CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results, discussion, and the personal insights that the

researchers have gathered through the process of conducting investigation of the study on

stereotype threat, self-efficacy, and academic performance of female engineering students

in Western Visayas College of Science and Technology. It is divided into five sections:

1) profile of the respondents, 2) level of stereotype threat vulnerability, 3) level of self-

efficacy, 4) academic performance, and 5) relationship of stereotype threat, self-efficacy

and academic performance.

Profile of the Respondents

A total of 62 respondents were surveyed as shown on Table 1. Most of the

respondents were aged 17 to 19 years old. The youngest was 16 and the oldest respondent

was 23. In year levels, 33.9% of the sample were second year students, mostly majoring

in Electronics and Communication degree programs. All of them were single coming

from rural areas (88.7%) in Western Visayas.

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents’ Profile

Characteristic Frequency Percentage
(N=62)
Age
16 3 4.8%
17 15 24.2
18 14 22.6
19 14 22.6
20 5 8.1
21 9 14.5
22 1 1.6
23 1 1.6
Year Level
1st year 13 21
2nd 21 33.9
3rd 17 27.4
4th 0 0
5th 11 17.7
Degree Program
ECE 52 83.9
EE 5 8
MarE 2 3.2
MEAE 3 4.9
Marital Status
Single 62 100
Married 0 0
Separated 0 0
Widow 0 0
Hometown
Rural 55 88.7
Urban 7 11.3

Stereotype Threat

28
 Table 2 below shows the scores of the respondents in the Stigma Consciousness

Scale. Divided into three levels, the higher scores obtained by respondents mean lesser

stigma consciousness while lower scores mean greater stigma consciousness. Only six of

62 respondents (9.7%) were highly vulnerable to stereotype threat in the campus compare

to 11 (17.7%) with low threat vulnerability. Forty-five or 72.6% however reported with

moderate level of stereotype threat vulnerability in the campus.

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Level of

Stereotype Threat Vulnerability
Level Frequency Percentage
High Vulnerability (10-30) 6 9.7
Average Vulnerability(31-50) 45 72.6
Low Vulnerability (51-70) 11 17.7

Total 62 100

Based on the results of the present study, female engineering students are not

highly vulnerable to stereotype threat.. Most of them would disagree that they worry their

behaviors will be viewed as stereotypically female nor these stereotypes affected them

personally as based on the questionnaire. They are in an average threat vulnerability

condition. Unlike in experiments, where threat is manipulated in everyday situations it

seems that it does not show. These students are not constantly aware of their stigma and

perhaps it is not activated even by interacting with male classmates or being in the

College of Engineering dominated by males. People who are low in stigma

consciousness would downplay their stereotyped status (Mosley, 2007). According to

Brown and Pinel (2003), individuals who are chronically stigma-conscious might

28
experience the threat readily. The researchers’ assumption is that stereotype threat only

emerges when activated in micro situations such as in the classroom. If this is the case,

then their grades should have been affected poorly.

Self-Efficacy

The scores of the respondents on General Self-Efficacy scale are shown below on

Table 3. Treating it dichotomously, the higher scores mean greater self-efficacy while

lower scores mean lower self-efficacy. Interestingly, almost all of the respondents

registered high in self-efficacy (90.3%) and only 6 (9.7%) with low self-efficacy.

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Level of Self-

Efficacy
Level Frequency Percentage
Low Self-Efficacy (10-25) 6 9.7
High Self-Efficacy (26-40) 56 90.3

Total 62 100

Given that women are generally under-represented in engineering classrooms, a

strong sense of self-efficacy can help them persist in such situations (Marra & Bogue,

2006). It is not surprising that almost all of the female engineering students in the present

study have a strong self-efficacy. They have a sense of competence and they are

confident in performing tasks. Even choosing engineering as a course as well as a career

needs a greater self-efficacy. Since high self-efficacy enhances their performance on

tasks, good grades are expected and it is showed in the results.

Academic Performance

28
 In Table 4, the grade point averages of the respondents are ranked from “Failure”

to “Outstanding.” More than half of them (54.8%) had a label of “Good” ranging from

2.1 to 2.5 grades. 24.2% were “Very Good”, 17.7% were “Fair/Passing”, and 3.3% were

“Outstanding” respectively. Generally, the respondents’ academic performance was not

mediocre but rather satisfactory.

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Level of

Grade Averages
Grade Point Average Frequency Percentage
Excellent (1.0-1.09) 0 0
Outstanding (1.1- 1.5) 2 3.2
Very Good (1.6- 2.0) 14 22.6
Good (2.1-2.5) 35 56.5
Fair/ Passing (2.6-3.0) 11 17.7
Conditional/ Failed (3.1-5.0) 0 0

Total 62 100

The female engineering students seem to not experience this chronic

consciousness of stereotype threat in the campus and this is more evident in their grade

point averages. If their grades are not good, then threat might have been affecting it but

the results state their grades were rather good and they are even under the average threat

condition. Perhaps threat in the campus is actually low even in smaller settings and

gender is not an issue in their environment. When there is reduced prejudice and absence

of gender sensitive tasks, threat may be inhibited (Grimm et al., 1999) and it eliminates

the probability and possibility that they will be negatively stereotyped.

29
 Chen and colleagues (1996) found that females in mechanical engineering majors

perform better than their male counterparts. In their study, women were not in minority

and had high self-efficacy. It shows that the good performance of these engineering

students in the Philippines affirm the previous findings although comparisons were not

made. Their grades are described as good which can be attributed to the fact that Filipino

students want to finish their education but not really investing much effort on attaining

outstanding grades (Bernardo, 2003).

Relationship of Stereotype Threat, Self-efficacy and Academic Performance

Two-tailed correlations between variables were further explored in Table 5.

Result shows the negative relationship (-0.21) between the scores of Stigma

Consciousness Scale labeled as Stereotype Threat and grades labeled as “Academic

Performance”. Therefore, low threat is somehow related to better grades but this is a

weak correlation in which a variation of scores on Stigma Consciousness Scale does not

relate to the variation of the respondents’ grade point averages and vice versa. Also, its

insignificance for having a value greater than 0.05 which is 0.102 indicates it might just

be a coincidence.

Table 5. Correlation Between Measures

Stereotype Threat Self-efficacy Academic Performance

Stereotype Threat 1 -.284* -.210

Self-efficacy -.284* 1 .174

28
Academic Performance -.210 .174 1

Note. *p < .05

Stigmatized individuals under threat are supposed to have poorer exam results

thus leading to poorer academic performance. In the results, they are less vulnerable to be

threatened and exhibit good academic performance. In the study of Brown and Pinel

(2003), high threat condition is significantly related to test performance while in low

threat condition it is insignificantly related. The present study confirms this assumption

since the female engineering students’ were mostly not in high vulnerable to threat and

the correlation between the stereotype threat and academic performance is also not

significant although the better grades is related to lower threat as related negatively.

Nevertheless, correlations between self-efficacy and academic performance

exhibits a positive correlation of .174 which is also a weak correlation. High levels of

self-efficacy is in some way related to having better grades. Even so, 17% of the variance

of Academic Performance can be explained by the variation in Self-efficacy. It is not

significant (.177) and there is no compelling evidence that the correlation is real and

possibly by chance only. Higher self-efficacy is associated to the betterment of academic

performance although both were not related strongly and significantly.

Table 5 shows the correlation coefficient(-.284) which is a weak negative

relationship of Stereotype Threat and Self-efficacy. Lesser stereotype threat is related to

greater self-efficacy and this correlation is significant because .025 is lesser than .05 as a

p value. Generally, relationships between the three variables are weak with coefficient

ranging from 0.1 to 0.2. p values of correlations between Stereotype Threat-Academic

28
Performance, and Self-Efficacy-Academic Performance are greater than 0.05 thus

insignificant except the correlation between Stereotype Threat-Self-efficacy.

With regards to stereotype threat which they are less vulnerable, the students also

had greater self-efficacy, and the associations between the two variables are significant

unlike the other correlations. Self-efficacy increases as stereotype threat vulnerability

decreases just like in the present study. The three variables discussed confirm the concept

that when stereotype threat is not present, it is expected that there is greater self-efficacy

and better academic performance. They are not affected nor conscious about their

stigmatized status and confident about their current situation. The downside is that the

researchers cannot establish a strong association between the variables even though it

supports the previous studies on stereotype threat with relations to self-efficacy and

performance. Conceivably, self-efficacy can hinder the stereotype threat or there are just

no tasks that trigger the constant consciousness of their stigma.

There are three possibilities that can explain the results of the study. First,

stereotypes are not salient. Identities become threatened when stereotypes are invoked,

either blatantly or subtly, in the performance environment (Stroessner & Good, 2009).

These female engineering students may have environments (e.g. male classmates) which

are not sexist enough to trigger some effect of stereotyping. Therefore, they do not have

to expect to perform poorer in exams since the stereotypes are weak to chronically affect

their everyday interactions. Cultural differences may also happen because most of the

researchers’ related literature was mainly from western sources. Filipinos believe that

there are changing roles nowadays and no one should be restricted to one’s gender

(Liwag et al., 1998). Second, stereotypes are salient but self-efficacy has minimized the

threat. Stereotype threat can also produce the opposite effects, actually increasing quality

29
of performance. This can happen when stereotypes are explicitly exposed and it is likely

when individuals are already highly capable. They believe in individual ability and not as

a group. Lastly, studies show that stereotype threat fails to arise in real-world situations.

Stereotype threat is more likely to arise in laboratory settings when minority status or

gender is made particularly salient through experimental manipulations and less likely in

the absence of such explicit environments with additional effort and motivation

(Stroessner & Good, 2009).

30