The Level of Awareness and Attitude Towards Gender - Fair Language of Social Work Students in Pamantasan NG Lungsod NG Maynila

THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS GENDER - FAIR
LANGUAGE OF SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS IN PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG

MAYNILA
A Thesis Presented to the

College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Department of Social Work
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Intramuros, Manila
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Social Work
Submitted by:
Dinglasan, Brudrick Mica C.

Ganan,Chelsea Joy M.
Nalayog, Kaye Alexandra M.
Porcadilla, Stephanie A.
Sural,Francezka Charina H.
June 2022
(University of the City of Manila)
Intramuros Manila

Social Work Department
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
This RESEARCH PAPER entitled: The Level of Awareness and Attitude Towards Gender - Fair
Language of Social Work Students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Academic Year 2021
- 2022 was prepared and submitted by: Brudrick Mica C. Dinglasan, Chelsea Joy M. Ganan,
Kaye Alexandra M. Nalayog, Stephanie A. Porcadilla , and Francezka Charina H. Sural in partial
fulfilment on the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN SOCIAL
WORK has been examined and found satisfactory and hereby recommended for ORAL
EXAMINATION.
PROF. ZOSTHENES ALICDAN,RSW

Research Adviser
(University of the City of Manila)
Intramuros Manila

Social Work Department
A P P R O V A L S H E E T
In partial fulfilment on the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

IN SOCIAL WORK this Research Paper entitled : The Level of Awareness and Attitude
Towards Gender - Fair Language of Social Work Students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila Academic Year 2021 - 2022 was prepared and submitted to the Social Work
Department, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences by:
1. Brudrick Mica C. Dinglasan

2. Chelsea Joy M. Ganan
3. Kaye Alexandra M. Nalayog
4. Stephanie A. Porcadilla
5. Francezka Charina H. Sural
Approved by the committee on ORAL EXAMINATION on June___ , 2022 with the grade of
_____
JEANIFFER L. MUYOT, RSW

Chairman, Panel
Dr. Gilbert Cerezo Dr.Emmanuel Drewery

Panel Member Panel Member
Accepted in Partial Requirement for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN SOCIAL WORK
ZOSTHENES ALICDAN,RSW
Research Adviser
ABSTRACT
Title: The Level of Awareness and Attitude towards Gender - Fair Language
of Social Work Students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Researchers: Brudrick Mica C. Dinglasan , Chelsea Joy M. Ganan, Kaye Alexandra

M. Nalayog, Stephanie A. Porcadilla , Francezka Charina H. Sural
Adviser: Prof. Zosthenes D. Alicdan
Introduction: The focus of this study was to determine the level of awareness of 70
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Social Work students from different
levels. This study focuses on how respondents' knowledge of gender-fair
language affects and helps their personality and future. This study aims to
raise awareness about the significance of using gender-fair language and
how it contributes to gender equality in the Philippines.
Methods: The researchers used the likert scale method to collect quantitative
data, which was done by distributing an online questionnaire divided into
six parts. To ensure the safety of respondents and participants, data was
collected online using Google forms.
Conclusions: Based on the findings, the researcher finds that there is no significant
difference in attitude and level of awareness about gender-fair language
between male and female social work students in pamantasan ng lungsod
ng maynila, year level, or age gap. Furthermore, they all have a positive
attitude toward gender-fair language and are very willing to use it in their
daily lives; however, their level of awareness of gender-fair language is
only average, with an overall score of "moderately aware." This suggests
that the university should improve their method of teaching gender-fair
language to social work students, as it is critical in their chosen profession,
particularly when dealing with their clients.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, we want to express our gratitude to Mr. Zosthenes Alicdan, our
research professor, for guiding us through this process. He showed us how to complete each step
of the research project. We appreciate your patience and understanding throughout the last few
months. Without your dedication to teach us, this research would never be effective.
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our beloved Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila,the Department of Social Work, and our beloved social work chairperson Mrs. Jeaniffer
L. Muyot for supporting us in becoming the people we never believed we could be, as well as
for providing strength, encouragement, and commitment for students.
Lastly, we must explain that we have learned new things about ourselves and our
research during our months of investigating our chosen topic. We owe a debt of gratitude to our
blockmates, department, lecturer, university, and, most importantly, the participants in our study
for all of their cooperation. Nothing could have happened without them.
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
ANOVA – Analysis of Variance
CGRJ – Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary
CHED – Commission on Higher Education
ELT – English Language Teaching
GAD – Gender And Development
GFL – Gender-Fair Language
GIST – Girls Into Science and Technology
HEIs – Higher Education Institutions
NASW – National Association of Social Workers

Chapter 1
The Problem and Its Settings
I. Introduction
Language is a medium of communication that helps people express themselves to
understand each other using symbols, signs, spoken language, and written language. Language
plays an important role in molding an individual’s attitude towards gender and occupation as
language is seen as an important tool for determining gender, i.e., if something is being
perceived as feminine or masculine (Boroditsky et al., 2003; Stahlberg et al., 2007), where
gender most often imposes a dichotomy (Ansara and Hegarty, 2014). This implies that language
can also be used to promote gender equality. The long struggle for gender equality is being
accompanied by initiatives to introduce gender-fair language.
Gender-fair language seeks to reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination.. Its use is
part of our growing awareness that the perceived meanings of some words have changed in
response to the changing roles of men and women in our society. The use of gender-fair or
gender-neutral language is critical for gender equality because it helps to reduce cognitive and
behavioral male biases elicited by exclusively masculine forms (Stahlberg, Braun, Irmen, &
Sczesny, 2007).
The Supreme Court approved the Guidelines on the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the
Judiciary and Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette on February 15, 2022. The Committee on
Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), headed by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-
Javier, proposed developing the Judiciary's own set of organic guidelines to expand, reinforce,
supplement, and contextualize gender-fair language for more nuanced adaptation and
application. The CGRJ was motivated by the passage of Republic Act No. 11313, also known as
the Safe Spaces Act, which prohibits and penalizes various forms of gender-based sexual
harassment. The use of non-sexist language in official documents, communications, and
issuance is encouraged. For example: “person” instead of “man” or “humanity” instead of
“mankind.” Also discouraged is the use of masculine terms for professions or occupations:
“chairperson” instead of “chairman” or “business owners” instead of “businessmen.”
Previous research on incorporating notions of gender and sexuality in language teaching
have been mostly conducted in Argentina (Banegas, 2020), South Africa (Jimmyns & Meyer-
Weitz, 2019), and Poland (Pakuła et al., 2015). Most of these studies focused on integrating a
lived or person-based curriculum (Banegas & Velázquez, 2014; Norton & Pavlenko, 2004) that
incorporates gender as part of a human’s identity and lived experiences. A number of researchers
have also assessed gender representation in textbooks (Ariyanto, 2018; Curaming & Curaming,
2020; Lee & Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, 2020; Tarrayo, 2014). In terms of the teacher-perspective
ELT, notable discussions have centered on the experiences of Argentinian student-teachers in
incorporating the gender perspective in ELT (Banegas et al., 2019; Mojica & Castañeda-Peña,
2017). Collectively, ELT educators first struggled in incorporating minute notions of gender-fair
language (Lomotey, 2020) and issues in their classroom discussions, but they gradually
appreciated the importance and benefits of integrating gender-equality values into their
pedagogical practices (Banegas et al., 2019; Norton & Pavlenko, 2004). These studies have
concluded that the integration of the gender perspective into ELT pedagogy leads to (1) creating
a supportive and open space for LGBTQIA+ learners (Sauntson, 2012), (2) educators reflecting
on and challenging their own gendered beliefs and experiences, and (3) teachers being more
conscious of other people’s diverse gendering ways (Banegas, 2020; Banegas et al., 2019;
Mojica & Castañeda-Peña, 2017).
In the Philippine setting, The Executive Order No. 273 (Philippine Plan for Gender
Responsive Development) envisions a society to promote gender equality and women’s
empowerment. However the research, to date, has tended to focus on extreme ends of the
implementation process, such as the awareness of educators about the gender perspective
(Sumadsad & Tuazon, 2016) or the success in incorporating gender in their pedagogical practices
(Lualhati, 2019), rather than an in-depth analysis on the overall experience of educators in the
government’s attempt to mainstream GAD education in Philippine colleges and universities. This
would mean that previous findings on the implementation of gender mainstreaming in Philippine
education have remained vague.
CHED Memorandum Order No. 01, Series of 2015, Establishing Policies and Guidelines
on Gender and Development in the Commission on Higher Education and Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs), mandated CHED to introduce and institutionalize gender equality, gender
responsiveness and sensitivity in the various aspects of Philippine higher education, specifically
in the trifocal functions of higher education; a) curriculum development; b) gender
responsiveness research programs and; c) gender- responsive extension programs.

In Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, as an educational institution, all courses should
advocate the gender-fair language in order for the faculty, students, and other professionals to be
knowledgeable about it. One of the courses that should advocate gender-neutral languages is
Social Work.
In the Profession of Social Work, they encounter different individuals and handle
different cases everyday. Social workers should be cautious and be aware of the language they
use when addressing their clients. One of the principles of Social Work is to respect the inherent
worth of individuals that couldn’t be possible without the knowledge of the correct language to
address each individual, so that they wouldn’t be offended or disrespected.
There are two principle strategies that have been employed to make languages gender-fair
and to treat women and men symmetrically: neutralization and feminization. Neutralization is
achieved, for example, by replacing male-masculine forms (policeman) with gender-unmarked
forms (police officer), whereas feminization relies on the use of feminine forms to make female
referents visible (i.e., the applicant… he or she instead of the applicant… he). (Sczesny et al.,
2016). Social workers should always be knowledgeable about these strategies because language
greatly affects how individuals think and how things are perceived. Appropriate use of language
will help the social worker to respond to their clients preferably and aid their clients to be viewed
less harshly by other agencies. Appropriate language will be innocuous to the client.
The 2008 NASW Code of Ethics establishes that social workers should obtain education
and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to gender
identity or expression. It is intended to serve as a guide for social workers' everyday professional
conduct. Having compassion towards others is part of the Social Workers’ code of ethics. Aside
from that obligation, it is important to be respectful of and inclusive of the people with whom
professional Social Workers work with, for, and on behalf of.
The purpose of this research paper is to learn more about the significance of gender-fair
language. This also aims to help students of Social Work in PLM, as well as other students that
might see this, by promoting social change and contributing to gender equality, as the researchers
studies how one's knowledge of GFL affects his or her personality and how this knowledge
would help on one’s future profession.
II. Research Locale
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) is located at the General Luna, corner
Muralla St, Intramuro, City of Manila. The absolute location of the said school falls between
14.587 longitudes, and 120.976 latitudes (14.587°N 120.976°E). The campus size is 30,000
square meters. It is considered as the first non-profit public tertiary institution that offers tuition-
free education and consistently achieved a 100% passing rate in licensure examination since
1967 that produces competitive and responsible graduates for the improvement of our nation-
building. It is known for its pride in the fields of Nursing, Medicine, Physical Therapy,
Architecture, Civil Engineering, and Public Relation that produce top board passers yearly. The
PLM provides various services, academic and non-academic facilities and opportunities for
students such as the sports facilities, library, first aid, scholarship, exchange programs and study
abroad, online courses, and administrative services.
The Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) is the first university that has Filipino as
an official name. People use the word "Pamantansan" to refer to the said university which is
derived from the Filipino term "pantas" meaning wise person. It was founded by the city
government and created by the Congress of the Philippines under the Philippine Republic Act of
4196 or also known as an act of Authorizing the City of Manila to Establish and Operate the
University of City of Manila on June 19, 1965. On July 17, 1967, the Pamantansan started to
open its gates to the 556 students the first year enrolled at the campus in the historical district of
Intramuros. As of the academic year 2021-2022 the PLM student population reached 18,130 and
289 of this population are Social Work students enrolled in Pamantasan.
Figure 1: Pamantansan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Location
III. Framework of the Study
3.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 2 conceptual framework
The Social Work students at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila batch 2021- 2022
currently has 283 Social work students that are enrolled. For this study, the researchers will
require 10 respondents per block of the undergraduate social work students that will be a total of
70 respondents. The questionnaire will contain different gender-fair languages used in social
work, and the respondents will be asked how familiar they are with those terminologies by
answering a set of questions about the proper use of gender-fair languages based on the book
“Gender-Fair Language A Primer by Thelma B, Kinatar and Angela Tongson” and a
questionnaire made by Park (20024) “Erratum: Inventory of Attitude towards Sexist and Non-
Sexist Language” . The researchers will use a likert scale to measure the familiarity of the
students on the different gender-fair language. Their level of awareness and attitude towards
gender-fair language will be tested in this study. The results will be analyzed through statistical
analysis, specifically T-test and Chi-square test. After that, the researchers will recommend a
plan on how to better implement the use of gender-fair language in the university, specifically in
the college of Social Work.
3.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The term Filipino is a word that officially identifies Filipinos in their documents like
passports, it is also the word that identifies their nationality that is passed on by blood (jus
sanguinis) that makes Filipinos an automatic Philippine citizen. It doesn't matter where they were
born, the only important thing is that they have Filipino parents. There is a common notion that
the Filipino language is nonsexist because there is a wide range of the use of generic nouns and
pronouns, but as closely inspected, instances of sexism are still present in our language. Filipino
sociolinguists suggest that the Filipino language exhibits a significant degree of male bias or
androcentrism. This linguistic imbalance would appear to be influenced by the patriarchal
society that the Philippines have been intoxicated with the years of colonialism that happened.
This has resulted in the lexical asymmetry of the words that we use. Lexical asymmetry was
researched by Schultz in 1975. It occurs when words used to refer to men and women literally
have the same meaning, but have diverting connotations, for example "master/mistress". Marked
terms are when something is added to a word to make it gender specific or gender bias. Lexical
asymmetry of our language may be divided into:
I. Grammatical and morphological asymmetry
The special use of generic masculine nouns and masculine agreement that both refer to
men and women
II. Semantic Asymmetry
The existence of masculine/feminine pairs in which the feminine may denote or imply a
less prestigious function than its masculine counterpart.
A theory of Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., and Sczesny, S. 2007 entitled
“Representation of the sexes in language” they said that We reflexively categorize people into
social categories in the context of social perception. These categories guide new social
encounters and help us create impressions quickly and easily by drawing on our previous
experiences and knowledge. The social category of sex is one of the most important (Stangor,
Lynch, Changming & Glass, 1992). The grammatical structures of most, if not all, languages
reflect the prominence of the social category sex1.The world's languages differ in numerous
ways, including phonetic shape, grammatical structure, and lexicon. There's also a lot of variety
in how the sexes are portrayed, such as which words and differentiations are used, and which
grammatical patterns or sorts of sentences are used. However, there does not appear to be a
single language – not even among the so-called genderless languages, as will be seen below –
that is entirely devoid of expressions for female and maleness: the sexes are represented in some
way in all language systems. Sex appears to be so crucial to social order and structure that
speaking groups require language tools to refer to this category.
To support the previous theory, Hellinger, M ., and Bubmann, H. 2003 made a theory in
their book entitled “The Linguistic Representations of men and women” when they speak of a
“gender language” when there are just two or three gender classes, with considerable
correspondence between the class membership and lexical/referential gender in the field of
animate/personal nouns. Languages with grammatical gender represent only one type of nominal
classification requiring the interaction of at least two elements, i.e. of the noun itself and some
satellite element that expresses the class to which the noun belongs. The lack of grammatical
gender in a language does not mean that “gender” in the broader sense cannot be communicated.
There are various other categories of gender, e.g., “lexical” and “social” gender, which may be
employed to transmit gendered messages. Thus, “gender languages”, languages with classifiers
or noun classes, as well as those languages that lack noun classification completely (English,
Finnish, Turkish), can resort to a variety of linguistic means to construct gender-related
messages.
IV. Statement of the Problem
It is important that a professional Social Worker knows the different gender-fair
languages to be used while working in the field as it greatly affects how individuals think and
how things are perceived. Appropriate use of gender-fair languages will help the social worker to
address and respond to their clients better, and help their clients to be viewed less harshly by
other agencies. Therefore, it is a must that students are knowledgeable about the different
gender-fair languages as early as they start taking up the course.
Hypothesis:
Ho: there is no significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the
social work students when grouped according to profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)
Ha: There is a significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the
social work students when grouped according to profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)
These questions will guide this study:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
A. Age
B. Sex
C. Year level
D. Name (Optional)
2. What is the level of awareness of the social work students in Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila?
3. What is the attitude of the students on gender-fair language?
4. Are there differences on the awareness and attitude of the students when grouped
according to profile (Age, Sex, and Year Level)
5. Is there a relationship between the awareness, attitude, and profile of the social work
students?
V. Scope and Delimitation
The focus of this study is to determine the level of awareness and attitude of social work
students towards gender-fair language at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila which will pave
the way for the introduction of Gender and Development perspective. The study is designed for
the whole academic year of 2021-2022, covering the first and second semester of the year. It
includes the participation of 70 social work students from each block of 1st year to 3rd year,
consisting of 5 men and 5 women each block. The study is limited only to the regular and
irregular students of the social work department, it delimits that the study may not be
generalizable to other populations or other degree programs. This study will test the social work
students' level of awareness and attitude towards gender-fair language in 4 categories specifically
their belief in sexist language, recognition of sexist language, willingness to use gender- fair
language, and level of awareness on gender-fair language. The researchers also asked the
respondents for their suggestions for the better implementation of the gender-fair language in
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, specifically in the department of Social Work.
Having enough knowledge about GFL will eliminate the gap in accessibility of all
genders and lessen the stereotypic beliefs that will later inspire the policy-makers, educators,
students, and individuals in promoting GAD.
VI. Significance of the Study
 Student - the purpose of this research is to aid social work students, as well as students in
other courses, in using "gender-fair language." The purpose of this research is to educate
students about the value of language in promoting social equality.
 Faculty - this study will provide the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila social work
faculty with more and comprehensive information about the gender fair language.
 Administration and Social Work Department - can conduct seminars, webinars, and any
projects that will help the students, faculty and the whole institution about the power of
language to reduce sexism. The social work department and administration can use the
findings of this study to hold seminars, webinars, and other projects to educate students,
teachers, and the entire institution about the power of language in reducing sexism.
 Researchers - this study will also aid future academics who are interested in learning
more about gender-neutral language, and how to correctly use the language, and approach
individuals without stereotyping, discrimination, or sexism toward other genders.

VII. Definition of Terms
Gender-Fair Language - it is used to promote equality towards the gender.
Language - it is a way communication that has powerful effect when it comes discrimination,
sexism, and inequality.
Social Work - it is a profession and an undergraduate bachelor degree
Students - these are the 1st year, 2nd year, and 3rd yr. students at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila taking up BS Social Work.

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature and Studies
The Social Work profession has a principle to respect the inherent worth of each human
being and respect for human diversity, one aspect that would uphold these principles is for social
workers to use gender fair language in their profession. When we hear the social work profession
the first thing that comes to mind is that this is a women dominated profession, but one in which
men are disproportionately represented in high positions. Despite the fact that there are many
more women than males in the field, McPhail argues that "social work is more accurately
described as a female majority, male-dominated profession" (McPhail, 2004b: 325), because
women do not necessarily dominate.
This is a crucial point since describing social work as "female-dominated" implies that
women have more authority simply because they are significantly more numerous. However, this
overlooks some crucial factors. First, the lesser number of men in the profession may actually
wield more institutional authority, and second, social work, like many other jobs involving the
care of others, is undervalued. Third, the issue of how power is distributed within social work
institutions, as well as how this relates to gender and the pronouns used by social workers to
identify the client is much more complicated. The studies below that were compiled by the
researchers will tackle more about how pronouns affect the social work profession and other
aspects of the significance of the proper use of gender-fair language.
Review of Related Study
The idea of gendered language being sexist has been hotly discussed since the 1970s,
according to Mucchi-Faina, 2005. Language that is sexist excludes, trivializes, or lowers any
gender. Despite the efforts of many professional organizations to advocate the use of gender-
neutral terminology, sexist language is nevertheless used in many languages. As a result of the
increased desire for equality, gender neutral language is extensively promoted. A recent effort
has been made to establish gender fair language, based on such findings from psycholinguistic
research.
A quantitative research by Parks, J. B., and Roberton, M. A. 2004. Entitled “Attitudes
toward women mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language” the results said
that studies of opinions regarding sexist language have regularly indicated a gender divide, with
women supporting inclusive language far more than males. The current study looked into the
gender gap in the presence of a potential mediator variable called "attitudes toward women." The
participants were a convenience sample of 278 college students aged 18 to 20. The majority of
the women were European American/White (87 percent) (60 percent ). The Modern Sexism
Scale, Neosexism Scale, Attitudes Toward Women Scale, and Inventory of Attitudes Toward
Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General were used to collect data. This sample revealed the typical
gender divide in opinions regarding sexist rhetoric. When views toward women were included in
the study, however, regression tests of mediation revealed that the gender effect was reduced by
as much as 61 percent (p.01). These findings show that there is a relationship between views
toward sexist language and attitudes toward women as a cultural construct. Inside of this study
Parks. J. B., and Roberton, M. A. 2001 have formed a questionnaire “Erratum: Inventory of
Attitude towards Sexist and Non-Sexist Language.” that will be later used by the researchers for
their questionnaire.
The research by Koeser, Kuhn, and Sczesny (2015) aims to see if reading a text
containing gender-fair forms improves the active use of gender-fair language, anticipating that
after reading gender-fair forms, more gender-fair forms will be utilized. While it has been proven
that gender-fair language promotes gender equality, the factors contributing to the use of gender-
fair forms in everyday life are still unclear (Koeser et al., 2015). To test their hypothesis, they
conducted two studies in German, where using gender-fair language is more difficult than in
English since there are more gender-marked parts of speech. As a conclusion, simply reading
gender-fair texts increases women's willingness to adopt gender-fair language, whereas men
must be educated on the subject. Both results emphasize the need of utilizing gender-fair
language in everyday life on a regular basis.
On another study of Koeser and Sczesny entitled . Promoting gender-fair language: the
impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognitions (2014) the results of their study
has shown that when speakers were exposed to arguments for gender-fair language, they adjusted
their language behavior more in the direction of gender-fairness than when they were exposed to
control texts. They discovered no influence of arguments in favor of masculine generics on
cognitive reactions or attitudes. These findings suggest that arguments advocating gender-neutral
language can drive speakers to use gender-neutral language, which is a novel and significant
finding in the context of achieving gender equality in language.
A study of Lee 2007 entitled “Gender Voices in Hong Kong English Textbooks — Some
Past and Current Practices” implied that A comparison of ten recently published books which are
currently in use with ten published in the late 1980s/early 1990s and no longer in use revealed
that women appeared more frequently in the former, and that greater use was made of gender-
inclusive pronouns and the neutral address title Ms. Nevertheless some writers, it was found,
continue to perpetuate the stereotyped image of women as weaker than men, and as operating
primarily within domestic rather than social domains. The “male-first” phenomenon and the
visual under-representation of women are still prevalent in recent textbooks. This means that
there are differences in awareness of such language between men and women, with women
preferring gender-neutral language and males preferring exclusive, male generic forms.
In the Philippine setting the use of gender - fair language is not known to everyone, even
the SOGIE Bill has a lot of issues and has not been approved yet by the senate and is still going
through an in depth debate. The use of gender-fair language should start at a young age, a
research that is entitled “FILIPINO ESL STUDENTS ANDROGYNY TRAIT, AWARENESS
AND ATTITUDE IN GENDER-FAIR LANGUAGE” by Talosa (2018) says that one of the
ways to promote gender-fair language is Neutralization. Neutralization, on the other hand, is
more common in so-called 'natural gender languages,' implying that gender-neutral forms are
preferred over gendered forms. For example, gender neutralization can be performed by
substituting or replacing male-masculine forms (Policeman) with gender unmarked forms (Police
Officer). Gender-marked terms are substituted with gender indeterminate nouns in the context of
neutralization. Gender-differentiated forms are replaced in grammatical gender language.

Neutralization is notably recommended for natural gender languages (Hellinger and Bubman,
2001) and genderless languages (Engelberg, 2002), because gender marks are very easy to avoid
in these languages. Neutralization has proven to be rather simple to adopt and apply.
The research also shows that in light of the preceding data, the researcher comes to the
conclusion that older students at Cagayan State University in the Northern Philippines are more
aware of gender-fair language and have a more positive attitude toward it than younger students.
Furthermore, the more positive their attitude toward gender-neutral language is, the more aware
they are. As a result, gender-neutral language demonstrates that one's consciousness is linked to
one's inner attitude. In our research we will also see if the older students of Pamantasan ng
lungsod ng Maynila.
Another study is entitled Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and
Descrimination, written by Sczesny, S., et al. of 2016. The aim of this study is to reduce the
typing and discrimination establish symmetrical treatment for both women and men through
changing the masculine form (policeman) to gender unmarked form (police officer) or to use
both masculine and feminine form (instead of 'he', speakers will use 'he or she')
In English, the 'he' as masculine form is used to describe the mix-gender groups or all you
human beings, not just only for men (Stahlberg et al., 2007), the pronoun he is more often to use
than the female pronoun 'she'. In accordance with our gender hierarchy, men are seen as more
powerful and have higher social status than women (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). Masculine
bias is most likely to be observed in English, and it is to conclude that when the women have low
status, the use of female pronouns will also be less frequent. Moreover, women much preferred
to apply in unbiased job advertisements instead to apply on the same job that has gender-bias
advertisement (ex. In English, ending with -man: Bem and Bem, 1973).
The language have three different types the grammatical gender languages, natural
gender languages, and genderless languages. First in grammatical gender languages all kinds of
asymmetries exist, it shows low level of social gender equality. Example in French or German,
the word "den" or "student" refers to male student while the word "kluge" or "studentin" refers to
a clever female student. Second the natural gender languages, asymmetries also exist but less
often than grammatical gender for example in English and Swedish neither use he or she. Lastly
in genderless languages there is no personal nouns and pronouns for gender it is only expressed
only through attributes (male/female) or lexical gender nouns (woman/man, father/mother),
example in finnish and turkish the lawyer "lakimies" or journalist "lehmities".
The study proposed two strategies for gender-fair language: naturalization and
feminization, to avoid the possible effect of masculine generics (Bubmann and Hellinger, 2004).
Naturalization is a coping strategy for natural gender, and a combination of feminization and
neutralization is a suggested strategy for grammatical gender. Naturalization is a strategy where
the gender-marked/masculine form terms are replaced into gender-unmarked/gender-indefinite
nouns (ex. policeman to a police officer). On the other hand, feminization refers to the inclusion
of women (ex. In German, Elekerinnen, and Elektriker or female and male electrician).
Some people see Gender-Fair Language or GFL as irritating for different reasons. It is
often met with negative reactions because of its involvement in activist movements (Silviera
1980). Another factor is in the individual speakers, the use of GFL based on gender. Women are
expected to have a favorable attitude toward GFL while men are more focused on their speech.
Next is the sexist attitude of the speaker, where modern sexism believes that women are not
discriminated against and disapprove of the policies related to gender equality (Swim et al 2004),
and speakers with sexist attitudes used gender-fair pronouns less than often. Another factor is the
learning process of speakers about the GFL during their childhood until it becomes a habit, for
example, is the presence of using school books that predominantly masculine generics ignores
the GFL but once a speaker acquired habits and knowledge about using GFL will rely on using
this language form frequently (Hellinger,1980). There is an obstacle that hinders the GFL to
become a standard and prevents the equal treatment of men and women. First, in mental
representation, there is a male bias in linguistic asymmetries that provide high acceptance to
men's social roles like men as political leaders or men as heroes (Stahlberg and Sczesny, 2001).
Based on social role theory it is important to balance the mental representation of mixed-gender
and eliminate the gap in accessibility (Chatard et al., 2005). Second, the use of gender-unfair
language or the masculine generics that eliminate the visibility of women (Stahlberg et al.,
2007). Lastly the arguments against GFL such as the difficulty to understand the text. The
following results in imbalances that prevent social change from happening (Rothmund and
Christmann, 2002). That is why education and policymaking is an important aspect in promoting
equality and continuing to explore the scientific insight about Gender-Fair Language.
The Gender-Fair Language is more accepted when there is support from official
legislation and sanctions for the use of biased language (American Psychological Association,
1975, 2009). To practice, the GFL one must focus on simple repetition of non-sexist expressions
until it becomes a habit. The exposure of the children to GFL is beneficial to lessen gender-
stereotypic beliefs. The study also emphasizes that gender linguistic asymmetries affect women
at first glance, but when we look beyond and consider the idea of masculine form it is seen that it
is only women who felt on themselves as less preferred as job candidates. Do men benefit as well
in GFL?, for men, the GFL will lose their privileged position in language. Take a look if all the
job advertisements contain GFL, men might be included in traditionally female jobs or
"feminine".
Use of gender-fair language is crucial for gender equality because it helps to reduce
cognitive and behavioral male biases evoked by exclusively masculine forms (Stahlberg, Braun,
Irmen, & Sczesny, 2007). In many languages, masculine forms are traditionally used as generics
when referring to mixed-gender groups or persons with unknown gender (e.g., the pronoun he),
even though feminine forms exist (Hellinger & Bußmann, 2001). In contrast, gender-fair
language demands the use of both feminine and masculine forms (feminization; e.g., he or she)
and/or gender-neutral forms (neutralization; e.g., they; Mucchi-Faina, 2005). Past research has
revealed that gender-fair forms trigger less male representations than masculine generics (e.g.,
Irmen, 2007) and influence decisions, for example, they lead to more favorable hiring decisions
for women and positively influence women’s self-perceptions in job interviews (Horvath &
Sczesny, 2014; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011).
Despite the empirical evidence documenting positive effects on gender equality, the
question how speakers can be persuaded to accept and employ gender-fair forms has rarely been
investigated. For instance, ordinary speakers of German rarely use gender-fair language and tend
to reject it (Demarmels & Schaffner, 2011), although it is promoted by official guidelines and
regulations (e.g. American Psychological Association, 2009; Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei,
2009). After attending training interventions on gender-fair language, speakers of English were
found to use slightly more gender-fair pronouns to complete sentences than non attendants
(McMinn & Foster, 1991; McMinn, Troyer, Hannum, & Foster, 1991; Prentice, 1994). This
implies that participating in training interventions or other related activities to improve one's
ability to use GFL would be highly beneficial as it plays a role in learning about gender-fair
language and how it affects one's attitude in their choice of words during speeches.
Review of Related Literature
An article published in the website of The Utopian by Campetella (2016) shared the
answers of Shane Walley, MSSW, an education coordinator for the University of Texas at
Austin’s Gender and Sexuality Center to the question “why social workers should care about
gender-fair or gender-neutral language?”. First is that, according to The 2008 NASW Code of
Ethics, social workers should get educated and learn about the nature of social diversity and
injustice in terms of gender identity and expression. The use of gender-neutral language,
according to Walley, also implies respect for and inclusion of the people with whom social
workers work.
Another related article suggests the importance of writing in a gender neutral language.
Social workers are exposed to writing case analysis. It is a must for a social worker to write in a
gender neutral form. It is said in one article entitled “Gender-Fair Language” by Jenny R.
Redfern; you write to fairly depict the gender that has been identified in numerous words.
Gender-fair language reduces unneeded anxiety regarding gender in your subject matter,
allowing you and your reader to concentrate on what people do rather than their gender. The use
of generic nouns like he and man is a typical occurrence. For example, He and man, when used
generically, can mislead your viewers instead of conveying a general image of reality. According
to Wendy Martyna's research, even if the rest of the sentence is gender-neutral, the average
reader tends to imagine a male when reading “he” or “man”. As a result, you can't guarantee that
your reader will notice the woman. If you refer to every technician as he, or if your reader sees
the lady in the picture, you've done a poor job. The evolution of man. Replacing every he or she,
on the other hand, grabs much more attention. It defeats your aim to pay more attention to
gender. This situation needs special attention. In scientific and technical writing, where any
uncertainty is undesirable, pay special care, that is why the use of gender fair language in the
social work profession is compelled to write documents that are gender fair for all the clientele in
the field.
In the field of social work, it is inevitable that to work on courts. The social workers are
bound to work in courts whether it is in juvenile courts, regional trial courts, municipal trial
court, or in sandiganbayan and when working in courts, Sexist-Language has no place in the
Judiciary. In a 2006 Administrative Circular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its mandate to utilize
gender-neutral terminology in the judiciary. The Court issued Memorandum Order No. 90- 2021,
Reiterative Issuance Re: Use of Gender Fair Language in the Judiciary, on September 24.
Despite the seminars and modules, as well as the distribution of manuals and materials to
court officials and personnel, "some of the official documents, communications, and issuances of
the Judiciary still use sexist language," the Court noted that "some of the official documents,
communications, and issuances of the Judiciary still use sexist language."
"WHEREFORE, Administrative Circular No. 82-2006, issued September 19, 2006, is
REITERATED in respect to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of
2005.“WHEREFORE, Administrative Circular No. 82-2006 dated September 19, 2006, in
relation to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 2005, is
REITERATED. All official and personnel in the Judiciary are REMINDED and
ENCOURAGED to use non-sexist language in all official documents, communications, and
issuance,” (Judicial Department of the Philippines, 2021, Wherefore section, para. 4) This just
shows what future social workers should be when working in courts by using the right language.
Language is a critical component of communication. It expresses self-awareness, reflects culture,
and influences socializationand because social workers deal with gender issues on a daily basis,
the use of non-sexist language in preparing letters, memoranda, and other issuances will
encourage them to make a conscious effort to avoid implicit and explicit discriminatory language
against women and men.
Language has the ability to govern and prevent gender inequity. The most effective
approach to utilize language is to use it in such a way that society is free of sexism. It is critical
to become aware of gender-neutral vocabulary in social work, particularly if you interact with
people.
Considering language to be a neutral medium. Instead of seeing language as a tool used
strategically by both sexists and feminist activists, characterize it as a site of battle over word-
meaning, which is often a struggle over who has the right to be in specific locations, speak in
certain ways, and hold certain occupations (Sarah Mills, 2008). Hence, it is important to spread
awareness that language is not simply a source of sexism, but it is also a source of prejudice. and
the representations of women's and men's views and discourse language plays a role in and is
mediated by it.
Page contends that focusing on the specific context allows us to make political comments
about how women are treated in specific settings and recommend action to address that problem,
while also acknowledging that the specific incidence occurs in the context of other injustices
(Sarah Mills, 2008). As a result, in order to disseminate information on gender fair language
(GFL), and promote the importance of gender fair language, we must first identify the problems,
admit them, and devise a solution to eliminate prejudices in language.

Students are also dealt with by social workers, either as clients or as students inside the
classroom. As a worker who guides students, it is also important that he/she is aware of the role
or the impact of a language on students. In a book titled “Creating Gender-Fair Schools,
Classrooms and Colleges”, suggests that there’s also concern in education about gender and
language. The challenge in education is to promote effective ways of engaging with gender
dynamics in schools, colleges and classrooms in such a way as to promote positive change for all
(Davies B: 1989; Salisbury and Jackson: 1996).
A concern with gender in education is not new (Arnot et al: 1999). During the 1970s and
1980s, the focus of concern was on the educational experiences of girls, and in particular, their
marginalization in areas of the curriculum. Certain educationalists, working from a feminist
perspective, explored how interactions and language in schools and classrooms disadvantaged
girls (Arnot and Weiner: 1987; Mahoney: 1985; Spender and Sarah: 1980; Weiner & Arnot:
1987; Walkerdine: 1989). Gender aware strategies at the time attempted to re-shape the
curriculum and approaches to teaching and learning to embrace the interests of girls as much as
boys for example the Girls into Science and Technology (GIST) initiative.
The other way in which the current debate about gender and education is framed relates
to concerns about ‘challenging behaviors’ and the extent to which formal and informal exclusion
from education is gendered. Boys are more likely to be reprimanded for their behaviors than girls
and to receive fewer rewards or positive affirmations (Younger et al: 2005b).
They allow us to recognise that there are multiple versions and ways of being male and
female – of ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ – and that we should not reduce the experiences of
all boys and girls to homogenized and stereotypical singularities (Epstein: 1994; Mirza: 1992;
Sewell: 1997).
They remind us to look carefully at the processes of interaction through which gender
identities are expressed and by which they are sustained. No amount of non-stereotypical role
models or anti-sexist materials are going to impact on the living interactions between children
and young adults as they utilize gender as a tool in defining themselves and others and in making
their mark on the world (Thorne: 1993). This includes children and young adults using gender
through verbal and physical interactions to regulate the behavior of each other and to maintain
and defend a sense of self-worth – but how this happens varies significantly according to context
including aspects of context associated with social class and ethnicities (Ball et al: 2000;
Connolly: 1998; Jackson: 2006; Martino and Pallotta-Chiaroli: 2003).
Chapter 3
Methodology
Gender and language as both a product and an engine of human culture, language is
inherently dynamic and ever-evolving. In the society today as language evolves, the knowledge
of people about gender also evolves, but people frequently make the mistake of conflating
gender with sex or sexuality. Gender is separate from sex, which is determined at birth and can
be classified as female, male, or intersex. Sex is distinct from sexuality, which is concerned with
desire: who one is emotionally and/or physically drawn to. Gender is a socially constructed and
frequently reinforced cultural concept, different from both sex and sexuality. As a result, gender
is susceptible to social reinscriptions that can perpetuate problematic and even discriminatory
ideas about how people should look, sound, express themselves, or act.
Awareness is crucial in the field of social work. This study is being undertaken because
this topic will raise awareness about gender-neutral language. Language plays an essential role in
reducing sexism, according to prior studies that have been reviewed. The goal of this study is to
determine the extent of gender fair language awareness among social work students in first year
to third years college. This also intends to assist students by encouraging social change and
contributing to gender equality, as the researchers investigate how one's understanding of GFL
influences one's personality and how this knowledge might benefit one's future career as
professional social workers.
The focus of this research paper is to educate people, especially those who are in the
social work profession, that gender matters in language, especially within and beyond the
educational environment. Gender notions are dynamic and fluctuate depending on context,
culture, language, and usage, according to this document. This research paper seeks to answer
these questions:
Hypothesis:
Ho: there is no significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the
social work students when grouped according to profile (Age, Sex, and Year Level)
Ha: There is a significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the
social work students when grouped according to profile (Age, Sex, and Year Level)
These questions will guide this study:

What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
A. Age
B. Sex
C. Year level
D. Name (Optional)
What is the level of awareness of the social work students in Pamantasan ng lungsod ng
Maynila?
What is the attitude of the students on gender-fair language?
Are there differences on the awareness and attitude of the students when grouped
according to profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)?
Is there a relationship between the awareness,attitude, and profile of the social work
students?
These questions will be guided by the principle of these theories that will be used in this
study. First is the grammatical and morphological asymmetry or the special use of generic
masculine nouns and masculine agreement that both refer to men and women. Semantic
asymmetry is the existence of masculine or feminine pairs in which the feminine may denote or
imply a less prestigious function than its masculine counterpart. Another theory to support this
study is Linguistic relativity, or the idea that language directs thought has been demonstrated in a
variety of contexts. Lastly, The Social Role Theory by Eagly Perceivers' perceptions of social
(e.g., occupational) groups and the stereotypes associated with them (e.g., occupational
stereotypes) are based on their experiences and observations of the differing distributions of
women and men within those groups.
This chapter will contain the methods that the researchers use in this study. The research
design used in this study is a quantitative design since the scores of the social work students are
the ones that will be analyzed in this study. This research will use stratified sampling in selecting
the participants in the study. The data collection technique as well as the instrumentation that the
researchers chose for this study is the use of survey questionnaires through Google Forms
conducted via online. The data analysis tool used in this study is a statistics tool called ANOVA.
It will not be disclosed to them or to any other participants and non-participants except the
researchers because an ethical consideration is being implemented in conducting this study
which is under the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
I. Research Design
The study aims to determine the level of awareness and attitude towards the Gender-Fair
Language among undergraduate social work students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.
The data that will be gathered in this study may be used in the community of Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila as reference in promoting Gender and Development (GAD) among the
colleges.
This study employed a quantitative descriptive research design. According to the blog of
questionpro they define descriptive research as a type of quantitative study that aims to collect
measurable data in order to do statistical analysis on a population sample.
II. Data Collection Technique

The respondents for this research are the undergraduate students of Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila taking Bachelor of Science in Social work academic year 2021-2022.
Currently the total enrollment for this academic year for social work students is 283. The main
data collection technique used in this study is a survey questionnaire that the researchers conduct
through an online software called Google Forms. The survey will be conducted online for the
safety of both researchers and respondents.
III. Instrumentation
The research instrument that is used in this study is a questionnaire given to the
participant through online. The questionnaire was divided into six parts. The first part dealt with
the demographic profile of the students mainly their name,age,sex, and year level. The second
part II, III, and IV evaluated the attitude of the social work students regarding gender-neutral or
gender-fair language. It was adapted from Parks and Roberton's 21-item Inventory of Attitude
toward Sexist and Non-Sexist Language (2004). In Part V The students' awareness of gender-fair
terminologies was examined. The test was created by the researcher and was patterned on the
book of Kintanar, T. B., & Tongson, A. (1998). Gender-fair language: A Primer. University
Center for Women's Studies, University of the Philippines.
IV. Informants
The research informants in this study are composed of Social work undergraduate
students from different college levels in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. The total
population of social work undergraduate students in Pamantasan ng lungsod ng Maynila is 283
both the regular and irregular students. The researchers used stratified sampling because this
sampling allows researchers to obtain a sample population that best represents the entire
population being studied. The undergraduate social work students were divided into 2 strata
respectively boys and girls. Each social work 1st years - 3rd years block will have 5 boys and 5
girls a total of 10 respondents per block, that would be a total of 70 respondents for this study.
V. Data Analysis Technique
The data analysis technique used in this study is Inferential Statistics, for example, The
Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to calculate the decision of the social work
students about the attitude and awareness is acceptable related to their stance on gender-neutral
terminology. T-test was employed to determine the difference in the students' awareness and
attitude when sexes are grouped together. Whilst, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Chi-
Square was used to determine the awareness difference when they are gathered, and their stance
toward gender neutral language based on age, sex , and college level.
VI. Ethical Considerations
As this research made use of human participants to test their knowledge as undergraduate
students of social work about the correct usage of different gender-fair languages used in the
social work profession, several matters were detected. It is vital to protect the participants'
privacy and confidentiality, and concerns were raised in order to avoid future issues.
Confidentiality, permission, and identity protection are among the problems that were
considered.
The scores of the participants will not be disclosed to anyone aside from the researchers
and the participants will be given sufficient time to answer the questionnaire. A waiver about the
Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act is a law that seeks to protect
all forms of information, be it private, personal, or sensitive that is meant to cover both natural
and juridical persons involved in the processing of personal information, will be shown to the
participants before answering the survey and they will choose between ‘yes’ or ‘no’ if they allow
their data to be shared to the researchers this will also ensure their confidentiality and to secure
that their identity won’t be exposed. After that, they will be asked to participate, and they will be
assured that the information received from them would be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
This will be done to help the researchers and the respondents build trust.
Chapter 4
Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion
The data analysis and findings from 70 questionnaires completed by social work undergraduate
students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila academic year 2021 - 2022 is discussed in this
chapter. The goal of this research was to find out the level of awareness of the social work
students in Pamantasan ng lungsod ng Maynila, the attitude of the students on gender-fair
language, differences on the awareness and attitude of the students when grouped according to
profile (Age, Sex, and Year Level), and relationship between the awareness, attitude, and profile
of the social work students.
Table 1: Distribution of the students in terms of Age
Table 1 shows the age distribution of the students. It clearly demonstrates that the majority of the
students that make up a total of 49 people, or 58.57 percent, are between the ages of 20 and 22.
While, 29 or 41.43 percent of the students have 17 - 19 age range. This indicates that they are
mostly teenagers. This is in light of Republic Act 8044, often known as the "Youth in Nation
Building Act," which defines youths as individuals between the ages of 15 and 30. According to
Eaton et al., 2009, the bottom line is that younger people are better because they are more open
to new ideas and willing to question traditional positions, than the elder.
Age f %
17 – 19 29 41.43
20 – 22 41 58.57
Total 70 100.00
Table 1
Table 2: Distribution of the students in terms of Sex
Table 2 illustrates the student distribution in terms of sex. The researchers opted to have an equal
distribution of the male and female of the social work students.
Sex f %
Male 35 50.00
Female 35 50.00
Total 70 100.00
Table 2
Table 3: Distribution of the students in terms of Year Level
The distribution of participants in terms of year level is visible in Table 3. The table shows that
30.86 percent of students are in the first year, followed by 20.57 percent in the second year.
While 10% of third-year students and 10% of irregular students are in the third year. This is
corroborated by enrollment data from the college of social work academic year 2021-2022,
which shows that first-year students outnumber second- and third-year students.
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
Table 3
Table 4 Attitude of the students in terms of belief in sexist language
Table 4 depicts the students' attitudes regarding sexist behavior in language. According to the
table, they strongly agree that, despite the difficulty of change, they should endeavor to
eliminate sexist language (4.40) also they strongly agree that most publication guidelines
require newspaper writers to avoid using ethnic and racial slurs. So, these guidelines should also
require writers to avoid sexist language (4.20). Additionally, the pupils believed that the
abolition of Sexist language is a significant objective; it is linked to sexist language, when people
are treated misogynistic in society; and when teachers they should change the way they discourse
about the Philippines' history. Our forefathers," for example, to phrases that should include
women were all given the saverage score of 3.60. The participant are neutral when it comes if
the English language will never be changed because it is too deeply ingrained in the culture
(3.39). This indicates that students are split on whether or not language should be symmetrical
because the overall interpretation is neutral. This points out that social work students express
their dissatisfaction with the original meaning of the words "he" and "person." Today, "he" is
used to refer to both males and girls. This discovery shows that the students are completely in
favor of getting rid of the He that is the generic masculine used. This supports the theory of
Stahlberg et al. (2007) found that the masculine form used as generic yields and produces a
cognitive male bias that this should be avoided because it as it makes women obscure.
Weighted Verbal
Statement/ Question Scale F %
Mean Interpretation
5 4 5.71
1. Women who think
4 17 24.29
that being called a
3 25 35.71
‘chairman’ is sexist are 2.93 Neutral
2 18 25.71
misinterpreting the word
1 6 8.57
‘chairman.
Total 70 100.00
2. We should not change 5 9 12.86 3.03 Neutral
the way the English 4 18 25.71
language has 3 13 18.57
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
2 13 18.57
activity
1 16 22.86
Total 70 100.00
4. If the original 5 3 4.29
meaning of the word ‘he’ 4 12 17.14
was ‘person’, we should 3 4 5.71

2.24 Disagree
continue to use ‘he’ to 2 31 44.29
refer to both males and 1 20 28.57
females today Total 70 100.00
5 10 14.29
5. When people use the
4 27 38.57
term ‘man and wife’ the
3 17 24.29
expression is not sexist if 3.39 Neutral
2 12 17.14
the users don’t mean it to
1 4 5.71
be
Total 70 100.00
6. The English language 5 8 11.43 3.06 Neutral
will never be changed 4 20 28.57
because it is too deeply 3 14 20.00
ingrained in the culture? 2 24 34.29
1 4 5.71
Total 70 100.00
7. When teachers talk 5 11 15.71
about the history of the 4 33 47.14
Philippines, they should 3 15 21.43
change expressions, such 2 9 12.86 3.60 Agree
as “our forefathers,” to 1 2 2.86
expressions that include

Total 70 100.00
women
8. Teachers who require 5 15 21.43
students to use nonsexist 4 25 35.71
language are unfairly 3 15 21.43

3.57 Agree
forcing their political 2 15 21.43
views upon their 1 0 0.00
students* Total 70 100.00
9. Most publication 5 27 38.57
guidelines require 4 31 44.29
newspaper writers to 3 11 15.71
avoid using ethnic and 2 1 1.43

4.20 Strongly Agree
racial slurs. So, these 1 0 0.00
guidelines should also
require writers to avoid Total 70 100.00
sexist language
10. Although change is 5 39 55.71 4.40 Strongly Agree

4 23 32.86
difficult, we still should
3 6 8.57
try to eliminate sexist
2 1 1.43
language
1 1 1.43
Total 70 100.00
Overall 3.33 Neutral
Table 4
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
Table 5 Recognition of Sexist Language
When the social work students where asked about recognition in sexist language this table
reveals that the underlined statements are probably not sexist. This table indicates that the social
work students only have a limited understanding of sexist terminology. As a result, the discovery
implies that they are not critical of gendered language, because such a belief or attitude is crucial,
The deliberate use of sexist phrases in language is caused by a lack of understanding of sexist
terms in language such use or implementation This finding backs up the theory of (Hellinger and
Bubmann, 2004)despite efforts to make language more gender-neutral, the Sexist language is
still used.
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
2 22 31.43
just themselves
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 3.24 Undecided
2 11 15.71
just an old wives’ tale
1 6 8.57
Total 70 100.00
5 14 20.00
4 20 28.57
3. If a child wants to
3 11 15.71
play the piano well, he 3.16 Undecided
2 13 18.57
must practice hard
1 12 17.14
Total 70 100.00
4. A man should lead a 5 2 2.86 1.46 Not At All
country* 4 4 5.71
3 3 4.29
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
2 12 17.14
in the cashier*
1 51 72.86
Total 70 100.00
Probably Not
Overall 2.38
Sexist
Table 5

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
Table 6 Willingness to use Gender – Fair Language
In terms of the students' willingness to participate in the use of gender – fair language, Table 6
reveals that the social work student are very willing to use the term, "husband and wife," rather
than “Man and wife with a mean of 4.50, implying their eagerness to adopt hierarchical
expression or symmetrical building. Consequently, as the respondents are social work students
that are aware of the gender – fair terms that are used when dealing with the clients because one
of the principles of social work is respect for inherent worth and upholding social justice. The
overall interpretation of the table suggest that the social work students are very willing to use the
different gender – fair language with a total mean of (4.28)
Statement/ Question Scale f % Weighted Verbal

Mean Interpretation
5 21 30.00
1. When you are
4 23 32.86
referring to a married
woman, how willing are 3 8 11.43

3.61 Somewhat willing
you to use the title“Ms. 2 14 20.00
Smith” rather than “Mrs.
1 4 5.71
Smith”?
Total 70 100.00
5 37 52.86
4 22 31.43
2. How willing are you
to use the word “server” 3 3 4.29

4.24 Very Willing
rather than “waiter” or 2 7 10.00
“waitress”?
1 1 1.43
Total 70 100.00
3. How willing are you 5 47 67.14 4.50 Very Willing
to use the expression

4 14 20.00
“husband and wife”
3 6 8.57
rather than “man and
wife”? 2 3 4.29
1 0 0.00
Total 70 100.00
5 43 61.43
4 20 28.57
4. How willing are you
to use the term “camera 3 4 5.71

4.47 Very Willing
operator” rather than 2 3 4.29
“cameraman”?
1 0 0.00
Total 70 100.00
5 49 70.00
5. How willing are you 4 16 22.86
to use the title “flight

3 3 4.29
attendant” instead of 4.59 Very Willing
2 1 1.43
“steward” or
“stewardess”? 1 1 1.43
Total 70 100.00
Overall 4.28 Very Willing
Table 6
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
Table 7 Awareness of the students on Gender – fair language
Table 7 shows that the social work students are only moderately aware about the different
terms, rules, and usage of gender – fair languages. When asked about the memorandum circular
no.06 series 2014 that promotes the use of gender fair language in the Philippines the social work
students answered slightly aware that has the mean of 2.33, but when asked if they are aware
about the use of Generic Masculine nouns and pronouns reflects gender inequality in that women
are never seen in terms of general or representative humanity. Men represent the universal or the
human to which women are the other the social work students that they very aware with the
mean of (3.40). When the social work students are asked if they are aware of the different
Gender-Fair Language Webinars conducted in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila from 2020-
2022 for both the English and Filipino Language they said that they are only moderately aware
This finding implies that the College of Social Work should integrate more courses the on gender
sensitivity usage with the academic disciplines catered compliant to the PCW Sec. 16 which
mandates the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to which PLM belongs being a Higher
Education Institution (HEI) to develop and promote gender-sensitive curriculum.
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

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

Total 70 100.00
2. Are you aware of the 5 1 1.43
CHED memorandum 4 6 8.57
order No. 01 Series 2015

3 27 38.57
that establishes the 2.37 Slightly Aware
2 20 28.57
policies and guidelines
on gender and 1 16 22.86
development? Total 70 100.00
5 12 17.14
4 34 48.57
3. Gender-fair language
(GFL) aims at reducing 3 14 20.00

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 3.40 Very Aware
Masculine nouns and

4 28 40.00
pronouns reflects gender
3 16 22.86
inequality in that women
are never seen in terms 2 8 11.43
of general or 1 7 10.00
representative humanity. Total 70 100.00
Men represent the
universal or the human

5. Are you
to which aware
women of 5
are the
6 8.57
Gender Discriminatory 4 24 34.29
Language Stereotyping
3 19 27.14 Moderately
where assigning gender 3.10
2 13 18.57 Aware
when gender is unknown
or irrelevant as a result 1 8 11.43
of stereotypes. Total 70 100.00
6. Are you aware of 5 5 7.14
Gender Discriminatory
4 19 27.14
Language Invisibility
3 21 30.00
and omission where Moderately
2.89
language casts the male 2 13 18.57 Aware
as the generic norm and 1 12 17.14
keeps women from being

Total 70 100.00
visible in public life.
5 8 11.43
7.Are you aware of 3.11 Moderately
Gender Discriminatory 4 21 30.00 Aware

3 21 30.00
2 11 15.71
Language Subordination
1 9 12.86
and trivialization where
language which paints Total 70 100.00
one gender,usingoftena 5
8. When 23 32.86 3.79 Very Aware
gendered pronoun (e.g.

4 24 34.29
he or she), the speaker is
3 11 15.71
assuming the gender of
the person they are 2 9 12.86
talking about. Often 1 3 4.29
people use gendered

Total 70 100.00
pronouns even when
they do not know the
gender of the person they
are talking about or
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’. This is becoming

9. When you are 5 10 14.29
more and more common
speaking or writing
4 26 37.14
about occupations, do
3 15 21.43
not provide irrelevant
information about 2 12 17.14
people’s gender. Doing 1 7 10.00
this supports the Moderately

3.29
stereotype that the Aware
‘normal’ version of this
profession is gendered.
Total 70 100.00
For example, saying
'female lawyer' implies
that lawyers are
normally male.
10. Are you aware of the 5 8 11.43 2.87 Moderately
different Gender-Fair Aware

4 12 17.14
Language Webinars
3 23 32.86
conducted in Pamantasan
2 17 24.29
1 10 14.29
ng Lungsod ng Maynila
Total 70 100.00
from 2020-2022 for both
the English and Filipino Moderately

Overall 3.07
Aware
Table 7
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
Accept Null Hypothesis: There are no significant differences on the awareness and attitude of the
students when grouped according to profile.
Table 8 Difference on the attitude and awareness in gender fair language when grouped
according to sex
When students were divided into groups based on sex, the researchers expected that there would
be no significant difference in their understanding of gender fair language. Table 8 findings
implies that there is no difference between men and women. This research suggests that both
men and women value balance understanding of language as a neutral medium for representing
reality. This study countered Lee 2007 findings that there are differences in awareness of such
language between men and women, with women preferring gender-neutral language and males
preferring exclusive, male generic forms. As a result, the null hypothesis is accepted. This data
implies that gender has no influence on students' attitudes regarding gender-neutral language.
This finding backs up Muchi-2005 faina's study, which indicated that women and men didn't
seem to care much one way or the other about gender-neutral terminology. This finding
contradicts a recent study by Koeser and Sczesny (2014), who discovered that women employ
gender fair language more frequently than men and are more easily motivated to change to it.
p- Decision Decisio
Category Sex Mean Interpretation
value Rule n
Male 3.36 Failed to There is no

Belief 0.525 reject significant
Femal
3.30 Ho difference
e
Male 2.25 Reject Failed to There is no
Recognition 0.071 Ho if p- reject significant
Femal
2.52 value is Ho difference
e
less than
Male 4.24 or equal Failed to There is no
Willingness 0.560 to alpha reject significant
Femal (0.05)
4.33 Ho difference
e
Awareness 0.686 reject significant
Femal
3.11 Ho difference
e
Table 8
according to age
Table 9 reveals that student’s awareness in gender fair language is not significantly different
when grouped according to their age as reckoned by its computed p- value of 0.080, 0.522,
0.477, and 0.082 that is lower than 0.05. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that
age doesn’t affect the attitude and the awareness towards gender- fair language of the social
work students.
p- Decision Decisio
Category Age Mean Interpretation
value Rule n
17 -
3.42 Failed to There is no
19
20 -
3.27 Ho difference
22
17 -
2.44 Reject Failed to There is no
19
20 -
22
less than
17 -
4.22 or equal Failed to There is no
19
20 - (0.05)
4.33 Ho difference
22
17 -
19
20 -
3.21 Ho difference
22
Table 9
according to year level
Table 10 shows that there is a significant difference in the belief in sexist language of the social
work students when group according to year level. This shows that as the social work students go
to a higher level their belief on the sexist language goes higher, that the use of sexist language is
still rampant in our society today, with a probability of 0.010 lower than 0.05 thus the null
hypothesis is rejected. However when it comes to the recognition, willingness, and awareness
towards the gender – fair language table 10 shows that there is no significant difference between
the year level of the social work students. This finding indicates that the social work student’s
awareness of gender-fair language is comparable to that of students in higher grades.
Furthermore, it suggests that a social work student, regardless of year level, has the same
perspective and in-depth study of events and linguistic situations.
p-
Year Mea Decisio Decisio Interpretatio
Category valu
Level n n Rule n n
e
1st year 3.42 Reject
Ho if p-
2nd
3.42 value is
year There is a
0.01 less Reject
Belief 3rd than or Ho significant
3.03 0
year equal to difference
alpha
Irregula (0.05)
3.19
r
Recognitio 1st year 2.51 0.42 Failed There is no
n 1 to reject significant
2nd
2.21 Ho difference
year
3rd
2.44
year
Irregula 2.30
r
1st year 4.26
2nd
4.33
year Failed There is no
Willingnes 0.25
3rd to reject significant
s 4.54 4
year Ho difference
Irregula
4.00
r
1st year 2.86
2nd
3.10
0.07
Awareness 3rd to reject significant
3.56 9
year Ho difference
Irregula
3.19
r
Table 10
Table 11 Difference on the attitude and awareness when grouped according to the select
variables
The study hypothesized that when students were categorized according to profile factors, there
was no significant difference in their attitude and awareness towards gender- fair language. Table
11 shows that there is a strong relationship when it comes to the awareness and the belief on
sexist of the social work students with a p- value of 0.033 less than to alpha (0.05) therefore it
rejected the Ho. This means that the belief on sexist language of the social work students has an
effect on their level of awareness on the gender- fair language, however table 11 also shows that
there is no significant relationship between the awareness and attitude, and profile of the social
work students in the categories of belief in sexist language, recognition of the sexist language,
and the willingness to use gender-fair language. This finding implies that students in lower
grades have the same attitude and awareness of gender fair language as students in higher grades.
This research implies that all of them are mature regardless of their age, gender, or year level.
Social work students no matter the profile differences think critically about texts scribbled with
gender bias and stereotype dictionaries, or verbal talks.
Accept Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the awareness, attitude, and
profile of the social work students
Variables Tested Chi Decisi Decisi Interpretat Crame Interpretat
Squa on on ion r's V ion
re
p-
Rule
value
Reject Significant very strong
Belief 0.033 0.327
Ho relationship relationship
Failed
No
Recogniti to
0.631 significant N/A
on reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Willingne to
ss reject
relationship
Ho
Awarenes Failed
s No
to
Age 0.645 significant N/A
reject
relationship
Ho
Reject
Ho if Failed
No
p- to
Sex 0.864 significant N/A
value reject
relationship
is less Ho
than or
equal Failed
No
Year to to
Level alpha reject
relationship
(0.05) Ho
Failed
No
to
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
Belief Sex 0.710 significant N/A
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Recogniti Age 0.460 Failed No N/A

to
significant
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
on reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Willingne to
ss reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Table 11
Legend
Hypothesis Testing
Accept Null Hypothesis: There are no significant differences on the awareness and attitude of the
students when grouped according to profile.
according to sex
When students were divided into groups based on sex, the researchers expected that there would
be no significant difference in their understanding of gender fair language. Table 8 findings
implies that there is no difference between men and women. This research suggests that both
men and women value balance understanding of language as a neutral medium for representing
reality. This study countered Lee 2007 findings that there are differences in awareness of such
language between men and women, with women preferring gender-neutral language and males
preferring exclusive, male generic forms. As a result, the null hypothesis is accepted. This data
implies that gender has no influence on students' attitudes regarding gender-neutral language.
This finding backs up Muchi-2005 faina's study, which indicated that women and men didn't
seem to care much one way or the other about gender-neutral terminology. This finding
contradicts a recent study by Koeser and Sczesny (2014), who discovered that women employ
gender fair language more frequently than men and are more easily motivated to change to it.
p- Decision Decisio
Category Sex Mean Interpretation
value Rule n

Femal
3.30 Ho difference
e
Male 2.25 Reject Failed to There is no
Femal
e
less than
Male 4.24 or equal Failed to There is no
Femal (0.05)
4.33 Ho difference
e
Femal
3.11 Ho difference
e
Table 8
according to age
Table 9 reveals that student’s awareness in gender fair language is not significantly different
when grouped according to their age as reckoned by its computed p- value of 0.080, 0.522,
0.477, and 0.082 that is lower than 0.05. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that
age doesn’t affect the attitude and the awareness towards gender- fair language of the social
work students.
p- Decision Decisio
Category Age Mean Interpretation
value Rule n
17 -
19
20 -
3.27 Ho difference
22
17 -
2.44 Reject Failed to There is no
19
20 -
22
less than
17 -
4.22 or equal Failed to There is no
19
20 - (0.05)
4.33 Ho difference
22
17 -
19
20 -
3.21 Ho difference
22
Table 9
according to year level
Table 10 shows that there is a significant difference in the belief in sexist language of the social
work students when group according to year level. This shows that as the social work students go
to a higher level their belief on the sexist language goes higher, that the use of sexist language is
still rampant in our society today, with a probability of 0.010 lower than 0.05 thus the null
hypothesis is rejected. However when it comes to the recognition, willingness, and awareness
towards the gender – fair language table 10 shows that there is no significant difference between
the year level of the social work students. This finding indicates that the social work student’s
awareness of gender-fair language is comparable to that of students in higher grades.
Furthermore, it suggests that a social work student, regardless of year level, has the same
perspective and in-depth study of events and linguistic situations.
Category p- Decisio Decisio Interpretatio

Year Mea
valu n Rule n n
Level n e
1st year 3.42
2nd
3.42
year There is a
0.01 Reject
Belief 3rd significant
3.03 0 Ho
year difference
Irregula
3.19
r
1st year 2.51
2nd
2.21
Recognitio 0.42
n 2.44 1
year Reject Ho difference
Ho if p-
Irregula value is
2.30
r less
1st year 4.26 than or
equal to
2nd alpha
4.33
year (0.05) Failed There is no
Willingnes 0.25
s 4.54 4
year Ho difference
Irregula
4.00
r
1st year 2.86
2nd
3.10
0.07
Awareness 3rd to reject significant
3.56 9
year Ho difference
Irregula
3.19
r
Table 10
Table 11 Difference on the attitude and awareness when grouped according to the select
variables
The study hypothesized that when students were categorized according to profile factors, there
was no significant difference in their attitude and awareness towards gender- fair language. Table
11 shows that there is a strong relationship when it comes to the awareness and the belief on
sexist of the social work students with a p- value of 0.033 less than to alpha (0.05) therefore it
rejected the Ho. This means that the belief on sexist language of the social work students has an
effect on their level of awareness on the gender- fair language, however table 11 also shows that
there is no significant relationship between the awareness and attitude, and profile of the social
work students in the categories of belief in sexist language, recognition of the sexist language,
and the willingness to use gender-fair language. This finding implies that students in lower
grades have the same attitude and awareness of gender fair language as students in higher grades.
This research implies that all of them are mature regardless of their age, gender, or year level.
Social work students no matter the profile differences think critically about texts scribbled with
gender bias and stereotype dictionaries, or verbal talks.
Accept Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the awareness, attitude, and
profile of the social work students
Chi
Squa Decisi
Decisi Interpretat Crame Interpretat
Variables Tested re on
on ion r's V ion
p- Rule
value
Awarenes Reject Reject Significant very strong
Belief 0.033 0.327
s Ho if Ho relationship relationship
p-
Failed
value No
Recogniti to
0.631 is less significant N/A
on reject
than or relationship
Ho
equal
to Failed
alpha No
Willingne to
0.143 (0.05) significant N/A
ss reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
reject
relationship
Ho
Sex 0.864 Failed No N/A
to significant
reject
Ho relationship
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
Belief Sex 0.710 significant N/A
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
to
reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Recogniti to
on reject
relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Willingne Failed
No
ss to
reject
relationship
Ho
Sex 0.901 Failed No N/A
to significant
reject relationship
Ho
Failed
No
Year to
Level reject
relationship
Ho
Table 11
Legend
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

This chapter is divided into four parts. The first section contributes to the study's overall
summary, followed by a summary of the findings and their conclusions. The study's
ramifications are then discussed, followed by recommendations for future research.
I. Research Summary
This study was performed to determine the level of awareness of gender-fair language
among Social Work students.
It sought to identify (a) the profile of the PLM Social Work students in terms of age, sex,
and year level; (b) the level of awareness of Social Work students in Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila; (c) the attitude of the students in gender-fair language; (d) the
differences in awareness and attitude of the students when grouped according to profile
(Age, Sex, Year level); and (e) if there is a relationship between the awareness, attitude,
and profile of the Social Work students.
Through an online survey questionnaire, the researchers used a likert scale to assess the
level of awareness in gender-fair language of the Social Work students at Pamantasan ng
Lungsod ng Maynila. The respondents were selected using stratified random sampling.
Students have a neutral view on gender fair language, according to the findings of this
study. Students are aware that gender fair language exists, but their feelings about sexist
language are ambiguous. Researchers also looked into how students recognize sexist
language, coming to the conclusion that most responses are not sexist.
This survey also reveals that students are willing to adopt gender fair language in the
field of social work. Overall, the students are eager to utilize gender fair language, which
is critical, especially in their chosen area.
This study discovered that social work students are moderately aware of gender-fair
language, that there is a memorandum from CHED regarding the policies and guidelines
on gender and development, and that the majority of respondents are not aware of the
existence of this memorandum. Overall, social work students are moderately aware of
how to use gender fair language.
II. Conclusion
Based on the findings, the researcher finds that there is no significant difference in
attitude and level of awareness about gender-fair language between male and female
social work students in pamantasan ng lungsod ng maynila, year level, or age gap.
Furthermore, they all have a positive attitude toward gender-fair language and are very
willing to use it in their daily lives; however, their level of awareness of gender-fair
language is only average, with an overall score of "moderately aware." This suggests that
the university should improve their method of teaching gender-fair language to social
work students, as it is critical in their chosen profession, particularly when dealing with
their clients.
III. Implications of the study
The findings in this study have contributed in determining the level of awareness
towards gender-fair language, attitude and willingness to promote gender-sensitivity in
the use of language as social work students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and as
future professional social workers. Applying Gender-Fair Language in communication is
important, especially for educators, students, and for everyone who is in the field of
social work. The findings of the study have practical implications:
 This study provided findings that will encourage the Department of Social Work in
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila to give more attention in promoting the use of GFL
in everyday use and in including it within the courses offered in the program.
 The findings may suggest that the level of awareness and attitude towards gender-fair
language of male and female social work students regardless of their year level and age
gap, is a positive implication in GAD and gender equality.

 The study showed that the consciousness to choose proper vocabulary through their
interaction determined the awareness of students in Gender-Fair Language.
 The findings of the study shows that using Gender-Fair Language in written publication
or verbal conversation will prevent the misunderstanding, and unfavorable expressions
which offer multiple interpretations of users' feeling, thought, and/or intention.
 The proper practice of Gender-Fair Language in everyday living makes the building-
relationship more possible.
 The study shows that the social work students agree with professors and educators have a
vital role in influencing the students to improve the awareness in Gender-Fair Language.
 The findings of the study shows that the willingness of social work students to learn
Gender-Fair Language is a great opportunity for the University to take action in line with
the average level of awareness of students (with an overall score of "moderately aware").
 The professors and educators should be aware and conscious of their choice of Language
when communicating to students, as a set of example and way of installing Gender-Fair
Language. Aside from the Gender-Fair textbooks and online publication, educators are
the best people to inculcate Gender-Fair Language in Students because students are
engaged to school or universities for the most part of their first 20 years of existence.
IV. Recommendations of the study
 Recommendations for the Department of Social Work in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila
1. The strengthening of gender-fair language awareness among social work tertiary
students should be strengthened. Since this is the concluding year of academic courses,
they are holding a gender-sensitive and gender-reflective awareness seminar-workshop.
2. A review of syllabi and all materials should be performed to improve the gender
sensitivity of the department of Social Work in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.
3. A gender-fair language lesson specifically the rules, how to address people using
gender-fair language, the use of neutral language, and to teach how to recognize sexist
language should be included to the syllabus of the courses:
a. SWK 1201 - The Philippine Social Realities and Social Welfare
Lessons:
Topic Description
Why use gender- In order to tackle gender inequality, we must look at the way we
sensitive language communicate. Using gender-sensitive language can:
Make it easier to see important differences between the needs of women

and men;
Challenge unconscious assumptions people have about gender roles in

society;
Lay the foundation for greater gender equality throughout society;
Raise awareness of how language affects our behavior;
Make people more comfortable with expressing themselves and behaving

in ways that were once not considered ‘typical’ of their gender.
Gender- Gender-discriminatory language is the opposite of gender-sensitive

discriminatory language. It includes words, phrases and/or other linguistic features that
language foster stereotypes, or demean or ignore women or men. At its most
Gender-biased extreme it fails to treat the genders as equal in value, dignity, integrity
language and respect.
Gender-neutral
language Gender-biased language either implicitly or explicitly favours one gender
over another or is a form of gender-discriminatory language.
This is not gender-specific and considers people in general, with no
reference to women or men. It is also called gender-blind language.
b. SWK 2202 - Social Work Communication and Documentation
Topic Description
Key principles for inclusive You should aim to follow these principles if you wish to make
language your language inclusive and transformative:
Recognize and challenge stereotypes.
Be inclusive and avoid omission and making others invisible.
Be respectful and avoid trivialisation and subordination.
Categories of gender- There are three broad categories under which much gender-
discriminatory language discriminatory language falls:
Stereotypes: assigning gender when gender is unknown or

irrelevant as a result of stereotypes.
Invisibility and omission: language which casts the male as the
generic norm and keeps women from being visible in public life.
Subordination and trivialisation: language which paints one
gender, often women, as inferior, or belittles them.
 Recommendations for further research
1. Future studies should focus on identifying characteristics that influence are essential for
the deliberate use of gender-neutral terminology, it could be worthwhile to figure out the
content and the strength of different groups of speakers' attitudes utilize gender-neutral
language on a frequent basis in comparison to the speaker who utilize it on a regular basis
and those who do not.

2. Future studies should have a pre-test and post-test of gender-fair language terms in order
to see if the participants have improved their attitude and awareness towards gender-fair
language.
3. This study should be reproduced in order to confirm or reject its findings or confirm the
current study's findings

Bibliography
Campetella, A. (2016, March). Should social workers care about gender-neutral language?
The Utopian. Retrieved from https://sites.utexas.edu/theutopian/shane-whalley-on-gender-
neutral-language/
Harris, C. A., Biencowe, N., & Telem, D. A. (2017). What’s in a pronoun? Why Gender-Fair
Language matters. Annals of surgery, 266(6), 932. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5774006/
Hellinger, M ., and Bubmann, H. 2003. Engendering Female Visibility in German, in 585
Gender Across Languages.The Linguistic Representations of men and women. Vol.3,eds.
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing company.
Hicks, S. (2015). Social work and gender: An argument for practical accounts. Qualitative Social
Work, 14(4), 471–487. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325014558665
Jansen, D. (2021, November 23). Quantitative Data Analysis Methods & Techniques 101. Grad
Coach. Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://gradcoach.com/quantitative-data-analysis-
methods/
Judicial Department of the Philippines. SC: Sexist-Language Has No Place in the Judiciary.
(2021, October 15). Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/21639/
Kintanar, T. B., & Tongson, A. (1998). Gender-fair language: A Primer. University Center
for Women's Studies, University of the Philippines.
Koeser S., Sczesny S. 2014. Promoting gender-fair language:the impact of arguments on
language use, attitudes, and cognitions. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol.
Koeser, S., Kuhn, E. A., and Sczesny S. 2015. Just reading how gender fair language triggers
readers’ use of gender fair foms. Advance Online Publication. J, Lang. Soc.
Lee, J.F.K., Collins, P. Gender Voices in Hong Kong English Textbooks—Some Past and
Current Practices. Sex Roles 59, 127–137 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9414-6
Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., & Sendén, M. G. (2019). Reducing a male bias in language?
Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies. Sex Roles, 81(1),
109-117. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9
Merkel, E. (2013). The two faces of gender-fair language. Retrieved from
http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/6119/
Mills, S. (2008). Language and Sexism (1st ed.) [E-book]. Cambridge University Press.
Mucchi-Faina, A. 2005. Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social
Science Information, 44(1), 189–215.

Stahlberg, D., Braun, F., Irmen, L., and Sczesny, S. 2007.Representation of the sexes in
language. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication. Frontiers of Social Psychology, (pp. 163-
187). New York: Psychology Press.
Parks, J. B., and Roberton, M. A. 2004. Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on
attitudes toward sexist language. Psychol. Women Q.
Parks. J. B., and Roberton, M. A. 2004. Erratum: Inventory of Attitude towards Sexist and Non-
Sexist Language. General- IASNSL-G. A Correction in Scoring Procedures.
Sex Roles, 44.253.
Practical tools (checklists and summary tables). European Institute for Gender Equality. (2019,
April 4). Retrieved May 13, 2022, from https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-sensitive-
communication/practical-tools-checklists-and-summary-tables
Redfern, J. R. (2007). Gender Fair Language. Retrieved from
https://www.cyut.edu.tw/~lhli/rmtw/A10.pdf
Reed, R. L., & Rae, T. (2007). Creating Gender-Fair Schools, Classrooms and Colleges:
Engendering Social Justice For 14 to 19 year olds (Lucky Duck Books) (1st ed.) [E-book].
SAGE Publications Ltd.

Talosa.A, 2018. “Filipino ESL students androgyny trait, awareness and attitude in gender-fair
language”, Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 09, (10), 8865-8874.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arlene-Talosa/publication/
335159104_FILIPINO_ESL_STUDENTS_ANDROGYNY_TRAIT_AWARENESS_AND_AT
TITUDE_IN_GENDER-_FAIR_LANGUAGE/links/60238b9f92851c4ed55f0178/FILIPINO-
ESL-STUDENTS-ANDROGYNY-TRAIT-AWARENESS-AND-ATTITUDE-IN-GENDER-
FAIR-LANGUAGE.pdf
University Profile. (n.d.). Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila. https://plm.edu.ph/about
Vergoossen, H. P., Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Sendén, M. G. (2020). Four dimensions of
criticism against gender-fair language. Sex Roles, 83(5), 328-337. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x
APPENDICES
1.1 Approval Letter
1.2 Research Questionnaire

THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS GENDER - FAIR
MAYNILA
I. Demographic Profile
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
A.Age
B.Sex
C.Year level
D. Name (Optional)
2. What is the level of awareness of the social work students in Pamantasan ng lungsod ng
Maynila?
3. What is the attitude of the students on gender-fair language?
4. Are there differences on the awareness and attitude of the students when grouped according to
profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)
5. Is there a relationship between the awareness,attitude, and profile of the social work students?
Hypothesis:
Ho: there is no significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the social
work students when grouped according to profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)
Ha: There is a significant difference between the level of awareness and attitude of the social
work students when grouped according to profile (Age,Sex, and Year Level)
Group 4
Questionnaire
I. Demographic Profile
Name:_______________________________Age:______ Sex:______ Year Level:_________
II. (Attitude of the students in terms of belief in sexist language)
1. Women who think that being called a ‘chairman’ is sexist are misinterpreting the word
‘chairman
Strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree
2. We should not change the way the English language has traditionally been written and
spoken
3. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial activity

4. If the original meaning of the word ‘he’ was ‘person’, we should continue to use ‘he’ to
refer to both males and females today
5. When people use the term ‘man and wife’ the expression is not sexist if the users don’t
mean it to be
6. The English language will never be changed because it is too deeply ingrained in the
culture
7. When teachers talk about the history of the Philippines, they should change
expressions,such as “our forefathers,” to expressions that include women
8. Teachers who require students to use nonsexist language are unfairly forcing their
political views upon their students
9. Most publication guidelines require newspaper writers to avoid using ethnic and racial
slurs. So, these guidelines should also require writers to avoid sexist language
10. Although change is difficult, we still should try to eliminate sexist language
III. (Recognition of sexist language)
1. People should care about all mankind, not just themselves

Definitely Sexist Somewhat Sexist Undecided Probably Not Sexist Not At All
Sexist
2. The belief that frogs will give you warts is just an old wives’ tale
Sexist
3. If a child wants to play the piano well, he must practice hard
Sexist
4. A man should lead a country
Sexist
5. In mercury drug store only women could work in the cashier
Sexist
IV. (Willingness to use gender-fair language)
1. When you are referring to a married woman, how willing are you to use the title
“Ms. Smith” rather than “Mrs. Smith”?
Very Willing Somewhat willing Undecided Reluctant Very Unwilling
2. How willing are you to use the word “server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”?
3. How willing are you to use the expression“husband and wife” rather than “man and
wife”?
4. How willing are you to use the term“camera operator” rather than “cameraman”?
5. How willing are you to use the title “flight attendant” instead of “steward” or
“stewardess”?
V. Awareness of Gender - Fair Language
Level of Awareness of Students based on the Book “Gender - Fair Language A Primer by
Kinatar”
1. Are you aware of the memorandum circular no.06 series 2014 that promotes the use of
gender fair language in the Philippines?
Not aware at all Slightly Aware Moderately Aware Very Aware Extremely Aware
2. Are you aware of the CHED memorandum order No. 01 Series 2015 that establishes the
policies and guidelines on gender and development?
3. Gender-fair language (GFL) aims at reducing gender stereotyping and discrimination
4. The use of Generic Maculine nouns and pronouns reflects gender inequality in that
women are never seen in terms of general or representative humanity. Men represent the
universal or the human to which women are the other.
5. Are you aware of Gender Language Stereotyping where assigning gender when gender is
unknown or irrelevant as a result of stereotypes.
6. Are you aware of Gender Language Invisibility and omission where language casts the
male as the generic norm and keeps women from being visible in public life.
7. Subordination and trivialisation: language which paints one gender, often women, as
inferior, or belittles them.
8. When using a gendered pronoun (e.g. he or she), the speaker is assuming the gender of
the person they are talking about. Often people use gendered pronouns even when they
do not know the gender of the person they are talking about or 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’. This is becoming more
and more common in standard English.
9. When you are speaking or writing about occupations, do not provide irrelevant
information about people’s gender. Doing this supports the stereotype that the ‘normal’
version of this profession is gendered. For example, saying 'female lawyer' implies that
lawyers are normally male.
10. Are you aware of the different Gender-Fair Language Webinars conducted in Pamantasan
ng Lungsod ng Maynila from 2020-2022 for both the english and Filipino Language?
Validated by:
Prof. Zosthenes Alicdan
Prof. Jeaniffer L. Muyot

1.3 Computations
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Belief1 Recognition1 Willingness1 Age Sex YearLevel BY Awareness1

/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ PHI
/CELLS=COUNT TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Output Created 23-MAY-2022 11:38:19
Comments
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data

70
File
User-defined missing values

Definition of Missing
are treated as missing.
Statistics for each table are

Missing Value Handling based on all the cases with
Cases Used valid data in the specified
range(s) for all variables in
each table.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Belief1
Recognition1 Willingness1
Age Sex YearLevel BY
Awareness1
Syntax /FORMAT=AVALUE
TABLES
/CELLS=COUNT TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.02

Resources
Dimensions Requested 2
Cells Available 174762
[DataSet1]
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Belief 1 * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Recognition 1 * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Willingness 1 * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%

Age * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Sex * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Year Level * Awareness 1 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Belief 1 * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1
Not aware at all Slightly Aware Moderately Very Aware

Aware
Count 0 0 0 1
Disagree
% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
Count 1 1 13 15
Neutral
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 18.6% 21.4%
Belief 1
Count 3 11 11 9
Agree
% of Total 4.3% 15.7% 15.7% 12.9%
Count 0 1 0 0
Strongly Agree
% of Total 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Count 4 13 24 25
Total
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3% 35.7%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Extremely Aware
Count 0 1
Disagree
Belief 1 % of Total 0.0% 1.4%
Neutral Count 2 32
% of Total 2.9% 45.7%
Count 1 35
Agree
% of Total 1.4% 50.0%
Count 1 2
Strongly Agree
% of Total 1.4% 2.9%
Count 4 70
Total
% of Total 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.415a 12 .033
Likelihood Ratio 21.327 12 .046
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.761 1 .016
N of Valid Cases 70
a. 14 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .06.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .566 .033

Nominal by Nominal
Cramer's V .327 .033
N of Valid Cases 70
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null

hypothesis.
Recognition 1 * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1
Not aware at all Slightly Aware Moderately

Aware
Count 0 1 3
Not At All
% of Total 0.0% 1.4% 4.3%
Count 3 6 13
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 4.3% 8.6% 18.6%
Recognition 1
Count 0 3 6
Undecided
% of Total 0.0% 4.3% 8.6%
Count 1 3 2
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 1.4% 4.3% 2.9%
Count 4 13 24
Total
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Very Aware Extremely Aware
Recognition 1 Not At All Count 4 1 9

% of Total 5.7% 1.4% 12.9%
Count 10 1 33
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 14.3% 1.4% 47.1%
Count 10 1 20
Undecided
% of Total 14.3% 1.4% 28.6%
Count 1 1 8
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 11.4%
Count 25 4 70
Total
% of Total 35.7% 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
Linear-by-Linear Association .430 1 .512
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .375 .631

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Willingness 1 * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1
Not aware at all Slightly Aware Moderately

Aware
Count 0 1 5
Undecided
% of Total 0.0% 1.4% 7.1%
Count 2 5 5
Willingness 1 Somewhat willing
% of Total 2.9% 7.1% 7.1%
Count 2 7 14
Very Willing
% of Total 2.9% 10.0% 20.0%
Count 4 13 24
Total
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Very Aware Extremely Aware
Count 1 0 7
Undecided
% of Total 1.4% 0.0% 10.0%
Count 3 0 15
% of Total 4.3% 0.0% 21.4%
Count 21 4 48
Very Willing
% of Total 30.0% 5.7% 68.6%
Count 25 4 70
Total
% of Total 35.7% 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .417 .143

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Age * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1

Aware
Count 2 7 11 8
17 - 19
% of Total 2.9% 10.0% 15.7% 11.4%
Age
Count 2 6 13 17
20 - 22
% of Total 2.9% 8.6% 18.6% 24.3%
Count 4 13 24 25
Total
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3% 35.7%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Extremely Aware
Count 1 29
17 - 19
% of Total 1.4% 41.4%
Age
Count 3 41
20 - 22
% of Total 4.3% 58.6%
Count 4 70
Total
% of Total 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

expected count is 1.66.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .189 .645

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Sex * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1

Aware
Count 2 6 13 13
Male
% of Total 2.9% 8.6% 18.6% 18.6%
Sex
Count 2 7 11 12
Female
% of Total 2.9% 10.0% 15.7% 17.1%
Count 4 13 24 25
Total
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3% 35.7%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Extremely Aware
Sex Male Count 1 35

% of Total 1.4% 50.0%
Count 3 35
Female
% of Total 4.3% 50.0%
Count 4 70
Total
% of Total 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .135 .864

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Year Level * Awareness 1
Crosstab
Awareness 1

Aware
Count 3 6 12 8
1st year
% of Total 4.3% 8.6% 17.1% 11.4%
Count 0 6 5 7
2nd year
% of Total 0.0% 8.6% 7.1% 10.0%
Year Level
Count 0 0 3 7
3rd year
% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 10.0%
Count 1 1 4 3
Irregular
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 5.7% 4.3%
Total Count 4 13 24 25
% of Total 5.7% 18.6% 34.3% 35.7%
Crosstab
Awareness 1 Total
Extremely Aware
Year Level Count 1 30

1st year
% of Total 1.4% 42.9%
2nd year Count 2 20
% of Total 2.9% 28.6%

Count 0 10
3rd year
% of Total 0.0% 14.3%
Count 1 10
Irregular
% of Total 1.4% 14.3%
Count 4 70
Total
% of Total 5.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .440 .331

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Belief1 Recognition1 Willingness1 BY Age Sex YearLevel
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/CELLS=COUNT TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Notes
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>

70
File

Statistics for each table are

Missing Value Handling based on all the cases with
Cases Used valid data in the specified
range(s) for all variables in
each table.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=Belief1
Recognition1 Willingness1
BY Age Sex YearLevel
Syntax /FORMAT=AVALUE
TABLES
/CELLS=COUNT TOTAL
/COUNT ROUND CELL.

Resources
Dimensions Requested 2
Cells Available 174762
[DataSet1]
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Belief 1 * Age 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Belief 1 * Sex 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Belief 1 * Year Level 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Recognition 1 * Age 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%

Recognition 1 * Sex 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Recognition 1 * Year Level 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Willingness 1 * Age 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Willingness 1 * Sex 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Willingness 1 * Year Level 70 100.0% 0 0.0% 70 100.0%
Belief 1 * Age
Crosstab
Age Total
17 - 19 20 - 22
Count 0 1 1
Disagree
% of Total 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%
Count 10 22 32
Neutral
% of Total 14.3% 31.4% 45.7%
Belief 1
Count 18 17 35
Agree
% of Total 25.7% 24.3% 50.0%
Count 1 1 2
Strongly Agree
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 2.9%
Count 29 41 70
Total
% of Total 41.4% 58.6% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .226 .311

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Belief 1 * Sex
Crosstab
Sex Total
Male Female
Count 0 1 1
Disagree
% of Total 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%
Count 15 17 32
Neutral
% of Total 21.4% 24.3% 45.7%
Belief 1
Count 19 16 35
Agree
% of Total 27.1% 22.9% 50.0%
Count 1 1 2
Strongly Agree
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 2.9%
Count 35 35 70
Total
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .141 .710

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Belief 1 * Year Level
Crosstab
Year Level Total
1st year 2nd year 3rd year Irregular
Belief 1 Count 0 0 1 0 1
Disagree
% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%
Neutral Count 10 8 8 6 32
% of Total 14.3% 11.4% 11.4% 8.6% 45.7%

Count 19 11 1 4 35
Agree
% of Total 27.1% 15.7% 1.4% 5.7% 50.0%
Count 1 1 0 0 2
Strongly Agree
% of Total 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%
Count 30 20 10 10 70
Total
% of Total 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .473 .075

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Recognition 1 * Age
Crosstab
Age Total
17 - 19 20 - 22
Count 4 5 9
Not At All
% of Total 5.7% 7.1% 12.9%
Count 14 19 33
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 20.0% 27.1% 47.1%
Recognition 1
Count 6 14 20
Undecided
% of Total 8.6% 20.0% 28.6%
Count 5 3 8
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 7.1% 4.3% 11.4%
Total Count 29 41 70
% of Total 41.4% 58.6% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)

N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .192 .460

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Recognition 1 * Sex
Crosstab
Sex Total
Male Female
Recognition 1 Not At All Count 5 4 9

% of Total 7.1% 5.7% 12.9%
Count 19 14 33
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 27.1% 20.0% 47.1%
Count 9 11 20
Undecided
% of Total 12.9% 15.7% 28.6%
Count 2 6 8
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 2.9% 8.6% 11.4%
Count 35 35 70
Total
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.

Phi .209 .381
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Recognition 1 * Year Level
Crosstab
Year Level
Count 4 4 0 1
Not At All
% of Total 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 1.4%
Count 14 8 6 5
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 20.0% 11.4% 8.6% 7.1%
Recognition 1
Count 5 8 3 4
Undecided
% of Total 7.1% 11.4% 4.3% 5.7%
Count 7 0 1 0
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 10.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%
Count 30 20 10 10
Total
% of Total 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3%
Crosstab
Total
Count 9
Not At All
% of Total 12.9%
Count 33
Probably Not Sexist
% of Total 47.1%
Recognition 1
Count 20
Undecided
% of Total 28.6%
Count 8
Somewhat Sexist
% of Total 11.4%
Count 70
Total
% of Total 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .427 .173

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Willingness 1 * Age
Crosstab
Age Total
17 - 19 20 - 22
Count 4 3 7
Undecided
% of Total 5.7% 4.3% 10.0%
Count 7 8 15
% of Total 10.0% 11.4% 21.4%
Count 18 30 48
Very Willing
% of Total 25.7% 42.9% 68.6%
Count 29 41 70
Total
% of Total 41.4% 58.6% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .130 .552

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Willingness 1 * Sex
Crosstab
Sex Total
Male Female
Count 4 3 7
Undecided
% of Total 5.7% 4.3% 10.0%
Count 7 8 15
% of Total 10.0% 11.4% 21.4%
Count 24 24 48
Very Willing
% of Total 34.3% 34.3% 68.6%
Count 35 35 70
Total
% of Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .210a 2 .901
Likelihood Ratio .210 2 .900
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .055 .901

Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
Willingness 1 * Year Level
Crosstab
Year Level
Count 3 1 0 3
Undecided
% of Total 4.3% 1.4% 0.0% 4.3%
Count 7 5 2 1
% of Total 10.0% 7.1% 2.9% 1.4%
Count 20 14 8 6
Very Willing
% of Total 28.6% 20.0% 11.4% 8.6%
Count 30 20 10 10
Total
% of Total 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3%
Crosstab
Total
Count 7
Undecided
% of Total 10.0%
Count 15
% of Total 21.4%
Count 48
Very Willing
% of Total 68.6%
Count 70
Total
% of Total 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
N of Valid Cases 70

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .307 .359

N of Valid Cases 70

hypothesis.
GET DATA /TYPE=XLSX

/FILE='C:\Thesis Statistician\Chelsea Ganan, Kaye Nalayog\Statistical
Treatment, Chelsea Ganan.xlsx'
/SHEET=name 'SPSS'
/CELLRANGE=full
/READNAMES=on
/ASSUMEDSTRWIDTH=32767.
EXECUTE.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
T-TEST GROUPS=Age(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Belief Recognition Willingness Awareness
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
70
File
User defined missing values
Statistics for each analysis
Missing Value Handling are based on the cases with
Cases Used no missing or out-of-range
data for any variable in the
analysis.
T-TEST GROUPS=Age(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Belief
Syntax
Recognition Willingness
Awareness
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Resources
[DataSet1]
Group Statistics
Age N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
17 - 19 29 3.4241 .35623 .06615

Belief
20 - 22 41 3.2659 .37457 .05850
17 - 19 29 2.4414 .73752 .13695
Recognition
20 - 22 41 2.3415 .56079 .08758
17 - 19 29 4.2207 .69559 .12917
Willingness
20 - 22 41 4.3268 .54545 .08518
17 - 19 29 2.8862 .69319 .12872
Awareness
20 - 22 41 3.2073 .78721 .12294
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of

Variances Means
F Sig. t df
Equal variances assumed .305 .583 1.777 68

Belief
Equal variances not assumed 1.792 62.263
Equal variances assumed 2.615 .110 .644 68
Recognition
Equal variances not assumed .615 49.759
Equal variances assumed 2.590 .112 -.715 68
Willingness
Equal variances not assumed -.686 50.911
Equal variances assumed .183 .670 -1.765 68
Awareness
Equal variances not assumed -1.804 64.697
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference
Equal variances assumed .080 .15828 .08908

Belief
Equal variances not assumed .078 .15828 .08831
Recognition
Equal variances assumed .477 -.10614 .14843
Willingness
Equal variances not assumed .496 -.10614 .15473
Awareness
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed -.01947 .33604

Belief
Equal variances not assumed -.01822 .33479
Recognition
Willingness
Awareness
T-TEST GROUPS=Sex(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Belief Recognition Willingness Awareness
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Notes

Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
70
File
User defined missing values
Missing Value Handling are based on the cases with
Cases Used no missing or out-of-range
data for any variable in the
analysis.
T-TEST GROUPS=Sex(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Belief
Syntax
Recognition Willingness
Awareness
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Resources
[DataSet1]
Group Statistics
Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male 35 3.3600 .33184 .05609

Belief
Female 35 3.3029 .41266 .06975
Male 35 2.2457 .54468 .09207
Recognition
Female 35 2.5200 .69823 .11802
Male 35 4.2400 .59961 .10135
Willingness
Female 35 4.3257 .62513 .10567
Male 35 3.0371 .74403 .12576
Awareness
Female 35 3.1114 .78732 .13308
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of

Variances Means
F Sig. t df
Equal variances assumed 1.770 .188 .638 68
Belief
Equal variances not assumed .638 65.007
Equal variances assumed 2.406 .126 -1.832 68
Recognition
Equal variances not assumed -1.832 64.197
Equal variances assumed .042 .837 -.585 68
Willingness
Equal variances assumed .110 .741 -.406 68
Awareness
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Belief
Recognition
Willingness
Awareness
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Belief
Recognition
Willingness
Awareness
ONEWAY Belief Recognition Willingness Awareness BY YearLevel

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
One-way
Notes

Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Input
Split File <none>
70
File
Missing Value Handling
are based on cases with no
Cases Used
missing data for any variable
in the analysis.
ONEWAY Belief Recognition
Willingness Awareness BY
YearLevel
Syntax
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Resources
[DataSet1]
Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence

Interval for Mean
Lower Bound
Belief 1st year 30 3.4233 .32237 .05886 3.3030

2nd year 20 3.4150 .40298 .09011 3.2264
3rd year 10 3.0300 .31287 .09894 2.8062
Irregular 10 3.1900 .35103 .11101 2.9389
Total 70 3.3314 .37282 .04456 3.2425

1st year 30 2.5067 .77323 .14117 2.2179
2nd year 20 2.2100 .54859 .12267 1.9533
Recognition 3rd year 10 2.4400 .42999 .13597 2.1324
Irregular 10 2.3000 .48305 .15275 1.9544
Total 70 2.3829 .63679 .07611 2.2310
1st year 30 4.2600 .63929 .11672 4.0213
2nd year 20 4.3300 .50794 .11358 4.0923
Willingness 3rd year 10 4.5400 .55015 .17397 4.1464
Irregular 10 4.0000 .71802 .22706 3.4864
Total 70 4.2829 .60958 .07286 4.1375
1st year 30 2.8600 .75045 .13701 2.5798
2nd year 20 3.0950 .71780 .16050 2.7591
Awareness 3rd year 10 3.5600 .42999 .13597 3.2524
Irregular 10 3.1900 .96200 .30421 2.5018
Total 70 3.0743 .76133 .09100 2.8928
Descriptives
95% Confidence Interval Minimum Maximum

for Mean
Upper Bound
1st year 3.5437 2.80 4.20
2nd year 3.6036 2.60 4.20
Belief 3rd year 3.2538 2.40 3.40
Irregular 3.4411 2.70 3.70
Total 3.4203 2.40 4.20

1st year 2.7954 1.20 4.00
2nd year 2.4667 1.20 3.20
Recognition 3rd year 2.7476 2.00 3.40
Irregular 2.6456 1.60 3.20
Total 2.5347 1.20 4.00
Willingness 1st year 4.4987 2.60 5.00
2nd year 4.5677 3.00 5.00
3rd year 4.9336 3.60 5.00
Irregular 4.5136 2.80 4.60
Total 4.4282 2.60 5.00
1st year 3.1402 1.20 4.30
2nd year 3.4309 1.80 4.20
Awareness 3rd year 3.8676 2.80 4.10
Irregular 3.8782 1.00 4.40
Total 3.2558 1.00 4.40
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.502 3 .501 4.084 .010
Belief Within Groups 8.089 66 .123
Total 9.591 69
Between Groups 1.159 3 .386 .950 .421
Recognition Within Groups 26.821 66 .406
Total 27.979 69
Between Groups 1.521 3 .507 1.388 .254
Willingness Within Groups 24.118 66 .365
Total 25.639 69
Between Groups 3.879 3 1.293 2.363 .079
Awareness Within Groups 36.115 66 .547
Total 39.994 69
1.4 Certificate of Statistician
STATISTICIAN’S CERTIFICATION
____________________________________________________________
This is to certify that the statistical treatment and numerical of the research study
entitled “THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS GENDER - FAIR
MAYNILA” has been reviewed by the undersigned and are proven to be accurate and valid.
This certification is issued upon the request of the researchers, given this May
2022. Researchers:
DINGLASAN, BRUDRICK MICA C.

GANAN, CHELSEA JOY M.
NALAYOG, KAYE ALEXANDRA M.
PORCADILLA, STEPHANIE A.
SURAL, FRANCEZKA CHARINA H.
Raiza V. Que, MPA
1.5 Curriculum Vitae

The Level of Awareness and Attitude Towards Gender - Fair Language of Social Work Students in Pamantasan NG Lungsod NG Maynila

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Level of Awareness and Attitude Towards Gender - Fair Language of Social Work Students in Pamantasan NG Lungsod NG Maynila

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS GENDER - FAIR

LANGUAGE OF SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS IN PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG

A Thesis Presented to the

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Dinglasan, Brudrick Mica C.

College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

fulfilment on the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN SOCIAL

PROF. ZOSTHENES ALICDAN,RSW

College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

In partial fulfilment on the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

1. Brudrick Mica C. Dinglasan

JEANIFFER L. MUYOT, RSW

Dr. Gilbert Cerezo Dr.Emmanuel Drewery

Accepted in Partial Requirement for the Degree of

Researchers: Brudrick Mica C. Dinglasan , Chelsea Joy M. Ganan, Kaye Alexandra

Adviser: Prof. Zosthenes D. Alicdan

ANOVA – Analysis of Variance

CGRJ – Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary

CHED – Commission on Higher Education

ELT – English Language Teaching

GAD – Gender And Development

GFL – Gender-Fair Language

GIST – Girls Into Science and Technology

HEIs – Higher Education Institutions

NASW – National Association of Social Workers

The Problem and Its Settings

Language is a medium of communication that helps people express themselves to

accompanied by initiatives to introduce gender-fair language.

harassment. The use of non-sexist language in official documents, communications, and

issuance is encouraged. For example: “person” instead of “man” or “humanity” instead of

“chairperson” instead of “chairman” or “business owners” instead of “businessmen.”

Previous research on incorporating notions of gender and sexuality in language teaching

ELT, notable discussions have centered on the experiences of Argentinian student-teachers in

Mojica & Castañeda-Peña, 2017).

Responsive Development) envisions a society to promote gender equality and women’s

education have remained vague.

in the trifocal functions of higher education; a) curriculum development; b) gender

responsiveness research programs and; c) gender- responsive extension programs.

address each individual, so that they wouldn’t be offended or disrespected.

achieved, for example, by replacing male-masculine forms (policeman) with gender-unmarked

professional Social Workers work with, for, and on behalf of.

would help on one’s future profession.

II. Research Locale

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) is located at the General Luna, corner

abroad, online courses, and administrative services.

289 of this population are Social Work students enrolled in Pamantasan.

Figure 1: Pamantansan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Location

III. Framework of the Study

3.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

“Gender-Fair Language A Primer by Thelma B, Kinatar and Angela Tongson” and a

the college of Social Work.

3.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

androcentrism. This linguistic imbalance would appear to be influenced by the patriarchal

asymmetry of our language may be divided into:

I. Grammatical and morphological asymmetry

men and women

II. Semantic Asymmetry

less prestigious function than its masculine counterpart.

speaking groups require language tools to refer to this category.

IV. Statement of the Problem

It is important that a professional Social Worker knows the different gender-fair

gender-fair languages as early as they start taking up the course.

These questions will guide this study: