CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study was conducted to answer the following questions: 1) What is the level

of stereotype threat vulnerability of female engineering students? 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? and 6) How

related is stereotype threat vulnerability to self-efficacy of female engineering

The respondents of the study were sixty-two (62) female engineering students in

WVCST with year levels ranging from 1st year to 5th year. The respondents were

conveniently selected according to the criteria set by the researchers. This study is

descriptive and correlational in nature which utilized questionnaires during the data

gathering.

The summary of the findings are as follows:

1. The respondents have low stereotype threat vulnerability. If stereotype threat

is chronic, stigma consciousness would be high making them vulnerable to it.

Even though they are interacting with their male classmates they are not

threatened personally and they do not worry about their behaviors to be

viewed as stereotypically female.

2. The respondents have high self-efficacy. They have a sense of competence

and they are confident in achieving tasks in the engineering domain given that

it is male-dominated.

3. The respondents have good academic performance. The results may be

attributed to having high self-efficacy and low stereotype threat basing on

previous studies. However, these cannot be proved in the present study. In

related literature, females do perform better than males only because of better

self-confidence and women are not in minority.

4. There is a weak and negative relationship between stereotype threat and

academic performance. Lower threat conditions varies with better grades The

present study confirms this assumption that low threat conditions are

insignificantly related to academic performance.

5. There is a weak and positive relationship between self-efficacy and academic

performance. . High levels of self-efficacy is in some way related to having

better grades. Only 17% of the variance of academic performance can be

explained by the variation in self-efficacy.

6. There is a weak, negative but significant relationship between stereotype

threat and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy increases as stereotype threat

consciousness decreases just like in the present study.

37
 Conclusions

In light of the findings of the study, the researchers are able to conclude the

following: 1) Stereotype threat may not be visible in real world settings. The findings

suggest it is not a chronic consciousness of one’s stigmatized status. Stereotype threat

still has to be activated by experimental manipulations in a written exam, 2) Women in

engineering majors do have high self-efficacy. Likewise, being a female engineering

student requires a belief of one’s capabilities to perform good in that domain, 3)

Academic performance of females are generally good. It also contradicts the convention

that women are supposed to be inferior to men in engineering, 4) It affirms the

assumption that lesser stereotype threat vulnerability comes with having a higher sense of

self-efficacy. Self-confidence may have downplayed the stereotyped status or vice versa,

5) Academic performance in terms of Grade Point Averages is not strongly related to

being negatively stereotyped nor with self-efficacy. Cultural differences may have

played a role in eliminating this relationship that contrasts other studies. Differences in

gender stereotyping can remove the expectation that females in engineering majors

should academically perform poorer or being inferior than males. The researchers cannot

clearly assume that stereotype threat does not at all exist in the Philippine realm besides

real world situations.

37
 Recommendations

The researchers considered the following for future researches:

1. Investigate what are the stereotypes of female students in engineering

domains. Validate if these students are still expected to perform poorly than

males recently since stereotypes may change over time.

2. Focused Group Discussions or interviews can check if they are affected of

stereotype threat and not simply aware of it, and if they have similar

experiences being stigmatized. Getting the perspective of men on how the

view females in engineering majors can contribute to the concept of

stereotype threat rather than relying always on the self-perception of a female

college student.

3. Since stereotype threat may not exist in external situations as found in this

study, an experiment like the studies of Steele and Aronson (1995) can be

done to examine whether it still can be activated in experimental conditions.

4. With regards to the methodology, using grade averages as a measure of

relating it to stereotype threat may have other grades included. It would be

also important to consider math grades specifically in correlating it to

stereotype threat as well as self-efficacy. Rather than grade point averages,

maybe it is more notable in math grades. Moreover, comparing these grades of

females to males can be implemented to see if they really perform worse than

males in engineering. Theoretically, stereotype threat fails to distinguish itself

37
 from real discrimination. It is possible that stereotype threat happen because

of experiences of being discriminated.

5. Albeit no signs of stereotype threat, it is still important the authorities in

schools proactively take part in preventing this threat in the campus. Avoid

gender sensitive statements in school such as stating engineering is only for

men. Another is providing gender equality in terms of selecting for

scholarships, leadership positions, and other opportunities. Its purpose is to

provide role models for the minority to follow and downplay their

stigmatized status. It can be done just by instituting it in the code of

professional ethics for everyone to be aware of. Removing the item which

indicates sex in exams can also be a good example.

38