Demographic Profile

Age f %

17 - 19 29 41.43

20 - 22 41 58.57

Total 70 100.00

Distribution of Respondents by Age

70.00

60.00 58.57

50.00
41.43
40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
17 - 19 20 - 22
 Sex f %

Male 35 50.00

Female 35 50.00

Total 70 100.00

Distribution of Respondents by Sex

60.00

50.00 50.00
50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Male Female
 Year Level f %

1st year 30 42.86

2nd year 20 28.57

3rd year 10 14.29

Irregular 10 14.29

Total 70 100.00

Distribution of Respondents by Year Level

50.00
45.00 42.86
40.00
35.00
30.00 28.57

25.00
20.00
14.29 14.29
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
1st year 2nd year 3rd year Irregular

Attitude of the students on gender-fair language

Belief in sexist language
Weighted Verbal
Statement/ Question Scale f %
Mean Interpretation

5 4 5.71

4 17 24.29
1. Women who think that
being called a ‘chairman’ 3 25 35.71
is sexist are 2.93 Neutral
misinterpreting the word 2 18 25.71
‘chairman.
1 6 8.57

Total 70 100.00

5 9 12.86

4 18 25.71
2. We should not change
the way the English 3 13 18.57
language has 3.03 Neutral
traditionally been written 2 26 37.14
and spoken.
1 4 5.71

Total 70 100.00

5 8 11.43

4 22 31.43

3. Worrying about sexist 3 11 15.71

language is a trivial 2.90 Neutral
activity 2 13 18.57

1 16 22.86

Total 70 100.00

5 3 4.29
4. If the original meaning
of the word ‘he’ was
4 12 17.14
‘person’, we should
2.24 Disagree
continue to use ‘he’ to
3 4 5.71
refer to both males and
females today
2 31 44.29
 1 20 28.57

Total 70 100.00

5 10 14.29

4 27 38.57
5. When people use the
term ‘man and wife’ the 3 17 24.29
expression is not sexist 3.39 Neutral
if the users don’t mean it 2 12 17.14
to be
1 4 5.71

Total 70 100.00

5 8 11.43

4 20 28.57
6. The English language
3 14 20.00
will never be changed
3.06 Neutral
because it is too deeply
2 24 34.29
ingrained in the culture?
1 4 5.71

Total 70 100.00

5 11 15.71
7. When teachers talk 4 33 47.14
about the history of the
Philippines, they should
3 15 21.43
change expressions,
3.60 Agree
such as “our
2 9 12.86
forefathers,” to
expressions that include
women 1 2 2.86

Total 70 100.00

5 15 21.43
8. Teachers who require
students to use
4 25 35.71
nonsexist language are
3.57 Agree
unfairly forcing their
3 15 21.43
political views upon their
students*
2 15 21.43
 1 0 0.00

Total 70 100.00

5 27 38.57
9. Most publication 4 31 44.29
guidelines require
newspaper writers to
3 11 15.71
avoid using ethnic and
4.20 Strongly Agree
racial slurs. So, these
2 1 1.43
guidelines should also
require writers to avoid
sexist language 1 0 0.00

Total 70 100.00

5 39 55.71

4 23 32.86
10. Although change is
3 6 8.57
difficult, we still should
4.40 Strongly Agree
try to eliminate sexist
2 1 1.43
language
1 1 1.43

Total 70 100.00

Overall 3.33 Neutral

Legend of the Verbal Interpretation of the Weighted Mean:

1.00 to 1.79 Strongly Disagree

1.80 to 2.59 Disagree
2.60 to 3.39 Neutral
3.40 to 4.19 Agree
4.20 to 5.00 Strongly Agree

Recognition of sexist language

 Weighted Verbal
Statement/ Question Scale f %
Mean Interpretation
 5 6 8.57

4 17 24.29

1.People should care 3 9 12.86

about all mankind, not 2.64 Undecided
just themselves 2 22 31.43

1 16 22.86

Total 70 100.00

5 9 12.86

4 22 31.43

2. The belief that frogs 3 22 31.43

will give you warts is just 3.24 Undecided
an old wives’ tale 2 11 15.71

1 6 8.57

Total 70 100.00

5 14 20.00

4 20 28.57

3. If a child wants to play 3 11 15.71

the piano well, he must 3.16 Undecided
practice hard 2 13 18.57

1 12 17.14

Total 70 100.00

5 2 2.86

4 4 5.71

3 3 4.29
4. A man should lead a
1.46 Not At All
country*
2 6 8.57

1 55 78.57

Total 70 100.00
 5 0 0.00

4 3 4.29

5. In mercury drug store 3 4 5.71

only women could work 1.41 Not At All
in the cashier* 2 12 17.14

1 51 72.86

Total 70 100.00
Probably Not
Overall 2.38
Sexist
Legend of the Verbal Interpretation of the Weighted Mean:

1.00 to 1.79 Not At All

1.80 to 2.59 Probably Not Sexist
2.60 to 3.39 Undecided
3.40 to 4.19 Somewhat Sexist
4.20 to 5.00 Definitely Sexist

Willingness to use gender-fair language

Weighted Verbal
Statement/ Question Scale f %
Mean Interpretation
 5 21 30.00

4 23 32.86
1. When you are
referring to a married
3 8 11.43
woman, how willing are
3.61 Somewhat willing
you to use the title“Ms.
2 14 20.00
Smith” rather than “Mrs.
Smith”?
1 4 5.71

Total 70 100.00

5 37 52.86

4 22 31.43
2. How willing are you to
3 3 4.29
use the word “server”
4.24 Very Willing
rather than “waiter” or
2 7 10.00
“waitress”?
1 1 1.43

Total 70 100.00

5 47 67.14

4 14 20.00
3. How willing are you to
use the expression 3 6 8.57
“husband and wife” 4.50 Very Willing
rather than “man and 2 3 4.29
wife”?
1 0 0.00

Total 70 100.00

5 43 61.43

4 20 28.57
4. How willing are you to
3 4 5.71
use the term “camera
4.47 Very Willing
operator” rather than
2 3 4.29
“cameraman”?
1 0 0.00

Total 70 100.00
 5 49 70.00

4 16 22.86
5. How willing are you
to use the title “flight 3 3 4.29
attendant” instead of 4.59 Very Willing
“steward” or 2 1 1.43
“stewardess”?
1 1 1.43

Total 70 100.00

Overall 4.28 Very Willing

Legend of the Verbal Interpretation of the Weighted Mean:

1.00 to 1.79 Very Unwilling

1.80 to 2.59 Reluctant
2.60 to 3.39 Undecided
3.40 to 4.19 Somewhat willing
4.20 to 5.00 Very Willing

Summary
Weighted Verbal
Category
Mean Interpretation
Belief in sexist language 3.33 Neutral
 Probably Not
Recognition of sexist language 2.38
Sexist
Willingness to use gender-fair language 4.28 Very Willing

Attitude of the students on gender-fair

language
4.28
4.00 3.33
3.00 2.38
2.00
1.00
0.00

Awareness
Weighted Verbal
Statement/ Question Scale f %
Mean Interpretation
1. Are you aware of the
5 1 1.43 2.33 Slightly Aware
memorandum circular
 4 5 7.14

3 30 42.86
no.06 series 2014 that
promotes the use of
2 14 20.00
gender fair language in
the Philippines?
1 20 28.57

Total 70 100.00

5 1 1.43

2. Are you aware of the 4 6 8.57

CHED memorandum
order No. 01 Series 3 27 38.57
2015 that establishes 2.37 Slightly Aware
the policies and 2 20 28.57
guidelines on gender
and development? 1 16 22.86

Total 70 100.00

5 12 17.14

4 34 48.57
3. Gender-fair language
3 14 20.00
(GFL) aims at reducing
3.60 Very Aware
gender stereotyping and
2 4 5.71
discrimination
1 6 8.57

Total 70 100.00

4. The use of Generic 5 11 15.71

Masculine nouns and
pronouns reflects gender 4 28 40.00
inequality in that women
are never seen in terms 3 16 22.86
of general or 3.40 Very Aware
representative humanity. 2 8 11.43
Men represent the
universal or the human 1 7 10.00
to which women are the
other. Total 70 100.00
5. Are you aware of Moderately
5 6 8.57 3.10
Gender Discriminatory Aware
 4 24 34.29

Language Stereotyping 3 19 27.14

where assigning gender
when gender is unknown 2 13 18.57
or irrelevant as a result
of stereotypes. 1 8 11.43

Total 70 100.00

5 5 7.14
6. Are you aware of
Gender Discriminatory 4 19 27.14
Language Invisibility and
omission where 3 21 30.00
Moderately
language casts the male 2.89
Aware
as the generic norm and 2 13 18.57
keeps women from
being visible in public 1 12 17.14
life.
Total 70 100.00

5 8 11.43
7.Are you aware of 4 21 30.00
Gender Discriminatory
Language Subordination
3 21 30.00
and trivialization where Moderately
3.11
language which paints Aware
2 11 15.71
one gender, often
women, as inferior, or
belittles them. 1 9 12.86

Total 70 100.00
8. When using a 3.79 Very Aware
5 23 32.86
gendered pronoun (e.g.
he or she), the speaker
is assuming the gender 4 24 34.29
of the person they are
talking about. Often 3 11 15.71
people use gendered
pronouns even when 2 9 12.86
they do not know the
gender of the person 1 3 4.29
they are talking about or Total 70 100.00
when talking about a
group of people that
could be of either
gender. Instead you
 should use gender-
neutral language. A
common way to do this
is to use the plural ‘they’.
9. When you are
5 10 14.29
speaking or writing
about occupations, do
not provide irrelevant 4 26 37.14
information about
people’s gender. Doing 3 15 21.43
this supports the Moderately
2 12 17.14 3.29
stereotype that the Aware
‘normal’ version of this
profession is gendered. 1 7 10.00
For example, saying
'female lawyer' implies
that lawyers are Total 70 100.00
normally male.
5 8 11.43
10. Are you aware of the
different Gender-Fair 4 12 17.14
Language Webinars
conducted in 3 23 32.86
Moderately
Pamantasan ng 2.87
Aware
Lungsod ng Maynila 2 17 24.29
from 2020-2022 for both
the English and Filipino 1 10 14.29
Language ?
Total 70 100.00
Moderately
Overall 3.07
Aware
Legend of the Verbal Interpretation of the Weighted Mean:

1.00 to 1.79 Not aware at all

1.80 to 2.59 Slightly Aware
2.60 to 3.39 Moderately Aware
3.40 to 4.19 Very Aware
4.20 to 5.00 Extremely Aware
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant differences on the awareness and attitude of the students when
grouped according to profile.

ACCORDING TO AGE
 p- Decision
Category Age Mean Decision Interpretation
value Rule

17 - 19 3.42 There is no
Failed to
Belief 0.080 significant
reject Ho
20 - 22 3.27 difference

17 - 19 2.44 There is no
Reject Failed to
Recognition 0.522 significant
Ho if p- reject Ho
20 - 22 2.34 difference
value is
less than
17 - 19 4.22 or equal
There is no
to alpha Failed to
Willingness 0.477 significant
(0.05) reject Ho
20 - 22 4.33 difference

17 - 19 2.89 There is no
Failed to
Awareness 0.082 significant
reject Ho
20 - 22 3.21 difference

ACCORDING TO SEX

p- Decision
Category Sex Mean Decision Interpretation
value Rule

Reject
Male 3.36 Ho if p- There is no
Failed to
Belief 0.525 value is significant
reject Ho
Female 3.30 less than difference
or equal
 Male 2.25 There is no
Failed to
Recognition 0.071 significant
reject Ho
Female 2.52 difference

Male 4.24 There is no

Failed to
Willingness 0.560 significant
to alpha reject Ho
Female 4.33 difference
(0.05)

Male 3.04 There is no

Failed to
Awareness 0.686 significant
reject Ho
Female 3.11 difference

ACCORDING TO YEAR LEVEL

Year p- Decision
Category Mean Decision Interpretation
Level value Rule

1st year 3.42 Reject

Ho if p- There is a
2nd Reject
Belief 3.42 0.010 value is significant
year Ho
less than difference
3rd year 3.03 or equal
 Irregular 3.19
1st year 2.51
2nd There is no
2.21 Failed to
Recognition year 0.421 significant
reject Ho
3rd year 2.44 difference
Irregular 2.30
1st year 4.26
2nd There is no
4.33 Failed to
Willingness year 0.254 to alpha significant
(0.05) reject Ho
3rd year 4.54 difference
Irregular 4.00
1st year 2.86
2nd There is no
3.10 Failed to
Awareness year 0.079 significant
reject Ho
3rd year 3.56 difference
Irregular 3.19

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the awareness, attitude, and profile of the
social work students.
Chi
Square
Decisio Decisio Interpretati Cramer' Interpretati
Variables Tested
n Rule n on sV on
p-
value
Awarenes Reject Reject Significant very strong
Belief 0.033 0.327
s Ho if p- Ho relationship relationship
 Failed No
Recognitio
0.631 to reject significant N/A
n
Ho relationship
Failed No
Willingnes
0.143 to reject significant N/A
s
Ho relationship
Failed No
Age 0.645 to reject significant N/A
Ho relationship
Failed No
Sex 0.864 to reject significant N/A
Ho relationship
Failed No
Year
0.331 to reject significant N/A
Level
Ho relationship
Failed No
Age 0.311 to reject significant N/A
Ho relationship
value is Failed No
Belief Sex 0.710 less to reject significant N/A
than or Ho relationship
equal to Failed No
Year alpha
0.075 to reject significant N/A
Level (0.05) Ho relationship
Failed No
Age 0.460 to reject significant N/A
Ho relationship
Failed No
Recognitio
Sex 0.381 to reject significant N/A
n
Ho relationship
Failed No
Year
0.173 to reject significant N/A
Level
Ho relationship
Failed No
Age 0.552 to reject significant N/A
Ho relationship
Failed No
Willingnes Sex 0.901 to reject significant N/A
s Ho relationship
Failed No
Year
0.359 to reject significant N/A
Level
Ho relationship

Legend: