Vol.

LXII
No. 1/2011

01 - 04

Factors Influencing School Performance in Romania1

Nicoleta Corbua1, Loredana Ivana, Valeriu Frunzarua, Remus Pricopiea
College of Comunication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public
Administration, 6 Povernei, Bucharest 010643, Romania
Abstract
This article analyses the results of a survey on students from Romanian universities concerning the
factors that influence academic performance. Academic literature in the field underlines two clusters of
key factors determining school performance: individual and social predictors. In this context, we
conducted a national representative survey (N=1402) on freshmen from Romanian public universities.
Findings show that gender, parents education, materialistic values and class attendance have a
significant impact on students academic performance. The results could be used for further
development of educational policies for access and equity in higher education.
Key words: education; academic performance; social predictors, materialistic values

This article is the result of research in the project Instruments and mechanisms of growth
and facilitation of higher education access based on horizontal and vertical partnerships
among institutions of education, central and local structures of the educational system and
social actors, financed by the Social European Fund, SOPHRD (POSDRU).
1
Corresponding author. E-mail address: nicoleta.corbu@comunicare.ro

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

1. Introduction
In the context of the development of the knowledge based economies, the education
systems are increasingly important, both for individuals, helping them to be social
included, and for society, providing the skills and knowledge for a competitive labour
market. Education is one of the social desirable goods because its consumption has
positive effects for individuals and communities, as well (Zamfir, 1995).
European Union strategy for the decade 2010-2020 focuses on the investment in
education and on raising the quality and the quantity of the employment. The three
priorities of the Strategy 2020, smart growth, sustainable growth, and inclusive
growth, have as in common the concern regarding education seen as an instrument to
prepare citizens to find a job in a knowledge based economy, as a result. Despite of its
good intentions, this strategy is criticized because it combines social investment with
liberal approach and none of these perspectives faces coherently the poverty issue
(Daly, 2012), or because the social strategy for 2020 is the result of some political
opportunities and not of a consensus regarding the future of the European social
policies (Copeland & Daly, 2012). The two approaches, the one of social solidarity
that has as a final goal the social inclusion of the citizens of the European Union, and
the liberal one, that encourages the competitiveness on the labor market and on the
common economy market in general, are two directions that should be included in the
educational policies. Therefore the budget allocated for education is seen as an
investment budget and not as a spending one. In this regard, Anthony Giddens
supports the third way ideology, that overcomes the duality socialist welfare state
liberal welfare state and considers that welfare should be obtained by investing in
education, skills, abilities, knowledge, and not just by social redistribution (Giddens,
2000).
Consequently, the increase of school performance should be part of the educational
strategies of the central and the local government in order to prepare the new
generations for a competitive labor market, where the individual welfare and social
welfare are the outcome of the high level school performance. In this context, the
main objective of this paper is to understand the social factors that determine school
performance in order to develop policies that diminish social inequities within the
educational system and support the raise of academic performance.
2. Social factors and academic performance
There is a vast empirical research on potential predictors of school performance
from personality and motivation to structural-contextual variables (Simttle, 1995). In
fact, how well students manage to perform in school and graduate has been
approached from two relatively independent perspectives: (1) one is focused on
individual predictors, as attitudes toward education and willingness to pursue a career
and general goals in life, students involvement in scholar and extracurricular and
sport activities (i.e. Acee et al., 2012); (2) the second follows more the social factors:
school climate and practices, peer influence, family resources and support, family
socio/economic status, particularly parents education, students gender, ethnicity,
residential area, number of working hours etc. (i.e. Dornbusch et al., 1987; Davis,
Winsler & Middleton, 2006). While most of the research studies about school
performance are focused on primary and secondary education, only a minority
examined the school performance at the university level (Wintre et al. 2011).
Academic performance in tertiary education might be influenced by a complex of
different factors; there is evidence that students experience a decline of their grades
when they enter university, compared to high school, due to the adaptation process,
the new school climate and education requirements. Thus, it becomes relevant to
study first year college students and compare some of the findings with ones from our
previous research on high school (Pricopie et al. 2010; Ivan et al., 2012). A review of
the current literature on academic performance indicates that some predictors are
particularly relevant when studying university level: attitudes toward education and

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

values associated with learning, parents economic status and general support, gender,
students university involvement (including class attendance) and other variables
related to the transition to university process (i.e. student residence, number of
working hours, the size of the university).
2.1. Attitudes towards education and values associated with learning
When students value school and think school contributes to their short-term or
long-term goals they would have higher determinacy to graduate and higher academic
performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995, 2002).
Student general values orientation could influence also the way they select and
pursue certain goals and achieve academic success. For example, a recent study (Liem
et al., 2012) has shown that security and conformity values positively predict
academic achievement, whereas hedonist values negatively predict academic
performance.
Attitudes towards education could be influenced by the materialistic values
emerged in a new consumerist country, as Romania is nowadays. Generally speaking,
materialism is defined as a cultural system in which material interests are made
subservient to other social goals (Mukerji, 1983, p. 8). The materialist values
orientation is treated in the literature as the importance of material satisfaction in
pursuing happiness and achieving success (Sirgy, 2008). Materialists evaluate the
quality of their life through acquisitions they made and they are seen as a cultural
group less interested in nonmaterial rewards like personal relationships, experiences
or self-actualization and more interested in having a lot of money and being on top of
the latest trends, styles, and having access to technological innovation (Ray &
Anderson, 2000). From such perspective we discuss whether materialist value
oriented people would be more inclined to complete their education compared to
those less materialistic oriented. One could argue that materialist oriented students
would be more determined to graduate and less inclined to dropout because education
is seen as a factor of potential higher income or better jobs. However, in high
consumerist societies education is not always associated with success and for a
teenager it is rather difficult to perceive the connection between long-time rewards of
higher education and short-time desire of goods possession that creates materialistic
satisfaction. Therefore we predict that students who value money and possessions in
defining happiness and success in life would be less inclined to value education and
have different attitudes towards school compared to those having less materialistic
values.
2.2. Family resources and support
College education involves more economic resources that primary or tertiary
education (Clifton et. al., 2007). Besides the tuition fee (in most of the cases), parents
have to support also several other costs associated with students movement to the
university, at least in the first years of college education. Studies show that we can
find larger economic barriers between students with high educated parents and those
with medium educated parents: high educated families providers not only earn more
and have more financial resources but also invest more in the education of their
children, including their post-secondary education (Wintre et al. 2011). In fact
parents level of education is treated as a family resource, while financial and
relational resources are also taking into account and their influence on students
graduation chances (Coleman, & Hoffer, 1987). For the current research we also
investigate the importance of family socio/economic status for academic performance
and we expect this to be a significant predictor. In addition, parents emotional support
and general involvement with the young adult education could have a positive
influence on academic achievement. Cutrona et al. (1994) found that students who
perceived to have enough support from their parents are likely to cope better to the
university challenges are more determined to have higher academic grades. Moreover,
others studies (Wintre &Yaffe, 2000) have found that when students perceive the

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

relationship with their parents as being more equal and based on reciprocity, they will
tend more to replicate with determination and to struggle more in achieving higher
grades.
2.3. Gender and university performance
The representation of women in higher education significantly increased during the
past 50 years and the number of women taking different university programs has
outreached the number of men in several countries (Richardson & Woodley, 2003),
including Romania (INS, 2010). The differences in academic performance between
men and women, especially in stereotypically feminine domains (ex. verbal tasks)
compared to stereotypically masculine domains (ex. mathematical ability) seem to be
smaller that expected (Lupart, Cannon, & Telfer, 2004) and partially induced by
stereotypes (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Instead, studies (Stumpf & Jackson, 1994)
confirm that women are more resilient in facing university challenges and seem to
outperform men in situations that require the acquisition of new knowledge. Although
studies in the 80s found that men are more likely to get higher grades, this seems not
to be the case anymore. Recent studies (Smith & Naylor, 2001) found that women
tend to get higher grades in college than men. In addition, the differences between
womens grades and mens grades were found, irrespective of the area of study. The
discussion becomes even more vivid because the authors discuss the importance of
interplay between age and gender: especially for students under years of age, women
tend to perform better than men in college and differences in academic performance
between men and women are not significant for students between 28 and 33 years old.
Other studies (Fazal et al., 2012) have shown that gender difference in school
performances are mainly due to different time management skills, reading and notetaking skills: women tend to be better in using these skills than men. Several other
alternative explanations for gender differences in academic performance are available,
including the fact that women tend to score higher as a reaction to an relative gender
bias on the labor marker or within the society in general (Razaei, 2012). Girls
willingness to get a university degree could be explained though the fact they
considere, more than boys, college graduation an important factor for success in life.
Such self-enhancement approach is consistent with the official data about womens
occupational rate in Romania: there are larger gender differences of occupational rates
in the case of medium and low educated groups and similar rates only in the case of
college graduated people. During the past five years, data from the Romanian
National Institute of Statistics have shown approximately 2.5% occupational gender
gap for the high educated people and about 10% for the rest of the adult population, in
favor of men. Thus, we expect women from our sample to have higher grades
compared to men, which could also be seen as an adaptation strategy to succeed in a
society that offers less chances for untrained women, compared to untrained men.
2.4. Factors related to the transition to university process
There is significant number of contextual factors that shape students adaptation to
the university life. Some scholars (i.e. Van Dorn, Bowen & Blau, 2006) have argued
for the importance of contextual factors when researching educational outcomes. The
present socio-economic context in Romania requires separate analysis of the way
students from rural and urban areas adjust to universities, at least from two reasons:
the significant differences in dropout rates between urban and rural areas and, as
shown in previous studies, the importance of access to higher education for students
coming from rural areas (Pricopie et al. 2010; Ivan et al., 2012). We expect that, even
when had managed to overcome the difficulties and have been admitted in
universities, students would continue to have high adaptation difficulties, compared to
those coming form the urban areas. Second, we expect that students from the rural
areas would have also lower levels of all family socio-economic status indicators,
including the level of parents education. Thus, we expect students residence to be a
mediator predictor between family socio-economic status and academic performance.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Another contextual predictor that has been treated in the literature about school
performance at secondary and tertiary education level is student working status and
the number of working hours. Studies show that only working more that 7 hours per
week has a negative impact on school performance, whereas working less than 7
hours has a positive impact on graduation chances (Lee & Staff, 2007). It is possible
that students who work few hours per week become more responsible with their life
and career and more determined to graduate, while those working too much would
neglect their academic activities. Moreover, the general involvement in university life
(attending classes, university meetings, involvement in student projects and so on)
should increase students chances to feel integrated and enthusiastic about learning
and, as a result, should have a positive impact on academic performance (Chee, Pino,
& Smith, 2005).
For the current study, we measure respondents performance in grades at the end of
the semester, taking into account the fact that scores to particular tests are good
predictors for graduation (Rumberger & Lim, 2008). Furthermore, average grades (the
average year grades or average grades at the end of the semester) are considered
(Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007) robust measures of academic achievement, with
good predictive value. Thus, in the current study, average grades of the end of
students first semester in university were collected.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

3. Methodology
3.1. Objective
Students academic performance is a key indicator of the general evolution
direction of Romanian higher education, in the context of a more and more vivid
competition on the labor market, both at the national level, and at the level of the
European Union. In this context, we focus on understanding the personal and social
factors that predict school performance in the Romanian academic environment.
The research aimed at answering and validating the following research questions
and hypotheses:
RQ: What are the factors that influence freshmens academic performance?
1. H1: The higher the family income of the students, the higher their grades.
4. H2: The higher students parents education, the higher their grades.
5. H3: Girls generally have better academic performances, regardless of the
parents residence (urban/rural)
6. H4: The higher class attendance, the higher their grades.
5. H5: The higher the materialistic value orientation of students, the lower their
grades.
3.2. Participants
We have conducted a national representative survey using one sample (N=1402) of
freshmen from the public universities of Romania, using a multistage sampling
design.
The sample was composed of students from public universities; not enough
information about private universities was provided by the Ministry of Education,
Research, Youth and Sport, and therefore the construction of a more complex sample,
containing both public and private universities was virtually not possible. We used a
multistage sampling design. In the first stage we divided the public universities in four
layers using the number first-year students in each university. In the second stage we
randomly drew 15 universities taking into account the size of each layer. Five groups
of students were questioned from each of the selected universities. In the third stage
we randomly drew, from every selected university, the faculty, bachelor field, and
finally the specialization. When two or more groups were found at this stage, the field
operator would choose randomly one of them. The questionnaires were collectively
administrated in faculties by field operators who interviewed all students from the
selected student groups. Therefore the samples are representatives only for first-year
students who usually go to classes or seminars. We do not have information about
pupils or first-year students who had abandoned college at the time of the research.
3.3. Instrument
Students materialistic orientation was measured on a scale of social values
orientation that could play a role in the school performance, particularly the presence
of the materialistic versus non-materialistic values. In this respect we used the ValuesOriented Materialism Scale (VOMS) developed by Marsha L. Richins and Scott
Dawnson (1992). The scale has three components: acquisition centrality, the role of
acquisitions in the pursuit of happiness, and the role of possessions in defining
success. The first one refers to the fact that materialists place possessions and their
acquisitions at the center of their life, the second one view these as essential to their
satisfaction and well-being in life, and the third component underlines that
materialists tend to judge their own and others' success by the number and quality of
possessions accumulated (Richins, Dawson, 1992, 304).

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

The materialism scale for freshmen results from a factor analysis of 12 items. We
used a principal components factor analysis, with a varimax rotation, applied to the 13
questions of the scale. One of the items was eliminated, and the 12 items grouped into
3 factors (with eigenvalues greater than 1), explaining 60.79% of the variance. The
factor solution is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Factor solution with varimax rotation for the materialism scale for freshmen
Rotated Component Matrix a

Component

VOMSH VOMSS VOMSC

I would be happier if I owned nicer things.
.871
.096
.082
I'd be happier if I could afford to buy more things.
.869
.035
.048
I have all the things I really need to enjoy life
.719
.249
.034
My life would be better if I possessed luxury goods.
.648
.362
.127
My properties are important for me.
.510
.268
.216
I place much emphasis on the amount of material objects people own as
.263
.704
.210
a sign of success
I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes.
.309
.697
.116
Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring
.427
.679
.090
material possessions.
The things I own say a lot about how well I'm doing in life.
.360
.664
.114
Compared to people I know, I consider properties less important.
-.126
.413
-.082
I sometimes buy things that I dont necessarily need.
.087
.037
.896
I enjoy spending money on things that aren't practical.
.110
.121
.875
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

The factor solution replicated in part the work of Richins and Dawnson (1992),
showing three dimension of the materialism scale: acquisitions centrality (VOMSC),
with five items showing values greater than .400, the role of acquisitions in the pursuit
of happiness (VOMSH from now on), with five items, and the role of possessions in
defining success (VOMSS from now on), with two items.
7. Results
Research showed that the most important factors with significant influence on
academic performance are parents education, sex and class attendance. Even though
there are differences between students academic performances based on parents
income, the correlation between the two variables is not significant. In other words,
there is no certitude that the observed difference in the sample can be traced at the
population level as well. (Figure 1)

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Figure 1. Students academic performance by family income

Differences at the level of residence do not determine significant correlations

between school performance and income neither in rural areas, nor in urban ones.
The parents level of education is correlated to the students academic performance.
The higher the parents education, the higher the students grades in the first exam
session. The correlation coefficients show weak, but significant correlations, for both
mothers education (rho=.104, p<.01), and fathers (rho=.096, p<.01). In other words,
the higher the parents level of education, the better the students academic
performance. We subsequently clustered the educations levels into a single one:
high-educated parents when at least one of the parents had higher education and
low-educated parents when neither of them had higher education. The observed
differences are presented in Figure 2 (rho=.110, p<.01).
Figure 2. Students academic performance by parents education

The percentage of high grades is considerably higher for students with higheducated parents, if compared with those with low-educated parents. Students
materialistic orientation is not directly correlated with their academic performance.
Gender plays a very important role. Girls usually have better school performances
than boys, with a weak but significant correlation (rho=.158, p<.01). A percentage of
33.54 of girls have grades between 9 and 10, compared to only 11.48% of boys.
(Figure 3)

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Figure 3. Students academic performance by sex

Gender differences are stronger in rural areas, if compared with urban ones, both
correlations being statistically significant (rho=.214, p<.01 in rural areas, as opposed
to rho=.088, p<.05 in urban areas). Taking into account the distribution of sexes of
students coming from urban areas (50.34% girls / 49.66% boys) and rural areas
(60.34% girls / 39.66% boys), differences of grades means between girls and boys
show a much more clear pattern of gender differences (in terms of academic
performance) among students whose parents live in urban areas. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Academic performance by sex and parents residence

Distribution shows a much clearer pattern between girls and boys academic
performances in urban areas, if compared with rural areas. For example, compared to
their respective means, the range of deviation from the mean of students grades goes
up to 13.7%, while in rural areas it only goes up to 3.90%.
Even though class attendance, for both courses and seminars, was measured in the
survey, courses participation was taken into account as independent variable because,
in most cases, seminars attendance is mandatory, and courses attendance is optional.
From this point of view, there is a statistically significant correlation between the
degree of courses attendance and students grades (rho=.242, p<.01). The higher their
courses attendance, the higher their grades.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Figure 5. Academic performance by class attendance

Students grades participating to courses in more than 67% of the time are significantly greater than
those of students not attending courses so often.

Sex distribution shows different patterns of class attendance: only 4.8% of girls and
10.6% of boys participate in class less than 33% of the time, while 72.9% of girls, as
opposed to 66.3% of boys attend courses more than 67% of the time. The pattern is
more prominent for boys than for girls; the correlation between class attendance and
academic performance is rho=.257, p<.01 for boys and rho=.192, p<.01 for girls.
(Figure 6)
Figure 6. School performance by attendance courses and gender

In the predictive model, the possible variables that can determine school
performance were gender, income, materialistic values (with all three factors),
parents education, class attendance, the size of the university, and employment. Girls
are in general more diligent and consequently we expect them have higher grades. In
families with higher income the basic needs are satisfied and their relatively high
standard of life can lead to a focus on superior needs, such as the satisfaction of
curiosity, the need to learn and to know more and more (Maslow, 2007, p. 129).
Therefore we expect a positive correlation between school performance and income.
Materialistic values could have a negative impact on school performance because

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

knowledge and spiritual development are not values shared by materialistic persons.
Parents education can be an important predictor because parents higher level of
education is associated with a higher level of expectation regarding their childrens
school performance. We expect class attendance to have a positive impact on school
performance taking into consideration the fact that it is a measure of interest in school.
The big universities have a longer history with a higher tradition and higher
requirements and consequently we expect their students to have higher academic
performance. Employment can have a negative impact on students grades because it
could lead to a lack of time to prepare for courses and exams.
Table 2. Regression coefficients that predict school performance
(Constant)
Gender
Income
VOMSC
VOMSH
VOMSS
Parents education
Attendance courses
Small university
Large university
Employment

B
2.177
.203
.013
-.034
-.121
-.043
.241
.010
-.069
.013
-.037

Beta
.106**
.007
-.030
-.095**
-.050
.120**
.247**
-.017
.006
-.011

Girls, students that have at least one parent with higher education and that attend
courses have in general better school performance. Students for which possessions are
the greatest source of satisfaction have lower grades, compared with student that
consider acquisition of goods not to be a source of happiness. The score of the two
subscales that define materialism as placing possessions in the center of their lives
(VOMSC) and as judging success by the number and quality of possessions
accumulated (VOMSS) do not have a significant impact on the school performance.
The size of the university, the family income and being employed on the labor market
do not predict school performance.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

The predictive model explains 11.1% of academic performance, with the best
predictor class attendance, followed by parents education, gender, and materialistic
values.
8. Discussion
In the context of globalization and the integration into the European Union,
performance in general and particularly school performance have become important
indicators of competitiveness on the labor market. Chances of getting a better job,
with a higher level of remuneration, depend on the level of education. Therefore the
investment in education represents a strategy to increase the chances of obtaining a
job in a knowledge based economy, and consequently increases the level of social
inclusion. The budget for education of central or local government represents an
investment and not a cost, because the welfare state should be seen not only for its
protective dimension, but for its productive dimension, as well (Hudson & Khner,
2009). Investment in education and training is a component of the welfare state, and
the increase of the school performance is or should be an implicit objective of
educational policies of every government.
Our findings show that the most important factors with an impact on school
performance are school attendance, parents level of education, gender, and one
dimension of the materialistic values that stresses the role of acquisitions in the
pursuit of happiness. The students income gap is not a source of inequity regarding
the chance to have high school performance, hypothesis no. 1 thus being rejected. The
data show that, at least for freshmen, the income does not have a significant impact on
their grades in the first exam session. The hypothesis no. 2 is accepted: the higher the
parents level of education, the higher the grades obtained in the exams. The families
with at least one parent with higher education socialize to a greater extent the
motivation to learn and the expectations regarding childrens level of education. As far
as gender is concerned, girls are generally more diligent than boys and consequently
have higher grades. The gender gap regarding school performance is more prominent
in urban area compared with rural ones, but in both areas the relationship between
gender and school performance is statistically significant, thus the hypothesis no. 3
being accepted. The independent variable with the highest significant impact on
academic performance is school attendance, therefore we can conclude that the
hypothesis no. 4 is accepted, as well. Our findings show that school attendance should
become a mandatory condition for students to be allowed to take exams, which could
be a good solution for increasing school performance. Therefore beyond higher level
of motivation determined by gender and parents level of education, acquiring the
information during the courses has a significant positive impact on school
performance. The fifth hypothesis was partially confirmed. Only one aspect of
materialistic values has a significant impact on school performance: the role of
acquisition in the pursuit of happiness.
The findings show the most important factors that have a significant impact on
school performance during the first year of study of freshmen from Romanian state
universities: class attendance, parents level of education, gender, and materialistic
values. The sample is representative for freshmen from the public universities of
Romania, therefore our findings can be used in developing educational policies for
increasing academic performance, at national and/or local level.
The educational policies cannot change the level of parents education, and
implicitly the level of students motivation (and thus expectations regarding school
performance within the family), but could sustain the obligation of class attendance
(courses, as well as seminars) and could support a system of scholarships based on
school performances. Moreover, in order to cover the amount of money necessary for
graduating college, the government could develop fiscal facilities for students to loan
money from banks.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

Acee, T.W, Cho, Y.J., Kim, J.I, & Weistein, C.E. (2012). Relationships among properties of
college students self-set academic goals and academic achievement. Educational Psychology,
32(6) 681-698.
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L. & MacIver, D. ( 2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping
students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and
effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223 235.
Chee, K.H., Pino, N.W., & Smith, W.L. (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic and
academic achievement. College Student Journal, 39(3), 604-618.
Clifton, R. A., Perry, R. P., Roberts, L. W., & Peter, T. (2007). Gender, psychosocial
dispositions, and the academic achievement of college students. Research in Higher Education,
49, 684-703.
Copeland, P. & Daly, M. (2012). Varieties of poverty reduction: Inserting the poverty and social
exclusion target into Europe 2020. Journal of European Social Policy 22, 273-287.
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of
communities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived
parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369-378.
Daly, M. (2012). Paradigms in EU social policy: a critical account of Europe 2020. European
Review of Labour and Research 18, 273-284.
Davis, K. D., Winsler, A. & Middleton, M. (2006). Students' perceptions of rewards for
academic performance by parents and teachers: Relations with achievement and motivation in
college. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development,
167(2), 211-220.
Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L. , Leiderman, P.H., . Roberts, D.F. , & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The
relation with parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58(5),
1244-1257.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents
academic achievement related-beliefs and self-perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
Fazal, S, Hussain, S, Majoka, M.I., Masood, S. (2012). The Role of Study Skills
in Academic Achievement of Students: A Closer Focus on Gender. Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, 27(1), 37-51.
Giddens, A. (2000). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Hudson, J. & Khner, S. (2009). Towards productive welfare? A comparative analysis of 23
OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19, 3446.
INS (2010). Romanian Institute of Statistics. Demographic data from 2010.
Ivan, L., Pricopie, R., Frunzaru, V., Cismaru, D. & Corbu, N. (2012). The risk of dropping
education for Romanian high-school students. Structural factors and educational policies.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2312-2321.
Lee, J. L. & Staff, J. (2007). When work matters: The varying impact of work intensity on high
school dropout. Sociology of Education, 80 (2), 158178.
Liem, G. A., Martin, A. J, Porter, A. L, & Colmar, S. (2012). Socio-cultural antecedents
of academic motivation
and achievement: Role
of values and
achievement motives
in achievement goals and academic performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 113.
Lupart, J. L. Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender diffrences in adolescent academic
achievement, interests, life-role expectations.High Ability Studies, 15 (1), 25-42.
Maslow, A. [1954](2007). Motivaie i personalitate. Bucharest: Editura Trei
Mukerji, C. (1983). From graven images: Patterns of modern materialism. NewYork, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Smith J. & Naylor, R. (2001) Determinants of degree performance in UK universities: a
statistical analysis of the 1993 student cohort, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63,
29-60.

Author name /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

24. Pricopie, R., Frunzaru, V., Corbu, N., & Ivan, L. (2010). Arguments for a new policy dialog on
access and equity in Romanian higher education. Romanian Journal of Communication and
Public Relations, 12(2), 9-27.
25. Razaei, A. (2012). Can self-efficacy and self-confidence explain Iranian female
students' academic achievement? Gender & Education, 24(4), 393-409.
26. Ray, P. H. & Anderson, S. R. (2000). Cultural creatives. How 50 million people are changing
the world. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
27. Richardson, J.T. & Woodley, A. (2003). Another look at the role of age, gender and subject as
predictors of academic attainment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 28(4), 475493.
28. Richins, M.L. & Dawnson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale dvelopment and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.
29. Rumberger, R.W. & Lim, S. A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years
of research. California Dropout Research Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California
30. Sirgy, M. J. (2008). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 227260.
31. Smittle, P. (1995). Academic performance predictors for community collge students assessment.
Community College Review, 32(2), 37-46.
32. Steele, C. M.; Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
33. Stumpf, H. & Jackson, D.N. (1994) Gender-related differences in cognitive abilities: evidence
from a medical school admissions testing program, Personality and Individual Differences, 17,
335-344.
34. Van Dorn, R. A., Bowen, G. L. & Blau, J. R. (2006). The impact of community diversity and
consolidated inequality on dropping out of high school. Family Relations, 55(1), 105118.
35. Wintre, M. G., Dilouya, B., Pancer, S.M., Pratt, M. W., Lefcovitch, S. B., Polivy, J., & Adams,
G. (2011). Academic achievement in first-year university: Who maintains their high school
average? High Education, 62, 467-481.
36. Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students adjustment to university life as a
function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9-37.
37. Zamfir, E.. (1995). Statul bunstrii. In E. Zamfir & C. Zamfir (eds.) Politici sociale. Romnia
n context european (pp.22-35). Bucharest: Alternative.