ISSN 1798-4769

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 253-261, March 2014
© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
doi:10.4304/jltr.5.2.253-261

Gender Representation in Current EFL Textbooks

in Iranian Secondary Schools
Mahnaz Hall
School of Languages, Cultures, and Linguistics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract—This study investigates gender representation in current EFL textbooks (Right Path to English I and
II) that are designed locally and taught as an obligatory subject in Iranian secondary schools. Two methods of
analysis were performed. First, these textbooks were subjected to a systematic quantitative analysis with
reference to: (1) gender visibility in both text and illustrations and (2) female/male-oriented topic presentation
in dialogues and reading passages. Second, a qualitative analysis was undertaken by concentrating on four
components of gender-role modelling: (1) male-centred language including: (a) firstness and (b) masculine
generic construction; (2) gender-linked occupation possibilities; (3) distribution of household responsibilities,
and (4) distribution of spare time and leisure activities. The findings revealed the degree of imbalance in
gender representation in these textbooks. The paper concludes by addressing the implications of gender
imbalance depicted in the textbooks for learners’ perceptions.

Index Terms—ELT curriculum, gender representation, sexism, stereotyped gender roles, occupational roles,
visibility in text

I. INTRODUCTION
Language is a system of communication which can be used to express cultural attitudes and values. It also plays an
important role in establishing and maintaining social relations and “can be seen as a clear index of the way individuals
negotiate with social forces” (Mills & Mullany, 2011, p.1). Cameron (1985) highlights that the organisation of human
societies depends on linguistic communication, and gender-based linguistic variation is an example of the role language
plays in social functions.
The relationship between language and gender and how it is represented has been greatly disputed in sociolinguistic
studies since the mid to late 1960s. Following the emergence of three books on language and gender in the 1970s:
Male/Female Language by Marie Ritchie Key, Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance edited by Barrie Thorne
and Nancy Henley, and Language and Women’s Place by Robin Lakoff, sociolinguists have turned their attention to the
influence that imbalanced representation of gender has on the position of women in contemporary society. This
phenomenon is referred to as sexism or gender bias in the literature review.
Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination against people based on their sex rather than their individual
merits. In other words, sexism is a belief that one sex or gender is superior or more valuable than the other. In the words
of Thomas (2004, p.76), “sexist language represents women and men unequally, as if members of one sex were
somehow less completely human, less complex, and had fewer rights than members of the other sex”. The role that
language plays in maintaining and strengthening sexist values is very important and the reason for this is probably
because “linguistic sexism is deeply rooted and far more subtle than other forms of sexism” (Porreca, 1984, p.705).
A powerful means of conveying gender-biased language is via instructional materials, in particular school textbooks
as they play a crucial role in determining students‟ perceptions of female and male roles in society. According to Ndura
(2004), the content of instructional materials significantly affects students‟ attitudes and dispositions towards
themselves, others, and society. Early adolescence is the period of identity development when children are uncertain
about who they are and what they want to become in the future. This is also the time when they receive their earliest
education about norms, culture, and the world around them. Thus, English Language Teaching (ELT) curriculum needs
to be examined in terms of representation of speakers, including their L1 background, social class, and gender. The
present study investigates gender representation in two current English Language Teaching textbooks (Right Path to
English I and II) in Iranian secondary schools.

II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

The portrayal of gender roles in EFL/ESL textbooks has been a concern for scholars since the 1970s. Hence, there
have been numerous attempts to analyse the representation of gender roles in these textbooks at all levels of education.
Researchers who have conducted these studies have focused their inquiries on visual and textual presentations of female
and male characters. Visual presentation refers to illustrations, which include pictures in the form of drawings and
photographs, and textual presentation relates to conversations and any written content.
Some of the studies dealt with in this literature review have concentrated either on the analysis of illustrations or the
analysis of textual presentations, while others have analysed both of these aspects in textbooks. In the making of a non-

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

254 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

sexist dictionary, Graham (1975) with the help of some lexicographers analysed five million words from children‟s
textbooks in the United States and found that although there are more women than men in the world, these textbooks
contained over seven times as many references to men as women and more than twice as many references to boys as
compared with girls. There were also three times as many wives mentioned as husbands indicating that the main
characters or speakers in the text were male.
Two years later, Coles (1977) examined five of the most widely used sets of adult basic education materials. From
150 stories, it was found that men were mentioned three times more than women. In addition, 39 of the total of 61
females were housewives, whilst 106 of the total of 192 males had 73 different occupations. His study found that males
mostly occupied skilled or managerial positions and were viewed to be breadwinners but females, on the other hand,
were nothing more than housewives or workers.
In the same year, Nilsen (1977) in a comparison of words found in a standard English dictionary to their use in
everyday vocabulary concluded that things were named after men five times more than after women, and most words
that referred to women had passive roles or were restricted to nouns for helpless young animals (e.g., chic, kitten, and
bunny), whereas words that referred to men indicated more active roles and described dominant male animals (e.g.,
wolf, buck, and stud).
Britton and Lumpkin (1977) in a study to determine the effectiveness of new guidelines aiming at correcting sexist
levels in reading, literature, and social studies textbooks compared pre 1970 textbooks with the ones published after
1970. They reported that the number of major characters that were female had increased by only 2% in early editions
and up to 16% in much later editions.
One year later, Arnold-Gerrity (1978) in completing a content analysis of nine primary reading textbooks examined
the involvement of females in character roles. In the first four books, for grades one and two, she found there were
twice the number of male characters as female, while in the three readers, for grades three and four, male-oriented
stories were five times more frequent; and in the remaining two textbooks, for grades five and six, males appeared three
times more frequently than females. Further to this, she discovered that the occupational roles for males in the textbooks
were wide and varied, while for females, they were narrow and restricted to being housewives or mothers caring for the
family unit.
The three most relevant studies of gender bias in ESL/EFL textbooks appeared from 1978: Sexism and TESOL
Materials by Hartman and Judd (1978); For Men Must Work, Women Must Weep: Sexism in English Language
Textbooks Used in German Schools by Hellinger (1980); and Sexism in Current ESL Textbooks by Porreca (1984).
In 1978, Hartman and Judd conducted a survey of several textbooks and observed that not only did women suffer
from low visibility, but the references to females in the text were considerably outnumbered by references to males.
This was established by counting the sex-linked proper names, titles, and non-generic pronouns. For example, in one of
the books that they examined, the ratio of male to female references was 63% to 37%. They also demonstrated that
women‟s roles were stereotypical and related to children and household chores that were exemplified by cooking,
changing diapers, or doing the laundry. Men, on the other hand, were depicted fixing the car, changing light bulbs, or
mowing the lawn. Therefore, they concluded that “since sexist usage is built into our language habits, it is little wonder
that textbooks, including ESL texts, model this usage to their students” (p. 390).
Hellinger (1980) conducted a study of 131 passages from three ELT textbooks used in German schools and found
that men were involved in 93% of the passages, while 30% of the textbooks did not include any women at all. It was
also revealed that unlike men who were always portrayed in occupational roles of some social status, women had
uninteresting, undemanding, and less than successful positions.
In the third seminal study, Porreca (1984) conducted a content analysis of the then 15 most widely used ESL
textbooks and focused on measurable categories of omission and occupational visibility in text and illustrations,
firstness, masculine generic constructions, and the frequency of the use of nouns and adjectives representing men and
women. In every category of her study, she found evidence that “sexism continues to flourish in ESL materials”, and
despite the fact that “females comprise slightly over half the population of the United States, they are depicted or
mentioned only half as often as males in both text and illustrations” (pp.718-719).
Another study in the 1980s was the content analysis of 41 Indian high school, higher secondary, and pre-university
curricula textbooks from five different areas of India. The findings of this study revealed that instead of highlighting
women and men as equals, textbooks in India gave school children the message that men have the dominant position in
all aspects of Indian society (Kalia, 1980).
Progressing into the 1990s, there are three studies worth mentioning, beginning with Sleeter and Grant (1991) who
examined 47 textbooks used in grades one to eight between 1980 and 1988 in the United States. They discovered that
although women were depicted in non-traditional roles in social studies, reading and language, arts, science, and
mathematics textbooks, it was totally unacceptable for men to be depicted in traditionally female roles (e.g., nurse or
secretary).
In 1992, Peterson and Kroner conducted a content analysis of 27 textbooks for introductory psychology and 12 for
human development courses to identify if there were any examples of gender bias in these textbooks. Their findings
demonstrated that females were frequently portrayed in negative and gender biased ways. Five years later, Poulou (1997)

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 255

in examining the differences in the discourse roles of men and women in the dialogues of textbooks for teaching Greek
as a foreign language revealed that sexist differences had adverse effects on pedagogical values.
Since 2000, most of the major studies on this subject have been undertaken in Asian and Middle Eastern countries
including Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Hong Kong, and Jordan. For instance in Iran, Ansary and Babaii (2003) explored the
status of sexism in the 1999 edition of the same textbooks (Right Path to English I and II) that are used as the corpus of
the current study and found that based on the frequency of occurrence, women suffered most from low visibility. The
ratio of females to males in text was 1:1.4 and in illustrations was 1:1.6. Moreover, in an examination of female/male-
oriented topic presentation in dialogues and reading passages, they demonstrated that of the total of 40 topics presented,
27(67.5%) of topics were male-dominated. They also reported that the occupational capacities in which women were
portrayed appeared to be mostly restricted to occupations such as student and nurse, whereas men enjoyed a diversity of
jobs such as policeman, soldier, dentist, farmer, doctor, and teacher.
In the case of the distribution of spare time and leisure activities, it was mentioned that “females were fundamentally
shunted into indoor passive activities such as sitting in the classroom, watching TV at home, reading, etc.” (Ansari &
Babaii, 2003, p.9). Regarding male-centred language, they discovered the usage of paired nouns such as uncle and aunt,
brother and sister, boys and girls where the masculine noun always comes first. Moreover, generic pronouns reflected
males as the default or unmarked gender, even pronouns such as you, I, and we which can be equally used to describe
female or male subjects were associated with pictures illustrating men. Overall, they concluded that Right Path to
English I and II are sexist textbooks that present students with an unfair and inexcusable view of women in their early
exposure to the English language.
Özdoğru, Aksoy, Erdoğan, and Gök (2004) in a content analysis of two course books used in the third grade of
Turkish elementary schools found that females were depicted with traditional feminine traits such as being
„hardworking, loving, caring, and child-raising‟. On the contrary, male figures were presented as having the traits of
„self-confidence, decisiveness, and adventurousness‟. They also demonstrated that in many family communications,
while the father was the source of information for the child, the mother was presented in a more supportive role and
consequently, the role for caring for younger siblings was assigned to older sisters instead of older brothers in many
instances, which is parallel with the patriarchal values of Turkish society.
In the same year, a comprehensive study was conducted in Pakistan by Mirza (2004), in which she analysed 194
textbooks in six different subjects to determine the different portrayal of gender. The conclusions drawn from her study
are too numerous to mention as she gave a percentage breakdown of each of the 194 textbooks analysed, including the
results from surveyed interest groups. However, the overriding outcome from nine detailed conclusions was that
references to females were outnumbered in all circumstances by references to males.
Two years later, in another study in Hong Kong, Lee and Collins (2006) selected 20 English language textbooks used
by the Education Department of Hong Kong and compared them to the previous books that were published in the late
1980s and early 1990s. The results suggested that although many authors of textbooks these days use various strategies
to avoid biased treatment of the two genders, there is still much room for improvement as women are still commonly
associated with home duties, have passive roles, and mentioned less frequently than men in both written and visual
modes.
More recently, Hamdan (2010) looked at a series of English language textbooks distributed in Jordan and found that
out of 78 jobs, men occupied 62 (79%) which portrayed them as the dominant characters in the labour market despite
the fact that nowadays, Jordanian women hold diverse positions such as government ministers, members of parliament,
police officers, and taxi drivers.

III. METHODOLOGY
A. Materials
Two EFL textbooks currently used in Iranian secondary schools were selected to serve as the corpus of the present
study. The description of the textbooks is presented in (Table 1):
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEXTBOOKS
Title Publisher/Authors Grade Date of Number of
Publication Pages
Right Path to Iranian Ministry of Education 7 2012 97
English I (Birjandi & Babaii)
Right Path to Iranian Ministry of Education 8 2012 85
English II (Birjandi & Babaii)

B. Data Collection Analysis

Two methods of analysis were undertaken. First, these textbooks were subjected to a systematic quantitative analysis
with reference to: (1) gender visibility in both text and illustrations and (2) female/male-oriented topic presentation in
dialogues and reading passages. Second, in order to develop a more comprehensive picture of the gender-role

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

256 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

stereotyping in these textbooks, a qualitative analysis was carried out by concentrating on four components of gender-
role modelling: (1) male-centred language including: (a) firstness and (b) masculine generic construction; (2) gender-
linked occupation possibilities; (3) distribution of household responsibilities, and (4) distribution of spare time and
leisure activities.
C. Procedures
The procedures in this study were in two stages. The first stage focused on counting the number of occurrences of
females and males in both text and illustrations and the results were summed up and tabulated, together with the total
number of times that female/male-oriented topics were presented in dialogues and reading passages.
In the second stage, an inquiry was made into the use of male-centred language. To assess the extent of this, instances
of firstness in which males or females were presented first in reading passages, dialogues, examples, and exercises were
considered. In addition, the usage of masculine generic constructions whether they were either truly intended to be
generic (inclusive of both genders) or merely male-referenced, along with the use of all masculine nouns, adjectives,
and pronouns as all-inclusive terms for both genders were highlighted. Next, the occupation possibilities for females
and males were identified and tabulated. Then, the household responsibilities of females such as cooking, cleaning,
shopping, and mending were paired with their male counterparts and the results of the distribution were tabulated.
Finally, spare time and leisure activities that allow individuals to relax their minds and engage in physical outlets such
as sport, walking in the park, or going out with friends were investigated and tabulated.

IV. THE ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The analysis of the collected data is divided into two sections. Section A shows the results of the quantitative analysis
and is presented in two parts: part (1) gender visibility in both text and illustrations and part (2) female/male-oriented
topic presentation in dialogues and reading passages. Section B determines the qualitative analysis of the corpus and is
presented in four parts: part (1) male-centred language; part (2) gender-linked occupation possibilities; part (3)
distribution of household responsibilities, and part (4) distribution of spare time and leisure activities.
Section A. The Quantitative Analysis
Part 1. Gender Visibility in Individual Text and Illustrations
TABLE 2
GENDER VISIBILITY IN INDIVIDUAL TEXT AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Male Female

T I Total T I Total

Textbook 323 287 610 185 177 362

I 62.5% 62% 62.5% 36.5% 38% 36.5%
Textbook 417 111 528 284 78 362
II 60% 59% 59.5% 40% 41% 40.5%
Note 1. T= Text, I= Illustrations
Note 2. All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to the rounding, they may not add up to 100%

As presented in (Table 2), female and male characters appeared 972 times in text and illustrations throughout
Textbook I. A comparison between the percentages of female figures (36.5%) and male figures (62.5%) shows a
difference of (26%) suggesting that there is a sharp numerical imbalance in the visibility of female and male characters
in individual text and illustrations, which implies that men are dominant in terms of appearance.
In Textbook II, of the total of 890 characters, 362 were female and 528 were male. In other words, female characters
comprised (40.5%) and male characters (59.5%) in individual text and illustrations. This indicates a (19%) difference
between the gender representations, and although this result does not imply as large a difference as (26%) in Textbook I,
it still reveals a surprising asymmetry between the two genders.
Part 2: Female/Male-Oriented Topic Presentation in Dialogues and Reading Passages

TABLE 3
FEMALE/MALE -ORIENTED TOPIC PRESENTATION IN DIALOGUES AND READING PASSAGES
Male only Female only Male/Female Sex-neutral Total

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 257

Textbook Dialogue 12 (47%) 11 (43%) 1 (4%) 2 (6%) 26

I Reading 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 0 0 4
Textbook Dialogue 7 (46%) 8 (50%) 1 (4%) 0 16
II Reading 7 (89%) 1 (11%) 0 0 8

As illustrated in (Table 3), the results of female/male-oriented topic presentation in dialogues in Textbook I revealed
that of the total of 26 topics, 12(47%) were male and 11(43%) were female-oriented. However, in 1 dialogue (4%), an
interaction between female/male characters was observed and two dialogues (6%) were sex-neutral. In the reading
passages in Textbook I, of the total of 4 topics, 2(50%) were male topics and the remaining 2(50%) were female topics
which shows a symmetry in female/male-oriented topic presentations.
On the other hand, in Textbook II, of the total of 16 dialogues, 7(46%) of the topics were male-referenced and 8(50%)
were female-referenced, surprisingly enough for the first time it was observed that females outnumbered males.
Furthermore, in 1 dialogue (4%), an interaction between female/male characters was observed. In the reading passages
in Textbook II, after observing the surprising results in dialogues, the converse of this applied as out of the total of 8
passages, 7(89%) were male-referenced and only 1 (11%) was female-referenced which demonstrates a sharp difference
of (78%).
Section B. The Qualitative Analysis
Part 1. Male-Centred Language
Textbook I
In this textbook, three instances of firstness were observed and examples are given below:
(1) On page 26, in introducing the family members, the reading passage began with “This is Amir’s family. This is
Mina”. This sentence shows male firstness when the family could have just as easily been introduced as Mina‟s family,
a female character.
(2) On page 51 where a sister and brother were studying together, the boy states: “My sister and I study our books
every day”. However, it could have also been appropriate for the girl to have spoken the sentence.
(3) On page 89, in exercise D, the sentence “My father and mother eat lunch at 12” demonstrates the male
dominance as the father was mentioned before the mother.
In this textbook, generic pronouns were basically intended to include both genders; however, they mostly highlighted
males as the default gender that is everyone is a male unless specified otherwise. In the case of the pronouns I, you, and
we that can be used equally for female or male subjects, they were usually associated with pictures illustrating men.
Moreover, there was very little use of adjectives in this textbook due to the simplicity of the elementary English being
taught; however, females were portrayed as being sick far more often and their illnesses more severe than those of
males.
In all illustrations throughout Textbook I, except in the case of a family group, there were no examples of mixed
gender conversation or activities, that is to say males were always with males and females with females. For example on
page 56, a boy was illustrated to be thinking about a friend who was a boy, or on page 6 when a female was driving a
car, all the passengers were female. In addition, where generic parts of the human body such as hands and arms (p.4)
and features of a face (p.27) were depicted, they always were restricted to male body parts. Furthermore, there were six
instances where all objects such as jackets, shoes, hats, and combs in the illustrations belonged to men and only in one
illustration (p.49), the objects such as a dress, a scarf, and a Tee shirt could be considered solely owned by women.
Textbook II
In this textbook, three instances of firstness were observed and examples are provided below:
(1) On page 37, in Review (2), Section (C) “My brother is tall: but my sister is short” reveals the firstness of the male
character.
(2) On page 46, in a reading passage it was mentioned that “Nahid went to Shiraz and she stayed at her grandfather’s
house”; however, it could have been stated that she stayed at her grandmother‟s house.
(3) On page 64, the reading passage began with “Mr Kamali and his family are from Tehran”. Once again, the
sentence could have been written from the context of Ms Kamali and her family.
Generic pronouns used in this textbook were basically intended to include both genders; however, they mostly
highlighted males as the default gender. In the case of the pronouns I, you, and we that can be used equally for female or
male subjects, they were usually associated with pictures illustrating men. In considering the use of adjectives, although
they were confined to Lesson One in which simple adjectives such as tall, short, old, and young were mentioned, the
authors chose to use them in such a way as to denigrate females. For example on page 10, it was mentioned that “Mr
Hamidi is a teacher. He is young, Mrs Amini is a woman. She is old”. Further to this, in an illustration Mrs Amini was
portrayed as a very old and wrinkled female.
Once again, there was segregation of the genders except within a family group. However, there was a more even
distribution of generic objects belonging to females and males in illustrations than there was in Textbook I.
Part 2. Gender-Linked Occupation Possibilities
TABLE 4

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

258 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

GENDER-LINKED OCCUPATION POSSIBILITIES IN TEXTBOOK I

Gender-linked occupation possibilities in Textbook I
Female Male
Nurse Surgeon
Teacher Teacher
Librarian Policeman
Doctor Doctor
Housekeeper Farmer
Bus driver
Soldier
Shopkeeper
Dentist

As shown in (Table 4), males were presented in a wider range and overall a higher level of employment than females
in Textbook I. A close examination indicates that women occupied positions such as housekeeper, nurse, teacher, and
librarian, with an exception of the portrayal of a woman as a doctor on page 84. In contrast, men enjoyed greater
diversity of occupations ranging from lower ranking roles such as bus driver, farmer, and shopkeeper to higher ranking
roles such as surgeon, dentist, teacher, and doctor.
TABLE 5
GENDER -LINKED OCCUPATION POSSIBILITIES IN TEXTBOOK II
Gender-linked occupation possibilities in Textbook II
Female Male
Driving instructor Professional runner
English teacher Teacher
Nurse Doctor
Farm worker Farmer
Housekeeper Bus driver
Shopkeeper

Based on the results shown is (Table 5), males and females had almost an equal number of job possibilities with
almost the same ranking as each other, which could be interpreted that Textbook II has an encouraging message that job
possibilities should be equal for both genders.
Part 3. Distribution of Household Responsibilities
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITIES IN TEXTBOOK I
Household responsibility in Textbook I Female Male
Nursing the baby * -
Serving the meal * -
Setting the table for the meal * -
Cleaning the house * -
Making tea * -
Shopping - *
Driving * *
Cooking dinner * -
Helping mother to set the table * -
Note: (*) Indicates household responsibility

An evaluation of the distribution of household responsibilities shown in (Table 6) reveals the sad reality that out of
the total of ten household responsibilities, eight were performed by females in the family, mothers and daughters,
whereas males were only responsible for shopping and sharing the driving of the family car with females.

TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITIES IN TEXTBOOK II
Household responsibility in Textbook II Female Male

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 259

Taking the children to the park - *

Washing the dishes * -
Setting the table for the meal * -
Cleaning the house * -
Cleaning the radio - *
Shopping * *
Driving * *
Cooking dinner * -
Helping mother in the kitchen * -
Washing the car - *
Baking a cake * -
Note: (*) Indicates household responsibility

The findings illustrated in (Table 7) highlight that out of eleven household responsibilities, five were performed by
females which were based around duties in the home that could not be avoided, whereas males were only responsible
for three activities, one being a leisure activity of going to the park. It should be noted that both females and males were
engaged in sharing two activities of shopping and driving which were both outside the home.
Part 4: Distribution of Spare Time and Leisure Activities
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF SPARE TIME AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES IN TEXTBOOK I
Spare time & leisure activities in Textbook I Female Male
Playing ping pong * *
Setting up a computer * -
Listening to the radio - *
Playing football - *
Reading a newspaper * *
Graffiti artist - *
Sitting in the park * -
Playing in the park - *
Eating at a restaurant * -
Reading a book * *
Watching television * *
Talking on the telephone - *
Writing a letter * -
At the art gallery * -
Praying * *
Note: (*) Indicates the activity

The list of spare time and leisure activities in (Table 8) presents fifteen different activities performed by both female
and male characters in Textbook I. A close look at this table reveals the equal distribution of spare time and leisure
activities between both genders. In addition, female activities are not restricted to passive indoor activities such as
watching television or reading a newspaper as they also enjoyed active outdoor roles such as playing ping pong,
visiting the art gallery, and eating at a restaurant.
TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF SPARE TIME AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES IN TEXTBOOK II
Spare time & leisure activities in Textbook II Female Male
Playing ping pong - *
Taking the children to the zoo - *
Praying * *
Playing football - *
Reading a newspaper * *
Doing a crossword - *
Sitting in the park * *
Going to the movies - *
Swimming - *
Reading a book * *
Watching television * -
Going to a football stadium - *
Writing a letter - *
Riding a bike - *
Note: (*) Indicates the activity

As presented in (Table 9), females only took part in four indoor activities such as reading a book, watching television,
praying, and reading a newspaper, and only on one occasion, a woman could be seen spending her time in the park
(p.3). On the contrary, males performed thirteen different indoor and outdoor activities such as going to the movies or a

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

260 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

football stadium, swimming, riding a bike, taking the children to the zoo, and doing a crossword. It is obvious that
females were fundamentally shunted into indoor passive activities.

V. DISCUSSION
The analysis of findings showed that there is an imbalance in gender representation in current Iranian EFL textbooks
(Right Path to English I and II). These findings are similar to that of many studies into gender bias in EFL/ESL
materials since the 1970s, for example, (Hartman & Judd, 1978; Kalia, 1980; Porreca, 1984; Peterson & Kroner, 1992;
Özdoğru, Aksoy, Erdoğan, & Gök, 2004; Lee & Collins, 2006).
A comparison of findings with the small scale study conducted by Ansari & Babaii (2003) on the same textbooks
(1999 edition) demonstrated that in Textbook I, male-referenced text increased from 56% in the 1999 edition to 62.5%
in the 2012 edition, which is a negative increase of 6.5% illustrating that after thirteen years, women still suffered from
low visibility. Furthermore, male-referenced illustrations remained at the same percentage of 62% reinforcing the lack
of change in the status of women in this textbook. In Textbook II, male-referenced text remained at the same percentage
of 60%, whereas female-referenced illustrations improved by 2% from 39% to 41%, which is a marginal increase but at
the very least, it is in the right direction.
In Textbook I, male-referenced dialogues reduced from 64% in the 1999 edition to 47% in the 2012 edition which is
a reduction of 17% illustrating a very positive shift towards female participation in topic presentation. There was also an
increase of 6% in gender-neutral dialogues which indicates another positive change. Furthermore, male-referenced
reading passages remained at the same percentage of 50% representing the equality of the genders in this textbook. In
Textbook II, male-referenced dialogues dropped from 62% to 46% which is a reduction of 16 % demonstrating another
positive shift towards female participation in topic presentation. In fact, female-referenced dialogues increased to a
percentage of 50%, which is higher than the male percentage. There was also an increase of 4% in female/male topic
presentations; however, male-referenced reading passages increased from 82% to 89%, showing a disappointing result
from what was expected after getting positive results in female-referenced dialogues.
In considering occupational possibilities, the previous findings revealed that females appeared to be mostly restricted
to occupations such as student or nurse, and in some instances, they were seen to be working in jobs such as teacher or
doctor. On the contrary, new findings demonstrated that female occupational possibilities were more diverse and
included three more choices such as driving instructor, librarian, and farm worker. It should be noted that in Textbook
II, both genders had almost an equal number of job possibilities with almost the same ranking as each other, which
could be interpreted that this textbook has an encouraging message that job possibilities should be equal for both
genders.
In the case of the distribution of spare time and leisure activities, in the previous research it was mentioned that
“females were fundamentally shunted into indoor passive activities such as sitting in the classroom, watching TV at
home, reading, etc” (Ansari & Babaii, 2003, p.9). Nevertheless, in the new findings, female activities were not
restricted to passive indoor activities as they also enjoyed active outdoor roles such as playing ping pong, visiting the
art gallery, and eating at a restaurant, which indicates a change in attitude towards females.
Regarding male-centred language, the previous research discovered the usage of paired nouns such as uncle and aunt,
brother and sister, boys and girls where the masculine noun always comes first. However, in the recent study, only one
instance of paired nouns, father and mother, was observed. Moreover, in the previous research, generic pronouns
reflected males as the default or unmarked gender, even pronouns such as you, I, and we which can be equally used to
describe female or male subjects were associated with pictures illustrating men. Unfortunately, the new findings
revealed no improvement in the use of the generic pronouns as the results were exactly the same.
An examination of the distribution of household responsibilities revealed that the previous research found females in
more traditional stereotypical roles such as doing the dishes, cooking, serving food, setting the dinner table, and taking
care of the children. The sad reality is that the findings of the new research highlight the same biased results.

VI. CONCLUSION
The analysis of findings revealed that there is an imbalance in gender representation in ELT curriculum in Iran. As
English language teaching and learning in Iran is based on “a rigidly anti-imperialist ideology alongside indigenization
and localisation” (Borjian, 2013, p.13), the state-run education programs are indigenised to meet the country‟s cultural
and religious ideologies. Although this study showed improvement to some areas of the textbooks when compared with
the results of the previous research which examined the same textbooks (1999 edition), there is still more room for
improvement to provide an equal opportunity for learning for all students.
A pedagogical implication is that ELT curriculum in Iran needs to be examined as the content of instructional
materials significantly affects students‟ attitudes, dispositions, and their understanding of norms, culture, and the world
around them. Therefore, Educational Authorities should provide guidelines for the use of fair treatment of gender in all
aspects of textbook design such as equal visibility for female and male characters and equal female/male-oriented topic
presentations in dialogues and reading passages with a wider range of occupational possibilities and personal traits. In

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 261

addition, further research needs to be undertaken on a wide range of current ESL/EFL textbooks to explore issues of
representations of speakers, in particular gender representation.

REFERENCES
[1] Ansary, H. & E. Babaii (2003). Subliminal Sexism in Current ESL/EFL Textbooks. Asian EFL Journal 5, 200-241.
[2] Arnold-Gerrity, D. (1978). Sex Stereotyping of Women and Girls in Elementary Textbooks and its Implication for Future Work
Force Participation. Paper presented at the North Central Sociological Association, Cincinnati, May 1978 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service; ED 191087).
[3] Birjandi, P. & A. Soheili (2012). Right Path to English I and II. Iran, Tehran: Ministry of Education, Center for the Publication
of University Textbooks.
[4] Borjian, M. (2013). English in Post-Revolutionary Iran: From Indigenization to Internationalization. Bristol, Buffalo and
Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
[5] Britton, G. & M. Lumpkin (1977). For Sale: Subliminal Bias in Textbooks. The Reading Teacher 31.1, 40-45.
[6] Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Great Britain: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
[7] Coles, G. (1977). Dick and Jane Grow Up: Ideology in Adult Basic Education Readers. Urban Education 12.1, 37-53.
[8] Graham, A. (1975). The Making of a Non-Sexist Dictionary. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference
and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 57-63.
[9] Hamdan, S. (2010). English-language Textbooks Reflect Gender Bias: A Case Study in Jordan. Advances in Gender and
Education 2, 22-26.
[10] Hartman, P. L. & E. L. Judd (1978). Sexism and TESOL Materials. TESOL Quarterly 12.4, 383-393.
[11] Hellinger, M. (1980). For Men Must Work, and Women Must Weep: Sexism in English Language Textbooks Used in German
Schools. In C. Kramerae (eds.), The Voices and Words of Women and Men. New York: Pergamon Press, 267-274.
[12] Kalia, N. N. (1980). Images of Men and Women in Indian Textbooks. Women and Education in the Third World. Comparative
Education Review 24.2, S209-S223.
[13] Key, M. R. (1975). Male/Female Language. Metuchen, NJ.: The Scarecrow Press.
[14] Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women's Place. New York: Harper and Row.
[15] Lee, J. F. K. & P. Collins (2006). Gender Representation in Hong Kong English Textbooks. The Hong Kong Institute of
Education. The University of New South Wales, Australia. [Link] /eoc/upload/20067 11112336211 [Link]
(accessed 26/2/2013).
[16] Mills, S. & L. Mullany (2011). Language, Gender and Feminism: Theory, Methodology and Practice. London and New
York: Routledge.
[17] Mirza, M. (2004). Gender Analysis of School Curriculum and Text Books. UNESCO: Islamabad.
[Link]
%20Text%[Link] (accessed 15/4/2013).
[18] Ndura, E. (2004). ESL and Cultural Bias: An Analysis of Elementary Through High School Textbooks in the Western United
States of America. Language, Culture and Curriculum 17.2, 143–153.
[19] Nilsen, A. (1977). Sexism in Children's Books and Elementary Classroom Materials. In A. Nilsen, H. Bosmajian, H. Gershuny
& J. Stanley (eds.), Sexism and Language. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 161-179.
[20] Özdoğru, A. A., G. Aksoy, N. Erdoğan & F. Gök (2004). Content Analysis for Gender Bias in Turkish Elementary School
Textbooks. Proceedings of the sixteenth annual Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education conference.
[Link] eqre/papers/[Link] (accessed 5/2/2013).
[21] Peterson, S. & T. Kroner (1992). Gender Biases in Textbooks for Introductory Psychology and Human Development.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 16.1, 17-36.
[22] Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in Current ESL Textbooks. TESOL Quarterly 18.4, 704-724.
[23] Poulou, S. (1997). Sexism in the Discourse Roles of Textbook Dialogues. Language Learning 15, 68-73.
[24] Sleeter, C. & C. Grant (1991). Race, Class, Gender and Disability in Current Textbooks. In M. W. Apple, & L. K. Christian-
Smith (eds.), The Politics of the Textbook. London, UK: Routledge, 78-110.
[25] Thomas, L. (2004). Language, Society and Power: An Introduction (2nd ed). Ishtla Singh & Jean Stilwell Peccei. London
and New York: Routledge.
[26] Thorne, B. & N. Henely (eds.) (1975). Language and Sex: Differences and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Mahnaz Hall is currently a PhD candidate at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia and is employed as a teaching associate
and research assistant within the School of Languages, Cultures, and Linguistics at Monash University. She has also taught English
in EFL/ESL settings in various countries for over a decade. Her research interests concern phonology, English as an international
language, and lingua franca. She has some publications on phonology, and recently one of her papers was presented at the Applied
Linguistics Association of Australia National Conference in Perth, Western Australia.

© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER