Gender Differences in Motivational Attitudes in

ISSN 1392-3110 (Print)
ISSN 2351-6712 (Online)
Socialiniai tyrimai /Social Research. 2014. Nr. 2 (35). 5-19
Gender Differences in Motivational Attitudes in Academic Studies: The Context
of Lithuanian Students' Socialization
Aušra Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė 1 , Gediminas Merkys 2
University of Applied Sciences, Didlaukio str. 49, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania
[email protected].
2
Kaunas University of Technology, K.Donelaicio str. 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania
[email protected].
women vary across time, ethnic group, and social
situation, but the opportunity to behave as manly men
or womanly women is ubiquitous".
When gender inequality is not conceptualized,
the main discussion about gender differences is more
or less explicitly related to the concept of gender
identity. As noticed by Brinkman, Rabenstein, Rosen,
and Zimmerman (2012), traditional approaches to
conceptualizing the development of gender identity
can be categorized into three general types of
theories: 1) essentialist theories (arguing that gender
is predetermined and directly tied to the biological
categories of male and female as determined by
genetics and hormones; suggesting that gender
is dichotomous such that all males are inherently
masculine and all females are inherently feminine;
describing gender identity as being not necessarily
something that develops, but simply unfolds over
time); 2) developmental theories (arguing that
gender identity develops over time in predictable and
'normative' stages such as those suggested by Piaget
or Erikson; asserting that as children get older, they
internalize the gender expectations they have learned
and many of them endorse rigid gender rules); and
3) socialization theories. Because both the essentialist
and developmental approaches overgeneralize gender
identity development and both do not assume certain
individual differences (for example pathologizing
gender atypical children), as well as interpreting
children as being mostly passive participants in their
identity development process, our approach builds on
the socialization theories.
As literature review indicates, in the structures
of gender identity, mainly developed through
socialization in the family context, academic
achievement motivation is formed as a result of
family expectations and value valences. While in the
case of science studies and science carrier choices
gender differences are quiet often discussed (Boiche
et al., 2013; Buday et al., 2012; Chouinard & Roy,
2008; Koveriene & Zickiene, 2008; Novelskaite,
Abstract
This article addresses the problem of genderbiased differences in the motivational attitudes toward
academic studies and self-recorded improvement-oriented
efforts as a result of socialization. Recently in Lithuania
academic motivation issues have been considered to be
of great importance and actuality by several researchers;
nevertheless, there was no evidence provided on gender
differences in the motivational attitudes in academic studies
and gender effects on active academic improvementoriented efforts. In this paper the results of the Lithuanian
higher education students' survey are analyzed and
discussed.
Keywords: socialization, gender differences, motivational
attitudes.
Introduction
Different gender related issues are widely
discussed in contemporary scientific literature.
Thousands of studies have analysed various genderrelated patterns in almost every domain of human
activity and the further questioning is still relevant and
of a great actuality. From the moment of birth, gender
is one of the most salient features that distinguish
human beings. This gender label affects almost every
aspect of a person's social life, from birth throughout
childhood and the adult years. Across all cultural
groups, there is perhaps no other variable that has such
a sustained, critical influence throughout the lifespan
as does gender. Gender is ever present and has both
serious as well as trivial consequences for behaviour,
determining such aspects as career opportunities
or the colour of clothing one wears. Gender roles
create social expectations, shape behaviours, and
amplify or minimize gender differences that result
from biology (Best, 2010). The complexity of the
issue is reflected by Deutsch (2007): gender is
continually socially reconstructed according to the
'normative conceptions' of gender. "People act with
the awareness that they will be judged according to
what is deemed appropriate feminine or masculine
behaviour. These normative conceptions of men and
5
(Spirmen-Brown Formula or Cronbach's alpha, when
appropriate; corrected item-total correlation and
factor analysis); comparative analysis of statistical
data, applying non-parametric statistical procedures
(Mann-Whitney Test).
2008; Purvaneckiene, 2004; Stanisauskiene, 2008;
Taljunaite, 2005; Urboniene, 2008; Zvinkliene,
2003 and 2005), there is no evidence if similar
differences exist in overall motivational attitudes
toward academic studies and whether those
differences affect active improvement-oriented
efforts. Whereas academic motivation issues were
considered to be of great importance and actuality in
several recent surveys conducted in Lithuanian higher
education by Leonavičius and Rutkiene (2010), as
well as by Matulionis et al. (2010), we must highlight
the regrettable fact that gender effects on academic
motivation were not discussed. Therefore, in this
paper we focus on gender-biased differences in the
motivational attitudes toward higher education studies
and self-recorded improvement-oriented efforts as a
result of socialization.
Gender Differences in Motivational Attitudes
toward Studies and Study-Related Behaviours
In its most common and general usage, the
term 'socialization' refers to the process of social
interaction through which an individual acquires
the norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, and language
characteristic of his or her group. During that process,
the individual self and personality are created and
shaped (Gecas, 2000). Hence, socialization describes
the accumulation of gender identity as a process
that occurs over time due to the influence of others
(Brinkman et al, 2012). Perhaps the most important
insight regarding gender development is the critical
role of socialization experiences. These differential
social pressures operate throughout the life course and
can maximize, minimize, or even eliminate gender
differences in children's behaviours. The social
settings, the social partners with whom children are
engaged, the tasks they are assigned, and the way that
parents and other socialization agents interact with
children, influence the development of gender-related
behaviours (Best, 2010).
Within sociology, there are two main orientations
toward socialization: 1) the structural-functionalist
perspective views socialization primarily as the
learning of social roles, considering that individuals
become integrated members of society by learning
and internalizing the relevant roles and statuses;
and 2) the symbolic interactionist perspective views
socialization mainly as self-concept formation;
therefore, the core of socialization is considered to
be the development of self and identity in the context
of intimate and reciprocal relations (Gecas, 2000).
Structural-functionalist socialization theory is often
applied in empirical research, analysing gender
differences (Carson & Knoester, 2011; Hadjar et
al., 2008; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009), but
it is also criticized for certain limitations. First of
all, it sees gender roles as learned by children from
their parents, that is, primarily within the family,
suggesting that one function of the family is to teach
children the correct behaviours associated with their
gender. Hence, gender is interpreted as a learned
phenomenon and children are assumed to acquire the
correct role through interaction with parents. This
becomes problematic for those people who are not
correctly socialized, since many people, irrespective
of sexual orientation, don't embody or adopt gender
stereotypes (Hicks, 2008). The second critical
Scientific problem of this article is formulated
by the following question: what gender differences
in the motivational attitudes toward studies, resulting
from socialization, may be observed in the context of
Lithuanian higher education?
The aim of the paper is to seize the problem
of gender-biased differences in the motivational
attitudes toward higher education studies and selfrecorded improvement-oriented efforts as a result of
socialization.
Research objectives:
1. To provide scientific literature analysis on gender
identity development through socialization,
including socializing family context and value
socialization oriented to academic achievement
and academic study aspiration and motivation
issues.
2. To choose appropriate research methods for
the assessment of gender-biased differences in
motivational attitudes toward higher education
studies and self-recorded improvement-oriented
efforts.
3. To ensure the methodological quality of survey
instrument,
analysing
such
psychometric
characteristics as reliability and construct validity.
4. To produce statistical data analysis, providing
conclusions and discussion on gender-biased
differences in motivational attitudes toward higher
education studies and self-recorded improvementoriented efforts as a result of socialization.
Research methods: scientific literature analysis
on gender identity development through socialization,
including socializing family context and value
socialization oriented to academic achievement
and academic study aspiration and motivation
issues; assessment of the methodological quality
of survey instrument, analysing such psychometric
characteristics as reliability and construct validity
6
observation belongs to Deutsch (2007), arguing
that gender is an ongoing emergent aspect of social
interaction. Whereas structural-functionalist theories
assume that individuals internalize the gendered
norms that were salient when they were growing up,
the symbolic interactionist perspective assumes that
people respond to changing contemporary norms.
This is an important implication of the idea that if
gender is constructed, then it can be deconstructed.
Gendered institutions can be changed, and the social
interactions that support them can be undone. As
noticed by Brinkman et al. (2012), children are in fact
active agents who recognize the pressures to conform
and adjust their behaviour accordingly and are able
to play a more active role in their development and
make conscious decisions regarding conformity.
In this perspective children are social actors and
they are not only shaped by their environment but
also interact with and affect the environment by
their behaviour. Therefore, our work builds on the
symbolic interactionist perspective interpretation of
gender socialization issues, where socialization as
gender "identity formation occurs through a number
of more specific processes associated with selfconcept development: reflected appraisals, social
comparisons, self-attributions, and identification"
(Gecas, 2000).
& Roy, 2008) or gender differences in learning and
study strategies as well as studying behaviours (Marrs
& Sigler, 2011), while others draw attention on the
family context factors such as family expectations
(Boiche et all., 2013). Eccles (2011) discuss both
academic achievement motivation and social family
context factors. Spera (2006) analyses both academic
achievement motivation and social family context
factors. Hadjar et al. (2008), analyse both social
family context and value socialization-related issues.
Some gender differences discussed in psychology
are quiet relevant to our study in sociology. For
example, Sanches-Lopez et al. (2012), observed
gender differences in personality structure on such
dimensions like: a) Motivating Styles, b) Thinking
Styles, and c) Behaving Styles. The authors explain
these differences by the social learning of gender,
operationalized as the level of conformity to gender
norms, that play an important role in personality
styles. This would mean that a greater or lower
compliance to a given set of gender norms leads to
differences in personality, and that, regardless of sex,
the degree of conformity to these norms establishes
differences between people, even within the same
sex. Thus, Sanches-Lopez et al. (2012), observed
that according to their data, gender socialization
plays an important role in personality differences
between men and women because, when the degree
of adherence to gender norms in women is taken into
account, the differences with respect to men decrease.
On the other hand, Molina et al. (2013), found that
being male is negatively associated with the level
of cooperation as a personality style. The abovementioned gender difference was also obtained after
netting out this effect from other socio-demographic
and gender differences in risk, social and competitive
preferences. The fact that they obtained similar results
while using alternative subsamples and econometric
techniques indicates the validity of the conclusions.
The authors claim that their results point toward a
gender difference in the level of cooperation that may
be attributed to a genetic factor. Genetic perspective
explaining gender differences in this case doesn't seem
appropriate to our understanding. We are willing to
explain these differences similarly to Sanches-Lopez
et al.'s interpretation: we think that gender differences
in personality styles and structures depend much more
on socialization than on genetic factors.
Social family context factors as important
indicators for gender socialization differences
are analysed by a number of scientists, drawing
attention to such factors as parenting style (Carlson
& Knoester, 2011; Hadjar et al., 2008), socialization
style (Buday et al., 2012; Portfeli et al., 2012; Spera,
2006) and parents' expectations and attitudes (Boiche
According to scientific literature review, genderbiased differences, interpreted as an outcome of
gender socialization, most often are analysed within
psychological and sociological perspectives focusing
on various social and psychological factors. In the
context of our research, aiming to address a particular
field of interest, many aspects of gender differences
discussed in contemporary scientific literature were
consciously excluded from our literature review
(for example: gender differences according to race;
ethnicity; social class; religiosity and spirituality;
anxiety; anger; bullying; giftedness; disabilities;
substance use; delinquency; violence; various
sexual issues, including homosexuality and sexual
harassment; cohabitation and marriage; language
use particularities; health issues; political issues;
vocational socialization; the use of technologies;
females in masculine settings; urban and rural gender
differences; gender inequality, etc.). We focused on
gender identity development through socialization,
including socializing family context and value
socialization oriented to academic achievement and
academic study aspiration and motivation issues (see
Table 1).
Some authors analysing gendered achievementrelated educational and occupational choices
according to Expectancy Value Model focus on
academic achievement motivation factors (Chuinard
7
Table 1
Gender Differences as a Result of Gender Socialization within Psychology and Sociology Publications
Socialization
related issues
Gender
identity
development
Publications Within Psychology Journals
1) Cognitive perspectives on gender development (Martin &
Ruble, 2011);
2) Gender differences in personality styles and structures
(Molina, Gimenez-Nadal, Cuesta, Gracia-Lazaro, Moreno &
Sanchez, 2013; Sanchez-Lopez, Cuellar-Flores, Liminana &
Corbalan, 2012).
1) Role ofgender within parental socialization to academic work
and academic achievements (Portfeli, Ferrari, & Nota, 2012);
2) Parental socialization style influence on academic
Family context achievement and motivation (Spera, 2006);
3) Gendered achievement-related educational and occupational
choices based on Expectancy Value Model (Boiche, Plaza,
Chalabaev, Guillet-Descas, & Sarrazin, 2013; Eccles, 2011)
Values
Publications Within Sociology
Journals
Symbolic interactionist perspectives
on gender identity development
(Brinkman et al., 2012; Deutsch,
2007).
1) Gender role attitudes as a result
of family expectations (Raty &
Kasanen, 2007);
2) Value socialization in the family
through gender-specific parental
styles (Hadjar, Baier & Boehnke,
2008);
1) Value socialization in the family
through gender-specific parental
Gender related differences in value structures and aspirations
styles (Hadjar et al., 2008).
(Morgan & Robinson, 2013; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) 2) Intergenerational transmission
ofgender ideology (Carlson &
Knoester, 2011)
1) Gendered achievement-related educational and occupational
choices based on Expectancy Value Model (Chouinard & Roy,
Gender and
2008; Eccles, 2011; Marrs & Sigler, 2011);
science carrier,
2) Parental socialization style influence on academic
academic
achievement and motivation (Spera, 2006);
achievement
3) Higher intrinsic motivation ofmales is related to higher
motivation
level ofclass performance (Cortright, Lujan, Blumberg, Cox &
DiCarlo, 2013)
et al., 2013; Chouinard & Roy, 2008; Eccles, 2011;
Marrs & Sigler; Morgan & Robinson, 2013; Raty &
Kasanen, 2007; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009).
Parents play a unique role as socializing agents
transmitting their educational values, goals, and
aspirations to their children. Parental values represent
the importance parents place on their children's
educational achievement. Researchers studying
parental socialization of school achievement have
found that aspects of parenting are strong predictors
of adolescent school achievement and motivation;
they observed that parents' beliefs (e.g., values,
aspirations, goals) about their child's education are
significant predictors of adolescents' grade point
average; they discovered a relationship between
parenting styles and adolescent self-regulation (Spera,
2006). In analysing socialization, Hadjar et al. (2008),
conducted a study concentrating on authoritarian and
achievement-focused parenting, as well as structural
and ideological predictors thereof. According to the
results, there are direct paths between parents' values/
attitudes and adolescents' values/attitudes reflecting
1) Gender and science carrier
choice as a result of social support
(Buday, Stake & Peterson, 2012);
2) Gendered institutional structures,
cultures, and practices posing
barriers to women advancement
and acceptance as professionals
scientists (Rhoton, 2011).
the influence of social-structural variables and
parenting modes. This relationship is comparatively
low. This could be an indication that there are other
socialization agents (for example, school, peers, massmedia) that — at least additionally — also shape the
adolescents' value and attitude systems. The 14-yearold adolescents in the study are probably already
more peer-centred than younger children for whom
parents are the primary source of value socialization.
Nevertheless, the authors share the conviction that
structural variables (such as profession, prestige,
income) influence parenting styles, and that parenting
styles play a distinct role in the socialization of values.
According to Raty & Kasanen (2007), parents'
perceptions of their children's abilities can be
regarded as naturally occurring social cognitions.
Examining these cognitions is an efficient way
to clarify the interplay between categorical and
individuating information in parents' interpretations
of their children's schooling. According to our
culturally prevailing representation of intelligence,
boys are expected to surpass girls in the cognitive
8
domain, mathematics in particular, whereas girls
are expected to surpass boys in the verbal and
social domains. Mathematics is generally regarded
as a domain in which parents' gender-bound
expectations are the strongest, and this tendency
shows a measure of cross-cultural generalizability.
The authors observed that in Finland, despite girls'
and boys' equal school performance in mathematics,
the parents' assessments in favour of boys do not
seem to change, at least during the first few years
of school. Moreover, there is evidence that parents'
underestimation of girls' mathematical capacity is
also manifested in their inclination to explain girls'
mathematical accomplishments with reference to
hard work and boys' mathematical accomplishments
with reference to natural ability. To sum up, with the
findings of Raty & Kasanen (2007), it is evident that
parents' assessments of their children's competence
in both mathematics and native language are clearly
influenced by a cultural expectation that the two
genders possess different abilities, and this expectation
is further moderated by the parents' attitude toward it.
Parents' endorsement of the gender stereotype seems
to lower the competencies they attribute to their child,
i.e., mathematical competence in the case of girls
and verbal competence in the case of boys. Because
endorsement of the gender stereotype predicted
the parents' later assessments of competence, the
findings lend support to the argument that it really
is the gender-related stereotype that affects parental
competence evaluations, not the other way around.
The results from the study of Spera (2006) suggest
that the educational goals and values parents hold for
their children are related to the practices they enact to
socialize their children.
Eccles (2011) summarizes a theoretical model
of the social, cultural, and psychological influences
on achievement-related choices and outlines how
this model explains gendered educational and
occupational choices. He argues that both gender
differences and individual differences within each
gender in educational and occupational choices are
linked to differences in the individuals' expectations
for success and subjective task values (for example,
females are less likely to enter mathematics and
physical sciences in particular than males both because
they have less confidence in their mathematics and
physical sciences abilities and because they place
less subjective value on these fields than they place
on other possible occupational niches). Furthermore,
gendered socialization practices at home, in the
schools, and among peers play a major role in shaping
these individual differences in self-perceptions and
subjective task values. Similar conclusions are drawn
by Portfeli et al. (2012), after having asserted a
theoretical model of academic and work socialization
within the family setting. The authors discovered
that children's perceptions of parents mediate the
relationship between parents' and children's selfreported work valences, and that children's work
valences are in turn associated with academic interest
and achievement. In other words, parents serve as
role models in the construction of their children's
conceptions of (academic) working/work. Boiche
et al. (2013), supports Eccles's theoretical model as
well. Researchers observed that gender differences
in sport are often perceived as resulting from natural
biological factors; however, these gender differences
can also be explained by social processes. Their work
indicates that adolescents tend to endorse gender
beliefs related to sport competence and value that
are related to the beliefs they perceive in the cultural
milieu and in particular their parents and that parents
could transmit such beliefs in an implicit way. The
authors bring empirical support to such a hypothesis
in the sport context, which is still conceived as a
male domain. The results indicate that this social
transmission might operate both through explicit
processes and unconsciously. Boiche et al., also point
to the mechanisms through which the adolescents'
endorsement of such beliefs may in turn lead to lower
self-perceptions and behavioural disengagement from
organized sport.
Buday et al. (2012), analyse the problem of
women being severely underrepresented in science
careers. There is no evidence that underrepresentation
is due to gender differences in intrinsic aptitude
or achievement. Studies have found no biological
differences between men and women that can explain
why there are so few women faculty in academic
science and math departments and other positions
of science leadership. Scientists with traditionally
masculine qualities are believed to be more
competent, but women who possess these qualities
are viewed as being aggressive. Men and women
both hold these implicit biases that favour men and
disadvantage women in science careers. According
to the authors, these findings suggest that the root of
the underrepresentation of women in science careers
is social and psychological in nature. The results of
the Buday et al. study suggest that increasing social
and environmental support for a science career could
result in both 1) increased self-confidence regarding
a career in science, and 2) improved interest in and
motivation for a science career. Chouinard & Roy
(2008) examined high-school students' motivation
in mathematics over time, particularly in terms of
competence beliefs, utility value and achievement
goals, aiming to provide a clearer picture of this
evolution related to gender. The results support the
9
theory of gender convergence in mathematics rather
than gender differentiation (decrease in positive
attitudes towards mathematics affects girls more than
boys at a certain moment, but the gap between boys
and girls decrease over time).
Gender differences in study motivation and
studies-related behaviour observed by Marrs &
Sigler (2011) were noted as follows: female students
are more deliberate in their studying in order to be
prepared for examinations by applying strategic
studying. A significant gender difference was also
found for deep learning (understanding). In relation
to study strategies, the authors observed significant
differences on the general motivation to do well,
self-testing (reviewing material), study aids (creating
diagrams, charts, using other memory aids), and time
management (the ability to self-regulate the use of
time so that sufficient time is devoted to studying).
According to Marrs & Sigler, "these findings imply
that female college students are more motivated
academically and display more self-discipline related
to actual studying behaviours". The authors discuss
the differences in study skills as possibly related to
gender roles regarding appropriate male studying
behaviour. Students who score higher on femininity
tend to rank studying behaviours as more important
than students who score higher on masculinity. It looks
like achievement without much effort may be valued
by males more than achievement that requires hard
work. Achievement motivation and academic choices
in college may be related to the perceived gender
roles and expectations that men have concerning their
perceived masculinity or femininity.
Summing up scientific literature analysis on
gender identity development through socialization,
we consider gender identity formation a result
of reflected appraisals, social comparisons, selfattributions, and identifications, primarily affected
by social environment and family context. Starting
within the family context and influenced by other
socialization agents, value socialization forms
academic achievement, academic study aspiration,
and motivation patterns. Various gender socialization
outcomes are discussed in science publications:
gender differences in personality structures,
concerning motivation, thinking style and behaviour,
as well as cooperation; the importance of parents
as socializing agents transmitting their educational
values, goals and aspirations is highlighted; gender
biased differences in studying, learning, and time
management practices are discussed, implying gender
differences in academic motivation and self-discipline
related to actual studying behaviour areas. With
reference to Marrs & Sigler's (2011) study within
psychology, we design our sociological survey in the
same approach, aiming to analyse gender differences
in the motivational attitudes toward general higher
education studies and self-recorded improvementoriented efforts as a result of socialization.
Method
The motivational attitudes toward academic studies
and self-recorded improvement-oriented efforts were
assessed using certain scales from the QUISS II1
survey methodology, elaborated by the scholars team at
KonztanzUniversity (Germany) in 1983, asit was used
repeatedly in surveys in Germany and systematically
improved by the authors (Bargel, Schmidt & Bargel,
2009). In 2009 the latest and improved version
of the QUISS II was used in a students survey in
Lithuania. Lithuanian State Studies Foundation
financed the scientists' group project "Academic
Studies Quality and Social Context Survey", directed
by Professor Gediminas Merkys in which QUISS II
was translated and culturally adapted (Merkys,
Lekavičiene,
Saparniene,
Mikutaviciene,
&
Turcinskaite-Andujar, 2009; Turcinskaite-Balciuniene
& Merkys, 2010). The questionnaire qualitative
translation assessment was ensured by expert panel
review. There were 3 versions of the questionnaire:
English, German (original) and French. Each version
of the questionnaire was translated separately and
then the three translations were confronted in order
to elaborate the best possible translation by the panel
of three experts assessing and ensuring translation
quality. Two of three experts were researchers. Once
the experts validated the translation, the questionnaire
was reviewed by another independent trilingual
expert (Lithuanian, German and English) and
returned to the expert panel review for finalisation
of the questionnaire translation procedure. After
the final expert panel translation quality review, the
final Lithuanian questionnaire version was approved
to be of a good quality and suitable for applying it
as a survey instrument (Pauliukaite, TurcinskaiteBalciuniene and Balčiūnas, 2011). Then in 2011 the
translated, culturally adapted and validated
instrument (Pauliukaite, Turcinskaite-Balciuniene &
Merkys, 2011) was used in another students survey in
Lithuania. Hence, the results discussed in this article
are drawn from the data collected in two separate
surveys by paper-pencil type questionnaire.
In this paper we analyse data collected by 52 items
distributed in 10 Likert-type scales and subscales of
different levels (from 3 to 7), with central categories
(see Table 2). The motivational attitudes to studies
are assessed by 36 items, regrouped in 4 scales; two
measure the perceived importance or usefulness of
1
10
Qualitâtsverbesserung in Schulen und Schulsysthemen II.
various factors for personal growth and professional
perspectives, one scale measures the willingness
to engage in different extracurricular activities
and the last scale measures personal advancement
perception as a motivational force for further studying
efforts. Self-recorded improvement-oriented efforts
are assessed by 16 items regrouped in 2 scales
representing different aspects. The Personal Initiative
and Extracurricular Activities scales describe more
personal initiative demanding efforts that are not
required by the institution and teaching staff. On the
contrary, the Studying Efforts and Applying Academic
Skills in Curricular Activities scale represents items
related to the efforts that are more or less explicitly
required by the institution and teaching staff.
Evaluating the psychometric characteristics
(reliability and construct validity) of the measurement
instruments, the SPSS 13.0 statistical package for
Windows was used by computing different statistics:
1) the Spirmen-Brown formula and Cronbach's alpha,
when appropriate, in order to assess the internal
consistency of the items in the scales; 2) the corrected
item-total correlation analysis in order to determine
how well one item's score is internally consistent with
composite scores from all other items that remain; 3)
and a factor analysis to determine the dimensionality
of the scales (see Table 3).
Using Likert-type scales is imperative to
calculating Cronbach's a (scale length from 6 items
to 12) or the Spirmen-Brown p;when the scale is
relatively short, it is important to relate psychometric
reliability to test length. Most of the scales are
relatively short, including less than 7 items; therefore,
Spirmen-Brown p was computed by forecasting a scale
length of 12 items. The scale consisting of 11 items
(Improvement in general transferable skills) records
Table 2
Instrument for Studies' Motivational Attitudes and Active Improvement-Oriented Efforts Assessment
Scales
H
S
a
vo
m
.<u
•3
S
m
isi«
o*
"O
s
«
s
«
>
is
a 2
.a s
o a
-A vo
B yS 2
§lg
S
Factors for
personal
growth
8 items
Factors for
professional
perspectives
8 items
Practical skills
5 items
How important/useful are these factors for your personal growth?
Practice in participation in research project.
Successful studies
3 items
How important/useful are these factors for your personal growth?
The best possible results of examinations.
Practical skills
5 items
How important/useful are these factors for your professional
perspectives?
Foreign language learning.
Successful studies
3 items
How important/useful are these factors for your professional
perspectives?
After BA studies, enter MA studies.
Willingness to engage in improvementoriented extracurricular activities
6 items
Personal
advancement
perception
14 items
Personal
initiative and
extracurricular
activities
11 items
Item example
Subscales
Would you like to make use ofthe opportunities to improve your
qualification in extracurricular activities?
Attending open lectures.
Improvement in
specific skills, related
to the main studies
field 3 items
How much self-improvement could you record in these areas?
Practical skills, related to your studiesfield.
Improvement in
general transferable
skills 11 items
How much self-improvement could you record in these areas?
Analytical and scientificproblems solving skills.
Engagement in
improvement-oriented
extracurricular
activities 6 items
Are you attending any of the extracurricular opportunities listed
below to improve your qualification?
Foreign language courses.
Active improvement
oriented efforts by
personal initiative
5 items
How often in your studies did it happen to you?
Reading some more studies related literature in addition to what
was recommended by your teacher.
Studying efforts and applying academic
skills in curricular activities
5 items
Do these statements correspond to your situation?
You are able to learn quiet easily new material, facts and details.
11
an excellent reliability score. According to George
and Mallery (2003), lower than 0,50 Cronbach's a
scores are unacceptable; from 0,50 to 0,60 scores
are poor; from 0,60 to 0,70 scores are questionable;
from 0,70 to 0,80 scores are acceptable; from 0,80 to
0,90 scores are good; and higher than 0,90 scores
are excellent. A Cronbach's a of 0,80 is considered
to be a reasonable goal. The corrected item-total
correlation analysis for each of the scale's items was
computed. It is the correlation between a given item
and the sum score of the other scale's items. The last
column in Table 3 displays for each scale the range
of its items corrected item-total correlations. This is a
way to assess how much one item's score is internally
consistent with composite scores from all other items
that remain. This correlation is considered weak when
the score is less than 0,30 (De Vaus, 2004); in our case
all correlations are higher.
Exploratory factor analysis involving the principle
component analysis extraction and varimax rotation
is commonly used to assess the construct validity.
Factor analysis is based on the correlation matrix of the
variables involved, and the correlations usually need
a large sample size before they stabilize. The sample
size is expected to be at least 300, with 500 being
better and 1000 or more excellent. As a rule, a bare
minimum of 10 observations per variable is necessary
to avoid computational difficulties. As our sample size
is from 1211 to 1517, factor analysis can be applied for
dimensionality analysis ofthe scales. Before conducting
a factor analysis for each scale, the Kaiser-MeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy needs to be run:
Table 3
Internal Consistency and Construct Validity Statistics
Scales
(N varies from 1211 to 1517)
KMO
Explained
variance
(%)
Factor
lodging
SpirmenBrown p
Cronbach's a
Corrected
item-total
correlation
Studies ' Motivational Attitudes 36 items
Factors for personal growth
Practical skills 5 items
0,73
44,4
0,75-0,62
0,95*
-
0,37-0,53
Successful studies 3 items
0.62
59,9
0,83-0,67
0,97*
-
0,37-0,55
Factors for professional perspectives (2 subscales)
Practical skills 5 items
0,74
41,0
0.73-0.59
0,94*
-
0,34-0,47
Successful studies 3 items
0,64
60,6
0.71-0,82
0,97*
-
0,41-0,54
Willingness to engage in
improvement-oriented
extracurricular activities
6 items
0,82
47,6
0,76-0,63
0,97*
0,77
0,42-0,59
Improvement in specific skills,
related to the main studies field
3 items
0,70
70,7
0,82-0,87
0,98*
-
0,60-0,68
Improvement in general
transferable skills 11 items
0,96
55,8
0,68-0,79
0,86
0,92
0,60-0,73
Personal advancement perception
Active Improvement-Oriented Efforts 16 items
Personal initiative and extracurricular activities (11 items, two-dimensional scale)
Engagement in improvementoriented extracurricular
activities 6 items
0,84
48,0
0,63-0,73
0,98*
0,79
0,48-0,57
Active improvement oriented
efforts by personal initiative
5 items
0,76
53,4
0,65-0,80
0,97*
-
0,49-0,64
Studying efforts and applying
academic skills in curricular
activities 5 items
0,73
49,8
0,66-0,80
0,97*
-
0,47-0,62
* Spirmen-Brown p computed forecasting scales length of 12 items.
12
a value lower than 0,50 is unacceptable (Cekanavicius
ir Murauskas, 2004). According to the Kaiser-MeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy, none of the
scales records unacceptable sampling adequacy. For
all scales factor analysis can be applied - none of the
correlation matrices is an identity matrix (Bartlett's
tests of sphericity are significant with probabilities less
than 0.05).
According to the results, both validity and
reliability analyses of the instrument produced
reasonably good results; therefore, scales can
be concluded and declared to have acceptable
psychometric properties and further analysis of the
data can be produced.
Sample
In 2009 the questionnaire was completed by
991 respondents and in 2011 by 555 respondents; from
Kaunas (in total 442 respondents), Klaipeda (in total
292 respondents), Siauliai (in total 409 respondents)
and Vilnius (in total 403 respondents); from universities
(1142 respondents constituted of 616 females, 380 males
and 146 not specified) and colleges (404 respondents
constituted of 201 female, 138 male and 65 not
specified), in their second and third study years of
Bachelor degree studies in different programmes.
Characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table 4.
The paper-pencil questionnaire was completed
by higher education students in their studies
Table 4
Sample
Date
University
College
BA
Study Year
2nd
University
3rd
2009
November
Total 991
2nd
College
3rd
2nd
University
2011
April
3rd
2nd
College
3rd
Female
Total 817
78
18
38
96
230
71
22
79
49
221
2
1
41
Town
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Kaunas
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Vilnius
Total
Klaipėda
Šiauliai
Total
44
26
14
19
1
60
37
33
8
18
96
11
30
14
14
69
33
20
27
80
13
4
17
13
Male
Total 616
64
2
13
32
111
25
17
31
15
88
6
1
30
9
46
8
11
14
33
54
28
10
29
121
12
5
9
34
60
2
12
16
30
17
12
29
Not specified
Total 211
19
1
11
31
62
12
6
19
10
47
1
1
11
1
14
4
24
5
2
35
19
4
3
5
31
1
2
3
6
4
6
10
6
6
Total
161
21
62
159
403
108
45
129
74
356
9
3
82
10
104
30
46
35
17
128
110
65
21
52
248
24
37
26
48
135
39
38
43
120
36
16
52
institutions. In average it took about 75 minutes to
fill in the questionnaire. In further analysis of gender
socialization differences in the motivational attitudes
to studies and active improvement-oriented efforts,
"not specified" gender cases are removed from the
data.
Results
Prior to starting the analysis of research results,
psychometric properties (item reliability and
construct validity) of the measurement instrument
were assessed. According to the results, research
instrument scales were concluded to have acceptable
psychometric properties, necessary for any further
analysis of the data (see Table 3).
Following an exploratory factor analysis, factor
scores may be computed and used in subsequent
analyses. Factor scores are composite variables that
provide information about an individual's placement
on the factors. For the scales of Motivational attitudes
toward studies and Active improvement-oriented
attitudes a least squares regression approach was
applied to predict factor scores. The procedure
of the least squares regression is a multivariate
procedure, which takes into account not only the
correlation between the factors and between factors
and observed variables (via item loadings), but also
the correlation among observed variables, as well
as the correlation among oblique factors. Under this
process, the computed factor scores are standardized
to a mean of zero; however, the standard deviation of
the distribution of factor scores (by factor) will be 1 if
principal components methods are used and will be
the squared multiple correlation between factors and
variables (typically used as the communality estimate)
if principal axis methods are used (DiStefano, Zhu and
Mindrila, 2009). This procedure was applied for the
scales maximizing validity of estimates and producing
Table 5
Mann-Whitney Test Statistics
Scales
Factors for personal growth: subscale
Practical skills
T3
S
on
T3
«
o£
Factors for personal growth: subscale
Successful studies
Factors for professional perspectives:
subscale Practical skills
"O
s
Factors for professional perspectives:
subscale Successful studies
s
o
a
Willingness to engage in improvementoriented extracurricular activities
§
Personal advancement perception: subscale
Improvement in specific skills, related to
the main studies field
Personal advancement perception: subscale
Improvement in general transferrable skills
Personal initiative and extracurricular
activities: Engagement in improvement•
^
S £ . oriented extracurricular activities
U (Ö Personal initiative and extracurricular
s w
U
>M
^
activities: Active improvement oriented
ou ®
efforts by personal initiative
& =s .
IS -E
o
Studying efforts and applying academic
Gender
N
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
746
478
1224
761
490
1251
719
458
1177
738
462
1200
629
404
1033
799
495
1294
799
496
1295
588
406
994
804
499
1303
803
507
1310
14
Mean
Rank
Mean
Diff.
MannWhitney
U
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
663,06
533,59
0,33
140576,5
,000
686,75
531,65
0,43
140214,0
,000
640,08
508,81
0,33
127923,5
,000
653,53
515,79
0,40
131342,5
,000
556,28
455,84
0,36
102348,5
,000
667,25
615,62
0,14
181974,0
,016
689,87
580,55
0,30
164697,0
,000
500,57
493,05
0,04
117559,0
,681
641,66
668,66
0,08
192284,0
,208
701,73
582,29
0,31
166441,0
,000
a standardized summarizing scale variable for each of
the scales. Then the normality of the distributions was
verified and after it was discovered that none of the
variables was normally distributed, non-parametric
tests were chosen to assess the gender differences in
the motivational attitudes toward academic studies
and self-recorded improvement-oriented efforts (see
Table 5).
In the Table 5 a significant difference in the two
samples is indicated by the difference between the
two group means which is higher than 0,20. The
highest mean difference is recorded in the scales of
the motivational attitudes toward academic studies,
when male and female assess the importance of
successful studies factors for their personal growth
and professional perspectives. The smallest mean
differences are obtained in the scales of self-recorded
improvement-oriented efforts: Personal Initiative
and Extracurricular Activities. A relatively small
mean difference is recorded in one scale of the
motivational attitudes toward academic studies, when
personal advancement in skills is related to the main
studies field (see Table 5). According to the results,
females score higher in almost all scales except the
two scales of self-recorded improvement-oriented
efforts with one of the smallest mean differences: in
the Extracurricular Activities scale the male records
relatively higher scores than females even though this
difference is not statistically significant.
For gender differences assessment using the MannWhitney Test, it appears that the distribution functions
in male and female groups differ with respect to the
median in all cases of the motivational attitudes to
studies and in the case of one scale, measuring selfrecorded improvement-oriented efforts: Studying
Efforts and Applying Academic Skills in Curricular
Activities scale. According to the data displayed
in Table 5, in all cases except one, the significance
level a=0.00 in the case of Personal advancement
Perception: the subscale, expressing improvement
in specific skills, related to the main studies field
a=0.016. In the case ofthe other two scales, measuring
self-recorded improvement-oriented efforts: Personal
Initiative scale and Extracurricular Activities scale,
the distribution functions in male and female groups
have identical distribution functions (see Table 5).
Our results confirm the gender differences
observed by Marrs & Sigler (2011). Females record
statistically significant higher scores in all the scales
of academic studies' motivational attitudes. Similar
results are obtained in the self-recorded improvementoriented efforts' scale which concerns Studying
Efforts and Applying Academic Skills in Curricular
Activities. When focusing on the two scales of selfrecorded improvement-oriented efforts, expressing
personal initiative and involvement in extracurricular
activities, there is no statistically significant gender
difference observed.
Conclusions and Discussion
According to the literature review, we consider
gender identity formation a result of reflected
appraisals, social comparisons, self-attributions,
and identifications strongly affected by social
environment and primarily the family context.
Starting within the family context and influenced by
other socialization agents, value socialization forms
academic achievement, academic study aspiration,
and motivation patterns, resulting in gendered studies
behaviours.
Motivational attitudes toward studies and selfrecorded improvement-oriented efforts were assessed
using certain scales from the QUISS II survey
methodology, translated, culturally adapted and
validated. According to the results, both validity and
reliability analyses, the instrument was concluded
to have acceptable psychometric properties for data
analysis.
Our results confirmed and complemented the
gender differences observed by Marrs & Sigler
(2011):
1. Females record statistically significant higher
scores in all the scales of motivational attitudes
toward academic studies.
2. Females record statistically significant higher
scores in the self-recorded improvement-oriented
efforts scale which concerns studying efforts and
applying academic skills in curricular activities.
3. There is no statistically significant difference
between men and women in the two scales of
self-recorded
improvement-oriented
efforts,
expressing personal initiative and involvement in
extracurricular activities.
The results obtained in the survey indicate gender
socialization differences that reveal females are being
socialized as either more academically motivated
or more submissive and agreeing to academic
requirements (recording higher scores in self-reported
efforts and academic skills required by the curricular
activities). It could be explained by Sanches-Lopez
et al. (2012), gender behaving styles differences:
submissiveness and cooperation/agreeing being
characteristics of women, while independence and
unconventionality being characteristic of men. This
result may reflect a gender role regarding appropriate
behaviour which is a direct outcome of socialization.
Similar observations are made by Raty & Kasanen
(2007), describing social stereotype by which at
least in the case of sciences females are supposed
to work hard while males refer to natural ability; or
15
by Marrs & Sigler (2011), finding that masculinity
is related with academic achievement without much
work. On the other hand, although females are more
motivated and assumingly work harder in curricular
activities than males, they somehow do not record
higher levels of personal initiative and involvement
in extracurricular activities levels. This may also be
related to the gender socialization issues.
Further research would be helpful for developing
a greater understanding of gender differences in
the motivational attitudes toward academic studies
and behaviours as a result of socialization. Another
important direction for future research is to explore
how social class relates to possible gender differences
in the motivational behaviours and attitudes toward
academic studies.
References
1. Bargel, T., Schmidt, M., Bargel, H. (2009). Quality and
equity in higher education - international experiences
and comparisons. International Workshop November
2008. Konstanz University.
2. Best, D., L. (2010). The Contributions of the Whitings
to the Study of the Socialization of Gender. Journal of
Cross-CulturalPsychology, 41 (4), 534-545.
3. Boiche, J., Plaza, M., Chalabaev, A., Guillet-Descas,
E., Sarrazin, P. (2013). Social Antecedents and
Consequences of Gender-Sport Stereotypes During
Adolescence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Sage,
1-16.
4. Brinkman, B.,G., Rabenstein, K.,L., Rosen, L., A.,
Zimmerman, T., S. (2012). Children's Gender Identity
Development: The Dynamic Negotiation Process
Between Conformity and Authenticity. Youth and
Society, Sage, 1-18.
5. Buday, S., K., Stake, J., E., Peterson, Z., D. (2012).
Gender and the Choice of a Science Carrier: The Impact
of Social Support and Possible Selves. Sex Roles, 66,
197-209.
6. Carlson, D., L., Knoester, C. (2011). Family Structure
and the Intergenerational Transmission of Gender
Ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 32 (6), 709-734.
7. Chuinard, R., Roy, N. (2008). Changes in High-School
Students'Competence Beliefs, Utility Value and
Achievement Goals in Mathematics. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 31-50.
8. Cortright, R., N., Lujan, H., L., Blumberg, A., J.,
Cox, J., H., DiCarlo, S., E. (2013). Higher Levels of
Intrinsic Motivation are Related to Higher Levels of
Class Performance for Male but Not Female Students.
Advance in Physiology Education, 37 (3), 221-232.
9. Cekanavicius, V., Murauskas, G. (2004). Statistika ir
jos taikymo metodai II. Vilnius: TEV.
10. Deutsch, F., M. (2007). Undoing Gender. Gender and
Society, 21, 106-127.
11. DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., Mindrila, D. (2009).
Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations
for the Applied Researcher. Practical Assessment,
Research and Evaluation, 14 (20), 1-11.
12. De Vaus, D. (2004). Surveys in Social Research.
Routledge.
13. Eccles, J. (2011). Gendered Educational and
Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al.
Model of Achievement-Related Choices. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 35 (3), 195-201.
14. Gečas, V. (2000). Socialization. In Borgatta, E. &
Montgomery, R. (Eds.), Gale Encyclopedia of Sociology
(2855-2864). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
15. Hadjar, A., Baier, D., Boehnke, K. (2008). The
Socialization of Hierarchic Self-interest: Value
Socialization in the Family. Young: Nordic Journal of
Youth Research, 16 (3), 279-301.
16. Hicks, S. (2008). Gender Role Models... Who Needs
'Em?! Qualitative Social Work, 7(1), 43-59.
17. Koverienė, A., & Žičkienė, S. (2008). Support
Programmes for Women in Science in Lithuania and
EU Countries. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai, 5, 109-114.
18. Leonavičius, V., & Rutkienė, A. (2010). Aukštojo
mokslo sociologija:
studijų pasitenkinimas
ir
vertinimas. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.
19. Marrs, H., Sigler, E., A. (2011). Male Academic
Performance in College: The Possible Role of Study
Strategies. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13 (2),
227-241.
20. Martin, C., L., Ruble, D. (2011). Children's Search
for Gender Cues: Cognitive Perspectives on Gender
Development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 13, 67-70.
21. Matulionis, A., Maniukaitė, G., Trinkūnienė, I.,
Krukauskienė, E., & Liutikas, D. (2010). Lietuvos
studentijos socialinio portreto bruožai. Vilnius:
Lietuvos socialinių tyrimų centras.
22. Merkys, G., Lekavičienė, R., Saparnienė, D.,
Mikutavičienė, I., Turčinskaitė-Andujar, A. (2009).
Akademinių studijų kokybė ir socialinis kontekstas.
Lietuvos studentų tarpkultūrinis palyginamasis tyrimas
(ataskaita). Kaunas.
23. Merkys, G., Pauliukaitė, Ž. (2010). Apklausos
instrumentų tarpkultūrinio perkėlimo metodologinės
patirtys: Lietuvos kontekstas. Filosofija. Sociologija,
21 (4), 340-356.
24. Molina, J.,A., Gimenez-Nadal, J., I., Cuesta, J.,A., GraciaLazaro, C., Moreno, Y., Sanchez, A. (2013). Gender
Differences in Cooperation: Experimental Evidence on
High School Students. PLOS ONE, 8 (12), 1-10.
25. Morgan, J., Robinson, O. (2013). IntrinsicAspirations
and Personal Meaning Across Adulthood: Conceptual
Interrelations and Age/Sex Differences. Developmental
Psychology, 49 (5), 999-1010.
26. Novelskaitė, A. (2008). Scientific Aspirations of
Lithuanian Bachelor Level Students in Informatics,
Physics and Mechanics. Gender, Field of Study, adn
Year of Study Related Factors. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai,
5, 120-127.
27. Pauliukaitė, Ž. (2009). Apklausos instrumentų
kalbinė adaptacija tarpkultūriniuose
tyrimuose.
Tarpdisciplininis diskursas socialiniuose moksluose 2: Socialinių mokslų doktorantų irjaunųjų mokslininkų
konferencijos straipsnių rinkinys, 85-91. Kaunas:
Kauno technologijos universitetas.
16
28. Pauliukaitė, Ž., Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė,A., Balčiūnas,
J. (2011). Translation Quality of Survey Instruments:
Assessment of Questionnaire on Motivation and
Academic Studies Quality. Social Research, 22 (1),
52-64.
29. Pauliukaitė, Z., Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė, A., Merkys,
G. (2011). Cross-Cultural Validation of QUISS II
Questionnaire: The Case of Lithuania. 4th International
Conference: Changes in Social and Business
Environment, issue: 04, (155-164). Panevėžys: Kauno
technologijos universitetas, on www.ceeol.com.
30. Portfeli, E., Ferrari, L., Nota, L. (2012). Work Valence
as a Predictor of Academic Achievement in the Family
Context. Journal of Career Development, 40 (5), 371-389.
31. Purvaneckienė, G. (2004). Gender Dimension in the
Process of Social Change. Socialiniai mokslai, 1(43),
11-19.
32. Raty, H., Kasanen, K. (2007). Gendered Views of
Ability in Parents' Perceptions of Their Children's
Academic Competencies. Sex Roles, 56, 117-124.
33. Rhoton, L., A. (2011). Distancing as a Gendered
Barrier: Understanding Women Scientists' Gender
Practices. Gender and Sociaty, 25 (6), 696-716.
34. Sanchez-Lopez, M., Cuellar-Flores, I., Liminana, R.,
Corbalan, J. (2012). Differential Personality Styles in
Men and Women: The Modulating Effect of Gender
Conformity. SAGE Open, April-June, 1-14.
35. Schwartz, S., H., Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). CrossNational Variation in the Size of Sex Differences
in Values: Effects of Gender Equality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 171-185.
36. Spera, C. (2006). Adolescents'Perceptions of Parental
Goals, Practices, and Styles in Relation to Their
Motivation and Achievement. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 26 (4), 456-490.
37. Stanišauskienė, V. (2008). Karjeros sprendimų
pagrįstumas lyčių aspektu. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai, 5,
143-149.
38. Taljūnaitė, M. (2005). Atstovavimo principas kaip lyčių
lygybės aspekto integravimo priemonė. Lyčių studijos
ir tyrimai, 1, 5-8.
39. Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė, A., Merkys, G. (2010).
Assessing Higher Education Quality in the Context
of Conceptual Confusion and Methodological
Eclecticism. Social Research, 4(21), 70-81.
40. Urbonienė, A. (2008). Prielaidos merginų profesinio
identiteto vystymuisi technologijos ir fizinių mokslų
studijose. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai, 5, 84-90.
41. Žvinklienė, A. (2003). Moters kelias į akademiją:
istorija ir dabartis. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 1,
50-70.
42. Žvinklienė, A. (2005). Situacija apibrėžta, kas toliau?
Mokslininkių skatinimo perspektyvos Lietuvoje ir
Europos Sąjungoje. Lyčių studijos ir tyrimai, 1, 9-16.
Turčinskaitė-Balčiunienė, A., Merkys, G.
Lyčių skirtumai ir studijų motyvacinės nuostatos: Lietuvos studentų socializacijos kontekstas
Santrauka
pagal trejopas teorijas: 1) esencialistines / biologines teorijas; 2) raidos teorijas; 3) socializacijos teorijas. Remiantis Deutsch (2007), Hicks (2008), Brinkman ir kt. (2012)
rekomendacijomis, pagal simbolinio interakcionizmo
perspektyvos suformuluotą lyčių socializacijos teoriją
lyties identiteto formavimas suprantamas kaip procesas,
vykstantis daugiau ar mažiau specifiniuose savęs suvokimų formavimosi procesuose: atspindėtuose įvertinimuose,
socialiniuose palyginimuose, apibūdinant save ir identifikuojantis sąveikoje su kitais reikšmingais asmenimis, visų
pirma tėvais.
Siame straipsnyje pristatomi tyrimo, kuriuo siekta
išsiaiškinti socializacijos nulemtus su lytimi susijusius
akademinių studijų motyvacinių nuostatų ir akademinės
elgsenos skirtumus, rezultatai. Tyrimas grindžiamas įvairių mokslininkų darbais, kuriuose atspindimi socializacijos nulemti lyčių skirtumai asmenybės struktūrose (Sanches-Lopez ir kt., 2012) ir asmenybės stiliuose (Molina ir
kt., 2013), taip pat nagrinėjama įvairių šeimos konteksto
veiksnių svarba lyčių socializacijos procesams (Boiche ir
kt., 2013; Eccles, 2011; Hadjar irkt., 2008; Portfeli irkt.,
2012; Raty ir Kasanen, 2007; Spera, 2006), sukeliantiems
akademinių studijų motyvacijos ir akademinės elgsenos
skirtumus (Buday ir kt., 2012; Chouinard ir Roy, 2008;
Cortrightirkt., 2013; Eccles, 2011; Marrs ir Sigler, 2011;
Rhoton, 2011; Spera,2006).
Teoriniai tyrimo pagrindai. Mokslinėje literatūroje
nagrinėjami įvairūs su lyčių skirtumų analize susiję probleminiai klausimai. Lyčių skirtumai reiškiasi beveik kiekvienoje žmogaus veiklos srityje. Best (2010) nuomone,
tikriausiai nėra kito tokio socialinio kintamojo, kuris per
visą gyvenimą būtų toks aktyvus kaip lytis. Deutsch (2007)
pažymi, kad lyties samprata yra nuolat socialiai perkonstruojama, remiantis norminėmis lyties koncepcijomis,
kurios bėgant laikui kinta, priklausomai nuo socialinės
situacijos pokyčių. Todėl lyčių skirtumų problematika niekuomet nepraranda aktualumo, joje visuomet galima rasti
naujų, nepakankamai išnagrinėtų aspektų. Nors Lietuvoje
analizuota lyčių nelygybės tematika akademinėje srityje
(Koverienė, Žičkienė, 2008; Novelskaitė, 2008; Purvaneckienė, 2004; Stanišauskienė, 2008; Taljūnaitė, 2005; Urbonienė, 2008; Žvinklienė, 2003 ir 2005), tačiau akademinės
motyvacijos tema šiame kontekste negvildenta. Taip pat
lyčių poveikis neanalizuotas pastaruoju metu Leonavičiaus
ir Rutkienės (2010) bei Matulionio ir kt. (2010) atliktuose
akademinės motyvacijos tyrimuose.
Kai lyčių nelygybės klausimas nėra pagrindinė nagrinėjamos mokslinės problemos ašis, lyčių skirtumai siejami su lyties identiteto samprata. Brinkman ir kt. (2012)
pažymėjo, kad lyties identiteto formavimas nagrinėjamas
17
Straipsnyje analizuojama mokslinė problema formuluojama klausimu: kokie socializacijos nulemti lyčių skirtumai pasireiškia akademinių studijų motyvacinėse nuostatose, nagrinėjamose Lietuvos aukštojo mokslo kontekste?
Šio straipsnio tikslas - apčiuopti socializacijos nulemtus
lyčių skirtumus aukštojo mokslo studijų motyvacinėse
nuostatose ir respondentų pateiktuose atsakymuose į tai,
kaip dažnai jie įsitraukia į asmeninės iniciatyvos reikalaujančią akademinę veiklą.
Tyrimo metodika ir imtis. Akademinių studijų motyvacinių nuostatų ir tobulinimosi pastangų intensyvumo
vertinimo skalės paimtos iš QUISSII apklausos instrumento, kurį sudarė ir ištobulino mokslininkų grupė iš Konstancos universiteto Vokietijoje (Bargel ir kt., 2009). Paskutinė
QUISS II versija išversta į lietuvių kalbą ir naudota Lietuvos studentų apklausoje įgyvendinant mokslininkų grupės projektą: „Akademinių studijų kokybės ir socialinio
konteksto tyrimas", per kurį atlikta klausimyno kultūrinė
adaptacija (Pauliukaitė ir kt., 2011). Projektą rėmė Lietuvos valstybinis mokslo ir studijų fondas, projekto vadovas
profesorius Gediminas Merkys (Merkys ir kt., 2009; Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė ir Merkys, 2010). 2011 m. išverstas
ir adaptuotas instrumentas Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų studentų tyrime panaudotas antrą kartą.
Popieriaus ir pieštuko klausimynas sudarytas iš psichometrinių Likerto tipo skalių, turinčių nuo trijų iki septynių padalų. Studijų motyvacinės nuostatos matuotos
7 skalėmis, išreiškiančiomis 1) praktinių įgūdžių svarbos
asmeniniam tobulėjimui įvertinimą (5 testo žingsniai); 2)
sėkmingų studijų svarbos asmeniniam tobulėjimui įvertinimą (3 testo žingsniai); 3) praktinių įgūdžių svarbos profesinėms perspektyvoms įvertinimą (5 testo žingsniai); 4) sėkmingų studijų svarbos profesinėms perspektyvoms įvertinimą (3 testo žingsniai); 5) pageidavimą tobulintis ir kelti
kvalifikaciją veikloje, nenumatytoje specialybės studijų
programoje (6 testo žingsniai); 6) specifinių įgūdžių, susijusių su studijuojamu dalyku, pažangos įžvelgimas (3 testo
žingsniai); 7) bendrųjų ir perkeliamųjų įgūdžių pažangos
įžvelgimas (11 testo žingsnių). Respondentų nurodytas
tobulinimosi pastangų dažnumas matuotas pagal 3 skales,
išreiškiančias: 1) asmeninį iniciatyvumą imantis tobulinimosi veiklos, nenumatytos specialybės studijų programoje
(6 testo žingsniai); 2) asmeninę iniciatyvą savarankiškai
papildomai gilinantis į dalykus, susijusius su studijomis
(5 testo žingsniai); 3) aktyvias studijas ir akademinio darbo
įgūdžius (5 testo žingsniai).
Išanalizuoti tyrime naudotų skalių psichometriniai
rodikliai: 1) skalių vidinis nuoseklumas apskaičiuojant
Kronbacho alfa bendruosius koeficientus; 2) skalės testo
žingsnių pastovumas įvertinant skalės ir jos testo žingsnio koreliaciją; 3) skalių komponentiškumas atliekant
faktorinę analizę. Pagal visus analizuotus psichometrinius rodiklius instrumento skalių kokybė pripažinta pakankamai gera.
Siame straipsnyje analizuojami duomenys, surinkti
Lietuvos aukštųjų universitetinių ir neuniversitetinių mokyklų studentų apklausose 2009 m. (991 respondentas) ir
2011 m. (555 respondentai) iš Kauno (442 respondentai),
Klaipėdos (292 respondentai), Šiaulių (409 respondentai)
ir Vilniaus (403 respondentai). Apklausta 817 merginų ir
616 vaikinų, studijuojančių antrame ir trečiame bakalauro
studijų kursuose iš universitetų (1142 respondentai) ir kolegijų (404 respondentai).
Tyrimo rezultatai. Atlikus tiriamąją faktorinę analizę, apskaičiuotos standartinės skalių faktorinės reikšmės,
išreiškiančios apibendrintus skalių kintamuosius, naudotus duomenų analizėje. Kadangi skalių apibendrintų
reikšmių standartiniai kintamieji netenkino normalaus
skirstinio sąlygos, lyčių skirtumams įvertinti buvo pasirinktas neparametrinis Mann-Whitney testas. Pirmiausia
išanalizuoti vidurkių skirtumai vyrų ir moterų imtyse. Didžiausias vidurkių skirtumas gautas akademinių studijų
motyvacinių nuostatų skalėse, pagal kurias vertinama sėkmingų studijų svarba asmeniniam tobulėjimui ir profesinėms perspektyvoms. Mažiausi vidurkių skirtumai gauti
dviejose tobulinimosi pastangų skalėse, pagal kurias vertinamas asmeninis iniciatyvumas imantis tobulinimosi
veiklos, nenumatytos specialybės studijų programoje, ir
asmeninė iniciatyva savarankiškai papildomai gilinantis į
dalykus, susijusius su studijomis. Remiantis Mann-Whitney testo rezultatais, merginų įverčiai beveik visose
skalėse yra statistiškai reikšmingai didesni už vaikinų.
Statistiškai reikšmingo skirtumo nėra tik dviejose tobulinimosi pastangų skalėse, išreiškiančiose: 1) asmeninį
iniciatyvumą imantis tobulinimosi veiklos, nenumatytos
specialybės studijų programoje, ir 2) asmeninę iniciatyvą
savarankiškai papildomai gilinantis į dalykus, susijusius
su studijomis.
Išvados, diskusija. Remiantis mokslinės literatūros
apžvalga, lyties identiteto formavimą suprantame kaip
procesą, vykstantį daugiau ar mažiau specifiniuose savęs suvokinių formavimosi procesuose: atspindėtuose
įvertinimuose, socialiniuose palyginimuose, apibūdinant save ir identifikuojantis sąveikose su kitais reikšmingais asmenimis, visų pirma tėvais. Šeimos kontekste
vykstanti socializacija perteikia šeimos vertybes, suformuojančias tam tikrą akademinių studijų motyvaciją ir
elgseną.
Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamo tyrimo rezultatai iš
esmės patvirtina ir papildo Marrs ir Sigler (2011) gautus
rezultatus:
1. Merginos pasižymi didesne motyvacija pagal visas
7 akademinių studijų motyvacinių nuostatų skales,
naudotas tyrime (išvada statistiškai reikšminga).
2. Pagal respondentų atsakymus, merginos įdeda daugiau pastangų studijuodamos ir sugeba geriau pasinaudoti savo akademiniais įgūdžiais nei vaikinai (išvada
statistiškai reikšminga).
3. Nagrinėjant respondentų pateiktus atsakymus į tai,
kaip dažnai jie iš asmeninės iniciatyvos įsitraukia į
studijų kontekste nereikalaujamą veiklą, merginų ir
vaikinų rezultatai nesiskiria.
Gauti rezultatai rodo, kad dėl socializacijos merginos
greičiausiai yra labiau motyvuotos akademinei veiklai arba
labiau linkusios paklusti akademiniams reikalavimams
(Sanches-Lopez ir kt., 2012, nustatė, kad dominuojantys
merginų elgsenos stiliaus bruožai yra bendradarbiavimas
ir paklusnumas, o vaikinų elgsenos stiliaus - savarankiškumas ir nekonvencionalumas). Gautus rezultatus galima
bandyti paaiškinti ir lyčių vaidmenis atitinkančios elgsenos
demonstravimu (Raty ir Kasanen, 2007, pagal galiojančius
visuomenės stereotipus tiksliųjų mokslų atveju merginų
18
pasiekti rezultatai aiškinami darbštumu ir įdėtomis pastangomis, o vaikinų rezultatai - įgimtais gabumais; panašios
nuomonės laikosi Marrs ir Sigler, 2011, teigiantys, kad
pati vyriškumo samprata siejasi su akademiniais pasiekimais neįdedant daug pastangų, nes daug studijuoti esą
nevyriška). Taip pat įdomi socializacijos pasekmė yra tai,
kad merginos, nors labiau motyvuotos ir įdeda daugiau pastangų studijuodamos, nėra linkusios dažniau nei vaikinai
užsiimti asmeninės iniciatyvos reikalaujančia tobulinimosi
veikla.
Plėtojant lyčių skirtumų studijas, kuriose nagrinėjama
motyvacinių nuostatų ir akademinės elgsenos tematika, rekomenduotina tęsti tyrimus, tikslinti įvairius gautus rezultatus. Itin svarbus, tačiau šiame straipsnyje neanalizuotas
klausimas yra lyties ir socialinio sluoksnio sąryšiai, paveikiantys akademinių studijų motyvacinių nuostatų ir akademinės elgsenos skirtumus.
Pagrindiniai žodžiai: socializacija, lyčių skirtumai,
motyvacinės nuostatos.
The article has been reviewed.
Received in 29 May 2014, accepted in 03 November 2014
19