1. Introduction
For many young people, ranging from children in early education to undergraduate university students, formal equality can create the illusion that real and effective equality has already been achieved (Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022; Merma-Molina et al. 2021). However, research indicates that new generations, from early childhood (Hammond and Cimpian 2021) to those at the university level (Heffernan 2022), continue to reproduce sexist stereotypes. This underscores the urgent need for all educational agents to receive robust training in the gender perspective, understood here as the ability to critically examine gender-based inequalities, roles, and stereotypes within educational contexts (UNESCO 2015), and to be provided with meaningful opportunities to develop competencies aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) (Miralles-Cardona et al. 2022).
Students need opportunities to experience and develop competencies related to SDG 5; therefore, spaces and initiatives that foster this integration must be actively promoted (Miralles-Cardona et al. 2022). One such opportunity is the undergraduate dissertation (UD)—an individual research project completed at the end of a degree program, in which students choose a topic to explore in greater depth. In this paper, the term “gender perspective” refers to incorporating gender-sensitive analysis into teaching and learning processes and critically examining gender-based inequalities and stereotypes within educational contexts (UNESCO 2015; Kreitz-Sandberg and Lahelma 2021).
This study examines the extent to which students enrolled in Social Education, Early Childhood Education, and Primary Education degree programs at a university in Northern Spain select gender-related topics for their UDs. Addressing this question enables us to explore (1) the extent to which the gender perspective constitutes a topic of interest for students and whether this interest has evolved over time and (2) the presence of specific gender-related themes that may differ across academic programs.
1.1. Education Degrees and the Gender Perspective
Higher education (HE)—particularly education degree programs—has a crucial role in promoting the gender-equitable education of future generations (Kreitz-Sandberg and Lahelma 2021). The students enrolled in these programs will become the teachers and social educators of tomorrow, and they must be equipped to critically reflect on their identities and professional practices to carry out their work in gender-just ways (Keddie et al. 2023). As early as 2015, UNESCO warned that the curricula used in teacher education (TE) institutions revealed serious deficiencies regarding gender equality and called for a careful revision of these programs (UNESCO 2015). Research from multiple national contexts has shown that the incorporation of the gender perspective—understood as a cross-cutting analytical approach that examines how gender relations shape teaching, learning, and educational structures—remains limited in initial teacher training (Matus-Castillo et al. 2023; Matarranz 2023). Gender stereotypes are seldom addressed in most TE curricula, leaving future educators underprepared to implement coeducational practices (Kollmayer et al. 2020). Coeducation, defined as an educational approach that actively promotes gender equality by challenging stereotypes and integrating inclusive practices throughout the curriculum, is essential for fostering more equitable learning environments (Abril and Castellsagué 2024).
1.2. The Gender Perspective in Teacher Training in Spain
Spain is no exception to the challenges of integrating gender equality into higher education. The institutionalization of gender equality across Spanish universities remains incomplete and uneven (Lombardo and Bustelo 2022). Although national legislation mandates the incorporation of the gender perspective—understood as the systematic inclusion of gender-based analysis in teaching, learning, and curricular content—this requirement is often poorly implemented in practice (Caro González et al. 2021). As a result, the initial training of future teachers and educators continues to lack meaningful engagement with gender-related content (Pozo et al. 2022; Miralles-Cardona et al. 2023). For instance, in Castilla-La Mancha, fewer than 10% of education students report having completed a course specifically focused on gender, despite perceiving such training as essential (Carrasco Carpio et al. 2022). At the Complutense University of Madrid, interviews with faculty and an analysis of syllabi reveal that the Primary Education degree is still shaped by an androcentric conception of education, undermining efforts to prepare future teachers to foster gender equality (Resa Ocio 2021). Similar findings have been reported in Early Childhood Education programs at Andalusian universities, where most syllabi lack references to gender-related competencies or content (Pedrosa-Jesús et al. 2022).
This situation is largely attributable to the fact that in Spain, the curricula of educational degree programs typically mandate that gender equality be addressed transversally. In practice, this means that the inclusion of the gender perspective—defined as the systematic integration of gender-related content, analysis, and critical reflection—is left to the discretion and initiative of individual university instructors (García-Cano et al. 2023; Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022). However, this decentralized and voluntary approach has proven insufficient, as many educators lack the necessary knowledge, training, or motivation to meaningfully engage with gender issues (Caro González et al. 2021). In some cases, feelings of rejection or discomfort toward gender topics further hinder their integration into the curriculum (Matus-Castillo et al. 2023).
Consequently, content related to gender and equality is rarely addressed in a structured or meaningful way within teacher education programs (Lombardo et al. 2021; Valle Aparicio 2022). This lack of systematic attention to gender equality constitutes a significant barrier to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5, and to promoting gender-sensitive and inclusive education (UN United Nations 2015; Miralles-Cardona et al. 2020).
1.3. Teachers and Educators’ Responsibility Towards Gender Equality
Integrating a gender perspective into initial teacher education (TE) is essential for fostering gender-equitable educational environments. Schools—and teachers in particular—play a central role in the social construction of gender, shaping students’ perceptions through both explicit content and implicit practices (Pinedo et al. 2018). Teachers’ gender-stereotyped beliefs and classroom behaviors influence students’ attitudes and expectations, often perpetuating hierarchical and unequal social structures (Heyder et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2020; González Barea and Rodríguez Marín 2020).
Research has shown that educators’ training and awareness of gender issues are strong predictors of how thoroughly gender equality is addressed within educational institutions (Li and Yang 2022). Therefore, teachers must reflect on their own assumptions, behaviors, and instructional materials and actively identify and challenge unconscious biases (Pinedo et al. 2018; Sanabrias-Moreno et al. 2023).
Nonetheless, many school environments continue to reproduce dominant discourses that marginalize or erase gender and sexual diversity, largely because teachers are not adequately prepared to address such issues in developmentally appropriate and pedagogically sound ways (Ferfolja et al. 2020; Bryan 2012). In Spain, nearly 75% of practicing teachers report not having received training in coeducation, despite 90% recognizing its importance (Valle Aparicio 2022). Similarly, students enrolled in Early Childhood and Primary Education degrees report insufficient knowledge, skills, and attitudes to implement gender-sensitive teaching effectively (Miralles-Cardona et al. 2023). Having acknowledged the importance of this topic (Izquierdo Guillermo 2020), many call for the greater inclusion of structured gender-related training in their academic programs (Sanabrias-Moreno et al. 2023).
1.4. Social Educators and the Gender Perspective
Although educational research often emphasizes formal schooling, a significant part of gender socialization occurs in informal settings and across the life span, shaped by unconscious cultural practices and relational dynamics (UNESCO 2005, p. 23). This highlights the importance of extending the gender perspective beyond formal education and recognizing the role of social educators as key agents of transformation.
The transmission of gender stereotypes and, therefore, the socialization of gender is an ongoing process that continues throughout life (Merma-Molina et al. 2021). As such, the responsibility of promoting gender equality extends not only to teachers but also to other educational professionals, including social educators. These professionals are committed to advancing educational improvement based on the principles of equity and inclusion (Pegalajar Palomino 2020). Indeed, social education grounded in a gender perspective is one of the most effective tools available to combat sexism and violence against women (Hernández 2012). Social educators are vital in promoting greater educational equality, inclusion, and equity (Alventosa-Bleda et al. 2020). However, to fulfill this role, social educators must possess sufficient knowledge and skills related to gender equality. This includes understanding the structural nature of gender-based inequalities and designing socio-educational interventions from a critical and reflective standpoint (Pozo et al. 2022). These competencies involve identifying gender biases in everyday educational practices, creating inclusive activities, using non-sexist language and materials, and fostering classroom environments that encourage equal participation and the recognition of diverse gender identities (UNESCO 2019).
In Spain, students enrolled in Social Education programs tend to score lower on measures of sexism compared to their peers in other education degrees, such as Early Childhood and Primary Education (García Rojas et al. 2022). This is often attributed to the perception that Social Education programs offer more extensive training related to gender. Nevertheless, both faculty and students express criticisms similar to those raised in other education degrees. While the training on gender issues is considered valuable, it is widely regarded as insufficient and lacking in practical applicability (Gómez-Jarabo and Sánchez Delgado 2017).
A documentary analysis of the curricula of Spanish public universities offering a degree in Social Education reveals that although several subjects include gender-related content, only 9 subjects out of approximately 480 (across 12 study plans, each comprising around 40 subjects) are exclusively dedicated to this topic (Rebolledo 2021). This underscores the ongoing need to incorporate and mainstream the gender perspective, along with analyses of the exclusionary dynamics resulting from gender norms, throughout the teaching of this degree. Such integration should be reflected in learning outcomes, course content, and assessment criteria (Pozo et al. 2022). In the absence of this type of training, students are less likely to develop awareness and acquire the skills necessary to address gender issues effectively, competencies that are essential for meaningful social transformation (Picaza-Gorrotxategi et al. 2020). HE should play a core role in promoting this observation and reflection in future teachers and educators, as these are role models that can significantly influence the formation of gender beliefs (Giuliano 2020).
1.5. The Undergraduate Dissertation in the Faculty of Education of Bilbao
The absence of gender mainstreaming in university training represents a significant barrier to achieving gender-sensitive education. This challenge is also evident in the Faculty of Education of Bilbao (FEB), which prepares future professionals in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Social Education. While two other faculties within the University of the Basque Country offer similar degrees—one in each of the three provinces—the FEB is the largest and serves the province of Biscay, striving to meet the educational needs of its student population.
Despite long-standing efforts to incorporate the gender perspective into its programs (Idoiaga et al. 2021), the faculty currently offers only one optional subject fully dedicated to gender. In 2018, an exploratory study was carried out in which faculty members were anonymously and voluntarily surveyed about the inclusion of a gender perspective in their courses and, if so, whether it was approached in a theoretical or practical manner (Idoiaga et al. 2020). Out of the 35 compulsory subjects taken over the 4 years of each degree, 20 in Primary Education reported incorporating this perspective, compared to 9 in Early Childhood Education and at least 6 in Social Education, in addition to a compulsory interdisciplinary project in the third year. Most respondents (72%) reported addressing gender-related content through a theoretical–practical approach. However, a parallel survey conducted among students at the same faculty found a disconnect between faculty intentions and student experiences. When asked about the importance of gender equality, their own competencies, and the training received, students overwhelmingly recognized the topic as highly important and rated their competence as moderate, but reported having received minimal training in gender equality (Araguas et al. 2021).
The undergraduate dissertation (UD) requires students to complete a piece of research or intervention work as the final component of their degree program (Reyes García and Megolla 2020). At the FEB, the UD corresponds to 300 teaching hours (12 ECTS credits) and must be conducted autonomously, albeit with the guidance of a mentor or academic advisor. The UD serves as a capstone project through which students demonstrate the transversal, specific, and generic competencies developed throughout their studies (Díaz-Vázquez et al. 2018). Thus, UDs that address gender-related topics would, to some extent, serve as indicators of students’ sensitivity to gender issues acquired during the degree (Rosa-Gregori et al. 2014). The inclusion of these topics in the UD is increasingly viewed as a strategy for enhancing gender-related training (Rebolledo 2021), as it reflects a conscious decision made by students to engage with themes that are often marginalized or rendered invisible in academic work (Pozo et al. 2022).
This study aimed to analyze the extent to which the gender perspective is incorporated into the undergraduate dissertations (UDs) submitted at the Faculty of Education of Bilbao. Specifically, the study sought to address the following research questions: (1). To what extent do UDs developed by students of Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Social Education address gender-related topics? (2). What thematic areas emerge most frequently in UDs that include a gender perspective?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection Method
All UDs related to gender equality issues submitted to the Faculty of Education of Bilbao between the academic years 2013–2014 and 2019–2020 were included in the analysis.
For the initial screening, the title and keywords of all submitted UDs were reviewed (a total of 2708 documents). UDs were selected if they included terms associated with any of the dimensions identified in the theoretical framework relevant to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) in formal and non-formal education. These terms included gender, sexism, feminism, coeducation, gender violence, women’s empowerment, affective-sexual diversity, diverse families, women, immigrant women, and women with functional diversity. Following this initial selection, the research team conducted a triangulation process to assess their degree of agreement and consistency in identifying relevant UDs.
2.2. Sample
A total of 383 undergraduate dissertations were selected for analysis. Of these, 25.85% were submitted by students of the Childhood Education degree, 32.11% by students of the Primary Education degree, and 42.04% by students of the Social Education degree. Table 1 displays the distribution of UDs according to academic year.
2.3. Data Analysis Method
The Reinert method, implemented through the Iramuteq (0.7 alpha 2) software for lexical analysis was employed to analyze the textual corpus (the abstracts of all the selected UDs). Iramuteq software eliminates the problems of reliability and validity in text analyses (Klein and Licata 2003). In accordance with previous research using the Reinert method (Camargo and Bousfield 2009), the raw data were entered into Iramuteq software and the most significant items of vocabulary in each class were selected based on two criteria: (1) the word having an expected value of greater than 3; (2) a statistical association with the class, as indicated by a Chi-square test (χ2 ≥ 3.89 (p = 0.05); df = 1).
Consequently, the analyst obtains a series of classes composed of typical words and the text segments (quotations) with the highest chi-square values. This provides the basis for “interpreting” the classes as lexical universes. The Reinert method produces data that are statistical, transparent, and reproducible until the final point of interpretation, where the analyst assigns them a label, that is, the researchers will give a title to each group of words and text segments grouped by the software (Schonhardt-Bailey 2013).
To analyze the corpus of the abstracts from all selected UDs, a comprehensive lexical analysis was conducted using the Iramuteq software developed by Ratinaud (2009) and further refined by Ratinaud and Marchand (2012). This software allows for robust textual data analysis by implementing the Reinert method (Reinert 1983, 1990), a hierarchical descending cluster analysis particularly suited to open-ended educational data (Legorburu et al. 2022; Boillos et al. 2024).
This method ensures the reliability and validity of text analyses by producing statistically grounded, transparent, and reproducible data up to the final point of interpretation (Klein and Licata 2003). Following standard methodological procedures (Camargo and Bousfield 2009), the raw data were segmented into text units—called unités de contexte textuel (UCTs)—and processed by Iramuteq. The most representative vocabulary items in each class were identified using the following criteria: (1) an expected word frequency of greater than 3; (2) significant Chi-square values associated with the class (χ2 ≥ 3.89, p = 0.05; df = 1); and (3) occurrence in at least 50% of the text segments within that class.
Each resulting lexical class consisted of typical words and text segments (quotations) automatically grouped by the software based on co-occurrence patterns. These lexical universes were then manually interpreted and labeled. The labeling process involved two researchers independently reviewing the word clouds and citations associated with each class, after which consensus was reached on their final labels (Idoiaga and Belasko 2019).
The corpus was segmented into 1284 UCTs, of which 84.66% were successfully classified, indicating the high stability and internal consistency of the classification model. Additionally, the analysis enabled linking these classes to passive variables, such as the degree program, offering a multidimensional interpretation of the results. Importantly, the software carried out the Chi-square calculations and classification of typical words automatically, minimizing interpretative bias during the segmentation and classification of the data. Interpretation of the classes was carried out a posteriori, based on semantic criteria and an analysis of the most representative terms and text segments within each class.
3. Results
The full corpus contained 48,530 words, of which 4596 were unique. The descending hierarchical analysis divided the corpus into 1284 segments and identified five distinct lexical classes. These classes consist of text segments (extracted from the abstracts of the analyzed UDs) that exhibit statistically significant patterns of co-occurring vocabulary. Each word within a class is assigned a chi-square (χ2) value, indicating the strength of its association with that class; the higher the χ2 value, the more representative the word is of that particular semantic grouping. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 1.
These lexical classes were further grouped into broader thematic categories based on their co-occurrence and proximity in the corpus, forming what are referred to as ‘main clusters.’ Each cluster represents a recurring theme or topic that emerges across multiple UDs. Figure 1 displays the dendrogram resulting from this clustering process. The analysis revealed two main clusters: one associated with Early Childhood and Primary Education degrees, which includes the classes “Teacher training to promote equality” and “Transmission of gender stereotypes to children”; and another linked to the Social Education degree, composed of the classes “Diversity and sexuality” and “Intervention to empower women.” A third, more independent cluster was also identified, consisting of a single class focused on “Research Methodologies.” These clusters reflect the semantic proximities between lexical classes grouped based on patterns of word co-occurrence and meaning throughout the corpus.
The first main cluster begins with the class titled “Teacher training to promote equality,” which has a weight of 15%. Abstracts grouped within this class contain vocabulary strongly associated with the importance of teacher training in gender-related issues and references to the lack of such training and its consequences. In these UDs, teacher education is framed as a fundamental tool for protecting children and for the prevention and early detection of problems such as sexual abuse, homophobia, and gender-based bullying. This class is significantly associated with the Primary Education degree (p < 0.01). Some of the most representative UDs in this class include: “Transexuality in Education. Knowledge and curiosity among Early Childhood Education teachers.” (χ2 = 332.62); “Need for affective-sexual education in primary school classrooms; “Opinions of teachers and future students” (χ2 = 311.18); “Protocol for prevention and action against child abuse and sexual abuse in primary education” (χ2 = 309.19); “Prest-Gara course for teachers on Sexual Abuse against Children: creation of the first approved course in the Basque Autonomous Community” (χ2 = 263.84); and “Sex education in Primary School, teacher training and focus on pornography” (χ2 = 257.00).
The second class within this cluster, titled “Transmission of Gender Stereotypes to Children,” represents 30.6% of the analyzed corpus. This class includes UDs that examine how gender stereotypes are conveyed to young children in everyday classroom settings, particularly through educational materials such as stories, books, and films. The most representative vocabulary items in this class include stereotypes, infant, story, role, book, traditional, female, gender, society, and value. This class is significantly associated with the Early Childhood Education degree (p < 0.0001) and the Primary Education degree (p < 0.001). The most representative UDs from this class are “Gender roles and stereotypes: research in an Early Childhood Education classroom” (χ2 = 630.30); “Gender and Early Childhood Education” (χ2 = 592.62); “Contemporary children’s story illustrations. A look from a gender perspective” (χ2 = 546.05); “Female characters in children’s literature: roles and stereotypes” (χ2 = 487.35); and “Physical image in story illustrations: analysis from a gender perspective” (χ2 = 476.02).
In the second main cluster, two classes that are linked to social education emerged. The first class includes UDs focused on “Diversity and sexuality”, which had a weight of 18.5%. These works aim to promote sexual and affective education with a gender perspective among people with functional diversity—a topic often considered taboo in society. Some of the most characteristic words from this class are sexuality, diversity, functional, intellectual, affectivity, awareness, and taboo. This class is significantly linked to the Social Education Degree (p < 0.005). Taking into account statistical significance, the UDs most significantly linked to this class are as follows: “A guide to sexuality education for people with functional diversity and minors” (χ2 = 353.41); “Sexuality in people with intellectual functional diversity” (χ2 = 315.42); “Working on sexuality with people with intellectual diversity” (χ2 = 280.64)”; “Work approaching the maternal experiences of women with physical functional diversity” (χ2 = 266.96); and “Solidarity study and service: Towards the inclusion of people with functional diversity” (χ2 = 266.82).
The second class in this cluster includes UDs that promote “Interventions to empower women,” which account for 15.6% of the total corpus. This class includes UDs that propose socio-educational interventions to empower women and adolescents and facilitate dialog around gender issues. The most statistically representative words in this class are associated with empowerment, intervention, participation, sex education, and emotional development. This class is significantly linked to the Social Education degree (p < 0.0001). The most representative UDs include “Proposal for socio-educational intervention through sex education for migrant sex workers” (χ2 = 429.83); “Socio-educational intervention proposal for women with functional diversity through leisure and free time” (χ2 = 409.26); “Intervention project for the development of emotional competencies in people who engage in prostitution” (χ2 = 376.21); “Socio-educational intervention to promote the social participation of older women” (χ2 = 371.82); and “The associationism of migrant women as an empowerment strategy: Approach to reality in Bizkaia” (χ2 = 335.72).
The final lexical class, titled “Research Methodologies,” accounts for 20.2% of the total corpus. This class encompasses UDs that explicitly describe the methodological approaches used in their research projects. Common vocabulary items in this class include qualitative, data, observation, questionnaire, and survey. These terms reflect a focus on research design and data collection procedures, rather than specific content areas related to gender. Unlike other classes, this one was not significantly associated with any specific degree program, suggesting that methodological reflection appears consistently across Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Social Education degrees. Some of the most representative UDs in this class include “Exclusion factors of adolescent mothers: intervention from social education” (χ2 = 695.80)”; “Analysis of communication in mathematics class from a gender perspective” (χ2 = 608.19)”; “Inclusive family model and participation of immigrant families” (χ2 = 543.52)”; “Treatment of transsexuality in primary education” (χ2 = 539.70); and “Women in prison from a human rights perspective” (χ2 = 534.92)”.
4. Discussion
The results presented offer valuable insights into how students enrolled in Early Childhood, Primary, and Social Education degrees approach gender-related issues in their undergraduate dissertations (UDs). Although only a modest proportion of UDs incorporate a gender perspective, those that do reveal a range of thematic interests and varying levels of sensitivity to gender-related concerns. The following discussion is grounded in an interpretative analysis of the topics students chose for their UDs, with inferences about their possible awareness, priorities, or attitudes drawn from these choices and contextualized within the existing academic literature. This discussion is organized around three key interpretive axes: (1) the partial awareness of gender issues among students and its relationship with the training they receive, (2) the invisibility of gender in curricular structures and its impact on students’ topic selection, and (3) the institutional implications of these findings for the structural integration of gender perspectives into teacher education programs.
4.1. Students’ Partial Awareness and Its Link to Received Training
One of the most salient findings of this study is the partial awareness of gender-related issues that can be inferred from students’ topic selection for their undergraduate dissertations (UDs). This awareness appears closely linked to the type and depth of gender-related training they received during their degree programs. In particular, students in the Primary Education degree frequently chose topics related to “teacher training to promote equality,” suggesting an understanding of the transformative potential of education in fostering more egalitarian societies (Kreitz-Sandberg and Lahelma 2021). These UDs often reflect a concern about perpetuating inequality and a willingness to challenge gender stereotypes through pedagogical practice (González Barea and Rodríguez Marín 2020; Miralles-Cardona et al. 2022).
Topics such as transsexuality and affective-sexual education further indicate growing sensitivity to gender and sexual diversity and a recognition of current gaps in teacher preparation. This aligns with prior research showing that without adequate training, educators may inadvertently reinforce cisnormative and heteronormative assumptions (Russell et al. 2020) or feel unprepared to address issues such as homophobia and gender-based bullying (Bryan 2012).
In some cases, students also demonstrate awareness of the “hidden curriculum” and its potential role in reproducing gender inequalities (Pinedo et al. 2018). UDs that critique educational materials or pedagogical practices suggest an effort should be made to uncover the implicit biases and norms that shape children’s perceptions of gender roles (Marugán Pintos 2020; Kollmayer et al. 2020). However, this level of reflexivity and critical engagement is still limited to a relatively small proportion of students, highlighting the need for a more robust and systematic integration of the gender perspective throughout teacher education programs. It is important to note that this interpretation is based solely on the content of the dissertations and does not include direct evidence of students’ personal motivations or attitudes.
4.2. Curriculum Invisibility and Its Impact on UD Topic Selection
Another central issue emerging from the data is the structural invisibility of the gender perspective within university curricula, which appears to influence students’ choices regarding their final dissertations (UDs). Although education is widely recognized as a critical domain for advancing gender equality, our findings reveal that only approximately 15% of the analyzed UDs incorporate gender-related themes. While this proportion may appear noteworthy given the diverse range of topics students may choose from, it remains notably low in light of educational policy and scholarly expectations that gender equality be addressed as a transversal and structural priority within teacher education (Pozo et al. 2022; UN United Nations 2015; SDG 5).
This low percentage suggests that gender is not perceived as a central educational concern, possibly due to the limited presence of gender-related content in course syllabi and the relative absence of such discourse among teaching staff throughout the degree program. As a result, students may internalize this curricular omission, assuming that gender equality has already been achieved or is irrelevant in early education contexts (Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022; Merma-Molina et al. 2021). This assumption appears particularly evident in the Early Childhood Education degree, where gender-focused UDs are especially scarce. Such a pattern reflects widespread beliefs that young children are less susceptible to gender roles or stereotypes (Alonso Ruido et al. 2022).
Several studies have shown that many future teachers struggle to recognize gender inequalities in educational practice and frequently report inadequate training in this area (Fernandez-Rotaeche et al. 2021; Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022). This may help explain both the limited number of gender-focused TFGs and the uncertainty some students experience when addressing these topics. As Caro González et al. (2021) argue, students are unlikely to engage with gender in their final academic work if it has not been presented consistently and meaningfully throughout their training.
Thus, the students’ choices in dissertation topics reflect not only their individual interests or levels of sensitivity but also the curricular and institutional messages they receive throughout their academic journey. While topic selection cannot be attributed solely to curricular influence, several studies suggest that when gender issues are not made visible or explicitly addressed during teacher education, students may not perceive them as academically relevant or urgent (Caro González et al. 2021; Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022). This interpretation does not imply a deterministic relationship but rather underscores a plausible connection between the presence (or absence) of gender-related content in curricula and the level of student engagement with gender issues in their final academic projects.
4.3. Institutional Implications: The Structural Need for Gender Mainstreaming
The limited presence of gender-related UDs across the three degree programs—only approximately 15% of all UDs—reflects the marginal position that gender issues currently occupy within teacher education curricula (Pozo et al. 2022; Rosa-Gregori et al. 2014). This pattern suggests that both the inclusion (or not) of gender-related content in the curriculum and the degree of staff awareness play a significant role in shaping students’ topic choices. As previous studies have emphasized, when teacher educators themselves are not sensitized to gender issues, students are less likely to perceive them as relevant academic topics (Caro González et al. 2021). This misalignment between societal needs and teacher education is particularly problematic in Early Childhood Education, where the lowest number of gender-themed UDs was identified. This may be partly due to the assumption that young children are “too young” to display gender biases (Alonso Ruido et al. 2022).
The persistence of this low percentage across academic years might also reflect the widespread but mistaken belief that formal gender equality has already been achieved, particularly within educational settings (Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022; Merma-Molina et al. 2021). However, this assumption ignores the subtle yet powerful ways in which inequality is reproduced through the design of the curriculum, pedagogical materials, and everyday educational practices. In contrast, Social Education students—often trained within a more critical pedagogical tradition—appear more attuned to ongoing social inequalities and the importance of confronting them through their academic and professional work (Pozo et al. 2022; Rosa-Gregori et al. 2014; García Rojas et al. 2022; Gómez-Jarabo and Sánchez Delgado 2017).
If, as suggested, the choice to address gender issues in a UD reflects a sensitivity developed during the degree program (Rosa-Gregori et al. 2014), then these findings underscore the urgent need to structurally embed gender into the core of teacher education curricula. A growing body of research confirms that future educators frequently report limited or absent training on gender equality (Kasa et al. 2023; Lucas-Palacios et al. 2022), struggle to identify manifestations of inequality in educational settings (Fernandez-Rotaeche et al. 2021), or remain unaware of the systemic nature of such disparities (Miralles-Cardona et al. 2020). What remains unclear is whether students who choose to focus on gender issues in their UDs do so due to having received targeted training or because they already possess a heightened sensitivity to these concerns. Future research should address this question by assessing students’ awareness, attitudes, and competencies at both the entry and exit points of their degree programs.
Another limitation of the current study is that the gender of students whose UDs were analyzed was not recorded. Given that education degrees are predominantly feminized, future research could explore whether engagement with gender-related topics is primarily driven by female students, as previous studies have suggested (Sanabrias-Moreno et al. 2023).
To build a more inclusive and socially just education system, it is essential to deepen the integration of the gender perspective into teacher education. As educators are uniquely positioned to shape future generations, their training must address complex, intersectional inequalities and promote a transformative agenda. The integration of gender is not only crucial for ensuring the quality and inclusivity of education (SDG 4) but also a necessary precondition for achieving gender equality (SDG 5). This imperative aligns with global policy frameworks such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which positions higher education as a critical driver of equity, sustainability, and social transformation (Cebrián et al. 2020; UNESCO 2017).
4.4. Implications for Research
The findings of this study point to several lines of inquiry that merit further exploration. First, the limited number of undergraduate dissertations that adopt a gender perspective, particularly in the Early Childhood Education degree, highlights the pressing need to strengthen gender mainstreaming within teacher education. Future research could investigate the impact of explicit and structured gender training programs on students’ sensitivity to gender issues and their capacity to integrate gender equality into their academic work and future professional practices.
Second, the disparities observed among degree programs suggest varying levels of awareness and engagement with gender-related concerns. Comparative studies across degree types, institutions, or national contexts may help identify the curricular and pedagogical factors that foster or hinder gender-inclusive education. These analyses could also examine how institutional policies, faculty attitudes, or course content contribute to students’ topic selection and awareness. Finally, further investigation is needed to determine what proportion of final dissertations can be reasonably expected to engage with gender, based on program learning outcomes, institutional priorities, and student demographics.
Third, the frequent selection of topics related to sexual diversity and affective-sexual education underscores the need to develop pedagogical strategies that better equip future educators to address these complex and often marginalized issues. Further research could focus on designing, implementing, and evaluating targeted interventions that support inclusive and non-normative perspectives within educational contexts.
Additionally, the importance attributed by some students to the hidden curriculum—and its role in perpetuating gender stereotypes—invites further exploration into how these implicit messages operate across different educational stages. Ethnographic and discourse-analytical studies could offer valuable insights into how gender norms are reproduced through curricular materials, classroom interactions, and broader institutional cultures, as well as which counter-strategies may prove most effective.
Finally, the notion that students’ dissertation topic choices may reflect their evolving awareness of gender issues suggests the value of longitudinal research. Studies that track changes in gender sensitivity throughout teacher training programs could provide valuable information about when and how critical consciousness around gender develops. These insights would be instrumental in informing curriculum design and evaluating the long-term impact of gender education initiatives in higher education.
5. Conclusions
The analysis of undergraduate dissertations (UDs) submitted by students in Early Childhood, Primary, and Social Education degrees reveals significant variability in the inclusion of the gender perspective. Despite the critical importance of education in promoting gender equality and challenging stereotypes, only 15% of the UDs examined explicitly addressed gender-related topics. While this percentage may appear moderate within an open-topic framework, it reflects the continued marginalization of gender issues, particularly when considered in light of national and international calls for the structural integration of gender across all levels of teacher education (Cebrián et al. 2020; UNESCO 2017).
The findings suggest that while a minority of students demonstrate strong awareness of gender issues, particularly those in Social Education, this sensitivity is not consistently developed across degree programs. These disparities appear linked to variations in curricular content and limited institutional efforts to mainstream gender within teacher education. Furthermore, the recurring student interest in themes such as gender stereotypes, affective-sexual education, and trans* realities points to a misalignment between the social concerns of students and the academic frameworks currently provided.
From a practical and institutional perspective, these results underscore the urgent need to revise teacher education curricula to ensure the systematic integration of the gender perspective, not as optional or peripheral content but as a transversal axis of training. This would entail the inclusion of mandatory modules on gender and education, training academic staff in inclusive pedagogies, and incorporating gender-sensitive criteria into final-year assessment frameworks, including undergraduate dissertations.
Additionally, institutions should adopt clear and enforceable policies aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 5 (gender equality), ensuring that teacher education actively contributes to dismantling gender-based inequalities. Implementing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess gender mainstreaming efforts within degrees would also be critical to this institutional commitment.
In conclusion, progress toward inclusive, equitable, and gender-sensitive education depends not only on the personal commitment of future educators but also on structural reform at the curricular and institutional levels. Future research should further explore the impact of such reforms and develop robust tools to assess the effectiveness of gender training in shaping the professional identities, values, and practices of future educators.
Conceptualization, I.A.S.; Methodology, N.I.-M.; Investigation, N.I.-M. and A.B.A.; Resources, I.A.S.; Writing—original draft, N.I.-M. and I.A.S.; Writing—review & editing, I.A.S. and A.B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable, this study does not involve humans or animals.
Not applicable.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
This work was supported by the Campus Bizia Lab programme [24IDOI], with a grant from the Sustainability Department of the Vice-Rector’s Office for Innovation, Social Commitment and Cultural Action of the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). This programme is supported by the Basque Government.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| UD | Undergraduate Dissertation |
| FEB | Faculty of Education of Bilbao |
| HE | Higher Education |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 The hierarchical clustering dendrogram of the free association task, showing the words with the greatest association; χ2(1), p < 0.001.
Undergraduate dissertations per year.
| Year | UD | % |
|---|---|---|
| 2013–2014 | 47 | 12.27 |
| 2014–2015 | 43 | 11.23 |
| 2015–2016 | 56 | 14.62 |
| 2016–2017 | 60 | 15.67 |
| 2017–2018 | 67 | 17.49 |
| 2018–2019 | 52 | 13.58 |
| 2019–2020 | 58 | 14.14 |
Abril, Paco; Castellsagué, Alba. Co-education and the feminist perspective in centres of pedagogical renewal: A critical analysis. Journal of Technology and Science Education; 2024; 14, pp. 844-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2595]
Alonso Ruido, Patricia; Iglesias, Noelia Soto; Losada, Alexandre Sotelino. Trabajar la igualdad de género en la Educación Infantil desde la formación docente. Cuadernos de Pedagogía Universitaria; 2022; 19, pp. 94-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29197/cpu.v19i38.465]
Alventosa-Bleda, Esther; Pulido-Montes, Cristina; de Oliveira-Dri, Wisllayne I. La inclusión se consigue con la equidad: La desigualdad educativa en las diferentes comunidades autónomas respecto de la educación social. Educación para el bien común: Hacia una práctica crítica, inclusiva y comprometida socialmente; Díez-Gutierrez, Enrique Javier; Rodríguez-Fernández, Juan Ramón. Octaedro: Barcelona, 2020; pp. 187-200.
Araguas, Enara; Idoiaga, Nahia; Axpe, Inge. La coeducación, herramienta para la educación inclusiva. Inclusión Socioeducativa. Propuestas y Metodologías Innovadoras en Contextos Educativos; Roman, Gorka; Izaguirre, Elizabeth Perez; Biota, Itsaso; Picaza, Maitane. Grao: Barcelona, 2021; pp. 135-47.
Boillos, Maria del Mar; Bereziartua, Garbiñe; Idoiaga, Nahia. The decision to publish in a minority language: The case of the Basque language. International Multilingual Research Journal; 2024; 19, pp. 23-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2024.2311508]
Bryan, Jennifer. From the Dress-Up Corner to the Senior Prom: Navigating Gender and Sexuality Diversity in preK-12 Schools; R&L Education: Lytham St. Annes, 2012.
Camargo, Brigido Vizeu; Bousfield, Andréa Barbará S. Social representations, risk behaviors and AIDS. The Spanish Journal of Psychology; 2009; 12, pp. 565-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001931] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19899657]
Caro González, Francisco J.; Guarinos, Virginia; Cobo-Durán, Sergio. Gender competences in undergraduate studies in Spanish public universities. Case study of the University of Seville. Journal of Multicultural Education; 2021; 15, pp. 358-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JME-05-2021-0057]
Carrasco Carpio, Concepción; Anciones-Anguita, Kristel; Andrés-Gómez, Soledad; Barba, Marina; Bonilla-Algovía, Enrique; Romero, Mirian Checa; Hernández-Romero, Nieves; Ibáñez, Marta; Pana, Andreea Gabriela; Pascual-Gómez, Isabel
Cebrián, Gisela; Junyent, Mercè; Mulà, Ingrid. Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development: Emerging Teaching and Research Developments. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12020579]
Chen, Jing; Jiang, Hui; Justice, Laura M.; Lin, Tzu-Jung; Purtell, Kelly M.; Ansari, Arya. Influences of Teacher–Child Relationships and Classroom Social Management on Child-Perceived Peer Social Experiences During Early School Years. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020; 11, 586991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586991]
Díaz-Vázquez, Rosario; García-Díaz, A.; Sanfiz, Jose Manuel Maside; Vázquez-Rozas, Emilia. El Trabajo de Fin de Grado: Fines, modalidades y estilos de tutorización. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria; 2018; 16, 159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4995/redu.2018.10178]
Ferfolja, Tania; Asquith, Nicole; Hanckel, Benjamin; Brady, Brooke. In/visibility on campus? Gender and sexuality diversity in tertiary institutions. Higher Education; 2020; 80, pp. 933-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00526-1]
Fernandez-Rotaeche, Patricia; Alboniga-Mayor, Joana Jaureguizar; Mondragon, Nahia Idoiaga. Representaciones sobre sexismo en Educación Superior y Formación Profesional. Educación XX1; 2021; 24, pp. 421-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.28225]
García-Cano, María; Hinojosa-Pareja, Eva F.; Buenestado-Fernández, Mariana; Jiménez-Millán, Azahara. A statutory requirement: Teaching innovation for gender equality at university. Women’s Studies International Forum; 2023; 96, 102673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2022.102673]
García Rojas, Antonio Daniel; Olvera, F. Javier del Río; Vilariño, Carmen Santín. La formación del alumnado universitario en género y sexualidad como estrategia preventiva del sexismo en las aulas. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado. REIFOP; 2022; 25, pp. 177-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/reifop.533411]
Giuliano, Paola. Gender and Culture; Working Paper Series (No. w27725); National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w27725]
González Barea, Eva María; Marín, Yolanda Rodríguez. Estereotipos de género en la infancia. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria; 2020; 36, pp. 125-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7179/PSRI_2020.36.08]
Gómez-Jarabo, Inmaculada; Delgado, Primitivo Sánchez. La atención a la diversidad cultural y de género en la formación del profesorado. Innovación Educativa; 2017; 27, pp. 165-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15304/ie.27.4095]
Hammond, Matthew D.; Cimpian, Andrei. “Wonderful but Weak”: Children’s Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Women. Sex Roles; 2021; 84, pp. 76-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01150-0]
Heffernan, Troy. Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: A literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 2022; 47, pp. 144-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888075]
Hernández, Carmelo. Violencia de género: “Una cuestión de Educación Social”. RES: Revista de Educación Social; 2012; 14, pp. 1-3.
Heyder, Anke; Van Hek, Margriet; Van Houtte, Mieke. When gender stereotypes get male adolescents into trouble: A longitudinal study on gender conformity pressure as a predictor of school misconduct. Sex Roles; 2021; 84, pp. 61-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01147-9]
Idoiaga, Nahia; Belasko, Maitane. Understanding menstruation: Influence of gender and ideological factors. A study of young people’s social representations. Feminism & Psychology; 2019; 29, pp. 357-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353519836445]
Idoiaga, Nahia; Axpe, Inge; Berciano, Ainhoa. La inclusión en género y la coeducación en los grados universitarios de Educación: Estudio de caso en la Facultad de Educación de Bilbao. Ampliando Horizontes En Educación Inclusiva; Fernández-Hawrylak, María; Sevilla, Davinia Heras; Monedero, José Antonio Gómez. Universidad de Burgos: Burgos, 2020; pp. 247-53.
Idoiaga, Nahia; Axpe, Inge; Berciano, Ainhoa. The undergraduate dissertation as a reflection of education for sustainability and professional identity: The faculty of education of Bilbao. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2021; 22, pp. 1285-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0346]
Izquierdo Guillermo, Andrea. Diversidad sexual: Percepciones en egresados y egresadas del Grado en Maestro en Educación Infantil y Primaria de la Universidad de Alicante. La Docencia en la Enseñanza Superior. Nuevas Aportaciones desde la Investigación e Innovación Educativas; Roig-Vila, Rosabel. Octaedro: Barcelona, 2020; pp. 243-50.
Kasa, Tuija; Karilainen, Laura Maria; Rajala, Antti; Cantell, Hannele; Kallioniemi, Arto. Finnish UNESCO school educators’ understanding of the role of global citizenship education: Analysis through global citizenship education typologies, ecosocial understanding, and human rights. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education (UNESCO); 2023; 53, pp. 459-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09597-z]
Keddie, Amanda; Lees, David; Delaney, Maria. Reflexivity, ethics and accountability: Facilitators working for gender transformation with boys and men. Journal of Gender Studies; 2023; 32, pp. 259-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1990031]
Klein, Olivier; Licata, Laurent. When group representations serve social change: The speeches of Patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. British Journal of Social Psychology; 2003; 42, pp. 571-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595284] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715118]
Kollmayer, Marlene; Schultes, Marie-Therese; Lüftenegger, Marko; Finsterwald, Monika; Spiel, Christiane; Schober, Barbara. REFLECT—A Teacher Training Program to Promote Gender Equality in Schools. Frontiers in Education; 2020; 5, 136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00136]
Kreitz-Sandberg, Susanne; Lahelma, Elina. Global Demands—Local Practices: Working towards Inclusion of Gender Equality in Teacher Education in Finland and Sweden. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education; 2021; 5, pp. 50-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4052]
Legorburu, Idioa; Mondragon, Nahia Idoiaga; Alonso, Israel; Berasategi, Naiara. Why are you allowed to go to school on your own? Exploring children’s voices on independent mobility. Children & Society; 2022; 36, pp. 1111-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/chso.12559]
Li, Jing; Yang, Mengping. Analysis of the Educational Environment in Kindergartens for Gender Equality and Preschoolers’ Gender-Role Development. Creative Education; 2022; 13, pp. 3981-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.1312254]
Lombardo, Emanuela; Bustelo, Maria. Sexual and sexist harassment in Spanish universities: Policy implementation and resistances against gender equality measures. Journal of Gender Studies; 2022; 31, pp. 8-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1924643]
Lombardo, Emanuela; Bustelo, María; Alonso, Alba; Verge, Tània; Elizondo, Arantxa; Tildesley, Rebecca; Diz, Isabel; Barbera, MariaCaterina La. Igualdad e interseccionalidad en las Universidades. Recomendaciones; 2021; Available online: https://interuniguales.com/recomendaciones/ (accessed on 17 April 2025).
Lucas-Palacios, Laura; García-Luque, Antonia; Delgado-Algarra, Emilio José. Gender Equity in Initial Teacher Training: Descriptive and Factorial Study of Students’ Conceptions in a Spanish Educational Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2022; 19, 8369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148369]
Marugán Pintos, Begoña. Género. Eunomia. Revista en Cuba de la legalidad; 2020; 18, pp. 199-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2020.5273]
Matarranz, María. La dimensión de género en la profesionalización docente. Una revisión bibliográfica. Journal of Feminist, Gender and Women Studies; 2023; 14, pp. 39-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15366/jfgws2023.14.003]
Matus-Castillo, Carlos; Serra, Pedrona; Soler, Susanna; Vilanova, Anna; Flores-Rivera, Carol; Knijnik, Jorge; Luna-Villouta, Pablo. Creencias y prácticas sobre la perspectiva de género en el profesorado de Pedagogía en Educación Física en Chile. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación; 2023; 47, pp. 969-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47197/retos.v47.96869]
Merma-Molina, Gladys; Gavilán-Martín, Diego; Hernández-Amorós, María J. La integración del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible 5 en la docencia de las universidades españolas. Revisión sistemática. Santiago; 2021; 154, pp. 49-75.
Miralles-Cardona, Cristina; Chiner, Esther; Cardona-Moltó, María-Cristina. Educating prospective teachers for a sustainable gender equality practice: Survey design and validation of a self-efficacy scale. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2022; 23, pp. 379-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2020-0204]
Miralles-Cardona, Cristina; Kitta, Ioanna; Cardona-Moltó, María-Cristina. Exploring Pre-Service STEM Teachers’ Capacity to Teach Using a Gender-Responsive Approach. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 11127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151411127]
Miralles-Cardona, Cristina; Cardona-Moltó, María-Cristina; Chiner, Esther. La perspectiva de género en la formación inicial docente: Estudio descriptivo de las percepciones del alumnado. Educación XX1; 2020; 23, pp. 231-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.23899]
Pedrosa-Jesús, Cristina; Gutiérrez-Rubio, David; León-Mantero, Carmen; Madrid, María José. Formación del profesorado de educación infantil en Andalucía. un estudio de género en matemáticas: Early childhood education teacher training in Andalusia. a gender study in mathematics. South Florida Journal of Development; 2022; 3, pp. 3269-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv3n3-019]
Pegalajar Palomino, María del Carmen. Validación de una Escala para la Evaluación de las Actitudes hacia la Educación Inclusiva en la formación inicial del educador social. Aula Abierta; 2020; 49, pp. 141-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17811/rifie.49.2.2020.141-149]
Picaza-Gorrotxategi, Maitane; Ozamiz-Etxebarria, Naiara; Jiménez-Etxebarria, Eneritz; Cornelius-White, Jeffrey H. Improvement in gender and transgender knowledge in university students through the creative factory methodology. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020; 11, 367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00367]
Pinedo, Ruth; Arroyo, María José; Berzosa, Ignacio. Género y educación: Detección de situaciones de desigualdad de género en contextos educativos. Contextos Educativos; 2018; 21, pp. 35-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18172/con.3306]
Pozo, Rosario; Quesada, Victoria; Pascual, Belén; Gomila, María Antonia. ¿Ginopia en los estudios universitarios de Educación? Un análisis de caso y propuesta para la inclusión de la perspectiva de género en los grados de Educación social y de Pedagogía. Revista de Docencia Universitaria; 2022; 20, pp. 111-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4995/redu.2022.15930]
Ratinaud, Pierre. Uma evidência experimental do conceito de representação profissional através do estudo da representação do grupo ideal. Nuances: Estudos Sobre Educação; 2009; 16, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14572/nuances.v16i17.325]
Ratinaud, Pierre; Marchand, Pascal. Application de la méthode ALCESTE à de “gros” corpus et stabilité des “mondes lexicaux”: Analyse du “Cablegate” avec IRaMuTeQ. Actes des 11es Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles (JADT); Université de Liège: Liège, 2012; pp. 835-44.
Rebolledo, Teresa. Diversidad cultural, género y diversidad funcional en la formación universitaria de educadores/as sociales. RES: Revista de Educación Social; 2021; 33, pp. 43-53.
Reinert, Max. Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application à l’analyse lexicale par contexte. Les Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données; 1983; 8, pp. 187-98.
Reinert, Max. ALCESTE: Une méthodologie d’analyse des données textuelles et une application: Aurelia de G. de Nerval. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique; 1990; 26, pp. 24-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/075910639002600103]
Resa Ocio, Ainhoa. La formación en igualdad de género en los grados de educación primaria. REIFOP. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado; 2021; 24, pp. 13-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/reifop.390951]
Reyes García, Carmen Isabel; Megolla, Alicia D. ¿Quiénes deben ser los agentes evaluadores del TFG?. Educación XX1; 2020; 23, pp. 125-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.23843]
Rosa-Gregori, Genoveva; Riberas-Bargalló, Gisela; Fernández-Ges, Carme; Álvarez, Esther. El género como contenido transversal en la formación de los Grados de Trabajo Social y de Educación Social. El empoderamiento de las mujeres como estrategia de intervención social; Silvestre, María; Royo, Raquel; Escudero, Esther. Deusto Digital: Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2014; pp. 237-51.
Russell, Douglas H.; Anderson, Joel R.; Riggs, Damien W.; Ullman, Jacqueline; Higgins, Daryl J. Gender diversity and safety climate perceptions in schools and other youth-serving organisations. Children and Youth Services Review; 2020; 117, 105334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105334]
Sanabrias-Moreno, Déborah; Sánchez-Zafra, María; Zagalaz-Sánchez, María Luisa; Cachón-Zagalaz, Javier. Emotional Intelligence, Quality of Life, and Concern for Gender Perspective in Future Teachers. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 3640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043640]
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. Deliberating American Monetary Policy: A Textual Analysis; MIT Press: Cambridge, 2013.
UNESCO. The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) (DESD); United Nations: Paris, 2005.
UNESCO. A Guide for Gender Equality in Teacher Education Policy and Practices; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, 2015.
UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, 2017.
UNESCO. UNESCO Strategy for Gender Equality in and Through Education 2019–2025. 2019; Available online: https://unesco.org.uk/site/assets/files/3108/unesco_strategy_for_gender_equality_in_and_through_education_2019-2025.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2025).
UN United Nations. General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (a/RES/70/1). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. 2015; Available online: https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1 (accessed on 17 April 2025).
Valle Aparicio, J. Eliseo. Gender equality education in childhood and adolescence in Spanish schools: An investment for social transformation. Education Policy Analysis Archives; 2022; 30, pp. 1-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.5699]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Axpe Saez Inge 1 ; Berciano Alcaraz Ainhoa 2
1 Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, University of the Basque Country (EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain; [email protected]
2 Didactics of Mathematics, Experimental and Social Sciences, University of the Basque Country (EHU), 48940 Leioa, Spain; [email protected]