You are on page 1of 22

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Existing developments and trends in most societies in the world today render the

patriarchal view as obsolete but the ideology however persists and much of humanity

continues to accept the patterns of gender discrimination ingrained by male- dominated

culture through the centuries (Torres, 2002). Philippine society is dominantly considered

patriarchal. Probably, it became so since male works usually require some Herculean

effort to exert while female tasks require less effort. However, the trend has changed:

men would get into the works of women and vice versa. Females are now seen enrolling

in the engineering courses which are apt for men and males in nursing courses suited for

women.

In school, female stereotypes exist and those women are subject to bias. An

experiment by Porter, Geis, and Walstedt (cited in Myers, 2005) unveiled that in a group,

women tend to be seen as the least contributor of group work in school and men are

viewed as the major contributor of the group. This is very visible in male-dominated

environments such as in some jobs and college majors especially in engineering and the

sciences. Engineering courses are considered to be dominated by males (Leao, Pimentel,

& Rodrigues, 2007). The 2005 survey of the National Statistics Coordination Board

(NSCB) revealed that females compose only 23% engineering students in the country. In

the year 2003, women composed 0.03% of Mechanical engineering board examinees and

43% of them passed the exam. The engineering profession involves construction and
technical skills in machinery which makes it a part of the masculine stereotype. For both

males and females, the decision to become engineers rests upon academic interest as well

as encouragement from teachers, parents, or mentors (Cech, 2005). It shows no gender

differences in terms of choosing engineering as a major. For women, pursuing

engineering as a major means that she believes she can handle any situation in that area

of study, so having an adequate status of math self-efficacy are valid predictors why

women take engineering courses. Before women could choose engineering as a major in

college; it is still regarded as a predominantly male area of study, so females now are

faced with the stereotyping and also bias. The effects of stereotyping and gender bias

influence young women and men before they enter college, thus creating differences in

expectations and choices (Brannon, 1999). Women are more likely to major in nursing or

education and men are more likely to major in engineering or computer science. Filipino

parents embed these stereotypes through gender socializations in early childhood. Female

adolescents in the Philippines believe that masculine traits should not be barred for the

female sex and they also affirm the current trend that the roles of men and women are

changing nowadays (Liwag, de la Cruz, & Macapagal, 1998).

While both men and women report a generally positive campus climate, women

experience more feelings of gender bias (Fischer & Good as cited in Brannon, 1999).

This is because there is a stereotype that females are not good in math and even dislikes

math (Brannon, 1999). They have to face stereotype threat wherein there is the fear of

confirming a negative stereotype about them which also affects academic performance

based on numerous studies on stereotype threat. Also, self-efficacy has been previously

studied as a mediator of stereotype threat affecting performance but having disproved,


2
self-efficacy has been recognized consistently as a predictor of academic performance.

This study is essential in supporting the relationship of stereotype threat and academic

performance in the country, and also in providing another perspective on self-efficacy

affecting academic performance with the presence of stereotype threat on female

engineering students.

A Review of Related Literature

This section deals with the literature and researches that are relevant to the topic

under study. The readings are organized and arranged according to the following topics:

1) Stereotype Threat, 2) Self-efficacy, and 3) Academic Performance.

Stereotype Threat

Primary researches of Steele and Aronson (1995) discovered how stereotype

threat impairs the test performance of the threatened group associated with a negative

stereotype. For instance, prior to taking an exam, women who are stereotyped as poor in

math tend to perform worse than men. This is supported by “Spencer, Steele, and Quinn’s

(1999) experiment on women’s math performance wherein their scores on a test

significantly lowered when the test is described to them as producing gender differences,

but when the test is described as not producing gender differences, women performed

equally with men.” Generally, stereotype threat disrupts the academic performance of the

affected group. It even extends to female engineering students in affecting their

engineering exams (Bell & Spencer, 2002). This threat depresses the test performance of

3
not only women but also African Americans who are vulnerable to math stereotypes

(Steele, 1997).

There is evidence on how stereotyping affects one’s performance. Schmader and

Johns (2003) tackled this and explained that when the group stereotypes have been

activated or put into the consciousness to the females in their experiment, some amount

of working memory capacity is being devoted to screen out this information. It depletes

their cognitive resources thus inhibiting normal performance like for example; a woman

takes a challenging exam and diverts her attentional capacity from the exam which in turn

she loses her focus away from the test. Also, emotional responses were measured by

Marx and Stapel (2006) and concluded that for those students under threat, they

experienced heightened anxiety before taking the test and heightened their frustration

after the test. Although feelings of anxiety are not convincingly related to the

performance, frustration is negatively correlated with test performance. Higher levels of

frustration results to lower academic performance but higher anxiety does not necessarily

result to lower performance. No changes in emotions were exhibited by individuals not

under stereotype threat as well. Marx and Stapel’s (2006) study showed that stereotype

threat does produce emotional consequences and that these emotions change over time.

Recent researches on stereotype threat explored further on this phenomenon.

Wout, Jackson, Sellers, and Shih (2009) explained that the group under threat determine

whether the threat exists by assessing both the possibility and the probability that they

will be negatively stereotyped. Women assess the possibility of being stereotyped so they

can determine whether their social setting is where they could be stereotyped while they

4
assess the probability to determine the likelihood that others on that social setting will

apply the stereotype to them (Wout et al., 2009). If both do not exist, females or African

American students in math contexts will not suffer from this apprehension.

For Brown and Pinel (2003), the stereotype will be effective if the there is the

constant awareness of one’s stigmatized status or termed as stigma consciousness.

Stereotype threat covaries with stigma consciousness. Women who have high stigma

consciousness were effectively disturbed by the threat and created underperformance.

They also believe they cannot escape their stereotyped status. On the contrary,

individuals low in stigma consciousness, although aware of stereotypes about their group,

would downplay that their stereotyped status just normally plays a role in their daily

interactions with other people (Mosley, 2007). Stigma consciousness does not only mean

awareness but also being focused on the threat of their stereotyped group. Mosley (2007)

further elaborated:

“Stigma consciousness levels can be linked to the existence of

stereotype threat characterized as a social-psychological threat,

stereotype threat occurs when one is at risk for being negatively

stereotyped, being judged or treated in a stereotyped manner, or

anticipating the possibility of fulfilling a negative stereotype (Steele,

1997). Basically, the feeling occurs when individuals fear that they will

confirm a negative stereotype about their group. Individuals high in

stigma consciousness are especially susceptible to perceived stereotype

threat”.

Some of the common inducements of stereotype threat in experiments are through

messages that a test is evaluative of ability or it yields gender differences. In the case of
5
minority groups, Steele and Aronson (1995) had African-American college students

indicate their race on a test-booklet before taking a test. They found that merely asking

participants to indicate their race caused Black students’ anxiety to increase and their test

scores to drop, even though the test had been described as not evaluative of ability.

Among female engineers, interacting with sexist men creates stereotype threat (Logel,

Hoppel, Iserman, Spencer, & Walton, 2009). People use interpersonal interactions

everyday as a key source of information about their social identity and women get

behavioural cues from them.

Being in the minority also creates this threat. Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev (2000)

described studies in which individuals performed tests in groups where the gender

composition was varied. Women showed performance decrements on math tests where

there exists a stereotype of female inferiority but only when they took the test in the

presence of other men, and performance decreased in proportion to the number of fellow

male test-takers. Moreover, females in male-dominated academic fields were more likely

to report more gender discrimination, expected more future discrimination, and perceived

more stereotype threat than did women in majors not dominated by men ( Steele, James,

& Barnett, 2002). It reduced the feeling of belongingness of women, and created dis-

identification with math or worse, their college major. Dis-identification causes one to

cease believing that she is a “math person” so performing badly in math and having little

desire to change her self-view, is part of their coping mechanisms. There are ways we can

minimize this threat as elaborated by Rydell, Beilock, and McConnell (2009):

“Providing alternative social identity associated with a positive

stereotype about math ability (i.e. college students are good at math) at
6
the same time as presenting a social identity with a negative stereotype

about (i.e. women are bad at math) eliminated stereotype threat effects.

Women retained their working memory capacity when given an

opportunity to identify with multiple social categories and tend to adopt

those that promote a positive self.”

Stereotype threat is an important societal issue. Organizations need to exert effort

to reduce the effects of stereotype threat by reducing the level of prejudice in the

environment and by changing the aspects of the task environment to combat it. (Grimm,

Baldwin, Maddox,& Markman, 2009). For instance, removing gender-sensitive

questions in exams and promote gender indifferences in domains where one gender or

group dominates another. In the Philippines, it is sad to note that there is little research

regarding stereotype threat and its effects to Filipino women in schools and especially in

engineering majors.

Self-Efficacy

Women are generally the minority in engineering classrooms, so a strong sense of

self-efficacy can help them persist in their engineering majors. In the longitudinal study

of Marra and Bogue (2006) on female engineering students from 1st year to consecutive

years, those women have high self-efficacy to be confident before taking up engineering

as a course in college. But as they enter the 1st year, their self-efficacy suffers and

significantly lowered. As they progress through each year, their self-efficacy eventually

increases minimally but it never returned to its original state before they entered their

major. In the U.S., self-efficacy did not vary by school they are enrolled in and even

though self-efficacy partially increases in subsequent years in college, there is still no


7
significant differences that self-efficacy convincingly changed by year (Marra & Bogue,

2006).

Self-efficacy is also a predictor of academic performance based on studies on

education. It is mentioned earlier that before women chose engineering as a major, they

had high self-efficacy in that engineering domain. Pietsch, Walker, and Chapman (2003)

proved that high self-efficacy in high school results to better performance of tasks.

Specifically, math self-efficacy or the positive confidence in math is highly related to

future performance in mathematics. Self-efficacy is again predictive of positive math

problem solving ability. (Pajares & Miller, 1994). For example, if one has high self-

efficacy, one may perform well in an exam on math problems and therefore elevates

academic performance. For Mosley and Rosenberg (2007) research on African American

female students, greater self-efficacy is still also associated with higher academic

performance. Another finding of theirs is that self-efficacy decreases as consciousness of

a stereotype about them increases. Greater stereotype threat consciousness decreases self-

efficacy which in turn depresses academic performance.

In the Philippine context, Filipino college students’ confidence in their own

abilities implies that these students create achievable and realistic goals (Magno &

Lajom, 2008). They think they can perform satisfactorily in engineering but with regards

to exams or grades, it is a different matter. It is because Bernardo (2003) claimed that the

Filipino youths believed in innate abilities and finishing college is important but those

young adults prefer to do less academic work whenever possible. They assume that

education is important but exams are not necessary in achieving their long-term goals.

8
Academic Performance

There is a stereotype that girls and women dislike math and do poorly in the

subject. However, differences in mathematics performance and attitudes towards

mathematics show small gender difference (Brannon, 1999). This stereotype is the

underlying basis for the biased treatment of girls and women regarding mathematical

ability they receive from their peer, parents, and teachers.

Stereotype threat has also been found among women in math classes. In one study

by Spencer and his colleagues as cited in Franzoi (2006), found out that when a difficult

math test was described as exhibiting gender differences which is men outperforming

women, women did indeed outperform. On the other hand, when the test was described

as exhibiting no gender differences, women’s underperformance disappeared. In this

case, it is evident that stereotype threat really affects math performance as part of the

academic performance.

On the other hand, Gumban as cited in Torres (2002) studied the associations

between high school subject area averages, scores on the College Entrance Test

(prototype of the National College Entrance Exam) and the academic achievement of

male and female freshmen. The study is conducted to know if gender differences really

exist in the high school performance and college entrance test on their college

achievement. He found out that these measures predicted female achievement in

mathematics and English with greater precision than corresponding achievement.

However, the overall college achievement of student was predicted equally for both sexes

well by the College Entrance Test and high school performance for both sexes.

9
Furthermore, Chen, Owusu-Ofori, Pai, Toca-McDowell, Wang and Waters (1996)

studied the academic performance of female mechanical engineering in North Carolina

A&T State University (NCA&T). Interestingly, they found out that female undergraduate

engineering students performed better than their male counterparts, contrary to all

previous studies of gender differences in engineering academic performance. The exact

reason for their finding is not known, they speculate that any combination of several

explanations is responsible. These speculations are “(1) the better preparation of the

entering female students for college and engineering studies, (2) the relatively high

proportion of females in mechanical engineering at NCA&T, which provides a more

supportive atmosphere for the female students, and (3) the self confidence of the female

students in their skills and abilities.” (Chen et al., 1996)

Synthesis

Of all the literature mentioned, it is valid to claim that the presence of stereotype

impedes test performance of the threatened group. One study mentioned about how

stereotype threat affects a task. Through cognition, these beliefs about one’s stereotype as

a member of a stigmatized group deplete memory and attention capacity on the current

task being done. In their experiments, they activate stereotype threat through emphasizing

their gender or race. Another is through interacting with sexist men or simply just being a

minority in a classroom. In minimizing stereotype threat, having an alternate social

identity in mind helps alleviate task performance as well as removing gender-sensitive

statements in the classroom.

10
Self-efficacy is also a predictor of academic performance. Before entering

college, females who plan to take up engineering initially have high self-efficacy, but it

generally weakens when they are already in school. A study stated that females who have

high self-efficacy turned out to have better performance compared to those who have

lower self-efficacy. In relation with stereotype threat, being highly conscious about one’s

stereotype reduces positive self-confidence or self-efficacy which also results to poorer

performance. For Filipino college students, they believe that education is important but

they also avoid exams as much as possible because they also believe that it is not

necessary.

Finally, the academic performance of female engineering students disregarding

stereotype threat and self-efficacy was studied at NCA&T. This research emphasized that

their academic performance is better than their male peers. It is because there are more

females than males in that setting, high confidence and better preparation of those female

engineering students specifically in mathematics contrary to females who have low self-

confidence and under minority.

Conceptual Framework

Stereotype Threat

From research on stereotypes, strong gender stereotypes exist and often members

of the stereotyped group accept these stereotypes (Myers, 2005). Stereotypes reflect our

cultural beliefs. These are easily recognized descriptions of members of a particular

group (Aronson, 1999). For example, we all know the stereotype of a policewoman or
11
the overemotional female. Even if we do not believe in these stereotypes, we can easily

recognize them as common beliefs. In children, it can help in understanding different

kinds of people by attaching characteristic beliefs on to them (Brannon, 1999). In the case

for negative stereotypes, it may have negative effects. A member of the stigmatized

group responds to negative stereotypes respond by developing an oppositional identity

(Franzoi, 2006). It is an identity based on opposition to the dominant culture and has both

positive and negative consequences. Franzoi (2006) claimed that positively, it helps them

cope with the hostile environment by not losing self-esteem while negatively; it can

constrict their personal social identity. For instance, women who take up engineering

courses may be described by other females as overconfident.

In addition to the problem posed by oppositional identities in minorities, students

enrolled in male-dominated courses in college have a problem representing their gender

(Franzoi, 2006). Steele and Aronson (1995) suggest that they are targeted with the

stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is defined by Steele and Aronson (1995) refers to

being at risk of confirming, a self-characteristic, and a negative stereotype about one’s

group. The clear consequence of stereotype threat is decreased performance. The reason

that performance suffers is still under debate (Stroessner & Good, 2009). Research has

shown that factors such as anxiety, physiological arousal, and reduced cognitive capacity

can all occur under stereotype threat, and each factor might contribute to lowered

performance. Working memory is claimed to have been the mechanism in disrupting

academic performance. According to Stroessner and Good (2009), the threat is

undermining the ability to meet the information-processing requirements of complex

intellectual tasks. Moreover, those who are vulnerable to stereotype threat is not only
12
being a member of a group but also what Pinel (1999) calls “Stigma consciousness”; the

chronic awareness and expectation of one's stigmatized status. The more you are

conscious of perceived stereotypes, the more you are vulnerable and affected by the

threat.

Situations that lead to this threat is being in minority and also, identities can

become threatened when stereotypes are invoked, either obviously or subtly, in the

performance environment (Stroessner & Good, 2009). For example, bad performance of

women compared to men in an engineering exam leads to the activation of stereotypes,

thus threat inhibits future performance. In reducing this threat, changing the description

of the task to be done by removing gender-sensitive statements in examination is one

way. Another is on providing role models in their particular threatened group and

encouraging them to focus on their individual skills and abilities (Stroessner & Good,

2009). There are still unanswered issues on stereotype threat since it is a relatively new

concept. Stroessner and Good (2009) emphasized that there is still not really

generalizable data to real-world settings. Most studies rely on college-student samples,

and whether there are different kinds of stereotype threat exists. For instance, if positive

stereotypes can also be activated, it may boost task performance as well.

Self- Efficacy

Individuals have a sense of confidence regarding performance of specific tasks or

self- efficacy in learning. Self- efficacy can be influenced by factors such as student

abilities, prior experiences and attitudes towards learning, as well as by instructional and

social factors (Bandura, 1997; Chu, 2001).

13
Self- efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of

action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997). A person’s sense of self-

efficacy influences his or her perceptions, motivation, and performance in many ways.

Self- efficacy is important in a person’s life.

Beyond actual accomplishments there are three sources of information’s for self-

efficacy judgments and these are vicarious experience, persuasion and monitoring of

one’s emotional arousal as he or she think about or approach a task. Vicarious learning is

the observations of the performance of other people, persuasion is how others convince

the person what he or she can do or how that person can convince his or her self and

monitoring of one’s emotional arousal as he or she thinks about or approach a task is the

expectations of one’s efficacy and success (Bandura, 1997).

According to Bandura, Cervone, and Schwarzer (as cited in Gerrig & Zimbardo,

2002), self efficacy judgments influence how much effort a person expend and how long

he or she persist when faced with a difficulty in a wide range of life situations. How

vigorously and persistently a person studies his or her lessons may depend on his or her

sense of self – efficacy than an actual ability. The expectations of outcome which is

success or failure can be influenced by the feedback from performance. (Zimmerman as

cited in Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002).

Bandura’s theory of self- efficacy also acknowledges the importance of the

environment. Expectations of failure or success and corresponding decisions to stop or to

persevere may be based on perceptions or unsupportivenesss of the environment that adds

14
up to the perception’s of one’s own adequacy or inadequacy. Such outcomes are called

outcome based expectancies (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002).

In outcome based expectancies, behavioral outcomes depend both on people’s

perceptions of their own abilities and their perceptions of the environment (Gerrig &

Zimbardo, 2002).

In addition, an optimistic belief in one’s own competence and effectiveness leads

to a positive outcome. According to Myers (2005), children and adults with strong

feelings of self- efficacy are more persistent, less anxious and less depressed. He also

stated that these people also live healthier lives and are more academically successful.

Academic Performance

According to Ren (2001), academic performance can be interpreted as the amount

of what a student learned. It is a function of the amount of time that a student spent in

learning over the amount of time that the student needs to learn what were being taught.

The time spent by the student is influenced by opportunities and perseverance of the

student. Opportunities include official time scheduled for learning and the time allotted

by teachers to learning, and the instructional programs. Perseverance is the amount of

time the student is willing to engage actively in learning especially when task turned out

to be difficult.

Academic performance and learning can be essentially distinguished from each

other by a thin line. According to Brophy and Good as cited by Bugna and Reyes (2000),

learning refers to the information processing, sense making and advances in

15
comprehension or mastery that occur while one is acquiring knowledge or skill. On the

other hand, they defined performance as the demonstration or execution of a particular

skill after it has been acquired.

According to Zimmerman as cited in Mc Combs (1998), school learning and

performance are enhanced through training in self- regulation strategies such as

monitoring one’s comprehension while learning and performance goals and controlling

negative emotions. Zimmerman argued that students should be given choice and control

in crucial dimensions of learning such as: 1). the psychological aspect of self- regulation

found in the goals and motives for learning (the “why” dimension), 2).the method of

learning (the “how” dimension), 3).the performance outcome to achieve (the “what”

dimension), and 4).the physical and social environment which they learn (the “where

dimension”). Evidence shows that student motivation, learning, and performance are

enhanced when students are given choices in the aforementioned dimension.

(Zimmerman as cited in Mc Combs, 1998).

Furthermore, Orstein as cited in Mc Combs (1998) emphasized that good teaching

and teachers are vital in those activities or practices that foster motivation and

engagement in learning. He also cited of researches which showed that people perform

best when feel valued and respected, when they can actualize their own strengths, and

when they are aided to take control of their learning and their lives.

In the academic setting, self- efficacy are especially common in educational

research because the criteria outcome tasks such as semester grades or achievement test

results that are often used to lend themselves to self- efficacy assessment. (Pajares, 1996).

16
Moreover researchers have demonstrated that self- efficacy perceptions are also good

predictors of reasonable generalized performance such as obtained grades. (Bandura,

1997).

The academic performance of a person also depends on the personality types of a

person. Myers and McCaulley as cited in Burger (2000) developed a measure for

personality and this is the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator. This test is used widely by

counselors in helping their patients find a suitable career based on the results of the test.

The attitudes that are measured on the test are the extraversion and introversion. Based on

this indicator, an extravert will enjoy long hours interacting with people while an

introvert will be happy doing things alone for a long time. However, the Myers-Briggs

test constructors argue that introversion helps academic performance because advance

learning requires people o deal with concepts and ideas that introverts are suited for

(Myers & McCaulley as cited in Burger, 2002).

There are also concepts on Type A- Type B behavior patterns that affects on

academic performance. According to Burger (2000), typical Type A people are strongly

motivated to overcome obstacles and driven to achieve and meet goals. On the other

hand, she stated that Type B people are relaxed and unhurried and they may work hard on

occasion but rarely in the compulsive driven manner of Type A people. Many studies are

conducted to know the academic performance of Type A- Type B students. According to

Glass as cited in Burger (2000), type A students received more academic honors and

participated in more extracurricular activities than type B students. Furthermore, he stated

that Type A students participated in more sports, received more athletic awards, and

17

Stereotype Threat
High, Low
participated in more social activities than Type B students. Type A students tend to take

more credit hours of classes than type B students and expect to do better in those classes.

Academic Performance
Grade Point Average

Excellent, Outstanding, Very


Good, Good, Fair/Passing,
Conditional Failure, Failure

Self-Efficacy
High, Low

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of the variables in the research

Statement of the Problem


Female Engineering Student
Age
This study describes the stereotype threat,
Engineering Major
Year Level self-efficacy, and academic performance of female
Marital Status engineering major students in Iloilo City. It also
Place went to high school
relates stereotype threat to academic performance.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the level of stereotype threat vulnerability of female engineering

students?

18
2. What is the level of self-efficacy of female engineering students?

3. What is the level of academic performance of female engineering students?

4. How related is stereotype threat vulnerability to academic performance of female

engineering students?

5. How related is self-efficacy to academic performance of female engineering

students?

6. How related is stereotype threat vulnerability to self-efficacy of female

engineering students?

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are the following:

1. To determine the level of stereotype threat vulnerability of female engineering

students.

2. To describe the level of self-efficacy of female engineering students.

3. To determine the level of academic performance of female engineering students.

4. To explore the relationship of stereotype threat vulnerability to academic

performance of female engineering students.

5. To explore the relationship of self-efficacy to academic performance of female

engineering students.
19
6. To explore the relationship between stereotype threat vulnerability to self-efficacy

of female engineering students.

Definition of Terms

A. Conceptual Definition of Terms

Academic Performance - how well a student meets standards set out by local

government and the institution itself (Belle, n.d.)

Self-efficacy – is the belief that one can perform adequately in a particular

situation (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2002)

Stereotype Threat – a self-confirming apprehension that one will be evaluated

based on a negative stereotype (Myers, 2005)

B. Operational Definition of Terms

Academic Performance – the grade point average for the 1st semester of school

year 2009-2010

Self-efficacy – the score obtained by the respondent from the 10-item General

Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) with a 4 point response format ranging from “Not at all

true” to “Exactly true”

Stereotype Threat Vulnerability – the score obtained by the respondent from the

10-item Stigma Consciousness Scale with a 7-point response format ranging from

“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

20
Female Engineering Student – A college undergraduate student majoring in

Electronics, Electrical, Mechanical, and Marine Engineering in Western Visayas

College of Science and Technology (WVCST).

Significance of the Study

This study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this

study provides additional literature in the field of gender psychology and helps in

understanding the experience of female engineering students in the Philippines. Being a

male-dominated course, females who enrolled in this area may have been stigmatized and

it investigates whether they are vulnerable to it. Also, this supports the external validity

of previous experimental studies on stereotype threat, self-efficacy, and academic

performance of women.

Practically, this serves as an eye-opener for Filipino women planning to major in

engineering courses. They will have the knowledge if stereotypes about them affect their

academics. Lastly, the school and the advocates of gender equality will be aware of this

phenomenon and therefore, they can make efforts in taking action on this fact.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The focus of the study is exclusively on female engineering students in WVCST.

Age range is from 16 to 23 years old and 1st to 5th year regular students in the university.

Research only utilized scales and a profile questionnaire.

Although mainly descriptive, this study relates the variables stereotype threat and

self-efficacy to academic performance. It does not explain why such relationship occurs

21
or what mediates them and applies only to female engineering students in the

aforementioned school. The findings of this study do not reflect the actual academic

performance of the school and this study is not about or does not represent the school.

Female Engineering students and the variables mentioned are what this research tackles.

The lack of time resource especially in the duration of survey approval led the researchers

to focus in one school rather than a comprehensive study of schools in Iloilo City of

female engineering students. Grades as a measure of academic performance may have

been affected by the subjects taken by each year levels and varies by courses. The 1st

semester grades 2009-2010 of some respondents especially the higher years were not

available so the latest available semester grades were used instead.

22