Challenging gender stereotypes: representations of gender through social interactions in English learning textbooks

The paper examines how English language textbooks used in Chinese secondary schools represent gender and potentially socialize learners into gendered norms. Framed by UNESCO’s concern about persistent gender bias in textbooks, the authors argue that textbooks—often functioning as authoritative, de facto curricula—shape learners’ gender beliefs, normalize dominant cultural values, and can either reinforce or challenge inequality. In the Chinese context, textbooks carry particular weight across compulsory education and mediate both Chinese and international cultural views. The study problematizes viewing gender as a fixed dichotomy and emphasizes gender as dynamic, performed, and socially constructed through interactions. It sets out to interrogate the taken-for-granted association between education and gender equality by examining social interactions of gender in textbooks and asks: (a) what gender stereotypes are represented in interactions between adults (women/men; mothers/fathers) and children, and between peers (boys/girls); and (b) what changing roles of gender are visible. The goal is to understand how interactional depictions might contribute to students’ gender socialization and to identify paths toward more progressive, egalitarian representations.

The review situates gender norms within Chinese Confucian culture, historically endorsing patriarchal divisions (men in public, women in domestic spheres) despite improvements in women’s status across the 20th century. Contemporary inequalities persist in subtler forms (e.g., protective discrimination, differential retirement ages, domestic expectations). Across international textbook research, gender bias commonly appears as stereotyping, quantitative imbalance, and prioritizing masculinity: males occupy diverse prestigious roles; females are confined to domestic, assistive roles; linguistic sexism and male-first naming occur; and females are underrepresented in text and images. The authors critique static, product-oriented analyses that count representations but overlook dynamic processes of gender construction. Drawing on Butler (gender performativity) and Foucault (power/knowledge), they conceptualize gender as fluid and enacted in interaction, where power relations—parent-child, mother-father, and peer interactions—produce and negotiate gender meanings. Prior work highlights the importance of adult-child and peer interactions in shaping gender identity, yet these dimensions are underexplored in textbook studies. Exposure to diverse, counter-stereotypical depictions can improve outcomes (e.g., girls’ science performance), underscoring the need to analyze interactional scenarios within sociocultural contexts.

Design: Mixed methods with qualitative analysis as primary and quantitative content analysis as complementary. Quantitative content analysis captured frequencies/percentages to assess visibility and inclusion/exclusion of genders; qualitative analysis employed a modified Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) supported by thematic analysis to examine how gender is constructed through social interactions and power relations. Sample: Four officially accredited junior secondary English textbook sets widely used in China, covering Years 7–9 (ages 13–15), totaling 23 volumes: Project English (7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B), Go for it! (7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9), Macmillan English (7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B), Oxford English (7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B). Analytic framework: Coding captured (1) social interactions of people (boys, girls, women, men, mothers, fathers), (2) media (texts/images), (3) gender roles (stereotypes/changing roles), (4) elements of representation (occupations, academic achievement, hobbies, personality), and (5) contexts (family, society). The CDA model was adapted to incorporate three constitutive elements: textbook text, human agents (producers/consumers), and wider sociocultural context (following Ebnou’s reframing of Fairclough’s explanatory dimension). Analyses considered dialogue content, actions in interaction, roles and relations, power positioning, absences, and how readers might interpret scenarios within socio-historical meanings. Quantitative counts (e.g., character frequencies, occupation distributions, counts of famous figures) supported thematic interpretation.

Overall: The textbooks predominantly present non-progressive gender images and prioritize masculinity, especially in family contexts. Domestic labor is feminized; women (mothers) and children do housework, while adult men are absent from domestic chores. Some change is visible through women portrayed in non-traditional jobs, but male roles remain largely traditional and one-dimensional. Theme 1 – Gendering of social and domestic labor:

• Domestic chores and parenting: Mothers (and female relatives) are depicted cleaning/cooking; adult men do not participate in housework. Male teenagers sometimes “help,” framed as filial duty rather than role sharing. Mothers rarely solicit fathers’ help, signaling tacit acceptance of domestic role division.
• Parent–child interactions: Mothers engage more frequently and diversely (care, daily routines), while fathers’ interactions are fewer and more directive/authoritative (discipline, study supervision). Figure 2 indicates higher percentages of interactions with mothers by set and overall: e.g., approx. Go for it: 69.23%; Macmillan: 46.15%; Project English: 66.67%; Oxford: 80%; Total: 67.21%. Counts in the figure suggest more mother–child scenarios than father–child across sets.
• Fathers as authority/knowers: Fathers issue commands, set rules, and are portrayed as ultimate family authorities (e.g., enforcing homework, restricting activities), with limited room for negotiation; mothers often accommodate to avoid conflict.
• Partial resistance: A few instances show girls/women challenging paternal authority (e.g., daughter emailing father about smoking), though often in softened, rapport-building forms.
• Social labor and fame: Famous men vastly outnumber famous women (Table 2): total 108 males (80.6%) vs 26 females (19.4%). Male achievements are valorized; women’s struggles against discrimination are rarely mentioned. Success attributions differ: women’s success credited to diligence (e.g., Deng Yaping), men’s to talent plus effort (e.g., Liu Xiang).
• Occupational roles (Table 3): Women include teachers, managers, doctors, nurses, journalists, policewomen; men include doctors, engineers, pilots, managers, police, drivers, pilots, scientists, etc. Women increasingly appear in leadership/professional roles (e.g., general manager, head of hospital). However, no male adults are shown in traditionally feminine roles (e.g., househusband, nurse), nor participating in household labor.
• Aspirations (Table 4): Girls sometimes aspire to non-traditional roles (e.g., programmer, engineer, pilot) and receive maternal encouragement; boys’ aspirations remain traditionally male (e.g., astronaut, football player). No boys express interest in non-traditional “female” jobs. Theme 2 – Differences in gender characteristics (stereotypes):
• Visuals and traits (Table 5): Boys shown with sports equipment; girls with dolls/teddy bears. Boys depicted as careless, naughty, brave; girls as organized, gentle, quiet. In narratives, boys drive action and conflict; girls mediate, follow rules, and serve as foils.
• Academic/hobbies: Boys like sports, P.E., science; girls like cooking/dancing and may find math difficult. Some counter-examples show girls’ interest in science/STEM, but these are sporadic and frame girls as needing to prove parity with boys.
• Storylines: Male-led plots center on boys’ actions and rule-challenging; girls act as rapport builders and conflict mediators, reinforcing male dominance in narrative focus and casting girls in supportive roles. Theme 3 – Gender roles defined in culture:
• Cultural mediation: Chinese Confucian norms intersect with English/international values. Male non-masculinity is masked (e.g., Zheng He presented as a muscular, sword-bearing explorer/official while his eunuch status is omitted) to preserve heroic masculinity.
• Female cross-gender valorization: Women adopting masculine-coded roles (e.g., Mulan) are praised, often through the lens of filial piety. Conversely, men taking feminine roles are absent and implicitly devalued.
• Limited progressive male portrayals: Some depictions show husbands’ affection/respect for wives (e.g., consideration for wife’s preferences), reflecting more “gentlemanly” norms rather than Confucian tradition. Synthesis: Women’s roles show some diversification in public/professional spheres; domestic sphere remains feminized with entrenched paternal authority. Male roles appear static, reinforcing masculinity’s higher status and narrowing acceptable identities for boys/men.

The findings reveal that textbook content continues to reproduce traditional gender hierarchies through interactional depictions: mothers as caregivers/housekeepers and fathers as authorities/disciplinarians, with boys as active protagonists and girls as compliant mediators. This interactional lens exposes the power relations that underlie seemingly neutral scenes, showing how students may internalize gendered expectations via everyday dialogues, tasks, and parental roles. While there is evidence of change—increased representation of women in leadership/professional roles and girls’ aspirations to non-traditional careers—these advances are incomplete, especially in familial contexts where male domestic participation is absent and paternal authority is normalized. The unequal valence assigned to masculine versus feminine roles constrains both girls and boys: women must take on masculine-coded roles to be lauded, whereas men risk devaluation if they adopt feminine-coded roles. Conceptualizing gender as fluid and performative highlights the need for textbooks to present diverse, dialogic possibilities of gendered interaction and power-sharing. To support more egalitarian socialization, materials should depict shared domestic responsibilities, non-authoritarian fathering, boys in caring roles, and girls as agents of rule-making and innovation, alongside balanced recognition of achievements and struggles across genders.

This study contributes an interaction-focused analysis of gender representation in Chinese junior secondary English textbooks, demonstrating how everyday social interactions in texts/images enact and naturalize gendered power relations. It documents persistent stereotypes—especially in family scenarios—and asymmetry in professional recognition, alongside partial shifts where women appear in non-traditional roles and girls articulate broader aspirations. The study argues for improving the quality and variety of gendered social interactions in textbooks to provide students with more egalitarian models, including diverse cultural exemplars (e.g., women scientists, male performers of traditionally feminine roles) and balanced depictions of authority, care, and domestic labor. Future work should develop guidelines for interactional scenarios that normalize shared responsibilities and counter-stereotypical roles for all genders, and support teachers in fostering students’ critical literacy to question textbook authority and engage multiple gender discourses.

A principal limitation is the absence of classroom-based evidence on how students perceive and internalize these representations and how teachers mediate or challenge gender bias during instruction. The study analyzes textbook content only; it does not capture actual usage, teacher talk, or learner reception, which could modify or amplify representational effects. Future research should examine teacher practices, student interpretations, and interactional dynamics in real lessons to understand consumption and reproduction of textbook gender discourse.