Sustainable development: Exploring gender differences in the Swedish national test in geography for grade 9

References

• Anderson, L. V., Krathwohl, D. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Ayalon, H., & Livneh, I. (2013). Educational standardization and gender differences in mathematics achievement: A comparative study. Social Science Research, 42(2), 432–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bednarz, R., & Lee, J. (2019). What improves spatial thinking? Evidence from the spatial thinking abilities test. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 28(4), 262–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijsterbosch, E., van der Schee, J., & Kuiper, W. (2017). Meaningful learning and summative assessment in geography education: An analysis in secondary education in the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(1), 17–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives. In The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20, 24.
   Google Scholar
• Boeve-de Pauw, J., Jacobs, K., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Gender differences in environmental values: An issue of measurement? Environment and Behavior, 46(3), 373–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H.-O., & Bergman, E. (2012). The barriers encountered by teachers implementing education for sustainable development: Discipline bound differences and teaching traditions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 185–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butt, G., Weeden, P., Chubb, S., & Srokosz, A. (2006). The state of geography education in English secondary schools: An insight into practice and performance in assessment. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(2), 134–148.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, G., Weeden, P., & Wood, P. (2004). Boys’ underachievement in geography: An issue of ability, attitude or assessment? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 13(4), 329–347.
   Google Scholar
• Crane, P., Gibbons, L., Jolley, L., & Van Belle, G. (2006). Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Medical Care, 44(Suppl 3), S115–S123. www.jstor.org/stable/41219511.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edelson, D. C., Shavelson, R. J., & Wertheim, J. A. (Eds.). (2013). A road map for 21st century geography education: Assessment. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning contemporary key debates. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, J. E., & Erickson, G. (2018). Nationella prov i Sverige–tradition, utmaning, förändring. Acta Didactica Norge, 12(4), 2–20.
   Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice items (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for a classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennerdal, P. (2016). Changes in place location knowledge: A follow-up study in Arvika, Sweden, 1968 and 2013. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(4), 309–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann, Z., & Kopasz, M. (2019). Educational policies and the gender gap in test scores: A cross-country analysis. Research Papers in Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1678065.
   Google Scholar
• Herts, J., & Levine, S. (2020). Gender and math development. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1186.
   Google Scholar
• Kacprzyk, J., Parsons, M., Maguire, P., & Stewart, G. (2019). Examining gender effects in different types of undergraduate science assessment. Irish Educational Studies, 38(4), 467–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramming, K. (2017). Miljökollaps eller hållbar framtid? Hur gymnasieungdomar uttrycker sig om miljöfrågor, Geografica 13. In Doktorsavhandling Kulturgeografiska Institutionen. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Kronlid, D. (2017). Skolans värdegrund 2.0: Etik för en osäker tid. Stockholm: Natur & kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, R., & Bourke, T. (2019). Assessment in geography education: A systematic review. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 28(1), 22–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, S., Wang, N., & Magone, M. (2005). Gender-related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21–27.
   Google Scholar
• Le Hebel, F., Montpied, P., Tiberghien, A., & Fontanieu, V. (2017). Sources of difficulty in assessment: Example of PISA science items. International Journal of Science Education, 39(4), 468–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lezak, S. B., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 143–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, O. L., & Wilson, M. (2009). Gender differences in large-scale math assessments: PISA trend 2000 and 2003. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 164–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons-Thomas, J., Sandilands, D., & Ercikan, K. (2014). Gender differential item functioning in mathematics in four international jurisdictions. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 20–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinková, P., Drabinová, A., Liaw, Y. L., Sanders, E. A., McFarland, J. L., & Price, R. M. (2017). Checking equity: Why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), rm2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molin, L. (2006). Rum, frirum och moral: En studie av skolgeografins innehållsval, Doktorsavhandling, Geografiska regionstudier. nr. 69. Uppsala: Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, S. (2015). Towards visual geography: An overview. Practicing Geography, 19(2), 13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M.O., & Foy, P. (2013). The impact of reading ability on TIMSS mathematics and science achievement at the fourth grade: An analysis by item reading demands. In M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among reading, mathematics, and science achievement at the fourth grade – Implications for early learning (pp. 67–110). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
   Google Scholar
• Olsson, D., & Gericke, N. (2016). The adolescent dip in students’ sustainability consciousness: Implications for education for sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(1), 35–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson, D., & Gericke, N. (2017). The effect of gender on students’ sustainability consciousness: A nationwide Swedish study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(5), 357–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson, L. (2014). Att mötas i tid, rum och tanke: Om ämnesintegration och undervisning för hållbar utveckling, Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Forskarskolan i geografi. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, M. C. (2016). Selected-response item development. In S. Lane, M. R. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (2nd ed., pp. 259–274). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sandell, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2003). Miljödidaktik. Naturen, skolan och demokratin. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz-Heidorf, K., & Støle, H. (2018). Gender differences in Norwegian PIRLS 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 results at test mode, text and item format level. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 4(1), 167–183. .
   Google Scholar
• Scully, D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 22(1), 4.
   Google Scholar
• Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school grades, 7–9. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2018). PISA 2018: 15-åringars kunskaper i läsförståelse, matematik och naturvetenskap, Internationella studier 487, Elanders, Stockholm. https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=5347.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Sweden. (2017). Statistisk uppföljning av Agenda 2030. ISSN 1654-0743 (Online) URN:NBN:SE:SCB-2017-X41BR1701_pdf, Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Stiller, J., Hartmann, S., Mathesius, S., Straube, P., Tiemann, R., Nordmeier, V., … Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2016). Assessing scientific reasoning: A comprehensive evaluation of item features that affect item difficulty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 721–732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sund, P. (2008). Att urskilja selektiva traditioner i miljöundervisningens socialisationsinnehåll – implikationer för undervisning för hållbar utveckling Mälardalen University Press Dissertations, Arkitektkopia, Västerås Nr. 63
   Google Scholar
• Sveriges Regering [Government of Sweden]. (2017). Nationella prov – rättvisa, likvärdiga, digitala. Regeringens proposition Prop. 2017/18:14. Utbildningsdepartementet, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2007). DIF matters: A practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(4), 1082–1084.
   Google Scholar
• Thornes, J. E. (2004). The visual turn and geography. (Response to Rose 2003 Intervention). Antipode, 36(5), 787–794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaszewski, B., Vodacek, A., Parody, R., & Holt, N. (2015). Spatial thinking ability assessment in Rwandan secondary schools: Baseline results. Journal of Geography, 114(2), 39–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torbjörnsson, T., & Molin, L. (2014). Who is solidary? A study of Swedish students’ attitudes towards solidarity as an aspect of sustainable development. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(3), 259–277.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations [UN]. (2002). Report of the world summit on sustainable development. New York: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO]. (2014). UNESCO roadmap for implementation the global action programme on education for sustainable development. Paris, France: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikström, C. (2013). Konsten att göra bra prov – vad lärare behöver veta om kunskapsmätning. Lettland: Natur & Kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Zieky, M. (2003). A DIF primer. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/dif_primer.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF) (pp. 1–57). Ottawa: National Defense Headquarters.
   Google Scholar