If You Don’t See Inequality, You Cannot Teach Equality: What Is Missing in STEM Teachers’ Perceptions for an Equality Pedagogy in STEM Teaching?

Abstract

This article explores how gender biases in STEM education persist despite formal commitments to equality. Based on data from the Erasmus+ project STEMGenderIN, we analyze responses from lower-secondary school teachers (ISCED 2; ages 11–15), of STEM subjects, in Portugal, Italy, Belgium, and Romania using the TPGESE scale, which assesses three dimensions: perceived gender equality in education (PGEE), the awareness of the effects of gender segregation (AEGSE), and the naturalization of gender stereotypes (GSNGI). Findings show a consistent gap between teachers declared support for gender equality and their limited awareness of structural and cultural barriers faced by girls in STEM. While most teachers affirm equality in principle, many attribute girls’ underrepresentation to personal choice or aptitude, overlooking the influence of stereotypes, social expectations, and systemic inequalities. The results point to a paradox: formal recognition of gender equality coexists with low engagement in reflexive practice or institutional change. Differences between countries suggest varying degrees of critical awareness, with some contexts showing greater openness to questioning dominant narratives. This study highlights the urgent need for teacher training that goes beyond rhetoric, promoting deep pedagogical transformation and equipping educators to create more inclusive STEM learning environments. We argue that addressing the perception–practice gap is essential to closing the gender gap in STEM. To situate these findings, we also note how national cultural–political debates—such as Portugal’s public controversy around so-called “gender ideology” in Citizenship and Development—may shape teachers’ perceptions and self-reports, reinforcing the need for context-aware training.

1. Introduction

Gendered career preferences show up early in life. Data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 shows significant gender differences in career expectations between 15-year-olds. Even when boys and girls show similar performance, fewer girls report wanting to pursue a STEM career than boys (OECD 2019). These preferences also apply to top-performing students in mathematics and/or science, which are critical disciplines for successful STEM paths.

Both comparative data and scientific literature have demonstrated that gender disparities in school and career options and achievement appear to be neither innate nor inevitable (Thébaud and Charles 2018; Schmader 2023; UNESCO 2024). Instead, they seem to emerge and be reinforced by social and cultural contexts, mainly by gender stereotypes. Variability across countries in the gender gap in education results and (career) options confirms the influence of sociocultural determinants (Schmader 2023; UNESCO 2024). A dynamic interplay between individual-level traits and the broader sociocultural environments in which they develop explains girls’ and women exclusion from STEM education and professions (Thébaud and Charles 2018). According to the 2018 PISA, there is notable gender disparities in adolescents’ attitudes toward fear of failure and competition. On average, 15-year-old girls across OECD countries show a higher fear of failure than boys. Furthermore, girls often report greater anxiety and lower confidence in their abilities, especially in mathematics. These results, published by the OECD in 2019, underscore significant differences in self-esteem and academic confidence between genders during formative years (OECD 2019). The literature presents a range of models and factors that illuminate the mechanisms influencing the choice of fields of study and professional careers, particularly regarding the impact of gender stereotypes in areas such as STEM (Microsoft Corporation 2017; European Commission 2021; Brussino and McBrien 2022; Schmader 2023). Among these models, the educational sphere and the factors related to educational systems and stakeholders are emphasized as playing a central role. A significant drop in the percentage of women in STEM classes happens at two main points: firstly, during the transition from primary and secondary education to university, it drops by 18 percentage points; lately, during the transition from university to the workforce it drops another 15 p.p. (Blumberg et al. 2023). Therefore, factors such as STEM learning experiences, individual background, contextual influences (including parental and peer support, role models, societal and cultural factors), and school and national education policies play significant roles in shaping girls’ career aspirations (European Commission 2021).

These findings highlight the role of both formal and non-formal education in perpetuating gender inequalities and leading to segregated career choices. Therefore, international regulations support and strengthen recommendations for gender-inclusive education, such as those found in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in the Beijing Platform, or in recent European programmes and strategies. Namely, the European Education Area (EEA) defines as objectives for national reforms and European cooperation in education and training, among others: (1) developing a better gender sensitivity in education processes and institutions; (2) challenging and dissolving gender stereotypes; and (3) working towards a proper gender balance in leadership positions, including in higher education institutions (Monteiro et al. 2024c). The European Union has recently reinforced the need for gender-sensitive STEM education, setting concrete targets to increase the participation of girls and women in STEM and technological fields. The Union of Skills roadmap outlines a comprehensive approach to fostering equal access to digital education, emphasizing the development of a robust EU digital education ecosystem. To counteract the decline in STEM performance and enhance student engagement, the European Commission proposes a STEM Education Strategic Plan, with a core objective of increasing female participation. By 2030, strategic targets include ensuring that at least 45% of students in medium-level vocational education and training (VET) are enrolled in STEM fields, with at least 25% being female; at least 32% of tertiary-level students in STEM, with a minimum of 40% women; and at least 5% of students in ICT PhD programmes, with at least one-third being female. These ambitious goals align with broader efforts to enhance digital competence, as the Digital Competence Framework is set to be updated by 2025 to integrate emerging technologies, including AI, ensuring a future-ready digital education landscape in the EU (European Commission 2024). Notwithstanding, these recommendations are often praised but not fully implemented (Ferreira et al. 2024; Monteiro et al. 2024c).

The gender blindness of school systems, environments, and pedagogical approaches, as well as teachers’ beliefs and practices, are crucial dimensions to understanding the reproduction of gender stereotypes and girls’ dropout from STEM areas. In this article, we present some results from research we conducted on this issue within the Erasmus+ project “STEMGenderIN: A bridge to close the STEM gap with gender-inclusive education and teaching”. The project addresses persisting gender inequalities and gaps in STEM fields and in STEM education, producing a framework of knowledge about the role of education, schools, teachers, and other professionals and actors (e.g., parents and families) in the educational and professional decisions of girls aged between 11 and 15 years old, regarding STEM. The goal was to enhance the skills of lower secondary school teachers in STEM courses, focusing on teaching STEM from a gender perspective. In this article, we focus on the results from the lower secondary school teachers’ survey and its statistical analysis.

Comparative research indicates that teachers’ beliefs do not form in a vacuum but are filtered through national cultural–political climates. In recent years, debates labelled as “gender ideology” in parts of Europe—visible, for instance, in Portugal around the Citizenship and Development subject—have heightened public attention and, at times, polarized understandings of gender equality in education. Such climates can shape what teachers perceive as “already achieved” equality, what they consider controversial, and how comfortable they feel acknowledging structural barriers within schools. Building on equality-in-education guidance and values-centred teacher education literature, this study therefore reads survey responses against their sociopolitical backdrops and argues that effective teacher training must be both evidence-based and context-aware. Building on national case evidence, Monteiro (2024) documents how anti-gender mobilisations and institutional resistances in Portugal have produced policy volatility around Citizenship and Development. This context helps explain why some teachers may over-report equality as “already achieved” (perceptual inflation) despite limited classroom change—reinforcing the need for context-aware training.

The paper is structured as follows: First, there is an overview of what we know about gender inequality and segregation in STEM education. Part two explores the specific characteristics of STEM education and its potential contribution to the gender gap, thus emphasizing the importance of equality pedagogies in these fields of study. After we present the methodology employed in the study, followed by the findings. Finally, conclusions are presented together with some practical implications.

2. Gender Segregation in STEM, an Educational Problem

Gender segregation in education keeps on being very pronounced, reproducing patterns of the horizontal segregation phenomenon. In OECD countries, on average, women make up over 75% of new entrants in education, health, and welfare (OECD 2024). But in the STEM fields, women account for just 31% of new entrants (Monteiro et al. 2024b). In the EU27, in 2021, about 54% of new entrants in tertiary education were women. Still, on programmes in STEM-related fields—natural sciences, mathematics and statistics; engineering, manufacturing and construction, and information and communication technologies (ICT)—only 31.6% were female.

It is important to clarify that the acronym STEM includes sciences, technologies, engineering, and mathematics, but is an umbrella term used to group together disciplines that can be very different, even when we look for gender gaps in these educational and professional realms. For instance, there is a globally bigger representation of women in sciences and mathematics than in engineering and technology. Alice Eagly (2021) proposes the concept of “inconsistent gender gap” to express this differentiation. In fact, according to Eurostat data (Figure 1), while women represented around 51% of students in natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics; only 27% of students in engineering, manufacturing, and construction, and around 20% of students in ICT were female. Romania and Sweden were the countries doing better in ICT, with around 32% of female entrants, while some other countries did much worse, showing figures under 15% (Belgium, Lithuania, Spain, Slovakia, Netherlands).

In terms of tertiary women graduates in the ICT sector were less than 2% of female graduates, increasing only by 0.6 percentage points between 2013 and 2021. In European and other high-income countries, the share of women in STEM fields of study drops heavily at the end of secondary school.

This gender gap begins early, with fewer 15-year-old girls reporting that they want to pursue a STEM career compared to boys (OECD 2019). Among the top ten occupations girls reported to expect for themselves, seven were in the healthcare sector and three related to teaching, law professions, and policy and planning management. Instead, boys reported a wider range of occupations, such as athletes, engineering professionals, motor-vehicle mechanics, and police officers. These results also apply to top-performing students in mathematics and/or science, which are critical disciplines for successful STEM paths (Figure 2a,b). According to the data in Figure 2, Portugal exhibits the largest gender gap in career expectations, while Romania shows the smallest.

Concerning performance, mathematical capability and knowledge are critical to developing STEM skills and working in STEM fields (Xie and Liu 2023). Data from the OECD indicates that the under-representation of girls among top performers in science and mathematics can partly explain the persistent gender gap in careers in STEM fields (OECD 2023). Studies confirm that at least a quarter of the total variation in mathematics performance across countries could be explained by the differences in overall mathematics anxiety in each country (OECD 2023). In this respect, studies concluded that girls are less likely than boys to believe they can successfully perform mathematics and science tasks at designated levels, to enrol in technical and vocational programmes, or gain “hands-on” experience in potential careers through internships or job shadowing (OECD 2015); and also that girls are also more likely than boys to also feel anxious about mathematics (UNESCO 2024). Looking at other educational performance indicators, the recent UNESCO report Global Education Monitoring Report: Gender report—Technology on her terms (UNESCO 2024) refers to the gender differences in student performance that result from stereotypical attitudes and behaviours. Boys are significantly more likely than girls to be disengaged from school, get lower marks, repeat grades, and play video games in their free time. Girls tend to behave better in class, get higher marks, spend more time doing homework, and read for enjoyment, particularly complex texts such as fiction, in their free time (OECD 2019). Girls are also less likely to repeat grades. But the magnitude of the gender gap in student performance varies across countries and, over the past few decades, many countries have made significant progress in narrowing, or even closing, the gender gap in educational attainment (Van Bavel et al. 2018).

Literature Review: Structural, Institutional, and Pedagogical Influences on Gender Disparities in STEM

The underrepresentation of girls and women in male-dominated STEM careers, such as computer science and engineering, is largely influenced by persistent gender stereotypes. These stereotypes emerge from the tendency to attribute specific traits, abilities, and roles to individuals based solely on their gender, shaping expectations in the home, schools, and broader society (Brussino and McBrien 2022). More precisely, they reinforce traditional gender norms linked to one’s assigned sex at birth. Consequently, career choices are not purely individual decisions shaped by personal abilities or interests but are strongly influenced by social and gendered expectations. Importantly, research does not indicate substantial differences in innate abilities that would justify the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields (Schmader 2023). In our measurement model, these stereotype-related beliefs are operationalised in the factor Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities in STEM (GSNGI) (see Table 2 and Table 4).

These stereotypes are perpetuated through multiple sociocultural influences, including media portrayals, teacher and peer expectations, family exposure to STEM careers, and personal experiences in traditionally male-dominated STEM education environments. Furthermore, the consistent lack of representation of women and other marginalized groups in STEM reinforces the implicit association between these fields and masculinity, fostering the widespread perception of “STEM as male” and embedding this bias into cultural norms. So, gender stereotypes shift from being merely descriptive to prescriptive once they are internalized and absorbed at an early age. Consistent with this literature, GSNGI in our data indicates that essentialist associations remain salient, underscoring the need for deliberate classroom work to de-naturalize them (Table 4).

Stereotypical associations reinforce the perception that careers in technology, particularly in fields such as software engineering and artificial intelligence, for example, are best suited for individuals who embody brilliance and self-sufficiency, traits historically linked to masculinity. Consequently, women are often perceived as lacking the innate talent or assertiveness required to excel in such domains, further entrenching gender disparities. Research has examined how cultural representations of technology professionals—such as the socially detached “geek” or the hyper-confident “brogrammer,”—contribute to these biases. These images highlight agentic traits, like independence and dominance, while devaluing communal qualities, such as social sensitivity and collaboration, which are more commonly associated with women. As a result, this occupational stereotyping fosters an exclusionary culture that discourages female participation in technological fields (Thébaud and Charles 2018; Eagly 2021; Comber et al. 2021; Schmader 2023). Items tapping these beliefs load on GSNGI, enabling us to quantify how strongly such essentialist views are endorsed by teachers (Table 2).

Gender stereotypes operate beyond childhood, shaping self-perceptions, social interactions, and institutional structures. They influence girls’ confidence in STEM by shaping their self-concept, affecting the encouragement they receive from parents, teachers, and peers, and fostering stereotype threat, which deters them from STEM challenges. Accordingly, our instrument includes items that probe teachers’ recognition of these stereotype-linked processes within schooling (mapped to GSNGI).

These biases are reinforced through gendered educational practices and learning environments, extending to societal structures that perpetuate systemic barriers and sustain gender disparities in STEM and beyond. Elements such as STEM learning experiences, parental and peer support, societal and cultural norms, role models, and educational policies all influence girls’ career choices (European Commission 2021). The influence of education can be analyzed across three major domains, ranging from the most structural (macro) to the interactional and organizational (meso), and finally pedagogical (micro) levels. Our measurement follows this multi-level logic: items on institutional/organizational commitment map to Perceived Gender Equality in Education (PGEE); items on mechanisms of (de)segregation map to Awareness of the Effects of Gender Segregation in Education (AEGSE); and stereotype-focused items map to GSNGI.

National education systems play a crucial role in shaping gendered career aspirations through their structure, curricular frameworks, and policies (Viarengo 2021). Early tracking systems, which sort students into different educational streams based on ability or achievement, often reinforce stereotypical expectations about gendered career paths. Systems that require students to make rigid academic choices at an early age tend to exacerbate gender segregation, as adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity to gender norms and limited exposure to labour market realities (Borgonovi et al. 2023). Conversely, comprehensive and flexible educational models that delay specialization and provide broad-based STEM education have been found to reduce gender gaps in STEM aspirations (European Commission 2021; Viarengo 2021). Comparative studies suggest that countries with strong national STEM curricula, such as India, where mathematics is emphasized, foster greater confidence in girls’ STEM abilities, countering stereotypes and promoting gender inclusivity in technical fields (Thébaud and Charles 2018). In our study, teachers’ awareness of segregation mechanisms (AEGSE) captures the extent to which these structural pathways are recognized as gendered in practice (Table 4).

Beyond structural (macro) factors, gender biases are deeply embedded in school environments. Schools function as social institutions where gender norms are reinforced through interactions, teaching materials, and even spatial organization (Monteiro et al. 2017). The predominance of male STEM teachers and administrators, the absence of female role models in textbooks, and the subtle biases in teacher-student interactions contribute to the perception that STEM fields are male-dominated (Brussino and McBrien 2022). Moreover, discriminatory practices such as gender-based harassment, differential teacher expectations, and exclusionary learning environments further alienate girls from STEM subjects. To counteract these biases, schools must adopt concrete policies, including anti-harassment codes, gender audits, and inclusive educational materials (European Commission 2023). Visual representations in classrooms and textbooks also play a critical role; when scientific and technological achievements are predominantly attributed to men, they reinforce the stereotype that STEM is not a space for women (Mizala et al. 2023). Items reflecting teachers’ perceptions of institutional and curricular commitment load on PGEE, allowing us to compare declarative support for equality with awareness of specific mechanisms (AEGSE) and stereotypes (GSNGI).

Curricula and pedagogical approaches further shape gendered experiences in STEM education. The content and delivery of STEM subjects often reinforce stereotypes, either through the omission of gender perspectives or through teaching methodologies that favour traditionally masculine attributes such as competition and individualism (Hooks 1994; UNESCO 2015). The absence of female role models in STEM textbooks and the underrepresentation of women’s contributions to science perpetuate the “Matilda effect,” in which women’s achievements are overshadowed or attributed to male colleagues (Harrell 2016). To foster a more inclusive STEM education, curricula must integrate gender-sensitive perspectives, promote collaborative and inquiry-based learning, and challenge the notion that brilliance and technical prowess are inherently male attributes (Schmader 2023). Additionally, teachers play a fundamental role in shaping students’ confidence and interest in STEM (Li and Yang 2022). Correspondingly, TPGESE includes items on teachers’ awareness of classroom-level mechanisms (AEGSE) and on the (de)naturalization of stereotypes (GSNGI), linking pedagogical choices to measured perceptions.

The role of parents and broader societal influences cannot be overlooked. Parents’ expectations and encouragement significantly impact children’s self-perception in STEM, often reinforcing traditional gender roles. The intergenerational transmission of STEM education—where parents working in STEM fields foster greater interest in these disciplines among their children—demonstrates the importance of exposure and representation (Chise et al. 2021; European Commission 2021). However, unconscious biases also play a role, with parents more likely to provide unsolicited help with homework to daughters than to sons, implicitly signalling lower expectations for girls’ STEM abilities (Mizala et al. 2023). Schools must actively engage families to dismantle these stereotypes, ensuring that both curricular and extracurricular activities support gender-equitable STEM education.

Addressing these multifaceted barriers requires a systemic approach that combines educational reforms, institutional accountability, and shifts in societal attitudes to create a more inclusive and equitable STEM landscape. Teachers’ recognition of all these factors is critical for transformation. That is why this study’s contribution, which analyses teachers’ perspectives and experiences to create teacher training resources, is so relevant. Empirically, we observe a pattern where declarative support (PGEE) tends to exceed both AEGSE and GSNGI, echoing the literature’s expectation that endorsing equality is easier than recognizing segregation mechanisms or abandoning essentialist beliefs. To make the link explicit, the literature strands reviewed above (institutional climate; mechanisms of (de)segregation; stereotypes/essentialism) directly informed the TPGESE items; the empirical analysis then yielded three dimensions (PGEE, AEGSE, GSNGI), which we use in the Results (see Table 4).

3. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted as part of the STEMgenderIn project. The research employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating a survey of lower-secondary (ISCED 2; ages 11–15) teachers and an analysis of national and school-level initiatives promoting gender equality in STEM education across four European countries: Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Romania. In this article, we focus only on the survey results. In this article, we focus only on the survey results, including the measurement of teachers’ perceptions of gender equality in STEM using the TPGESE item pool.

A structured questionnaire was designed by the STEMGenderIn research team and administered to STEM teachers in the four partner countries. The survey included 40 questions, developed based on an extensive literature review on gender disparities in STEM education. It was structured into four main sections: (1) Sociodemographic characterization of respondents, (2) Teachers’ digital skills and use of teaching technologies, (3) Training in citizenship, gender equality, and STEM pedagogies, and (4) Perspectives on gender equality in STEM curricula, teaching practices, and school initiatives. The TPGESE item pool used in Section 4 was theory-driven and anchored in the literature reviewed in Section Literature Review: Structural, Institutional, and Pedagogical Influences on Gender Disparities in STEM. Rather than imposing subscales a priori, item writing sampled three hypothesized domains from the literature—(i) institutional climate and policy–practice gaps; (ii) mechanisms of gendered (de)segregation in schooling; and (iii) stereotypes and gender essentialism—with the final factor structure determined empirically in this study’s analytic sample of lower-secondary STEM teachers across Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Romania.

The questionnaire was disseminated online via the Lime Survey platform between February and March 2024, after approval by the Ethical Commission of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra. To ensure accessibility, it was translated by experts into French, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian, with responses later translated back into English for analysis. Teachers were recruited through school management channels, professional networks, social media, and the Scientix teachers’ network.

A total of 210 STEM teachers participated in the survey, with an approximately equal distribution across the four countries (see

Table 1. Sociodemographic and professional teacher’s characteristics.

	Belgium	Italy	Portugal		Romania		Total
Country	56 (26.7%)	50 (23.8%)	53 (25.2%)		51 (24.3%)		210
Gender
Woman	57%	60%	81%		75%		68.1%
Man	43%	38%	19%		26%		31.4%
Non-binary person	0%	2%	0%		0%		0.5%
Age
20–29 years	21.4%	10%	1.9%		17.6%		12.9%
30–39 years	23.2%	32%	5.7%		11.8%		18.1%
40–49 years	26.8%	30%	32.1%		39.2%		31.9%
50–59 years	23.2%	20%	43.4%		25.5%		28.1%
60–69 years	3.6%	8%	17%		5.9%		8.6%
70 years or more	1.8%	0%	0%		0%		0.5%
Level of education
Secondary	5.4%	2%	1.9%		0%		2.4%
Short-term higher	25%	0%	0%		0%		6.7%
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent	21.4%	10%	56.6%		56.9%		36.2%
Master’s Degree	39.3%	78%	37.7%		41.2%		48.6%
Ph.D.	8.9%	10%	3.8%		2%		6.2%
	Yes			No
Scientix ambassador	19 (9%)			191 (91%)
Carrying out other school duties	101 (48.1%)			109 (51.9%)
	Minimum		Maximum			Mode
Teaching experience in years	Less than 1 year (6.2%)		35 years or more (9.5%)			20 to 24 years (15.7%)
Length of time teaching at current school	Less than 1 year (11.9%)		35 years or more (4.8%)			1 to 4 years (22.45)

for characterization). The majority of respondents were female (68.1%), with an average age of 44.9 years, and most held either a master’s or bachelor’s degree. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were conducted to map teachers’ views and to identify cross-national trends and challenges in gender-sensitive STEM education.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 28) and Jeffreys’s Amazing Statistics Program (JASP, version 0.17.2.0). Given the 5-point Likert format, items were treated as categorical in factor analyses.

To assess the structural validity of the teachers’ perceptions scale on gender equality in STEM, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Data adequacy was verified using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Factor retention followed multiple established criteria: parallel analysis with simulations, scree plot inspection, eigenvalues greater than 1 (Kaiser-Guttman criterion), and satisfactory cumulative explained variance. The reliability of the subscales was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (with 95% CI via bootstrapping), with values considered acceptable between 0.70 and 0.90 (Streiner 2003).

For cross-country group comparisons, we employed one-way ANOVAs followed by post hoc tests. The analyses included examination of effect sizes and were complemented with descriptive statistics for each national context, allowing for comparison of teachers’ perceptions across dimensions.

To provide also exploratory inter-correlations, we computed Pearson’s r (two-tailed) between two indices—sumc1 (institutional context; school policies/strategies/partnerships/leadership) and SumHave (teachers’ participation in projects and programmes)—and the three TPGESE dimensions (PGEE, AEGSE, GSNGI), overall and by country. Significance thresholds were set at p < 0.05/0.01; coefficients are reported with two decimals. Given the exploratory scope, no multiple-comparison correction was applied.

4. Results

The promotion of gender equality in STEM education requires not only curricular reform but also robust teacher training and institutional commitment. This section explores how educators across four European countries perceive their own digital skills and professional development opportunities related to citizenship, STEM pedagogies, and gender equality. It also examines the extent to which gender equality is integrated into curricula and translated into practical teaching initiatives at the school level.

To deepen our understanding of how teachers perceive and relate to gender equality in STEM education, this section also presents the analysis of key survey dimensions. Specifically, we explore teachers’ perspectives on gender equality and stereotypes through the application of the Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender Equality and Stereotypes in Education (TPGESE) scale, developed by Monteiro et al. (2024b). The scale builds on previous research (Merayo and Ayuso 2023) and aims to capture three core aspects: (1) perceived gender equality in education, (2) awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM, and (3) stereotypes and naturalization of gender inequalities in STEM. The results are based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as cross-country comparisons. They allow us to assess the construct validity of teacher perceptions and to evaluate internal consistencies across these three critical dimensions.

4.1. Teacher Training Gaps and Underemphasized Gender Inequality in STEM Education

Despite 76.7% of the respondents classifying their digital skills as “Good” or “Very Good,” there is a noticeable disconnect when examining how these skills translate into classroom practice. In actual teaching, most educators rely on conventional digital tools, such as internet searches, teaching platforms, and PowerPoint, while less interactive resources, particularly AI, are seldom used. This suggests that although teachers feel competent overall, their technology choices remain relatively limited, potentially missing opportunities for more engaging and innovative teaching methods. Additionally, 18.6% of teachers consider their skills “Sufficient,” while 4.8% feel unprepared, indicating a subset that may require targeted support or training to bridge the gap between perceived competence and meaningful digital integration.

Results also indicate that, while most teachers (70.5%) have received training in educational technologies, they received much less training in areas such as citizenship and development (43.8%), STEM-specific pedagogical strategies (37.1%), and especially promoting gender equality (21.4%). This gap underscores the need for more comprehensive professional development on gender equality, as it remains the least covered area among those surveyed.

When asked about specific actions related to gender equality in STEM education, 94.3% of the teachers said not being involved in any pedagogical project or programme to improve gender equality in STEM teaching (Table 2). Only 43.8% affirmed that their national curriculum includes objectives to promote gender equality in STEM degree choices, and 41% indicated that STEM course programmes pay attention to gender equality. Even more striking is that only 15.7% declared to have received training in gender equality for STEM, and a mere 11.9% reported having had any form of gender perspective training at some point in their academic or professional development. These data suggest that, although some teachers see a formal commitment to gender equality in curricular objectives, there is a shortfall in practical, hands-on training opportunities.

Table 2. Assessment of gender equality initiatives in STEM education programmes (%).

Questions	Yes	No
Does the education curriculum in your country include objectives to promote gender equality in STEM degree choices?	43.8%	56.2%
Do STEM courses’ programmes pay attention to gender equality?	41%	59%
Is training in gender equality in STEM provided to teachers?	15.7%	84.3%
Have you received any training with a gender perspective during your undergraduate studies, postgraduate studies, or lifelong education?	11.9%	88.1%

Table 2. Assessment of gender equality initiatives in STEM education programmes (%).

Questions	Yes	No
Does the education curriculum in your country include objectives to promote gender equality in STEM degree choices?	43.8%	56.2%
Do STEM courses’ programmes pay attention to gender equality?	41%	59%
Is training in gender equality in STEM provided to teachers?	15.7%	84.3%
Have you received any training with a gender perspective during your undergraduate studies, postgraduate studies, or lifelong education?	11.9%	88.1%

The survey responses from teachers reveal substantial cross-country differences in the perceptions of implementation of gender equality measures in STEM education (

Table 3. Significant cross-country differences in gender equality implementation in STEM education.

Variable	Belgium (n = 56)	Italy (n = 50)	Portugal (n = 53)	Romania (n = 51)	χ2 (p-Value)	Significant Comparisons
Curriculum includes gender equality objectives	42.9% Yes	40.0% Yes	69.8% Yes	21.6% Yes	25.12 (<0.001)	PT > BE, IT, RO; RO < BE, IT, PT
STEM courses address gender equality	41.1% Yes	26.0% Yes	67.9% Yes	27.5% Yes	24.41 (<0.001)	PT > BE, IT, RO ***
Teacher training in gender equality	16.1% Yes	8.0% Yes	18.9% Yes	19.6% Yes	3.23 (0.357)	n.s.
Received gender perspective training	23.2% Yes	4.0% Yes	9.4% Yes	9.8% Yes	10.33 (0.016)	BE > IT, PT, RO *
Enrolled in gender equality projects	10.7% Yes	0% Yes	3.8% Yes	7.8% Yes	6.43 (0.093)	n.s.

* significant at 0.05 level and *** significant at 0.001 level.

). Teachers in Portugal report the highest inclusion of gender equality objectives in curricula (69.8%), significantly more than their counterparts in Belgium (42.9%), Italy (40.0%), and Romania (21.6%) (χ²(3) = 25.12, p < 0.001). Similarly, a greater proportion of Portuguese teachers (67.9%) state that their STEM courses address gender equality, compared to those in Belgium (41.1%), Italy (26.0%), and Romania (27.5%) (χ²(3) = 24.41, p < 0.001). No significant differences emerge regarding teacher training in gender equality (χ²(3) = 3.23, p = 0.357). Notably, Belgian teachers more frequently report having received gender perspective training (23.2%), significantly exceeding the reports from Italy (4.0%), Portugal (9.4%), and Romania (9.8%) (χ²(3) = 10.33, p = 0.016). Participation in gender equality projects is low across all countries, with no significant differences detected (χ²(3) = 6.43, p = 0.093).

As these findings rely on self-reported data, the actual implementation of curriculum policies may differ from respondents’ perceptions and answers. Specifically, 69.8% of Portuguese participants reported their national curriculum explicitly incorporates gender equality objectives in STEM curriculum, a proportion significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported by participants in the other surveyed countries. The high proportion of Portuguese teachers indicating that gender equality objectives are included in STEM curricula may, however, reflect a perceptual bias linked to two contextual factors. First, many respondents likely referred to the subject “Citizenship and Development,” which incorporates gender equality as one of its thematic areas throughout compulsory education and, at the secondary level, is addressed via cross-disciplinary projects. Second, this perception may be amplified by the ongoing controversy in Portugal surrounding this subject. Radical right-wing anti-gender groups have repeatedly framed it as promoting “gender ideology,” generating significant political and media visibility. This heightened public discourse may lead some teachers, particularly those with limited training or awareness in gender equality, to overestimate the extent to which gender perspectives are actually integrated into STEM curricula. In the absence of targeted professional development, teachers may absorb and reproduce simplified media narratives, conflating broader citizenship education with genuine mainstreaming of gender equality within STEM education.

In summary, despite variations among the four participating countries, the data make clear that gender equality in STEM teaching and training remains underemphasized. Although 43.8% of teachers report their curricula include gender-related objectives, and 41% note attention to gender equality in STEM courses, a substantial majority (84.3%) said never having received any formal gender equality training specific to STEM. Furthermore, most teachers (88.1%) have never engaged with gender perspectives during their undergraduate, postgraduate, or ongoing professional development. These findings emphasize the need for systematic efforts to embed gender equality objectives into education curricula and, crucially, to translate such objectives into robust training programmes–particularly in STEM fields.

Looking at school actions to develop a gender perspective in STEM global education, it is no surprise that teachers’ answers reveal most of their schools lack systematic measures to integrate a gender perspective in STEM education. Over three-quarters (78.6%) do not celebrate Girls on ICT Day, 82.4% have no equality plan, 81.4% do not engage in gender gap projects, and 80% provide no staff training on gender equality. Notwithstanding, most schools (84.3%) are said to promote safe environments through anti-violence and anti-harassment measures, and 71.9% have had at least one woman as board director, indicating some level of female leadership. Despite limited gender-specific actions, some STEM-focused initiatives do exist: 61.9% of schools partner with external institutions for hands-on learning, and 49.5% maintain robotics, science, or technology clubs. Teacher participation in broader programmes is generally low: only about a quarter have taken part in Erasmus or STEM innovation projects, 12.4% in eTwinning, and just 10.5% in gender equality initiatives.

In sum, the figures in Table 2 instantiate the macro–meso–micro cascade described in Section iterature Review: Structural, Institutional, and Pedagogical Influences on Gender Disparities in STEM: perceived curriculum-level intentions coexist with scarce school-level action and training. This mirrors evidence on policy–practice gaps and on how segregation mechanisms and stereotypes persist without targeted, whole-school and teacher-learning interventions. Consistently with our measurement, PGEE > AEGSE ≈ GSNGI, indicating that endorsement outpaces awareness and de-naturalization (Table 4).

Table 4. Standardized factor loadings for the three-factor exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblimin rotation, and descriptive measures of scale dimensions and items.

	Factor Loadings	M	SD	Min.–Max.
Factor 1: Perceived Gender Equality in Education—PGEE (4 items)
Item 1. “There is no gender discrimination in my school.”	0.66	4.20	1.55	1–6
Item 2. “My classroom materials (e.g., textbooks, images, assignments) represent women and men equally and reflect the diverse needs and experiences of girls and boys.”	0.85	4.55	1.51	1–6
Item 3. “Men and women teachers have equal opportunities for promotion and professional development.”	0.88	4.20	1.55	1–6
Item 4. “Women and men teachers are equally likely to hold leadership positions at school.”	0.75	4.44	1.48	1–6
Factor 2: Awareness of the Effects of Gender Segregation in Education—AEGSE (3 items)
Item 1. “Boys are usually better at STEM subjects, while girls excel in languages.”	0.66	4.50	1.32	1–6
Item 2. “I tend to pay more attention to boys because they are noisier; girls require less attention.”	0.83	1.99	1.20	1–6
Item 3. “Boys are more likely than girls to choose science- and technology-related assignments.”	0.88	2.10	1.16	1–6
Factor 3: Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities in STEM—GSNGI (5 items)
Item 1. “Schools have limited influence over gender discrimination; this must be addressed at home.”	0.69	2.57	1.42	1–6
Item 2. “It is common for teachers to describe high-achieving boys as ‘very intelligent’ and girls as ‘very hard-working.”	0.52	2.35	1.29	1–6
Item 3. “Male STEM teachers can more easily guide students in research or technical projects than female teachers.”	0.58	1.86	1.13	1–6
Item 4. “Boys and girls have preferences for certain areas of study because this is innate in them.”	0.79	1.81	1.00	1–6
Item 5. “Girls prefer science and math classes/subjects to engineering and technologies.”	0.72	2.78	1.56	1–6

Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 4. Standardized factor loadings for the three-factor exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblimin rotation, and descriptive measures of scale dimensions and items.

	Factor Loadings	M	SD	Min.–Max.
Factor 1: Perceived Gender Equality in Education—PGEE (4 items)
Item 1. “There is no gender discrimination in my school.”	0.66	4.20	1.55	1–6
Item 2. “My classroom materials (e.g., textbooks, images, assignments) represent women and men equally and reflect the diverse needs and experiences of girls and boys.”	0.85	4.55	1.51	1–6
Item 3. “Men and women teachers have equal opportunities for promotion and professional development.”	0.88	4.20	1.55	1–6
Item 4. “Women and men teachers are equally likely to hold leadership positions at school.”	0.75	4.44	1.48	1–6
Factor 2: Awareness of the Effects of Gender Segregation in Education—AEGSE (3 items)
Item 1. “Boys are usually better at STEM subjects, while girls excel in languages.”	0.66	4.50	1.32	1–6
Item 2. “I tend to pay more attention to boys because they are noisier; girls require less attention.”	0.83	1.99	1.20	1–6
Item 3. “Boys are more likely than girls to choose science- and technology-related assignments.”	0.88	2.10	1.16	1–6
Factor 3: Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities in STEM—GSNGI (5 items)
Item 1. “Schools have limited influence over gender discrimination; this must be addressed at home.”	0.69	2.57	1.42	1–6
Item 2. “It is common for teachers to describe high-achieving boys as ‘very intelligent’ and girls as ‘very hard-working.”	0.52	2.35	1.29	1–6
Item 3. “Male STEM teachers can more easily guide students in research or technical projects than female teachers.”	0.58	1.86	1.13	1–6
Item 4. “Boys and girls have preferences for certain areas of study because this is innate in them.”	0.79	1.81	1.00	1–6
Item 5. “Girls prefer science and math classes/subjects to engineering and technologies.”	0.72	2.78	1.56	1–6

Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

4.2. Teachers’ Perspectives About Gender Equality in STEM Education: Construct Validity

To assess teachers’ perceptions of gender equality and stereotypes in education, we used 18 items developed by Monteiro et al. (2024b), which were inspired by Merayo and Ayuso (2023). All items were presented on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, with the following options: “strongly disagree, “disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “somewhat agree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”. Through item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, we identified three distinct dimensions, resulting in a refined 12-item scale (Table 4). To conducting the EFA, the data’s suitability for factor analysis was evaluated. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.76, surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.6 (Kaiser 1974). Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett 1954) was statistically significant, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix (χ² = 84,658, p < 0.001).

Overall, results in Table 4 also shows a high degree of perceived gender equality in education (F1: M = 17.7), a relatively high level of gender stereotypes and deterministic beliefs (F3: M = 11.67) and relatively low awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM (F2: M = 5.83).

4.3. Analysis of Gender Perception Differences Among Groups

Table 5. Results of gender perception comparisons across countries.

Variable	Belgium	Italy	Portugal	Romania	ANOVA	Significant Comparisons
PGEE	17.59	13.52	19.08	20.47	F = 29.48 ***	IT < BE, PT, RO; RO > BE, PT
(Gender Equality)	(4.31) #	(4.01)	(3.50)	(3.83)	η2 = 0.30
AEGSE	5.68	4.86	5.45	7.35	F = 8.17 ***	RO > BE, IT, PT
(Awareness)	(2.33)	(2.68)	(2.87)	(2.77)	η2 = 0.11
GSNGI	10.16	9.72	12.17	14.71	F = 17.28 ***	IT < PT, RO; BE < RO
(Stereotypes and Determinism)	(3.62)	(3.85)	(4.22)	(4.03)	η2 = 0.20

*** significant at 0.001 level; ^# Values in parentheses are standard deviations.

reveals significant cross-country differences in gender perceptions between Italy and Romania, with Portugal and Belgium lying in between.

In terms of Perceived Gender Equality in Education (PGEE), Romania shows the highest scores (M = 20.47, SD = 3.83), indicating a strong perception of gender equality in schools, followed by Portugal (M = 19.08, SD = 3.50) and Belgium (M = 17.59, SD = 4.31). Italy shows the least positive perceptions (M = 13.52, SD = 4.01). The ANOVA results are highly significant (F [3.206] = 29.48, p < 0.001, η² = 0.30), with post hoc tests confirming that Romania ranks higher than Belgium and Portugal, while Italy ranks lower than the other three countries. This suggests that Italian teachers stand out in their greater scepticism regarding gender equality in schools, while the teachers in the other three countries perceive schools as more gender-equal.

Regarding awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM, higher scores reflect stronger awareness. Romania scores the highest (M = 7.35, SD = 2.77), indicating higher awareness, while Italian teachers have the weakest (M = 4.86, SD = 2.68). Belgium (M = 5.68, SD = 2.33) and Portugal (M = 5.45, SD = 2.87) fell in between. The ANOVA is significant (F [3.206] = 8.17, p < 0.001, η² = 0.11), confirming that Romanian teachers seem to be more aware of gender segregation effects than teachers in Belgium, Italy, and Portugal.

In terms of Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities in STEM, higher scores indicate stronger stereotypes and/or beliefs in biological determinism. Again, Romania leads the scores (M = 14.71, SD = 4.03), followed by Portugal (M = 12.17, SD = 4.22), and Belgium (M = 10.16, SD = 3.62). Italy (M = 9.72, SD = 3.85) shows the weakest stereotypes and deterministic views. The ANOVA was significant (F [3.206] = 17.28, p < 0.001, η² = 0.20), with post hoc tests indicating that Romania ranks higher than both Belgium and Italy, and Portugal ranked higher than Italy. This suggests that, together with perceiving institutional equality, Romanian respondents seem to have more stereotypical beliefs, being more likely to attribute gender differences to innate factors. Italian teachers seem to be the ones having less stereotypical beliefs.

Summing up, Romanian teachers perceive schools as gender-equal (PGEE↑), but are more aware of the effects of gender segregation in STEM education, and also hold stronger stereotypes and biological deterministic views (↑), reflecting a non recognition of gender inequality in the education system and schools, alongside lingering traditional beliefs. Italian teachers present the opposite pattern with lower perceptions of school equality (PGEE↓), weaker awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM (↓), but lower stereotypes and deterministic views (↓), suggesting lower levels of naturalization of gender inequities in STEM and lower stereotyped attitudes. Portuguese and Belgian teachers are found to lie between Romania and Italy on all three dimensions.

The TPGESE scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency across its three factors, with composite reliability ranging from 0.71 to 0.83. Descriptive results indicate that teachers generally perceive a high level of gender equality in education (F1: M = 17.7), relatively low awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM (F2: M = 5.83), and moderate levels of gender stereotypes and deterministic beliefs (F3: M = 11). Cross-country comparisons reveal distinct patterns: Romanian teachers report the highest perception of gender equality in schools (PGEE: M = 20.47) alongside the strongest awareness of gender segregation effects (M = 7.35), but also hold the highest levels of gender stereotypes and deterministic beliefs (M = 14.71). Italian teachers, by contrast, display the lowest perceptions of gender equality (M = 13.52) and awareness of segregation effects (M = 4.86), as well as the weakest stereotypes and deterministic views (M = 9.72).

After standardizing the three dimensions across countries (

Table 6. Standardization of dimensions.

	Belgium	Italy	Portugal	Romania
PGEE	0.44	0.44	0.53	0.46
AEGSE	0.26	0.24	0.19	0.23
GSNGI	0.3	0.33	0.28	0.31

and Figure 3) (Perceived Gender Equality in Education—PGEE, Awareness of the Effects of Gender Segregation in Education—AEGSE, and Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities—GSNGI), it becomes evident that the patterns are surprisingly similar across Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Romania. In each case, the perceived equality (PGEE) receives scores almost equal to the sum of the other two dimensions combined. This consistency underscores a significant and cross-national paradox between political correctness and experiential reality. The dominance of PGEE can be explained by the following:

4.4. Inter-Correlations with Context and Experience

We constructed two aggregated indices: a context index (sumc1), which reflects institutional conditions (e.g., pedagogical strategies, gender equality plans, symbolic activities, partnerships, leadership, etc.), and an experience index (SumHave), which summarizes teachers’ participation in pedagogical and educational projects (e.g., STEM innovation, gender equality initiatives, Erasmus, eTwinning, and other innovation actions). Examining their correlations with the three outcome variables of interest: perceived gender equity in education (PGEE), awareness of gender segregation in education (AEGSE), and perceptions of gender stereotypes and naturalization (GSNGI), both globally and by country (see

Table 7. Correlations between institutional context (sumc1), professional experience (SumHave) and TPGESE dimensions (PGEE, AEGSE, GSNGI): overall and by country.

		PGEE	AEGSE	GSNGI
All	sumc1	−0.042	−0.032	0.012
	SumHave	−0.208	0.031	−0.204
Belgium	sumc1	0.277 **	0.088	0.209 **
	SumHave	0.172 *	0.205 **	0.074
Italy	sumc1	0.16	0.280 *	0.261
	SumHave	0.302 *	0.283 *	0.155
Portugal	sumc1	0.117	−0.271 *	−0.1
	SumHave	0.057	−0.066	−0.03
Romania	sumc1	−0.091	0.059	−0.031
	SumHave	0.1	0.263	−0.109

Table: Correlations * sig 0.05 and ** sig 0.01.

).

The results indicate that, at the aggregate level, both context and experience show weak but statistically significant associations with PGEE, AEGSE, and GSNGI. However, when disaggregated by country, some differences emerge. In Belgium, the correlations between context and PGEE/GSNGI, as well as between experience and AEGSE, are more consistent and statistically significant. In Italy, both context and experience display moderate associations with GSE and, to some extent, GSNGI. By contrast, in Portugal and Romania, the relationships are weaker and, in some cases, negative or non-significant.

Overall, this suggests that while there is some alignment across the Latin countries (Italy, Portugal, and Romania), the Belgian case stands out as having clearer and more robust associations. Nevertheless, even in cases where significance is reached, the effect sizes remain small, which points to a need for caution in interpretation.

5. Conclusions

This study provides evidence of a gap between perceived and enacted gender equality in STEM education. The tri-dimensional structure of TPGESE—Perceived Gender Equality in Education (PGEE), Awareness of the Effects of Gender Segregation in Education (AEGSE), and Gender Stereotypes and Naturalization of Gender Inequalities in STEM (GSNGI)—shows high declarative support for equality alongside modest critical awareness and persistent stereotypical beliefs. Countries differ in levels and combinations of these dimensions, suggesting that teacher training must grapple with both cognitive and contextual determinants of practice.

After standardizing the scale dimensions, findings revealed a consistent pattern across all countries: PGEE received markedly higher scores, nearly equivalent to the sum of the other two dimensions. This suggests that while teachers affirm gender equality at a declarative level, they may simultaneously hold stereotypical beliefs and exhibit limited critical awareness of structural inequalities in STEM contexts and education.

The apparent contradiction—particularly visible in the Romanian case, where high perceptions of institutional equality coexist with strong endorsement of gendered expectations and deterministic beliefs—points to a formalistic or superficial understanding of equality. Conversely, Italian teachers demonstrated lower perceptions of equality but also expressed fewer stereotypical beliefs, suggesting a more critical and reflexive stance. Portugal and Belgium occupied intermediary positions, reflecting a balance between formal discourse and limited critical engagement. Our findings align with those reported in previous research, particularly the systematic review conducted by Margot and Kettler (2019), which examined teachers’ perceptions of STEM education. Their review identified six key barriers that hinder effective STEM instruction, related to curriculum design, pedagogical approaches, assessment practices, teacher support, student engagement, and broader structural systems. Consistent with our results, they highlighted significant obstacles to implementing interdisciplinary approaches in STEM teaching, especially those concerning teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and the understanding of STEM as well as of gender inequalities within the field. Additional barriers include insufficient teacher preparation and the lack of continuous professional development opportunities. In fact, our results suggest that many STEM teachers either underestimate or are not fully aware of the impact that gender stereotypes and broader cultural norms have on girls’ engagement and gender discrimination in STEM. While most teachers reject overt sexism and believe that gender discrimination is minimal within their schools, a significant portion still attributes girls’ lower participation in STEM primarily to individual choices or innate preferences. This perspective overlooks the strong influence of social and cultural pressures, as well as systemic biases that can discourage girls from pursuing STEM careers. In other words, teachers’ perceptions downplay how deeply rooted stereotypes and external factors can shape girls’ academic identities and career paths, indicating a need for more comprehensive awareness and professional development around gender inclusivity in STEM education.

When examining the inter-correlations between institutional context and professional experience with teachers’ perceptions of gender equity (PGEE), segregation (AEGSE), and discrimination (GSNGI), the results show generally weak but occasionally significant associations. At the aggregate level, both context and experience relate positively to PGEE and AEGSE, although effect sizes remain small. Disaggregated analyses reveal some country-level differences: Belgium shows more consistent and significant associations, while Italy displays moderate links with AEGSE and GSNGI. By contrast, Portugal and Romania present weaker or non-significant patterns, with Portugal even showing some negative associations. These results suggest some similarity across the Latin countries, whereas Belgium stands out with stronger correlations. However, caution is warranted, as our measures of context and experience do not capture the extent or depth of training opportunities, which may differ considerably across national settings. This limitation highlights the need for future research to include more fine-grained measures of professional development and institutional support to better account for cross-country variation. The analysis of the data collected reveals consistent and concerning gaps in the integration of gender equality within STEM education—both in terms of teacher training and institutional practices. While many educators perceive their schools as gender-equal, this perception is not necessarily accompanied by critical awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM or by active engagement in combating persistent stereotypes. The results highlight a paradoxical pattern: the coexistence of formal or rhetorical commitments to equality with a lack of substantive action, reflected in limited training, low project participation, and weak institutional measures. While these cross-country patterns are descriptive, they likely interact with national debates about gender and schooling, warranting careful interpretation and practice-oriented responses. Without attempting a full comparative sociopolitical analysis, we underline that national public debates—e.g., those framed as “gender ideology” in Portugal—can contribute to perceptual inflation of equality claims while leaving everyday pedagogy unchanged. Recognizing this helps to design training and support that are both evidence-based and context-sensitive.

These results underscore the urgent need to move beyond rhetorical or policy-level commitments to gender equality. The persistence of stereotyped thinking and the naturalization of gendered roles in education highlight the importance of investing in deep, transformative teacher training that fosters not only awareness but also reflexivity and pedagogical change. The tri-dimensional structure of the TPGESE scale confirms the complexity of teacher perceptions, revealing a generally high perception of equality (PGEE), low awareness of the effects of gender segregation in STEM education (AEGS), and moderate levels of stereotypical and deterministic beliefs (GSNGI). These findings suggest the need to go beyond declarative inclusion of gender equality objectives in curricula and to invest in comprehensive, hands-on professional development.

In sum, this study contributes to the understanding of how gender biases persist in education systems even under the guise of equality. The findings advocate for a systemic reorientation—from formal declarations of equality to the substantive transformation of beliefs, practices, and institutional structures that shape STEM education. Future research should explore the sociopolitical contexts underlying these patterns and evaluate the impact of targeted interventions on reducing the perception-action gap in gender equality. Although significant differences across countries were identified, the aim of this study was not to conduct a comparative sociopolitical analysis. Such interpretations, while relevant and promising, lie beyond the scope of this work and should be explored in future research. Instead, this study underscores the urgent need for systemic efforts—within and across national contexts—to support educators in developing deeper, more reflexive, and transformative understandings of gender equality in STEM education.

This research highlights a persistent gap between policy and practice (FAWE 2018; Purdy et al. 2023), with many educators lacking training in gender-sensitive pedagogies and holding unconscious biases that influence their pedagogical practices and interactions with students. We therefore can propose a training agenda as bias-resistant and context-aware, aligning with and operationalising the STEMGenderIN Guide’s three-dimensional model (A. school practices; B.1 STEM curriculum; B.2 classroom practices) (Monteiro et al. 2024a). At its core is a short, TPGESE-aligned diagnostic embedded in initial teacher education and continuing professional development to surface perceptions and blind spots, followed by coached feedback on concrete artefacts (lesson plans, worksheets, assessments). Capacity building is organized as stackable micro-credentials that combine gender-bias literacy with STEM-specific didactics and explicit reflection on national policy debates. In classrooms, teachers implement simple participation protocols (equitable turn-taking, randomized cold-calling with think-time, mixed-role groupwork) and conduct curriculum/materials audits to correct representation gaps and foreground women’s contributions across STEM strands. Change is anchored at school level through a whole-school approach, aligning policies, curriculum and culture via gender action plans, anti-harassment codes, transparent reporting channels and leadership accountability; it is then sustained through cross-departmental professional learning communities that review participation and attainment data, rehearse bias-interrupting moves and share adaptations. For immediate uptake, we refer readers to the STEMGenderIN Guide (Monteiro et al. 2024a) and to the project’s mini-trainings1.