Authors : Jomalyn R. Segundo

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4cp9pdwb

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3jt4tc6d

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun1283

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This review synthesizes literature on the factors affecting male students’ participation in Home Economics, a traditionally female-dominated field within Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE). The objective is to examine how parental support, peer influence, teacher encouragement, personal interest, and gender stereotypes shape male students’ engagement in Home Economics programs. Literature was gathered from ERIC, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Philippine E-Journals, covering studies published between 2010 and 2025. Findings reveal that participation is influenced by a complex interplay of personal, social, and institutional factors. Parental support and teacher encouragement foster confidence and engagement, while peer influence and societal perceptions often discourage male participation due to stereotypes. Theories such as Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, and Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory provide frameworks for understanding these dynamics. Despite increasing recognition of gender inclusivity, localized studies in rural Philippine contexts remain limited. This synthesis underscores the importance of gender-responsive pedagogy and inclusive educational practices to enhance male participation in Home Economics. Recommendations highlight the need for targeted interventions, mentorship programs, and policy reforms to challenge stereotypes and promote equal opportunities.

References :

1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
5. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). Parental influence on student motivation and participation. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 144–160.
6. International Federation for Home Economics. (2021). Home Economics education and workforce preparation. IFHE Reports.
7. Pendergast, D., & Dewhurst, Y. (2012). Gender and participation in Home Economics. International Journal of Home Economics, 5(1), 45–58.
8. UNESCO. (2023). Gender equality in education: Global perspectives. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
9. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN.
10. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Wentzel, K. R. (2016). Teacher–student relationships and student engagement. In Handbook of motivation at school. Routledge.