International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024, pp. 2428~2439

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v13i4.27724  2428

Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender

approach

Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez1, Valentina Cadavid Alzate2, Angélica María Rodríguez Ortiz2,
Rubén Darío Lara Escobar3
1
Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de Manizales, Manizales, Colombia
2
Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Business Studies, Universidad Autónoma de Manizales, Manizales, Colombia
3
Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, Colombia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This study analyses the self-perception of 274 teachers from public, urban,
and rural schools in Manizales, Colombia, using a Likert scale instrument
Received Jun 9, 2023 developed considering the scientific competencies determined by UNESCO.
Revised Oct 8, 2023 In the analysis of the results, it was found that, even though in the sample
Accepted Oct 31, 2023 analyzed, women have greater training in research and scientific
competencies, their perception of their abilities in this aspect is lower than
that of men. With the Mann-Whitney U test and rank-biserial correlation, it
Keywords: was possible to test the alternative hypothesis that the female self-perception
of capabilities is lower than the male for each question. The instrument was
Gender bias validated with the internal consistency index with an α=0.98. Additionally,
Gender gap the instrument has been validated with a confirmatory factor analysis,
Science education obtaining values of comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.869 and Tucker-Lewis’s
Self-perception index (TLI) of 0.858 with RMSEA and SRMR of 0.103 and 0.063,
STEM education respectively. The paper provides insights into the self-perception of
scientific competencies among teachers, which can inform teacher training
and professional development programs. The study highlighted the gender
gap in self-perception of scientific competencies, which can inform policies
and interventions to promote gender equity in science education.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez
Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de Manizales
Av. Santander No. 60, Manizales, Caldas, Colombia
E-mail: ygarces@ucm.edu.co

1. INTRODUCTION
The impact of social representations and common beliefs has undeniably taken root in the culture
when it comes to revising the surrounding perceptions about the role of women in science [1], [2]. Although,
in recent years, it has been possible to open educational spaces that promote gender equity, the traces and
biases that permeate the minds of women and men are latent in speeches and actions, suggesting that despite
the efforts of current feminists who have transformed women’s participation in academia, some androcentric
cultural and historical forms are still present [3] generating a deficit of girls and women pursuing science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines that can be attributed in part to subtle forms of
bias linked to traditional gender role stereotyping [4]. The current research demonstrates another, more
intangible gender gap in academia, called mismatch, whereby, compared to male academics, female
academics perceive a greater mismatch between their professional self-concept and the stereotype of the
successful academic [5].
Androcentric order narratives predominate in science and the beliefs of the common [6]. It is not
easy to change the perceptions about women in science when the foundations of scientific thought have been

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2429

presented by men, exalting their contributions, relegating, or ignoring the contributions of women, even
when, as history shows us, some of these contributions that materialized under the name of a man have
originated in the thoughts of women or in a collective work in which a woman actively participated. In this
sense, a long legacy of contributions by women in science has been erased from memory. Cases in which
recognition is only obtained by man, such as that of the physicist Lise Meitner, who is little known for having
participated together with Otto Hahn in fundamental discoveries for the development of atomic energy -the
fission of nuclei of heavy atoms-work that allowed Hahn to obtain the Nobel Prize in 1945, a prize that
Meitner never received [7].
Recent historical research and narratives of science show that women have been vital for the
development of science and the advancement of human knowledge [8]–[11], even though, historically,
recognition is attributed to men either due to cultural traditions or because they have appropriated the original
ideas of women, as is the case of Rosalind Franklin, whose contributions were essential for determining the
helical structure of the DNA, but was appropriated without recognition by Wilkins, Watson, and Crick, who
received the Nobel Prize after Rosalind’s death [7]. This has allowed different researchers to focus on the
contributions of women to scientific development and the persistent gaps between men and women in the
scientific field. Some researches [12]–[18] revealed this gender gap that has persisted in the history of
science. In addition, some results indicate strong associations between information and communication
technologies (ICT) self-efficacy and transfer learning measures. Both gender and ICT factors cause
significant differences in the levels of ICT self-efficacy measures [19]. Furthermore, it could be shown that
gender can still be considered a limitation in ICT use [20].
Despite the struggles initiated by different groups of feminist scientists and historians, the
“persistence of traditional stereotypes concerning the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the
family and society continues, which reinforce the traditional role of women as mothers and wife, which
continues to affect their educational and career prospects” [21]. These stereotyped models of women have
been established in social imaginaries, acquiring the meaning of what the culture accepts as the socially
prescribed and experienced dimensions of “femininity” or “masculinity” in a society [22]. These models
shape women's perceptions of themselves. In some cases, they turn out to be beliefs that hinder progress in
the social construction of scientific knowledge. Some results in the food industry show differences in self-
assessment categories concerning gender, with men having a better self-perception, especially in economic
analysis and clarity of career goals. Women rate themselves better only in food development, traditionally
associated with women from the domestic sphere to the food industry [23].
Thanks to various actions, the participation of women in different aspects of society has increased
[24]. However, many sectors continue to have much lower female participation than men. In the field of
research, for example, in Colombia, only 38% of all researchers are women. In STEM areas such as
mechanics, electricity, electronics, computing, and civil and physical sciences, this proportion does not
exceed 20% [25]. Ensuring gender equality in education is one of the Sustainable Development Goals
specified by the United Nations. Ensuring gender equality in teaching/learning environments, however,
requires sensitive and gender-aware teachers [26].
Current science education research pays attention to teachers' skills for teaching in secondary and
basic education in a technological and social context. In this research, the perception of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics teachers in the city of Manizales, Colombia, was explored, taking as data teachers' own
conceptions about scientific competencies in science teaching, which we analyzed from a gender perspective
to show that the gender gap goes beyond a social conception and that even the perception of gender is
essential in this aspect, especially if one takes into account the attitude of the female and male teachers
regarding scientific knowledge. We based our analysis on two key aspects in teaching school sciences: the
first is associated with the production process of scientific knowledge; the second is related to the attitudes of
students and teachers towards the learning and teaching of scientific knowledge [27]. This last aspect that is
considered fundamental in the analysis is oriented towards the way in which scientific knowledge is assumed,
that is, the attitudes and dispositions of both those who teach and those who learn, scientific knowledge:
curiosity, imagination, problem-solving, the systematic use of scientific methods, values, ethics, and
scientific processes in the classroom [28].

2. RESEARCH METHOD
In this descriptive research, we have used the self-perception angle because we do not have enough
data available to measure and analyze the performance. We start from a database to analyze the self-
perception that Natural Sciences and Mathematics teachers have about the skills to teach Science in the
classroom, we choose this sample of the study, because there is evidence in the literature of the gender gap in
these areas of knowledge in all levels of the educations system. An instrument on a Likert scale with five
response possibilities in 37 questions was implemented in a sample within a population of 274 teachers from
Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)
2430  ISSN: 2252-8822

public schools in the City of Manizales, 175 women and 99 men, after cleaning the database to eliminate
missing data or incorrect. As the study is a population-based study, the sample size is not calculated, since it
analyzes all the individuals who have answered the instrument completely and globally. On the other hand,
six categories of competences were classified to investigate the perceptions of teachers about the elements
[29]. Each of these competences, in turn, were divided into three categories, namely: i) technological and
communication skills; ii) deep learning; and iii) transfer and creation of new knowledge, as shown in Table 1
to Table 3, respectively [29].

Table 1. Scientific competences of category 1 (Technological and communication skills)

Competence 1 – The curriculum Competence 2 – General teaching skills
− Develop and implement a coherent scientific − Use scientific teaching actions, strategies, and methodology. (HGE_1)
curriculum. (C_1) − Establish interactions with students including questioning techniques that
− Develop, implement, and expand the promote learning. (HGE_2)
framework of objectives, plans, materials, and − Organize the classroom effectively, a laboratory or field experience in
resources for education. (C_2) different groups of students. (HGE_3)
− Plan an instruction that promotes problem − Use advanced technology to extend and enhance learning. (HGE_4)
analysis, critical thinking, creativity, − Use students' prior concepts and interests to promote new knowledge.
leadership, and decision making, based on the (HGE_5)
organization and integration of curricular − Design scientific investigations in the classroom. (HGE_6)
content in relation to science education. (C_3) − Operate complex laboratory equipment. (HGE_7)
− Orient teaching objectives to enhance student − Prepare materials used in the science laboratory. (HE_8)
learning and motivation, with emphasis on − Establish and enforce laboratory safety, including storage and hazardous
individual differences, community, and waste deposits in the science laboratory. (HGE_9)
current science education standards. (C_4) − Monitor student learning through a variety of assessment strategies,
providing feedback to students to improve their learning. (HGE_10)
− Design, conduct, and evaluate laboratory activities that target the
development of scientific concepts, using scientific techniques and
methodologies. (HGE_11)

Table 2. Scientific competences of category 2 (In-depth learning)

Competence 3 – Knowledge and nature of the scientific context Competence 4 – Evaluation
− Know the values, beliefs, and assumptions inherent in the creation of scientific − Know the different dimensions and
knowledge, within the scientific community and compare the sciences with other strategies for monitoring and
forms of knowledge. (CNCC_1) evaluating student learning. (E_1)
− Analyze local, national, regional, or global problems or challenges in which scientific − Use assessment results to guide
design can be or has been used to design a solution. (CNCC_2). change in teaching and learning
− Evaluate the scientific design process used to develop and implement solutions to strategies in the classroom. (E_2)
problems or challenges in everyday life. (CNCC_3). − Monitor and assess student learning
− Evaluate consequences, constraints, and applications of solutions to problems or through a variety of means, providing
challenges in everyday life. (CNCC_4) feedback to students to adjust
− Analyze how the advancement of scientific and technological knowledge, discovered, teaching strategies in the classroom.
and developed by individuals and communities in all cultures of the world, contribute (E_3)
to changes in societies. (CNCC_5)
− Analyze the effects of human activities on the earth and the ability to sustain
biological diversity. (CNCC_6)

Table 3. Scientific competences of category 3 (Transfer)

Competence 5 – Research Competence 6 – Professional Practice
− Plan and conduct scientific research. (I_1) − Constantly update their disciplinary knowledge as a
− Synthesize a scientific explanation using evidence, data and basis for the professional practice of teaching science
inferential logic. (I_2) and mathematics. (PP_1)
− Apply knowledge of how to report complex scientific research and − Know the standards of ethical conduct in science
explanations of objects, events, systems, and processes and how to teaching, consistent with the interests of students and
evaluate the results of scientific investigations. (I_3) the educational community. (PP_2)
− Analyze how important curiosity, honesty, cooperation, openness, − Participate in the activities of their professional
and skepticism are to scientific explanations and research. (I_4) community, which include other teachers and science
− Analyze the limitations of scientific theories using logic, history, organizations to enhance student learning. (PP_3)
current evidence, and the ability to be investigated and modified such − Constantly reflect on their professional practice and
a theory. (I_5) make continuous efforts to ensure the highest quality of
− Evaluate the inconsistency or unexpected results of scientific science and mathematics teaching. (PP_4)
research using scientific explanations. (I_6) − Communicate effectively to parents, industry and
− Analyze scientific research, its validity, reliability, and results. (I_7) commerce and other agencies, and the community at
− Understand how scientific knowledge evolves. (I_8) large how they can support science and mathematics
learning for all students. (PP_5)

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024: 2428-2439
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2431

Furthermore, the instrument is evaluated with R-Project software on the RStudio platform version
2022.07.2 Build 576 and JASP version 0.16.4 for data analysis. There were two phases of analysis developed
for the validation of the instrument. In the first phase, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed.
In the second phase, the reliability of the scale was tested with the entire sample (n=274) by calculating
Cronbach’s α and composite reliability (CR). The reliability or internal consistency of the data set was
measured using Cronbach’s alpha [30]. The internal consistency index for the database is verified with a
result of 𝛼 = 0.98, so the internal consistency is excellent. The composite reliability was 0.99.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We performed a confirmatory factor analysis CFA, which allows us to analyze how the six factors,
called categories in Tables 1-3, the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis’s index (TLI) were 0.869
and 0.858 respectively with RMSEA=0.103 and SRMR=0.063. All the estimated loading coefficients are
significant; however, this depends on the level determined according to scientific literature, Hair et al. [31]
indicated that standardized loading estimates should be 0.5 or more, and ideally 0.7 or more. On the other
hand, study by Fields [32] suggests considering a factor as reliable if it has four or more loadings of at least
0.6, regardless of sample size. Research by Stevens [33] suggests using a cutoff point of 0.4, regardless of
sample size, for interpretive purposes. Comrey and Lee [34] also suggest using stricter cutoffs ranging from
0.32 (poor), 0.45 (fair), 0.55 (good), 0.63 (very good) or 0.71 (excellent). For the proposed model, all loading
factors are greater than 0.7. The model is shown in Figure 1.

0.32 0.26
0.19 0.16
0.25 0.18

0.21 0.26
PP_5 CNCC_1
PP_4 CNCC_2
0.25 0.34
PP_3 CNCC_3

PP_2 CNCC_4

0.23 0.35
PP_1 CNCC_5

0.90 0.82 0.86 0.92

E_3 0.87 0.91 CNCC_6
0.10 0.89 0.86 0.20
0.86 0.82
E_2 0.81 I_1

0.15 0.17
0.88
E_1 PP 0.72 CNCC I_2
0.95 0.89

0.17 0.92 0.90 0.63 0.66 0.84 0.91 0.14

C_4 I_3
0.93

E 0.83 0.59
0.74
0.80 0.82 I 0.88
0.14 C_3 I_4 0.23
0.91
0.95
0.80 0.68 0.83 0.91
0.93
0.96
C_2 I_5
0.24 0.87 0.09
0.95
C 0.92 HGE
0.89 0.90
C_1 I_6
0.89
0.21 0.07
0.75
HGE_11
0.76 0.85 I_7
0.84 0.78
0.79 0.85
0.86
0.21 HGE_10 0.73 0.78 I_8 0.11

HGE_9 HGE_1

0.44 HGE_8 HGE_2

0.19

HGE_7 HGE_3
HGE_6 HGE_5 HGE_4
0.42 0.29

0.30 0.38

0.38 0.27
0.26 0.47 0.39

Figure 1. CFA model analyzed

The following results shows that the analysis of Likert scale, allow us to delve into the fact
examined in the previous sections, subsequently, even though the highest level of training of the teachers
who were part of the project was obtained by women, they conceived of themselves as little able to do
science. They did not value their capacities for scientific thinking and their contribution to the construction of
science. In other words, there was evidence of contempt for their abilities and participation in the
construction of scientific knowledge. As previous study points out [35], “New programs have been designed
that, with fairness and equality, provide girls and boys with the capacity and autonomy to grow, develop and

Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)

2432  ISSN: 2252-8822

think of possible worlds, free of stereotypes and obsolete schemes (…).” These still do not show the results in
the change of thought against the conception that women have about themselves when talking about their role
in science. Recent studies have shown that females' self-concept in mathematics is lower in classrooms where
some of their female peers had a relatively higher level of mathematics achievement than boys, suggesting
that counter-stereotypical performance patterns in the classroom do not increase students' self-concept in
subjects with strong gender stereotypes. On the contrary, girls are more likely to compare themselves to their
female peers, resulting in a negative association with self-evaluations [6], [36].
Perhaps the external discourse has been better structured, in order to achieve gender equality in the
last three decades, but the actions and ways of thinking about themselves, in decision-making and within the
scientific field, do not reflect an appropriation discursive for the empowerment required when identifying
themselves as central actors when doing science, as evidenced by the answers presented by the participants of
this study, which are aligned with the results on gender gaps in Colombia, presented in November [37], that
account for the low incorporation of women into the paid labor market, since only 53.1% of those located in
the main cities are employed, a lower range than the employability of men (73.9%). This being the case,
reality shows that, “The work of women is valued less, because under the stereotyped notion their skills are
not acquired, they are given to them by nature” [38]. Perhaps looking at themselves and returning to the
social representations that show low self-esteem are alternatives, especially when, in reality, the surrounding
imaginary reveals that perception of female teachers about the investigative skills they possess turns out to be
extremely low, even though a high percentage of them have postgraduate training and have participated in
research processes. The difference between females and males’ teachers, in the upper levels of education, is
almost double. Female teachers at these levels double the number of male teachers as shown in Figure 2, this
wide gap in educational levels is not evident in the self-perceptions of female teachers in relation to their
abilities to do science, as shown in Figure 3.
On the other hand, although men are the ones with a lower educational level, at least at the highest
levels, they have a much higher self-perception regarding their scientific competence, surpassing women in
competences such as: the ability to plan and conduct scientific research where there is a high percentage of
male teachers (72%) who strongly agree with such statement. Likewise, they state that they can synthesize a
scientific explanation using evidence, data, and inferential logic (82%); In addition to this, they consider that
they can evaluate the inconsistency or unexpected results of investigations using scientific explanations
(73%). It should be noted that this study mentions some of the 6 sub-dimensions that UNESCO’s scientific
competence includes.

Figure 2. Educational levels differentiated by gender

According to previous study [39], although the self-perception of teachers has a high subjective
burden, it should not be dismissed, since it affects the actions and the way they are thinking of science. For
these authors, a high self-perception may reflect a lack of self-criticism, or it may reflect a refusal to “face the

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024: 2428-2439
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2433

needs for change, stating that everything is fine like that, that nothing happens.” In addition, it should be
noted that these self-perceptions were not contrasted in the classroom, with additional information data
collection, which considered, for example, the recording and analysis of the classes of the teachers of both
genres.

Figure 3. Investigative competences by gender

The sociocultural reality in which women have less economic autonomy, but a greater burden of
unpaid work in the home, can be considered as a factor that strongly influences the representations and self-
perceptions of women about themselves. Previous research [37] showed that a fixed and equal amount of 24
hours of unpaid work in the home represents 30% of their time for women, while for men only 14%. Even so,
despite the fact that, as stated in previous research [37], they only have 6 hours for training and fun, while
men have 10 hours; although female teachers have higher educational levels, which allows strengthening the
development of investigative capacities, in their responses they make it clear that they fail to perceive these
competencies in their professional development, as evidenced in Figure 3. Perhaps this perception is related
to what was expressed by the study [40] on gender equality in science and technology, in which it is shown
that exist gaps in the scientific productivity of women and men.
As we have mentioned before, there are gaps in scientific productivity between genders, particularly
in terms of publications, or deflection towards less valued academic activities, such as teaching,
administrative and extension work, but also less access to formal academic networks or informal ones -
usually dominated by men- where the necessary support is obtained for the advancement of the research
career, produce a decrease in the professional development opportunities of women, specifically, when they
choose to deviate from the ideal scientific model of dedication and total availability to the activity. This
situation is not unrelated to that found in previous studies, since as evidenced by several researchers, only
24% of women occupy higher level academic positions. The low positioning in the production of knowledge
and in publications is the product of a culture in which machismo has predominated [41].
However, the findings of this research in relation to the general teaching skills competence present a
similar pattern with the investigative competence. As seen in Figure 4, women have a lower perception than
men in relation to general skills such as: Using scientific teaching actions, strategies and methodology,
organizing the classroom effectively, designing laboratories or field experiments in different groups of
students, planning scientific investigations in the classroom, monitoring student learning through a variety of
assessment strategies, providing feedback to students to improve their learning among others; which confirms
that the self-perception of their abilities affects the way of seeing and teaching science. It is evident, the low
self-perception of women about their work in the classroom and their role in the teaching process.

Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)

2434  ISSN: 2252-8822

Historically, women were restricted to domestic environment, their admission to universities

involved transformations at the social and cultural level in the country [42]. Since the institutionalization of
female education in 1942, in Colombia, educational institutions focused on the education of the female
population were created. The creation of the nursing program in 1950 at the University of Antioquia reflects
the inclusion and training of women in settings other than the home, even when the program focuses on care.
Although the struggle of women in Colombia to access education has involved years, it was not until the
1970s that the first studies on Women and Education appeared [43]. Despite this, a deeper change of
women’s thoughts in relation to their contributions to scientific work have not been achieved yet. According
to previous research [42], “the educational work of women, in their relationship with the professional field,
was a fundamental aspect to improve their self-esteem, which was very low, due in part to the discrimination
they had suffered for so many years. These new spaces for the academic training of women allowed them to
socialize, work as a team, develop personal itineraries, play cooperative games, monitor families, and create
new social spaces for integration and understanding.” Although the development of women in the academic
and professional sphere is related to an increase in her self-esteem, the data from this research seem to
contradict.

Figure 4. Competence general teaching skills vs. gender

Something similar can be observed in the previous studies [44], who maintains that in Colombia it
was possible to improve the educational conditions of women and thereby close the gender gap. “(...) the
increase in the level of education among women in relation to men, led to the fact that the gender differential
in education practically disappeared in 1993”. However, the differential remains, it has not disappeared, as
the author suggests. In fact, this research shows us that it is necessary to make known in a new way the
beliefs of the teachers themselves about their skills and abilities, especially around scientific development
area, emphasizing that the idea of resignification stands for giving new meanings to the present, by assigning
a different interpretation to the past. Identifying gender gaps allows, as Huang et al. explain, to rethink open
debates on the sustainability of the professional practice carried out by women in the academic world, given
that the presence of women in academia enables spaces for discussion and dialogue to train researchers by
linking them from the classroom and strengthening their self-esteem in relation to the skills they can develop
to carry out research processes [41]. There is no doubt that language plays a central role in giving importance
to these beliefs that continue to accentuate the gender gap in science. The challenge is to begin to change
these representations and imaginary that surround the minds of women and men who contribute to science
and who fail to recognize themselves as active agents in the construction of knowledge, although achieving

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024: 2428-2439
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2435

this change is not an easy task. For this reason, it is imperative to generate new beliefs that allow
transforming androcentric knowledge and deactivating “the stereotyped and sexist messages that the female
population receives, and that constitute an important factor of socio-environmental influence, which can be
unconsciously persuasive” [16].
The gender stereotypes that have been established in the culture also show the beliefs of the students
at each educational level, regardless that men and women have a doctoral educational level, they remain
associated with the female image with the private sphere and homelike. Stereotypes that highlight the
devotion of women and their service to others; structural and socially constructed stereotypes [16]. These
beliefs and visions, as stated [45] invite to initiate permanent reflections, even more so, when students who
aspire to become teachers and want to show a real change in the actions and perceptions that women have
about themselves and their role in the world of science, technology, and innovation. In accordance with the
explanation, it is urgent to deactivate “the stereotypes that continue to promote unequal conditions for women
and affect their comprehensive development. Not only the school, but also the family and society, reproduce
and strengthen these behaviors and stereotypes that produce a series of conditioning factors that increase
inequalities between men and women” [46]; this necessarily implies a collective and conscious work in
which we all must participate. The results of Figure 5 show that in the same way for the competencies
analyzed in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the self-perception of abilities in all aspects for women is lower than that
of men, reinforcing the hypothesis put forward in this study that the self-perception that women have has
been influenced by the social aspects that have given rise to their development. Figures 5 (a) to 5 (d) show
the analyzed competencies of knowledge and nature of the scientific context, professional practice, the
curriculum, and evaluation, respectively.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Results of analyzed competencies of (a) knowledge and nature of the scientific context,
(b) professional practice, (c) the curriculum, (d) evaluation

In fact, as we see in Figure 5, each competency shows a slight difference in the response categories
between female and male, of almost 10 percentage points. This occurs for all the competencies in the figure,
although some variation in this difference is observed. In addition, we can explore these differences for the
category responses in the lower range, and we observe that the female mean is higher than the male mean,
but this difference changes for the higher ranges, where we observe that this difference is in favor of the
categories of the responses for males. We can conclude that the self-perception of performance in each
Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)
2436  ISSN: 2252-8822

category is higher for males than for females, reinforcing our hypothesis. Table 4 presents the results of the
Mann-Whitney U test that allows testing the alternative hypothesis that for each question the female self-
perception of capabilities is lower than the male. The results show that the alternative hypothesis (group
female is less than group male) is accepted for most of the variables except for questions E_3 (Know the
different dimensions and strategies for monitoring and evaluating student learning) and PP_2 (Know the
standards of ethical conduct in science teaching, consistent with the interests of students and the educational
community) where the null hypothesis is accepted indicating that there is no difference between the self-
perception of women and men. For most of the variables except for questions E_3 and PP_2 as shown in
Table 4, there are small to medium negative effect sizes mean that the male group tends to be larger than
female group measured with the rank-biserial correlation [47], [48].

Table 4. Mann-Whitney test

95% CI for rank-biserial correlation
Variable W p-value Rank-biserial correlation
Lower Upper
CNCC_1 5881.500 < .001*** -0.321 -∞ -0.210
CNCC_2 6621.000 < .001*** -0.236 -∞ -0.120
CNCC_3 6442.000 < .001*** -0.256 -∞ -0.142
CNCC_4 7363.500 0.011** -0.150 -∞ -0.031
CNCC_5 7043.500 0.002** -0.187 -∞ -0.069
CNCC_6 6926.500 < .001*** -0.200 -∞ -0.083
I_1 6244.000 < .001*** -0.279 -∞ -0.166
I_2 5923.000 < .001*** -0.316 -∞ -0.205
I_3 5821.000 < .001*** -0.328 -∞ -0.217
I_4 6551.500 < .001*** -0.244 -∞ -0.128
I_5 6150.000 < .001*** -0.290 -∞ -0.177
I_6 5766.000 < .001*** -0.334 -∞ -0.224
I_7 5920.000 < .001*** -0.317 -∞ -0.205
I_8 6271.000 < .001*** -0.276 -∞ -0.162
HGE_1 6429.500 < .001*** -0.258 -∞ -0.143
HGE_2 7405.000 0.010** -0.145 -∞ -0.027
HGE_3 5983.000 < .001*** -0.309 -∞ -0.198
HGE_4 6844.000 < .001*** -0.210 -∞ -0.093
HGE_5 7487.000 0.010** -0.136 -∞ -0.017
HGE_6 6563.500 < .001*** -0.242 -∞ -0.127
HGE_7 5999.000 < .001*** -0.307 -∞ -0.196
HGE_8 6557.500 < .001*** -0.243 -∞ -0.128
HGE_9 6946.500 0.003** -0.198 -∞ -0.081
HGE_10 7082.500 0.002** -0.182 -∞ -0.065
HGE_11 6458.000 < .001*** -0.254 -∞ -0.140
C_1 6308.500 < .001*** -0.272 -∞ -0.158
C_2 7200.500 0.005*** -0.169 -∞ -0.051
C_3 6718.500 < .001*** -0.224 -∞ -0.108
C_4 7000.000 0.002** -0.192 -∞ -0.075
E_1 7590.500 0.024* -0.124 -∞ -0.005
E_2 7531.000 0.014* -0.131 -∞ -0.012
E_3 8098.500 0.140 -0.065 -∞ 0.054
PP_1 6713.500 < .001*** -0.225 -∞ -0.109
PP_2 7815.500 0.052 -0.098 -∞ 0.022
PP_3 7485.500 0.012*** -0.136 -∞ -0.017
PP_4 7299.000 0.001*** -0.157 -∞ -0.039
PP_5 7147.000 0.003*** -0.175 -∞ -0.057
Note: For the Mann-Whitney test, effect size is given by the rank biserial correlation.
For all tests, the alternative hypothesis specifies that group female is less than group male.

4. CONCLUSION
Although within this research, it is not possible to find the reasons for the existence of a perception
oriented towards maintaining the gender gap, the quantitative results show that this gap persists in the
teaching and learning imaginaries of teachers of both genders, who teach the scientific subjects. This study
also shows that the gender stereotype may also be reinforced by the training process, considering that the
teachers' self-perception persists in the same sense. It is important to design teaching strategies at all
educational levels, oriented towards the promotion and recognition of the capacities of women, related to the
scientific development of female teachers in postgraduate programs around science and mathematics
teaching. It is essential to design teaching strategies at all educational levels, oriented toward the promotion
and recognition of the capacities of women and their contributions to science.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024: 2428-2439
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2437

A process that should begin from childhood and be done with greater emphasis on postgraduate
training, given that it is precisely in this formative phase that spaces for research are openly possible, as well
as for reflection and discussion on the role of women in the construction of scientific knowledge.
Undoubtedly, it will be necessary to emphasize in those scenarios that have been traditionally masculinized,
such as the teaching of mathematics and the construction of knowledge in what, for some men, is considered
a "hard field". The gender stereotype may also be reinforced by the training process, pondering that the
teachers' self-perception persists in the same sense. It is essential to design teaching strategies at all
educational levels, oriented towards the promotion and recognition of the capacities of women, related to the
scientific development of female teachers in postgraduate programs in science and mathematics teaching.
Faced with this evidenced situation, it is necessary to generate collaborative work strategies in the classroom
and avoid competition based on sexist prejudices.
Curriculum designs should allow girls to identify themselves as part of social change and recognize
that the knowledge they build in the classroom can be used in everyday life from scientific constructions in
which they actively participate. This implies that teachers have a conception of science based on gender
equity and intend their teaching processes by opening reflective spaces to show the role that women have
played in the construction of scientific knowledge; as well as design strategies and projects to link and
motivate both girls and boys to participate in science and mathematics. It is essential to investigate the access
of the proportion of female and male students to science teaching programs and what are the perceptions and
motivations of both genders in the formation and widening of the gender gap in the selection of these
programs. Also, we suggest formulating programs of non-formal science education, like math or science
clubs, with a gender approach to enhance women interest in science programs and develop scientific
competences at different levels of education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank to the division of quality of education of the Secretaría de
Educación de Manizales for the support in reaching the communities of science teachers to obtain the data for
this research.

REFERENCES
[1] L. Holman, D. Stuart-Fox, and C. E. Hauser, “The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented?” PLoS
Biology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. e2004956–e2004956, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.
[2] R. Crossdale, F. J. Scott, and G. Sweeney, “Decision-making factors of female a-level chemistry students when choosing to study
a degree in chemistry,” Chemistry Teacher International, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 231–242, 2022, doi: 10.1515/cti-2021-0030.
[3] C. Forrester, S. Schwikert, J. Foster, and L. Corwin, “Undergraduate r programming anxiety in ecology: persistent gender gaps
and coping strategies,” CBE Life Sciences Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. ar29–ar29, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-05-0133.
[4] S. Hand, L. Rice, and E. Greenlee, “Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields,”
Social Psychology of Education, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 929–945, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11218-017-9408-8.
[5] R. Van Veelen and B. Derks, “Academics as agentic superheroes: female academics’ lack of fit with the agentic stereotype of success
limits their career advancement,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 748–767, 2022, doi: 10.1111/bjso.12515.
[6] I. Plante, P. A. O’Keefe, J. Aronson, C. Fréchette-Simard, and M. Goulet, “The interest gap: how gender stereotype endorsement
about abilities predicts differences in academic interests,” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 227–245, 2019, doi:
10.1007/s11218-018-9472-8.
[7] E. Dio Bleichmar, “All madame curie? Subjectivity and identity of women scientists and technologists,” (in Spanish), Revista
Internacional de Psicoanálisis en Internet, vol. 24, pp. 1–14, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://www.aperturas.org/.
[8] M. Moso-Diez, A. Mondaca-Soto, J. P. Gamboa, and M. Albizu-Echevarria, “A quantitative cross-regional analysis of the
Spanish VET systems from a systemic approach: from a regional comparative VET research perspective,” International Journal
for Research in Vocational Education and Training, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 120–145, 2022, doi: 10.13152/IJRVET.9.1.6.
[9] A. Siani, M. McArthur, B. C. Hicks, and C. Dacin, “Gender balance and impact of role models in secondary science education,”
New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, no. 17, 2022, doi: 10.29311/ndtps.v0i17.3939.
[10] F. Nguru, “Gender gap in science education,” International Journal of Curriculum Development and Learning Measurement,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.4018/ijcdlm.327282.
[11] C. Tomassini, “Gender gaps in science: systematic review of the main explanations and the research agenda,” Education in the
Knowledge Society, vol. 22, 2021, doi: 10.14201/eks.25437.
[12] F. Fernández Martín and I. Aznar Díaz, “Acquisition of sexual stereotypes through the media,” (in Spanish), Comunicar: Revista
Científica de Comunicación y Educación, vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 121–123, 2004.
[13] J. V. Espín López, M. Á. MArín Gracia, and M. Rodríguez Lajo, “Analysis of sexism in advertising,” Investigación Educativa,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 203–231, 2004.
[14] S. Daza-Caicedo and T. Pérez-Bustos, “Counting women. A reflection on gender and science indicators in Colombia,”
(in Spanish), Revista de Antropología y Sociología Virajes, no. 10, pp. 29–51, 2008, [Online]. Available:
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/virajes/article/view/801.
[15] R. F. Martín-Portugués, “Women in adventure comics: the male gaze,” (in Spanish) Opción: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y
Sociales, vol. 31, no. Special Issue 2, pp. 250–275, 2015.
[16] A. Mateos, “The gender gap in science: what factors have influenced it and how can we try to remedy it?” (in Spanish),Panorama
Social, vol. 27, pp. 33–45, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://cendocps.carm.es/documentacion/2018_Panorama_Social.N27.pdf.

Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)

2438  ISSN: 2252-8822

[17] A. N. P. Rodríguez and M. E. M. Ibarra, “Gender studies in Colombia. a preliminary discussion,” Sociedad y Economía, no. 24,
pp. 15–46, 2013.
[18] E. Santana López, J. Rom Rodríguez, J. F. Fondevila Gascón, and P. Mir Bernal, “Sexism and stereotyping in advertising and
cinema. Comparative analysis,” Opción: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, vol. 31, 2015.
[19] K. Tzafilkou, M. A. Perifanou, and A. A. Economides, “Teachers’ trainers’ intention and motivation to transfer ICT training: the
role of ICT individual factors, gender, and ICT self-efficacy,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 5563–
5589, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10541-z.
[20] A. M. Rodríguez-García, M. J. Cardoso-Pulido, J. C. De la Cruz-Campos, and N. Martínez-Heredia, “Communicating and
collaborating with others through digital competence: a self-perception study based on teacher trainees’ gender †,” Education
Sciences, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 534, 2022, doi: 10.3390/educsci12080534.
[21] NU. CEPAL, “Structural change for equality: an integrated approach to development. Thirty-four session of ECLAC,” 2012.
[Online]. Available: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/3079.
[22] J. L. Johnson, L. Greaves, and R. Repta, “Better science with sex and gender: facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based
analysis in health research,” International Journal for Equity in Health, vol. 8, p. 14, May 2009, doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-8-14.
[23] A. M. Reyes-González, L. M. Velázquez-Sánchez, A. Rojas-Parra, and C. Chuck-Hernández, “Interpersonal and academic self-
efficacy and its relationship with employment of food industry engineering students: a gender perspective,” Frontiers in
Education, vol. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.860430.
[24] L. Garcia-Ramos, R. Pena-Baena, A. Garcia-Holgado, A. C. Diaz, and M. G. Calle, “Empowering young women in the caribbean
region in stem,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, vol. 2021-April. IEEE, 2021, pp. 1087–1092, doi:
10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9453890.
[25] “Only 38% of researchers in the country are women, revealed research by La Javeriana,” (in Spanish), Semana, 2021. [Online].
Available: https://www.semana.com/educacion/articulo/solo-el-38-de-los-investigadores-del-pais-son-mujeres-revelo-
investigacion-de-la-javeriana/202119/.
[26] T. Acar-Erdol, A. Bostancioglu, and F. D. Gözütok, “Gender equality perceptions of preservice teachers: are they ready to teach
it?” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 793–818, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11218-022-09712-8.
[27] R. Júnior, O. Carrasco, R. David, V. Toledo, and O. S. Hansen, “Perception and attitudes towards scientific research,” Academo
(Asunción), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 101–109, 2018, doi: 10.30545/academo.2018.jul-dic.2.
[28] A. M. Morais, I. P. Neves, S. Ferreira, and L. Saraiva, “The nature of science in science education: theories and practices,” Praxis
Educativa, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8–32, 2018, doi: 10.5212/PraxEduc.v.13i1.0001.
[29] UNESCO, Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2011.
[30] P. Kline, Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, 2013.
[31] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham, Multivariate data analysis, vol. 87. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2006.
[32] A. Fields, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2005.
[33] J. P. Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Routledge, 2012. doi: 10.4324/9780203843130.
[34] A. L. Comrey and H. B. Lee, “Interpretation and application of factor analytic results,” in A First Course in Factor Analysis,
Psychology Press, 2021, doi: 10.4324/9781315827506-16.
[35] A. Solís Sabanero, “The gender perspective in education,” in Desarrollo profesional docente: reforma educativa, contenidos
curriculares y procesos de evaluación, Chihuahua: Escuela Normal Superior, 2016, pp. 97–107.
[36] I. G. Andersen and E. Smith, “Social contexts and gender disparities in students’ competence beliefs: the role of gender-
stereotypical beliefs and achievement patterns in the classroom for students’ self-concept in gender-stereotypical subjects,”
Frontiers in Education, vol. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.840618.
[37] Dirección de Metodología y Producción Estadística - DIMPE, “Colombia - large integrated household survey - GEIH - 2019,”
DANE, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://microdatos.dane.gov.co/index.php/catalog/599/related_materials.
[38] M. L. Monroy Merchán, “The knowledge society and gender gaps in science, technology and innovation,” Cuadernos
Latinoamericanos de Administración, vol. 15, no. 29, pp. 74–86, 2019.
[39] L. González Velázquez, A. A. Altamira Rodríguez, E. Velasco Espinosa, M. del R. González Velázques, H. Lípez Morales, and
N. García Chong, “Autoperceptions of the teaching competences in university professors,” Quehacer Científico en Chiapas, no.
3, pp. 13–25, 2007.
[40] Unidad de estudios Departamento de Estudios y Gestión Estratégica and Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y
Tecnológica de Chile, “Diagnosis of gender equality in science, technology and innovation in Chile. Evidence gathering building
advances and proposing recommendations from public and private collaboration,” (in Spanish), 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://www.conicyt.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Diagnostico-Equidad-de-Genero-en-CTI-MESA-CONICYT_2017.pdf.
[41] J. Huang, A. J. Gates, R. Sinatra, and A.-L. Barabási, “Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across
countries and disciplines,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 117, no. 9,
pp. 4609–4616, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117.
[42] L. A. Parra Báez, “Female Education in Colombia and The Initiation of Female Faculties in The Javerian Pontifical University,
1941-1955,” Rhec, vol. 14, no. 14, pp. 121–146, 2011, [Online]. Available: dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3819408.pdf.
[43] M. E. Domínguez, “Gender equity in education: what have Colombian women achieved?” Cuadernos del CES, vol. 12, pp. 3–16,
2005.
[44] L. G. Arango Gaviria, Young people in college: gender, class and professional identity. Siglo del Hombre Editores/Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, 2006.
[45] M. T. Padilla Carmona, M. Sánchez García, M. Martín Berrido, and E. Moreno Sánchez, “Analysis of sexist stereotypes in a
sample of students of educational sciences,” Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 127–147, 1999, [Online].
Available: https://revistas.um.es/rie/article/view/122311.
[46] M. L. Trejo Sirvent, G. Llaven Coutiño, and H. C. Pérez y Pérez, “The gender approach in education,” Atenas, vol. 4, no. 32,
pp. 49–61, 2015, [Online]. Available: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=478047208004.
[47] E. E. Cureton, “Rank-biserial correlation,” Psychometrika, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 287–290, 1956, doi: 10.1007/BF02289138.
[48] J. van Doorn, A. Ly, M. Marsman, and E. J. Wagenmakers, “Bayesian rank-based hypothesis testing for the rank sum test, the
signed rank test, and Spearman’s ρ,” Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 47, no. 16, pp. 2984–3006, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.1080/02664763.2019.1709053.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 2024: 2428-2439
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  2439

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez received bachelor’s degree in Electronic

Engineering, and master’s degrees and PhD in Engineering from Electrical, Electronic and
Computer Engineering Department, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales, Colombia,
in 2009, 2011 and 2015, respectively. He is Full Professor at the Academic Unit for Training
in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Universidad Católica de Manizales, and teaches several
courses such as Experimental Design, Statistics, Physics. His main research focus is on applied
technologies, embedded system, power electronics, power quality, but also many other areas of
electronics, signal processing and didactics. He published more than 30 scientific and research
publications, among them more than 10 journal papers. He worked as principal researcher on
commercial projects and projects by the Ministry of Science, Tech and Innovation, Republic of
Colombia. He can be contacted at email: ygarces@ucm.edu.co.

Valentina Cadavid Alzate received his bachelor's degree in biología y química at

the Universidad de Caldas, in 2008 and master’s degree in science education at the
Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. She is currently a Ph. D candidate in Education at the
Universidad de Caldas. Her main interest research is metacognition, multimodality, science
teaching of chemistry, biochemistry and biology and concept evolution in science learning.
She can be contacted at email: valentinac@autonoma.edu.co; valentina.cadavid@ucaldas.edu.co.

Angélica María Rodríguez Ortiz received bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and

Letters, and master’s degrees in education (Universidad de Caldas, Colombia); PhD in
Philosophy (Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Colombia) and post PhD in social science,
humanities and art (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina), in 2007, 2008, 2017 and
2019 respectively. She is full Professor at Education Department at Universidad Autónoma de
Manizales, and teaches several courses such as Epistemology, philosophy of science, critical
thinking. Her main research focus is on analytic philosophy, social sciences didactic, critical
citizen, but also many other areas of philosophy of language, moral and politic. She published
more than 30 scientific and research publications, among them more than 24 journal papers.
She worked as main researcher on commercial projects and projects by the Ministry of
Science, Tech and Innovation, Republic of Colombia and as main researcher in national and
international research projects. She can be contacted at email: amrodriguez@autonoma.edu.co.

Rubén Darío Lara-Escobar received his Bachelor’s Degree in Pure Mathematics

at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, in 2007 and the Master’s Degree in Teaching of
Exact and Natural Sciences at the same university in 2012. He is currently a PhD candidate in
Education at the Universidad de Caldas, in the research line of Science Education. His main
research interests are in the development of algebraic thinking and science education, from the
approach of Mental Models and Conceptual Evolution. He can be contacted at email:
rdlarae@unal.edu.co.

Teachers’ self-perception of scientific competences: a gender approach (Yeison Alberto Garcés-Gómez)