GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS. THE CASE OF FRAMEWORK PLANS ESTABLISHED IN ROMANIAN PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47743/asas-2025-1-813Keywords:
framework plans, curriculum, gender differences, study tracks, curricular areasAbstract
This article explores high school students' perspectives on the framework plans for high school education in Romania, which have recently been the subject of public debate. Consulting students on any important detail of the instructional and educational process has become a common practice in our country in recent years, initiated by the Ministry of Education. How students perceive the impact of the proposed changes on their educational path becomes an essential component of sociological studies and educational sciences. The results presented in this article refer to a representative sample of students from Hunedoara County, on which County Center for Educational Resources and Assistance (CJRAE) Hunedoara conducted an in-depth research in February 2025. We have insisted in this article on the differences in perception between students according to their gender, to identify whether there are significant statistical differences. In our analysis, we also considered that students' perspectives may be influenced by additional variables, such as year of study, class type, quality of teaching methods, and school culture, which could further accentuate gender differences. The research hypotheses focused on: (1) gender differences in students' level of awareness, understanding, and perceived usefulness of the proposed changes to the curricular framework plans and (2) differences by academic track (and gender) regarding proposals to increase study hours. The research revealed not only the gender differences between the requests for extension of the respective classes but also, surprisingly, the tendency of students to have more hours from dominant curricular areas in other study tracks.
References
Breda, T., & Napp, C. (2019). Girls' comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(31), 15435-15440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905779116
Dauphin, L., (2024). Choices of specialty and optional courses at the start of the 2023 academic year, Information Note, n° 24.06, DEPP. https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-24-06
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, Values, and Academic Behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation (pp. 75-146). W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective Task Value and the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105-121). Guilford Publications.
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). She figures 2021 – Gender in research and innovation – Statistics and indicators. Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090
Fan, W. (2011). Social influences, school motivation and gender differences: an application of the expectancy‐value theory. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 157-175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.536525
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714547770
Ministry of Education and Research. (2025). [Public consultation] Draft framework plans for high school education (frequency/day). Available at: https://www.edu.ro/ cons_pub_04_2025_planuri_cadru_invatamant_liceal
OECD. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en
OECD. (2019a). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teachingand-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_ Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf.
OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
OECD. (2020). Curriculum overload: A way forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
OECD. (2024a). Education at a Glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2024b). What progress have countries made in closing gender gaps in education and beyond? OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2024c). Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 26-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.26
Perez-Felkner, L., Nix, S., & Thomas, K. (2017). Gendered Pathways: How Mathematics Ability Beliefs Shape Secondary and Postsecondary Course and Degree Field Choices. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00386
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859-884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364
Thompson, K. (2023). Gender and Subject Choice. Available at:
https://revisesociology.com/2023/02/13/gender-and-subject-choice/#Sources
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational Pathways to STEM Career Choices: Using Expectancy-Value Perspective to Understand Individual and Gender Differences in STEM Fields. Developmental review, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Wroblewski, A. (2018). Report on national roadmaps and mechanisms in ERA Priority 4.
GENDERACTION D3.1. Available at:
