Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
& 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
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
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
This study is essential in supporting the relationship of stereotype threat and academic
engineering students.
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:
Stereotype Threat
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
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
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).
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
frustration results to lower academic performance but higher anxiety does not necessarily
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.
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
Stereotype threat covaries with stigma consciousness. Women who have high stigma
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:
1997). Basically, the feeling occurs when individuals fear that they will
threat”.
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
2006).
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.
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
a stereotype about them increases. Greater stereotype threat consciousness decreases self-
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
mathematics show small gender difference (Brannon, 1999). This stereotype is the
underlying basis for the biased treatment of girls and women regarding mathematical
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
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
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)
A&T State University (NCA&T). Interestingly, they found out that female undergraduate
engineering students performed better than their male counterparts, contrary to all
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
supportive atmosphere for the female students, and (3) the self confidence of the female
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
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
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.
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-
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
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
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
(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
(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
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
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
thus threat inhibits future performance. In reducing this threat, changing the description
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
and whether there are different kinds of stereotype threat exists. For instance, if positive
Self- Efficacy
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
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.
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
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
14
up to the perception’s of one’s own adequacy or inadequacy. Such outcomes are called
perceptions of their own abilities and their perceptions of the environment (Gerrig &
Zimbardo, 2002).
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
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
time the student is willing to engage actively in learning especially when task turned out
to be difficult.
other by a thin line. According to Brophy and Good as cited by Bugna and Reyes (2000),
15
comprehension or mastery that occur while one is acquiring knowledge or skill. On the
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
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.
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
1997).
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
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
Glass as cited in Burger (2000), type A students received more academic honors and
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
Self-Efficacy
High, Low
students?
18
2. What is the level of self-efficacy of female engineering students?
engineering students?
students?
engineering students?
students.
engineering students.
19
6. To explore the relationship between stereotype threat vulnerability to self-efficacy
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance - how well a student meets standards set out by local
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
Stereotype Threat Vulnerability – the score obtained by the respondent from the
10-item Stigma Consciousness Scale with a 7-point response format ranging from
20
Female Engineering Student – A college undergraduate student majoring in
This study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this
study provides additional literature in the field of gender psychology and helps in
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
performance of women.
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.
Age range is from 16 to 23 years old and 1st to 5th year regular students in the university.
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
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
22