Context or Culture: Can Timss and Pisa Teach Us About What Determines Educational Achievement in Science?

  • Peter J Fensham

Abstract

Most mainstream researchers in science education are weak in their inclusion of the wider educational, personal and social contexts in which their studies have been conducted. The TIMSS and PISA projects, on the other hand, have both had the status and resources to include a great deal of data about these wider contexts, nationally and cross-nationally. The success and failure of these projects in relation to elucidating strong relations between contextual constructs and science achievement is considered. The methodological choices of these cross national studies and the theoretical perspective they have adopted for these interactions are critically appraised. An alternative approach is then explored

Keywords

Influence of context science achievement culture of science education international comparative studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACER/IEA. (2004). Examining the evidence: Science achievement in Australia’s schools in TIMSS 2002. Camberwell Victoria: ACER.Google Scholar
  2. ACER/OECD. (2001). How literate are Australia’s students?Victoria: Camberwell.Google Scholar
  3. AERA Think Tank. (1994). Report on TIMSS achievement project. Washington DC: AERA Grants Program Advisory Board.Google Scholar
  4. AERA Think Tank. (1995). Report on TIMSS curriculum analysis project. Washington DC: AERA Grants Program Advisory Board.Google Scholar
  5. Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the sub-culture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander, R. (2001). Pedagogy and culture: A perspective in search of a method. In J. Soler, A. Craft, & H. Burgess (Eds.), Teacher development: Exploring our own practice(pp. 4–25). London: Paul Chapman Open University.Google Scholar
  7. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Atkin, J. M. (1998). The OECD study of innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 647–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (1997). Policy perils of international comparisons: The TIMSS case. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 22–28.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, D. P. (1997). Surviving TIMSS, or everything you have forgotten about international comparisons. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(4), 295–300.Google Scholar
  11. Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education.New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  12. Bishop, A. (2005). Private communication from Japan, March.Google Scholar
  13. Black, P., Atkin, M., & Pevsner, D. (1995). Changing the subject: Innovation and change in science mathematics and technology education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Blank, R. K., & Wilson, L. D. (2001). Understanding NAEP and TIMSS results. UERS Spectrum, U30(U1), U23–33.Google Scholar
  15. Bracey, G. W. (1997a). Accuracy as a frill. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10), 801–802.Google Scholar
  16. Bracey, G. W. (1997b). More on TIMSS. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), 656–657.Google Scholar
  17. Bracey, G. W. (1998). Rhymes with dims: As in “Witted”. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 686–687.Google Scholar
  18. Bracey, G. W. (2000). “Diverging” American and Japanese science scores. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 791–792.Google Scholar
  19. Bracey, G. W. (2002). Facing the consequences. Using TIMSS for a closer look at US mathematics and science education. Science Education, 86(5), 730–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bracey, G. W. (2002). Test scores, creativity and global competitiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 738–739.Google Scholar
  21. Callahan, C. M., Kaplan, S. N., Reis, S. N., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). TIMSS and high ability students: Measures of doom or opportunities for reflection, Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 787–790.Google Scholar
  22. Cheng, Y. C., & Cheung, W. M. (1999). Lessons from TIMSS in Europe. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 5(2), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cogan, L. S., Wang, H., & Schmidt, W. H. (2001). Culturally specific patterns in the conceptualisation of the school science curriculum: Insights from TIMSS. Studies in Science Education, 36, 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckstein, M. A., & Noah, H. J. (1991). Secondary school examinations: International perspectives on policies and practice. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, H. -W. (2003). Towards a world curriculum: The concept of basic literacy underlying PISA and the tasks allocated to schooling. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 49(2), 161–179.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbs, W. W., & Fox, D. (1999). The false crisis in science education. Scientific American, 281(4), 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gintis, H. (1972). ‘Towards a political economy of education’. Harvard Educational Review, 42(2), 70–96.Google Scholar
  28. Hayhoe, R. (2004). Full circle: A life with Hong Kong and China(p. 77). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  29. Holliday, W. G., & Holliday, B. W. (2003). Why using international comparative mathematics and science achievement data is not helpful. Educational Forum, 67(3), 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. House, J. D. (2000a). Students’ self-belief and science achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 107–115.Google Scholar
  31. Jenkins, E. W. (2004) quotation in P. J. Fensham (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research(p. 117). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, R. (1998). Solving problems in mathematics and science education, American School Board Journal, 185(7), 16–21.Google Scholar
  33. Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1999). The rationality and irrationality of international comparative studies. In G. Keiser, L. Eduardo, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 241–256). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  34. Kelly, D. L. (2002). The TIMSS 1995 international benchmarks of mathematics and science achievement: Profiles of world class performance at fourth and eighth grades. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(10), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keys, W. (1999). What can mathematics educators in England learn from TIMSS? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 5(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knuver, A. (1999). National and cross-national perspectives on the Population 2 and 3 findings. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 5(2), 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuiper, W., & Plomp, T. (1999). Modelling TIMSS data in a European comparative perspective: Explaining influencing factors on achievement in mathematics in grade 8. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(2) 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people.London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  39. Le Métais, J. (2001). Approaches to comparing educational systems. In K. Watson (Ed.), Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems(pp. 197–209). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  40. Linn, M., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. students and Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher, 29(3), 4–14.Google Scholar
  41. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. U. S., Gonzalez, E. J & Chrostawski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003: International Report. Chestnut Hill MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  42. McCallister, G. (2002). A proposal to improve science education in the public schools, American Biology Teacher, 64(4), 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKnight, C. C., & Schmidt, W. H. (1998). Facing facts in US science and mathematics education: Where we stand, where we want to go. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Messner, R. (2003). PISA and general education. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 48(3), 400–412.Google Scholar
  45. Möller, J., & Köller, O. (1998). Dimensional and social comparisons regarding school results. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 30, 118–127.Google Scholar
  46. Noah, H. J., & Eckstein, M. A. (1969). Towards a science of comparative education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000.Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  49. Ogawa, M. (2001). Reform Japanese style: Voyage into an unknown and Chaotic future. Science Education, 85(5), 586–606.Google Scholar
  50. Ogawa, M. (2004). How is the novice getting to be the expert?: A preliminary case study of Japanese science teachers. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 22(5), 1082–1102.Google Scholar
  51. Ogawa, M. (2005). Recent Affairs in Japanese Science Education. Keynote Lecture at Korean Association for Research in Science education Annual Conference, Seoul, February.Google Scholar
  52. Puk, T. (1999). Formula for success according to TIMSS or the subliminal decay of jurisdictional educultural integrity? Canada’s participation in TIMSS. Alberta Journal of Education Research, 45(3), 225–238.Google Scholar
  53. Rakow, S. J. (2000). NSTA’s response to TIMSS, AWIS Magazine, 67(1), 61.Google Scholar
  54. Ramseier, S. J. (2001). Scientific literacy of upper secondary students: A Swiss perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riley, R. W. (1997). From the desk of the secretary of education: TIMSS Benchmarks. Teaching Pre-K.8, 27(4), 6.Google Scholar
  56. Robitaille, D. F. (Ed.). (1997). National contexts for mathematics and science education: An encyclopedia of education systems participating in TIMSS.Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.Google Scholar
  57. Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (Eds.). (1996). Reasearch questions & study design. TIMSS MONOGRAPH NO. 2. (p. 50). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1995). Surveying educational opportunity in mathematics and science: An international perspective. Educational Analysis and Policy Evaluation, 17(3), 337–353.Google Scholar
  59. Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from TIMSS. Science, 282(5395), 1830–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britten, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many visions, many aims volume 2: A cross national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Sjøberg, S. (2004, July 25–30). Science and technology in the new millennium – Friend or foe? In Proceedings of the 11th IOSTE Symposium, 1–2, Lublin, Poland.Google Scholar
  63. Stake, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education.Urbana-Champaign: CIRCE and CCC.Google Scholar
  64. Stigler, J. W. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Los Angeles CA: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  65. Turmo, A. (2004). Scientific literacy and socio-economic background among 15 year olds: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt, W. H. (1998). Refocusing US mathematics and science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 14(2), 60–66.Google Scholar
  67. Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt, W. H. (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other nations in the quest for “World Class Standards” in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 651–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang, J. (1998). International achievement comparison, School Science and Mathematics, 98(7), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waring, M. (1979). Social pressures on curriculum innovation: A study of the Nuffield Foundation science teaching project.London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  70. Young, M. F. D. (1971). An approach to the study of curricula as socially organised knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control. London: Collier McMillan.Google Scholar
  71. Young, D., Webster, B., & Fisher, D. (1999). Gender and socioeconomic equity in mathematics and science education: A comparative study. Paper presented at AREA Conference, Montreal, Canada, April.Google Scholar
  72. Zach, K. (1997). US mathematics and science education in an international context, AWIS Magazine, 26(3), 21-33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J Fensham
    • 1
  1. 1.QUTBrisbane

Personalised recommendations