Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Gender Advantages and Gender Normality in the Views of Estonian Secondary School Students Cover

Gender Advantages and Gender Normality in the Views of Estonian Secondary School Students

By:  and    
Open Access
|Nov 2015

References

  1. Ainsaar, M., Soo, K., & Laur, T. (2010). Naiselikkuse ja mehelikkuse seos isikuoma-dustega 16–19-aastaste Eesti noorte seas [The relationship between femininity, masculinity and personal characteristics among 16–19-year-old Estonian youth].,, 57–74.
  2. Antikainen, A., Rinne, R., & Koski, L. (2009).[Educational sociology]. (M. Vinkel, Trans.) Tallinna Ülikool. (Original work published 2006).
  3. Beauvoir de, S. (1997).[The second sex]. (M. Mauer & A. Tõnnov, Trans.) Vagabund. (Original work published 1949).
  4. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990).London: Sage Publications.
  5. Connell, R.W. (2005).(2ed.). Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  6. Davies, B. (2006). Subjectification: the relevance of Butler’s analysis for education.(4), 425–438, DOI:10.1080/01425690600802907
  7. Härkönen, U. (2004). Work education for sustainable development (WESD) in curricula and in the systems model. In Anneli and Marika Veisson (Eds.)(pp. 26–42). Tallinn Pedagogical University. Tallinn: TPŪ Kirjastus.
  8. Holm, A. S. (2010). Gender patterns and student agency: Secondary school students’ perceptions over time.(2), 257–268.
  9. Huhta, L., & Meriläinen, R. (2008).[The rebellion of the good ones]. Helsinki: Edita.
  10. Johnsson-Latham, G. (2007).Report to the Environment Advisory Council, Sweden.
  11. Kenway, J., & Fitzclarence, L. (2011). Masculinity, violence and schooling: Challenging “Poisonous pedagogies”. In C. Skelton and B. Francis (Eds).. London and New York: Routledge.
  12. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Three basic methods of qualitative text analysis. In. (pp. 65–121). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI:
  13. Kuurme, T., Kasemaa, G., & Roots E-M. (2013). Poiste ja tüdrukute peab-pedagoogika [The must-do-pedagogy of boys and girls] In Ü-M. Papp (Ed.)s [Students or boys and girls? A study on the readiness of teachers and educational specialists in Estonia for gender sensitive education and teaching] (pp. 59–88). Tallinn.
  14. Liljander, P. (2012) Pierre Bourdieu. Koulutus, symbolinen väkivalta ja yhteiskunnallinen eriarvoisuus [Education, symbolic violence and societal differences in value positions]. In[Developments in educational sociology]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
  15. Lips, H.M. (1991).. California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
  16. Paechter, C. (2007).. NY: Open University Press.
  17. Papp, Ü-M. (Ed.). (2013).s [Students or boys and girls? A study on the readiness of teachers and educational specialists in Estonia for gender sensitive education and teaching]. Tallinn.
  18. Plicher, J., & Whelehan, I. (2004).. London: Sage Publication.
  19. Praxis report (2014).? Presentation by Praxis on Dec 17.
  20. Rajakaltio, H. (2011). Moninaisuus yhtenäisyydessä. Peruskoulu muutosten ristipaineissa [Diversity in coherence – comprehensive school in the cross-pressure of change]. Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis.
  21. Rehbein, B. (2006).[The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu]. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
  22. Riddell, S. (1989). Pupils, resistance and gender codes: a study of classroom encounters.(2), 183–197.
  23. Saarinen, J., Ojala, H., & Palmu, T. (2014) Mikä ihmeen feministinen pedagogiikka? [What is feminist pedagogy?] In J. Saarinen, H. Ojala, T. Palmu (Eds.)[On differences and dangerous relationships. Conversations about feminist pedagogy]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.
  24. Salminen, J. (2012).[The devilish dilemmas of the school]. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö teos.
  25. Skelton, C., & Francis, B. (2001). Endnotes. Gender, school policies and practices. In B. Francis and C. Skelton (Eds.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
  26. Soo, K., & Kutsar, D. (2012). Mehelikkuse tüpiseerimine noormeeste enesehinnangute, soorolliga rahulolu ja seksuaalkäitumise järgi [The typification of masculinity based on young men’s self-assessment, satistifaction with the gender role and sexual behaviour].,, 19–34.
  27. Tilbury, D. (2011)..UNESCO.
  28. Wiens, K. (2006). The new gender gap: what went wrong?, 3, 11–27.
  29. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Youdell, D. (2011).. London & New York: Routledge.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2015-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2255-7547 | Journal ISSN: 1691-6301 (formerly 2255-7547)
Language: English
Page range: 72 - 85
Published on: Nov 24, 2015
Published by: Daugavpils University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2015 Tiiu Kuurme, Gertrud Kasemaa, published by Daugavpils University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.