If You Don’t See Inequality, You Cannot Teach Equality: What Is Missing in STEM Teachers’ Perceptions for an Equality Pedagogy in STEM Teaching?

Abstract

This article explores how gender biases in STEM education persist despite formal commitments to equality. Based on data from the Erasmus+ project STEMGenderIN, we analyze responses from lower-secondary school teachers (ISCED 2; ages 11–15), of STEM subjects, in Portugal, Italy, Belgium, and Romania using the TPGESE scale, which assesses three dimensions: perceived gender equality in education (PGEE), the awareness of the effects of gender segregation (AEGSE), and the naturalization of gender stereotypes (GSNGI). Findings show a consistent gap between teachers declared support for gender equality and their limited awareness of structural and cultural barriers faced by girls in STEM. While most teachers affirm equality in principle, many attribute girls’ underrepresentation to personal choice or aptitude, overlooking the influence of stereotypes, social expectations, and systemic inequalities. The results point to a paradox: formal recognition of gender equality coexists with low engagement in reflexive practice or institutional change. Differences between countries suggest varying degrees of critical awareness, with some contexts showing greater openness to questioning dominant narratives. This study highlights the urgent need for teacher training that goes beyond rhetoric, promoting deep pedagogical transformation and equipping educators to create more inclusive STEM learning environments. We argue that addressing the perception–practice gap is essential to closing the gender gap in STEM. To situate these findings, we also note how national cultural–political debates—such as Portugal’s public controversy around so-called “gender ideology” in Citizenship and Development—may shape teachers’ perceptions and self-reports, reinforcing the need for context-aware training.

Beyond the Belief–Practice Gap: Competing Models of Pedagogical Justice in STEM Education

“…At the same time, a recurrent paradox is documented across national contexts: teachers overwhelmingly endorse egalitarian principles, yet gendered participation patterns persist [13,14]. Experimental and observational studies frequently interpret this tension through the lens of implicit cognition, showing that educators may associate intellectual brilliance or technical competence more strongly with boys than girls despite explicit rejection of stereotypes [15,16,17].…”

Beyond the Belief–Practice Gap: Competing Models of Pedagogical Justice in STEM Education

“…At the same time, a recurrent paradox is documented across national contexts: teachers overwhelmingly endorse egalitarian principles, yet gendered participation patterns persist [13,14]. Experimental and observational studies frequently interpret this tension through the lens of implicit cognition, showing that educators may associate intellectual brilliance or technical competence more strongly with boys than girls despite explicit rejection of stereotypes [15,16,17].…”

Beyond the Belief–Practice Gap: Competing Models of Pedagogical Justice in STEM Education

“…At the same time, a recurrent paradox is documented across national contexts: teachers overwhelmingly endorse egalitarian principles, yet gendered participation patterns persist [13,14]. Experimental and observational studies frequently interpret this tension through the lens of implicit cognition, showing that educators may associate intellectual brilliance or technical competence more strongly with boys than girls despite explicit rejection of stereotypes [15,16,17].…”

Beyond the Belief–Practice Gap: Competing Models of Pedagogical Justice in STEM Education

“…At the same time, a recurrent paradox is documented across national contexts: teachers overwhelmingly endorse egalitarian principles, yet gendered participation patterns persist [13,14]. Experimental and observational studies frequently interpret this tension through the lens of implicit cognition, showing that educators may associate intellectual brilliance or technical competence more strongly with boys than girls despite explicit rejection of stereotypes [15,16,17].…”