View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gender Discourse About an Ethic of Care: Nursery Schoolteachers' Perspectives

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender Discourse About an Ethic of Care: Nursery Schoolteachers' Perspectives
Language: English
Authors: Rodriguez, Ma del Carmen, Pena, J. Vicente, Fernandez, Carmen Ma, Vinuela, Ma Paulina
Source: Gender & Education. Mar 2006 18(2):183-197.
Availability: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2006
Intended Audience: Students; Teachers
Document Type: Information Analyses
Journal Articles
Opinion Papers
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Ethics, Gender Differences, Interpersonal Relationship, Altruism, Preschool Teachers, Focus Groups, Young Children, Personal Narratives
Geographic Terms: Spain
ISSN: 0954-0253
Abstract: In this paper we will show some of the results of research which took place in the Principality of Asturias (Spain). Its purpose was finding out the gender discourses used by nursery teachers. Although we will not provide an exhaustive list of all the conclusions reached so far, we will put forward one of the aspects which has been developed throughout the investigation; that is, we will discuss some of our observations and hypotheses on the differences observed by the teachers in boys and girls' caring and supporting behaviours. In order to do so, we focus on the type of discourse related to the ethic of care. We consider it a tool which allows teachers to build a type of narrative in which boys and girls are presented as opposites, relational and different from one another.
Abstractor: ERIC
Number of References: 58
Entry Date: 2005
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5386632033H55U4
Accession Number: EJ721814
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGAlRwPxn-oHQqstO-78N2RAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPY3PjqM_fx7pcfcawIBEICBmQYOP20juWyz3YRVlykjtpy1R5k9HuKDsEbLln0l853glNlFzH6JXlG77zDpKYZUoVXMEdEID5tLkKB1hD7GjCvyR-mfk5ZkGv0ZuYkPNbZqNmuoFT76t6k23veQSWFSfLNDpGEggXuO6ATro3SSbATYj-JVQ-06RMM9OOC97mn7ecMwjFu1ReCQX-e8MfYGl_ApjhypIFe0fA==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0019114254;gae01mar.06;2019Feb21.13:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0019114254-1">Gender discourse about an ethic of care: nursery schoolteachers' perspectives. </title> <sbt id="AN0019114254-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>In this paper we will show some of the results of research which took place in the Principality of Asturias (Spain). Its purpose was finding out the gender discourses used by nursery teachers. Although we will not provide an exhaustive list of all the conclusions reached so far, we will put forward one of the aspects which has been developed throughout the investigation; that is, we will discuss some of our observations and hypotheses on the differences observed by the teachers in boys and girls' caring and supporting behaviours. In order to do so, we focus on the type of discourse related to the ethic of care. We consider it a tool which allows teachers to build a type of narrative in which boys and girls are presented as opposites, relational and different from one another.</p> <p>There are a great number of publications which deal with the topic of gender construction inside educational institutions. The reason is that school constitutes an appropriate social framework where boys and girls are allowed to show themselves as active subjects. In the school they form their own personal identity through interactions with their peers and also with adults. Taking into account that the construction of masculinity (Swain, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref1">51</reflink>]) and femininity is considered a collective enterprise, it seems obvious that schools can provide a framework where these construction processes might be possible.</p> <p>In this type of context, social interaction processes that take place throughout the very first schooling years are really relevant. Due to the fact that in these first years different discursive and behavioural practices are being developed, nursery education plays a very important role in gender identity construction (Davies, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]; Jordan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; Arenas, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; Jacklin & Lacey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]; Rodríguez Menéndez, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]</p> <p>This article presents some findings from research that took place in the Principality of Asturias (Spain).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>] The main objective of the research was to explore the type of discursive practices in a group of nursery teachers. Using focus groups we have analysed how teachers state their opinions about gender behaviour referring to boys and girls. The main objective is to check if the discourse which shows boys and girls as opposites, relational and different from each other is still maintained by the teachers. In this article we analyse how teachers express the presence of a hegemonic femininity in girls, through a type of narrative which is linked to ethic of care and to the attention to other children's needs.</p> <hd id="AN0019114254-3">Theoretical perspective</hd> <p>The process of gender configuration and also the identity developed from it, are complex subjects. From this point of view, our theoretical framework basically agrees with the theories which advocate gender identity as a socially constructed phenomenon. This identity is constantly unfinished and influenced by different social frameworks where people interact in their daily life (Davies & Banks, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; Connell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Hallden, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]; Jones, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]; Volman & Ten Dam, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref19">55</reflink>]; Nilan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]; Swain, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref21">50</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>] Consequently, we have considered it necessary to analyse the range of strategies used by people to fit and resist the gender models established by social order. In conclusion, we do not agree with the image of a fixed and motionless gender identity. Moreover we assume that it is inextricably linked to other facts, such as ethnicity or social class (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]; Skelton, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]; Martino, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]; Nilan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>]; Swain, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref27">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nonetheless, we must clarify that we also share the criticism claimed by Francis ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]) on the attempts of transferring a 'pure post‐structuralist' conceptual framework to the scope of gender studies. Therefore, our theoretical attitude shares the ideas developed by this researcher who claims:</p> <p>I agree that we all think and behave in multiple and contradictory ways... and that we should recognize this in our work, I argue that the full acceptance of incoherence and contradiction could fragment the feminist narrative altogether. (Francis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>], p. 388)</p> <p>According to Francis, the different positions within the post‐structuralist theory do not allow a global reference framework about gender dualism. If everything in our personality is diverse and contradictory, any efforts to define theoretical approaches which explain the keeping of a gender social order is useless. On the other hand, it is also true that many of the theories developed under post‐structuralism have allowed progress in the knowledge of gender construction processes, stressing the complexity of the process itself. Nevertheless, our conceptual position is closer to those theories (Francis, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]) which, although stressing the idea of the post‐structuralist complexity, also debate 'the notion that there is no coherence to the self at all' (Francis, in London Feminist Salon Collective, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>], p. 28). Some elements which belong to our identity can be kept through different interactions with the environment. This implies the need to look for some kind of consistent self‐identity as we keep the ideas of change and fluency from the post‐structuralist paradigm.</p> <p>Taking these ideas as a starting point and embracing some of the ideas developed by Connell as a conceptual reference ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]), we think that there is a hegemonic masculinity/femininity and moreover that society pressures boys and girls to assume them as their own. This way, they can be observed by others and by themselves as acceptable and ordinary members of their own culture. This process will be naturally marked by complexity and uncertainty so that accommodation and opposition to gender roles take place. At the same time, social identity is kept and negotiated through the discourse as the result of the interaction that takes place not only with males but also with females.</p> <p>As mentioned above, we are going to analyse pieces of discourses on ethic of care (Gilligan, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]; Bordo, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]; Luke, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]; Porter, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref38">43</reflink>]; Wollett & Phoneix, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref39">57</reflink>]) which were expressed by nursery schoolteachers. As we will see, all of them appear to allow the reproduction of the already mentioned dominant femininity narrative. This means we must focus on the importance of the narrative and gender categories constructed by the social order.</p> <hd id="AN0019114254-4">Data collection</hd> <p>The descriptions and interpretations used in our research come from the transcription of the interviews which were derived from several focus groups. We have chosen this technique for a number of reasons. Firstly, because we believe that discursive practice is a tool through which gender dominant ideas are built and rebuilt (Davies & Banks, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]; Francis, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]); that is the reason why group work is seen as an appropriate tool in a context characterized by its spontaneity. Secondly, this technique enables us to interpret a collective experience and to get information about what people think or feel, their perceptions, emotions and attitudes (Krueger, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]). This method of interviewing involves the exchange of opinions, personal reactions and experiences among members of the group. Furthermore, by creating a social environment in which group members are stimulated by each others' ideas, researchers can increase the quality of data collection (Brodigan, 1992, quoted by Munby <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the purpose of this study, seven focus groups were formed. Each of them belonged to different schools in the Principality of Asturias. Group moderators were part of the ASOCED[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>] research group, whereas all participant teachers worked at the selected nursery schools, teaching young children aged 3‐ to 6‐years‐old. Schools were chosen under a wide cross section criteria (Valles, 1999, p. 91), so that varied nursery teachers' social discourses were represented. Two more specific criteria were taken into account: the geographical environment where schools were placed and the type of centre. We think that this last feature is quite relevant because the ethos of the school also mediates in the way teachers express themselves. From the total number of seven schools which were part of the sample, two of them were placed in rural areas and the other five were situated in urban contexts. These geographical conditions may influence teaching development and the type of discursive practice. We have also taken into account different types of schools: one was a private school, four were state schools and two were 'concertados', that is, private schools partially financed by the state.</p> <p>Each meeting of the focus group lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. The average number of teachers attending those groups was five. From the 35 teachers who participated in this research, 33 were female and only two were male. All sessions took place during May 2002 and were tape recorded with the consent of the participants. Immediately after the session the tapes were transcribed in order to make the analysis of the information easier.</p> <p>The interviews were semi‐structured as we intended to allow a relatively unrestricted discussion of gender issues, while making it possible to cover the same core questions (Francis, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>], p. 521) with each focus group. Teachers were asked about some gender behaviours showed by boys and girls, in order to determine if gender dualism existed. In the cases where such dualism was observed, they were also asked to think about the possible reasons for their survival and which educational procedures could be useful in eradicating hegemonic masculinity/femininity. We would like to point out that teachers were never pressed to answer in favour of such dualism, making clear that they could freely express their thoughts, and that there were no right or wrong answers.</p> <p>Moreover, it is important to remember that the interviewers played an important role in the focus group (Francis, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]). Their function was to raise certain issues with the teachers, to stimulate their participation and spontaneous debate (Valles, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]). During the discussion, moderators could prompt group members with nondirective phrases. The work with focus groups required the use of analytical approaches applied to other qualitative research methods and which are based on content analysis (Valles, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref51">53</reflink>]). For this purpose three levels of analysis were established:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Thematic classification of the ideas which appeared in the focus groups.</item> <p></p> <item> • Descriptions of the content of the transcriptions, including teachers' comments dealing with these specific topics.</item> <p></p> <item> • Theoretical interpretation of the content described in the second level of analysis.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019114254-5">Teachers' gender discourse: boys and girls are different</hd> <p>As we mentioned above, our attention was concentrated on the teachers' discursive practices concerning the ethic of care and attention to others, that is, one of the pillars where hegemonic femininity is held. Through the focus groups we found that the teachers drew attention to the fact that girls usually help others more frequently than boys do. Consequently, statements of this type are quite normal:</p> <p>The girls usually even pretend <emph>to be mothers</emph>. It is something that strikes you. <emph>They care, control, watch over, govern and go over others</emph>. (U2, 4‐year‐olds, our emphasis)[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]</p> <p>The boys don't know how to tie up their shoelaces and the girls do it for them. (U3, 4‐year‐olds)</p> <p>The girls look after the little ones more than the boys, although the boys do it sometimes. ... But the girls, above all, want to be with the little ones; they carry them, they look after them, they feed them, they put their bibs on. They are teacher's assistants. (U1, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>At the start of the school year, it's generally another girl who helps out with buttoning up coats, or things like that. For example, the children in the class of 4‐year‐olds which is next door, it's rather the girls who come to help out my boys or come to report to me if they see that a child of three is having problems. (U3, 3‐year‐olds)</p> <p>Teachers stress that girls have internalized a social role which is representative of hegemonic femininity. Therefore they take advantage of what the school offers, that is, discursive and behavioural strategies which will help them develop that role. Although these ideas will be subject to further comments, we would like to emphasize the first quotation in italic type where the teacher assumes that caring, controlling, watching over, governing and going over others are typical mothers' roles.</p> <p>They have also observed some caring and attentive behaviours when children are taking part in symbolic games. Indubitably, play framework is one of the most important scenarios for social interaction with peers at nursery school. Numerous investigations have shown the learning potentiality of play, not only because it allows boys and girls to rehearse verbal exchanges but also because it develops behaviours which are used in 'real' life (Ortega, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref56">41</reflink>]; Linaza, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]; Lozano <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>]; Ortega & Lozano, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref59">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>From this point of view, the teachers point out that girls usually pretend to be mothers or look after the dolls. They even like pretending to be pregnant, rehearsing for a role they may have to play in the future. In this way, all the behavioural patterns related to the ethic of care are present in their behavioural make‐up: putting a bib on, telling the dolls off, strolling them in the pram, trying the food before feeding the dolls, etc. It can be stated like this:</p> <p>I now have a little girl, and when she was 1‐years‐old and saw a doll for the first time, I was surprised because she picked it up, rocked it and did all those things that my sons didn't do with a doll when. ... I think that is instinctive. (U5, 4‐year‐olds)</p> <p>I teach 5‐year‐olds, and this year I have noticed that the girls in the class like the idea of being pregnant. They often pretend they are pregnant. (U5, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>And this from a female teacher:</p> <p>I myself have a little girl who has just got a brother, and it's all 'honey' 'sweetheart', 'come here', 'sit there', 'don't cry', 'honey', <emph>just as I talk, and just as her mother probably does. ...</emph> Then she lifts her peers, carries them over and puts them down. (U4, 3‐year‐olds, our emphasis)[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]</p> <p>When facing this situation, the teachers are convinced that one possible reason for this caring and attentive behaviour is the presence of female models who develop this expressive and caring role at home or at school. The discursive and behavioural universe of hegemonic femininity is ready for service and, besides, it is an attractive model which lets them fit to social requirements. Obviously, the process of self construction is multiple, contradictory and complex. Nonetheless, the social pressure to fit hegemonic femininity requirements is especially visible at these ages, when children depend on adults yet.</p> <p>Hence, we should emphasize a vital issue in the early years of a child's life: the importance of the mother's role. Due to the fact that the children's care is generally in her hands, the process of interaction between both parts strongly influences the configuration of their identity. The 'maternal imaginary' (Sumsion, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]) seems to be very attractive to girls; that is the reason why they spend time acquiring behaviours and performances associated with it. Related to this point, it is worth noting Davies' ideas stating that:</p> <p>... for many girls their most significant experience before going to nursery school takes place at home. In this environment the person who usually takes care of them is the mother, or in her absence, another woman. A girl's idea of what it is to be a woman is learned from this relationship. (Davies, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>], p. 211, our translation)</p> <p>This situation is reinforced when they go to school, as nursery schoolteachers practice an ethic of care which is very similar to the one played by the girls' mothers at home. An example can be seen in the last quotation in bold type. In it the female teacher points out that the girl talks to the dolls reproducing what she observes in her mother and female teacher. The discourse shows that the female teacher has internalized the hegemonic femininity schema. She points out that the role of the mother and the nursery teacher is the same, that is, to take care of others (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>]; Hubbard & Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Vogt, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref65">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conversely, due to the lack of close significant male role models who behave in a caring and helping manner, the situation of males is different. This fact must be considered in relation to frequently discussed topic in sociological literature that is the higher female presence in the teaching profession, especially at primary and nursery levels, and how this fact influences gender socialization processes (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>]). A lot of discussion has been generated towards the presence of male teachers in nursery and primary education. Furthermore, there are some points which seem to be especially problematic, for example, 'the assumption that raising the proportion of male teachers will provide boys with positive, work‐oriented "role models" is based on notions of gender which have long been challenged' (Skelton, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>], p. 195). As we have said before, the raising of the number of male teachers is not enough. However it can contribute to discursive interaction exchanges with adults who perform tasks far away from hegemonic stereotypes. Some comments expressed in one of the focus groups may help us to understand this idea. One of the male teachers who was part of our sample said the following:</p> <p>Nearly every day, in the morning we talk about what we're going to do. Suddenly, out of nowhere, five boys get up and hurl themselves into my arms. They always show you more affection. The girls always keep themselves more at a distance. (U2, assistant teacher)</p> <p>This male teacher used this example to demonstrate that perhaps boys show their feelings and emotions more than girls do. Faced with this, his female group‐mates commented to him that this particular situation might have arisen because of the fact that he is a man. We believe this is a good example to demonstrate how important it is to provide young boys with images which contradict hegemonic masculinity. If their teachers show this kind of conduct, children will be able to rehearse alternative ways of behaviour. Obviously, as we mentioned above, the simple presence of non‐stereotyped models of behaving cannot finish with hegemonic mascunility and femininity. Nevertheless, we must point out that the use of conductive and discursive strategies showing an ethic of care, is needed in the daily action of male teachers. The previous ideas demonstrate the need to pay attention to those males who choose teaching very young learners as their profession (Sumsion, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]). There is no doubt that 'the fundamental schism between community perceptions of masculinities and the "maternal" imaginary that surrounds early childhood education created many tensions' (Sumsion, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref69">49</reflink>], p. 459). Their work as nursery schoolteachers breaks social expectations and makes it necessary to pay attention to the problems derived from their professional practice. Moreover, the general reaction is the inference that nursery and primary teaching is an inappropriate profession for males. We must note that images of child abuse, sexual harassment and other negative aspects are usually related to male teachers working in the nursery and primary levels (Benton DeCorse & Vogtle, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>]; Sumsion, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref71">49</reflink>]; Vogt, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>]; Skelton, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is another idea that must be noticed. Teachers also made comments on the preferences showed by children towards the different 'corners' of the classroom where they can play. While the boys usually prefer the area where the bricks and fire engines are, the girls show more interest in the playhouse (also called the symbolic life practice area):</p> <p>There are boys who play in the kitchen area, for example; but generally speaking they opt for the bricks, the fire engine, and the aggressive stuff where there's action. The girls head over to the playhouse, they pretend to be nurses, go to the hairdressers. Very few go over to the bricks. (R6, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>In the kitchen play, boys and girls play indistinctly. However, what happens with the 4‐year‐old, at least in my class and with earlier ages, is that boys don't play with dolls, washing them or do not use push chairs. (R6, 4‐year‐olds)</p> <p>From what is spontaneous, that is when you do not put them in a specific corner, I think that the girls, when unprompted, pretend to be mums but boys don't pretend to be dads. (R6, 4‐year‐olds)</p> <p>There is no doubt that these statements demonstrate that the playhouse is the perfect play area for rehearsing caring and attentive behaviour towards others. It is a 'natural' real environment where these behaviours acquire full meaning. We must say that some teachers maintain that some boys also enjoy playing in the kitchen area. They commented that:</p> <p>In my class generally, the boys also play in the kitchen area. Most of them love to play there. For example, they like setting the table with all the cutlery, and serving the coffee. (R6, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>I have boys who are in the playhouse all day long and you can't get them out. There are a few boys who prefer the playhouse, possibly even more than girls. (R7, assistant teacher)</p> <p>The rehearsing of transgressive behaviours can provide a possible explanation to understand the boys' presence in this part of the classroom. Instead of choosing options which match with hegemonic masculinity, they show the desire to undertake other type of behaviours and moreover they put them into practice (Davies & Banks, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]; Francis, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]). However, various teachers also noticed that as the boys grow older, discursive and behavioural practices which had been adopted in the playhouse gradually disappeared, so that 'dressing dolls up or having a walk with them in a pram does not happen as often as when they were 3‐ or 4‐years‐old' (R7, 5‐year‐olds). We must also mention that play is less differentiated when children are 3‐years‐old. This idea means that it is 'normal' for boys and girls to enjoy the kitchen area or the bricks independently of their gender. However, as they grow up, an attempt to fit in with the social requirements can be seen, and this means that boys play less in an area which could be called 'feminine'. In our sample, many of the teachers who teach in the first year (3‐years‐old) observed few differences in the behaviour shown by each gender, whereas these differences become more apparent as the children grow older. Just as Jordan ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>]) claims, in the development of their identities, boys and girls are far away from what it means to belong to one or another gender. It is also significant that some of the teachers see large differences between the behaviour shown by 3‐year‐old boys and girls during the first term (October/December) and the behaviour observed at the end of the year (around May/June). A statement made by one of the teachers illustrates this point in the focus group:</p> <p>I differentiate between 3‐, 4‐ and 5‐year‐olds. In the 3‐year‐olds I don't see a difference between boys and girls when they are playing. In the playground and in the different classroom areas, children go around in mixed groups of boys and girls. In these areas, even in the kitchen play, you can find boys or girls there. Later on, when they are 4‐ [years‐old], a set group starts to be formed. I don't mean that boys play by themselves and girls play separately on the other side of the room, but somehow they start making some distinctions. (U3, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>If that is true, a possible explanation comes from the stress and complexity experienced by boys and girls in the development of their identities. Although in some cases 'the desire to be' is being shifted to the 'must be', social constraint very often provokes the construction of two opposite identities (Davies & Banks, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref79">11</reflink>]; Francis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]). One female teacher commented that there were boys who would have liked to play in the playhouse, but the social pressure on them could make them stay away unless they were alone:</p> <p>What usually happens is that they enjoy themselves, they would even like to play more, but because there are three or four boys by the cars, they go there. If they were alone they would be in the kitchen area. But when they see a group of mates by the cars, they don't play as much in the kitchen area. (U2, 3‐year‐olds)</p> <p>The kitchen area is dominated by girls (Walkerdine, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>]; Davies, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref82">11</reflink>]). Girls are the ones who distribute the roles to each participant and direct the action. Surprisingly this behaviour is not observed in other areas or in other games:</p> <p>Yet in the kitchen play, for example, when they are free to choose, the girls usually control the game a lot. They usually organize everything and dominate the situation. (U4, 3‐year‐olds)</p> <p>We wish to underline another aspect stated by many teachers: boys and girls sometimes use the same objects and toys in the classroom; however it often happens that they use them in a different way. In order to give them an 'appropriate' meaning, boys and girls transform toys (Lobato, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref83">29</reflink>]). A very clear example is provided by a female teacher who states:</p> <p>When children were younger, they ironed, hung on clothes, dressed and undressed dolls, both boys and girls. As they get older, boys play with objects in a different way. For example, dolls are not for dressing or undressing them but for piling them together. Girls play in a more organized way, they feed dolls, they put their dresses on and comb their hair. Boys also play with dolls, but in a different way. They would pick up the doll and say '<emph>I'm going to fight with you</emph>' or '<emph>there's the space ship and a boat</emph>'. The boys play like that. (U1, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <hd id="AN0019114254-6">Teachers' influence on the construction of gender dualism</hd> <p>In this section we will try to show the perception of gender dualism which teachers have undergone. We believe that this can mediate in the type of discourse and interaction established inside the classroom. It can also influence the shaping of hegemonic masculinity and femininity.</p> <p>Firstly, we should point out something we have already mentioned in a very brief way. It has been observed that there is an association between being a woman and caring and helping behaviours. When explaining the girls' helping behaviour, teachers say:</p> <p>I have observed that when it's time to button up their overall, children help each other, but girls usually help more than boys. (Female teacher)</p> <p> <emph>It's a mum thing</emph>. Girls care for their peers more [than boys]. For example L overwhelmed by the children because she is very little and everybody wants to help her, they want to be the mother, they feel protectors. (R7, female teacher, our emphasis)</p> <p>When the girls bring dolls from home or when they play in the kitchen area, they often pretend <emph>to be mothers</emph>. (U1, 3‐year‐olds, our emphasis)</p> <p>It can be inferred that these behaviours are feminine. Even unconsciously there is a projection which shows that are mothers the ones who should take a helping role. In the following we conclude that the female teacher does not observe differences between boys and girls in terms of autonomous behaviour; however, it is true that when either of them (boy or girl) shows dependency it is related to his/her mother.</p> <p>I think that constant search of adult protection does not depend on gender but on maturity, on how the child has been brought up in autonomy matters. A child who has been brought up as a baby, <emph>who always depends on her mother</emph>, is usually going to ask for constant dependency, no matter if it is a boy or a girl. (U2, 3‐year‐olds, our emphasis)</p> <p>In addition to this, female teachers assume that girls enjoy behaving in a caring and helping manner. Furthermore, teachers quite often point out that they positively praise those girls who behave helpfully:</p> <p>Teacher: The girls always tend to help the little ones.</p> <p>Interviewer: They help them to do what?</p> <p>Teacher: They go into the dining room with them, they put their bibs on, and <emph>sometimes female teachers let them feed them a little. They love it</emph>. Sometimes there is a boy, but normally are girls who do that. (U1, female teacher, 4‐year‐olds, our emphasis)</p> <p>An attitude of surprise is shown when a boy behaves in a caring or helpful way. One example refers to a child who behaved in a way which did not fit the stereotype of hegemonic masculinity:</p> <p>When girls start school they are very motherly ... there was only one case of a boy behaving in the same way and since <emph>we found it strange, he was the one we all talked about</emph>. P pretended to be a smaller classmate's dad. There was a girl who was smaller and P was her protector. (U2, 3‐year‐olds, our emphasis)</p> <p>In fact, <emph>if a boy behaves like that it surprises you</emph>. My P, who is very good at helping, he helps everyone, makes you think: 'Wow, P—impossible, boys don't bother these things. (U4, 3‐year‐olds, our emphasis)</p> <p>In this last case, we can see concern for a boy who behaves in an non‐hegemonic way. The teachers frequently expect the children to behave in a certain manner, 'they expect to see the expected' and they find it strange when these behaviour patterns appear in the 'wrong gender'. It is difficult to accept any behaviour which is against gender stereotypes because it seems to go 'against common sense'. At the same time, certain male stereotypes can be clearly seen in the first statement, since the female teachers accommodate that role carried out by P: he is not seen as a 'carer' but as a 'protector' maybe because this is a role that fits better with the male stereotype.</p> <p>Female teachers do not usually reinforce children in a negative way when they show behavioural patterns considered as undesirable for their gender. Furthermore, although the behaviour may be classified as 'strange' it is positively reinforced through discourse. In this way, using spontaneous conversations in class or when a child is interested in something which implies breaking away from the gender dualism, female teachers reinforce this behaviour as a way of favouring equity:</p> <p>Sometimes, when we're talking to the children, mainly if we want to tease them the conversations are like this:</p> <p>Female teacher: And at home who gives you a bath? Who cooks?</p> <p>Child: Well, mum cooks.</p> <p>Female teacher: Well, dad should cook too. Tell him to learn how to.</p> <p>I love causing trouble, stirring things up a bit. (U3, 3‐year‐olds)</p> <p>Two years ago I had a boy who asked for a play kitchen for Christmas, and got it. He said to me 'A I'm going home to play with my new kitchen'. And I say, ''Well, that's wonderful. See if you can make a tasty dish'. These are the type of conversations you have with them. (U4, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>We can see that children are not necessarily restricted by teachers and sometimes they behave in a way that is beyond the limits established for each gender. However, boys and girls are almost never encouraged to behave against social stereotypes. Occasionally, if a child spontaneously does it, the teachers reinforce this non‐stereotypical behaviour positively. However, their intervention stops there. Besides, when they are asked how do they combat sexism in the classroom, the most frequent explanation is using a strategy of 'non‐intervention' (Campbell & Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]; Bonal, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]; Fuentes‐Guerra, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref86">18</reflink>]), in the sense that the teachers let the children behave 'as they wish' without restrictions.</p> <p>There is a lot of equality here because children see that it's exactly the same for boys as it is for girls in everything, absolutely everything. (U3, 3‐year‐olds)</p> <p>The children know that in my class they can do what they want, and the teacher they had last year followed the same system, they could do what they wanted in her class too. (R6, 5‐year‐olds)</p> <p>These statements highlight a mistaken conception of coeducation since it has been demonstrated that 'non‐intervention' or 'laissez faire' causes the reproduction of gender dualism. If the children are merely left alone, boys and girls will end up reproducing the typical behaviour for each gender (Jacklin & Lacey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref87">23</reflink>]; MacNaughton, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref88">33</reflink>]; Francis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>An example will clarify what we mean. The majority of the teachers do not want to influence the type of game boys and girls play, so they do not establish rules to determine the corner where boys or girls are allowed to play. Furthermore, if the boys decide to play in the kitchen area the teachers applaud this conduct and reinforce it positively. However, as a female teacher answered us when she was asked about the kind of games boys play in this area: 'They do what they want, but the kitchen area doesn't catch their attention'. In such a case, the female teacher should catch the boys' attention, to make them interested in the type of activities they can perform in that corner. This way they would be able to practice routines and behaviours which are carried out in their ordinary life. However, in order to achieve this, the teachers should not wait until the child is interested in that area, as the child might be inhibited because of his socialization (Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref90">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>And so, it is necessary to help them break away from the gender dualism they may have acquired before (Jones, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>]). This is achieved through encouraging their interest in certain activities and games which are not part of the pre‐established behaviour for their gender. We also agree with other authors (Davies [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref93">12</reflink>]; Jordan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>], p. 229; Golden, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref95">20</reflink>]) who claim that this strategy is not enough. They suggest that it is also necessary to carry out a gender deconstruction with boys and girls. Some authors have emphasized how difficult this process can be (Francis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]). We believe that teachers' participation within the scope of nursery schools necessarily requires the activation of discursive strategies which allow boys and girls to delve deeply into their own identity complexity (Jones, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref97">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0019114254-7">Conclusion</hd> <p>From the evidence of this study, we can assume that some teachers build up a type of discourse about hegemonic femininity centred on an ethic of care. This fact allows them to give coherence and consistency to the world. This being the case, we also agree with the attempts which have been carried out in order to help very young boys and girls to surpass gender dualism (Davies, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]; Jacklin & Lacey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref100">23</reflink>]; Francis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref101">16</reflink>]; Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref102">34</reflink>]). At the moment we want to emphasize the need to train the teacher and work with them, in order to make them aware of the importance of these themes.</p> <p>The findings of the study suggest that it would be very positive to enable teachers to confront their own interaction and discursive practices. They might then question themselves, their gender narrative and the strategies used in order to avoid sexism in their classrooms. Through such activities they might be helped to understand how they have taken up various discourses as their own. We totally agree with MacNaugthon's analyses ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref103">33</reflink>]) of the processes followed by a nursery female schoolteacher. At the beginning, 'gender' is not taken into account as a relevant aspect for the organization of daily practices. However, due to a deconstruction of gender categories she eventually realizes the need to break gender dualism in the classroom.</p> <p>Obviously, this process of questioning and reviewing one's own ideas is complex. It demonstrates that teachers face great difficulties in introducing a gender perspective into their working activity (MacNaugthon, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>], p. 320). In spite of this, we claim that attempts to deconstruct and modify teachers dualist thought, are necessary to carry out effective participation in the school setting.</p> <p>There is no doubt, that this process of deconstruction should be included in teachers' training. We assume that initial training should prepare teachers to teach equitably in the classrooms, so that 'gender equity must be a hot topic in the preparation of teachers' (Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>], p. 26). Nevertheless, several authors confirm the idea that gender equity has a minor role in teacher training nowadays (Skelton & Hanson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref106">48</reflink>]; Campbell & Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref107">6</reflink>]). It has also been pointed out that there is minimal information on this topic in teacher training textbooks (Zittleman & Sadker, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref108">58</reflink>]). Consequently, if future teachers don't learn about gender equity in their teacher training, they won't probably learn about it at all. It can be said that 'when gender issues are not incorporated into the 'thinking' which underpins initial teacher education programmes, then stereotyped assumptions about girls and boys will persist' (Skelton & Hanson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref109">48</reflink>], p. 114). To sum up, raising students' consciousness about gender issues should be an important objective in teacher training.</p> <p>Furthermore, we have to consider what Titus ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref110">52</reflink>]) points out when he examines the resistance shown by students towards feminism in teacher training. In this article, he proposed some targets for teacher training: to transform relations of power in the classroom; to focus on concepts such as 'student voice' and 'dialogue'; to invite students to examine biases involved in all forms of knowledge; to make them reconsider their preconceived ideas about sources of 'truth'; to use popular culture, magazines and newspapers to help them understand the concept of gender in the context of their own lives; to acquire a sense of possibilities to create a more just society and finally to assist them in negotiating alternative visions. From our point of view, these goals give us the basis to support the presence of gender equity in the initial teacher training curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0019114254-8">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0019114254-9"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 1. It should be noted that when we refer to nursery education we are referring to the Spanish educational system, where this stage includes the period 3‐ to 6‐years‐old.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> 2. Asturias is a relatively small region, located on the Cantabrian coast which also includes the Basque Country and Cantabria.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> 3. We are aware that the post‐structuralist framework establishes different theoretical stances concerning constitution and reconstitution of identity processes through discursive practice. Within the pedagogical context, and as a paradigmatic example, we can see the different conceptual frameworks developed by two researchers (Davies, [12]; Jones, [24]) which are included in those stances. In this work, we show a general vision of the post‐structuralist paradigm emphasising common features in different approaches.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> 4. The ASOCED research group is formed by eight university teachers. All of them belong to the Department of Education at the University of Oviedo. They have been working in different educational projects and investigations, and are the authors of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> 5. In these quotations which show how teachers think about this topic, we include some extra information: 'U' for urban schools; 'R' for rural schools, a number to identify each school that participated in the investigation and the age of the children's group (3‐, 4‐ or 5‐years‐old).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> 6. A very similar situation has been found in Marsh ([34]). In this article an experience to help boys and girls to transcend gender dualism is described. There, boys and girls play and assume the superhero role, a good way to transcend hegemonic femininity and masculinity. However, Marsh observes a helping and caring behaviour when girls supply food and drink to the 'villains' who were caught and put into jail. There we can appreciate a perfect example of ethic of care.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> 7. The Bordo ([5]), Porter ([43]) and Woollett and Phoneix ([57]) articles can all be found in English in Luke ([32]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0019114254-10"> <title> References7 </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acker, S.1995. Carry on caring: the work of women teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16: 21–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arenas Fernández, G.1996. Triunfantes perdedoras. Investigación sobre la vida de las niñas en la escuela [Investigation about girls' life in the school], Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benton Decorse, C. J. and Vogtle, S. P.1997. In a complex voice: the contradictions of male elementary teachers' career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1): 37–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonal, X.1997. Las actitudes del profesorado ante la coeducación [Teachers' attitude towards coeducation], Barcelona: Graó.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bordo, S.1999. "El hambre como ideología [Hunger as ideology]". In Feminismos y pedagogías en la vida cotidiana [Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life], Edited by: Luke, C.Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, P. and Sanders, J.1997. Uninformed but interested: findings of a national survey on gender equity in pre‐service teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1): 69–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, R. W.1995. Masculinities: knowledge, power and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R. W.1998. Enseñar a los chicos: nuevas investigaciones sobre la masculinidad y estrategias de género para la escuela [Teaching boys: new investigations about masculinity and gender strategies for schools]. Kikiriki, 47: 51–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davies, B.1987. "The accomplishment of genderedness in pre‐school aged children". In Children and their primary schools, Edited by: Pollard, A.London: Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, B.1993. Shards of glass: children reading and writing beyond gendered identities, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, B.1994. Sapos y culebras y cuentos feministas. Los niños de preescolar y el género [Frogs and snails and feminist tales. pre‐school children and gender], Madrid: Cátedra.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, B.1997. The subject of post‐structuralism: a reply to Alison Jones. Gender & Education, 9(3): 271–283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, B. and Banks, C.1992. The gender trap: a feminist poststructuralist analysis of primary school children's talk about gender. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(1): 1–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, B.1997a. Discussing discrimination: children's construction of sexism between pupils in primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(4): 519–532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, B.1997b. Power plays: children's constructions of gender and power in role‐plays. Gender & Education, 9(2): 179–191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, B.1998. Oppositional positions: children's construction of gender in talk and role plays based on adult occupation. Educational Research, 40(1): 31–43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, B.1999. Modernist reductionism or post‐structuralist relativism: can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender & Education, 11(4): 381–393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuentes‐Guerra Soldevilla, M.2001. "La coeducación en la formación inicial del profesorado. Informe de investigación [Coeducation in teacher's initial training]". In Educar en femenino y en masculino [Education in masculinity and femininity], Edited by: Blanco, N.Madrid: Akal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilligan, C.1985. La moral y la teoría. Psicología del desarrollo femenino [In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development], México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golden, J.1996. Critical imaginations: serious play with narrative and gender. Gender & Education, 8(3): 323–335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallden, G.1997. Competence and connection: gender and generations in boys' narratives. Gender & Education, 9(3): 307–316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubbard, L. and Datnow, A.2000. A gendered look at educational reform. Gender & Education, 12(1): 115–129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacklin, A. and Lacey, C.1997. Gender integration in the infant classroom: a case study. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5): 623–639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, A.1997. Teaching post‐structuralist feminist theory in education: student resistances. Gender & Education, 9(3): 261–269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, L.1996. Young girls' notions of 'feminity'. Gender & Education, 8(3): 311–321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan, E. 1995. Fighting boys and fantasy play: the construction of masculinity in the early years of school. Gender & Education, 7(1): 69–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krueger, R.A.1991. El grupo de discusión: guía práctica para la investigación aplicada [Focus groups: a practical guide], Madrid: Pirámide.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linaza, J. L.1992. Jugar y aprender[Playing and learning], Madrid: Alhambra Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lobato Gómez, E.2003. Juego sociodramático y género. Un estudio de caso en el último curso de educación infantile [Sociodramatic play and gender. A study case in the last year of nursery education], Oviedo University. Unpublished research project</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 2004. The problematization of agency in postmodern theory: as feminist educational researchers, where do we go from here?. Gender & Education, 16(1): 25–33. London Feminist Salon Collective</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lozano, M. T., Ortega, R. and De Ben, M. A.1996. Los espacios de juego en la escuela: aprender jugando a 'la casita' [Play area in the school: learning by using the kitchen area]. Cultura y Educación, 1: 99–113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luke, C.1999. "La infancia y la maternidad y paternidad en la cultura popular infantil y en las revistas de cuidados infantiles [Childhood and parenting in children's popular culture and childcare magazines]". In Feminismos y pedagogías en la vida cotidiana [Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life], Edited by: Luke, C.Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacNaughton, G.1997. Feminist praxis and the gaze in the early childhood curriculum. Gender & Education, 9(3): 317–326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J.2000. 'But I want to fly too!': girls and superhero play in the infant classroom. Gender & Education, 12(2): 209–220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martino, W.1999. 'Cool boys', 'party animals', 'squids' and 'poofters': interrogating the dynamics and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2): 239–263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munby, H., Lock, C., Hutchinson, N. L., Whitehead, L. and Martin, A. K.1999. Evaluation by teacher candidates of a field‐based teacher education program using focus group. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(2): 35–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilan, P.2000. 'You're hopeless I swear to God': shifting masculinities in classroom talk. Gender & Education, 12(1): 53–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, R.1990. Jugar y aprender. Una estrategia de intervención educativa [Playing and learning. An educative strategy of intervention], Sevilla: Diada Editoras.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, R.1994. Juego, desarrollo y aprendizaje en educación infantil [Play, development and learning in nursery education]. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 28/29: 13–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, R.1997. Desarrollo, aprendizaje y currículo de educación infantil: el papel del juego [Development, learning and nursery education curriculum; the role of play]. Investigación en la Escuela, 33: 17–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, R.1998. La potencialidad educativa del juego infantil [The educative posibility of children play]. Kikiriki, 50: 34–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, R. and Lozano, T.1996. Espacios de juego y desarrollo de la autonomía y la identidad en la educación infantil [Play areas and development of the autonomy and identity in nursery education]. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 52/53: 13–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, E.1999. "Mujeres y amistades: pedagogías de la atención personal y las relaciones [Women and friendships: pedagogies of care and relationality]". In Feminismos y pedagogías en la vida cotidiana [Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life], Edited by: Luke, C.Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodríguez Menéndez, C.2003. La configuración del género en los procesos de socialización [Gender configuration in the socialization processes], Oviedo: KRK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, J.2003. Teaching gender equity in teacher education. The Education Digest, 68: 25–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skelton, C.1997. Primary boys and hegemonic masculinities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(3): 349–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skelton, C.2003. Male primary teachers and perceptions of masculinity. Educational Review, 55(2): 195–209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skelton, C. and Hanson, J.1989. "Schooling the teachers: gender and initial teacher education". In Teachers, gender and careers, Edited by: Acker, S.London: Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumsion, J.1999. Critical reflections on the experiences of a male early childhood worker. Gender & Education, 11(4): 455–468.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swain, J.2000. 'The money's good, the fame's good, the girls are good': the role of playground football in the construction of young boy's masculinity in a junior school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1): 95–109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swain, J.2004. The resources and strategies that 10‐ to 11‐year old boys use to construct masculinities in the school setting. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1): 169–185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titus, J. J.2000. Engaging student resistance to feminism: how is this stuff going to make us better teachers. Gender & Education, 12(1): 21–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valles, M. S.1997. Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional [Cualitative techniques in social investigation. Methodological reflexion and professional practice], Madrid: Síntesis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogt, F.2002. A caring teacher: explorations into primary school teachers' professional identity and ethic of care. Gender & Education, 14(3): 251–264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volman, M. and Ten Dam, G.1998. Equal but different: contradictions in the development of gender identity in the 1990s. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(4): 529–545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walkerdine, V.1990. Schoolgirl fictions, London: Virago.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woollett, A. and Phoneix, A.1999. "La maternidad como pedagogía: la psicología evolutiva y los relatos de madres de niños pequeños [Motherhood as pedagogy]". In Feminismos y pedagogías en la vida cotidiana [Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life], Edited by: Luke, C.Madrid: Morata.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zittleman, K. and Sadker, D.2002. Gender bias in teacher education texts. New (and old) lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2): 168–180.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ma del Carmen Rodríguez; J. Vicente Peña; Carmen Ma Fernández and Ma Paulina Viñuela</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ721814
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender Discourse About an Ethic of Care: Nursery Schoolteachers' Perspectives
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rodriguez%2C+Ma+del+Carmen%22">Rodriguez, Ma del Carmen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pena%2C+J%2E+Vicente%22">Pena, J. Vicente</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fernandez%2C+Carmen+Ma%22">Fernandez, Carmen Ma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vinuela%2C+Ma+Paulina%22">Vinuela, Ma Paulina</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+%26+Education%22"><i>Gender & Education</i></searchLink>. Mar 2006 18(2):183-197.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Students; Teachers
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Information Analyses<br />Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Altruism%22">Altruism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+Groups%22">Focus Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Narratives%22">Personal Narratives</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0954-0253
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this paper we will show some of the results of research which took place in the Principality of Asturias (Spain). Its purpose was finding out the gender discourses used by nursery teachers. Although we will not provide an exhaustive list of all the conclusions reached so far, we will put forward one of the aspects which has been developed throughout the investigation; that is, we will discuss some of our observations and hypotheses on the differences observed by the teachers in boys and girls' caring and supporting behaviours. In order to do so, we focus on the type of discourse related to the ethic of care. We consider it a tool which allows teachers to build a type of narrative in which boys and girls are presented as opposites, relational and different from one another.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 58
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5386632033H55U4" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=U5386632033H55U4</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ721814
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ721814
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 183
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Altruism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Narratives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender Discourse About an Ethic of Care: Nursery Schoolteachers' Perspectives
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rodriguez, Ma del Carmen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pena, J. Vicente
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fernandez, Carmen Ma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vinuela, Ma Paulina
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0954-0253
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gender & Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1