Advertisement

USING TIMSS 2007 DATA TO BUILD MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT MODEL OF FOURTH GRADERS IN HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE

  • Qian ChenEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this study, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2007 data were used to build mathematics achievement models of fourth graders in two East Asian school systems: Hong Kong and Singapore. In each school system, eight variables at student level and nine variables at school/class level were incorporated to build an achievement model through hierarchical linear modelling. The final achievement models suggested that in both school systems, four variables at student level, i.e. number of books at home, frequency of test language spoken at home, frequency of mathematics homework, student’s self-confidence in learning mathematics, and one variables at school/class level, i.e. class size for mathematics instruction were significantly correlated with fourth graders’ mathematics achievement, and student’s self-confidence in learning mathematics was the strongest predictor of mathematics achievement. The relations between mathematics achievement and other variables differed across the two systems. Implications for educational research and practice are presented at the end of this paper.

Key words

comparison grade 4 hierarchical linear modelling mathematics achievement TIMSS 2007 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd. Ghagar, M. N., Othman, R. & Mohammadpour, E. (2011). Multilevel analysis of achievement in mathematics of Malaysian and Singaporean students. Journal of Educational Psychology and Counseling, 2, 285–304.Google Scholar
  2. Akyüz, G. & Berberoğlu, G. (2010). Teacher and classroom characteristics and their relations to mathematics achievement of the students in the TIMSS. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 77–95.Google Scholar
  3. Azzolini, D., Schnell, P. & Palmer, J. R. B. (2012). Educational achievement gaps between immigrant and native students in two “new” immigration countries: Italy and Spain in comparison. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 46–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bray, M. & Lee, W. O. (Eds.). (1997). Education and political transition. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, HKU.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A. & Weinfeld, F. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
  6. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  7. Creemers, B. P. M. & Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 197–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U. & Ludtke, O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: Evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(4), 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drent, M., Meelissen, M. R. M. & van der Kleij, F. M. (2013). The contribution of TIMSS to the link between school and classroom factors and student achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 198–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumay, X. & Dupriez, V. (2007). Accounting for class effect using the TIMSS 2003 eighth-grade database: Net effect of group composition, net effect of class process, and joint effect. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(4), 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eklöf, H. (2007). Self-concept and valuing of mathematics in TIMSS 2003: Scale structure and relation to performance in a Swedish setting. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engel, L. C., Rutkowski, D. & Rutkowski, L. (2009). The harsher side of globalisation: Violent conflict and academic achievement. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(4), 433–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field, A. (Ed.). (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Foy, P. & Olson, J. F. (2009). TIMSS 2007 user guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  15. Goldhaber, D. & Brewer, D. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 197–210). Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  16. House, J. D. (2002). Instructional practice and mathematics achievement of adolescent studetns in Chinese Taipei: Results from the TIMSS 1999 assessment. Child Study Journal, 32(3), 157.Google Scholar
  17. House, J. D. (2009). Elementary school mathematics instruction and achievement of fourth-grade students in Japan: Findings from the TIMSS 2007 assessment. Education, 130(2), 301–307.Google Scholar
  18. Howie, S. (2004). A national assessment in mathematics within an international comparative assessment. Perspectives in Education, 22(2), 149–162.Google Scholar
  19. Jacob, B. A. & Lefgren, L. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement: Quasiexperimental evidence from school reform efforts in Chicago. Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joncas, M. (2008a). TIMSS 2007 sample design. In J. F. Olson, M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 technical report (pp. 77–92). Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  21. Joncas, M. (2008b). TIMSS 2007 sampling weights and participation rates. In J. F. Olson, M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 technical report (pp. 154–192). Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  22. Killion, J. (Ed.). (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  23. Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). How consistent are class size effects? Evaluation Review, 35(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kyriakides, L. (2006). Using international comparative studies to develop the theoretical framework of educational effectiveness research: A secondary analysis of TIMSS 1999 data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(6), 513–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamb, S. & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46(2), 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identity in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D. & Lopez-Real, F. J. (2006). Mathematics education in different cultrual traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and the West. USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, D. U. & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.Google Scholar
  29. Linn, M. C., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I. & Songer, N. B. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. and Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher, 29(3), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luyten, H. (2006). An empirical assessment of the absolute effect of schooling: Regression-discontinuity applied to TIMSS-95. Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), 397–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mikk, J. (2006). Students’ homework and TIMSS 2003 mathematics results: Online Submission.Google Scholar
  32. Mohammadpour, E. (2012). A multilevel study on trends in Malaysian secondary school students’ science achievement and associated school and student predictors. Science Education, 96(6), 1013–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mohammadpour, E. & Ghafar, M. N. A. (2012). Mathematics achievement as a function of within- and between-school differences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–33.Google Scholar
  34. Mullis, I. V. S. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  35. Mullis, I. V. S. (2003). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report : Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College, Lynch School of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O. & Foy, P. (2008a). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  37. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Olson, J. F., Berger, D. R., Milne, D. & Stanco, G. M. (2008b). TIMSS 2007 encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  38. Murdock, J. (2008). Comparison of curricular breadth, depth, and recurrence and physics achievement of TIMSS population 3 countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1135–1157.Google Scholar
  39. Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O. & Mullis, I. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  40. Pong, S.-l. & Pallas, A. (2001). Class size and eighth-grade math achievement in the United States and abroad. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quek, K. S., Ho, K. K. & Soh, K. C. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student-teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
  42. Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Rodriguez, M. C. (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student performance on TIMSS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rumberger, R. W. & Palardy, G. J. (2004). Multilevel models for school effectiveness research. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 235–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: Office for Standards in Education and Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  46. Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness (fundamentals of educational planning no. 68). Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  47. Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Immigrants’ educational disadvantage: An examination across ten countries and three surveys. Journal of Population Economics, 20(3), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shavelson, R. J., McDonnell, L., & Oakes, J. (1991). Steps in designing an indicator system. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(12).Google Scholar
  50. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  51. Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  52. Teodorović, J. (2011). Classroom and school factors related to student achievement: What works for students? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Teodorović, J. (2012). Student background factors influencing student achievement in Serbia. Educational Studies, 38(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trautwein, U. & Koller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement—Still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walberg, H. J. (2003). Improving educational productivity (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 483 038). Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center.Google Scholar
  56. Wang, Z., Osterlind, S. & Bergin, D. (2012). Building mathematics achievement models in four countries using TIMSS 2003. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1215–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wößmann, L. (2005). Educational production in East Asia: the impact of family background and schooling policies on student performance. German Economic Review, 6, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhu, Y. & Leung, F. K. S. (2011). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian model? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1189–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhu, Y. & Leung, F. K. S. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: Evidence from the TIMSS 2003. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 907–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations