Abstract:
This study explores gender-based differences in subject preferences (students’
inclination toward theoretical, analytical, or practical components of their
academic disciplines) and educational influences (the external factors shaping
students’ academic choices) among STEM undergraduates and graduates at the
Open University of Sri Lanka (OUSL). Grounded in ‘Super’s Life-Span, Life
Space Theory’ and ‘Eccles’ Expectancy-Value Theory’; the study examines how
these theoretical frameworks explain gender-based differences in academic
preferences. While prior research has frequently focused on school-aged students,
this study targets university students who have already made considerable
academic choices, offering more informed perspectives. A well-structured,
validated questionnaire was administered to 123 participants using a quantitative
cross-sectional survey approach. Gender preferences across theoretical, analytical,
and practical components (hands-on, applied tasks within STEM disciplines) as
well as influencing factors such as personal interest, parental influence, and
societal or institutional expectations were addressed. Reliability and validity were
confirmed through pilot testing, with Cronbach’s alpha at 0.60 and intraclass
correlation at 0.742. Principal component analysis and discriminant analysis
confirmed strong construct validity. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney
U tests and Chi-square tests to examine gender associations. Results showed no
statistically significant gender difference in how theoretical, analytical, or practical
components were ranked. However, males tended to rate practical components
slightly higher, though this was not significant. Most perceptions about gender and
learning were consistent with Super’s and Eccles’ theoretical predictions,
indicating limited influence of the respondents’ own gender. Of all influencing
factors, parental influence was the only one to show a statistically significant
gender association (p = 0.010), with female participants reporting greater
influence. Additionally, more male students (35.9%) than female students (16.7%)
perceived that school curriculum and counseling services shaped their subject
preferences; a statistically significant difference in perception (p = 0.022). Overall,
the study suggests that while direct gender-based differences in subject preference
were not prominent, differences do exist in how external influences are perceived.
These findings underscore the need for tailored academic counseling and gender
sensitive career guidance that account for both familial and institutional factors
influencing students’ choice.
