International Journal of Education and Practice

Published by: Pak Publishing Group
Online ISSN: 2310-3868
Print ISSN: 2311-6897
Total Citation: 78

No. 5

The Representation of Gender in a Popular Primary School EFL Textbook Series in China

Pages: 79-87
Find References

Finding References


The Representation of Gender in a Popular Primary School EFL Textbook Series in China

Search :
Google Scholor
Search :
Microsoft Academic Search
Cite

DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2017.55.79.87

Tao Xiong , Jing He , Lekai Li

Export to    BibTeX   |   EndNote   |   RIS

  1. Biemmi, I., 2015. Gender in schools and culture: Taking stock of education in Italy. Gender and Education, 27(7): 812-827. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  2. Elgar, G., 2004. Science textbooks for lower secondary schools in Brunei: Issues of gender equity. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7): 875-894. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  3. Gouvias, D. and C. Alexopoulos, 2016. Sexist stereotypes in the language textbooks of the Greek primary school: A multidimensional approach. Gender and Education: 1-21.
  4. Han, F., 2012. Examination of sexism in an EFL textbook. Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2012(7): 140-142.
  5. Hartman, P.L. and E.L. Judd, 1978. Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4): 383-393. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  6. Kereszty, O., 2009. Gender in textbooks. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 4(2): 1-7. View at Google Scholar 
  7. Lee, K., 2016. Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks – a corpus study. Gender and Education, 1(17). View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  8. Meng, Q., 2008. Daxue Yingyu Youyu Jiaocai Zhong Xingbie Qishi Fenxi (A Study on Sexism in College Spoken English Textbooks) (Doctoral Dissertation). Beijing, China: Beijing Jiaotong University.
  9. Ministry of Education, 2007. National english curriculum standards and primary english curriculum requirements. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
  10. Scheye, A. and D. Gilroy, 1994. College women’s career self-efficacy and educational environments. Career Development Quarterly, 42(3): 244-251. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  11. Scott, P., 1980. Sexist and nonsexist materials: What impact do they have? Elementary School, 81(1): 46-52. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  12. Shi, J., 2001. Jiaocai Zhongde Xingbie Wenti Yanjiu (Gender Issues in Teaching Materials). Funv Yanjiu Luncong (Collection of Women’s Studies), 38(1): 32-35.
  13. Success with English, 2012. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.
  14. Tao, B., 2006. Woguo gaozhong yingyu jiaokeshu zhongde xingbie qishi xianxiang yanjiu (A Probe into Sexism in China's EFL Textbooks for Senior High School Students). Chongqing, China: Southwest University.
  15. Ullah, H. and C. Skelton, 2013. Gender representation in the public sector schools textbooks of Pakistan. Educational Studies, 39(2): 183-194. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  16. Wang, J., 2007. Yingyu zhongde xingbie qishi yu yingyu jiaokeshu jianshe (Sexism in English and Construction of EFL Textbooks in China) (Doctoral Dissertation). Chengdu, China: Sichuan University.
  17. Wang, S., 2010. Xinkegai qianhou chuzhong yingyu jiaocai zhongde xingbie juese de bijiao yanjiu (A Comparative Study of the Gender Roles in Junior English textbook Before and after the New Curriculum Reform). Dangdai Jiaoyu Luntan (Contemporary Education Forum), 2010(1): 66-67.
  18. Zhang, J. and Y. Yang, 2003. Xiaoxue yingyu jiaocai jianshe zhongde yuyan xingbie qishi xianxiang yanjiu (A Study on Linguistic Sexism in English Textbooks for Primary Schools in China). Tsinghua University Journal of Education, 24(S1): 73-76.
  19. Zhu, C., 2012. Ren'ai ban yingyu jiaocai zhong xingbie chengxian de yanjiu (A Study on Gender Representation in Ren'ai English Textbooks) (Doctoral Dissertation). Fuzhou, China: Fujian Normal University.
No any video found for this article.
(2017). The Representation of Gender in a Popular Primary School EFL Textbook Series in China. International Journal of Education and Practice, 5(5): 79-87. DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2017.55.79.87
Textbooks play an important role in teaching and learning and have a great impact on the students in aspects such as cultural values, norms, and attitudes towards social roles and identities. In particular, textbooks are of great importance to the education for gender equity. This study aims to explore the representation of genders to find if there is any bias and stereotype in a set of English textbooks used in primary schools in Guangzhou, a metropolitan city in South China with a population of more than ten million. The investigation looks at the textbooks from aspects of frequency of genders, the social roles females and males play in different settings, and the priority of mention when both genders are referred to on one occasion. The results suggest that stereotypes and imbalanced representation of genders and gender social roles are evident in the textbooks. The paper also gives some suggestions as to materials writing and teaching.

Contribution/ Originality
This study examines the representation of gender in an English textbook series used in Chinese primary schools and finds evidence of stereotypes and imbalanced representation of gender. Besides, it gives some suggestions as to materials writing and teaching.

The Impact of Powerpoint Use on Teacher Sense of Efficacy

Pages: 69-78
Find References

Finding References


The Impact of Powerpoint Use on Teacher Sense of Efficacy

Search :
Google Scholor
Search :
Microsoft Academic Search
Cite

DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2017.55.69.78

Angelos Konstantinidis , Dimitra Theodosiadou , Agoritsa Papachatzi , Christos Pappos

Export to    BibTeX   |   EndNote   |   RIS

  1. Apperson, J.M., E.L. Laws and J.A. Scepansky, 2008. An assessment of student preferences for powerpoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1): 148-153. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  2. Bartsch, R. and K.M. Cobern, 2003. Effectiveness of powerpoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1): 77-86. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  3. Burke, L.A. and K.E. James, 2008. Powerpoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3): 277-296. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  4. Cho, Y.H. and S.E. Lee, 2013. The role of co-explanation and self-explanation in learning from design examples of powerpoint presentation slides. Computers & Education, 69: 400-407. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  5. Chong, S., J. Rotgans, W.M. Loh and M. Mak, 2012. Modelling the determinants of school leaders' perceptions of beginning teachers' efficacy. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 18(3): 231-244. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  6. Chouinard, R., T. Karsenti and N. Roy, 2007. Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3): 501-517. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  7. Gier, V. and D. Kreiner, 2009. Incorporating active learning with powerpoint-based lectures using content-based questions. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2): 134-139. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  8. Gray, C., L. Hagger-Vaughan, R. Pilkington and S. Tomkins, 2005. The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32(1): 38-44. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  9. Gunderman, R.B. and K.C. Mccammack, 2010. Powerpoint: Know your medium. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 7(9): 711-714. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  10. Harden, R.M., 2008. Death by powerpoint–the need for a ‘fidget index’. Medical Teacher, 30(9-10): 833-835. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  11. Hashemi, M., M. Azizinezhad and M. Farokhi, 2012. Power point as an innovative tool for teaching and learning in modern classes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31: 559-563. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  12. Hassner, R.E., 2005. Sliding into home plate: How to use slideware to iprove your presentation (While Dodging the Bullets). PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(3): 393-397. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  13. Hill, A., T. Arford, A. Lubitow and L.M. Smollin, 2012. I'm ambivalent about it: The dilemmas of powerpoint. Teaching Sociology, 40(3): 242-256. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  14. Ho, I.T. and K. Hau, 2004. Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3): 313-323. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  15. Hoy, A. and R. Spero, 2005. Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4): 343-356. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  16. James, K.E., L.A. Burke and H.M. Hutchins, 2006. Powerful or pointless? Faculty versus student perceptions of powerpoint use in business education. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(4): 374-396. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  17. Kahraman, S., C. Çevik and H. Kodan, 2011. Investigation of university students’ attitude toward the use of powerpoint according to some variables. Procedia Computer Science, 3: 1341-1347. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  18. Kinchin, I.M., 2006. Concept mapping, powerpoint, and a pedagogy of access. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2): 79-83. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  19. Kinchin, I.M. and L.B. Cabot, 2007. Using concept mapping principles in powerpoint. European Journal of Dental Education, 11(4): 194-199. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  20. Mulholland, J. and J. Wallace, 2001. Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2): 243–261. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  21. Parette, H.P., C. Blum, N.M. Boeckmann and E.H. Watts, 2009. Teaching word recognition to young children who are at risk using microsoft® powerpoint™ coupled with direct instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5): 393-401. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  22. Pauw, A.P., 2002. Discoveries and dangers in teaching theology with powerpoint. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5(1): 39-41. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  23. Peters, R. and M. Beeson, 2010. Reducing the gap between skills sought by employers and developed by education. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(4): 773-777. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  24. Ross, J.A., J.B. Cousins and T. Gadalla, 1996. Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4): 385-400. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  25. Ross, J.A., S. McKeiver and A. Hogaboam-Gray, 1997. Fluctuations in teacher efficacy during the implementation of destreaming. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(3): 283-296. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  26. Schrad, M.L., 2010. In defense of the populist lecture. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(4): 759-765. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  27. Susskind, J., 2008. Limits of powerpoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50(4): 1228-1239. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  28. Szabo, A. and N. Hastings, 2000. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with power point? Computers & Education, 35(3): 175-187. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  29. Tang, T.L. and M.J. Austin, 2009. Students’ perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 53(4): 1241-1255. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  30. Tran, N.A., S. Schneider, L. Duran, A.M. Conley, L. Richland, M. Burchinal, T. Rutherford, M. Kibrick, K. Osborne, A. Coulson, F. Antenore, A. Daniels and M.E. Martinez, 2012. The effects of mathematics instruction using spatial temporal cognition on teacher efficacy and instructional practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2): 340-349. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  31. Tschannen-Moran, M. and A.W. Hoy, 2001. Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7): 783-805. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  32. Tschannen-Moran, M., A.W. Hoy and W.K. Hoy, 1998. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2): 202–248. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  33. Wang, C., Y. Ke, J. Wu and W. Hsu, 2012. Collaborative action research on technology integration for science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1): 125-132. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
  34. Woolfolk, A.E., B. Rosoff and W.K. Hoy, 1990. Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2): 137–148. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher
No any video found for this article.
(2017). The Impact of Powerpoint Use on Teacher Sense of Efficacy. International Journal of Education and Practice, 5(5): 69-78. DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2017.55.69.78
The use of PowerPoint is widespread in classroom teaching, yet no studies exist that investigate how its use affects teacher sense of efficacy. Teacher sense of efficacy, understood as the teachers’ judgment of their capability to make differences in students’ learning, affects the effort teachers invest in teaching, the goals they set, and their level of aspiration. It has been found that highly efficacious teachers use a variety of teaching strategies and are more willing to integrate new technologies in their teaching practices. As the number of teachers who use presentation tools in their classroom increases, it would be valuable to know whether and how their use affects teacher sense of efficacy. This study expands the current literature on teacher sense of efficacy by investigating how the use of PowerPoint in the classroom relates to the construct. In order to measure whether PowerPoint use affects teacher sense of efficacy, we developed a self-administered questionnaire based on the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) and adapted it to measure the effect of PowerPoint use in teacher efficacy. Twenty five in-service teachers who use PowerPoint quite often in their practices participated in this study. The results show that PowerPoint use has a general positive impact on teacher sense of efficacy.

Contribution/ Originality
This study contributes in the existing literature by investigating the relationship between use of PowerPoint in the classroom and teacher sense of efficacy. The results indicate that PowerPoint use has a general positive impact on teacher sense of efficacy.