EXPLORING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SUBJECT PREFERENCES AND EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES AMONG STEM UNDERGRADUATES AND GRADUATES OF OUSL

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.