Abstract
Research studies on gender differences in large-scale assessments already have a long tradition (Ben-Shakhar and Sinai, 1991; Goodwin et al., 2009; Jackstadt and Grootaert, 1980). Researchers from different domains (e.g. psychology, economics, sociology, and education) are interested in the reasons that lead to differences in test performance between male and female test takers being repeatedly found in domain-specific test instruments. On one hand, there is discussion as to whether the gender-related differences found are to be understood as discrimination (e.g. due to the test format, Bacon, 2003) against the respective sex, and thus whether there is no test fairness. On the other hand, it is discussed whether the gap between the two genders represents differences in the characteristics of the relevant construct. The majority of studies are therefore united by the aim of identifying the reasons for the gender gap in order to be able to deduce recommendations as to how gender differences should be interpreted and how the differences could be dealt with appropriately. Possible measures that address gender differences can be located at different levels: They can be applied directly at the micro level of teaching, meaning that teachers take certain measures, but also at school level (meso level) and the political decision-making level (exo and macro level), so that equal opportunities between the sexes can be ensured (Bronfenbrenner, 1981).
The core of the six papers in this issue is the examination of the gender gap in economic competence across different age groups. Thus, high school students, university students, and experienced teachers are the groups targeted. This issue can therefore provide valuable information on the extent to which and under what conditions the gender-specific effects are consistent in different age cohorts. In addition, with Switzerland (3 papers) and Germany (3 papers), two different countries are being represented. The German-speaking part of Switzerland is used for the Swiss sample, meaning that test takers from both countries use German as their primary language of communication and teaching.
So far, the results of numerous studies refer to clear differences between the genders in all age groups in favor of male test persons when standardized economic questions are used to assess economic competence (cf. Brückner et al., 2015; Walstad et al., 2013). However, the reasons for these findings are still unclarified (Asarta et al., 2014). Identifying the reasons that can explain gender effects is therefore a central goal of all papers in this issue. For this purpose, the authors of the papers use an interdisciplinary approach to explain the gender gap by expanding their focus of research beyond pure economic education to the theories and approaches of social science and by working with a broad range of explanatory approaches. In the papers, different theoretical approaches were used, because combining them can be especially valuable for the objective of this issue. In general, however, the identification of gender differences is the first important step, but for practical implications, it is not enough. Gender differences always need to be further explained by including influencing factors that can specify the characteristics of the factor gender. The papers of this issue deal with gender-specific differences in economic competence from different perspectives.
The link between all papers is the topic of economic competence. According to Weinert’s (2001) definition, competence can be understood as the available or learnable cognitive abilities and skills required to successfully cope with problems and questions. This competent handling of problems also includes the motivational and volitional willingness and abilities associated with cognitive dispositions to deal with the problem. In the context of economics and thus of these issues, the focus is on the skills and abilities to solve economic and financial problems and challenges with the motivational and volitional willingness. In the papers, both cognitive (e.g. economic and financial knowledge) and non-cognitive (e.g. interest in economic situations and attitudes toward economic questions) elements of this competence construct are examined.
The papers in this issue assume a broad understanding of economic competence. In this issue, the domain of economics is thematically divided into an economic and a financial dimension. The financial dimension represents an integrative component of the economic dimension in this issue. 1 The paper by Rudeloff, Brahm, and Pumptow focuses on financial competence as the knowledge and understanding of financial decisions that can be assigned more to the personal financial area of the learner. The other papers focus on the economic dimension, whereby the concepts, which are divided in consensus in economics, focus on macroeconomic and microeconomic contexts (Mankiw, 2012; Samuelson and Nordhaus, 2010).
In the following, the individual papers are presented under consideration of different age structures focused on in this issue. Causes and consequences of gender-specific differences in economic competence are analyzed. These include in particular (1) the school sector, (2) the transition from school to university, (3) the university sector, and (4) the teaching profession of economic education.
School sector
The first three papers in this issue draw on test takers from the high school sector. While Nicole Ackermann and Christin Siegfried focus on students from Switzerland, the papers by Michelle Rudeloff, Taiga Brahm, and Marina Pumptow as well as Manuel Förster and Roland Happ each focus on German samples from the school sector. The findings from the three papers show that gender-specific differences in economic competence are not only important in both countries (Germany and Switzerland) but also in regard to different school types (with a special focus on economics and without a special focus on economics).
Michelle Rudeloff, Taiga Brahm, and Marina Pumptow investigate financial literacy with 530 secondary level 1 graduates tested in Germany. The authors differentiate financial literacy into five subdimensions (money and payments; savings; loans; insurance; and money policy). Differences between the genders can be found according to the respective subdimension, which underlines the importance of differentiating the content areas in this article. The results indicate that female students show better test results for the financial literacy dimensions of money and payments, and insurance. Male students perform better regarding the dimensions of savings and monetary policy. The authors also examine the question of which learning opportunities contribute to the acquisition of financial literacy. Gender-specific differences can also be found in these learning opportunities.
The paper by Manuel Förster and Roland Happ reports findings on 983 students from German vocational secondary schools and commercial vocational schools. Both school types focus on economic contents, so that it proves to be an exciting question as to what extent gender-specific differences in economic knowledge can also be observed in these school types. Economic knowledge was assessed with the German adaptation of the fourth version of the Test of Economic Literacy in the summer of 2016. Due to the nested data structure (students belong to certain classes, and these in turn belong to a school), the paper reports multi-level path models. The findings show clear differences in favor of male test takers in economic knowledge. Effects of interest in economic topics and the use of media to research them can clarify a considerable part of the gender gap. The article therefore points out that the gender gap in economic knowledge should not be viewed in isolation. There is a link between gender, interest in economic topics, use of media to research them, and the economic knowledge of students.
Nicole Ackermann and Christin Siegfried examine the economic-civic competence of 375 Swiss Mature students. Economic-civic competence is important in three different life spheres (the personal, the vocational/entrepreneurial, and the societal/economic). The empirical study is based on a self-developed test instrument to assess the economic-civic competence. In the test instrument, a distinction can be made between 17 selected-response items and 15 constructed-response items. The frequency of solutions for both sexes is higher for the selected-response items than for the constructed-response items. The findings on the differences between the two sexes show that male students outperformed female students in both the selected-response items and the constructed-response items. This, however, is only the case if students are considered who do not attend a major course in economics. Accordingly, as was also already evident in the previous article, the sole consideration of test differences with regard to gender does not go far enough if information on formal learning opportunities is available.
Transition from school to university
While the first three papers focus on students of the high school sector, Michael Jüttler and Stephan Schumann deal with the transition from the school to the university sector. As part of an elaborate longitudinal study of Swiss students in the upper school sector, they were asked about their economic skills (first measuring point t1). In addition to economic knowledge, during t1, the interest in economic topics, intrinsic motivation, mathematical, and verbal skills were also assessed. By creating an address panel, it was possible at a second measurement point to use computer-assisted telephone interviews to inquire about the students’ study choices. The longitudinal analyses in the paper are based on 1397 test takers. The results show a strong gender gap in the economic competences of students at secondary level. Considering the choice to study economics, the two authors found that economic knowledge as well as interest in economics were more predictive for female students than for male students and were strongly mediated through their aspiration to study economics. The findings from this article show that gender-specific differences can also be observed during the choice process when deciding for an economic study track at a university.
University sector
Christin Siegfried and Eveline Wuttke examine the extent to which the item format can be a cause for the gender gap in standardized questionnaire surveys. The two authors investigate whether multiple-choice items are unfairer for female test takers than for male test takers in the case of university students from Germany. For this purpose, a study asked students of business and economics and students of business and economic education (N = 201) the same questions taken from an economic knowledge test using both a multiple-choice format and a constructed-response format. The findings show that the multiple-choice item format cannot be declared unfair per se, as men often achieve better results than women, regardless of the item format. At the same time, however, it becomes clear that the differences between women and men in the response to constructed-response items decrease and can even be eliminated in some cases. Furthermore, it generally seems easier for students to work out the correct answer from predefined answers than to develop a solution themselves. For example, a question is answered correctly in a multiple-choice format more often than in a constructed-response format.
Teaching profession of economic education
The issue concludes with a paper by Doreen Holtsch, Sebastian Brückner, Manuel Förster, and Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia. Their article focuses on teachers from Switzerland. Based on a sample of 153 teachers who teach the subject economics and society, it is examined whether a gender gap in economic content knowledge can also be observed in a sample of experienced teachers. This article uses the Test of Understanding in College Economics, adapted for the German-speaking world, which measures economic knowledge that goes beyond economic principles. The findings from a multivariate analysis indicate a gender effect. Male teachers of the subject economics and society score higher than their female counterparts. Accordingly, the effects already observed in the studies at school and university level continue into adulthood in professional careers. On the basis of these findings, it becomes clear that the teaching experience also does not lead to a closing of the gender gap in economic competence, which is important for the training of teachers in this domain.
The guest-editors appreciate the cooperation of all authors working on this issue. We would like to thank the researchers who participated in the review process. Many thanks to Catherine Fagan, who always answered the guest-editors’ questions. We thank you, Cathy, for the highly valuable and constructive feedback and advice, which have contributed to the success of this issue.
