Efficacy beliefs and interdependence when being assessed working in a group

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceds20

Educational Studies

ISSN: 0305-5698 (Print) 1465-3400 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Efficacy beliefs and interdependence when being

assessed working in a group

Karin Forslund Frykedal, Eva Hammar Chiriac & Michael Rosander

To cite this article: Karin Forslund Frykedal, Eva Hammar Chiriac & Michael Rosander (2019):

Efficacy beliefs and interdependence when being assessed working in a group, Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2019.1706039

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1706039

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Published online: 25 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

E

fficacy beliefs and interdependence when being assessed

working in a group

Karin Forslund Frykedal a,b_{, Eva Hammar Chiriac} a_{and Michael Rosander} a a_{Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;}b_Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to investigate factors that can predict collective efficacy in student work groups year 5 and 8 at com-pulsory school and to see if there are gender and year differences for efficacy beliefs and aspects of interdependence. A total of 283 completed questionnaires were analysed. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to predict collective efficacy and 2 × 2 ANOVA was used to analyse gender and year differences and interactions for following five factors: collective efficacy, self-efficacy, negative interdependence, positive interdependence and importance of good assessment and marks. The result showed that independent of gender, year and school, self-efficacy, positive and negative interdependence predicted col-lective efficacy in connection with group work assessment. The result also showed that there were better conditions for coop-eration in year 5 compared to year 8. Additionally, it was signi fi-cantly more important for girls than boys to achieve good assessment and marks.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 21 December 2018 Accepted 14 December 2019 KEYWORDS Collective-efficacy; self-e_fficacy; interdependence; group work; gender; group work assessment

Introduction

The main focus of this study concerns students in Swedish compulsory school working in mixed and single-gender groups. More specifically, the study examined students’ perceptions about their own and the group’s abilities to perform a task and their perceptions of interdependence to other students when being assessed in the group. Working together in a group could create feelings of both inspiration and frustration among students, depending on different ideas about what is to be done and the level of trust of one’s own and other group members’ abilities to perform a task ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]). Additionally, being assessed as part of a group could increase either the desire to cooperate or compete with other group members for good marks (Orr 2010). To investigate and understand students’ perceptions when working in groups this study emphasises students’ self- and collective efficacy and interdependence when being assessed together with others in a group.

CONTACTKarin Forslund Frykedal karin.forslund.frykedal@liu.se Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Division of Education, Teaching and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping SE-581 83, Sweden https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1706039

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

Self-efficacy and collective efficacy

According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is an individual’s belief that they possess all the necessary abilities to perform a task. The corresponding concept on a group level is collective efficacy (Bandura1982,2000,2002). A group’s shared beliefs about what the group collectively is capable of influences the group’s performance (Bandura

2000). When members perceive interdependence in a group, they create better con-ditions for developing high collective efficacy (Alavi and McCormick2008). Collective efficacy influences group performance when a highly interdependent task requires group members to cooperate and coordinate their efforts (Katz-Navon and Erez2005). Collective efficacy is, according to Lent, Schmidt, and Schmidt (2006), also related to group cohesion and is a stronger predictor of group performance than group mem-bers’ perceptions of their individual self-efficacy when interdependence is high (Katz-Navon and Erez2005). Instead, self-efficacy explains individual performance under low task interdependence.

Gender, year, and assessment

In Swedish compulsory schools, students receive marks from years 6 to 9 (Skolverket

2011). For approximately 30 years, girls have had higher marks than boys in Swedish compulsory schools (SOU 2010). A number of comparable countries have shown similar results (OECD2017). There are various explanations for why girls outperform boys in school achievement. Some of the occurring explanations are: (a) educational methods (Sinnes 2006; Wernersson 2006); (b) motivation and learning strategies (Jakobsson 2000; Meece, Glienke, and Burg 2006; Muller, Stage, and Kinzie 2001; Pearce 2006); (c) social changes and gender equality (Björnsson 2005; Weiner and Öhrn2009); (d) gender differences in structure in the classroom/school (Bergström, Eidevald, and Westberg Boström2016; Holm2008; Warin and Dempster2007); (e) girls’ strategies to distance themselves from traditional gender roles by striving for high marks, thus generating possibilities to enter a future in higher education (Wilhsson

2017); (f) girls and boys use their abilities differently rather than have different abilities (Brunner, Kraussa, and Kuntera 2008; Johnson and Bouchard 2007; Reynolds et al.

2008); and (g)“anti-school culture” or “effortless achievement culture” (Jackson2006; Phoenix2004; Zimmerman2018).

Lundahl et al. (2015) showed in a review that age and experience of grading seems to matter for how students’ learning, motivation for learning, and performance are influenced by assessment. There are two overall models used to explain why grading influences students’ achievement and learning: (a) students are influenced by assess-ment and grading in a way that, regardless of their prerequisites, make them moti-vated to perform better and learn more (e.g. Azmat and Iriberri 2010; Prendergast

1999); and (b) assessment and grading influence students in different ways depending on their prerequisites and background. Feedback in the form of assessments and marks could either be positive or negative for students and may influence self-efficacy, motivation, learning, and performance (e.g. Black and Wiliam 1998; Hattie

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate factors that can predict collective efficacy in student work groups in years 5 and 8 in compulsory school and to see if there are gender and year differences for efficacy beliefs and aspects of interdependence.

Theory and theoretical concepts

Social interdependence theory

The theoretical framework for this study was rooted in the social interdependence theory (Deutsch1949; Johnson and Johnson2002,2013; Lewin1948). Group members develop a degree of interdependence when members experience that working together on a task will enhance the probability for them to achieve their joint goals. Interdependence can be positive, which creates opportunities for cooperation among group members. Interdependence might also be negative, which creates competition among group members. There might also be an absence of interdependence, signify-ing that individuals may reach their goals independent of others in the group, which does not provide opportunities for interaction and cooperation between group mem-bers (Johnson and Johnson2002,2013). Johnson and Johnson proposed the following five elements necessary to increase the cooperative potential of groups: (a) positive interdependence – the perception of being linked to other group members and the realisation that is achieved through the pursuit of common goals; (b) individual accountability – each group member is responsible for their share of the work and has a willingness to help other group members; (c) face-to-face promotive interaction– group members encourage each other’s efforts through discussions and explanations; (d) interpersonal and small-group skills– enhance the degree of trust among group members and their ability to resolve conflicts when differences occur; and (e) group processing – group members discuss and evaluate their work (this is crucial for promoting and maintaining effective working relationships among members).

Working in a group or working as a group

Additional approaches to group work are working in a group and working as a group ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]; [Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]; Underwood2003). It is important to differentiate between in and as a group, even if Blatchford et al.’s (2003) definition of group work (“students working together as a group or a team”; p. 155) is often used. Working in a group involves situations where group members are typically working individually on separate parts of a task and not using the potential of the group. At the end of the group project, students put their separate contributions together into a joint product. Learning is an effect of social facilitation rather than cooperation. Working as a group involves cooperation and utilisation of group members’ competence, knowledge, and abilities and is characterised by interdependence and a joint effort to achieve a common goal. In this case, learning is an effect of cooperation.

Method

Context of the study

The study is part of a larger research project title Assessment of knowledge and skills in group work – an intervention study in the classroom everyday practice ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]; [Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]). The overarching objective of the research project was to increase knowledge concerning teachers’ and students’ assessment practices in connection with group work in education.

Participants

Data for the study were collected using a questionnaire. A total of 283 completed questionnaires from 135 girls and 148 boys in compulsory school were analysed (year 5: 78 girls and 74 boys; year 8: 57 girls and 74 boys). The participants came fromfive different schools infive different cities in Sweden. The students were divided into 38 different work groups.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire had four main areas: (a) one’s own effort during group work, (b) working with others, (c) feelings of being assessed and marked with others, and (d) the importance of group work. In a previous study ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]), the questionnaire was factor analysed resulting infive factors: collective efficacy, self-efficacy, negative interdependence, positive interdependence, and impor-tance of a good assessment and mark. Collective efficacy captures beliefs of what the group collectively is capable of when working on tasks (Cronbach’s α = .920). Self-efficacy involves beliefs about what one as an individual is capable of when working on a task (Cronbach’s α = .839). Negative interdependence involves negative issues when working in a group by doing things on one’s own with no regard to group decisions and feeling frustrated by the group (Cronbach’s α = .800). Positive interdependence deals with feelings of positive interdependence from working together as a group and looking upon being assessed as a group as something positive (Cronbach’s α = .823). Finally, importance of a good assessment and mark deals with the importance for the individual of getting a good assessment and mark on the group task (Cronbach’s α = .806).

Data collection

The questionnaires were distributed by one of the researchers in the classroom at ordinary lecture time (40–60 min). During the entire period of time when students completed the questionnaires, both the teacher and the researcher stayed in the class-room to clarify or interpret as needed the meaning of some of the words in the ques-tionnaires. The questionnaires were completed in 20 to 30 min, and all students were finished before the lecture ended. Researchers collected all questionnaires on location. As

the studentsfinished the questionnaires, they turned to an ordinary task assigned by their teachers while waiting for the whole group to complete the questionnaires.

All non-participating students were requested to put an X in the upper corner on the first page of the questionnaire. This diminished singling out these students so that it appeared all students completed the questionnaire. After all, questionnaires were col-lected, the researcher omitted the non-participant questionnaires and they were not used in the study.

Analyses

Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 24. A hierarchical multiple regression was used to predict collective efficacy and 2 × 2 ANOVA was used to analyse gender and year differences and interaction for the five factors presented above. Gender was dummy coded with boys as 1 and girls as 0. The schools were also dummy coded with School A as the base.

Ethics

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychological Society guidelines (BPS2014), which emphasise concern for participants’ interests, were applied throughout the study. All participating teachers and students signed an informed consent to be involved in the study. The study was approved by the regional Research and Ethics Committee [Removed to maintain integrity for the review process].

Results

InTable 1, descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables of the study are presented. The results showed negative correlations for year and both collective efficacy (r =−.26) and positive interdependence (r = −.32). For the schools, there were mostly no or very small correlations for the independent variables with one exception: for School D there was a significant correlation for collective efficacy (r = −.36) and negative interdependence (r = .23), meaning that belonging to School D corresponded to lower collective efficacy and higher negative interdependence. The analysis of the data shows that there were significant correlations in the .40-ies for collective efficacy and self-efficacy (r = .46) and positive interdependence (r = .48), and for self-efficacy and importance of a good assessment and mark (r = .46).

Collective efficacy

In Table 2, a hierarchical regression controlling for gender, year, and school with self-efficacy, positive and negative interdependence, and the importance of getting a good assessment and mark as independent variables is presented. The analysis showed that independent of gender, year, and school, self-efficacy (b = 0.42) as well as positive (b = 0.42) and negative interdependence (b =−0.28) predicted collective efficacy, F(7, 264) = 28.23, p < .001, where self-efficacy and positive interdependence explained most of the variance in collective efficacy.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation between the variables of the study. Mean (SD ) 1 .2 .3 . 4 .5 .6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0 . 1 1 . 1. Gender 0.52 (0.50) 2. Year 6.39 (1.50) .08 3. School A 0.31 (0.46) − .05 .12* 4. School B 0.24 (0.43) .02 − .53** − .38** 5. School C 0.15 (0.36) − .07 − .40** − .29** − .24** 6. School D 0.13 (0.33) .04 .41** − .26** − .22** − .16** 7. School E 0.16 (0.37) .08 .48** − .30** − .25** − .19** − .17** 8. Collective effi cacy 5.38 (1.26) − .01 − .26** .14* .09 .13* − .36** − .09 9. Self-e ffi cacy 4.89 (1.07) .04 − .04 .16** − .11 .12* − .11 − .09 .46** 10. Negative interdep. 2.45 (1.17) .11 .16** − .08 − .08 .00 .23** − .00 − .16** .16** 11. Positive interdep. 3.88 (1.18) .03 − .32** − .01 .14* .10 − .16** − .12 .48** .28** .16** 12. Importance of a good assessment and mark 5.71 (1.22) − .20** .01 .19** − .19** .10 − .06 − .07 .27** .46** − .04 .21** Note .* p< .05, ** p < .01

Year, gender, and assessment

There were significant differences comparing years 5 and 8 for collective efficacy, F(1, 278) = 22.02, p < .001 (year 5: M = 5.68, SD = 1.17; year 8: M = 5.01, SD = 1.28), negative interdependence, F(1, 272) = 6.22, p = .013 (year 5: M = 2.28, SD = 1.01; year 8: M = 2.62, SD = 1.25), and positive interdependence, F(1, 275) = 37.78, p < .001 (year 5: M = 4.24, SD = 1.10; year 8: M = 3.44, SD = 1.10). For both collective efficacy and positive interdependence, there were significantly lower scores for year 8 compared to year 5, and for negative interdependence, there was a significantly higher score. There were no gender differences for efficacy beliefs or aspects of interdependence; however, girls found it significantly more important to get a good assessment and mark than boys, F(1, 272) = 11.27, p = .001 (girls: M = 5.97, SD = 1.07; boys: M = 5.48, SD = 1.29).

The analysis showed a significant interaction for gender and year on negative inter-dependence, F(1, 272) = 5.119, p = .024; seeFigure 1. Girls in year 5 had a significantly lower level of negative interdependence (M = 2.04, SD = 0.82) than boys (M = 2.52, SD = 1.13), t (148) = 3.133, p = .002. In year 8, there were no gender differences (girls: M = 2.68, SD = 1.10; boys: M = 2.57, SD = 1.37).

Discussion

The present study showed that independent of gender, year, and school, self-efficacy as well as positive and negative interdependence predicted collective efficacy. Self-efficacy and positive interdependence explained most of the variance in collective efficacy. This is in line with Alavi and McCormick (2008) study showing that members in a group perceiving

Table 2.Hierarchical regression on the estimation of collective efficacy controlling for gender, year and school. b Std. error β t Model 1 Gender 0.048 0.142 0.019 0.339 ns Year −0.077 0.083 −0.092 −0.921 ns School School B −0.115 0.233 −0.040 −0.493 ns School C −0.006 0.258 −0.002 0.023 ns School D −1.418 0.270 −0.356 −5.258 p < .001 School E −0.366 0.240 −0.110 −1.526 ns _Constant 6.116 0.570 10.722 p < .001 R2 .159 Model 2 Gender 0.016 0.119 0.006 0.135 ns Year 0.067 0.070 0.080 0.948 ns School School B 0.178 0.192 0.061 0.924 ns School C 0.126 0.210 0.037 0.603 ns School D −0.888 0.225 −0.223 −3.955 p < .001 School E −0.227 0.196 −0.068 −1.155 ns Self-efficacy 0.395 0.064 0.338 6.210 p < .001 Negative interdependence −0.256 0.053 −0.236 −4.811 p < .001 Positive interdependence 0.407 0.057 0.375 7.198 p < .001 Importance of a good assessment and mark 0.024 0.056 0.023 0.425 ns

_Constant 2.026 0.613 3.305 p = .001

R2

.458

themselves to be interdependent in a group have greater conditions to develop a high level of collective efficacy. To create conditions for the group to work as a group ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]; [Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]; Underwood2003), characterised by interdependence and a joint effort to achieve a common goal, it is, therefore, essential to develop both self- and collective efficacy within a group and its members. According to Katz-Navon and Erez (2005), this could be done by constructing a task that makes the group members interdependent and requires them to cooperate and coordinate their efforts.

The results also showed significant differences comparing years 5 and 8 for collective efficacy, negative interdependence, and positive interdependence. For both collective effi-cacy and positive interdependence, there were significantly lower scores for year 8 compared to year 5, but for negative interdependence, there was a significantly higher score. One feasible explanation could be that in Swedish compulsory school, students receive marks from year 6 on (Skolverket2011). This means that in the current study, the students in year 5 did not receive marks, but the students in year 8 did receive them. Being assessed as part of a group could create collaboration or competition for good marks among group members (Orr2010), depending on different ideas about what is to be done and the level of trust of one’s own and other group members’ abilities to perform a task ([Removed to maintain integrity for the review process]). Age and experience of grading seems to matter for how assessment and grading influenced students (Lundahl et al.2015), could either be positive or negative for students depending on their prerequisites and background, and have an influence on self-efficacy and performance (Black and Wiliam 1998; Hattie 2009). If the intention is to create collaboration and not competition for good marks (Orr 2010), it becomes important to explore how assessment and grading are managed in group work, both for students’ efficacy beliefs and for the group’s performance in and managing of a task. Additionally, the results showed that girls found it significantly more important to get a good assessment and high marks than boys. Those results were no surprise, since for approximately 30 year girls have had higher marks than boys in Swedish compulsory school (SOU 2010); additionally, a number of comparable countries have shown similar results (OECD2017). There are explanations at both the individual and structural levels for these differences. In the specific context of this study, we found no obvious explanation, but it could be that girls are more motivated and strive for high marks to ensure a future in higher education (Wilhsson 2017) and that girls use their abilities in the group to get a good

1.5 2 2.5 3 Year 5 Year 8 Girls Boys

assessment (Brunner, Kraussa, and Kuntera2008; Johnson and Bouchard2007; Reynolds et al.2008). As mentioned above, students receive marks from year 6 on (Skolverket2011). This could explain the result that girls in year 5 in the study had a significantly lower level of negative interdependence than boys, that is, girls were less likely to compete than boys, but in year 8 there were no gender differences. Possibly, girls in year 5 still want to cooperate and do not care about their marks as much as the girls in year 8 do.

Limitations

A limitation of the study is that in all schools, except for School D, the results showed that self-efficacy, as well as positive and negative interdependence, predicted collective efficacy. However, belonging to School D corresponded to lower collective efficacy and higher negative interdependence. One explanation could be the way the task was presented for students in School D, which gave them different conditions to address or tackle the task. In the other schools, teachers presented the task in more a thorough and structured way. Students also received supervision and support continuously in their work. This differed in School D, where the students had to work more on their own and received the task with a more limited presentation from the teacher. Besides, this gives a basis for further results showing that how the task is presented and how the work is supported by the teacher matter for students’ perception about the group’s abilities to perform a task and their perceptions of interdependence.

Conclusions

This study showed that individual perceptions about one’s own and the group’s ability to perform when working together on a task, together with experiences of positive or negative interdependence, create different conditions for cooperation or competition within the group. In year 5, there were better conditions for cooperation compared to year 8, in which the circumstances probably created more competition in groups. Additionally, it was significantly more important for girls than boys to get a good assessment and marks. The results highlight the question of how appropriate it is to assess and give marks if the goal is to make students cooperate and work as a group when using group work in education. Since assessment and marking are obligatory at compulsory schools in Sweden, as in other countries, the question is hypothetical. It is more important to develop conditions for cooperation in groups and prevent competition among students. Based on the social interdependence theory, establishing positive interdependence, individual accountability, and promotive interaction in a group constitutes important conditions for the development of cooperation in groups. In addition, group discussions and evaluations of the group’s work are crucial for promoting, affirming, and maintaining effective working relationships among members in order to be able to manage with well-functioning group work.

Acknowledgments

We also want to acknowledge PhD student Johan Forsell, who contributed to this article by compiling data and participating in the initial discussion of the results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council under Grant number: 721 2012-5476.

Notes on contributors

Karin Forslund FrykedalAssociate Professor of Education at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Division of Education, Teaching and Learning at Linköping University, Sweden. Further she work as a Professor of Education at the Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University West. Her scientific activity lies within educational research with a focus on leadership, group processes and learning in small educational groups.

Eva Hammar Chiriac, Associate Professor of Psychology at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Division of Psychology at Linköping University, Sweden. Her scientific activity lies within the social psychological research field with a strong focus on group research, mainly connected to groups, group processes, learning and education. From 2013, She is currently the project manager for a research project concerning assessment of knowledge and skills in group work.

Michael Rosander, Associate Professor of Psychology at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Division of Psychology at Linköping University, Sweden. His research focusses mainly on workplace bullying from a group and organizational perspective, but also on leadership and group processes in small educational groups.

ORCID

Karin Forslund Frykedal http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1391-3346

Eva Hammar Chiriac http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7117-5620

Michael Rosander http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-4650

Ethical

The study was approved by the regional Research and Ethics Committee at Linköping University, Sweden (Dnr 2013/401-31 & Dnr 2014/134-32).

References

Alavi, S. B., and J. McCormick.2008.“The Roles of Perceived Task Interdependence and Group Members’ Interdependence in the Development of Collective Efficacy in University Student Group Contexts.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (3): 375–393. doi:10.1348/ 000709907X240471.

Azmat, G., and N. Iriberri.2010.“The Importance of Relative Performance Feedback Information: Evidence from a Natural Experiment Using High School Students.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (7–8): 435–452. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.04.001.

Bandura, A. 1982. “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Psychologist 37 (2): 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.

Bandura, A.2000.“Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 9 (3): 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.0006.

Bandura, A.2002.“Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Contexts.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 51 (2): 269–290. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092.

Bergström, H., C. Eidevald, and A. Westberg Boström.2016.“Child Sexual Abuse at Preschools—A Review of a Complex Issue for Preschool Professionals.” Early Child Development and Care 186 (9): 1520–1528. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1121253.

Björnsson, M.2005. Kön och skolframgång: tolkningar och perspektiv [Gender and School Success: Interpretations and Perspectives]. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam.1998.“Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education 5 (1): 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.

Blatchford, P., P. Kutnick, E. Baines, and M. Galton.2003.“Toward a Social Pedagogy of Classroom Group Work.” International Journal of Educational Research 39 (1–2): 153–172. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8.

British Psychological Society, BPS (2014). Code of Human Research Ethics. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014

Brunner, M., S. Kraussa, and M. Kuntera.2008.“Gender Differences in Mathematics: Does the Story Need to Be Rewritten?” Intelligence 36 (5): 403–421. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.11.002.

Deutsch, M. 1949. “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition.” Human Relations 2: 129–152. doi:10.1177/001872674900200204.

Hattie, J. A. C.2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-analyses on Achievement. London: Routledge.

Holm, A. S.2008.“Relationer i skolan. En studie av feminiteter och maskuliniteter i år 9 [Relationships at School. A Study of Femininity and Masculinities in Year 9].” Doctoral dissertation. Göteborgs Universitet, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.

Jackson, C. 2006. Lads and Ladettes in School: Gender and a Fear of Failure. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Jakobsson, A. K.2000.“Motivation och inlärning ur genusperspektiv. En studie av gymnasieelever på teoretiska linjer/program [Motivation and Learning from Gender Perspective. A Study of High School Students at Theoretical Programs].” Doctoral dissertation, Göteborgs universitet, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.

Johnson, D. W., and F. P. Johnson.2013. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 11th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson.2002.“Learning Together and Alone: Overview and Meta-analysis.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22 (1): 995–1005. doi:10.1080/0218879020220110.

Johnson, W., and T. J. Bouchard.2007.“Sex Differences in Mental Abilities: G Masks the Dimensions on Which They Lie.” Intelligence 35 (1): 23–39. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.03.012.

Katz-Navon, T. Y., and M. Erez.2005.“When Collective- and Self-efficacy Affect Team Performance. The Role of Task Interdependence.” Small Group Research 36 (4): 437–465. doi:10.1177/ 1046496405275233.

Lent, R. W., J. Schmidt, and L. Schmidt.2006.“Collective Efficacy Beliefs in Student Work Teams: Relation to Self-efficacy, Cohesion, and Performance.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 (1): 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001.

Lewin, K.1948. Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper.

Lundahl, C., M. Hultén, A. Klapp, and L. Mickwitz.2015. Betygens geografi. Forskning om betyg och summativa bedömningar i Sverige och internationellt [Geography of the Grade. Research on Grades and Summative Assessments in Sweden and Internationally]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Meece, J. L., B. B. Glienke, and S. Burg.2006.“Gender and Motivation.” Journal of School Psychology

44 (5): 351–373. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004.

Muller, P. A., F. K. Stage, and J. Kinzie.2001.“Science Achievement Growth Trajectories: Understanding Factors Related to Gender and Racial-ethnic Differences in Precollege Science Achievement.” American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 981–1012. doi:10.3102/00028312038004981. OECD.2017. Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/

Orr, S. 2010. “Collaborating or Fighting for the Marks? Students’ Experiences of Group Work Assessment in the Creative Arts.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (3): 301–313. doi:10.1080/02602931003632357.

Pearce, R. R.2006.“American Students at School Transition Points Effects of Cultural and Social Structural Factors on the Achievement of White and Chinese.” American Educational Research Journal 43 (1): 75–101. doi:10.3102/00028312043001075.

Phoenix, A. 2004. “Using Informal Pedagogy to Oppress Themselves and Each Other. Critical Pedagogy, Schooling, and 11–14 Year Old London Boys.” Nordisk Pedagogik 24 (1): 19–35. Prendergast, C.1999.“The Provision of Incentives in Firms.” Journal of Economic Literature 37 (1):

7–63. doi:10.1257/jel.37.1.7.

Reynolds, M. R., T. Z. Keitha, K. P. Ridleya, and P. G. Patela.2008.“Sex Differences in Latent General and Broad Cognitive Abilities for Children and Youth: Evidence from Higher-order Mg-macs and Mimic Models.” Intelligence 36 (3): 236–260. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.003.

Sinnes, A.2006.“Three Approaches to Gender Equity in Science Education.” NorDiNa 2 (1): 72–83. doi:10.5617/nordina.502.

Skolverket.2011. Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class, and the Recreation Centre, 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.

SOU. 2010. Könsskillnader i skolprestationer. Idéer om orsaker Gender Differences in School Achievements. Ideas about Causes [Könsskillnader i skolprestationer. Idéer om orsaker]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Underwood, J. D. M.2003.“Student Attitudes Towards Socially Acceptable and Unacceptable Group Working Practices.” British Journal of Psychology 94 (3): 319–337. doi:10.1348/000712603767876253. Warin, J., and S. Dempster.2007.“The Salience of Gender during the Transition to Higher Education: Male Students’ Accounts of Performed and Authentic Identities.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (6): 887–903. doi:10.1080/01411920701657017.

Weiner, G., and E. Öhrn. 2009.“‘En talande tystnad’. Om frånvaro och närvaro i forskning om utbildning och kön [‘A Talking Silence’. On Absence and Presence in Research on Education, and Gender].” In Genus i förskola och skola. Om policy, perspektiv, och praktik (S. 157-170) [Gender in Preschool and School. About Policy, Perspective, and Practice], edited by I. Wernersson, 157–170. Göteborgs Universitet: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Wernersson, I.2006. Könsskillnader i måluppfyllelse och utbildningsval [Gender Differences in Goal Achievement and Education]. Stockholm: Skolverket. Retrieved fromhttps://www.skolverket.se/ publikationsserier/rapporter/2006/konsskillnader-i-maluppfyllelse-och-utbildningsval

Wilhsson, M. 2017. “Ungdomars strävan mot att lyckas och nå framgång i livet – skolan som hälsofrämjande arena [Youth’s strive for success in life - the school as a health promotion arena].” Doctoral dissertation. Halmstad högskola, Halmstad.

Zimmerman, F.2018.“Det tillåtande och det begränsande. En studie om pojkars syn på studier och ungdomars normer kring maskulinitet [The Permissive and the Limiting. A Study of Boys’ View of Studies and Youth Norms about Masculinity].” Doctoral dissertation. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborgs Universitet.