Gender (In)Equality In Locally Published EFL Coursebooks In Turkiye

Abstract

This study investigates gender representation in two English as foreign language coursebooks published by the Ministry of National Education for elementary schools in Turkiye. Using content analysis, it aims to explore how gender is portrayed through visuals and linguistic elements. It adopts a categorization of representational imbalances, gender stereotyping, and linguistic sexism for analysis. The findings reveal persistent gender imbalances, with males dominating visual representations and high-status occupations, while females are more visible in dialogue-based content, particularly songs and chants. Both coursebooks reproduce traditional gender stereotypes, portraying females in domestic, nurturing or service-related roles and males in outdoor, technical and leadership roles. Linguistic analysis also identifies gender-biased language, including the overuse of titles, firstness patterns, and male-oriented occupational terms. Despite increased awareness of gender issues, the study demonstrates that these coursebooks continue to reinforce both explicit and implicit gender biases. The study underscores the need for coursebook developers and educational authorities to adopt gender-sensitive approaches, integrating globally recognized guidelines on gender-fair language and promoting diverse, non-stereotypical representations. These measures are crucial to fostering equitable gender perceptions among young learners and challenging entrenched societal norms.

Keywords

• Gender (in)equality
• Gender representation
• Gender stereotype
• Coursebook analysis
• English as a foreign language

Türkiye’de Basılan İngilizce Ders Kitaplarında Cinsiyet Eşit(Siz)Liği

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de ilkokullar için ulusal olarak basılan İngilizce öğretimine yönelik ders kitaplarındaki toplumsal cinsiyet temsilinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. İçerik Analizi yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada, toplumsal cinsiyetin görsel ve dilsel unsurlar aracılığıyla nasıl sunulduğunu incelemek için nicel veri toplama yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Verilerin incelenmesi sürecinde, cinsiyet temsilinde dengesizlikler, toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargıları ve dilsel cinsiyetçilik kategorileri benimsenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen önemli bulgulardan biri, ilkokul 3. ve 4. Sınıf İngilizce ders kitaplarının her ikisinin de erkeklerin veya kadınların lehine toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği içerdiğidir. Bu çalışma ayrıca, ders kitaplarındaki toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargılarının yalnızca erkek ve kadın karakterlerin nicel temsiline bağlı olmadığını; nitel boyutların da en az nicel boyutlar kadar, hatta daha da önemli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra çalışma sonucunda, ders kitaplarında geleneksel toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargılarını pekiştiren daha derin cinsiyet önyargıları olduğu da gözler önüne serilmiştir. Bu önyargılar arasında genellikle ev içi sorumluluklar, meslekler ve etkinlikler yer almaktadır. Bu alanlarda geleneksel toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargılarının ders kitaplarında var olmaya devam etmesi, farklı ülkelerdeki İngilizce ders kitaplarına ilişkin güncel çalışmaların bulgularıyla tutarlıdır; dolayısıyla bu çalışmada, farklı ülkelerdeki ders kitaplarının benzer kalıp yargıları yeniden ve hala sergilediğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada ders kitabı yazarlarına yönelik toplumsal cinsiyet konulu mesleki gelişim programlarının hayata geçirilmesi önerilmektedir. Çalışma, bu kalıp yargıların önüne geçilmesi ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğini erken yaşlarda teşvik etmek amacıyla eğitim araç-gereçlerinin gözden geçirilmesine yönelik önerilerle sonuçlanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Cinsiyet Eşit(siz)liği
• Cinsiyet Temsili
• Cinsiyet Kalıp Yargıları
• Ders kitabı analizi
• İngilizce öğretimi

References

1. Adawiyah, S. Z., & Oktavianti, I. N. (2023). Gender representation in Merdeka curriculum ELT textbooks: A corpus-assisted study. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v8i2.668.
2. Ahmadabadi, Z. S. H., & Azad, M. (2023). The critical discourse analysis of gender representation in English textbooks of Iranian high schools: The Fairclough model in focus. Conhecimento & Diversidade, 15(38), 413–442.
3. Akbulut-Uzun, Y., & Gelmez-Burakgazi, S. (2021). Ortaöğretim İngilizce ders kitaplarının toplumsal cinsiyet rolleri açısından incelenmesi [The examination of secondary education English textbooks in terms of gender roles]. TEBD, 19(2), 1277–1298.
4. Albina, A., Mandalones, A., Layan, R., Calijan, M., Salva, L., Cerbito, E. L., & Pagsuguiron, J. (2023). Gender inequality is real: Dominance of male representation in an elementary English textbook. Journal of English Education, 9(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.30606/jee.
5. Al Kayed, M., Al_Khawaldah, S. K., & Alzu’bi, M. A. (2020). Critical discourse analysis of gender representations in EFL textbooks. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23.2020.94.244.254.
6. Almghams, B. R. (2020). Gender representation in Saudi EFL textbooks: A study of the family and friends series. Arab World English Journal (December 2020), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.262.
7. Aydınoğlu, N. (2014). Gender in English language teaching coursebooks. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158(2014), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.081.
8. Bachore, M. M. (2022). Analysis of gender representation in English language learning materials: The case of grade ten textbook in Ethiopia. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 11(5), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v11n5p175.

9. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
10. Blumberg, R. L. (2007). Gender bias in textbooks: A hidden obstacle on the road to gender equality in education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001555/155509e.pdf.
11. Brugeilles, C., & Cromer, S. (2009). Promoting gender equality through textbooks. UNESCO.
12. Can Acar, S. (2021). An investigation into gender representations in an English coursebook. Focus on ELT Journal, 3(2), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2021.3.2.4.
13. Chan, W. M. (2021). Gender representation in language textbooks. Advances in Education Sciences, 3(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5791934.
14. Curaming, E. M., & Curaming, R. A. (2020). Gender (in)equality in English textbooks in the Philippines: A critical discourse analysis. Sexuality and Culture, 24, 1167–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09750-4.
15. Dahmardeh, M., Mohammed Hasan, A., Muhammadi, P., & Al-Rashdi, F. (2025). A comparative study of gender representation in EFL coursebooks in the Middle East. Journal for Multicultural Education, 19(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-10-2024-0138.
16. Esmaili, F., & Amerian, M. (2014). Gender representation in Iranian high school English textbooks with a critical discourse analysis perspective. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(4), 277–289.
17. Gün, S., & Zehir Topkaya, E. (2023). Critical discourse analysis of gender equality in English textbooks. Korkut Ata Journal of Studies in Turcology, Special Issue 1, 1360–1379. https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1356800.
18. Hartman, P. L., & Judd, E. L. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 383–393.
19. Huang, P., & Liu, X. (2024). Challenging gender stereotypes: Representations of gender through social interactions in English learning textbooks. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03293-x.
20. Huang, S. Y. (2025). Gender and diversity in EFL textbook dialogues: Interactional structure and pedagogical implications. TESOL Quarterly, 59(3), 1176–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3310.
21. Lee, J. F. K. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks: A corpus study. Gender and Education, 30(3), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1214690.
22. Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2009). Australian English‐language textbooks: The gender issues. Gender and Education, 21(4), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802392257.
23. Lee, J. F. K., & Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, V. (2020). Gender representation in instructional materials: A study of Iranian English language textbooks and teachers' voices. Sexuality and Culture, 24(4), 1107–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09747-z.
24. Lips, H. M. (2020). Sex and gender: An introduction. Waveland Press.
25. Maesaroh, D. T., Asih, Y. U., & Suhatmady, B. (2022). Does the English textbook for young learners in Indonesia promote gender equality? Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v7i1.1152.
26. Mengistie, S. M., & Worku, M. Y. (2021). Gender representation in educational materials: A focus on Ethiopian English textbooks. In W. Leal Filho, A. Marisa Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.), Gender equality: Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95687-9_137.
27. Papadima, G. (2021). The impact of gender and degree on the adult educator’s theoretical identity. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 889-902. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14250a.
28. Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 704–724.
29. Ruiz-Cecilia, R., Guijarro-Ojeda, J. R., & Marín-Macías, C. (2020). Analysis of heteronormativity and gender roles in EFL textbooks. Sustainability, 13(1), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010220.
30. Selvi, A. F. (2019). Qualitative content analysis. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 440–452). London: Routledge.
31. Sunderland, J. (2011). Language, gender and children’s fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
32. Şimşek, M. R. (2022). Gender-positioning within the visual network: How (non-)inclusive can EFL materials get? The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences, 26, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.55549/epess.1196823.
33. Teliousi, V., Zafiri, M., & Pliogou, V. (2020). Occupation and gender stereotypes in primary school: The case of the English language coursebooks in Greek primary schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1135–1148. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080403.
34. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2024). İstatistiklerle kadın 2023 raporu. [2023 report on women]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Kadin-2023-53675.
35. United Nations. (2015). The sustainable development goals. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals/reduced-inequalities.
36. Ünveren Kapanadze, D. (2019). Analysing discourses of gifted students in terms of their perspectives on social gender. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 539-558. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12234a.
37. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis: Second edition. Sage Publications.
38. Yaghoubi-Notash, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2012). Genders representation in focus: The case for a marketized EFL syllabus. Educational Research, 3(1), 80–86.
39. Yang, C. C. R. (2011). Gender representation in a Hong Kong primary English textbook series: The relationship between language planning and social policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.541390.
40. Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., & Cao, R. (2022). Can we stop cleaning the house and make some food, Mum?: A critical investigation of gender representation in China’s English textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 69, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101058.
41. Zhou, X., & Weninger, C. (2025). Cultural conceptualization of gender in Chinese senior high school EFL coursebooks: A cultural linguistics perspective. In M. Alemi & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Cultural Linguistics and ELT Curriculum (pp. 215–237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7726-9_11.
42. Zorba, M. G., & Nickolson, C. (2022). Social and global values in English language coursebooks. In H. Çelik & S. Çelik (Eds.), Coursebook evaluation in English as a foreign language (EFL) education (pp. 217–234). Vizetek.