Córdoba, Seville, Cádiz, Bilbao and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria took part in the scheme.</p> <p>The scheme is part of a larger project involving three institutions: Early Childhood and Primary schools, the Córdoba Teacher Training Centre (or 'CEP') and the university Education Faculties in the above cities. This network has been formed to exchange educational experiences and innovation processes derived from studying the lives and achievements of eminent female researchers, both in the Early Childhood schools and in the universities involved.</p> <p>Project-Based Learning methodology was used with the children to explore the female scientists' lives, while trainee teachers at university, with the support of technological resources such as online blogs, e-books or 1-minute videos, researched, recreated and adapted the scientists' lives and achievements to the children's cognitive level. A number of exchange sessions took place via videoconferencing or face-to-face (in the format of a science fair), to socialize together and share the knowledge acquired.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-9">6.2. Participants</hd> <p>The in-school application of the 5th year of the INFACIENCIA co-educational program involved a total of 1,398 people (Early Childhood teachers, pupils and their families, university teachers and children, and a consultant from the 'CEP'). However, in this work, we focus on analysing the drawings done by 401 girls and boys aged 3–6 from nine state-run or subsidized Early Childhood and Primary schools in the cities of Córdoba, Seville, Cádiz and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, as shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Drawings of children disaggregated by age and sex.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Carácter</td><td>Centros (9)</td><td>3 años (83) ♂: 32 ♀: 51</td><td>4 años (123) ♂: 68 ♀: 55</td><td>5 años (195) ♂: 101 ♀: 94</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Centro público de Educación Infantil y Primaria</td><td>C1_CC</td><td char=".">12</td><td>♂: 5</td><td char=".">1</td><td>♂: 0</td><td char=".">6</td><td>♂: 4</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 7</td><td>♀: 1</td><td>♀: 2</td></tr><tr><td>C2_CC</td><td char=".">15</td><td>♂: 10</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 5</td></tr><tr><td>C3_CP</td><td char=".">22</td><td>♂: 11</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 11</td></tr><tr><td>C4_CP</td><td char=".">24</td><td>♂: 12</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 12</td></tr><tr><td>C5_CaP</td><td char=".">10</td><td>♂: 5</td><td char=".">15</td><td>♂: 12</td><td char=".">7</td><td>♂: 4</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 5</td><td>♀: 3</td><td>♀: 3</td></tr><tr><td>C6_GC</td><td char=".">27</td><td>♂: 13</td><td char=".">28</td><td>♂: 14</td><td char=".">32</td><td>♂: 12</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 14</td><td>♀: 14</td><td>♀: 20</td></tr><tr><td>C7_GC</td><td char=".">13</td><td>♂: 5</td><td char=".">25</td><td>♂: 10</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 8</td><td>♀: 15</td></tr><tr><td>Escuela pública de Educación Infantil</td><td>C8_CC</td><td char=".">19</td><td>♂: 10</td><td char=".">19</td><td>♂: 15</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 9</td><td>♀: 4</td></tr><tr><td>Centro educativo concertado</td><td>C9_SP</td><td char=".">34</td><td>♂: 9</td><td char=".">47</td><td>♂: 27</td><td char=".">45</td><td>♂: 23</td></tr><tr><td>♀: 25</td><td>♀: 20</td><td>♀: 22</td></tr><tr><td>Total ♂: 201 ♀: 200</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Source: Own elaboration.</p> <p>2 Coding: C1_CC: Centro 1 de Córdoba capital; C3_CP: Centro 3 de Córdoba Provincia; C5_CaP: Centro 5 de Cádiz Provincia, etc.</p> <p>The schools that have participated, both public and charter ones, are supported with public funds, being the difference that the ownership of the public schools is the Spanish state, while the charter schools have a private ownership of a religious kind.</p> <p>The Early Childhood Education stage in Spain is voluntary and integrates children from 0 to 6 years of age. It is divided into two cycles, from 0–3 years and from 3 to 6 years, with both cycles having an educational character. It is attended by professionals with university studies (Degree in Early Childhood). The basic aim of this stage is the integral development of the children's capacities -cognitive, physical, emotional and social- and to act as a compensatory stage to equalize and prevent possible inequalities.</p> <p>The selection of the 9 schools has been made by the Teacher Training Centre by contacting those who have expressed interest in this subject included in their equality plans.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-10">6.3. Research questions</hd> <p>The overall purpose of this study was to answer the following question: 'What impact does the 'INFACIENCIA' co-educational program have on the 3- to 6-year-old girls and boys who take part in it?'</p> <p>Apart from this general issue, we also formulated the following more specific research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do 5-year-old pupils hold gender stereotypes which limit girls' professional development?</item> <p></p> <item> Are 3- to 6-year-old boys and girls able to represent female scientists in their drawings?</item> <p></p> <item> Are 3- to 6-year-old boys and girls capable of representing scientific equipment or accessories linked to the achievements of the female scientists studied?</item> <p></p> <item> In their drawings, do the boys and girls reflect any kind of barriers or handicaps for female scientists due to the fact that they are women?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0182633922-11">6.4. Methodology and instruments</hd> <p>For this work, which is based on qualitative research, we used an evaluative research methodology (Escudero [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]), which we understand as 'research using a rigorous, controlled and systematic process of collecting and analysing reliable, valid data, in order to make decisions about an educational program' (Tejedor [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>], 320).</p> <p>In the study, we used a number of instruments for collecting and producing information, as can be seen in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Analysis tools and techniques.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Colectivo</td><td>Instrumento</td><td>Técnica de Análisis</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alumnado</td><td>Entrevista grupal (asamblea)</td><td>Análisis del discurso</td></tr><tr><td>Dibujos</td><td>Análisis de contenido</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Source: Own elaboration.</p> <p>We decided to carry out a case study using qualitative, exploratory and descriptive methodology, to analyse a social group whose members are interacting in their natural environment (Angrosino [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>] ; Flick, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>] , quoted in Balongo González and Mérida [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]). This allowed us to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of the children's behavior, collect their work and register the views they express (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]). As required in every case study, in order to ensure the quality of the research (Richardson [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref66">50</reflink>] , quoted in Moral [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref67">44</reflink>]), we used triangulations on both a personal (researcher, teachers and children) and methodological level (group interview, assembly and analysis of children's drawings). Two analysis techniques were used: discourse, to analyse the views expressed in the assembly, and content-based, to explore the children's pictures of the female scientist they learned about.</p> <p>For the young pupils, we used the format of the group interview, which we conducted during a school assembly (lasting 30 min) so as not to disturb their school routine. We made audio recordings of 13 boys and 7 girls, together with the notes taken while the researcher was in their classroom, to focus on the most relevant comments for our research questions. The interview protocol was to pose the following script of questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) Can women do science as well as men? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) Do you know any women scientists? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) Can women be managers? (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) Why? The coding system used was based on the person's initial (D, teacher, A, female pupil and O, male pupil), followed by a number, which, for the teachers, stood for their pupils' age (e.g. D5 refers to the 5-year-olds' teacher), while for the pupils, the number referred to their number on the list (e.g. A1 was the first girl on the class list).</p> <p>To analyse the children's drawings, the procedure was that, after the pupils had learnt about a particular female scientist, the teacher gave all the class instructions from the researcher. The instructions for the teachers were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) To hold an assembly for the children to collectively express verbally everything they had learned about science so that they would remember all the aspects they had studied; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>) To make an assembly for the children to express verbally everything they had learned about science in a collective way, so that they would remember all the aspects they had studied; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) '<emph>Draw everything you know about (female scientist's name)'.</emph> The teacher then sent the drawings to the researcher for analysis (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Hermeneutic matrix of the group interview to 5-year-old.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Dimensión</td><td>Categorías</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. 1. Estereotipos de género</td><td>1.1. Respecto al techo de cristal o dificultad para acceder a los puestos de poder</td></tr><tr><td /><td>1.2. Expectativas negativas respecto a las capacidades de las niñas</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Source: Own elaboration.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-12">6.5. Analytical procedure: categorization, coding and analysis techniques</hd> <p>The comments made by the pupils during the assembly were analysed using the discourse analysis technique (Macartney, Ord, and Robinson [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>]). To analyse the transcription, we started first with large units of analysis or dimensions derived from the theoretical framework and the established questions. After that, we conducted a more in-depth review to identify the 'micro' categories from the participants' interventions, selecting specific quotes, and interpreting them to generate knowledge from a set of specific discourses, following the Grounded Theory method (Liebenberg, Didkowsky, and Ungar [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Grounded Theory focuses on the conceptualization process based on the emergence of social patterns from the research data. Thus, in this research we have started, by means of an inductive process, from the textual data (oral discourse of the students) to break down the text into units (paragraphs or sentences), which have been grouped into categories. The criterion of analogy was used, that is, the similarities or resemblances that exist were considered in order to place them within each category, according to the criteria derived from the objectives of the research and the theoretical framework subscribed to. Analogies and tendencies were sought that would allow inferences to be made in order to transcend the specific textual data, with the aim of going beyond mere description and reaching a meaning that is linked to a broader social and historical context, so that it would also have the capacity to be transferred to other similar situations or phenomena that need to be interpreted or understood.</p> <p>The drawings were analysed using the Content Analysis technique, applied to children's drawings (Krippendorf [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>]; Marín [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref78">37</reflink>]). This procedure was carried out manually and consisted of first classifying the drawings by assigning them a code corresponding to sex, age and the female scientist's initial. The next step was to conduct a global review of all the drawings to identify, through an inductive process, the common elements illustrated by the different drawings which make up the most 'macro' units of analysis, i.e. dimensions. Within each dimension, we then performed a second, more in-depth review, identifying the 'micro' categories based on the specific elements represented in each drawing. Finally, we carried out a frequency count, an analysis of percentages and a chronological classification, in order to find the most relevant trends and differences which the program produced, depending on the age group it was used with.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-13">6.6. Research quality and ethics</hd> <p>The research quality used the qualitative paradigm criteria (Sandín [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref79">51</reflink>]), namely transferability, consistency and intersubjectivity. We also respected the ethical criteria of the research, 'neutrality, social validity and informed consent', as established by González ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>], 101). When working with minors, the research team requested informed consent from the schools, which, in turn, requested authorization from the families to send the drawings to the research team. A commitment has been signed to preserve the anonymity of the children and it has been guaranteed that the only purpose for which the drawings and the interview would be used would be for the educational research of the scientific community.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-14">7. Results</hd> <p>To facilitate the analytical work, we dealt with the data following the order of the research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-15">7.1. Do 5-year-old pupils have gender stereotypes that limit girls' professional development?</hd> <p>Firstly, we present the data obtained from the group interview during the school assembly, and its basic findings are shown in the following hermeneutic matrix:</p> <p>It was noted that the 5-year-old children in Early Childhood Education held certain stereotypical images and perceptions, particularly those related to the glass ceiling and the balance of power between women and men in professional contexts. The pupils affirmed that women cannot be heads of companies or presidents of a country, but instead they assigned them responsibilities as caregivers. However, the pupils were not very sure why this was so:</p> <p>D25: "<emph>Who can be the head of a company or the president of a country? Men, women, or both?</emph>"</p> <p>A1: "<emph>Men and women</emph>"</p> <p>O2: "<emph>Women and men</emph>"</p> <p>O9 and O1: "<emph>Men</emph>"</p> <p>D25: "<emph>Can women be bosses?</emph>"</p> <p>O4, O1, O7 and O9: "<emph>No</emph>"</p> <p>D25: "<emph>Why can't women be bosses?</emph>"</p> <p>O1: "<emph>I don't know</emph>"</p> <p>This situation reflects the typical subconscious, differentiated socialization process based on gender, in which the children, since their learning is based on following models, naturalize from an early age the idea that women are agents with little access to positions of power, which are reserved primarily for men, since it is men who function most effectively in that public sphere.</p> <p>It is striking that it was the children themselves who mainly expressed the idea that it is impossible for women to access positions of leadership or the sphere of social power. This mental picture, already present at this young age, can affect and distort the image and potential that men will project on their female peers in the future, producing a relation of dominance, paternalism or condescension towards them which hinders women's development and chances of professional promotion.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-16">7.2. Are 3- to 6-year-old boys and girls capable of representing female scientists through th...</hd> <p>The hermeneutic matrix shown in Table 4 summarizes the content analysis of the 401 drawings analysed, in answer to the second research question, which queries whether 3-6-year-olds are capable of drawing pictures of women scientists, whether they include their contexts and equipment, and whether they express some obstacles or disadvantages they may have encountered.</p> <p>Table 4. Hermeneutic matrix of content analysis of drawings and interpretations of boys and girls.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Categorías</td></tr><tr><td>Dimensiones</td><td>3 años (83)</td><td>4 años (123)</td><td>5 años (195)</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>G</td><td>f 1</td><td>%</td><td>G</td><td>f 2</td><td>%</td><td>G</td><td>f 3</td><td>%</td><td>G</td><td>f 4</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.1. Representan a la científica</td><td>♂ (31)</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">93.55</td><td>♂ (68)</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">83.32</td><td>♂ (101)</td><td char=".">89</td><td char=".">88.12</td><td>♂ (200)</td><td char=".">175</td><td char="."><bold>87.5</bold></td></tr><tr><td>♀ (45)</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">95.55</td><td>♀ (55)</td><td char=".">53</td><td char=".">96.36</td><td>♀ (94)</td><td char=".">86</td><td>91,49</td><td>♀ (194)</td><td char=".">182</td><td char="."><bold>93.8</bold></td></tr><tr><td>1.2. Representan utensilios o elementos relacionados con la actividad científica</td><td>♂ (31)</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">93.55</td><td>♂ (68)</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">95.59</td><td>♂ (101)</td><td char=".">92</td><td char=".">91.09</td><td>♂ (200)</td><td char=".">186</td><td char="."><bold>93</bold></td></tr><tr><td>♀ (45)</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">95.55</td><td>♀ (55)</td><td char=".">51</td><td char=".">92.73</td><td>♀ (94)</td><td char=".">91</td><td char=".">96.8</td><td>♀ (194)</td><td char=".">185</td><td char="."><bold>95.36</bold></td></tr><tr><td>1.3. Representan dificultades que pudo vivir la científica por el hecho de ser mujer</td><td>♂ (31)</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">12.9</td><td>♂ (68)</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4.4</td><td>♂ (101)</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1.98</td><td>♂ (200)</td><td char=".">9</td><td char="."><bold>4.5</bold></td></tr><tr><td>♀ (45)</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.22</td><td>♀ (55)</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3.63</td><td>♀ (94)</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td>♀ (194)</td><td char=".">4</td><td char="."><bold>2</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Source: Own elaboration.</p> <p>As regards the first dimension, it can be seen that the vast majority of 3-year-old pupils, boys and girls alike, were able to draw pictures of a female scientist. However, at the age of 4, although most girls still drew the scientist (96.36%), the percentage of boys who did so decreased significantly (83.32%), with the rest drawing only the scientist's research activity or the field of study, in sufficient detail, but without any female figure (Figure 1). This trend continues at the age of 5. In the drawing of the scientist Eva Crane, it can be seen how the child only draws the research activity and does not attempt to draw the female scientist at all. In addition, at the age of 4, there is a small percentage of children who, although they do draw the scientist, make the figure very small in size compared with the other elements belonging to their field of research. Her scientific activity is drawn large and in colour as the central element of the drawing, and stands out much more than the female researcher, who is small, uncoloured, and placed on the edge of the drawing (Figure 2). It should be noted that none of the 4-year-old girls made a drawing of the female scientist like this, while 2.94% of the boys did; meanwhile, at the age of 5, 1.98% of the boys drew the scientist as a small figure, and some girls also began to do so (1.06%). Our data indicate that, at the age of 4 and 5, children start to have a more profound understanding of the importance and complexity of scientific findings.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Drawing of Eva Crane.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Drawing of Eugenie Clark.</p> <p>Another important issue is that, on numerous occasions (11.2%), the pupils drew the scientist together with a male figure, with more complex and detailed features depending on the child's age. At 3 years old, the children mostly drew the rudimentary figures typical of their stage of development, although in some cases they included details, such as hair. 6.66% of the girls drew the scientist in no great detail, but with a clearly identifiable masculine image, with short, spiky hair; while the boys generally drew a head with eyes, legs and arms, in which it was impossible to tell the sex, although details such as long hair were included. At the age of 4, the children generally drew more detailed characters, with 19.12% of the boys drawing the scientist with short, spiky, or dishevelled hair, bald or even with a beard (see Figure 3), while only 7.27% of the girls drew them in this way. Finally, at the age of 5, they can already draw perfectly identifiable figures, with more characters appearing in the drawing, and clearly distinguishable female and male characters (see Figure 4). As regards the female scientist, 11.88% of the boys drew them with short, spiky, or dishevelled hair, blue trousers or shirt, and a straight body which widened at the chest and shoulders. As for the girls of this age, the percentage of those who drew the scientist like this was 7.44%.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Drawing of Hypatia of Alexandria with a male face.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Drawing of Eugenie Clark with a male body.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-17">7.3. Are girls and boys from 3 to 6 years old capable of drawing scientific equipment or elem...</hd> <p>Regarding the second dimension of the hermeneutic matrix, most of the pupils drew the scientist, her field of research and the tools she used (95% of boys and girls aged 3 and 4). However, at 5 years old, 91% of the boys and 97% of the girls drew elements related to the scientist's field of work. In this way, the older the pupils, the more elements were drawn and the more complex the details were. At the age of 3, they drew a human figure together with lines, circles, spots, and colours, which represent scientific instruments, although they were barely distinguishable from the other scribbles (see Figure 5).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Drawing of Carmen Becerra and her scientific equipment.</p> <p>At 4 years old, other elements of the scientist's field of work begin to be seen more clearly. Although there were still some scribbles, objects which are familiar to the pupils' daily lives can be identified (the sun, stars, fruit, etc.). They begin to characterize the scientist (glasses, hair, scarf, cap, suit with pockets ...) and attempt to draw objects they have learnt about (an astrolabe, dinosaurs, constellations, submarines, specific marine animals, a table with boats, etc.) (See Figure 6).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Drawings of Hypatia of Alexandria and Bolortsetseg Minjin and their scientific equipment.</p> <p>At the age of 5, there are now hardly any scribbles in the pupils' drawings; everything that accompanies the scientist, including her clothing, is drawn in enough detail to be identified. It is even possible to identify details of the clothing, specific places, and utensils typical of the research carried out (Figure 7).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7. Drawings of Eva Crane and Eugenie Clark and their scientific equipment.</p> <p>Another important point to take into account is that a high percentage of pupils draw other people helping or accompanying the scientist in her work (Figures 7 and 8). The older the pupils, the more this occurs: at 3 years old, 3.2% of boys and 6.66% of girls draw another character; at 4, the percentage increases to 16.17% of boys' drawings, but only 7.27% of girls' drawings. At the age of 5, 11.88% of boys draw more people next to the scientist; at this age it is possible to distinguish the gender of the other figures, and the female scientist is mostly accompanied by male characters (Figure 8). However, in the case of girls, although a high percentage of them show the scientist accompanied by other characters (15.96%), in most cases where it is possible to distinguish the gender of the assistant or accompanying figure, it is female (Figure 9).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 8. Drawing of Mary Anning and her male companion.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 9. Drawing of Eva Crane and her female companions.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-18">7.4. In their drawings, do boys and girls depict some type of limitation or disadvantage for...</hd> <p>In none of the drawings is it obvious that the children perceive limitations or difficulties that the scientist may have experienced for being a woman. However, on several occasions, they depict the scientist with a sad or surprised expression, despite the other characters included in the same drawing being shown as smiling. In some drawings, it is the people accompanying the scientist who are given sad faces (Figure 10), although there are no cases where any kind of limitation is drawn.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 10. Drawing of Eva Crane and another figure with a sad face.</p> <p>This case shows Hypatia, who is coloured in, in the middle of the drawing, smiling and in the arms of another male figure, who is much bigger and has a disapproving look on his face.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-19">8. Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>The data reveal that there are gender stereotypes in 5-year-old children related to an unequal distribution of power between women and men in professional scientific contexts, which is consistent with the findings of Cheryan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]). Their talk is impregnated with sexism in terms of the distribution of scientific professions, implying that it is less normal for women to occupy positions of responsibility in science. The data endorse the findings found in various international research reports, such as the European Commission ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]) and the Women and Science Unit and FECYT ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>]), which reveal that the gender gap in science starts from a very early age. Recently, the systematic review conducted by King et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]) on gender stereotypes and biases in boys and girls aged 3–5 years old confirms not only that these exist, but also that the boys and girls can use their natural adaptability, flexibility, and dynamism, through more egalitarian play, language and learning environments, to begin changing these stereotypical perceptions.</p> <p>This research also shows that the 3- to 5-year-olds' knowledge about female scientists increases after joining the program and confirms that they change their perceptions as regards the role of women in science.</p> <p>According to the data, it is possible, at the age of 3–6, to learn about the lives and achievements of contemporary and historical female scientists, with lessons from the teacher, as well as the use of an active learning methodology, focused on exploration, inquiry, play and cooperation between peers. These results have been endorsed in similar studies carried out both in the national (Mérida-Serrano et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref85">41</reflink>]) and international context (Liben [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The data also show that not all boys and girls represent scientists and their field of research in the same way. In line with the study by Mérida-Serrano et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>]), the quantity and complexity of the mental images that pupils have about female scientists increases as they get older. In this way, as found by Bigler and Pahlke ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]), they are influenced not only by the children's age and gender, but also by other variables such as the educational stimulus, the learning materials, the amount of detail with which the scientist has been worked on, what has been given more importance, whether the gender perspective has been taken into account during the research, etc.</p> <p>The results also reflect the fact that boys have a more masculinized vision of science than girls (Ramírez-Olaya and Peñaloza Jiménez [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref89">49</reflink>]) and that is why they more often draw the scientific figure as a man, compared to the percentage of girls who do so, thus corroborating the research by Blagdanic, Miscevic Kadijevic, and Kovacevic ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref90">11</reflink>]), in which they state that many pupils still have a simplified idea of a scientist as an old man in a white coat working in a laboratory.</p> <p>Another point borne out by the study is that both girls and boys, but more so the latter, build a more objective, neutral view of science. As they get older, they do fewer drawings of female scientists, and are more focused on the research activity than about the person who carries it out. This objective perception of science, present in social culture and the media, is legitimized by the school. In most cases, it transmits a positivist scientific paradigm and an androcentric epistemological approach, which sustains and reinforces gender biases in science, as can also be seen in the studies by Mitchell and McKinnon ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another notable aspect is that, as they get older, the 3- to 6-year-old pupils draw more supporting characters next to the scientist, which is relevant because it means that boys and girls perceive scientific activity as a team effort. However, a higher percentage of boys draw more characters together with the scientist, and they also tend to depict them as male, while girls opt for female assistants. This may be related to the fact that children, although they recognize the female gender of the scientist because they have just learnt about her, continue to maintain a traditional representation of the scientific world, in which a masculine vision of science prevails, since representations and social practices are highly resistant to change (Seron et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>The data also reveal that the children do not reflect in their drawings any limitations of female scientists, as found in the recent study by Mérida-Serrano et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref93">41</reflink>]), which showed that 3- to 6-year-olds are only aware of situations involving direct discrimination.</p> <p>However, in specific cases, some older pupils show an attitude of emotional rejection when depicting feelings of sadness in their drawings, which may be related to the difficulties experienced by female scientists when suffering from inequality of opportunities (Dapía, Escudero-Cid, and Vidal López [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]; Ellemers [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In conclusion, early childhood is an ideal time to include scientific co-educational programs which, with the right guidance from the teacher, help deconstruct gender stereotypes and biases in science. The absence of female scientists in the school curriculum means that girls lack role models and that the field of science is legitimized as a primarily male space. This situation must be transformed from an early age through a co-educational school that focuses more attention on female talent, as part of an inclusive concept of science free of gender biases and stereotypes.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-20">9. Limitations</hd> <p>The limitations of this work refer to two basic aspects: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) The duration of the educational program, the impact of which could increase if its temporal extension were wider: and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>) The deepening in the analysis of the students' drawings, including their voices and personal interpretations and recording them in writing by the researchers or the classroom teachers themselves.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This article is part of the project entitled INGENIA 'Evaluation of the INFACIENCIA coeducational program. Stereotypes, roles and vocational expectations of girl aged 3–6 years old regarding science', funded by the Women's Institute of the Ministry of Equality of the Government of Spain in the 2023 call for grants for Feminist Research.</p> <hd id="AN0182633922-22">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0182633922-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aguilar Ródenas, Consol. 2015. " Igualdad, género y diversidad sexual en la Formación Inicial de Maestro/a en la Universidad Jaume I (UJI)." Temas de Educación 21 (1): 77 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Angrosino, Michael. 2012. Etnografía y observación participante en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aragonés-González, María, Rosser-Limiñana, Ana and Gil-González, Diana. 2020. " Coeducation and Gender Equality in Education Systems: A Scoping Review." Children and Youth Services Review 111 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104837.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arandia, Endika, Zuza, Kristina and Guisasola, Jenaro. 2016. " Actitudes y motivaciones de los estudiantes de ciencias en Bachillerato y Universidad hacia el aprendizaje de la Física." Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 13 (3): 558 – 573. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2016.v13.i3.04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Areljung, Sofie. 2019. " How Does Matter Matter in Preschool Science? " In Material Practice and Materiality in Science Education, edited by Catherine Milne and Kathryn Scantlebury, 101 – 114. Cham: Springer Publisher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, April H., Marianne LaFrance, and John F Dovidio. 2020. " Implicit Androcentrism: Men are Human, Women are Gendered." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 89 : Article 103980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Balongo González, Elena, and Serrano, Rosario Mérida. 2016. " El clima de aula en los proyectos de trabajo. Crear ambientes de aprendizaje para incluir la diversidad infantil." Perfiles Educativos XXXVIII (152): 146 – 162. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2016.152.57602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Benstead, Lindsay J. 2021. " Conceptualizing and Measuring Patriarchy: The Importance of Feminist Theory ". Mediterranean Politics 26 (2): 234 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1729627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref39" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bian, Lin, Sarah-Jane, Leslie and Cimpian, Andrei. 2017. " Gender Stereotypes about Intellectual Ability Emerge Early and Influence Children's Interests." Science 355 (6323): 389 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bigler, Rebecca S., and Erin Pahlke. 2019. " "I disagree! Sexism is Silly to Me!" Teaching Children to Recognize and Confront Gender Biases." In Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination: The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors, edited by Robin K. Mallett and Margo J. Monteith, 299 – 317. Oxford: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814715-3.00012-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blagdanic, Sanja, Gordana Miscevic Kadijevic, and Zorica Kovacevic. 2019. " Gender Stereotypes in Preschoolers' Image of Scientists." European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 27 (2): 272 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1579551.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bukstein, Daniel, and Néstor Gandelman. 2017. "Glass Ceiling in Research: Evidence from a National Program in Uruguay." Documento de trabajo del BID Núm. IDB-WP-798, abril. BID.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chachashvili-Bolotin, Svetlana, Marina Milner-Bolotin, and Sabina Lissitsa. 2016. " Examination of Factors Predicting Secondary Students' Interest in Tertiary STEM Education." International Journal of Science Education 38 (3): 366 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheryan, Sapna, Sianna A. Ziegler, Amanda K. Montoya, and Lily Jiang. 2017. " Why are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced than Others? " Psychological Bulletin 143 (1): 1 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Comisión Europea, Dirección General de Investigación e Innovación. 2021. She Figures 2021: Gender in Research and Innovation: Statistics and Indicators. Luxembourg: Oficina de Publicaciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crossman, Ashley. 2021. "Feminist Theory in Sociology." ThoughtCo. https://<ulink href="http://www.thoughtco.com/feminist-theory-3026624">www.thoughtco.com/feminist-theory-3026624</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dapía, Conde María, Ricardo Escudero-Cid, and Manuel Vidal López. 2019. " ¿Tiene género la ciencia? Conocimientos y actitudes hacia la Ciencia en niñas y niños de Educación Primaria." Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 16 (3): 3201. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2019.v16.i3.3302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhindsa, Harkirat, and Salleh Siti-Zahrani Binti Haji Md. 2018. " Affective Domain Progression in Single-Sex and Coeducational Schools." International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education 16 (5): 891 – 908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9692-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellemers, Naomi. 2018. " Gender Stereotypes." Annual Review of Psychology 69 (1): 275 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escudero, Tomás. 2003. " Desde los tests hasta la investigación evaluativa actual. Un siglo, el XX, de intenso desarrollo de la evaluación en educación." Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa 9 (1): 11 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrer Pérez, Victoria, and Esperanza Bosch Fiol. 2013. " Del amor romántico a la violencia de género. Para una coeducación emocional en la agenda educativa." Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado 17 (1): 105 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flick, Uwe. 2004. Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González, Manuel. 2002. " Aspectos éticos de la investigación cualitativa." Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 29 : 85 – 103. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie290952.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khanyane, Marethabile, Tsepo Mokuku, and Malefu C Nthathakane. 2016. " Perceived Gender Differences in Performance in Science: The Case of Lesotho Secondary Schools." African Journal of Research in Mathematics. Science and Technology Education 20 (3): 278 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2016.1228826.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, Tania L., Anna J. Scovelle, Anneke Meehl, Allison J. Milner, and Naomi Priest. 2021. " Gender Stereotypes and Biases in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 46 (2): 112 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939121999849.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Košir, Suzana, and Radhika Lakshminarayanan. 2023. " Do Visual Constructs in Social Science Textbooks Evince Gender Stereotypes and bias? A Case Study from India." Gender and Education 35 (1): 69 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2144626.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorf, Klaus. 1997. Metodología de análisis de contenido. Teoría y práctica. Barcelona: Paidós.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane, Kristin A., Jin X. Goh, and Erin Driver-Linn. 2012. " Implicit Science Stereotypes Mediate the Relationship Between Gender and Academic Participation." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 66 (3–4): 220 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0036-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liben, Lynn S. 2016. " We've Come a Long Way, Baby (but we're not there yet): Gender past, Present, and Future." Child Development 87 (1): 5 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liebenberg, Linda, Nora Didkowsky, and Michael Ungar. 2012. " Analysing Image-based Data Using Grounded Theory: The Negotiating Resilience Project." Visual Studies 27 (1): 59 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2012.642958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López Navajas, Ana. 2021. Aprender con referentes femeninos. Un legado cultural para la igualdad. Madrid: Ediciones SM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyttleton-Smith, Jennifer. 2019. " Objects of Conflict: (re) configuring Early Childhood Experiences of Gender in the Preschool Classroom." Gender and Education 31 (6): 655 – 672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1332343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macartney, Bernadette, Kate Ord, and Lesley Robinson. 2008. " Three Examples of Using Discourse Analysis in Early Childhood Research." New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education 11 : 137 – 148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machocho Mwang'ombe, Alice, and Mweru Mwingi. 2023. "' I Don't Find it Hard!' They Defied the Gendered Norm in Science! " International Journal of Science Education 45 (15): 1262 – 1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2199464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddison, Sarah, and Frances Shaw. 2012. " Feminist Perspectives on Social Movement Research." In The Handbook of Feminist Research Theory and Praxis, edited by S. Hesse-Biber, 413 – 433. Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publishing Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maphanga, Nonhlanhla, Morojele Patience, Pholoho Justice, and Ncamsile Daphne Motsa. 2018. " Gender Dynamics in Children's Cross-sex Relationships: A Case from a South African Farm School." Gender Behaviour 16 : 11854 – 11869.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marín, Ricardo. 2003. " El dibujo infantil: imágenes, relatos y descubrimientos simbólicos." In Didáctica de la Educación Artística, edited by R. Marín, 53 – 105. Pearson Educación.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mashiya, Nontokozo. 2018. " Learning in Childhood: An Autoethnography of Girl Childrearing Practices and Identity Construction in Southern Africa." Gender & Behaviour 16 (1): 10739 – 10747.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill, Katherine, and Amanda M Knight. 2013. " "Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scientific Argumentation: The Impact of Professional Development on K-12" Teachers." Science Education 97 (6): 936 – 972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mérida-Serrano, Rosario, M. Elena González-Alfaya, M. de los Ángeles Olivares-García, Miguel Muñoz Moya Rodríguez-Carrillo, and Julia Rodríguez Carrillo. 2020. " Sustainable Development Goals in Early Childhood Education. Empowering Young Girls to Bridge the Gender Gap in Science." Sustainability 12 : 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mérida-Serrano, Rosario, M. Elena González-Alfaya, M. de los Ángeles Olivares-García, Miguel Muñoz Moya Rodríguez-Carrillo, and Julia Rodríguez Carrillo. 2023. " Evaluación del impacto de un programa de mujeres y ciencia en el alumnado de Educación Infantil." Revista Complutense de Educación 34 (1): 21 – 33. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.76691.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (MEFP). 2023. Igualdad en cifras. https://<ulink href="http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:652467b7-98dd-43d4-b7c8-0cd4ef52f361/af-igualdad-en-cifras-2023-web.pdf">www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:652467b7-98dd-43d4-b7c8-0cd4ef52f361/af-igualdad-en-cifras-2023-web.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, Madeline, and Merryn McKinnon. 2019. " 'Human' or 'Objective' Faces of Science? Gender Stereotypes and the Representation of Scientists in the Media." Public Understanding of Science 28 (2): 177 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moral, Cristina. 2016. " Estrategias para resistir a la crisis de confianza en la investigación cualitativa actual." Educación XX1 19 (1): 159 – 177. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.14227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosquera, Inés, Blanca Puig, and Paloma Blanco. 2018. " Las prácticas científicas en infantil. Una aproximación al análisis del currículum y planes de formación del profesorado de Galicia." Enseñanza de las Ciencias 36 (1): 7 – 23. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naciones Unidas. 2018. La Agenda 2030 y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: una oportunidad para América Latina y el Caribe (LC/G.2681-P/Rev.3). Santiago: Naciones Unidas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Board and National Science Foundation. 2020. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering. NSB-2020-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donnell, Jennifer Lee. 2018. " The Promise of Recognition and the Repercussions of Government Intervention: The Transgender Pedagogical Vision of Popular Educators in Buenos Aires, Argentina." Gender & Education Journal 30 (8): 1078 – 1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1296113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramírez-Olaya, Luis Carlos Javier, and Gonzalo Peñaloza Jiménez. 2021. " Representaciones sobre la ciencia, la actividad científica y los científicos en niños y jóvenes." Revista Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: TED (Special Issue), 1334 – 1343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, Ken. 1997. " La psicología como ciencia." In Para comprender la psicología, edited by Ken Richardson, 13 – 30. Madrid : Alianza Editorial.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandín, Esteban M. Paz. 2000. " Criterios de validez en la investigación cualitativa: de la objetividad a la solidaridad." Revista de Investigación Educativa 18 (1): 223 – 242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seron, Carroll, Susan S. Silbey, Erin Cech, and Brian Rubineau. 2016. " Persistence is Cultural: Professional Socialization and the Reproduction of Sex Segregation." Work and Occupations 43 (2): 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415618728.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shabsough, Tina, Anıl Boz Semerci, and Azize Ergeneli. 2021. " Women's Entrepreneurial Intention: The Role of Sticky Floor Perception and Social Networking." The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 22 (1): 45 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320927356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shamnaz, Arifin Mim. 2022. " Masculinity of Science: Unveiling Gendered Challenges of Female Science Teachers in Bangladesh." Gender and Education 34 (1): 80 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1866170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siry, Christina, and Charles Max. 2013. " The Collective Construction of a Science Unit: Framing Curricula as Emergent from Kindergarteners' Wondering." Science Education 97 (6): 878 – 902. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21076.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solís-Espallargas, Carmen. 2019. "¿Por qué hay menos mujeres en carreras de ciencia?" The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/por-que-hay-menos-mujeres-en-carreras-de-ciencia-111282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spinner, Lauren, Lindsey Cameron, and Rachel Calogero. 2018. " Peer Toy Play as a Gateway to Children's Gender Flexibility: The Effect of (Counter) Stereotypic Portrayals of Peers in Children's Magazines." Sex Roles 79 (5–6): 314 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0883-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tejedor, F. Javier. 2000. " El diseño y los diseños en la evaluación de programas." Revista de Investigación Educativa 18 (2): 319 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomassini, Cecilia. 2021. " Gender Gaps in Science: Systematic Review of the Main Explanations and Research Agenda." Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS) 22 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.25437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 2020. "The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020." United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unidad de Mujeres y Ciencia y Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT). 2023. " Científicas en cifras." Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. https://<ulink href="http://www.ciencia.gob.es/InfoGeneralPortal/documento/f4f6bb28-cae5-4da2-85f4-067508c410eb">www.ciencia.gob.es/InfoGeneralPortal/documento/f4f6bb28-cae5-4da2-85f4-067508c410eb</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Linden, Nicoline, Elisabeth Browning, and Guillaume Roberge. 2024. Progress toward Gender Equality in Research & Innovation – 2024 Review. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.17632/bb5jb7t2zv.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vázquez, Ángel, and M. Antonia Manassero. 2015. " La elección de estudios superiores científico-técnicos: análisis de algunos factores determinantes en seis países." Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 12 (2): 264 – 277. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2015.v12.i2.03.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wingrave, Mary. 2018. " Perceptions of Gender in Early Years." Gender and Education 30 (5): 587 – 606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1258457.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ana Jurado Gallego; Mª Elena González Alfaya and Rosario Mérida Serrano</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ana Jurado Gallego is an Early Childhood Education teacher with a Master's Degree in Inclusive Education, after receiving a Special End of Degree Award. She works for the University of Córdoba for the project 'Evaluation of the INFACIENCIA co-educational program: stereotypes, roles and vocational expectations of girls aged 3–6 related to science', which is funded in 2023 by the Women's Institute of the Ministry of Equality of the Government of Spain.</p> <p>Mª Elena González Alfaya has a degree in Pedagogy and a European Doctorate in Pedagogy from the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). She is a lecturer at the Department of Education at the University of Córdoba. She participates in the SEJ-614 Research Group (INCIDE: Childhood, Citizenship, Democracy and Education) as well as in the RIECU (School/Teachers' Centre/University) Children's Teacher Network. She is co-author of the book 'Excellence in Early Childhood Education. An international view'. She is also involved in the 'INFACIENCIA: from the girls of today to the scientists of tomorrow' project, and has co-authored the Map of Educational Experiences 'Córdoba, through children's eyes' (MECOI).</p> <p>Rosario Mérida Serrano is an Early Childhood Education teacher, a doctor in Psychopedagogy and Professor of Didactics and School Organization at the University of Córdoba (Spain). She is coordinator of the SEJ-614 Research Group (INCIDE: Childhood, Citizenship, Democracy and Education) and the RIECU (School-Teachers'Centre-University) Children's Teacher Network. She is substitute coordinator of the project 'Evaluation of the INFACIENCIA co-educational program: stereotypes, roles and vocational expectations of girls aged 3–6 related to science' financed by the Women's Institute of the Ministry of Equality of the Government of Spain in 2023. She has published numerous articles with a gender perspective in journals of impact and is a teacher in the Gender Itinerary of the Master of Inclusive Education at the University of Córdoba, where she teaches the subject of Public Equality Policies.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref95"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1459800
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'I Want to Be Like You … ' Using Women Scientists to Challenge Stereotypes and Gender Biases in Childhood
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ana+Jurado+Gallego%22">Ana Jurado Gallego</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3994-0474">0009-0009-3994-0474</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mª+Elena+González+Alfaya%22">Mª Elena González Alfaya</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8264-3680">0000-0001-8264-3680</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rosario+Mérida+Serrano%22">Rosario Mérida Serrano</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9389-3263">0000-0001-9389-3263</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(1):80-99.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Stereotypes%22">Sex Stereotypes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Attitudes%22">Childrens Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Programs%22">Science Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Women+Scientists%22">Women Scientists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biographies%22">Biographies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Freehand+Drawing%22">Freehand Drawing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Schools%22">Elementary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09540253.2024.2418136
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0954-0253<br />1360-0516
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, carried out in different provinces of Spain, we assess the impact of a co-educational science program conducted with children aged 3-6, whose objective is to deconstruct gender stereotypes in science by studying the biographies of female scientists. The evaluative methodology we use is based on analysing the opinions the pupils expressed at a school assembly, and we have applied content analysis to explore how much the pupils learnt about the female scientists, through 401 drawings. The main findings are: (1) 5-year-old children have sexist stereotypes related to the distribution of power between women and men; (2) the program is effective, because the pupils increase their knowledge and enrich their notions of female scientists and their contributions to science; and (3) the pupils do not illustrate situations of indirect inequality among scientists in their drawings, because they only perceive the injustice existing in situations of direct inequality.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1459800
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1459800
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09540253.2024.2418136
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 80
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sex Stereotypes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Women Scientists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biographies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Freehand Drawing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Power Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'I Want to Be Like You … ' Using Women Scientists to Challenge Stereotypes and Gender Biases in Childhood
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ana Jurado Gallego
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mª Elena González Alfaya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rosario Mérida Serrano
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0954-0253
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1360-0516
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gender and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1