Zusammenfassung
Welchen Einfluss haben Berufsinteressen auf den Wissensstand in verschiedenen Themengebieten? Können geschlechtsspezifische Interessen die gefundenen Geschlechterunterschiede im Testresultat erklären? Diesen Fragestellungen geht der vorliegende Beitrag nach. Besonders wichtig erscheint es zu klären, warum männliche und weibliche Studierende im Studentenpisa-Test unterschiedliche Resultate erzielt haben. Denn weil viele Tests (z. B. bei der Vergabe von Studienplätzen oder Stipendien) eine Wissenskomponente enthalten, würden systematische Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern die Chancengleichheit der Bewerber gefährden. Die statistische Auswertung der Daten zeigt, dass die Berufsinteressen der Studierenden rund zehn Prozent der individuellen Wissenstest-Ergebnisse erklären können. Anders gesagt: Menschen erwerben verstärkt Wissen in den Bereichen, die sie interessieren und die einen Bezug zur individuellen Berufslaufbahn haben. Die gefundenen Geschlechterunterschiede in den Testergebnissen können jedoch nicht auf die Berufsinteressen der Teilnehmer zurückgeführt werden. Weitere Nachforschungen sind erforderlich, um die Ursache dieser Geschlechterunterschiede zu ermitteln.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literatur
Ackerman, P. L. (1996a). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.
Ackerman, P. L. (1996b). Intelligence as process and knowledge: An integration for adult development and application. In W. A. Rogers (Ed.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications(pp. 139–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2003). Intelligence, personality, and interests in the career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 205–218.
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2005). Knowledge and intelligence. In O. Wilhelm (Ed.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence(pp. 125–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.
Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities, and nonability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14(2), 314–330.
Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., McVay, J. P., & Rounds, J. (2008). Holland's RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(1), 1–18.
Barak, A., Feldman, S., & Noy, A. (1991). Traditionality of children's interests as related to their parents' gender stereotypes and traditionality of occupations. Sex Roles, 24, 511–524.
Betz, N. E. (2006). Basic issues and concepts in the career development and counseling of women. In W. B. Walsh & M. J. Heppner (Eds.), Handbook of career counseling for women (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90–98.
Cattell, R. B. (1971/1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. (Revised and reprinted from Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action 1971, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Chartrand, J. M., Borgen, F. H., Betz, N. E., & Donnay, D. (2002). Using the Strong Interest Inventory and the Skills Confidence Inventory to explain career goals. Journal of Career Assessment. Special Issue: Exploring interests, self-efficacy, and career goals, 10(2), 169–189.
Donnay, D. A., Morris, M. L., Schaubhut, N. A., & Thompson, R. C. (2005). Strong Interest Inventory manual: Research, development, and strategies for interpretation. Mountain View, CA: CPP.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson's theory of circumscription, compromise and self-creation. In S. D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed.)(pp. 85–148). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hambrick, D. Z., Meinz, E. J., & Oswald, F. L. (2007). Individual differences in current events knowledge: Contributions of ability, personality, and interests. Memory & Cognition, 35, 304–316.
Hambrick, D. Z., Meinz, E. J., Pink, J. E., Pettibone, J. C., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). Learning outside the laboratory: Ability and non-ability influences on acquiring political knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 40–45.
Hambrick, D. Z., Pink, J. E., Meinz, E. J., Pettibone, J. C., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). The roles of ability, personality, and interests in acquiring current events knowledge: A longitudinal study. Intelligence, 36(3), 261–278.
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments(3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Jaspers, U. (2007). Lehrerberuf: Warum Studierende oft die falsche Wahl treffen (Ulrike Jaspers im Gespräch mit den Bildungsexperten Prof. Dr. Andreas Gold und Prof. Dr. Udo Rauin). Forschung Frankfurt, 3, 83–87.
Klafki, W. (1991). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz.
Larson, L. M., Wu, T.-F., Bailey, D. C., Gasser, C. E., Bonitz, V. S., & Borgen, F. H. (2009). The role of personality in the selection of a major: With and without vocational self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, in press.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (1999). Development of the O*NET Interest Profiler. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET Development.
Lippa, R. A. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the People-Things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 996–1009.
Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.”. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444.
Lynn, R., Irwing, P., & Cammock, T. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge. Intelligence, 30(1), 27–39.
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland's hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(3), 259–287.
Prediger, D. J. (2002). Abilities, interests, and values: Their assessment and their integration via the World-of-Work Map. Journal of Career Assessment. Special Issue: Exploring interests, self-efficacy, and career goals, 10(2), 209–232.
Prediger, D. J., & Swaney, K. B. (2004). Work task dimensions underlying the world of work: Research results for diverse occupational databases. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(4), 440–459.
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and personality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 174–188.
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge: Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 511–526.
Rounds, J., Smith, T., Hubert, L., Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (1999). Development of Occupational Interest Profiles (OIPs) for the O*NET. Raleigh, NC: National Center for O*NET Development.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–229.
Tracey, T. J. G., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Correspondence of interests and abilities with occupational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 178–189.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonitz, V.S., Armstrong, P.I., Larson, L.M. (2010). Geschlechterunterschiede im Allgemeinwissen – die Folge geschlechtsspezifischer Berufsinteressen?. In: Verbeet, M., Trepte, S. (eds) Allgemeinbildung in Deutschland. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92543-1_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92543-1_18
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-17218-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-92543-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)