In PISA 2018, girls outperformed boys in reading by almost 30 score points. However, the size of the gender gap did not seem to be related to the average performance. In 16 out of the 25 countries and economies whose mean score was above the OECD average, the difference in the reading performance between boys and girls was smaller than the average gender gap across OECD countries (OECD, 2019b). Among these high-performing countries, the difference between girls' and boys' performance ranged from 13 score points in B-S-J-Z (China) to 52 in Finland.

In societies where gender equality is enhanced, girls often perform better in reading and maths (Scheeren, van de Werfhorst and H., & BolStill, 2019). This paper examines the gender gap in learning in two well-performing neighbouring countries, Finland and Estonia. In both countries, gender equality is established and travels well across the sectors of society. In Finland, there has been a declining trend in students' PISA performance in all core assessment domains, reading, mathematics and science since 2009. At the same time, the gender gap in Finland has transformed to favour girls in mathematics and science (OECD, 2019a). Meanwhile, in Estonia, the country's average performance has increased in reading and mathematics and remained at its level in science. Also, in Estonia, the gender gap has narrowed in reading, is neutral in science and developed to favour boys in mathematics.

Even though gender differences are probably the most commonly examined education outcomes, it remains unclear what the underlying causes of the existing differences remain. Maccobly and Jacklin (1974) concluded their substantially extensive review that whilst some patterns persist, for example, female superiority in verbal skills and male superiority in mathematical skills, it is not easy to untangle the influence of stereotyping on individuals' perceptions of and behaviour towards, events and objects. According to them, it was also challenging to separate if, and to what extent, innate or learned behaviours underpin the development of behavioural or cognitive gender differences. The focus on masculinity in crisis is potentially fruitful, however, because it shifts the emphasis away from structural factors in post-industrial societies, which position boys as inevitable ‘losers’. Instead, it would be necessary to explore the characteristics of masculinity that inhibit boys as learners and citizens and how these might be challenged (Epstein et al., 1998).

There is a substantial variation in gender differences, but no equal starting point given the considerable differences between countries in their provision of preschool education, age of entry into formal schooling, age of school tracking, community resources such as libraries, training of teachers, general learning cultures for example (Topping et al., 2003). From this societal and educational structure point of view, Estonia and Finland are very similar. So, it is not easy to adduce which factors have the most significant influence and why. Previous research has shown that students' families' socioeconomic status has a somewhat differentiated effect on performance by gender (Van Hek, Buchmann, & Kraaykamp, 2019; Autor, 2019). Also, students' motivation and self-efficacy are among the most vital associates of their performance across PISA studies, specifically in Finland and Estonia (Lee & Stankov, 2018; Lau & Ho, 2022).

The following research questions were formulated to examine these topics: How do motivation and self-efficacy predict girls’ and boys’ proficiency in Finland and Estonia in PISA cycles from 2006 to 2018? Could the gender gap explain the differentiating trajectories of a country's educational outcomes? 

Finnish and Estonian data are first compared with the IDB analyser utilising the SPSS program. A linear regression analysis was conducted separately of the predictors for girls’ and boys’ country average scores calculated with ten plausible values in PISA cycles 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018, of which have mathematics, science and reading literacy as the main domain. Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented for each cycle. The predicting factors of self-efficacy and motivation or joy/like of the main domain school subject were examined as computed variables with Weighted Likelihood Estimate (WLE) values. The ESCS index was used as an indicator of students' socioeconomic background, which was also used either as a control covariate or a predicting variable to examine the possible differentiated effect it may have on gender proficiency. Finally, regression analysis was conducted to form a predicting model for girls’ and boys’ proficiency in every domain, both for Finland and Estonia

The preliminary results reveal that while in the first two cycles of the PISA study, gender differences were not as evident in Finland as later on, the motivation towards the assessed domain was higher than in the later cycles. Also, the motivational factors were stronger predictors for main domain proficiency in Finland than they were in Estonia in the earlier cycles, 2006 and 2009. In the recent cycles, 2015 and 2018, self-efficacy was the strongest predictor in Finland and Estonia. It appears that the change in the level of motivational factors has been towards a lower level in Finland but remained stable or slightly increased in Estonia. Finally, the applied regression models could predict more of the variance of the girls than the boys in each major domain in each cycle.

Autor, D. Figlio, D., Karbownik, K., Roth, J., & Wasserman, M. 2019. Family disadvantage and the gender gap in behavioural and educational outcomes. American economic journal: Applied economics 11(3), 338–381. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170571 Epstein, D., Ellwood, J., Hey, V. & Maw, J., 1998. Failing boys? Issues in gender and achievement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Van Hek, M., Buchmann, C., & Kraaykamp, G. 2019. Educational Systems and Gender Differences in Reading: A Comparative Multilevel Analysis. European Sociological Review 35 (2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy054 Lau, KC., Ho, SC. 2022. Attitudes Towards Science, Teaching Practices, and Science Performance in PISA 2015: Multilevel Analysis of the Chinese and Western Top Performers. Research in Science Education 52, 415–426 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09954-6 Lee, J., & Stankov, L. 2018. Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences 65 (3), 50–64. Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N., 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. OECD 2019a. PISA 2018 Results. Volume I. What Students Know and Can do? Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD 2019b. PISA 2018 Results. Volume II. Where All Students Can Succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scheeren, L., van de Werfhorst, H., & Bol, T. 2018 The Gender Revolution in Context: How Later Tracking in Education Benefits Girls. Social Forces 97 (1), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy025