Download - Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that …cooperation and classroom practices, and activities. Chapter 4 presents questions raised by the results of this report. (YDS) Reproductions

ED 457 025

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOISBNPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 065 188

Gonzales, Patrick; Calsyn, Christopher; Jocelyn, Leslie;Mak, Kitty; Kastberg, David; Arafeh, Sousan; Williams,Trevor; Tsen, WinniePursuing Excellence: Comparisons of InternationalEighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S.Perspective, 1995-1999. Initial Findings from the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study--Repeat.Statistical Analysis Report.National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington,DCNCES-2001-028ISBN-0-16-050748-02001-05-00133p.ED Pubs, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel:877-433-7827 (Toll Free); Web site:http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) -- Reports Descriptive

(141)

MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.*Academic Achievement; Criterion Referenced Tests; ForeignCountries; *Grade 8; Item Analysis; Junior High Schools;Mathematics Education; *Performance Based Assessment;Science Education; Tables (Data)*Third International Mathematics and Science Study

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS) is one of the most comprehensive international studies of schoolingand students' achievement in science and mathematics. TIMSS was originallyconducted in 1995. Four years later in 1999, the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R) was conducted. This documentpresents information on how U.S. eighth grade students performed in bothstudies and questions whether there have been any significant changes inachievement from an international perspective. Contents are divided into fourchapters. Chapter 1 explains the importance of international comparison ineducation and the reasons for repeating TIMSS, identifies questions used andparticipating countries, discusses how the research was conducted, andpresents the organization of the report. Chapter 2 discusses the mathematicsand science achievement of the eighth grade students and presents studentscores in both studies. Chapter 3 reviews issues related to curriculum and

teaching, confidence levels of teachers, professional development, peercooperation and classroom practices, and activities. Chapter 4 presentsquestions raised by the results of this report. (YDS)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

r,

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICSStatistical Analysis Report May 2001

Pursuing Excellence:Comparisons of International

Eighth-Grade Mathematics andScience Achievement from a U.S.

Perspective, 1995 and 1999

_

1111111111

-14

10 4 et, v." 11

.

z 111,

k 4maftek.tolietaa

,Pao

a

t 1 e

1/4,

-0

\.2 ,-,:44,

II: 6, e",:, # d -W-N-.7

1.r/

.. I

.. .. .,----11111116.4

040'

4

4.-

4, a* 4. t

INITIAL FINDINGS FROM THE

THIRD INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE STUDY REPEAT

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENI Of EDUCATION

ICOPYAVAILABLE

NCES 2001-028

Pursuing Excellence:Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and

Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective,1995 and 1999

Initial Findings from theThird International Mathematics and Science Study Repeat

Patrick GonzalesChristopher Calsyn

Leslie JocelynKitty Mak

David KastbergSousan Arafeh

Trevor WilliamsWinnie Tsen

United States TIMSSR Technical Review Panel

Margaret Cozzens, co-chair

Gordon AmbachRuben CarriedoColette ChabbottDenis P. DoyleRamesh GangolliGerry House*Jeremy KilpatrickPaul KimmelmanShirley Malcom

*through June 2000

Susan Fuhrman, co-chair

Jerry PineAndrew PorterFrancisco RamirezLinda RosenWilliam SchmidtJames W. StiglerLisa Towne*Susan Traiman

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeInternet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 5 I 2-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

ISBN 0-16-050748-0

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting datarelated to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, andreport full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specializedanalyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statisticalsystems; and review and report on education activities in foreign nations.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurateindicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education,the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You,as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or sugges-tions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education StatisticsOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementU.S. Department of Education1990 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006

May 2001

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, NCES 2001-028, by Patrick Gonzales,

Christopher Calsyn, Leslie Jocelyn, Kitty Mak, David Kastberg, Sousan Arafeh, Trevor Williams, and Winnie Tsen. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of EducationED PubsP.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Or call toll free 1-877-4EDPUBS or go to the Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Contact: Patrick Gonzales (202) 502-7346

4

This report, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics andScience Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, is a collaborative effort by theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Science Foundation (NSF), andthe Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). NCES is responsible for theanalyses presented in this report. Funding for the U.S. portion of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR) was provided by NCES and NSF, with addi-tional funding from OERI.

iii

s

ACKNEVJEDGITEEIFS

A report of this nature and scope is never only the work of its authors. There are teams of peoplewho, behind the scenes, make substantial contributions of content and process that move areport like this one toward completion. The authors wish to thank all those who contributed tothe design, writing, and production of this report for their thoughtful critique, insightful sugges-tions, and creativity.

Members of the TIMSSR Interagency Management Team provided excellent ideas and direc-tion from the start. Members include Janice Earle, Larry Suter, and Elizabeth VanderPutten, ofthe National Science Foundation (NSF); Carol Fromboluti, Jill Edwards Staton, and PatriciaRoss of OERI; Laura Lippman, Eugene Owen, and Val Plisko of NCES; and Maggie McNeely,formerly of OERI and now with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Teamreceived valuable support from Naoko Kataoka, Jay Moskowitz, Yasmin Shaffi, and MariaStephens of the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

Ellen Bradburn of NCES, Laura Salganik of the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI),and Sally Dillow of AIR provided excellent technical and editorial advice. Invited reviewers whogave of their time and 'expertise include the members of the TIMSSR Technical Review Panel,Senta Raizen of the National Center for the Improvement of Science Education, John Dossey ofIllinois State University, Mary Lindquist of Columbus State University, and Arnold Goldstein,Patrick Rooney, Jeffrey Owings, Laura Lippman, and Marilyn McMillen, all of NCES.

Finally, the graphics and layout of the report would not have been possible without the creativ-ity of Brian Henigin and Karen Moyes of Westat.

ON THE COVER: World 2000 mural, Copyright 2000, International Child Art Foundation. Kindpermission to reproduce the artwork was granted by the International Child Art Foundation(ICAF), a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that nurtures, promotes, and cele-brates children's art and creativity locally, nationally, and internationally. The mural was createdon the National Mall in Washington, DC, on June 30, 1999, by child artists from 50 nationsaround the world. The original mural is 16 feet by 24 feet and was created as part of the ChildArt2000 Festival. For details, visit www.icaf.org.

iv

Ca WEINER'S SWE EhrThe Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR) is the latestchapter in one of the most comprehensive and rigorous international studies of school-ing and student achievement ever conducted. TIMSSR, conducted in 1999, comes 4years after TIMSS, and was designed to focus on the mathematics and science achieve-ment of eighth-grade students. NCES and the National Science Foundation (NSF)supported the United States' participation in TIMSSR to provide an update on themathematics and science performance of U.S. eighth-grade students originally detailedin the 1995 TIMSS study. This report, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of InternationalMathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, presentsinitial findings on how our eighth-grade students fared on TIMSSR and whether therehave been significant changes in achievement in the four years since TIMSS.

TIMSSR addresses the mission of NCES to gather and publish information on thestatus and progress of education in the United States and other nations, and continuesthe tradition of U.S. participation in international comparative studies of mathematicsand science education since the 1960s. TIMSSR represents an advancement in tradi-tional studies because it is the first international study specifically designed to trackchanges in achievement. The data on mathematics and science achievement collected inTIMSSR can be compared to the 1995 TIMSS data to identify changes between theeighth-grade students of yesterday and today, and relative changes between fourth-gradestudents 4 years earlier and their classmates 4 years later. While the same students didnot participate in both studies, a scientific sampling of the two groups of studentsprovides the most accurate picture available of their mathematics and science perform-ance from an international comparative perspective. Information from TIMSSR, incombination with what we have learned from the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP), provides an opportunity to take stock of mathematics and scienceperformance of our students.

One of the most important steps in making good decisions is to have good data.TIMSSR fills that need and is one of the many surveys and assessments conducted byNCES that can be used by U.S. educators, parents, policymakers, and business leaders tomake important decisions that will improve student learning. In addition to data onstudent performance, TIMSSR includes a wealth of information on the context withinwhich student learning takes place, such as teaching practices, students' study habits,teacher training and professional development, and school policies. Taken into consid-eration with other knowledge about the education systems of participating nations,TIMSS and TIMSSR provide a thoughtful and in-depth look into what our eighth-grade mathematics and science teachers teach and what our eighth-grade students learnin comparison to their counterparts in other nations of the world.

In conclusion, TIMSSR is a learning experience. The information presented in thisreport is presented in a straightforward way, and is not intended to determine whetherU.S. performance is good or bad. Rather, it is intended to provide you, the reader, with

the most accurate and up-to-date information available. The importance of this infor-mation, and its impact on American education, will depend on how it is used to improveour mathematics and science education. My colleagues and I invite everyone dedicatedto enhancing the quality of our nation's mathematics and science education to make thefullest possible use of this rich resource.

Gary W. Phillips December 2000Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics

vi 8

DMIErCH'S S'A EhrIt is critical that students in the United States achieve at high levels in mathematics andscience. The position of the U.S. in the world economy, the continuing demand for well-trained mathematicians and scientists, and the need for an informed citizenry able tomake intelligent public-policy decisions about important economic, medical, and envi-ronmental issues all depend upon it.

Studies such as TIMSSR help us place the achievement of U.S. students into an iriter-national context and thus provide important additional sources of information forevaluation of student abilities. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has co-fundedthe TIMSSR study and has actively participated in its management for this reason.

The careful design of the TIMSSR study provides an opportunity to analyze trends inthe achievement of eighth-grade students in the 23 countries that participated in both1995 and 1999. The results show that U.S. eighth-grade students continue to perform atthe international average in science and just below the international average in mathe-matics, with no statistically significant changes in their level of achievement from 1995to 1999. Indeed, this is true for most of the countries participating in both years,although some countries (e.g., Canada) did make significant gains. A thorough analysisof the reasons for these exceptional gains may provide insight into possible strategies forimproving education in the United States.

The timing of TIMSSR allows us to compare results across grades in the 17 nations thatparticipated in both the fourth-grade TIMSS in 1995 and the eighth-grade TIMSSR in1999. It is disturbing that the international ranking across these 17 nations of the U.S.eighth-grade students is relatively poor in both mathematics and science whencompared with that of U.S. fourth-graders in 1995. This confirms the disappointingshowing of our eighth-grade students in international comparisons, and demonstratesthat the decline in relative performance during the middle school years is a continuingand serious problem.

The initial TIMSS study indicated that student achievement is the result of multiplefactors. In schools, curriculum, teacher qualifications, and high expectations for allstudents are critical. Other factors, such as the educational resources available to thefamily, also may be key to student success. For example, achievement differences foundbetween student groups or by type of school may be narrowed or eliminated whenparent education and home resources are used in the analyses.

This first TIMSSR report does not analyze the relationships between contextual vari-ables and student achievement. However, it contains a preliminary comparison of theU.S. with other nations on a number of factors. For example, U.S. eighth-grade teachersare less likely to have majors and minors in mathematics and science than their coun-terparts in most other countries. This finding is consistent with other reports such asBefore It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission of Mathematicsand Science Teaching for the 21st Century.

vii

9

We look forward to further analysis of the data in this report, the release of data from 27U.S. benchmarking jurisdictions that engaged in TIMSSR as if they were separatenations, and the companion classroom video studies. These will enrich our under-standing of the factors that contribute to the disappointing achievement levels of U.S.eighth-grade students. Similar detail from the 1995 TIMSS study revealed the impor-tance of rigorous mathematics and science curricula and alerted researchers to the needfor teachers to have deep content knowledge in order to use those curricula successfullyand achieve high standards for all students.

NSF is pleased to have supported this important study and report. The data containedwithin the TIMSSR study will be used for years to understand issues and trends in theteaching of mathematics and science. Simply said, it is an invaluable resource.

Rita R. ColwellDirectorNational Science Foundation

1 0

December 2000

A aF CD1r1B1=6

Acknowledgements iv

Commissioner's Statement

NSF Director's Statement vii

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Why are international comparisons of education important? 2

Why a repeat of TIMSS? 2

What questions does this report address? 3

What issues does this report not address? 3

What is TIMSSR? 4

Which nations participated in TIMSSR 5

How was TIMSSR conducted? 5

Are the results from TIMSS and TIMSSR comparable? 7

How can we be sure the data are comparable across nations? 7

How does TIMSSR relate to other large-scale studies of mathematicsand science achievement? 8

How is the rest of the report organized? 9

Chapter 2: Mathematics and Science Achievement 11

Key Points 11

What do the test scores mean? 12

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders in 1999 12

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in 1999? 14

What percentage of our students scored at or above the internationaltop 10 percent benchmark in 1999? 14

What percentage of our students scored at or above the internationaltop 25 percent benchmark in 1999? 16

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in the different contentareas in 1999? 16

What were students asked to do on the TIMSSR assessment? 20

ix

How did different groups of students within the United States perform? 29

Was there a difference in the mathematics and science achievement ofU.S. eighth-grade boys and girls? 29

Did the achievement of U.S. students differ by race and ethnicity? 31

Did the achievement of students in U.S. public and nonpublic schoolsdiffer? 31

Did the achievement of U.S. students of different national origins differ? . . 31

Did the achievement of U.S. students differ by the level of their parents'education? 32

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders Between1995 and 1999 32

Did the performance of U.S. eighth-graders change between 1995and 1999? 32

Did the percentage of U.S. students at or above the internationaltop 10 percent benchmark change over the 4 years? 35

Did the percentage of U.S. students at or above the internationaltop 25 percent benchmark change over the 4 years? 38

Did the performance of U.S. eighth-graders in the content areaschange between 1995 and 1999? 38

Did the performance of U.S. population groups change between1995 and 1999? 39

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of the 1995 Fourth-GradeCohort in 1999 40

Has the relative performance of the United States changed betweenfourth and eighth grade over the 4 years? 40

Chapter 3: Teaching and Curriculum 43

Key Points 43

Teacher Preparation, Qualifications, and Professional Development 44

What educational backgrounds did our mathematics teachers havein 1999? 44

What educational backgrounds did our science teachers have in 1999? 46

How confident were mathematics teachers in their preparation toteach mathematics subjects? 47

How confident were science teachers in their preparation to teachscience subjects? 49

In what types of professional development activities did ourmathematics teachers participate? 49

In what types of professional development activities did our scienceteachers participate? 49

Did our mathematics teachers observe one another teaching? 50

Did our science teachers observe one another teaching? 50

1 2

What topics were emphasized in professional development activitiesfor U.S. mathematics teachers? 50

What topics were emphasized in professional development activitiesfor U.S. science teachers? 51

Curriculum, Content Coverage, and Emphases 51

Who sets the curriculum in TIMSSR nations? 52

How much of each TIMSSR content area did the intendedU.S. curriculum cover? 52

How much of the mathematics curriculum was taught? 53

How much of the science curriculum was taught? 54

Which topics were emphasized most in U.S. eighth-grade curricula? 54

Did the TIMSSR nations' curricula accommodate studentswith varying degrees of interests and abilities? 55

Classroom Practices and Activities 55

What kinds of skills did U.S. mathematics and science teachersreport asldng their students to use during lessons? 55

What activities did U.S. students report occurring in theirmathematics and science classes? 56

How often did U.S. students use calculators in their mathematics lessons? . . 58

Did students have access to computers and the Internet, and howdid schools, teachers, and students report using these tools? 58

How often did U.S. students discuss completed.homework or beginhomework in their mathematics and science classes? 60

How much time did U.S. students spend studying mathematics ordoing mathematics homework outside of school? 61

Chapter 4: Future Directions 63

Works Cited 67

Appendix 1: TIMSS Publications 71

Appendix 2: Technical Notes 75

Appendix 3: Supporting Data for Chapter 2 85

Appendix 4: Supporting Data for Chapter 3 107

Appendix 5: Comparisons of all TIMSS and TIMSSR Nations 115

xi

13

aF JES

A2.1: Coverage of target population, by nation: 1999 77

A2.2: Student and school samples and participation rates, by nation: 1999 78

A2.3: Number of items by item format in main survey 80

A2.4: Number of mathematics items by content area in main survey 81

A2.5: Number of science items by content area in main survey 81

A2.6: Fourth- and eighth-grade nations in TIMSS: 1995 83

A3.1: Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-gradestudents with standard errors, by nation: 1999 86

A3.2: Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade mathematics withstandard errors, by nation: 1999 87

A3.3: Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade science with standarderrors, by nation: 1999 88

A3.4: Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics content areaswith standard errors, by nation: 1999 89

A3.5: Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas withstandard errors, by nation: 1999 90

A3.6: Percent correct on mathematics assessment item examples withstandard errors, by nation: 1999 91

A3.7: Percent correct on science assessment item examples with standarderrors, by nation: 1999 92

A3.8: U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement withstandard errors, by selected characteristics: 1999 93

A3.9: Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-gradestudents with standard errors, by sex, by nation: 1999 94

A3.10: Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievement with standarderrors, by nation: 1995 and 1999 95

A3.11: Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement with standard errors,by nation: 1995 and 1999 96

A3.12: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSSR1999 top 10 percent international benchmark of mathematicsachievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 97

A3.13: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSSR1999 top 10 percent international benchmark of scienceachievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 98

A3.14: Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areas withstandard errors: 1995 and 1999 99

xii 1 4

A3.15: Comparisons of percent correct in science content areas with standard errors:1995 and 1999 101

A3.16: U.S. mathematics and science achievement with standard errors,by selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999 103

A3.17: Mathematics achievement of TIMSSR 1999 nations that participated in1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to the averageacross these nations with standard errors 104

A3.18: Science achievement of TIMSSR 1999 nations that participated in1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to the averageacross these nations with standard errors 105

A4.1: Organization of science instruction at grade 8, by nation: 1999 108

A4.2: Eighth-grade mathematics teachers' reports of their main areaof study with standard errors: 1999 109

A4.3: Eighth-grade science teachers' reports of their main area of studywith standard errors: 1999 109

A4.4: Teachers' beliefs about their preparation to teach mathematics andscience with standard errors: 1999 110

A4.5: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by teachers thatparticipated in professional development activities that emphasizeddifferent topics with standard errors: 1999 111

A4.6: Percentages of eighth-grade students "taught" mathematics contentareas with standard errors: 1999 111

A4.7: Percentages of eighth-grade students "taught" science content areaswith standard errors: 1999 111

A4.8: Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence of selected activitiesin their mathematics class "almost always" or "pretty often" withstandard errors: 1999 112

A4.9: Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence of selected activitiesin their science class "almost always" or "pretty often" withstandard errors: 1999 112

A4.10: Eighth-grade students' reports of access to computers and the Internetwith standard errors: 1999 112

A4.11: Eighth-grade students' reports of using computers in mathematicsand science classes "almost always" or "pretty often" with standarderrors: 1999 113

A4.12: Eighth-grade students' reports of discussing or beginning homeworkin mathematics and science classes "almost always" or "pretty often"with standard errors: 1999 113

A5.1: Mathematics and science achievement of TIMSSR and TIMSSnations with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 117

LrFigure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

Figure 12:

Figure 13:

Figure 14:

Figure 15:

Figure 16:

Figure 17:

Figure 18:

Figure 19:

Figure 20:

Figure 21:

Figure 22:

xv

OF .:FEIGURES

Participation in TIMSS and TIMSSR: 1995 and 1999 6

Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-gradestudents, by nation: 1999 13

Percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSSR 1999top 10 percent in mathematics and science achievement,by nation: 1999 15

Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics contentareas, by nation: 1999 17

Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas,by nation: 1999 19

Example mathematics item 1 20





Example science item 1 24






U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,by selected characteristics: 1999 30

Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievement, by nation:1995 and 1999 33

Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement, by nation: 1995and 1999 34

Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade mathematics studentsreaching the TIMSSR 1999 top 10 percent in mathematicsachievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999 36

Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade science students reachingthe TIMSSR 1999 top 10 percent in science achievement,by nation: 1995 and 1999 37

Changes in U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,by U.S. selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999 39

Figure 23: Mathematics achievement for TIMSSR 1999 nations thatparticipated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth gradesrelative to the average across these nations 41

Figure 24: Science achievement for TIMSSR 1999 nations that participatedin 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to theaverage across these nations 42

Figure 25: Eighth-grade mathematics teachers' reports on their main areaof study: 1999 45

Figure 26: Eighth-grade science teachers' reports on their main area ofstudy: 1999, 46

Figure 27: Teachers' beliefs about their preparation to teach mathematicsand science: 1999 48

Figure 28: Percentages of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by teachers thatparticipated in professional development activities thatemphasized different topics: 1999 51

Figure 29: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students "taught" mathematicscontent areas: 1999 53

Figure 30: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students "taught" science contentareas: 1999 54

Figure 31: Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence of selected activitiesin their mathematics class "almost always" or "pretty often": 1999 56

Figure 32: Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence of selected activitiesin their science class "almost always" or "pretty often": 1999 57

Figure 33: Eighth-grade students' reports of access to computers and theInternet: 1999 58

Figure 34: Eighth-grade students' reports on using computers in mathematicsand science classes "almost always" or "pretty often": 1999 59

Figure 35: Eighth-grade students' reports of discussing or beginning homeworkin mathematics and science classes "almost always" or

often": 1999 61

17

CHAR'INTRODUCTION

1 8

The National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S.Department of Education's Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (OERI), and theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES)joined together to support the participation of theUnited States in the Third InternationalMathematics and Science StudyRepeat(TIMSSR), a successor to the 1995 ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS).1 The joint research effort has producedrich information on the mathematics and scienceperformance of U.S. eighth-grade students. Thisreport, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons ofInternational Eighth-Grade Mathematics andScience Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995

and 1999 presents initial findings from theTIMSSR study.

Why are internationalcomparisons of educationimportant?International comparisons of student achieve-ment and various background factors related toteaching and learning have been conducted forover 30 years. Many observers believe that suchcomparisons can help policymakers, researchers,teachers, and parents understand what othernations do to further the educational achievementof their populations. Some also believe that if theUnited States wants to remain internationallycompetitive, we need to better understand howour students perform in critical areas such asmathematics and science. Moreover, some are ofthe opinion that international assessments are oneway of seeing what our national, state, and localstandards mean in a world context. In short, inter-national assessments can expand comparisons ofeducational achievement to other systems outsidethe United States; aid in our understanding of thepossible reasons for observed differences inachievement; document the many varied educa-tion and learning practices around the world; get asense of resources available to students in differentnations; and improve the study of education itself(Board on International Comparative Studies inEducation, 1990; Medrich and Griffith 1992).

Why a repeat of TIMSS?The series of NCES reports on the 1995 TIMSSstudy described the mathematics and scienceperformance of U.S. students in comparison totheir peers at three different grade levels (NCES1996, 1997c, 1998, 2000a).2 The 1995 TIMSSassessments revealed that U.S. fourth-gradersperformed well in both mathematics and sciencein comparison to students in other nations, U.S.eighth-grade students performed near the inter-national average in both mathematics and science,and U.S. twelfth-graders scored below the interna-tional average and among the lowest of the TIMSSnations in mathematics and science generalknowledge, as well as in physics and advancedmathematics.

The participation of the United States in TIMSSheightened the nation's interest in improvingmathematics and science education. Althoughwork on improving mathematics and scienceeducation began years before TIMSS, results fromTIMSS have had an impact on the way the UnitedStates thinks about mathematics and scienceeducation (Welch 2000).

TIMSSR continues the tradition of internationalcomparative study of mathematics and scienceeducation begun in the 1960s. The contribution ofTIMSSR is unique, however, because its designmakes it possible to track changes in achievementand certain background factors from the earlierTIMSS studya first for any international study.Moreover, TIMSSR is the first internationalassessment that provides some indication of thepace of educational change across nations,informing expectations as to what can beachieved. TIMSSR provides valuable informationon the state of education in the United States andother nations in 1999.

Thirty-eight nations chose to compare the mathe-matics and science performance of their studentsin 1999. However, unlike TIMSS, the 1999TIMSSR study focused on eighth-grade studentsonly. TIMSSR allows the United States tocompare the achievement of its eighth-graders in

ITIMSS collected data during the 1994-95 school year. TIMSSR collected data during the 1998-99 school year. For convenience,reference will be made to 1995 and 1999, respectively, throughout this report.

2See appendix 1 for a brief list of TIMSS-related publications.

19

the original TIMSS to the scores of its eighth-graders four years later in TIMSSR. It alsoprovides an opportunity for the United States tocompare the relative performance of a cohort offourth-graders in 1995 to the relative performanceof a cohort of eighth-graders 4 years later in 1999.3

In short, TIMSSR should help us understand theoverall progress that our schools, teachers, andstudents are making toward achieving excellencein mathematics and science.

What questions does thisreport address?This report highlights initial findings on theperformance of U.S. eighth-grade students relativeto students in other nations on the TIMSSRassessment. This report also describes the mathe-matics and science performance of students inparticipating nations at two points in time: 1995and 1999.

In general, this report addresses the followingquestions:

El How does the mathematics and scienceknowledge of U.S. eighth-grade studentscompare to that of students in other nations?

El Has the level of mathematics and scienceknowledge of eighth-grade students changedsince 1995, and has the relative internationalstanding of U.S. eighth-grade studentschanged in the 4 years since the originalTIMSS?

. El How does the relative performance of U.S.eighth-grade students in 1999 compare to therelative performance of U.S. fourth-gradestudents 4 years earlier, in 1995?

El How do nations compare on education-related background factors studied inTIMSSR?

Performance in the United States is presentedrelative to that of other nations that participatedin each assessment.4 Comparisons in this reportare made among the 38 nations that participatedin TIMSSR in 1999; among 23 nations thatparticipated in both TIMSS and TIMSSR at theeighth-grade level; and among the 17 nations thatparticipated at the fourth-grade level in TIMSSand at the eighth-grade level in TIMSSR.5 Thisreport is based on the comparative data publishedin the reports TIMSS 1999 InternationalMathematics Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat ofthe Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy at the Eighth Grade (Mullis et al. 2000) andTIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings

from IEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade

(Martin et al. 2000).

What issues does this reportnot address?Findings from comparisons between the results ofTIMSS and TIMSSR cannot be interpreted toindicate the success or failure of mathematics andscience reform efforts in the United States.TIMSSR was designed to specifications detailedin the TIMSS curriculum frameworks (Robitailleet al. 1993). International experts developed theTIMSS curriculum frameworks to portray thestructure of the intended school mathematics andscience curricula from many different nations, notspecifically the United States. Thus, when inter-preting the findings, it is important to take intoaccount the mathematics and science curriculalikely encountered by U.S. students in school.TIMSS and TIMSSR results are most useful whenthey are considered in light of other knowledgeabout education systems, including not onlycurricula, but also factors such as trends in educa-tion reform, changes in the school-agepopulations, and societal demands and expecta-tions.

3Comparisons of fourth- and eighth-graders between TIMSS and TIMSSR are made on the basis of two sets of cross-sectional,nationally representative samples.

Varticipants in TIMSS and TIMSSR are referred to as nations throughout the text. However, several of the participants are notindependent jurisdictions, as is the case for Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region (SAR), Belgium-Flemish, and ChineseTaipei.

5Throughout the text "grade 8" refers to the middle-school grade sampled for TIMSS-R as well as the higher of the two middle-school grades sampled for TIMSS; "grade 4" refers to the higher of the two elementary school grades sampled for TIMSS. This isan accurate characterization of the samples for the United States and many of the other nations. Detailed information on the gradessampled can be found in appendix 2 of this report for TIMSSR and in Beaton et al. (1996a and 1996b) for TIMSS.

3

20

Change efforts in the United States began yearsbefore TIMSS and TIMSSR. These efforts tocreate change in U.S. schools have been under-taken at the state and local levels, making itdifficult to determine by solely examiningnational-level statistics the extent to which theseefforts have been implemented and the degree anddepth of the changes made. The 4 years betweenTIMSS and TIMSSR is a relatively short amountof time to expect to see significant change. Finally,this report focuses on variability in achievementamong nations. It is important to keep in mindthat the range of achievement observed amongnations could also be expected to be observedwithin the United States (NCES 1997a and 1997b;Johnson and Siegendorf 1998). Thus, as will beshown later in the report, there are U.S. eighth-grade students who perform among thetop-performing students in the world, and thereare U.S. eighth-grade students who performamong the lowest performing students in theworld.

This report should also not be construed tosuggest that specific school policies, professionaldevelopment techniques, instructional practices,curricula or change strategies, or combinations ofthese will lead to higher levels of achievement. Thefactors that may contribute to high achievementcan vary from nation to nation. Nonetheless,TIMSSR provides valuable information that canhelp the United States reflect on its own perform-ance relative to other nations as we strive toimprove educational opportunities for all

students.

What is TIMSSR?TIMSSR is the fourth comparison of mathemat-ics and science achievement carried out by theInternational Association for the Evaluation ofEducational Achievement (IEA). IEA conductedstudies of mathematics and science as separatesubjects at various times during the 1960s, 1970s,and 1980s. The United States participated in eachof these studies. The Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) collecteddata during the 1994-95 school year. TIMSSprovided an update on the performance of U.S.students in mathematics and science during themid-1990s and a starting point for a regular cycle

of international assessments in mathematics andscience. Funded by the U.S. Department ofEducation, NSF, the Government of Canada, theWorld Bank, and participating nations, TIMSSwas the first IEA study to combine both mathe-matics and science in the same assessment. TIMSSwas also the largest and most comprehensiveinternational study of educational achievementever undertaken.

TIMSSR follows the earlier TIMSS study by 4years and focused on the mathematics and scienceachievement of eighth-grade students. Mostimportantly perhaps, TIMSSR provides a seconddata point in a regular cycle of internationalassessments of mathematics and science that areplanned to chart trends in achievement over time,much like the regular cycle of national assessmentsin this nation, such as the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP), or longitudinalstudies such as the National EducationalLongitudinal Study (NELS:88).

The United States sponsored three additionalcomponents of TIMSSR that will enrich ourknowledge of education in an internationalcontext:

o TIMSSR Benchmarking ProjectTwenty-seven states, districts, and consortia ofdistricts throughout the United States partici-pated as their own "nations" in this project,following the same guidelines as the partici-pating nations. When the findings from theBenchmarking Project are released in April2001, these 27 participating jurisdictions willbe able to assess their comparative interna-tional standing and judge their mathematicsand science programs in an internationalcontext.

0 Videotape Classroom Studythe first TIMSSVideotape Classroom Study examined eighth-grade mathematics teaching in three nations.Building on the work of the first TIMSS video-tape study (Stigler et al. 1999), the TIMSSRVideotape Classroom Study has beenexpanded in scope to examine nationalsamples of eighth-grade mathematics andscience instructional practices in sevennations. The study is designed to presentnational-level portraits of mathematics andscience teaching practices that can provide amore detailed context for understanding

mathematics and science teaching andlearning in the classroom. The first set ofresults from the Videotape Classroom Study isanticipated in late 2001.

El NAEP/TIMSSR Linking StudyA subsam-ple of students taking the 2000 state NAEPmathematics and science assessment also tookthe TIMSSR assessment. This provides anopportunity to compare students' perform-ance on NAEP to their performance onTIMSSR, and allows for estimates of howstates participating in NAEP 2000 would haveperformed had they participated in TIMSSR.Results from the TIMSSR BenchmarkingProject will be used to check the results of thislinking study. Results will be released in late2001.

With many states and districts creating contentand performance standards targeted at boostingstudent achievement to "world class" levels inmathematics and science, the BenchrnarkingProject can provide reliable data on how state anddistrict students compare internationally in theseareas. Results from the TIMSSR VideotapeClassroom Study should also add to our under-standing of mathematics and science instructionalpractices in nations with high student achieve-ment levels on assessments such as TIMSS.Findings from the NAEP/TIMSSR Linking Studywill provide states the opportunity to comparetheir students to their peers in other nations.

Which nations participated inTIMSSR?The IEA invited all nations that participated in the1995 TIMSS as well as other nations to participatein the 1999 TIMSSR. Interested nations met atinternational meetings where study plans andguidelines were discussed. Thirty-eight nationscollected data for TIMSSR, including 26 that hadparticipated in TIMSS and 12 that were participat-ing for the first time. Therefore, depending on theanalysis, the number of nations being comparedbetween TIMSS and TIMSSR will change. The 38nations that participated in TIMSSR are shownin figure 1. In addition, figure 1 lists the nationsthat participated in both TIMSS and TIMSSR.

GHAPTER 1-0NTRODUCTIO

How was TIMSSR conducted?The lEA, a Netherlands-based organization ofeducation and research institutions from itsmember nations, conducted TIMSSR. The IEAdelegated responsibility for the overall coordina-tion and management of the project to theInternational Study Center at Boston College. TheUnited States, the World Bank, and participatingnations paid for and carried out data collectionaccording to international guidelines.

NCES and NSF funded the collection of data inthe United States and also contributed towardsupport of the international project. OERI hascontributed additional funding towards the U.S.portion of the study. Westat, Inc., a privateresearch firm, handled the data collection in theUnited States under contract to the Department ofEducation. To help guide the study, NCES andNSF established a TIMSSR Technical ReviewPanel (TRP). The members of the TRP are expertsin mathematics and science education, assess-ment, and international comparative studies.

TIMSSR included two types of data collectioninstruments: mathematics and science assessmentitems in multiple-choice (77 percent) and free-response (23 percent) formats; and school,teacher, and student questionnaires that requestedinformation to help provide a context for theperformance scores. An international panel ofassessment and content experts, following thesame assessment framework established forTIMSS, developed the mathematics and scienceitems in TIMSSR. Like the TIMSS assessmentitems, the TIMSSR items represent a range ofmathematics and science topics that are includedin the curricula of many different nations and,thus, not aligned to any particular curriculum. Seeappendix 2 for more details on the composition ofthe TIMSS and TIMSSR assessments and howthe achievement scores were derived.

22

5

Figure 1.Participation in TIMSS and TIMSSR: 1995 and 1999

TotalNations

TIMSS-R nations (1999)8th radeg

TIMSS-R nations thatparticipated at 8th grade in

TIMSS (1995)

TIMSS-R nations thatparticipated at 4th grade in

TIMSS (1995)Australia Australia AustraliaBelgium-Flemishi Belgium-FlemishiBulgaria BulgariaCanada Canada CanadaChileChinese TaipeiCyprus Cyprus CyprusCzech Republic Czech Republic Czech RepublicEngland England EnglandFinlandHong Kong SAR Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong SARHungary Hungary HungaryIndonesia

.

Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic ofIsrael IsraelItaly Italy2 Italy2Japan Japan JapanJordanKorea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic ofLatvia-LSS3 Latvia-LSS3 Latvia-LSS3Lithuania LithuaniaMacedonia, Republic ofMalaysiaMoldovaMoroccoNetherlands Netherlands NetherlandsNew Zealand New Zealand New ZealandPhilippinesRomania RomaniaRussian Federation Russian FederationSingapore r Singapore SingaporeSlovak Republic Slovak RepublicSlovenia Slovenia SloveniaSouth Africa South AfricaThailand ThailandTunisiaTurkeyUnited States United States United States

38 26 17

1The Flemish and French educational systems in Belgium participated separately in TIMSS 1995. The Flemisheducational system in Belgium participated in TIMSS-R 1999.

2Italy was unable to provide the International Study Center at Boston College with its data in time for these data to beincluded in the international reports for both the fourth and eighth grade in TIMSS 1995. However, its data forTIMSS 1995 are included in this report.

3Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.NOTE: Only nations that completed the necessary steps for their data to appear in the reports from the InternationalStudy Center at Boston College are listed.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit A.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

23

The questionnaires asked for information ontopics such as students' attitudes and beliefs aboutlearning, study habits and homework, and theirlives both in and outside of school; teachers' atti-tudes and beliefs about teaching and learning,teaching assignments, class size and organization,instructional practices, and participation in

professional development activities; and princi-pals' viewpoints on policy and budgetresponsibilities, curriculum and instructionissues, student behavior problems, as well asdescriptions of the organization of schools andcourses.

Both public and nonpublic school students in allparticipating nations received the TIMSSRassessments and questionnaires. Most nations,including the United States, conducted the assess-ment 2 to 3 months before the end of the 1998-99school year. Students with special needs anddisabilities that would make it very difficult forthem to take the test were excused from the assess-ment as accommodations were not offered inTIMSSR in the United States. Each participatingnation documented such exclusions, including theUnited States. Each nation translated the assess-ments and questionnaires into the primarylanguage or languages of instruction. In theUnited States, all materials were in English. Thestudent assessment portion required approxi-mately one and a half hours to complete.

All participating nations drew nationally represen-tative samples of students. In the United States, thesample consisted of 221 schools and 9,072 eighth-grade students, which ensured a representativesample of eighth-grade students in the UnitedStates as a whole. Detailed information onsampling is provided in appendix 2.

Are the results from TIMSSand TIMSSR comparable?The data collected for TIMSS in 1995 and the datacollected for TIMSSR in 1999 are comparablebecause comparability was built into the designand implementation. Through a careful process ofreview, analysis, and refinement, the assessmentand questionnaire items were purposefully devel-oped and field tested for similarity and for reliablecomparisons between TIMSS and TIMSSR. After

careful review of all available data, including a testfor item reliability between old and new items, theTIMSS and TIMSSR assessments were found tobe very similar in format, content, and difficultylevel. Moreover, TIMSS and TIMSSR data are onthe same eighth-grade scale to allow for reliablecomparisons between the two eighth-gradecohorts over time. Procedures for conducting theassessments were the same. Appendix 2 containsmore detailed information on these and othertechnical aspects of TIMSSR.

How can we be sure the dataare comparable acrossnations?TIMSSLR continues the tradition of fair andaccurate international comparisons of studentachievement and other educational factors. It isnot a comparison of other nations' best studentsto our nation's average students. Moreover,through the refinement of the scaling process thaiallows comparisons witliin and across nations, theTIMSS and TIMSSR achievement scores can bereliably compared. to ensure the comparability ofdata across nations, the International StudyCenter at Boston College instituted a series ofstrict quality-control procedures. National schooland student samples were rigorously reviewed forbias and international comparability by theTIMSSR Sampling Referee. A professional trans-lation agency verified the accuracy of translatedmaterials. Project coordinators in each nationreceived thorough training in data collection andscoring procedures and their work was monitoredfor scoring reliability. Quality control staffconducted site visits in each participating nationduring the testing period to further ensure thatinternational data collection procedures werefollowed. Data from each nation were extensivelyreviewed for internal and cross-country consis-tency.

Nations collected data from a representativenational sample of students, but were permitted tosupplement their student samples to allow for theanalysis ()Hata by variables of national interest. Toobtain reliable comparisons among nations, thedata were appropriately weighted to account forsampling designs. Sampling and participation rate

24

7

irregularities arose in some nations. These irregu-larities are clearly noted in this and otherTIMSSR reports. The United States met all inter-national sampling and participation guidelines.More detailed information on quality control canbe found in appendix 2 and the TIMSS 1999Technical Report from Boston College (Martin and

Gregory 2000).

Finally, it should be noted that in addition to the38 nations that participated in TIMSSR in 1999,this report separately discusses the 23 that partici-pated in TIMSS at the eighth-grade level,6 and the17 TIMSS-R nations that participated in TIMSS atthe fourth-grade level (see figure 1).7 In order tomake a fair comparison of how U.S. eighth-gradestudents in 1999 compared to the eighth-gradersof 1995 or the fourth-graders of 1995, analyseswere conducted only among those nations thatparticipated in both TIMSS and TIMSSR.

How does TIMSSR relate toother large-scale studies ofmathematics and scienceachievement?TIMSSR is one of several large-scale studiesdesigned to examine the mathematics and scienceperformance of students. Two other large-scalestudies of mathematics and science achievementare the National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) and the Program forInternational Student Assessment (PISA). NAEP isan ongoing program that has reported on themathematics and science achievement of U.S.students for some 30 years. PISA is a relatively newinternational project and will report results for thefirst time in late 2001. These three assessmentswere designed with different purposes in mind,

and this is evident in the types of assessment itemsas well as the content areas and topics covered ineach assessment.

TIMSSR and NAEP assess students at the eighthgrade. TIMSSR is based on the curricula thatstudents in participating nations are likely to haveencountered by grade 8, while NAEP is based onan expert consensus of what students in theUnited States should know and be able to do invarious academic subjects at that grade. PISA, onthe other hand, focuses on 15-year-old students(most often tenth-graders in the United States)and is designed to measure students' mathematicsand science literacythat is, students' ability torespond to "real life" situations both in andoutside of school. In contrast, TIMSSR andNAEP tend to focus on mathematics and scienceas it is generally presented in classrooms and text-books.

All three assessments cover a range of mathemat-ics and science content areas and topics, but todifferent degrees. In mathematics, for example,TIMSSR appears to place more emphasis onnumber sense, properties and operations than theother two studies; PISA tends to emphasize dataanalysis more than the other two studies; andNAEP appears to distribute its focus across thecontent areas included in its assessment frame-work more than the other two studies. In science,TIMSSR appears to emphasize physical sciencesmore than the other two assessments; PISA seemsto have a stronger emphasis on earth science thanTIMSSR and NAEP; and NAEP appears todistribute most science items among three contentareas: physical science, earth science, and lifescience. As findings from these studies arereleased, it is important to understand the differ-ences and similarities among them to be able tomake sense of the findings in relation to eachother.

6Twenty-six nations participated in the eighth-grade level in TIMSS 1995 and TIMSSR 1999. Three of the 26 nationsIsrael, SouthAfrica, and Thailandexperienced significant difficulties with meeting international sampling or participation guidelines in 1995.Therefore, these 3 nations are not included in analyses comparing achievement at the eighth-grade level between 1995 and 1999,nor are they included in the international averages associated with these comparative analyses.

70f the 42 nations that participated in TIMSS 1995 at the eighth-grade level, 26 also participated in TIMSSR. Of the 26 nationsthat participated in TIMSS 1995 at the fourth-grade level, 17 also participated in TIMSSR. See table A2.6 in appendix 2 for a com-plete list of nations.

8

How is the rest of the reportorganized?The remainder of the report includes three addi-tional chapters and several appendices:

Chapter 2 describes the relative performance ofU.S. eighth-grade students in mathematics andscience in comparison to their peers in participat-ing nations. The chapter is divided into threesections. First, achievement results for TIMSSRare described for the United States and the other37 participating nations, including overall mathe-matics and science achievement, achievement infive mathematics content areas and six sciencecontent areas, and proportions of students in thetop 10 percent and top 25 percent of all students.Sample mathematics and science items areincluded to acquaint the reader with the TIMSSRassessment. The second section focuses on the 2 3nations that participated in TIMSS and TIMSSRat the eighth-grade level, describing changes inmathematics and science achievement over the 4intervening years. The third section compares the17 nations that participated in fourth-gradeTIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSSR, examiningchanges in the relative standing of the U.S. 1995fourth-graders and 1999 eighth-graders.

Chapter 3 focuses on the education-relatedcontextual factors related to teaching and curricu-lum that were examined in TIMSSR. Thechapter is divided into four sections. The first

section describes mathematics and science teacherpreparation, qualifications, and ongoing profes-sional development activities. The next sectionexamines the curriculum in the participatingnations, including the topics covered and empha-sized in mathematics and science lessons. Thethird section provides information on classroompractices as reported by teachers and students.The chapter ends with a brief discussion of howmuch time eighth-grade students spend studyingmathematics and science outside of school.

Chapter 4 discusses future directions that theanalyses of TIMSS and TIMSSR data could take.Several appendices are included in this report toprovide additional information on the technicalaspects of the study as well as more detailed infor-mation on the analyses presented in the mainchapters of the report.

In addition to the text of this report, supplementalinformation is provided in the five appendices.Appendix 1 contains a selection of publicationsthat have been produced in relation to TIMSS1995. Appendix 2 discusses several technicalaspects of the TIMSS and TIMSSR studies. Thetables in Appendices 3 and 4 provide additionalinformation on the figures in Chapters 2 and 3,respectively. Lastly, Appendix 5 provides a supple-

mental table containing comparisons ofmathematics and science achievement of the 54nations that participated at the eighth-grade levelin either TIMSS, TIMSSR, or both studies.

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

KEY PODries

In 1999, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the international average in mathematics and science among

the 38 participating nations.

Between 1995 and 1999, there was no change in eighth-grade mathematics or science achievement

in the United States. Among the 22 other nations, there was no change in mathematics achievement

for 18 nations, and no change in'science achievement for 17 nations.

There was an increase in mathematics achievement among U.S. eighth-grade black students between

1995 and 1999. There was no change in science achievement for this group of students over the

same period. U.S. eighth-grade white and Hispanic students showed no change in their mathematics

or science achievement over the 4 years.

No differences in performance were found between U.S. eighth-grade girls and boys in mathematics

in 1999, but boys outperformed girls in science.

The relative performance of the United States in mathematics and'science was lower for eighth-

graders in 1999 than it was for the cohort of fourth-graders 4 years earlier in 1995.

27

GHAPTER 2-ACHIEVEMENT

12

As indicated in the previous chapter, the primaryintent of conducting TIMSS in 1995 andTIMSSR in 1999 was to take the first step inmeasuring change in both achievement andeducational context at the international level. Thischapter describes the mathematics and scienceachievement of students in the participatingnations. It is divided into three main sections, inthe following order:

El findings for the 38 nations that participated inTIMSSR;

El findings for the 23 nations that participated atthe eighth grade in both TIMSS andTIMSSR1; and

o findings for the 17 nations that participated atthe fourth grade in TIMSS and eighth grade inTIMSSR.

To assist the reader, the number of nations beingcompared in each analysis will be made explicit.This is important, as the number of nationsincluded in the international average can varydepending on the frame of reference in theanalysis.

What do the test scores mean?TIMSSR test scores are on a scale of 1 to 1,000,with a standard deviation of 100.2 TIMSSR testscores indicate where on the scale a group ofstudents would fall. In general, the higher thescore on TIMSS or TIMSSR, the more itemscorrectly answered by a larger percentage of anation's students. The lower the score on TIMSSor TIMSSR, the fewer items correctly answeredby a larger percentage of a nation's students.TIMSS and TIMSSR used item response theoryto create the scale scores. The scales used in TIMSSand TIMSSR account for differences in the diffi-culty of items and allow students' performance tobe summarized on a common metric. The scalesare thus a simplified method for making compar-isons between nations. The scales measureachievement on mathematics and science items

judged by international experts to be appropriatefor eighth-grade students in the participatingnations. Thus, higher performance indicates thatstudents are more proficient at middle-schoolmathematics or science.

For all analyses presented in this report, differ-ences between averages or percentages that arestatistically significant are discussed usingcomparative terms such as "higher" and "lower."Differences that are not statistically significantlyare discussed as "similar to" or "not differentfrom" each other. To determine whether differ-ences reported are statistically significant,two-tailed t-tests, at the .05 level, were used.Bonferroni adjustments are made when more thantwo groups are compared simultaneously (e.g.,black, white, and Hispanic students).

'IKE MATHEMATICS AO

SCIIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF

EOGEK°12RAIDERS IN 1999

This section presents results for the 38 nations thatparticipated in TIMSSR in 1999.

National averages for mathematics and sciencefrom the 1999 TIMSSR assessment are presented,beginning with figure 2. Though tempting, it isnot correct to report U.S. scores by rank. _This isbecause the process of estimating each nation'sscore from the sample of students who took thetest produces only an estimate of the range withinwhich the nation's real score lies. To conduct a faircomparison of the United States to other nations,nations are grouped according to whether theirperformance is higher than, not different from, orlower than the United States, given the margin oferror for the survey. Nations with a nationalaverage higher than the U.S. average are indicatedin the uppermost band of shading. Nations with anational average lower than the U.S. average are

1Twenty-six nations participated in TIMSS and TIMSSR at the eighth grade. Of the 26 nations, 3 nations experienced significantirregularities in their participation in 1995: Israel, South Africa, and Thailand. Findings for the other 23 nations are reported here.

2Because the standard deviation is 100, raw differences between scores can be translated into effect sizes by dividing the raw differ-ence by the standard deviation. For example, if the raw difference between the scores of two nations is 75, this translates to an effectsize of 0.75 in TIMSSR. The TIMSSR scale was developed once a majority of nations had submitted data. At that time, the meanwas set to 500, with a standard deviation of 100. Once the remaining data was submitted by nations, it was fitted to the developedscale, resulting in an actual mean slightly different than 500.

28

indicated in the lowermost band of shading.Nations with a national average not different fromthe U.S. average are shown unshaded and, for themost part, lie between these shaded areas. Notethat the international averagethe average of the

l'HAPTER 2-AGHIEIIEMENT

national average scores for all nations combinedcan be compared to the U.S. average in the sameway as a national average and is shaded to indicatethe significance of the difference.

Figure 2.Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade students, by nation: 1999

HATOMEATIONation AverageSingapore 604Korea, Republic of 587Chinese Taipei 585Hong Kong SAR 582Japan 579Belgium-Flemish 558Netherlands 540Slovak Republic 534Hungary 532Canada 531Slovenia 530Russian Federation 526Australia 525Finland1 520Czech Republic 520Malaysia 519Bulgaria 511

Latvia-LSS2 505United States 502England 496New Zealand 491

Lithuania3 482

Italy 479Cyprus 476Romania 472Moldova 469Thailand 467(Israel) 466Tunisia 448Macedonia, Republic of 447Turkey 429Jordan 428Iran, Islamic Republic of 422Indonesia 403Chile 392Philippines 345Morocco 337South Africa 275

Internationalaverage of 38 nations 487

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. averageAverage does not differ significantly from the U.S. averageAverage is significantly lower than the U.S. average

1The shading of Finland may appear incorrect; however, statistically, its placement is correct.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematicsand Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 InternationalMathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1.Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

=MCINation AverageChinese Taipei 569Singapore 568Hungary 552Japan 550Korea, Republic of 549Netherlands 545Australia 540Czech Republic 539England 538Finland 535Slovak Republic 535Belgium-Flemish 535Slovenia 533Canada 533Hong Kong SAR 530Russian Federation 529Bulgaria 518

United States 515New Zealand 510Latvia-LSS2 503

Italy 493Malaysia 492

Lithuania3 488Thailand 482Romania 472(Israel) 468Cyprus 460Moldova 459Macedonia, Republic of 458Jordan 450Iran, Islamic Republic of 448Indonesia 435Turkey 433Tunisia 430Chile 420Philippines 345Morocco 323South Africa 243

Internationalaverage of 38 nations 488

1 3

CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT

14

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in 1999?In mathematics, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded theinternational average, outperforming their peersin 17 of the 37 other TIMSSR nations, perform-ing similarly to students in 6 nations, andperforming lower than their peers in 14 nations.In 1999, the U.S. average score was 502, with other

nations' average mathematics scores ranging from604 for Singapore to 275 for South Africa. Amongthe top performing nations in 1999 were five Asian

industrialized nationsSingapore, Korea,

Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, and Japan.Comparisons with five of the Group of Eight (G8)nations are possible as well: in 1999, the UnitedStates performed significantly better in mathe-matics than Italy, performed similarly to England,but was outperformed by Japan, Canada, and theRussian Federation.3

In science, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the inter-national average, outperforming their peers in 18of the 37 other nations, performing similarly tostudents in 5 nations, and performing lower thantheir peers in 14 nations. In 1999, the U.S. averagescore was 515, with other nations' average sciencescores' ranging from 569 for Chinese Taipei to 243for South Africa. Among the top performingnations in science were four Asian industrializednationsChinese Taipei, Singapore, Korea, andJapanand Hungary. Comparisons with otherparticipating G8 nations show that the UnitedStates. performed significantly better ..than Italy,performed on par with the Russian Federation,but performed lower than Japan, England andCanada.

When looking across mathematics 'and scienceachievement in 1999, 12 nations outp.erformed theUnited States in both subjects: Australia, Belgium-Flemish, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Finland,Hungary, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,Singapore, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia.

Likewise, three nations performed similarly to theUnited States in both subjects: Bulgaria, Latvia-LSS, and New Zealand. Finally, U.S. eighth-gradersoutperformed their peers in 17 nations acrossboth mathematics and science in 1999.4

What percentage of ourstudents scored at or abovethe international top 10percent benchmark in 1999?Average achievement scores indicate how theaverage student performs, but say little about theperformance of the nation's students at differentlevels. International benchmarks were devised toprovide a view of what proportion of a nation'sstudents scored at or near various levels ofachievement. These international benchmarksgive a general indication of the relative distribu-tion of scores within and across nations. Forexample, if a nation has a high average score and alarge percentage of its students at or above theupper international benchmarks, this indicatesthat the nation's students are concentrated amongthe highest achieving students internationally.

TIMSSR uses four benchmarks: the top 10percent, the top 25 percent, the upper 50 percent,and the upper 75 percent. Each benchmark isbased on all eighth-graders from all 38 nations in1999. This report discusses two benchmarks indetail: the top 10 percent benchmark, which refersto the cutoff score that separates the top 10percent of all students in 1999, and the similar top25 percent benchmark. In 1999, the top 10 percentof all students scored 616 or higher in mathemat-ics and 616 or higher in science (data not shown).The top 25 percent of all students scored 555 orhigher in mathematics and 558 or higher inscience (data not shown). Detailed information onthese two benchmarks, as well as the upper 50 andupper 75 percent benchmarks, is found in tablesA3.2 (mathematics) and A3.3 (science) in

appendix 3.

3The United Kingdom, a member of the G8, is represented here by the score for England. France and Germany, the other two mem-bers of the G8, did not participate in TIMSSR.

4An analysis of the overall mathematics and science achievement of the 54 nations that participated in TIMSS or TIMSSR is pro-vided in appendix 5.

3 0

In mathematics, 9 percent of U.S. eighth-gradersscored 616 or higher, placing them among the top10 percent of all eighth-graders in the 38 nationsin 1999. This is a lower percentage of studentsthan in 8 nations, a similar percentage as in 13nations, and a higher percentage than in 16nations (figure 3). In contrast, 46 percent of

Singapore's eighth-grade students scored 616 orhigher in mathematics in 1999. Among the fiveparticipating G8 nations, only Japan had a signifi-cantly higher percentage of students who scored ator above the international top 10 percent bench-mark (33 percent) than the United States inmathematics.

Figure 3.Percentages of eighth-grade students reaching theTIMSS-R 1999 top 10 percent in mathematics and scienceachievement, by nation: 1999

MITHIMAIrE$Nation PercentSingapore 46Chinese Taipei 41Korea, Republic of 37Hong Kong SAR 33Japan 33Belgium-Flemish 23Hungary 16

Sloven i at 15

Russian Federation 15

Netherlands 14

Slovak Republic 14

Australia 12

Malaysia 12

Canada 12

Czech Republic 11

Bulgaria 11

United States 9

New Zealand 8

Latvia-LSS2 7

England 7

Finland 6

Romania 5

Italy' 5

(Israel)1 5

Thailand 4

Lithuania3 4

Moldova 4

Cyprus 3

Jordan 3

Macedonia, Republic of 3

Indonesia 2

Tu rkey 1

Iran, Islamic Republic of 1

Chile 1

Tunisia 0South Africa 0Philippines 0Morocco 0


1The shading of Italy, Israel, and Slovenia in mathematics may appear incorrect; however, statistically, their placement is correct.


3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next schoolyear.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematicsand Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 InternationalMathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6.Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

=MEMNation PercentSingapore 32Chinese Taipei 31

Hungary 22Korea, Republic of 22England 19

Australia 19

Japan 19

Russian Federation 17

Czech Republic 17

Netherlands 16

Slovenia 16

United States 15

Finland 14

Slovak Republic 14

Bulgaria 14

Canada 14

New Zealand 12

Belgium-Flemish 11

Hong Kong SAR 10

Italy 7

Latvia- LSS2 7

(Israel) 7

Malaysia 6

Romania 6

Lithuania3 6

Jordan 4

Moldova 4Macedonia, Republic of 4Thailand 3

Cyprus 2


Indonesia 1

Chile 1

Turkey 1

Philippines 1

South Africa 0Tunisia 0Morocco 0

31

15


16

In science, 15 percent of U.S. eighth-gradersscored 616 or higher, placing them among the top10 percent of all students internationally in 1999.This was a lower percentage of students than in 4nations, a similar percentage as in 13 nations; anda higher percentage than in 20 nations (figure 3).In contrast, 32 percent of Singapore's eighth-gradestudents scored 616 or higher in science in 1999.Among the five participating G8 nations, nonehad a significantly higher percentage of studentswho scored at or above the international top 10percent benchmark than the United States inscience.

What percentage of ourstudents scored at or abovethe international top 25percent benchmark in 1999?An examination of the top 25 percent interna-tional benchmark offers yet another opportunityto understand the performance of our eighth-grade students in mathematics and science in1999. In mathematics, 28 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students scored 555 or higher, placing themamong the top 25 percent of all students interna-tionally in 1999. This was a lower percentage thanin 11 nations, a similar percentage as in 9 nations,and a higher percentage than in 17 nations. Incontrast, 75 percent of eighth-grade students inSingapore scored 555 or higher in mathematics in1999.

In science, 34 percent of U.S. eighth-gradersscored 558 or higher, placing them among the top25 percent of all students internationally in 1999.This was a lower percentage than in 5 nations, asimilar percentage as in 13 nations, and a higherpercentage than in 19 nations. In contrast, 58percent of eighth-grade students in Chinese Taipeiscored 558 or higher in science in 1999.

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in thedifferent content areas in1999?An overall score is a useful summary of generalmathematics and science performance. However,mathematics and science comprise a range ofcontent areas that can be conceptually distinct,differ in levels of complexity, enter the curriculumat different times, and be taught by differentteachers in separate courses. TIMSSR assessedfive mathematics and six science content areas:

Mathematics'

D Fractions and number sense

Measurement

o Data representation, analysis, and probability

O Geometry

o Algebra

Science

O Earth science

O Life science

O Physics

o Chemistry

O Environmental and resource issues

O Scientific inquiry and the nature of science

U.S. eighth-graders' average score was higher thanthe international average in three of the five math-ematics content areas assessed in 1999: fractionsand number sense; data representation, analysis,and probability; and algebra. They performed atthe international average in measurement andgeometry.

Figure 4 displays mathematics content area scoresfor all 38 nations based on the TIMSSR assess-ment. Six nations outperformed the United Statesacross all five mathematics content areas in 1999:Belgium-Flemish, Chinese Taipei, Hong KongSAR, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. New Zealand isthe only nation in TIMSSR that performedsimiarly to the United States in all five contentareas. Seven nations performed below the UnitedStates in all five mathematics content areas: Chile,

5TIMSS 1995 included proportionality among the mathematics content areas. After careful consideration, the proportionality itemswere redistributed among several of the other mathematics content areas for the TIMSS and TIMSSR data.

32

Fig

ure

4.A

vera

ge e

ight

h-gr

ade

achi

evem

ent i

n m

athe

mat

ics

cont

ent a

reas

, by

natio

n: 1

999

Frac

tions

and

num

ber

sens

e

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Sing

apor

e60

8H

ong

Kon

g SA

R57

9C

hine

se T

aipe

i57

6K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

570

Japa

n57

0B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

557

Net

herl

ands

545

Can

ada

533

Mal

aysi

a53

2

Finl

and

531

Slov

enia

527

Hun

gary

526

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

5A

ustr

alia

519

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

513

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

9C

zech

Rep

ublic

507

Bul

gari

a50

3

Eng

land

497

Lat

via-

LSS

149

6N

ew Z

eala

nd49

3C

ypru

s48

1

Lith

uani

a247

9(I

srae

l)47

2T

haila

nd47

1It

aly

471

Mol

dova

465

Rom

ania

458

Tun

isia

443

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

437

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f43

7Jo

rdan

432

Tur

key

430

Indo

nesi

a40

6C

hile

403

Phili

ppin

es37

8M

oroc

co33

5So

uth

Afr

ica

300

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

Mea

sure

men

t

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Sing

apor

e59

9K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

571

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

567

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

566

Japa

n55

8B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

549

Hun

gary

538

Net

herl

ands

538

Slov

ak R

epub

lic53

7

Cze

ch R

epub

lic53

5

Aus

tral

ia52

9R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n52

7Sl

oven

ia52

3C

anad

a52

1Fi

nlan

d52

1M

alay

sia

514

Eng

land

507

Lat

via-

LSS

150

5It

aly

501

Bul

gari

a49

7N

ew Z

eala

nd49

6R

oman

ia49

1

Uni

ted

Stat

es48

2M

oldo

va47

9C

ypru

s47

1L

ithua

nia2

467

Tha

iland

463

(Isr

ael)

457

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f45

1T

unis

ia44

2Jo

rdan

438

Tur

key

436

Chi

le41

2Ir

an, I

slam

ic R

epub

lic o

f40

1In

done

sia

395

Phili

ppin

es35

5M

oroc

co34

8So

uth

Afr

ica

329

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

Ave

rage

is s

igni

fica

ntly

hig

her

than

the

U.S

. ave

rage

Ave

rage

doe

s no

t dif

fer

sign

ific

antly

fro

m th

e U

.S. a

vera

geA

vera

ge is

sig

nifi

cant

ly lo

wer

than

the

U.S

. ave

rage

'Des

igna

ted

LSS

bec

ause

onl

y L

atvi

an-s

peak

ing

scho

ols

wer

e te

sted

whi

ch r

epre

sent

s 61

per

cent

of

the

popu

latio

n.

2Lith

uani

a te

sted

the

sam

e co

hort

of

stud

ents

as

othe

r na

tions

, but

late

r in

199

9, a

t the

beg

inni

ng o

f th

e ne

xt s

choo

l yea

r.3T

he s

hadi

ng o

f Sl

oven

ia a

nd C

anad

a m

ay a

ppea

r in

corr

ect;

how

ever

, sta

tistic

ally

, the

ir p

lace

men

t is

corr

ect.

NO

TE

: Eig

hth

grad

e in

mos

t nat

ions

. See

app

endi

x 2

for

deta

ils.

Pare

nthe

ses

indi

cate

nat

ions

not

mee

ting

inte

rnat

iona

l sam

plin

g an

d/or

oth

er g

uide

lines

. See

app

endi

x 2

for

deta

ils.

The

inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

is th

e av

erag

e of

the

natio

nal a

vera

ges

of th

e 38

nat

ions

.

SOU

RC

E: M

ullis

et a

l. (2

000)

. TIM

SS 1

999

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mat

hem

atic

s R

epor

t: Fi

ndin

gs f

rom

lEA

's R

epea

t of

the

Thi

rd I

nter

natio

nal M

athe

mat

ics

and

Scie

nce

Stud

y at

the

Eig

hth

Gra

de. E

xhib

it3.

1. C

hest

nut H

ill, M

A: B

osto

n C

olle

ge.

Dat

a re

pres

enta

tion,

anal

ysis

, and

pro

babi

lity

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

fSi

ngap

ore

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Japa

nH

ong

Kon

g SA

RB

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

Net

herl

ands

Slov

enia

576

562

559

555

547

544

538

530

Finl

and

Aus

tral

iaSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Can

ada

Hun

gary

Cze

ch R

epub

licE

ngla

ndU

nite

d St

ates

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

New

Zea

land

Lat

via-

BSI

Lith

uani

a2B

ulga

ria

Mal

aysi

a

Ital

y

525

522

521

521

520

513

506

506

501

497

495

493

493

491

484

Tha

iland

476

Cyp

rus

472

(Isr

ael)

468

Rom

ania

453

Mol

dova

450

Tun

isia

446

Tur

key

446

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f44

2Jo

rdan

436

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

430

Chi

le42

9In

done

sia

423

Phili

ppin

es40

6M

oroc

co38

3So

uth

Afr

ica

356

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

Geo

met

ry

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Japa

n57

5K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

573

Sing

apor

e56

0C

hine

se T

aipe

i55

7H

ong

Kon

g SA

R55

6B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

535

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

7B

ulga

ria

524

Lat

via-

LSS

152

2

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

522

Net

herl

ands

515

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

3C

anad

a50

7Sl

oven

ia50

6A

ustr

alia

497

Mal

aysi

a49

7L

ithua

nia2

496

Finl

and

494

Hun

gary

489

Rom

ania

487

Tha

iland

484

Cyp

rus

484

Tun

isia

484

Ital

y48

2M

oldo

va48

1N

ew Z

eala

nd47

8U

nite

d St

ates

473

Eng

land

471

(Isr

ael)

462

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f46

0Jo

rdan

449

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

447

Indo

nesi

a44

1T

urke

y42

8C

hile

412

Mor

occo

407

Phili

ppin

es38

3So

uth

Afr

ica

335

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

Alg

ebra

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

586

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f58

5Si

ngap

ore

576

Japa

n56

9H

ong

Kon

g SA

R56

9B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

540

Hun

gary

536

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

529

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

5

Slov

enia

352

5

Can

ada3

525

Net

herl

ands

522

Aus

tral

ia52

0C

zech

Rep

ublic

514

Bul

gari

a51

2U

nite

d St

ates

506

Mal

aysi

a50

5L

atvi

a-L

SS1

499

Eng

land

498

Finl

and

498

New

Zea

land

497

Lith

uani

a248

7It

aly

481

Rom

ania

481

(Isr

ael)

479

Cyp

rus

479

Mol

dova

477

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f46

5T

haila

nd45

6T

unis

ia45

5Jo

rdan

439

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

434

Tur

key

432

Indo

nesi

a42

4C

hile

399

Mor

occo

353

Phili

ppin

es34

5So

uth

Afr

ica

293

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

487

38 n

atio

ns

3 4

Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, the Philippines, SouthAfrica, and Turkey. Geometry and measurement arethe content areas in which the United Statesperformed lowest in terms of the number ofnations that outperformed the United States, butthe U.S. average was similar to the internationalaverage in both content areas.

In interpreting these results, it is important toconsider the mathematics content areas and topicsthat students have likely encountered in the yearsleading up to and including eighth grade. Forexample, if students in the United States were notprovided the opportunity to learn a particularmathematics topic or content area by the time ofthe assessment, it would be less likely that thestudents would perform well in comparison totheir international peers in that area. Informationon the coverage of mathematics content areas, aswell as many other aspects of eighth-grade mathe-matics teaching and learning, is discussed in thenext chapter.

U.S. eighth-graders' average score was higher thanthe international average in five of the six sciencecontent areas assessed in 1999: earth science; lifescience; chemistry; environmental and resourceissues; and scientific inquiry and the nature ofscience. They performed at the internationalaverage of the 38 nations in physics.

18 35

Figure 5 displays science content area scores forthe 38 TIMSSR nations in 1999. As with mathe-matics, the international performance of nationsdiffers when examining science by the six sciencecontent areas. The international performance ofthe United States is highest for life science; environ-

mental and resource issues; and scientific inquiryand the nature of science. Only two nations scoredhigher than the United States in each of thesethree content areas. Chinese Taipei outperformedthe United States in five of the six content areas,however. As in mathematics, New Zealand is theonly nation that performed similarly to the UnitedStates across all six content areas in science.Finally, 12 nations performed below the UnitedStates in all six science content areas: Chile,Cyprus, Iran, Jordan, Macedonia, Moldova,Morocco, the Philippines, Romania, South Africa,Tunisia, and Turkey. Physics was the sciencecontent area that the United States performedlowest in terms of the number of nations thatoutperformed the United States, but the U.S.average was similar to the international average.

As with mathematics, it is important to under-stand the context within which science learningoccurs when interpreting these results. Thisincludes the science content areas and topics thatstudents have likely encountered in their sciencelessons. Information on the coverage of the sixscience content areas, as well as many otheraspects of eighth-grade science teaching andlearning, is covered in the following chapter.

Fig

ure

5.A

vera

ge e

ight

h-gr

ade

achi

evem

ent i

n sc

ienc

e co

nten

t are

as b

y na

tion:

199

9E

arth

sci

ence

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Hun

gary

560

Slov

enia

541

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

538

Slov

ak R

epub

lic53

7N

ethe

rlan

ds53

4

Japa

n53

3

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h53

3

Cze

ch R

epub

lic53

3

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f53

2R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n52

9

Eng

land

525

Sing

apor

e52

1Fi

nlan

d52

0

Bul

gari

a52

0A

ustr

alia

519

Can

ada

519

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

506

New

Zea

land

504

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

4

Ital

y50

2

Lat

via-

LSS

149

5

Mal

aysi

a49

1

Lith

uani

a247

6

Rom

ania

475

(Isr

ael)

472

Tha

iland

470

Mol

dova

466

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f46

4

Cyp

rus

459

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

459

Jord

an44

6

Tun

isia

442

Chi

le43

5

Tur

key

435

Indo

nesi

a43

1

Phili

ppin

es39

0M

oroc

co36

3So

uth

Afr

ica

348

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

488

38 n

atio

ns

Lif

e sc

ienc

e

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Cze

ch R

epub

lic55

054

4

Sing

apor

eN

ethe

rlan

dsSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Hun

gary

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

hJa

pan

Eng

land

Aus

tral

iaK

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

Can

ada

Slov

enia

Finl

and

Uni

ted

Stat

esR

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

Bul

gari

aL

atvi

a-L

SS1

Tha

iland

New

Zea

land

541

536

535

535

535

534

533

530

528

523

521

520

520

517

516

514

509

508

501

Lith

uani

a2

Ital

y

Mal

aysi

aM

oldo

vaR

oman

ia

Cyp

rus

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f(I

srae

l)Jo

rdan

Indo

nesi

a

Tur

key

Tun

isia

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

Chi

le

Phili

ppin

esM

oroc

coSo

uth

Afr

ica

494

488

479

477

475

468

468

463

448

448

444

441

437

431

378

347

289

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

488

38 n

atio

ns

Ave

rage

is s

igni

fica

ntly

hig

her

than

the

U.S

. ave

rage

Ave

rage

doe

s no

t dif

fer

sign

ific

antly

fro

m th

e U

.S. a

vera

geA

vera

ge is

sig

nifi

cant

ly lo

wer

than

the

U.S

. ave

rage

IDes

'gna

ted

LSS

bec

ause

onl

y L

atvi

an-s

peak

ing

scho

ols

wer

e te

sted

whi

ch r

epre

sent

s 61

per

cent

of

the

popu

latio

n.2L

ithua

nia

test

ed th

e sa

me

coho

rt o

f st

uden

ts a

s ot

her

natio

ns, b

ut la

ter

in 1

999,

at t

he b

egin

ning

of

the

next

sch

ool y

ear.

3The

sha

ding

of

Japa

n m

ay a

ppea

r in

corr

ect;

how

ever

, sta

tistic

ally

, its

pla

cem

ent i

s co

rrec

t.N

OT

E: E

ight

h gr

ade

in m

ost n

atio

ns. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.Pa

rent

hese

s in

dica

te n

atio

ns n

ot m

eetin

g in

tern

atio

nal s

ampl

ing

and/

or o

ther

gui

delin

es. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.T

he in

tern

atio

nal a

vera

ge is

the

aver

age

of th

e na

tiona

l ave

rage

s of

the

38 n

atio

ns.

SOU

RC

E: M

artin

et a

l. (2

000)

. TIM

SS 1

999

Inte

rnat

iona

l Sci

ence

Rep

ort:

Find

ings

fro

m lE

A's

Rep

eat o

f th

e T

hird

Int

erna

Col

lege

.

Phys

ics

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Sing

apor

e57

0

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

552

Japa

n54

4

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f54

4

Hun

gary

543

Net

herl

ands

537

Aus

tral

ia53

1

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h53

0R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n52

9

Eng

land

528

Cze

ch R

epub

lic52

6Sl

oven

ia52

5

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

523

Can

ada

521

Finl

and

520

Slov

ak R

epub

lic51

8

Lith

uani

a251

0

Bul

gari

a50

5

New

Zea

land

499

Uni

ted

Stat

es49

8

Lat

via-

LSS

149

5

Mal

aysi

a49

4

(Isr

ael)

484

Ital

y48

0T

haila

nd47

5R

oman

ia46

5

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f46

3

Cyp

rus

459

Jord

an45

9M

oldo

va45

7

Indo

nesi

a45

2

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

445

Tur

key

441

Chi

le42

8T

unis

ia42

5

Phili

ppin

es39

3M

oroc

co35

2So

uth

Afr

ica

308

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

488

38 n

atio

ns

Che

mis

try

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

563

Hun

gary

548

Sing

apor

e54

5Fi

nlan

d53

5

Japa

n53

0

Bul

gari

a52

7

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

5

Eng

land

524

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f52

3R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n52

3C

anad

a52

1A

ustr

alia

520

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

515

Net

herl

ands

515

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

2Sl

oven

ia50

9

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

8

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h50

8

New

Zea

land

503

Ital

y49

3

Lat

via-

LSS

149

0

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

487

Lith

uani

a248

5

Mal

aysi

a48

5Jo

rdan

483

Rom

ania

481

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

f48

1

(Isr

ael)

479

Cyp

rus

470

Mol

dova

451

Tun

isia

439

Tha

iland

439

Tur

key

437

Chi

le43

5In

done

sia

425

Phili

ppin

es39

4M

oroc

co37

2So

uth

Afr

ica

350

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

38 n

atio

ns48

8

36

Env

iron

men

tal a

ndre

sour

ce is

sues

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Sing

apor

e57

7C

hine

se T

aipe

i56

7A

ustr

alia

530

Net

herl

ands

526

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f52

3C

anad

a52

1

Slov

enia

519

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

518

Eng

land

518

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

6Fi

nlan

d51

4

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h51

3

Slov

ak R

epub

lic51

2U

nite

d St

ates

509

Tha

iland

507

Japa

n50

6

New

Zea

land

503

Mal

aysi

a50

2

Hun

gary

501

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

495

Lat

via-

LSS

149

3

Ital

y49

1

Indo

nesi

a48

9

Bul

gari

a48

3

Jord

an47

6

Cyp

rus

475

Rom

ania

473

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

470

Tun

isia

462

Tur

key

461

Lith

uani

a245

8

(Isr

ael)

458

Chi

le44

9M

oldo

va44

4M

aced

onia

, Rep

ublic

of

432

Mor

occo

396

Phili

ppin

es39

1So

uth

Afr

ica

350

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

488

38 n

atio

ns

Scie

ntif

ic in

quir

y an

dth

e na

ture

of

scie

nce

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

Sing

apor

e55

0K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

545

Japa

n354

3

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Eng

land

Aus

tral

iaN

ethe

rlan

dsC

anad

a

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

Finl

and

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

hH

unga

ryU

nite

d St

ates

Cze

ch R

epub

licN

ew Z

eala

ndSl

oven

ia

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

540

538

535

534

532

531

528

526

526

522

522

521

513

507

Lat

via-

LSS

149

5

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

491

Ital

y48

9

Mal

aysi

a48

8

Lith

uani

a248

3

Bul

gari

a(I

srae

l)M

oldo

va

Cyp

rus

Mac

edon

ia, R

epub

lic o

fT

haila

ndR

oman

iaT

unis

ia

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

Indo

nesi

a

Tur

key

Chi

leJo

rdan

Phili

ppin

esM

oroc

coSo

uth

Afr

ica

479

476

471

467

464

462

456

451

446

446

445

441

440

403

391

329

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of

488

38 n

atio

ns

onal

Mat

hem

atic

s an

d Sc

ienc

e St

udy

at th

e E

ight

h G

rade

. Exh

ibit

3.1.

Che

stnu

t Hill

, MA

: Bos

ton 37

20

What were students askedto do on the TIMSSRassessment?This section contains an example test item fromeach of the five mathematics and six sciencecontent areas assessed in 1999. Included are bothmultiple-choice and free-response item formats.Each example item is introduced with a briefdescription, the content area it represents, thecorrect answer or an example of a writtenresponse that was marked as correct, the U.S.percent correct, and the international averagepercent correct.

Information on the percent correct for each of the38 TIMSSR nations is provided in tables A3.6(mathematics example items) and A3.7 (scienceexample items) in appendix 3.

Figure 6 shows an example of a mathematics itemthat relates to fractions and number sense. Thisitem asked students to choose the expression thatbest estimated the sum of two three-digitnumbers using rounding. Ninety-three percent ofU.S. students correctly chose B as the answer. Theinternational average was 80 percent.

Figure 6.Example mathematics item 1

The sum 691 + 208 is closest to the sum

A. 600 + 200

700 + 200

C. 700 + 300

D. 900 + 200

Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 93 International average: 80

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

38

In this example of a measurement item (figure 7), percent of U.S. students correctly answered thisstudents were asked to find the area of a rectangle item, while the international average was 43contained in a given parallelogram. Thirty-four percent.


The figure shows a shaded rectangle inside a parallelogram.

bo( 3 cm )111

ZI714 8 cm 5 voi

What is the area of the shaded rectangle in square centimeters?

Answer: 20 M

5- -20

Correct answer: 20 cm2 U.S. percent correct: 34 International average: 43

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.9. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

2139

22

Figure 8 is an example of an item from the datarepresentation, analysis, and probability contentarea. In this item, students were asked to deter-mine which of the two magazines was lessexpensive, given the number of issues and cost ofeach issue. In order to receive full credit for this

item, students had to calculate the cost of 24 issuesfor each magazine and arrive at the answer of TeenLife being 3 ceds less expensive than Teen News. In

the United States, 26 percent of students receivedfull credit for this item; the international averagewas 24 percent.


Chris plans to order 24 issues of a magazine. He reads the following advertisementsfor two magazines. Ceds are the units of currency in Chris' country.

Teen LifeMagazine

24 issuesFirst four issues FREEThe remaining issues

3 ceds each.

Teen NewsMagazine

24 issuesFirst six issues FREEThe remaining issues

3.5 ceds each.

Which magazine is the least expensive for 24 issues? How much less expensive?Show your work.

20

3 cede cheaper

Correct answer: Teen Life, 3 ceds cheaper U.S. percent correct: 26 International average: 24

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

40

Figure 9 is an example of an item from thegeometry content area. In this item, students wereasked to determine the measure of the fourthangle of a quadrilateral, given the measurementsof the other three (figure 9). In order to correctlyanswer this item, students needed the knowledgethat the sum of the four angles of a quadrilateralalways equals 360 degrees. Twenty percent of U.S.students answered this item correctly. The interna-tional average was 40 percent.

Figure 10, an algebra item, asked students to deter-mine the number of girls and the number of boysin the fictitious club, given the total number ofmembers and the information that there were 14more girls than boys. Full credit was given ifstudents gave the correct response of 36 boys and50 girls and showed their work. Numerical, alge-braic, and "guess and check" methods were allaccepted for full credit. Twenty-nine percent ofU.S. students received full credit on this item. Theinternational average was 33 percent.


In a quadrilateral, each of two angles has a measure of 1152. If themeasure of a third angle is 709, what is the measure of the remaining angle?

609-

B. 70°

C. 130°

D. 140Q

E. None of the above

Correct answer: A U.S. percent correct: 19 International average: 40

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR),unpublished tabulations, 1999.


A club has 86 members, and there are 14 more girls than boys.How many boys and how many girls are members of the club?

Show your work.

2 x+/LI

/ / /I/2>c 7 22 2

3There ckre 36 Ins and, So aids.

Correct answer: 36 boys and 50 girls U.S. percent correct: 29 International average: 33


2341

24

Figure 11 is an example of an earth science item. In the U.S., 48 percent of students answered thisThis item asked students to read a contour map item correctly; the international average was 37and determine which direction a river is flowing. percent.

Figure 11.Example science item 1

On the diagram, hills and valleys are shown by means of contour lines. Eachcontour line indicates that all points on the line have the same elevation abovesea level.

In which direction does the river flow?

A. Northeast

0 Southeast

C. Northwest

D. Southwest

E. It is not possible to tell from the map.



4 2

In this life science item, students were given a foodweb and asked to explain the effects of one part ofthe web on another part (figure 12). Specifically,they were asked to describe the consequences ofcrop failure on the population of robins. Severaltypes of responses were given full credit. Forexample, students could have answered that therobin population would decrease due to predators


eating more robins if mice die. They could havealso answered that the robin population wouldincrease based on predators dying due to lack offood (mice). Other feasible explanations, such asthe robin population being unaffected becausemice would find other sources of grain, were alsogiven full credit.

Look at the food web above. If the corn crop failed one year what would mostlikely happen to the robin population? Explain your answer.

The popula+ion .1.4.roula 3o ctouin because) +he mice

eoci- c.orn and. i-e +here is no corn -Por +he mice+0 ea.+ +h9 will ctie ana I4 4-he mice aie +hesnake utill have ea+ more robins -I-0

alive .

U.S. percent correct: 35 International average: 26


254 3

26

Figure 13 shows an example of a science item thatrelates to physics. Given data on fuel consumptionand work accomplished, students were asked todetermine and explain which of two machines wasmore efficient by converting the information into


common units or measures that could then becompared. Thirty percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents answered both parts of this itemcorrectly. The international average was 31percent.

Machine A and Machine B are each used to pump water from a river. The tableshows what volume of water each machine removed in one hour and how muchgasoline each of them used.

Volume of WaterRemoved in 1 Hour

(liters)

Gasoline Usedin 1 Hour

(liters)

Machine A

Machine B

1000

500

1.25

0.5

a) Which machine is more efficient in converting the energy in gasoline to work?

Answer: 5b) Explain your answer:

1,000 L25 = 800500 .5 = 1,000

Maehtne 13 is More 6-CZCZent

beCaMe -or every 1,7.-ter o4 0.501,7.11e

used tt removed LOOM- 4 water.

\VI* L osortne Mach`tme A

ont.y removes 8001 o-F water.


SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

44


Figure 14 shows an example of a science item thatrelates to chemistry. This item asked students torecall that when exposed to moisture and oxygen,iron rusts, and that painting the iron couldprevent this reaction from happening. Sixty-sixpercent of U.S. eighth-grade students correctlyanswered this item. The international average was67 percent.


In figure 15, an environmental and resource issuesitem, students were asked to choose the best expla-nation for why insecticides become ineffectiveover time. Sixty-two percent of U.S. studentsanswered this item correctly; the internationalaverage was 48 percent.

Paint applied to an iron surface prevents the iron from rusting. Which ONE ofthe following provides the best reason?

A.

B.

C.

D.

It prevents nitrogen from coming in contact with the iron.

It reacts chemically with the iron.

It prevents carbon dioxide from coming in contact with the iron.

It makes the surface of the iron smoother.

It prevents oxygen and moisture from coming in contact with the iron.

Correct answer: E U.S. percent correct: 66 International average: 67

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.


Insecticides are used to control insect populations so that they do not destroy the crops.Over time, some insecticides become less effective at killing insects, and newinsecticidesmust be developed. What is the most likely reason insecticides become

less effective over time?

A.

C.

D.

Surviving insects have learned to include insecticides as a food source.

Surviving insects pass their resistance to insecticides to their offspring.

Insecticides build up in the soil.

Insecticides are concentrated at the bottom of the food chain.


SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.13. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

274 5

1-HAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT

28

Figure 16 is an example of an item that relates toscientific inquiry and the nature of science. In thisitem, students were asked to describe a procedurethat could be used to determine the time it takesfor a person's heart rate to return to normal afterexercising. They were also asked to list the materi-als needed for their procedure. In order to receivefull credit, students needed to include all of the


following: somebody (or self) measuringc`normal" pulse rate with a timer or watch; havingthe subject exercise; and measuring the timeinterval between the completion of exercise andthe pulse rate returning to "normal." Twenty-onepercent of U.S. students answered this itemcorrectly. The international average was 12percent.

Suppose you want to investigate how long it takes for the heart rate to return tonormal after exercising. What materials would you use and what procedureswould you follow?

Mcd-erick.ls

tAfa.-I--ch

proceaure

I. c.hec.k hear+ rcel-e

exerc ise

3. s-i-op exercisin3) bejin

4. check heoff itt-11..uthen held- rt-de re-I-vas -Iv in&I rtzi-e) si-cp

U.S. percent correct: 21 International average: 12


46

How did different groups ofstudents within the UnitedStates perform?Comparisons of U.S. population group perform-ance are common in the literature on studentachievement, especially comparisons by sex andrace/ethnicity. The Condition of Education (NCES2000b), the Digest of Education Statistics (NCES1999), Science and Engineering Indicators-2000(National Science Board 2000), and the variousreports associated with each NAEP assessment(e.g., NCES 1997a, 1997b, and 2000c) routinelyprovide comparisons of the achievement ofselected population groups.

Population groups tend to be defined by demo-graphic attributes such as sex, race/ethnicity,language, and the like. Interest in the comparativeperformance of population groups reflects aconcern that all studentsregardless of race,ethnicity, sex, or family background, among otherthingsreceive equitable educational opportuni-ties. A national average score cannot describe therange of achievement within a nation and whetherpatterns of performance are associated with differ-ent subgroups.

The analyses that follow focus on five categories ofpopulation groups in the United States; thesegroups are defined by: sex, race/ethnicity, nationalorigin of parents, level of parental education, andtype of school attended.6 These analyses examinethe relationship between specific group character-istics and achievement. These are preliminaryanalyses of the data from TIMSSR. Futureanalyses will examine the same relationships while

accounting for other factors.

Figure 17 shows the average mathematics andscience performance for the population groupsnoted above. The results of testing the statisticalsignificance of the difference between groupaverages are described to the right of the groupaverages.7

GHAPTER 2-ANIEVEMENT

Was there a difference in themathematics and scienceachievement of U.S. eighth-grade boys and girls?In mathematics, there was no evidence of a differ-ence in achievement between U.S. eighth-gradeboys and girls in 1999. The average score for girlswas similar to the average score for boys. Of theother nations in 1999, only fourthe CzechRepublic, Iran, Israel, and Tunisiashowed differ-ences in the achievement of boys and girls inmathematics, all in favor of boys (see table A3.9,appendix 3 for details).

In science, U.S. eighth-grade boys outperformedeighth-grade girls in 1999. In all, the United Statesand 15 other nations showed differences betweenthe average achievement of boys and girls, and alldifferences favored boys.8 Twenty-two nationsshowed no differences between boys and girls inscience. In addition to the United States, Canada,Chile, Chinese Taipei, the Czech Republic,England, Hungary, Iran, Korea, Latvia-LSS,Lithuania, the Netherlands, Russian Federation,Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Tunisia showeddifferences in science achievement between boysand girls (see table A3.9, appendix 3).

The TIMSSR findings in mathematics are consis-tent with other studies conducted at this gradelevel, such as NAEP (NCES, 1997a, 2000c). TheTIMSSR findings for the United States in sciencediffer from the most recent results for NAEP andlong term trend NAEP (NCES, 1997b, 2000c)where no difference in science achievement wasfound between eighth-grade boys and girls.Reasons for the different results in TIMSSR andNAEP may relate to the differences in the sciencetopics and content areas emphasized in the twoassessment frameworks and the relationship of theframeworks to U.S. science curricula through theeighth grade. Differences and similarities between

6Data are analyzed based on students' reports of sex, race/ethnicity, national origin of parents, and level of parental education. Dataon type of school attended based on school sample.

70ther factors are not controlled for in these analyses.

8Readers may recall that there was no difference found in T1MSS 1995 between the science performance of U.S. eighth-grade boysand girls (NCES 1996). As a result of rescaling the TIMSS data, the data show that U.S. eighth-grade boys outperformed girls inscience in 1995.

4 29


Figure 17.U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,by selected characteristics: 1999

UillMOMIZI1Lig§M at.11 cm a bios

Signifi Lance

Sex

Boys

Girls505

498

524505

Boys and girls performed similarly in mathematics. Boysoutperformed girls in science.

Race/ethnicity

White students

Black students

Hispanic students

525

444

457

547

438

462

White students outperformed black and Hispanic studentsin mathematics and science. Black and Hispanic studentsperformed similarly to each other in mathematics.Hispanic students outperformed black students in science.

Public/nonpublic schoolPublicschool studentsNonpublicschool students

498

526

510

548

Nonpublic school students outperformed public schoolstudents in mathematics and science.

National origin of parents

Both U.S. born

Both foreign born

1 U.S. born,1 foreign born

510

477

496

527

472

509

In mathematics and science, students whose parents wereboth U.S. born outperformed students whose parents wereboth foreign born. In mathematics and science, studentswhose parents were both U.S. born and students with oneU.S. born parent and one foreign born parent performedsimilarly. In science, students with one U.S. born parentand one foreign born parent outperformed students whoseparents were both foreign born.

Mother's education

High school or less

Some college

Completed college

484

511

539

499

525

554

In mathematics and science, students whose motherscompleted college outperformed students whose motherscompleted high school or less. In mathematics and science,students whose mothers completed college outperformedstudents whose mothers attended some college. Inmathematics and science, students whose mothersattended some college outperformed students whosemothers completed high school or less.

Father's education

High school or less

Some college

Completed college

482

512

543

495

529

560

In mathematics and science, students whose fatherscompleted college outperformed students whose fatherscompleted high school or less. In mathematics and science,students whose fathers completed college outperformedstudents whose fathers attended some college. Inmathematics and science, students whose fathers attendedsome college outperformed students whose fatherscompleted high school or less.

NOTE: Other factors are not controlled for in these analyses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience StudyRepeat (TIMSSR), unpublished tabluations, 1999.

30

eHAPTER 2AcHIEVEMENT

TIMSSR and NAEP, as well as PISA, are discussedin chapter 1. A more thorough analysis ofTIMSSR science data for U.S. boys and girls mayreveal important insights into the differencesnoted here.

Did the achievement of U.S.students differ by race andethnicity?Studies have regularly shown that white studentsoutperform the two largest minority groups in theUnited Statesnamely, black students andHispanic studentsin mathematics and science.TIMSS-R results and other large-scale studies,such as NAEP (NCES 1997a, 19976, and 2000c),present a similar picture of the achievement ofeighth-grade white students, black students, andHispanic students in the United States. In 1999,the average score for white students was higherthan for either black students or Hispanic studentsin mathematics. Black students and Hispanicstudents performed similarly (see figure 17).

In science, the average 1999 score for U.S. eighth-grade white students was higher than for eitherblack students or Hispanic students, and Hispanicstudents outperformed black students (see figure17). The research literature offers several explana-tions for differences in the performance ofparticular populations, generally suggesting thatvarious forms of inequality of opportunity resultin differences in achievement (Wilson 1987 and1996; Jencks and Phillips 1998). These possibleexplanations are not explored in the analysespresented here.

Did the achievement ofstudents in U.S. public andnonpublic schools differ?In both mathematics and science in 1999, theaverage achievement score of U.S. eighth-gradenonpublic school students was higher than theaverage of their peers in U.S. public schools (figure17).9 Competing explanations for differences inthe achievement of public and nonpublic students

9Forty-four of the 221 schools sampled in the United States wereCatholic, 13 were Protestant/other religious, 4 were non-religious

in the United States are found in the research liter-ature. One possible explanation is that the twotypes of schools differ in the quality of the educa-tion offered to students (Coleman, Hoffer, andKilgore 1981, 1982). The rationale here is thathigher quality offerings lead to higher achieve-ment. Another possible explanation offered in theliterature is that differences in achievementbetween public and nonpublic school students arethe result of differences in the socioeconomicstatus of the students recruited into each type ofschool (Jimenez and Lockheed 1991). The ration-ale behind this argument is that differentopportunities for learning are created or nurturedamong students from different socioeconomicbackgrounds. The findings for public andnonpublic students from TIMSSR are consistentwith findings from NAEP (NCES 1997a, 1997b,and 2000c). Indeed, in nations with sizablenumbers of nonpublic schools (e.g., Australia, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States), onaverage, students who attended nonpublic schoolsdid better than those who attended public schools(Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore 1982; Williams andCarpenter 1990; Halsey, Heath, and Ridge 1984).The analyses presented here do not offer anypossible explanation for the observed differences;rather, the analyses simply document achievementdifferences between eighth-grade students in thesetwo types of schools. More thorough analysis ofthe data, taking into account sUch factors asrace/ethnicity or socioeconomic status, may revealimportant insights into possible reasons for theobserved differences.

Did the achievement of U.S.students of different nationalorigins differ?TIMSSR asked students to indicate whether theirparents were U.S. or foreign-born. There is aninterest in the birthplace of students' parentsbecause a sizeable proportion of students withparents born outside the United States may notspeak English as their first language or may notspeak English at home with great frequency, if atall. Since English is generally the language of

nonpublic schools. Among these 44 nonpublic schools, 26 wereindependent schools, and 1 was unspecified.

31


32

instruction in U.S. classrooms, students' facilitywith language may play a role in their ability toadequately understand school subjects. Moreover,immigrant status is often associated with lowersocioeconomic status and more limited educa-tional opportunities. The average 1999

mathematics score of eighth-grade students whoseparents were both foreign-born was lower than thescore of students whose parents were both U.S.born (figure 17). In science in 1999, the averagescore of eighth-graders whose parents were bothforeign-born was lower than the score of studentswith at least one parent born in the United States.

Did the achievement of U.S.students differ by the level oftheir parents' education?The average mathematics performance of eighth-grade students in 1999 differed by their parents'level of education. Students who reported thattheir parents had completed college had a higheraverage score in mathematics than students whoreported that their parents completed somecollege and, in turn, these students had a higherscore than students whose parents had no morethan a high school education (figure 17).

The pattern in science is similar to mathematics in1999. As the level of parental education rises, so dothe test scores of students. On average, in science,eighth-grade students whose parents hadcompleted college outperformed students whoseparents had attended some college and thesestudents, in turn, outperformed students whoseparents had no more than a high school education(figure 17).

The TIMSSR results indicate that as parentaleducation levels increased so did the mathematicsand science performance of U.S. eighth-gradestudents. The relationship between level ofparental education and the educational achieve-ment of children is well-documented (Sewell,Hauser, and Wolf 1976; Featherman 1981; Riordan

1997; NCES 1997a and 1997b).

ATNEMATDos ARO

SUEDE ACEOEVEMENT OF

EOGETX=GRADIERS BETWEEN

995 MD OMThis section presents results for the 23 nationswith comparable data that participated at theeighth grade in both TIMSS and TIMSSR.1° Tocompare the performance of eighth-gradestudents on TIMSS and TIMSSR, both eighth-grade assessments used the same scale.11

Did the performance of U.S.eighth-graders changebetween 1995 and 1999?For the 23 nations that participated in bothTIMSS and TIMSSR, there was little change inmathematics average scores over the 4-yearperiod. There was no change in eighth-grademathematics achievement between 1995 and 1999in the United States as well as 18 other nations(figure 18).12 Three nationsCanada, Cyprus,and Latvia-LSSshowed an increase in overallmathematics achievement between 1995 and1999. One nation, the Czech Republic, experi-enced a decrease in overall achievement over the

lqwenty-six nations participated in TIMSS and TIMSSR at the eighth grade. Of the 26 nations, 3 nations experienced significantirregularities in their participation in 1995: Israel, South Africa, and Thailand. Findings for the other 23 nations are reported here.Results for the 3 nations that experienced irregularities are provided in appendix 3, tables A3.10 and A3.11.

11The national averages presented here for the TIMSS grade 8 assessment differ a little from the averages appearing in previousT1MSS reports published over the past several years. This is a result of rescaling the TIMSS 1995 grade 8 data to allow for reliablecomparisons to the TIMSSR 1999 grade 8 data.

12The finding that there has been no change in the overall mathematics score from 1995, when the United States performed at theinternational average, to 1999, when the United States performed above the international average, may appear to be inconsistent.However, readers are cautioned from drawing conclusions based on the relative position of the United States in comparison to theinternational average for all 42 nations in 1995 and all 38 nations in 1999.A more accurate analysis of change in achievement overthe 4 years is the one presented above: a comparison between only the 23 nations that participated in both 1995 and 1999, and theinternational average of scores for these nations.

50

same period.I3 The reader is cautioned againstcomparing the relative change in one nation to therelative change in another nation.

CHAPTER 2-ANIEVEMENT

In the United States and 17 other nations, therewas no change in the science achievement score ofeighth-graders between 1995 and 1999. Fournations documented an increase in science

Figure 18.Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematicsachievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 average 1999 average1995-1999difference3

(Latvia-LSS)1 488 505 17 ACanada 521 531 10 ACyprus 468 476 9 AHong Kong SAR 569 582 13 0(Netherlands) 529 540 11 0(Lithuania)2 472 482 10 0United States 492 502 9 0Belgium-Flemish 550 558 8 0Korea, Republic of 581 587 6 0(Australia) 519 525 6 0Hungary 527 532 5 0Iran, Islamic Republic of 418 422 4 0Russian Federation 524 526 2 0Slovak Republic 534 534 0 0(Slovenia) 531 530 -1 0(Romania) 474 472 -1 0(England) 498 496 -1 0Japan 581 579 -2 0Singapore 609 604 -4 0Italy 491 485 -6 0New Zealand 501 491 -10 0(Bulgaria) 527 511 -16 0Czech Republic 546 520 -26 v

International average of 23 nations 519 521 2 .o

A The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average0 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 averageV The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of thenext school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due torounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or bothyears. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved samplingprocedures.The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported differences. Thus, a small differencebetween the 1995 and 1999 averages for one nation may be significant while a large difference for another nationmay not be significant.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of theThird International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

13In a separate analysis of just those 48 mathematics items (out of 155) in common between TIMSS and TIMSSR, the same pic-ture of overall eighth-grade mathematics achievement emerges. Results of this separate analysis revealed that 3 nationsCanada,Cyprus, and Latvia-LSSexperienced increases in their mathematics performance over the 4 years on the in-common items. Onenation, the Czech Republic, experienced a decrease in its mathematics performance over the same period of time. The remaining19 nations, including the United States, experienced no change in overall mathematics achievement on the set of 48 in-commonitems between TIMSS and TIMSSR.

33

34

achievement between 1995 and 1999: Canada,Hungary, Latvia-LSS, and Lithuania (figure 19).One nation, Bulgaria, showed a decline in science

over the 4 years.14 Again, the reader is cautionedagainst comparing the relative change in onenation to the relative change in another nation.

Figure 19.Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement, bynation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 average 1999 average1995-1999difference3

(Latvia-LSS)1 476 503 27 A(Lithuania)2 464 488 25 ACanada 514 533 19 AHungary 537 552 16 AHong Kong SAR 510 530 20 0(Australia) 527 540 14 0Cyprus 452 460 8 oRussian Federation 523 529 7 0(England) 533 538 5 0(Netherlands) 541 545 3 0Slovak Republic 532 535 3 0Korea, Republic of 546 549 3 0United States 513 515 2 0Belgium-Flemish 533 535 2 0(Romania) 471 472 1 0Italy 497 498 1 0New Zealand 511 510 -1 0Japan 554 550 -5 0(Slovenia) 541 533 -8 0Singapore 580 568 -12 0Iran, Islamic Republic of 463 448 -15 0Czech Republic 555 539 -16 0(Bulgaria) 545 518 -27 V

International average of 23 nations 518 521 3 0

A The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average0 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 averageV The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of thenext school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum tototals due to rounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or bothyears. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved samplingprocedures.

The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported differences. Thus, a small differencebetween the 1995 and 1999 averages for one nation may be significant while a large difference for another nationmay not be significant.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

14In a separate analysis of just those 48 science items (out of 143) in common between TIMSS and TIMSSR, a similar picture ofoverall eighth-grade science achievement emerges. Results of this separate analysis revealed that 3 nationsCanada, Hungary, andLatvia-LSSexperienced increases in science performance over the 4 years on the in-common items. The remaining 20 nationsincluding the United Statesexperienced no change in overall mathematics achievement on the set of 48 in-common itemsbetween TIMSS and TIMSSR.

52

In sum, eighth-grade mathematics and sciencescores in the United States showed no changesbetween 1995 and 1999. The lack of change innational averages over a relatively short period of4 years may indicate that longer periods of moni-toring achievement may be necessary to detectchange. It may also indicate that change effortsimplemented at the local level may not yet beimpacting achievement measured at the nationallevel. Of course, careful consideration of TIMSSand TIMSSR data as well as other data on theteaching and learning of mathematics and sciencein middle school is needed to better address thepossible reasons why change was not evident overthe 4 years.


Did the percentage of U.S.students at or above theinternational top 10 percentbenchmark change over the4 years?As was discussed earlier in this chapter, averageachievement scores indicate how the averagestudent performs, but reveal little about theperformance of a nation's top students. Thefollowing analyses document changes in thepercentages of students who scored at or above theinternational top 10 percent and top 25 percentbenchmarks. Detailed information on changes inthese two international benchmarks is provided intables A3.12 (mathematics) and A3.13 (science) inappendix 3.

The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scoredat or above the international top 10 percentbenchmark of students in mathematics showed nochange between 1995 and 1999. None of the other22 nations documented a change either. The 1999top 10 percent cut-off score was 616 in mathemat-ics. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 6 percent ofU.S. eighth-graders scored 616 or higher in math-ematics in 1995, placing them among the top 10percent of all students internationally.15 In 1999,this percentage was 9 percent (figure 20).

15Readers may note that previous reports on TIMSS indicated that 5 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were included among allstudents internationally who scored at or above the international top 10 percent benchmark in mathematics, whereas the per-centage reported here is 6 percent. This difference is due to the way that the percentage of students in mathematics in 1995 is cal-culated for comparative purposes. To compare the percentage of students who scored at or above the international top 10 percentbenchmark in mathematics in 1995 to those in 1999, the score point used to determine the top 10 percent in 1999 was also appliedto the 1995 data. This, of course, was not the case when the data was initially reported for TIMSS. This procedure was applied tothe science data as well.

35

5 3

Figure 20.Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grademathematics students reaching the TIMSSR 1999 top 10percent in mathematics achievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 percentage ofstudents

1999 percentage ofstudents

1995-1999difference3

Hong Kong SAR 28 33 5 0Belgium-Flemish 19 23 4 0Canada 9 12 3 0United States 6 9 3 0Hungary 13 16 3 0(Latvia-LSS)1 5 7 3 0(Netherlands) 12 14 3 0(Slovenia) 13 15 2 0Russian Federation 12 15 2 0Korea, Republic of 36 37 2 0(Australia) 11 12 1 0(Lithuania)2 3 4 1 0Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 1 0 0(Romania) 5 5 0 0Singapore 46 46 0 0(England) 8 7 0 0New Zealand 8 8 0 0Japan 34 33 0 0Cyprus 4 3 -1 0Slovak Republic 14 14 -1 0Italy 7 6 -1 0Czech Republic 19 11 -8 0(Bulgaria) 19 11 -8 0

International average of 23 nations 14 15 1 0

A The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average0 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

v The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average


2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other.nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next schoolyear.


NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or bothyears. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved samplingprocedures.1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.1995 percentage of students reaching the top 10 percent is based on 1999 top 10 percent calculations.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of theThird International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

54

As in mathematics, the percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scored at or above the internationaltop 10 percent benchmark of students in scienceshowed no change between 1995 and 1999. The1999 top 10 percent cut-off score was 616 inscience. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 13percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 616 orhigher in science in 1995, placing them among thetop 10 percent of all students internationally. In

1999, this percentage was 15 percent (figure 21).Among the 22 other nations that participated inTIMSS and TIMSS-R at the eighth-grade level,only 2 nations showed a change in the proportionof students scoring at or above the internationaltop 10 percent benchmark over the same four-yearperiod: Hungary documented an increase whileBulgaria documented a decrease.

Figure 21.Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade sciencestudents reaching the TIMSSR 1999 top 10 percent in scienceachievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation1995 percentage of

students1999 percentage of

students1995-1999difference3

Hungary 14 22 8 ARussian Federation 13 17 4 0Canada 11 14 3 0(Latvia-LSS)1 4 7 3 0(Lithuania)2 3 6 3 0(Australia) 17 19 3 0(England) 17 19 2 0United States 13 15 2 0Korea, Republic of 20 22 2 0(Netherlands) 15 16 1 0Italy 7 8 1 0Hong Kong SAR 9 10 1 0Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 2 0 0New Zealand 11 12 0 0(Romania) 6 6 0 0(Slovenia) 16 16 0 0Cyprus 3 2 0 0Slovak Republic 15 14 0 0Belgium-Flemish 12 11 -1 0Singapore 33 32 -1 0Japan 21 19 -2 0Czech Republic 21 17 -4 0(Bulgaria) 24 14 -10 V

International average of 23 nations 13 14

A The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

0 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

V The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average




NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or bothyears. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved samplingprocedures.1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.1995 percentage of students reaching the top 10 percent is based on 1999 top 10 percent calculations.


37

55

38

Did the percentage of U.S.students at or above theinternational top 25 percentbenchmark change over the 4years?The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scoredat or above the international top 25 percentbenchmark of students in mathematics showed nochange between 1995 and 1999. The 1999 interna-tional top 25 percent cut-off score was 555 inmathematics. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 24percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 555 orhigher in mathematics in 1995, placing themamong the top 25 percent of all students interna-tionally.16 In 1999, this percentage was 28percent. Only one nation showed a change in thepercentage of its students who scored at or abovethe international top 25 benchmark over this sameperiod of timethe Czech Republic documenteda decrease.

The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scoredat or above the international top 25 percentbenchmark of students in science showed nochange between 1995 and 1999. The 1999 interna-tional top 25 percent cut-off score was 558 inscience. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 34percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 558 orhigher in science in 1995, placing them among thetop 25 percent of all students internationally. In1999, this percentage was also 34 percent. FournationsCanada, Hungary, Latvia-LSS, andLithuaniashowed an increase in the percentageof students who scored at or above the interna-tional top 25 benchmark over this same period oftime.

Did the performance of U.S.eighth-graders in the contentareas change between 1995and 1999?Comparisons of performance on the mathematicsand science content areas can be made among the23 nations that participated in TIMSS andTIMSSR at the eighth-grade level. Detailed infor-mation on changes in performance in themathematics and science content areas between1995 and 1999 is provided in tables A3.14 andA3.15 in appendix 3.

In the five mathematics content areas in commonbetween TIMSS and TIMSSR, there was nochange in the performance of U.S. eighth-gradersnor of their peers in most of the other 22 nations.However, Canada and Latvia-LSS documentedincreases in performance in four of the five math-ematics content areas over the 4-year period:fractions and number sense; data representation,analysis and probability; geometry; and algebra. Nonation showed a change in the performance of itsstudents in measurement. On the other hand, theCzech Republic showed a decrease in threecontent areas: fractions and number sense;geometry; and algebra. The only other nation toshow a decrease over the four years was Bulgaria inthe area of data representation, analysis, and prob-ability.

In the four science content areas in commonbetween TIMSS and TIMSSR,17 there was nochange in the performance of U.S. eighth-gradersnor of their peers in most of the other 22 nations.Only one nation, Canada, recorded an increase inthe performance of its eighth-graders in all fourscience content areas over the 4 years. Hungaryand Latvia-LSS showed increases in the perform-ance of their students in two of the four sciencecontent areas. The Czech Republic and SlovakRepublic experienced decreases in physics over thesame four years, and Slovenia documented adecrease in earth science.

16To compare the percentage of students who scored at or above the international top 25 percent benchmarks in mathematics andscience in 1995 to those in 1999, the score point used to determine the top 25 percent in 1999 was also applied to the 1995 data.

17The TIMSSR science assessment reflects the inclusion of 10 new items in the areas of environmental and resource issues, and sci-

entific inquiry and the nature of science. In TIMSS, these areas were reported as a single content area. Therefore, there are four sci-ence content areas in common between the two studies that can be reported.

5 6

Did the performance of U.S.population groups changebetween 1995 and 1999?TIMSS and TIMSSR data for several populationgroups showed an increase in performancebetween 1995 and 1999 in mathematics andscience.18 U.S. eighth-grade black studentsshowed an increase in their mathematics achieve-ment over the 4 years. Students whose parents

were both U.S. born also showed an increase inmathematics achievement between 1995 and1999. Students whose mothers or fathers attendedsome college or completed college also showed anincrease in their mathematics performance overthe 4 years. Finally, U.S. eighth-grade studentswhose mothers or fathers completed collegeshowed an increase in science achievement overthe 4 years (figure 22). There was no change foundfor the other groups of students shown in figure22 over the 4 years in mathematics or science.

Figure 22.Changes in U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and scienceachievement, by U.S. selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999

IMAINENIATIES

1995average

1999average

1995-1999difference*

SexBoys 495 505 10 0Girls 490 498 8 0

Race/ethnicityWhite students 516 525 9 0Black students 419 444 25 AHispanic students 443 457 14 0

National originof parents

Both U.S. born 496 510 13 ABoth foreign born 474 477 2 01 U.S. born,1 foreign born 482 496 13 0

Mother's educationHigh schoolor less 479 484 6 0Some college 498 511 13 ACompleted college 511 539 27 A

Father's educationHigh schoolor less 474 482 8 0Some college. 498 512 14 ACompleted college 515 543 28 A

=WM1995

average1999

average1995-1999difference*

SexBoys 520 524 5 0Girls 505 505 0 0

Race/ethnicityWhite students 544 547 3 0Black students 422 438 16 0Hispanic students 446 462 16 0

National originof parents

Both U.S. born 521 527 6 0Both foreign born 465 472 6 01 U.S. born,1 foreign born 498 509 11 0

Mother's educationHigh schoolor less 497 499 2 0Some college 522 525 3 0Completed college 531 554 23 A

Father's educationHigh schoolor less 494 495 1 0Some college 521 529 8 0Completed college 534 560 25 A

A The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average0 The 1999 average is not significantly different from the 1995 averageV The 1999 average is significantly below the 1995 average*Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 average from the 1999 average. Detail may not sum to totals due torounding.

NOTE: Other factors are not controlled for in these analyses.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience StudyRepeat (TIMSSR), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

18The U.S. sample for TIMSS did not include sufficient numbers of nonpublic school students to reliably calculate achievementscores for this group.

39

5 7


SCE

TEE

COX

ATE

CE Ac E

EMATlCS ACIEVEMEKT OF

RUM-GRADE199E

1995ORT DIN

TIMSS and other studies before it have suggestedthat the international performance of the UnitedStates relative to other nations appears lower atgrade 8 in both mathematics and science than atgrade 4. TIMSSR provides data about the cohortof fourth-grade students in 1995 in comparison tothe cohort of eighth-grade students four yearslater in 1999. However, direct comparisonsbetween the 1995 fourth-grade assessment and the1999 eighth-grade assessment are complicated byseveral factors: First, the fourth-grade and eighth-grade assessments include different test questions.By necessity, the kind of mathematics and scienceitems that can be asked of an eighth-grader may beinappropriate for a fourth-grader. Second, becausemathematics and science differ between the twogrades, the content areas assessed also differ. Thatis, geometry and physics at grade 4 are differentfrom geometry and physics at grade 8, forexample. Without a sufficient set of in-commontest items between the grade 4 and grade 8 assess-ments, it can be difficult to construct a reliable andmeaningful scale on which to compare the 1995fourth-graders to 1999 eighth-graders. Thus, forpurposes of this report, comparisons betweenfourth and eighth grade are based on the perform-ance relative to the international average of the 17nations that participated in fourth-grade TIMSSand eighth-grade TIMSSR.

40

Has the relative performanceof the United States changedbetween fourth and eighthgrade over the 4 years?Figures 23 and 24 display a comparison of theaverage scores of the 17 nations between fourth-grade TIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSSR to theinternational averages at both grades for eachsubject. The numbers shown in the figures aredifferences from the international average for the17 nations. Nations are sorted into three groups:above the international average; similar to theinternational average; and below the internationalaverage.

In mathematics, the U.S. fourth-grade score in1995 was similar to the international average ofthe 17 nations in common between fourth-gradeTIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSSR. At the eighthgrade in 1999, the U.S. average in mathematics wasbelow the international average of the 17 nations.Thus, U.S. fourth-graders performed at the inter-national average in 1995 and U.S. eighth-gradersperformed below the international average in 1999in mathematics, suggesting that the relativeperformance of the cohort of 1995 U.S. fourth-graders in mathematics was lower relative to thisgroup of nations 4 years later. The data alsosuggest that, in mathematics, the relative perform-ance of the cohort of 1995 fourth-graders inCanada was higher relative to this group ofnations in 1999; the relative performance of thecohort of 1995 fourth-graders in the CzechRepublic, Italy, and the Netherlands was lowerrelative to this group of nations 4 years later; andthe relative performance of the cohort of 1995fourth-graders in the 12 other nations wasunchanged relative to this group of nations 4 yearslater.

58

Figure 23.Mathematics achievement for TIMSSR 1999 nations thatparticipated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative tothe average across these nations

DMFourth grade

Difference from average across 17 nations I

Singapore 73

Korea, Republic of 63

Japan 50Hong Kong SAR 40

(Netherlands) 32

Czech Republic 23

(Slovenia) 8

(Hungary) 4

United States 0

(Australia) 0

(Italy) -7

Canada -12

(Latvia-LSS)2 -18

(England) -33Cyprus -42New Zealand -48Iran, Islamic Republic of -130

International averageof 17 nations

517

filiffEighth grade

Difference from average across 17 nationsl

Singapore 80Korea, Republic of 63

Hong Kong SAR 58

Japan 55

Netherlands 16

Hungary 8

Canada 7

Slovenia 6

Australia 1

Czech Republic -4

Latvia-LSS2 -19

United States -22

England -28

New Zealand -33Italy -39Cyprus -48Iran, Islamic Republic of -102


524

Average is significantly higher than the international averageAverage does not differ significantly from the international averageAverage is significantly lower than the international average

'Difference is calculated by subtracting the international average of the 17 nations from the national average of eachnation.


NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. SeeNCES (1997c) for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

41

59

42

In science, the U.S. fourth-grade score in 1995 wasabove the international average of the 17 nationsin common between fourth-grade TIMSS andeighth-grade TIMSSR. At the eighth grade in1999, the U.S. average in science was similar to theinternational average of the 17 nations. Thus, U.S.fourth-graders performed above the internationalaverage in 1995 and U.S. eighth-gradersperformed similar to the international average in1999 in science. As in mathematics, this suggeststhat the relative performance of the cohort of U.S.fourth-graders in science was lower relative to thisgroup of nations 4 years later. The data alsosuggest that, in science, the relative performance ofthe cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in Singapore

and Hungary was higher relative to this group ofnations in 1999; the relative performance of thecohort of 1995 fourth-graders in Italy and theNew Zealand was lower relative to this group ofnations 4 years later; and the relative performanceof the cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in the 12other nations was unchanged relative to this groupof nations 4 years later.

The available evidence appears to confirm whathad been suggested 4 years ago: that the relativeperformance of U.S. students in mathematics andscience is lower at the eighth grade than at thefourth grade among this group of nations.

Figure 24.Science achievement for TIMSSR 1999 nations thatparticipated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative tothe average across these nations

10,%95

Fourth gradeDifference from average across 17 nations1

Korea, Republic of 62Japan 39United States 28(Australia) 28Czech Republic 18(Netherlands) 17(England) 14Canada 12

(Italy) 10

Singapore 10

(Slovenia) 8Hong Kong SAR -6(Hungary) -6New Zealand -9

(Latvia-LSS)2 -27Cyprus -64Iran, Islamic Republic of -134

International averageof 17 nations 514

11999

Eighth gradeDifference from average across 17 nations1

Singapore 44Hungary 28Japan 25Korea, Republic of 24Netherlands 21Australia 16Czech Republic 15England 14

Slovenia 9

Ca nada3 9

Hong Kong SAR 5

United States -9New Zealand -15Latvia-LSS2 -21

Italy -26Cyprus -64Iran, Islamic Republic of -76

International averageof 17 nations 524

Average is significantly higher than the international averageAverage does not differ significantly from the international averageAverage is significantly lower than the international average

1Difference is calculated by subtracting the international average of the 17 nations from the national average of eachnation.


3The shading of Canada in eighth grade may appear incorrect; however, statistically, its placement in correct.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. SeeNCES (1997c) for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.


6 0

CNA PDL--1

TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

XEY POD MTS

It is too early in the process of data analysis to provide strong evidence to suggest factors that may

be related to patterns of achievement on TIMSSR. However, differences in teaching and curriculum

between the United States and other TIMSSR nations were noted.

U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely than their international peers to be taught mathematics by

teachers who majored in mathematics, but as likely as others to be taught by teachers who majored

in mathematics education.

U.S. eighth-grade students were as likely as their international peers to be taught science by teachers

with a college major or main area of study in biology, chemistry, or science education but less likely to

be taught science by teachers with a degree in physics.

A greater percentage of U.S. eighth-graders than of their international peers reported using computers

frequently in mathematics and science classes.

U.S. eighth-grade students spent less time than their international peers studying mathematics or sci-

ence outside of school and doing mathematics or science homework outside of school.

61

GHAPTER T$==UEAeHING 59D GURR

Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers havepaid a great deal of attention to the preparation,ongoing professional development, instructionalpractices, and curricular focus of teachers. Muchof this attention has focused on developingprograms, teaching methods, and curriculummaterials to improve the achievement of allstudents. TIMSSR collected data from students,teachers, and schools about systems, programs,curricular emphases, instructional practices, andother factors that have been put into place tosupport improved student learning.

The relationships between achievement andeducation-related background factors arecomplex. In this initial report, it was not possibleto explore the potential relationships betweenachievement and the context of teaching, learning,and curriculum in the United States and the otherparticipating nations with the care and thoughtneeded to be confident in our interpretations.Therefore, although this report presents findingson the context of teaching, learning, and curricu-lum in the United States and the 37 other nationsthat participated in TIMSSR in 1999, it does notrelate any changes or differences in achievement tothese background factors. Examination of thesefactors is included to stimulate discussion of themany varied approaches taken by nations. Morein-depth analyses of the data that take intoaccount the complex systems that support studentlearning, as well as findings from the data-richTIMSS Video Study and the forthcomingTIMSSR Videotape Classroom Study, willprovide a better basis for understanding theseinterconnections and will lead to importantfindings.

This chapter is organized into three sections, inthe following order:

O findings on the preparation and qualificationsof mathematics and science teachers, as wellas their ongoing professional developmentactivities;

O findings on the intended and implementedmathematics and science curricula; and

o findings on classroom practices and activities.

The analyses that follow are limited to datacollected in 1999 for the 38 TIMSSR nations. Forsome analyses in science, comparisons are limited

44

to the nations that generally organized scienceinstruction as a single, general/integrated subjector as separate subjects in 1999. Unless otherwiseindicated, the 38 TIMSSR nations are comparedin the science analyses in this chapter. A list of thenations that generally organized science instruc-tion as a general/integrated subject or as separatesubjects at the eighth grade are provided in tableA4.1 in appendix 4.

IFEAculER PREPARAEOW

GUALOFOCATMKS9 AKE)

PROFIESSOOKAL

DIEVELOPMEXT

9

TIMSSR collected information on the academicpreparation, qualifications, and ongoing profes-sional development of the mathematics andscience teachers of eighth-grade students.Teachers' educational backgrounds and confi-dence in their abilities to teach mathematics andscience were some of the factors considered asindicators of the extent to which teachers areprepared to teach. Data collected in TIMSSR donot, however, provide a complete picture ofteacher preparedness.

What educational backgroundsdid our mathematics teachershave in 1999?Over the last several years, some have argued thatit is important for teachers to have subject matterexpertise, and one indication of this is a major insubjects they teach, either at the bachelor's ormaster's level. TIMSSR asked the mathematicsand science teachers of eighth-grade studentsabout their majors at the bachelor's and master'slevel. Teachers could indicate that they had morethan one major or main area of study if applicable.U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely thantheir international peers to be taught by a mathe-matics teacher with a bachelor's or master's degreemajoring in mathematics. In 1999, 41 percent ofU.S. eighth-grade students had a mathematicsteacher whose bachelor's degree or master's major

62

or main area of study was in mathematics, asmaller percentage than the international averageof 71 percent of students (figure 25). Compared tothe United States, a higher percentage of studentsin 29 of the 37 other nations were taught by amathematics teacher with a bachelor's or master'sor equivalent major in mathematics. Canada andItaly were the only nations that reported lowerpercentages than the United States.

U.S. eighth-grade students were as likely as theirinternational peers to be taught by a mathematicsteacher with a bachelor's or master's degree majorin mathematics education. Thirty-seven percentof U.S. eighth-grade students were taught mathe-matics by a teacher whose bachelor's or master'smajor was in mathematics education. This iscomparable to the international average of 31percent of students.

Figure 25.Eighth-grade mathematics teachers' reports on theirmain area of study: 1999

100

80

60

40

20

0

71

3135

0 United States

International average*

32 32

Mathematics. Mathematics Science/Education Science Education

Education Other

Bachelor's or master's degree major

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Mullis et al. (2000) for details.Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Science includes biology, physics, chemistry, and science education.Based on mathematics teachers' reports of main area or areas of study for bachelor's and/or master's degree; more than one catego-ry could be selected.Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

4563

46

What educational backgroundsdid our science teachers havein 1999?For this analysis, science teachers of U.S. studentswere compared to science teachers in othernations that generally taught science as a

general/integrated science curriculum) In

addition to the United States, 22 other nationsindicated they generally teach their eighth-gradestudents with this type of a science curriculum(see table A4.1). Unlike mathematics teachers,science teachers often obtained degrees in thedifferent content areas of science such as biology,physics, and chemistry. Therefore, it is importantto compare the percentage of students whoseteachers held a bachelor's or master's degree in oneof these specific areas. Teachers could indicate

that they had more than one major or main area ofstudy, if applicable.

In 1999, 47 percent of U.S. eighth-grade studentswere taught by science teachers with a collegemajor or main area of study in biology, 13 percentof our students were taught by science teacherswith a college major or main area of study inphysics, and 21 percent of our students weretaught by science teachers with a college major ormain area of study in chemistry (figure 26). Thepercentage of U.S. students taught by scienceteachers with a college major or main area of studyin biology or chemistry was similar to the interna-tional averages for these categories, while thepercentage of U.S. students taught science byteachers with a college major or main area of studyin physics was lower than the internationalaverage.

Figure 26.Eighth-grade science teachers' reports on their mainarea of study: 1999

100

80

607.

40

20

D United States

International average'

@!3

42 44

30 30 292523

iJa3

0Biology Physics, I Chemistry Science Mathematics/ Education. I Other 2 I

EducationM6huecmagin%

Bachelor's or master's degree major

*Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.IThe item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Martin et al. (2000) for details.20ther may include areas of study in earth science fields.

NOTE: Based on science teachers' reports of main area or areas of study for bachelor's and/or master's degree; more than onecategory could be selected.Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported teaching a general/integrated sciencecurriculum.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

1The National Research Coordinator of each nation was asked to complete a questionnaire that, among other things, asked if sci-ence was taught as a general/integrated subject or as separate subjects such as Earth Science, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. TheCouncil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) supplied information for the United States. The United States is one of 23 nationsin TIMSSR that, in general, teaches science as a general/integrated subject at the eighth-grade level. The questionnaire did not dis-tinguish between general science and integrated science. See table A4.1 in appendix 4.

6 4

In addition to, or in lieu of, content areaspecificdegrees, teachers can also major in science educa-tion. In 1999, 43 percent of U.S. eighth-gradescience students were taught by science teacherswith a bachelor's or master's degree major inscience education. This was similar to the interna-tional average of 44 percent.

How confident weremathematics teachers intheir preparation to teachmathematics subjects?In addition to asking about the educational back-ground of teachers, TIMSSR asked teachers howconfident they were to teach mathematics as agauge of their own sense of preparedness.

In general, more U.S. teachers of eighth-gradestudents reported feeling very well prepared toteach mathematics compared to their counter-parts in other nations in 1999. In mathematics,the United States was among the top group ofnations in which a large percentage of its studentswere taught by teachers who reported feeling "verywell prepared" to teach mathematics (figure 27).On average, 90 percent of U.S. eighth-graders hadteachers who felt "very well prepared" to teachacross the topics covered by the TIMSSR mathe-matics framework. In this respect, the UnitedStates was similar to 9 nations and was higher than25 nations as well as the international average.

Ninety percent or more of U.S. eighth-gradestudents were taught by teachers who reportedthey were "very well prepared" to teach 7 of the12 topics asked about.2 For the other 5 topics(measurementunits, instruments, and accuracy;geometric figuresdefinitions and properties;geometric figuressymmetry; simple probabilitiesunderstanding and calculations; and coordinategeometry), 75 to 86 percent of U.S. eighth-graderswere taught by mathematics teachers who felt"very well prepared" to teach these topics. For 11of the 12 mathematics topics covered in TIMSSR,the percentage of U.S. students taught by teacherswho felt "very well prepared" exceeded the inter-national average.

Interpretation of these data should take intoaccount cultural and curricular issues, however.For example, teachers in some cultures may bemore reserved about discussing their strengthsand abilities. Teachers' reports on their confidencelevels to teach a subject area may be influenced bycultural norms and expectations. Moreover,teachers' reports on their confidence levels mayalso reflect the emphases of the curricula they areexpected to teach. For example, if the mathemat-ics standards or curriculum emphasizes a

particular set of topics and does not emphasizeanother set of topics, teachers may feel lessprepared to teach those topics that they are notusually expected to present. Curricular issues aredealt with to a certain degree in TIMSSR, and theareas emphasized in each nation's curriculum aswell as the topics covered by teachers are discussedlater in this chapter.3 Cultural issues are outsidethe scope of TIMSSR but can be found through-out the research literature.

2The 7 mathematics topics where 90 percent or more of U.S. eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who report they were"very well prepared" are fractions, decimals, and percentages; ratios and proportions; perimeter, area, and volume; algebraic represen-tation; evaluate and perform operations on algebraic expressions; solving linear equations and inequalities; representation and inter-pretation of data in graphs, charts, and tables.

3TIMSSR collected information from the mathematics and science teachers of the eighth-graders about the curricular topics cov-ered and emphasized most in the classroom. TIMSSR did not include an in-depth curriculum analysis, as in TIMSS.

47

.6.5

48

Figure 27.Teachers' beliefs about their preparation to teachmathematics and science: 1999

Percentage of eighth-grade students whosemathematics teachers reported feeling very well

prepared to teach mathematicsNation PercentMacedonia, Republic of 92

United States 90Cyprus 89

Slovak Republic 89

Jordan 88

Czech Republic 88New Zealand 88

Romania 85

Australia 84

(Israel)1 84

Netherlands 84

Turkey 83Finland 81


Malaysia 81

Indonesia 81

Belgium-Flemish 80Canada 79Singapore 78

Chinese Taipei 78

Morocco 75

Latvia-LSS2 73

Hong Kong SAR 72

South Africa 71

Italy 69

Bulgaria 66Moldova 64Philippines 64Korea, Republic of 61

Hungary 59Tunisia 51

Slovenia 50

Chile 44Thailand 32

Japan 23

EnglandLithuaniaRussian Federation


73

Percentage of eighth-grade students whose scienceteachers reported feeling very well prepared to

teach scienceNation PercentMacedonia, Republic of 72

Czech Republic 64Turkey 63New Zealand 59United States 58

Indonesia 58

Romania 57

Morocco 57

Cyprus 57

Jordan 57

Australia 55

(Israel) 55

South Africa 53

Netherlands 50

Finland 47

Belgium-Flemish 47Bulgaria 46Singapore 46Canada 44

Italy 42

Chinese Taipei 42


Philippines 41

Moldova 39

Latvia-LSS2 37

Hong Kong SAR 34Tunisia 32

Korea, Republic of 31

Thailand 30Hungary 29

Chile 29

Malaysia 22

Japan 17

EnglandLithuaniaRussian FederationSlovak RepublicSlovenia


Data not available.

1The shading of Israel may appear incorrect; however, statistically its placement is correct.2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that provided data.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.


46

66

How confident were scienceteachers in their preparationto teach science subjects?Overall, the picture of teacher confidence inpresenting science topics appears different fromthe one described for mathematics. Fifty-eightpercent of U.S. eighth-graders had scienceteachers who felt "very well prepared" to teachacross the science topics covered in the TIMSSRframework (figure 27). In comparison to the 37other TIMSSR nations, the United States wassimilar to 11 nations and was higher than 20nations as well as the international average. It

appears that science teachers reported feeling lessconfident about their preparedness to teacheighth-grade science topics than their mathemat-ics counterparts when considering theinternational average percentage of studentstaught by a teacher who felt "very well prepared"to teach mathematics (73 percent) or science (46percent), internationally.

Forty to sixty-five percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents had science teachers who felt "very wellprepared" to teach 9 of the 10 topics asked about.In only one topic area, scientific methods andinquiry skills, did science teachers of more than 80percent of eighth-grade students in the UnitedStates feel "very well prepared" to teach.

Compared to the international average, the UnitedStates had a higher percentage of its studentstaught by science teachers who felt "very wellprepared" to teach in 4 of the 10 science topicareas: earth sciencefeatures; earth sciencesolarsystem; environmental and resource issues; andscientific methods and inquiry skills. In the other 6topic areas,4 the United States was similar to theinternational average.

Again, interpretation of these data should takeinto account possible cultural and curricularissues that can affect teachers' reports of theirconfidence to teach subject-specific topics.

CHAPTER 3=4EACHING LAM CURRIE-ULU

In what types of professionaldevelopment activities didour mathematics teachersparticipate?The United States asked mathematics and scienceteachers of TIMSSR students to describe theirprofessional development experiences during the1998-99 school year, defined as June 1998 to May1999. Only U.S. teachers were asked about theirparticipation in 11 types of professional develop-ment activities5; thus, cross-national comparisonscannot be made.

Of the 11 types of professional development askedabout in the U.S. teacher questionnaires, within-district workshops or institutes and courses forcollege credit were generally the most frequenttypes of activities that mathematics teachers ofU.S. eighth-grade students participated in duringthe 1998-99 school year. On average, U.S. eighth-grade students were taught mathematics byteachers who attended 12 clock hours of within-district workshops or institutes and 9 clock hoursof courses for college credit6 over the course of ayear. These professional development activitiesmay or may not have been specifically mathemat-ics-focused.

In what types of professionaldevelopment activities did ourscience teachers participate?The story appears similar for the science teachersof U.S. students. Of the 11 types of professionaldevelopment activities asked about in the teacherquestionnaires, within-district workshops or insti-tutes and courses for college credit were generallythe most frequent types of activities that scienceteachers of U.S. eighth-grade students participatedin during the 1998-99 school year. On average,

4The 6 science topics where the United States had a similar percentage of students with teachers feeling "very well prepared" com-pared to the international average are biologyhuman systems; biologyplant and animal life; chemistrymatter; chemistrychemicalreactivity; physicstypes of energy; and physicslight.

5U.S. mathematics and science teachers were asked about their participation in the following 11 types of professional developmentactivities: within-district workshops or institutes; courses for college credit; out-of-district workshops and institutes; teacher col-laboratives or networks; out-of-district conferences; immersion or internship activities; receiving mentoring, coaching, lead teach-ing, or observation; teacher resource centers; committees or task forces; teacher study groups; and other forms of organized pro-fessional development. These questions were not asked in any other nation in TIMSSR.

6This average includes teachers who did not take any courses for college credit; therefore, the average hours spent in such courses bythose teachers who took them may be underreported.

67

49

U.S. eighth-grade students were taught by ascience teacher who attended around 12 clockhours of within-district workshops or institutesand 12 clock hours of courses for college credit. Inaddition, science teachers of U.S. eighth-gradestudents spent almost 7 clock hours in committeesor task forces over the course of a year.

Did our mathematics teachersobserve one another teaching?Some research suggests that the experience ofteachers observing other teachers can contributeto the sharing of good practices. TIMSSR askedthe mathematics and science teachers of U.S.eighth-grade students about the number of classperiods they observed other teachers in the lastyear and the number of periods other teachersobserved them in the past year. It is important tonote that the questionnaire did not ask teachersabout the purpose of their participation in obser-vation activities. Again, this question was askedonly of U.S. mathematics and science teachers.

In general, the mathematics teachers of U.S.eighth-grade students rarely participated in obser-vational activities. On average, U.S. eighth-gradestudents were taught by mathematics teacherswho spent 1 class period during the 1998-99school year observing other teachers and whowere observed by other teachers during 2 classperiods. There were no differences in the averagenumber of class periods mathematics teachersobserved other teachers or were observed by otherteachers based on years of teaching experience.

50

Did our science teachersobserve one another teaching?The science teachers of U.S. eighth-grade studentsalso rarely participated in observational activities.On average, U.S. eighth-graders were taught byscience teachers who observed other teachers for 1class period during the 1998-99 school year andwho were observed by other teachers for 1 classperiod. However, the situation was different forU.S. eighth-grade students whose science teachershad the fewest years of experience (0-5 years):their teachers spent approximately 3 periodsobserving other teachers, a greater number ofperiods than science teachers with more years ofexperience.

What topics were emphasizedin professional developmentactivities for U.S. mathematicsteachers?In addition to exploring the types of professionaldevelopment activities in which teachers of U.S.eighth-grade students participated, the U.S. math-ematics and science teacher questionnaires askedabout the topics emphasized during professionaldevelopment activities.

Overall, mathematics teachers of U.S. eighth-grade students reported their professionaldevelopment activities emphasized curriculummore than any other topic. Mathematics teacherswho stated their professional development activi-ties emphasized curriculum either "quite a lot" or"a great deal" taught 64 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students (figure 28). This was a higherpercentage than the percentage for any other topicasked about.

68

eHAPTER ACHI LaD GURRICULU

Figure 28.Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught byteachers that participated in professional development activities thatemphasized different topics: 1999

Professional development topic

Percentage of U.S. 8th-grade students taught byteachers who said their professional developmentactivities emphasized the topic "quite a lot" or

"a great deal"Mathematics Science

Curriculum 64 59

Subject-specific teaching methods in mathematics orscience

40 40

General teaching methods 38 44

Approaches to assessment 33 37

Use of technology in instruction 44 46

Strategies for teaching diverse student populations 21 23

Information on how students learn mathematics orscience

21 23

Deepening teacher's knowledge of mathematics orscience

28 50

Leadership development 16 19

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience StudyRepeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

What topics were emphasizedin professional developmentactivities for U.S. scienceteachers?Professional development activities related tocurriculum also appear to be most frequentamong science teachers of U.S. eighth-gradestudents, followed closely by activities related togeneral teaching methods, use of technology ininstruction, and deepening teachers' knowledge ofscience. Fifty-nine percent of eighth-gradestudents were taught by science teachers reportingtheir professional development activities empha-sized curriculum either "quite a lot" or "a greatdeal" (figure 28). This percentage was similar tothe percentage of eighth-grade students taught byscience teachers reporting their professional devel-opment activities emphasized general teachingmethods, using technology, and deepeningteacher's knowledge of science.

CURROCULUN9 CONTENT

COVERAGE9 AN ENDUES,Data on teacher preparation and professionaldevelopment provide information on the readi-ness of teachers to instruct students. Combiningthese data with information on what teacherspresent and how they present it gives us a morecomplete picture of teaching and learning experi-ences in classrooms around the world. Thefollowing sections discuss the structure and scopeof U.S. mathematics and science curricula incomparison to other TIMSSR nations, as well asthe instructional practices of mathematics andscience teachers in the participating nations.

6951

52

Who sets the curriculum inTIMSSR nations?Most of the 38 TIMSSR nations have imple-mented a national mathematics and sciencecurriculum. Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates are the three TIMSSR nations with region-ally or locally determined curricula. Curriculumis determined at the state or provincial level inAustralia and Canada. Curriculum is determinedat the local level in the United States. Throughoutthis report, we treat Australia, Canada, and theUnited States as if they each had a nationalcurriculum, for comparative purposes. However,it is important to remember that these threenations do not have national curricula in mathe-matics and science.

How much of each TIMSSRcontent area did the intendedU.S. curriculum cover?In an effort to better understand the mathematicsand science achievement of eighth-grade students,TIMSSR collected information on each nation'smathematics and science curricula as it wasintended to be taught to students.7 This informa-tion can put achievement results in perspective byrevealing those content areas that most eighth-grade students have been exposed to in theireducational experiences up to and includingeighth grade, and those that they have not yet beenexposed to.8 For example, if the intended mathe-matics or science curriculum in a nation does notemphasize the topics in a particular content area,or only a select group of students is intended tolearn a particular topic, then we would be lesslikely to expect that nation's students to performwell in that content area on TIMSSR.

Across the five content areas in mathematics andthe six content areas in science examined inTIMSSR, the intended U.S. mathematics andscience curricula appear to have had a higherpercentage of overall coverage of the TIMSSRcontent areas than the international average. In

mathematics, 93 percent of the topics included inthe content areas overall were intended to betaught to all or almost all (at least 90 percent) ofU.S. students in 1999. The international averageof intended coverage to all or almost all studentswas 7 5 percent of the topics in the five mathemat-ics content areas. One hundred percent of thetopics in three mathematics content areasfrac-tions and number sense; measurement; and datarepresentation, analysis, and probabilitywereintended to be taught to all or almost all U.S.eighth-grade students. Eighty-five percent of thetopics in geometry and 82 percent of the topics inalgebra were intended to be covered.

Similarly, 86 percent of the topics in the six sciencecontent areas overall were intended to be taught toall or almost all (at least 90 percent) of U.S.students in 1999. The international average acrossthe TIMSSR nations was 62 percent. Onehundred percent of the topics in five of the sixscience content areasearth science; biology;physics; environmental and resource issues; andscientific inquiry and the nature of sciencewereintenaed to be taught to all or almost all U.S.eighth-grade students. Fifty percent of topics inchemistry were intended to be covered.

7Findings are based on information provided by each nation's National Research Coordinator (NRC). In the United States, thisinformation was provided by the Council of Chief State School Officers.

8Schmidt, McKnight, et al. (1997) and Schmidt, Raizen, et al. (1997) conducted in-depth analyses of the mathematics and sciencetopics covered in the textbooks and curriculum guides used in nations as well as the depth of the topics presented. TIMSSR didnot collect information on the depth of coverage of topics by mathematics and science teachers. Comparisons between the find-ings of Schmidt et al. and TIMSSR cannot be made here.

70

How much of the mathematicscurriculum was taught?TIMSSR asked mathematics and science teachersof eighth-grade students about the curriculumthat is actually taught in the classroom. Like infor-mation about the intended curriculum,information about what is actually taught can putachievement scores into perspective by revealingwhat content areas have and have not beencovered by the time students near completion ofthe eighth grade.

The percentage of eighth-graders whose teachersreported they had taught each content area inmathematics and science varied across theTIMSSR nations. "Taught" is defined as the sum

of percentages of students whose teachersreported these areas as either taught before thisyear or taught more than five periods this year.Four of the five mathematics content areasfrac-tions and number sense; measurement; datarepresentation, analysis, and probability; andalgebrawere taught to between 91 percent and99 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students, whichwas higher than the international average of theTIMSS-R nations for each of these content areas.On the other hand, 65 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were taught geometry according totheir mathematics teachers, a percentage similar tothe international average (figure 29).

Figure 29.Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students "taught"mathematics content areas: 1999

100

80

60

40

20

0

95

86

1=1 United States

1=1 International average

59 58

98

88

Fractions and

number sense

Measu ement Data rep esentation, Geometry Algebra

analysis, and probability

Content areas

Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: "Taught" equals the sum of percentages of students whose mathematics teachers reported these content areas as either"taught before this year" or "taught more than five periods this year."Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

537.1

CHAPTER T$TrEACHING LBJiJ CURRIE-ULU

54

How much of the sciencecurriculum was taught?The percentage of U.S. eighth-grade studentstaught the six science content areas in TIMSSRvaried as well. Science teachers of 95 percent ofU.S. eighth-graders reported that scientific inquiryand the nature of science was taught before theTIMSSR assessment (figure 30). Science teachersof between 70 and 81 percent of U.S. eighth-graders reported that the other five contentareasearth science; biology; physics; chemistry;and environmental and resource issuesweretaught before the assessment was given. Four ofthe six content areasearth science; biology;physics; and scientific inquiry and the nature ofsciencewere taught to a higher percentage ofU.S. eighth-graders than the internationalaverages for each of these four areas.

Which topics were emphasizedmost in U.S. eighth-gradecurricula?In 1999, a higher percentage of U.S. eighth-gradestudents had mathematics teachers who reportedemphasizing general mathematics (28 percent) oralgebra (27 percent) than the internationalaverages of the 38 nations for each of these topics.U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely to be inclasses where the emphasis was a combination ofalgebra and geometry or algebra, geometry,numbers, and other topics than the internationalaverage. No nation had a greater percentage ofstudents taught by mathematics teachers whoemphasized algebra as a single topic than theUnited States. That is, U.S. eighth-grade studentswere more likely to be in a mathematics class thatemphasized algebra as a discrete topic than theirinternational peers, who were more likely to be inmathematics classes that combine algebra withother topics such as geometry. Evidence from theTIMSS study showed that what is interpreted asalgebra can vary among mathematics teachersfrom different nations (Stigler et al. 1999).

Figure 30.Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students "taught"science content areas: 1999

100

80

60

40

20

7-0

57

O United States

O International average

6053

6772

80

Earth science 1 . Bio ogy I Physics. I Chemistry Environmental and Scienti ic inquiry

resource issues and the nature

of science

Content areas


NOTE: "Taught" equals the sum of percentages of students whose science teachers reported these topics as either "taught before thisyear" or "taught more than five periods this year."Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

72

The majority of U.S. eighth-grade students were ina science class where the teacher emphasized oneof three subjects the most: general/integratedscience, earth science, or physical science. Forty-one

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were in aclass where general/integrated science was empha-sized, which is lower than the internationalaverage (58 percent) of the nations that generallyteach general/integrated science. The 28 percent ofU.S. students whose teachers emphasized earthscience was above the international average of 5percent, and the 21 percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents whose teachers emphasized physicalscience was also higher than the internationalaverage of 11 percent. Fewer U.S. eighth-gradestudents had teachers who emphasized biology (5percent) or physics (2 percent) than the interna-tional averages (14 percent and 6 percent,respectively).

Did the TIMSSR nations'curricula accommodatestudents with varying degreesof interests and abilities?The United States was one of 30 TIMSSR nationsthat addressed the issue of students having varyinglevels of interests and abilities in their mathemat-ics curricula, and one of 27 nations that addresseddifferentiation in their science curricula.9 The twomost common approaches to addressing differen-tiation in mathematics and science classes wereteaching the same curriculum to all students, withteachers adapting to different student needs, or"streaming" students by grade or ability level.These approaches have also been taken in theUnited States.

lArhen schools were asked how their mathematicsclasses accommodated students with differentabilities or interests in mathematics and science,schools of 79 percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents responded that enrichment mathematicswas offered, which was above the internationalaverage of 58 percent.1° In science, schools of 34percent of U.S. eighth-grade students said theyoffered enrichment science classes, a lowerpercentage than the international average of 50

percent. In addition, 64 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were in schools that offeredremedial mathematics, similar to the internationalaverage of 72 percent. Seventeen percent of U.S.eighth-grade students were in schools offeringremedial science, a lower percentage than theinternational average of 53 percent.

CLASSROOM PRACTICES

MO ACTOWTES

TIMSSR asked eighth-grade students and theirmathematics and science teachers about variouspractices and activities that took place in the class-room, including use of calculators in mathematicslessons and use of computers and the Internet inscience and mathematics lessons. The kinds ofskills that students are asked to practice and thetypes of activities that they participate in duringlessons can promote and reinforce learning,particularly when combined with a coherent andwell-planned curriculum. Students' and teachers'reports of some of the practices and activities inthe classroom are presented below.

What kinds of skills did U.S.mathematics and scienceteachers report asking theirstudents to use duringlessons?Mathematics teachers of eighth-grade studentswere surveyed on whether they asked theirstudents to perform each of the following in "mostor every lesson": explain the reasoning behind anidea; represent and analyze relationships usingtables, charts, or graphs; work on problems withno solution; write equations to represent relation-ships; and practice computational skills. A greaterpercentage of U.S. eighth-grade students wereasked by their mathematics teachers to write equa-tions to represent relationships in most or everylesson (54 percent) than the international average(43 percent). U.S. students were as likely to beasked by their mathematics teachers to practiceeach of the other skills as their international peers.

9Based on information provided by each nation's National Research Coordinator (NRC).

10School information provided by the principal or head administrator of the school.

55

CHAPTER 3=4EACHING [NM CURRICULU

56

A similar question was asked of science teachers in

all 38 TIMSSR nations. Science teachersreported on whether they asked their eighth-gradestudents in "most or every lesson" to explain thereasoning behind an idea; represent and analyzerelationships using tables, charts, or graphs; workon problems with no solution; write explanationsabout what was observed and why it happened; orput events or objects in order. Eighty percent ofU.S. eighth-grade students were asked by theirscience teachers to explain the reasoning behindan idea in most or every science lesson, a higherpercentage than the international average of 67percent of students. A majority of U.S. eighth-grade students (59 percent) were also asked bytheir science teachers to write explanations aboutwhat was observed and why it happened in mostor every science lesson, which was similar to theinternational average of 52 percent. U.S. eighth-grade students were also as likely as theirinternational peers to be asked to represent andanalyze relationships, work on problems with nosolution, and put events or objects in order inmost or every science lesson.

What activities did U.S.students report occurring intheir mathematics and scienceclasses?Students were asked to report on how often theirmathematics teachers showed them how to do amathematics problem, asked them to work fromworksheets or textbooks on their own, asked themto work on mathematics projects, or asked them touse things from everyday life in solving mathe-matics problems. Ninety-four percent of U.S.eighth-grade students said that their teachersshowed them how to do mathematics problems"almost always" or "pretty often" (figure 31). Thiswas higher than the international average of 86percent. Only one nation, Singapore, had a greaterpercentage of students report that their mathe-matics teachers showed them how to do a problemduring the lesson almost always or pretty oftenthan the United States. A greater percentage ofU.S. eighth-grade students also reported that theyworked from worksheets or textbooks on their

Figure 31.Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence ofselected activities in their mathematics class "almost always" or"pretty often": 1999

1000 United States

80 86 86 0 International average

6059

4036

20

0

Teacher shows how to

do a mathematics problem

Students work onworksheet or from textbooks.

Activities in mathematics class


NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

Students work on

mathematics projects.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

74

own almost always or pretty often during mathe-matics lessons (86 percent) than the internationalaverage (59 percent). On the other hand, a smallerpercentage of U.S. students reported that theyworked on mathematics projects during theirmathematics lessons (29 percent) than the inter-national average (36 percent). Finally, TIMSSRdata indicate that 23 percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents reported that they almost always usethings from everyday life in solving mathematicsproblems during their mathematics lessons. Thiswas a greater percentage than the internationalaverage of 15 percent (not included in figure).

Students were also asked to report on how oftentheir science teachers showed them how to do aproblem, asked them to work from worksheets ortextbooks on their own, asked them to work onscience projects, demonstrated an experiment inclass, or asked students to conduct an experimentin class. In science, 69 percent of U.S. eighth-graders reported being shown how to do scienceproblems by their science teachers "almost always"

or "pretty often" during their science lessons(figure 32). This was a lower percentage than theinternational average (80 percent) of the 23nations that teach an integrated/general sciencecurriculum. Seventy-six percent of U.S. eighth-grade students also reported that they were almostalways or pretty often asked to work from work-sheets or textbooks and 59 percent stated that theywork on science projects during science lessons,greater percentages than the international averagesof 56 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

When students were asked how often their scienceteachers gave demonstrations of experiments, 71percent of U.S. eighth-grade students reportedthat this occurred almost always or pretty oftenduring their science lessons in 1999.

Internationally, among the 23 nations withgeneral/integrated science in eighth grade, anequivalent percentage of their international peersreported that their science teachers gave demon-strations of experiments during science lessons.When students were asked how often they did an

Figure 32.Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence ofselected activities in their science class "almost always" or "prettyoften": 1999

100

80

60

40

20

0

80

56 giz)

D United States

CI International average of 23 nations

51

71(5

57

Teache showshow to do a

science problem

i 1

Students work on Students work on Teacher

worksheets or science projects demonstrates

from textbooks a science experiment

Activities in science class


Students

conduct

experiments

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations that reported teaching a general/integrated sciencecurriculum in 1999.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 6.10, R3.11, and R3.I3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

57

58

experiment or practical investigation in theirscience lesson, 65 percent of U.S. eighth-gradersreported that this occurred almost always or prettyoften during their science lessons. This repre-sented a higher percentage of students than theinternational average of 57 percent.

How often did U.S. studentsuse calculators in their mathe-matics lessons?In 1999, 42 percent of U.S. eighth-grade studentsreported that they "almost always" used calcula-tors in their mathematics lessons. This was ahigher percentage of students than the interna-tional average (19 percent). In comparison to theUnited States, two nationsthe Netherlands andAustraliahad a higher percentage of studentsresponding that they used calculators almostalways in their mathematics lessons. Eight percentof U.S. eighth:grade students reported never usingcalculators in their mathematics lessons, whichwas lower than the international average of 32percent of students.

Did students have access tocomputers and the Internet,and how did schools, teachers,and students report usingthese tools?Some believe that access to computers, software,and the Internet provides additional tools forteachers to create meaningful lessons from whichstudents can learn, helping to reinforce andsupplement their classroom learning. In short, itis believed that these technological tools can, whencoherently integrated into lessons, create addi-tional opportunities for learning.

Access to computers and the Internet is the firststep toward using these technological tools inteaching and learning mathematics and science.U.S. students had a high level of access to comput-ers and the Internet at home and at school relativeto eighth-graders in other nations in 1999. Eightypercent of U.S. eighth-graders reported that theyhad a computer in their home, a higher percentagethan the international average of 45 percent(figure 33). Fifty-nine percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students reported having Internet access at home,

Figure 33.Eighth-grade students' reports of access to computersand the Internet: 1999

100

80

60

40

20

0

80

45

glg

1825

1: United States

0 International average

43

Have compter at home I Have Internet

access at home

Have Internet

access at schoolHave Internet

access elsewhere



SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits R1.1 and 6.17. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

0

76 percent reported access at school, and 81percent reported access elsewhere (e.g., libraries orcommunity centers); all of these percentages weregreater than the international averages.

Access to computers, software, and the Internetand, by extension, their use in and for mathemat-ics and science lessons, can be affected byshortages of these tools at school. Schools of 47percent of U.S. eighth-grade students reportedthat shortages of computers for instructionaffected mathematics instruction "some" or "a lot,"similar to the international average of 57 percent.Schools of 45 percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents also reported that shortages of computersfor instruction affected science instruction "some"or "a lot," a smaller percentage than the interna-tional average of 59 percent. In regard to computersoftware, schools of almost half of U.S. eighth-grade students reported that shortages affectedmathematics instruction and science instruction`some or a lot" (48 percent and 47 percent, respec-tively), which were similar to the internationalaverages.

U.S. eighth-grade students were more than twiceas likely as their peers in other nations to be in

schools with networked computer access to theInternet. Ninety-one percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents were in schools that reported Internetaccess, a higher percentage than the internationalaverage of 41 percent. Internationally, an averageof 29 percent of students were in schools thatreported they had no Internet access at all and noplans to get itmore than a quarter of all studentssurveyed internationally. Less than 1 percent ofU.S. eighth-grade students were enrolled in aschool that reported no access to the Internet andno plans to obtain access.

Access to computers and the Internet is one thing,but using them is another. Eighth-grade studentswere asked how often they use computers in theirmathematics and science classes, and how oftentheir teachers use computers to demonstrate ideasin class.

Twelve percent of U.S. eighth-graders reportedusing computers in mathematics class "almostalways" or "pretty often" in 1999, which was ahigher percentage than the international averageof 5 percent (figure 34). Sixty-one percent of U.S.eighth-grade students reported that they neverused computers in their mathematics classes,

Figure 34.Eighth-grade students' reports on using computers inmathematics and science classes "almost always" or "pretty often":1999

100Ei United States

80 12 International average

60

40

20

58

0

Mathematics



SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.15. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at theEighth Grade. Exhibit 6.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Science

77

59

CHAPTER T=43IgII nau CURRICULU

which was below the international average of 80percent. Nine percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents reported that their teachers usedcomputers to present mathematics ideas almostalways or pretty often, which was higher than theinternational average of 5 percent.

Among U.S. eighth-graders who indicated accessto the Internet, 13 percent reported they used e-mail to work with students in other schools onmathematics projects at least once a month, and17 percent said that they used the World WideWeb to access information for mathematicsprojects at least once a month. A higher percent-age of U.S. eighth-graders reported using theWorld Wide Web to access information for niath-ematics projects than the international average.

In science, 21 percent of U.S. eighth-gradersreported using computers in science class "almostalways" or "pretty often" in 1999, which was higherthan the international average of 8 percent (figure34).11 Twenty percent of U.S. students reportedtheir teachers used computers to present scienceideas, which was higher than the internationalaverage of 10 percent.12 Among U.S. eighth-gradestudents who indicated access to the Internet, 9percent e-mailed students in other schools aboutscience projects at least once a month, and 29percent accessed information on the World WideWeb for science projects at least once a month.U.S. students' use of e-mail in this way for science-related projects was lower than the internationalaverage, and use of the Internet to access scienceinformation for science-related projects washigher than the international average.13

How often did U.S. studentsdiscuss completed homeworkor begin homework in theirmathematics and scienceclasses?Many believe that homework is an important partof the learning process and that more homeworkleads to improvements in achievement. PriorTIMSS reports have not found a relationship

between amount of homework assigned or hoursspent on homework and achievement levels acrossnations (NCES, 1996, 1997c, 1998). That is, therewas no consistent pattern of greater amounts ofhomework relating to higher achievement onTIMSS.

Homework can also be used to stimulate discus-sion in the classroom, however. TIMSSR askedeighth-grade students how often they discuss theircompleted homework in their mathematics andscience classes. A higher percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students reported that they discussed theircompleted homework during mathematics classthan their international peers (figure 35). Whenasked whether they could begin their mathematicshomework in class, a higher percentage of U.S.students reported that they could than students in32 other nations. Seventy-four percent of U.S.eighth-graders reported that they "almost always"or "pretty often" could begin their mathematicshomework during class compared to the interna-tional average of 42 percent.

When compared to their peers in the 22 othernations that offer a general/integrated sciencecurriculum, a higher percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students reported that they discussed theirscience homework in class than their peers in 15nations. Sixty-three percent of U.S. eighth-gradersreported that they "almost always" or "prettyoften" discussed their completed sciencehomework in class compared to the internationalaverage of 51 percent (figure 35). Among thesesame nations, the United States had a higherpercentage of students who reported that theybegan their homework in science class than in 15nations. Fifty-seven percent of U.S. eighth-gradestudents reported that they "almost always" or

often" could begin their science homeworkduring science class, compared to the interna-tional average of 41 percent.

I 'Comparisons among the 23 nations that generally teach general/integrated science.

12Comparisons among the 23 nations that generally teach general/integrated science.

°Comparisons among all 38 TIMSSR nations.

60

78

Figure 35.Eighth-grade students reports of discussing or begin-ning homework in mathematics and science classes "almost always"or "pretty often": 1999

100

80

a)-o60

a)

c 40cu

CL

20

0

55

42

0 United States

0 International average

51

41

Discuss completed

homework in

mathematics class.

Begin homework in Discuss completedmathematics class homework in science class

Homework-related activities



Begin homework

in science class

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.10. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at theEighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

How much time did U.S.students spend studyingmathematics or doingmathematics homeworkoutside of school?On average, U.S. eighth-grade students spent lesstime outside of school studying mathematicsor science and doing mathematics or sciencehomework than their international peers.14 U.S.students spent an average of approximately three-quarters of an hour on a normal school day either

studying mathematics or doing mathematicshomework, which is lower than their internationalpeers, who spent an average of 1 hour. U.S.

students spent about half an hour on scienceoutside of school, less time than their peers in allTIMSSR nations, who spent an average of 1 hour.

14This finding is consistent with prior reports on TIMSS. In an earlier NCES (1996) report, comparisons were made amongGermany, Japan, and the United States only. Data published in Beaton et al. (1996a, 1996b) are also consistent with the numbersreported here.

617 9

alLr An' c'i C

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The findings presented in this report examine theperformance of U.S. eighth-grade students incomparison to their peers internationally. Mostimportantly, perhaps, this report documents themathematics and science performance of ourstudents between two points in time, a first for anyinternational study. Regular participation ininternational data collections, such as TIMSS andTIMSSR, provides an unprecedented opportu-nity to examine the pace of change in education inthe United States and other nations over time,informing expectations of what can be achieved.

TIMSS and TIMSSR were designed to documentthe mathematics and science performance ofnations in comparison to one another. These

studies were developed to document the systemsput into place to support school mathematics andscience teaching and learning in many differentnations and the outcomes of these systems asmeasured on a set of items agreed upon at theinternational level. TIMSS and TIMSSR were notspecifically designed to indicate the success orfailure of specific improvement efforts in theUnited States.

Of course, as with any study, the findings also raisemany new questions, ones that can be pursuedthrough future analyses of the TIMSS andTIMSSR data, through analyses of other large-scale data sets such as NAEP, or through futuredata collections. This report presents an initialexamination of the TIMSS and TIMSSR data.Future reports are planned, and these will focus onmore in-depth analyses of the data. In addition,each nation participating in TIMSSR will releaseits own analysis of the data. Insights from eachnation's findings can add to our understanding ofwhat policies and practices may have contributedto observed changes in achievement. The TIMSSdata set has been available for analysis byresearchers, practitioners, and policymakers forsome time. The TIMSSR data set will also bemade available in the first half of 2001. Finally, theresults of the TIMSSR Benchmarking Projectinvolving 27 states, districts, and consortia ofdistricts, available in April 2001, will provide anopportunity to examine eighth-grade mathemat-ics and science achievement data at a more locallevel.

Among the many questions raised by the findingsin this report are the following:

O Why did U.S. students' performance relative tothe international average decrease as gradelevels increase? What is happening in theintervening years between the fourth andeighth grades in the United States?

O Has the educational context for mathematicsand science changed in the United Statesbetween 1995 and 1999?

O What education-related background factorsare related to high achievement acrossnations? What education-related backgroundfactors are related to changes in achievementacross nations over time?

O What is the relationship between performancein mathematics and performance in science atthe student, school, and national levels?

O What is the relationship between internationalbenchmarks of performance (e.g., top 10percent) and the actual assessment items?Which items are students at or above theinternational top 10 percent benchmark likelyto answer correctly? Which items are studentsat or above the international top 25 percentbenchmark likely to answer correctly?

O In what areas of mathematics have blackstudents in the United States been makingprogress? How does this progress relate topolicies at the national, state, and local levels?

O What are possible reasons for the achievementgap in science between girls and boys inTIMSSR? Did girls and boys differ inachievement on the content areas? How dothese findings relate to decisions made at thenational, state, and local levels?

O When controlling for other factors, how dodifferent groups of U.S. students perform onTIMSSR?

El What policies and practices have been insti-tuted in nations that experienced significantincreases and in those that experiencedsignificant decreases in achievement? What isthe relationship between these policies andpractices and achievement?

81

Of course, there are many other questions that astudy such as this raises. And some of thequestions raised cannot be answered solely byexamining data from TIMSS and TIMSSR. It isexpected, however, that further analyses of TIMSSand TIMSSR will help address many of thesequestions and raise new ones to be pursued infuture data collections. The additionalcomponents of TIMSSRthat is, the TIMSSRVideotape Classroom Study, the TIMSSRBenchmarking Project, and the NAEP/TIMSSRLinking Studywill add to the rich resourcesavailable for analysis and reflection. Moreover, itis hoped that TIMSSR, including these compo-nent studies, will continue to stimulate discussionof the state of mathematics and science teachingand learning in the United States amongresearchers, policymakers, practitioners, parents,and students, much as TIMSS did.

82

65

Mo Ths Cl2d

WORM COTED

Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O.,Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.(1996a). Mathematics Achievement in the

Middle School Years: lEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Beaton, A.E., Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.(1996b). Science Achievement in the MiddleSchool Years: IEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Board on International Comparative Studies inEducation, National Research Council. (1990).A Framework and Principles for InternationalComparative Studies in Education. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1981).

Public and Private Schools: An Analysis of High

School and Beyond, a National LongitudinalStudy for the 1980s (NCES 82-230).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1982).High School Achievement. NewBooks.

York: Basic

Featherman, D. L. (1981). The Life-SpanPerspective. In The National Science

Foundation's 5-Year Outlook on Science andTechnology (vol. 2). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Halsey, A.H., Heath, A.E, and Ridge, J.M. (1984).The Political Arithmetic of Public Schools. InG. Walford (Ed.), British Public School: Policyand Practice (pp. 9-44). Lewes, DE: FalmerPress.

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-

White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.

Jimenez, E. and Lockheed, M.E. (Eds.). (1991).Private Versus Public Education: An

International perspective. Special issue ofInternational Journal of Educational Research,15.

68

Johnson, E.G. and Siegendorf, A. (1998). Linkingthe National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) and the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (TIMSS):Eighth-Grade Results (NCES 98-500).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Martin, M.O. and Gregory, K.D. (Eds.). (2000).

TIMSS 1999 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J.,

Gregory, K.D., Smith, T.A., Chrostowski, S.J.,Garden, R.A., and O'Connor, K.M. (2000).TIMSS 1999 International Science Report:Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study atthe Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

Medrich, E.A. and Griffith, J.E. (1992).International Mathematics and Science

Assessments: What Have We Learned? (NCES92-011). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J.,Gregory, K.D., Garden, R.A., O'Connor, K.M.,Chrostowski, S.J., and Smith, T.A. (2000).

TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report:Findings from IEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study atthe Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1996). PursuingExcellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth-GradeMathematics and Science Teaching, Learning,Curriculum, and Achievement in InternationalContext (NCES 97-198). L. Peak. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1997a). NAEP 1996Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the

States: Findings from the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NCES 97-488). C.M.Reese, K.E. Miller, J. Mazzeo, and J.A. Dossey.Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1997b). NAEP1996 Science Report Card for the Nation and theStates (NCES 97-497). C.T. O'Sullivan, C.M.Reese, and J. Mazzeo. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1997c). PursuingExcellence: A Study of U.S. Fourth-GradeMathematics and Science Achievement inInternational Context (NCES 97-255). M.

Frase, P. Jakworth, L. Martin, M. Orland, E.Owen, L. Peak, W. Schmidt, L. Suter, S.

Takahira, and T. Williams. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1998). PursuingExcellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-GradeMathematics and Science Achievement inInternational Context (NCES 98-049). S.

Takahira, P. Gonzales, M. Frase, and L.S.Salganik. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (1999). Digest ofEducation Statistics: 1998 (NCES 1999-036).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (2000a).Mathematics and Science in the Eighth Grade:Findings from the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (NCES2000-014). T. Williams, D. Levine, L. Jocelyn, P.

Butler, C. Heid, and J. Haynes. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (2000b). The

Condition of Education: 2000 (NCES2000-062). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education. (2000c). NAEP 1999Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades ofStudent Performance (NCES 2000-469). J.R.Campbell, C.M. Hombo, and J. Mazzeo.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Science Board. (2000). Science andEngineering Indicators-2000 (NSB-00-1).Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Riordan, C. (1997). Equality and Achievement: AnIntroduction to the Sociology of Education. NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman.

Robitaille, D.F., Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.,

McKnight, C., Britton, E., and Nicol, C. (1993).Curriculum Frameworks for Mathematics andScience. TIMSS monograph no. 1. Vancouver,BC: Pacific Educational Press.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Valverde, G.A.,Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. (1997). ManyVisions, Many Aims, Volume 1: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in SchoolMathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D.,

Bianchi, L.J., and Wolfe, R.G. (1997). ManyVisions, Many Aims, Volume 2: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in SchoolScience. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Sewell, W.H., Hauser, R.M., and Wolfe, W.C.(1976). Causes and Consequences of HigherEducation: Models of the Status AttainmentProcess. In W.H. Sewell, R.C. Hauser and D.L.Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and Achievementin American Society. New York: Academic Press.

Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S.,

and Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS VideotapeClassroom Study: Methods and Findings from an

Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-GradeMathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, andthe United States (NCES 1999-074).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Welch, C.M. (2000). United States. In D.F.Robitaille, A.F. Beaton, and T. Plomp (Eds.),The Impact of TIMSS on the Teaching andLearning of Mathematics and Science (pp.161-167). Vancouver, BC: Pacific EducationalPress.

85

WORKS CITED

WORKS CDTED

Williams, T.H. and Carpenter, P.G. (1990). PrivateSchooling and Public Achievement. AustralianJournal of Education, 34 (1), 3-24.

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The

Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears.Political Science Quarterly, 111,567-595.

70

8 6

AP:Panr,d-1KTIMSS Publications

8 7

PIPENIDDX 1-TOMSS PUBLICATOONS

The following reports are intended to serve asexamples of some of the numerous publicationsthat have been produced in relation to the 1995Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy (TIMSS). For an extended version of thislist, please visit the NCES TIMSS web site athttp://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss95.

TIMSS Summary andAchievement ReportsBeaton, A.E., Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.(1996). Science Achievement in the MiddleSchool Years: IEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O.,Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.(1996). Mathematics Achievement in the Middle

School Years: IEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Beaton, A.E.,Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.(1997). Science Achievement in the PrimarySchool Years: IEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E.,Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.(1997). Mathematics Achievement in the

Primary School Years: IEA's Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E.,Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.(1998). Mathematics and Science Achievementin the Final Year of Secondary School: IEA's Third

International Mathematics and Science Study.Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

National Center for Education Statistics, UnitedStates Department of Education. (1996).Pursuing Eexcellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Teaching,Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement inInternational Context (NCES 97-198).

72

Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Center for Education Statistics, UnitedStates Department of Education. (1997).Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Fourth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement inInternational Context (NCES 97-255).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Center for Education Statistics, UnitedStates Department of Education. (1998).Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement inInternational Context (NCES 98-049).Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, UnitedStates Department of Education. (1999).Highlights from TIMSS (NCES 1999-081).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Center for Education Statistics, UnitedStates Department of Education. (2000).Mathematics and Science in the Eighth Grade:Findings from the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (NCES2000-014). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

TIMSS Resource KitUnited States Department of Education. Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.(1997). Attaining Excellence: A TIMSS Resource

Kit (ORAD 97-1010). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,United States Department of Education (1999).Attaining Excellence: TIMSS as a Starting Pointto Examine Mathematics Assessments (ORAD1999-1104). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

88

TIMSS Videotape ClassroomStudy ReportsNational Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (2000).Highlights from the TIMSS Videotape Classroom

Study (NCES 2000-094). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stigler, LW., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S.,

and Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS VideotapeClassroom Study: Methods and Findings from an

Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-GradeMathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and

the United States (NCES 1999-074).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

TIMSS Curriculum StudyReportsSchmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Cogan, L.C.,

Jakwerth, P.M., and Houang, R.T. (1999).Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for aCloser Look at U.S. Mathematics and ScienceEducation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., and Raizen, S.A.(1997). A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of

U.S. Science and Mathematics Education.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Valverde, G.A.,Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. (1997). ManyVisions, Many Aims Volume 1: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in SchoolMathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D.,

Bianchi, L.J., and Wolfe, R.G. (1997). ManyVisions, Many Aims Volume 2: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in SchoolScience. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

APPENDOX 1-TO

TIMSS Case Study Reports

VSS PUBLECATOONS

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,United States Department of Education (1998).The Educational System in Japan: Case StudyFindings (SAI 98-3008). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,United States Department of Education.(1998). The Educational System in Germany:Case Study Findings (SAI 1999-3001).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,United States Department of Education (1998).The Educational System in the United States:Case Study Findings (SAI 1999-3000).Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Policy Publications Resultingfrom TIMSSNational Research Council. (1999). Global

Perspectives for Local Action: Using TIMSS toImprove U.S. Mathematics and Science

Education. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,United States Department of Education (1998).Policy Brief: What the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Meansfor Systemic School Improvement. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Silver, E.A. (1998). Improving Mathematics inMiddle School: Lessons from TIMSS and Related

Research (ORAD 98-1107). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilson, L.D. and Blank, R.K. (1999). ImprovingMathematics Education Using Results fromNAEP and TIMSS. Washington, DC: Councilof Chief State School Officers.

8 9

73

AppenA_KTechnical Notes

90

APPEND:DON 2-TECHNECAL MOTES

SAMPUNG KFORMATOOGi

TIMSSR nations were asked to identify eligiblestudents based on a common set of criteria,allowing for adaptation to nation-specific situa-tions. The international desired populationconsisted of all students in the nation who wereenrolled in the upper of the two adjacent gradesthat contained the greatest proportion of thirteen-year-olds at the time of testing. In the UnitedStates and most other nations, this corresponds tograde 8. If the national desired population of anation fell below 65 percent, the nation's name isannotated to reflect this fact (table A2.1).

The international guidelines specified the follow-ing sampling standards:

El The sample was to be representative of at least90 percent of students in the total populationeligible for the study. Therefore, nationalexclusion rates were required to be less than 10percent.

El The school participation rate without the useof replacement schools were required to be atleast 50 percent, and

O School and student participation rates(after replacements) were required to be 85percent or

O The combined participation rate (the productof school and student participation ratesafter replacements) were required to be at least75 percent.

Nations were also required to submit a samplingplan for approval by the TIMSS InternationalStudy Center.

All deviations from the international guidelinesare bolded in table A2.1.

A NOTE OK U.S.

ENCLUSIOK 'RATES

The reported exclusion rate for the United Statesfor grade 8 TIMSS was 1.7 percent, and 3.9 percentfor TIMSSR. The difference in the exclusion ratefor the United States between TIMSS andTIMSSR may be explained as a difference inreporting procedures between the two studies,rather than an increase in the number of students

76

declared not eligible to participate in theTIMSSR assessment.

For the four nations that sampled more than oneclassroom per school, including the United States,exclusion of students could have occured at threelevels: at the school level, at the classroom level,and at the student level. In the United States, therewas negligible exclusion at the school level in both

TIMSS and TIMSSR. Tracking proceduresaccounted for exclusions of students withinselected classes, but did not account for wholeclassroom exclusion. Thus, the reported U.S.TIMSS grade 8 exclusion rate of 1.7 percentcovered only student-within-classroom exclu-sions, not whole classroom exclusions. It is likely,therefore, that this represents an underestimate ofthe overall exclusion rate.

For TIMSSR, reporting procedures for exclusionrates in the United States were revised to permittracking of excluded classrooms. Thus, the UnitedStates reports an exclusion rate within classroomsof 1.1 percent and a classroom exclusion rate of2.8 percent in TIMSSR, for a total within-schoolexclusion rate of 3.9 percent. The U.S. TIMSSRexclusion rate is consistent with experience in theNational Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) when accommodations are not offered.The available evidence thus points to no realchange in the level of exclusion for the UnitedStates in TIMSSR compared to TIMSS.

WEOGRING9 SCALDING AIN

PLAUS013LIE WALES

Before the data were analyzed, responses from thegroups of students assessed were assignedsampling weights to ensure that their representa-tion in TIMSSR results matched their actualpercentage of the school population in the gradeassessed. Based on these sampling weights, theanalyses of TIMSSR data were conducted in twomajor phasesscaling and estimation. During thescaling phase, item response theory (IRT) proce-dures were used to estimate the measurementcharacteristics of each assessment question.During the estimation phase, the results of thescaling were used to produce estimates of studentachievement. Subsequent analyses related theseachievement results to the background variables

911,

°PHNOM 2-TECIVOCAL MOTES

Table A2.1.-Coverage of target population by nation: 1999

NationYears offormal

schooling

Internationaldesired

D D lation(3'' ucoverage

Nationaldesired

populationoverall

exclusion

Schoolparticipationrate before

replacement

Combinedparticipation

rate

Notes on samplingstandards

Australia 8 or 9 100 2.5 84 85Belgium-Flemish 8 100 0.8 71 88Bulgaria 8 100 4.6 96 93Canada 8 100 6.0 94 93

Chile 8 100 2.8 98 96Chinese Taipei 8 100 1.6 100 99Cyprus 8 100 0.8 100 97Czech Republic 9 100 5.2 96 95England 9 100 5.0 51 78Finland 7 100 3.7 97 96Hong Kong SAR 8 100 0.8 75 75Hungary 8 100 4.3 98 93Indonesia 8 100 0.0 88 97Iran, Islamic Republic of 8 100 4.4 96 98

(Israel) 8 100 16.1 99 94Exclusion rate over 10percent

Italy 8 100 6.7 94 97Japan 8 100 1.3 93 89Jordan 8 100 3.0 99 99Korea 8 100 4.0 100 100

Exclusion of 39 percent

Latvia-LSS1 8 61 4.0 97 91of student population(non-Latvian-speakingstudents)Exclusion of 13 percent

Lithuania2 8.5 87 4.5 100 88of student population(non-Lithuanian-speaking students)

Macedonia, Republic of 8 100 1.1 99 98Malaysia 8 100 4.6 99 99Moldova 9 100 2.3 97 98Morocco 7 100 1.0 99 93

Netherlands 8 100 0.6 58 82New Zealand 8.5 to 9.5 100 2.4 93 91Philippines 7 100 3.2 99 93Romania 8 100 3.7 98 97Russian Federation 7 or 8 100 1.7 98 96Singapore 8 100 0.0 100 98Slovak Republic 8 100 7.2 95 95Slovenia 8 100 3.0 98 94South Africa 8 100 2.3 84 82Thailand 8 100 3.3 95 99Tunisia 8 100 0.1 85 98Turkey 8 100 1.9 99 99United States 8 100 3.9 82 84

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2, A.5, and A.8. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

77

92

APPEND( 2-71ECHNECAL NOTES

78

Table A2.2.Student and school samples and participation rates, bynation: 1999

Nation Sample of schoolsSample ofstudents

Schoolparticipation

after replacement(weighted)

Studentparticipation(weighted)

AustraliaBelgium-FlemishBulgariaCanadaChile

170

135163

385185

40325259327287705907

93899795

100

9097

969696

Chinese TaipeiCyprusCzech RepublicEnglandFinland

15061

142128

159

57723116345329602920

100100100

85100

9997969096

Hong Kong SARHungaryIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic of(Israel)

137147

150170139

51793183584853014195

7698

100100100

989597

9894

ItalyJapanJordanKoreaLatvia-LSS1

180140147150

145

33284745505261142873

10093

100100

98

979599

10093

Lithuania2Macedonia, Republic ofMalaysiaMoldovaMorocco

150

149

150150173

2361

4023557737115402

100

99100100

99

89

98999892

NetherlandsNew ZealandPhilippinesRomaniaRussian Federation

126152

150147

189

29623613660134254332

8597

1 00

98100

9594929897

SingaporeSlovak RepublicSloveniaSouth AfricaThailand

145

145

149194150

49663497310981465732

100969991

100

9898959399

TunisiaTurkeyUnited States

149204221

505178419072

100

10090

989994

iDesignated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits A.6, A.7, and A.8. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

93

collected by TIMSSR. TIMSSR data areextremely important in terms of the cost to obtainthem and the reliance placed on the reports thatuse them. Therefore, the scaling and analysis ofthese data were carefully conducted and includeextensive quality control checks.

WeightingResponses from the groups ofstudents were assigned sampling weights to adjustfor over-representation or under-representationfrom a particular group. For example, the UnitedStates desired to report information on theachievement of students in public and nonpublicschools. This required that the United States over-sample nonpublic school students to get enoughinformation for this group of students in order todo that. Sampling weights were applied to thedata for public and nonpublic students in order toensure that the U.S. student sample represents theoverall eighth-grade student population. The useof sampling weights is necessary for thecomputation of statistically sound, nationally-representative estimators. The weight assigned to astudent's responses is the inverse of the probabilitythat the student would be selected for the sample.

When responses are weighted, none are discarded,and each contributes to the results for the totalnumber of students represented by the individualstudent assessed. Weighting also adjusts forvarious situations such as school and studentnonresponse because data cannot be assumed tobe randomly missing. The internationally-definedweighting specifications for TIMSSR require thateach assessed student's sampling weight should bethe product of (1) the inverse of the school's prob-ability of selection, (2) an adjustment forschool-level nonresponse, (3) the inverse of theclassroom's probability of selection, and (4) anadjustment for student-level nonresponse. All

TIMSSR analyses are conducted using thesesampling weights.

ScalingTIMSSR used Item Response Theory(IRT) methods to produce score scales thatsummarized the achievement results. With thismethod, the performance of a sample of studentsin a subject area or sub-area could be summarizedon a single scale or a series of scales, even whendifferent students had been administered differentitems. Because of the reporting requirements forTIMSSR and because of the large number ofbackground variables associated with the assess-

APPENENX 2-71ECHNOCAL MOTES

ment, a large number of analyses had to beconducted. The procedures TIMSSR used for theanalyses were developed to produce accurateresults for groups of students while limiting thetesting burden on individual students.Furthermore, these procedures provided data thatcould be readily used in secondary analyses. IRTscaling provides estimates of item parameters(e.g., difficulty, discrimination) that define therelationship between the item and the underlyingvariable measured by the test. Parameters of theIRT model are estimated for each test question,with an overall scale being established as well asscales for each predefined content area specified inthe assessment framework. For example, in 1999the TIMSSR assessment had five scales describingmathematics content strands, and science hadscales for six fields of science.

TIMSS 1995 utilized a one parameter IRT modelto produce score scales that summarized theachievement results. The TIMSS data wererescaled using a three parameter IRT model, tomatch the procedures used to scale the 1999TIMSSR data. The move from a one parametermodel to a three parameter model was initiated toprovide better estimates of student achievement.After careful study of the rescaling process, theInternational Study Center concluded that the fitbetween the original TIMSS data and the rescaledTIMSS data met acceptable standards. However, asa result of rescaling, the average achievementscores of some nations changed from thoseinitially reported in 1996 (NCES 1996) and 1997(NCES, 1997c). The rescaled TIMSS scores arereported here.

Plausible ValuesDuring the scaling phase,plausible values were used to characterize scalescores for students participating in the assessment.To keep student burden to a minimum, TIMSSRadministered few assessment items to eachstudenttoo few to produce accurate content-related scale scores for each student. To accountfor this, for each student TIMSSR generatedfive possible content-related scale scores thatrepresented selections from the distribution ofcontent-related scale scores of students withsimilar backgrounds who answered the assessmentitems the same way. The plausible-values technol-ogy is one way to ensure that the estimates of theaverage performance of student populations andthe estimates of variability in those estimates are

94

79

APPENOnt 2-TECHNEDAL MOTES

80

more accurate than those determined throughtraditional procedures, which estimate a singlescore for each student. During the construction ofplausible values, careful quality control stepsensured that the subpopulation estimates basedon these plausible values were accurate. Plausiblevalues were constructed separately for eachnational sample.

TIMSSR uses the plausible-values methodologyto represent what the true performance of an indi-vidual might have been, had it been observed,using a small number of random draws from anempirically derived distribution of score valuesbased on the student's observed responses toassessment items and on background variables.Each random draw from the distribution is

considered a representative value from the distri-bution of potential scale scores for all students inthe sample who have similar characteristics andidentical patterns of item responses. The drawsfrom the distribution are different from oneanother to quantify the degree of precision (thewidth of the spread) in the underlying distribu-tion of possible scale scores that could have causedthe observed performances. The TIMSSR plausi-ble values function like point estimates of scalescores for many purposes, but they are unlike truepoint estimates in several respects. They differfrom one another for any particular student, andthe amount of difference quantifies the spread inthe underlying distribution of possible scale scoresfor that student. Because of the plausible-valuesapproach, secondary researchers can use theTIMSSR data to carry out a wide range ofanalyses.

EVELOPMEKT AN

REPLACEMENT

ID

TIMSSR utilized the same assessment frameworkdesigned for TIMSS. Approximately one third ofthe original 1995 TIMSS assessment items werekept secure so that they could be included in the1999 TIMSSR assessment to provide trend data.For the approximately two thirds of items thatwere released to the public, a panel of interna-tional assessment and content experts and theNational Research Coordinators (NRCs) of eachparticipating country developed and reviewedreplacement items that closely matched thecontent of the original items. Through thisprocess, over 300 science and mathematics itemswere developed as potential replacement items, ofwhich 277 items were carefully chosen to be fieldtested. Approximately 1000 students per countryparticipated in this field test.

All of the potential replacement items and thesecured items, as well as the questionnaires, werefield tested in 31 nations. Field test results for eachitem were carefully reviewed and examined forproblems. Items that did not perform well duringthe field testbased on a clear set of criteriawere either revised to correct the problem or setaside. Of the 277 potential replacement items, 202were selected based on the results of the field test.The item development process resulted in thereplacement of TIMSS items released to the publicwith new items that had similar characteristics interms of item format, performance expectation,content area, and difficulty level.

As a result, the TIMSSR assessments consisted of298 items-96 non-released items and 202replacement items, organized into 26 blocks ofitems among 8 test booklets. A summary of itemcharacteristics in TIMSS and TIMSSR isprovided below.

Table A2.3.Number of items by item format in main survey:1995 and 1999

Response type TIMSS TIMSSRMultiple choice 227 230

Free response 59 68

Total 286 298

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR), FieldTest Report, Table 8.1, 1999.

95

APPENDDX 2TECHNDCAL NOTES

Table A2.4.Number of mathematics items by content area inmain survey: 1995 and 1999Content area TIMSS TIMSSRAlgebra 27 28

Data representation, analysis and probability 21 21

Fractions and number sense 51 52

Geometry 23 23

Measurement 18 20

Proportionality 11 11*

Total 151 155

*Proportionality items in TIMSSR distributed among other content areas. Therefore, TIMSSR does notreport proportionality as a separate content area.

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR), Field TestReport, Table 8.2, 1999._

Table A2.5.Number of science items by content area in mainsurvey: 1995 and 1999

Content area TIMSS TIMSSRChemistry 19 19

Earth science 22 22

Life science.

40 39

Physics 40 39

Environmental and resource issues * 6 12

Scientific inquiry and the nature of science* 8 12

Total 135 143

*The TIMSSR Science Assessment reflects the inclus'on of 10 new items in the areas of Environmental andResource Issues and Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science. This will permit the results in these twocontent areas to be reported separately in TIMSSR, which was not the case in TIMSS.

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR), Field TestReport, Table 8.3, 1999.

TRANSLATEIN REFOCATOOK

The TIMSSR instruments were prepared inEnglish and translated into the primary languageor languages of instruction in each nation. In

addition, it was sometimes necessary to adapt theinstruments for cultural purposes, even in thenations that tested in English. Adaptations wereapproved by the International Study Center if theydid not in any way change the substance or intentof the question or answer choices. For example,use of the word "weight" may be an unfamiliarcolloquial term for "mass" to some students; achange from "weight" to "weight (mass)" would bean acceptable clarification in this case.

Each nation prepared translations of the instru-ments according to translation guidelinesestablished by the International Study Center.Adaptations to the instruments were documentedby each nation. The goal of the translation guide-lines was to produce translated instruments of thehighest quality that would provide comparabledata across participating nations.

Translated instruments were verified by an inde-pendent, professional translation agency prior tofinal approval and printing of the instruments.Nations were required to submit copies of the finalprinted instruments administered in TIMSSR tothe International Study Center. Further details onthe translation process can be found in the TIMSS1999 Technical Report (Martin and Gregory, 2000).

9681

APPENINX 2.-TECHNCAL MOM

TEM SCORING

The TIMSSR assessments items included bothmultiple choice and free-response items. TheNational Research Coordinator (NRC) in eachnation was responsible for the scoring and codingof data in that nation, following established inter-national guidelines. The NRC and, in some cases,additional staff, attended in-depth trainingsessions to introduce participants to the TIMSSRcoding system and to provide extensive practice inscoring example items. The training sessions weregenerally conducted over several days.

Information on within-country agreement amongcoders was collected and documented by theInternational Study Center. A percentage ofstudent responses in each nation were to be scored

82

independently by two coders. Information oncoding and scoring reliability was also used tocalculate cross-country agreement among thecoders. The International Study Center carefullymonitored and documented the reliability ofscoring within and across nations. The results ofcalculating reliability on scoring of the free-response items in each nation can be found inMartin et al. (2000) and Mullis et al. (2000).Further details on the item scoring process can befound in Martin and Gregory (2000).

'EMS 1995PARTDCOPAING KOONS

Table A2.6 describes the complete list of nationsthat participated in TIMSS 1995 at the fourth andeighth grades.

9 7

APPIENDM 2TECHNOCAL NOTES

Table A2.6.Fourth- and eighth-grade nations in TIMSS: 1995

Total Nations

Nations that participated inTIMSS at eighth grade (1995)

Nations that participated inTIMSS at fourth grade (1995)

(Australia) (Australia)(Austria) (Austria)Belgium-Flemish(Belgium-French)(Bulgaria)Canada Canada(Colombia)Cyprus CyprusCzech Republic Czech Republic(Denmark)(England) (England)France(Germany)(Greece) GreeceHong Kong SAR Hong Kong SARHungary (Hungary)Iceland IcelandIran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic ofIreland Ireland(Israel) (Israel)

(Italy)1 (Italy)1

Japan JapanKorea, Republic of Korea, Republic of(Kuwait) (Kuwait)(Latvia-LSS)2 (Latvia-LSS)2

(Lithuania)3(Netherlands) (Netherlands)New Zealand New ZealandNorway NorwayPortugal Portugal(Romania)Russian Federation(Scotland) ScotlandSingapore SingaporeSlovak Republic(Slovenia) (Slovenia)(South Africa)Spain

.

SwedenSwitzerland(Thailand) (Thailand)United States United States

42 27

'Italy was unable to provide the International Study Center at Boston College with their data in time for it to beincluded in the international reports for both the fourth and eighth grade in TIMSS 1995. However, their datafor TIMSS 1995 appear in this report.



NOTE: Only nations that completed the necessary steps for their data to appear in the reports from the InternationalStudy Center at Boston College are listed.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth, eighth or bothgrades in 1995. See NCES (1996) for details regarding eighth-grade data. See NCES (1997c) for details for fourth-grade data.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit A.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

83

9 8

AppormIK 3Supporting Data for Chapter 2

9 9

APPENDIX 3-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

86

Table A3.1.-Average mathematics and science achievement ofeighth-grade students with standard errors, by nation: 1999

MathematicsNation Average s.e.

Australia 525 4.8Belgium-Flemish 558 3.3Bulgaria 511 5.9Canada 531 2.5Chile 392 4.4Chinese Taipei 585 4.0Cyprus 476 1.8

Czech Republic 520 4.2England 496 4.2Finland 520 2.7Hong Kong SAR 582 4.3Hungary 532 3.7Indonesia 403 4.9Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 3.4(Israel) 466 3.9Italy 479 3.8Japan 579 1.7

Jordan 428 3.6Korea, Republic of 587 2.0

Latvia-LSS1 505 3.4

Lithuania2 482 4.3

Macedonia, Republic of 447 4.2Malaysia 519 4.4Moldova 469 3.9Morocco 337 2.6Netherlands 540 7.1

New Zealand 491 5.2Philippines 345 6.0Romania 472 5.8Russian Federation 526 5.9Singapore 604 6.3Slovak Republic 534 4.0Slovenia 530 2.8South Africa 275 6.8Thailand 467 5.1

Tunisia 448 2.4Turkey 429 4.3United States 502 4.0

International averageof 38 nations 487 0.7

ScienceNation Average s.e.

Australia 540 4.4Belgium-Flemish 535 3.1

Bulgaria 518 5.4Canada 533 2.1

Chile 420 3.7Chinese Taipei 569 4.4Cyprus 460 2.4Czech Republic 539 4.2England 538 4.8Finland 535 3.5Hong Kong SAR 530 3.7Hungary 552 3.7Indonesia 435 4.5Iran, Islamic Republic of 448 3.8(Israel) 468 4.9Italy 493 3.9Japan 550 2.2Jordan 450 3.8Korea, Republic of 549 2.6Latvia-LSS1 503 4.8

Lithuania2 488 4.1

Macedonia, Republic of 458 5.2Malaysia 492 4.4Moldova 459 4.0Morocco 323 4.3Netherlands 545 6.9New Zealand 510 4.9Philippines 345 7.5Romania 472 5.8Russian Federation 529 6.4Singapore 568 8.0Slovak Republic 535 3.3Slovenia 533 3.2South Africa 243 7.9Thailand 482 4.0Tunisia 430 3.4Turkey 433 4.3United States 515 4.6




NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

100


Table A3.2.-Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grademathematics with standard errors, by nation: 1999

NationPercentages of students reach'ng international benchmarks

Top 10 percent Top 25 percent Top 50 percent Top 75 percentPercent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

Australia 12 1.8 37 2.7 73 2.4 94 0.8Belgium-Flemish 23 1.4 54 1.7 85 1.4 98 0.7Bulgaria 11 2.3 30 3.0 66 2.6 91 1.3

Canada 12 1.1 38 1.5 77 1.3 96 0.6Chile 1 0.5 3 1.1 15 1.8 48 2.0Chinese Taipei 41 1.7 66 1.5 85 1.0 95 0.6Cyprus 3 0.4 17 0.8 51 1.1 84 0.8Czech Republic 11 1.4 33 2.1 69 2.3 94 1.1

England 7 0.9 24 1.9 58 2.1 89 1.3

Finland 6 0.9 31 1.7 75 1.5 96 0.5Hong Kong SAR 33 2.3 68 2.4 92 1.5 99 0.6Hungary 16 1.2 41 1.9 74 1.6 94 1.0Indonesia 2 0.4 7 0.9 22 1.4 52 2.2Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 0.2 5 0.8 25 1.7 63 1.5

(Israel) 5 0.6 18 1.3 47 1.8 77 1.9

Italy 5 0.7 20 1.4 52 2.1 83 1.4

Japan 33 1.1 64 1.0 89 0.5 98 0.3Jordan 3 0.5 11 0.9 32 1.5 62 1.4

Korea, Republic of 37 1.0 68 0.9 91 0.5 99 0.2Latvia-LSS1 7 0.9 26 1.8 63 2.0 92 1.0

Lithuania2 4 0.7 17 2.0 52 2.4 86 1.8

Macedonia, Republic of 3 0.4 12 1.0 38 1.9 72 1.8Malaysia 12 1.4 34 2.4 69 2.2 94 0.8Moldova 4 0.7 16 1.5 45 2.2 81 1.7

Morocco 0 0.0 0 0.2 5 0.4 27 1.1

Netherlands 14 2.3 45 4.1 81 3.5 96 1.3

New Zealand 8 1.2 25 2.4 56 2.5 85 1.5

Philippines 0 0.1 1 0.5 8 1.4 31 2.5Romania 5 1.1 19 1.9 49 2.6 80 2.1

Russian Federation 15 1.8 37 2.8 72 2.7 94 1.2

Singapore 46 3.5 75 2.7 93 1.3 99 0.3Slovak Republic 14 1.4 40 2.3 78 1.8 96 0.6Slovenia 15 1.2 39 1.4 74 1.4 95 0.7South Africa 0 0.2 1 0.4 5 1.0 14 2.0Thailand 4 0.8 16 1.8 44 2.6 81 1.6Tunisia 0 0.1 4 0.5 32 1.6 80 1.3Turkey 1 0.3 7 1.0 27 1.9 65 2.0United States 9 1.0 28 1.6 61 1.9 88 1.0

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

871 01

8 PPR= 3-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

88

Table A3.3.-Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade science withstandard errors, by nation: 1999

NationPercentages of students reaching international benchmarks

Top 10 percent Top 25 percent Top 50 percent Top 75 percentPercent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

Australia 19 1.6 43 2.3 74 2.0 93 0.9Belgium-Flemish 11 1.4 39 1.6 76 1.7 96 1.3

Bulgaria 14 2.1 34 2.5 65 2.2 88 1.5

Canada 14 0.9 38 1.3 73 1.2 94 0.6Chile 1 0.4 5 1.0 22 1.6 56 1.7

Chinese Taipei 31 1.9 58 2.0 83 1.3 95 0.7Cyprus 2 0.5 12 0.8 39 1.6 74 1.4

Czech Republic 17 1.7 41 2.2 74 1.8 95 0.8England 19 1.9 42 2.3 72 2.0 92 1.0

Finland 14 1.4 39 1.9 74 1.5 95 0.7Hong Kong SAR 10 1.1 35 2.1 75 2.1 95 1.0

Hungary 22 1.4 49 1.7 79 1.4 95 0.8Indonesia 1 0.3 6 0.9 27 1.6 64 2.4Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 0.3 9 1.0 32 1.7 68 1.7

(Israel) 7 0.6 20 1.2 45 1.9 72 2.0Italy 7 0.9 23 1.7 54 2.0 83 1.2

Japan 19 1.1 48 1.4 80 1.0 96 0.5Jordan . 4 0.5 15 1.0 38 1.5 66 1.6

Korea, Republic of 22 1.1 46 1.2 77 1.0 94 0.5

Latvia-LSS1 7 1.3 24 2.5 59 2.0 88 1.4

Lithuania2 6 0.9 20 1.9 51 2.1 83 1.8

Macedonia, Republic of 4 0.5 15 1.6 40 1.9 70 2.2Malaysia 6 0.9 21 1.9 53 2.2 85 1.5

Moldova 4 0.5 15 1.2 39 1.8 70 1.6

Morocco o 0.0 1 0.2 5 0.5 20 1.1

Netherlands 16 2.3 46 3.8 79 3.5 95 1.6

New Zealand 12 1.4 32 2.1 61 2.2 86 1.6

Philippines 1 0.3 3 0.7 13 1.7 31 2.6Romania 6 0.8 19 1.9 45 2.5 75 2.1

Russian Federation 17 2.4 38 2.8 68 2.5 90 1.0

Singapore 32 3.3 56 3.5 80 2.6 94 1.4

Slovak Republic 14 1.4 39 2.0 74 1.7 94 0.7Slovenia 16 1.1 39 1.7 71 1.5 93 0.7South Africa 0 0.2 2 0.6 6 1.4 13 2.0Thailand 3 0.7 15 2.0 47 2.5 84 1.3

Tunisia o 0.1 3 0.4 19 1.5 62 2.0Turkey 1 0.2 6 0.8 25 1.8 62 2.4United States 15 1.2 34 1.9 62 2.0 85 1.3

'Designated LSS because only La vian-speaking schools were tested.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.s.e. means standard error.


102

Tab

le A

3.4.

-Ave

rage

eig

hth-

grad

e ac

hiev

emen

t in

mat

hem

atic

s co

nten

t are

as w

ith s

tand

ard

erro

rs, b

y na

tion:

199

9

Frac

tions

and

num

ber

sens

eM

easu

rem

ent

Dat

a re

pres

enta

tion,

ana

lysi

s,an

d pr

obab

ility

Geo

met

ryA

lgeb

ra

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Aus

tral

ia51

94.

3A

ustr

alia

529

4.9

Aus

tral

ia52

26.

3A

ustr

alia

497

5.7

Aus

tral

ia52

05.

1

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h55

73.

1B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

549

4.0

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h54

43.

8B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

535

4.1

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h54

04.

6

Bul

gari

a50

36.

6B

ulga

ria

497

6.6

Bul

gari

a49

36.

1B

ulga

ria

524

5.9

Bul

gari

a51

25.

1

Can

ada

533

2.5

Can

ada

521

2.4

Can

ada

521

4.5

Can

ada

507

4.7

Can

ada

525

2.4

Chi

le40

34.

9C

hile

412

4.9

Chi

le42

93.

8C

hile

412

5.4

Chi

le39

94.

3

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

576

4.2

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

566

3.4

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

559

5.1

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

557

5.8

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

586

4.4

Cyp

rus

481

3.0

Cyp

rus

471

4.0

Cyp

rus

472

4.6

Cyp

rus

484

4.6

Cyp

rus

479

1.6

Cze

ch R

epub

lic50

74.

8C

zech

Rep

ublic

535

5.0

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

35.

9C

zech

Rep

ublic

513

5.5

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

44.

0

Eng

land

497

3.8

Eng

land

507

3.8

Eng

land

506

8.0

Eng

land

471

4.2

Eng

land

498

4.9

Finl

and

531

3.8

Finl

and

521

4.7

Finl

and

525

3.8

Finl

and

494

6.0

Finl

and

498

3.1

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

579

4.5

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

567

5.8

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

547

5.4

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

556

4.9

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

569

4.5

Hun

gary

526

4.2

Hun

gary

538

3.5

Hun

gary

520

5.9

Hun

gary

489

4.3

Hun

gary

536

4.1

Indo

nesi

a40

64.

1In

done

sia

395

5.1

Indo

nesi

a42

34.

4In

done

sia

441

5.1

Indo

nesi

a42

45.

7

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

437

4.5

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

401

4.7

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

430

6.0

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

447

2.9

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

434

4.9

(Isr

ael)

472

4.4

(Isr

ael)

457

5.1

(Isr

ael)

468

5.1

(Isr

ael)

462

5.4

(Isr

ael)

479

4.5

Ital

y47

15.

0It

aly

501

5.0

Ital

y48

44.

5It

aly

482

5.6

Ital

y48

13.

6

Japa

n57

02.

6Ja

pan

558

2.4

Japa

n55

52.

3Ja

pan

575

5.1

Japa

n56

93.

3

Jord

an43

23.

2Jo

rdan

438

4.4

Jord

an43

67.

8Jo

rdan

449

7.1

Jord

an43

95.

3

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f57

02.

7K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

571

2.8

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f57

64.

2K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

573

3.9

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f58

52.

7

Lat

via-

LSS

I49

63.

7L

atvi

a-L

SS1

505

3.5

Lat

via-

LSS

I49

54.

8L

atvi

a-L

SSI

522

5.6

Lat

via-

LSS

I49

94.

3

Lith

uani

a247

94.

3L

ithua

nia2

467

4.0

Lith

uani

a249

33.

6L

ithua

nia2

496

5.8

Lith

uani

a248

73.

7

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

437

532

4.7

4.7

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

451

514

5.2

4.6

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

442

491

6.2

4.0

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

460

497

6.1

4.4

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

465

505

4M 4.8

Mol

dova

465

4.2

Mol

dova

479

4.9

Mol

dova

450

5.7

Mol

dova

481

5.0

Mol

dova

477

3.7

Mor

occo

335

3.6

Mor

occo

348

3.5

Mor

occo

383

3.5

Mor

occo

407

2.2

Mor

occo

353

4.7

Net

herl

ands

545

7.1

Net

herl

ands

538

5.8

Net

herl

ands

538

7.9

Net

herl

ands

515

5.5

Net

herl

ands

522

7.7

New

Zea

land

493

5.0

New

Zea

land

496

5.3

New

Zea

land

497

5.0

New

Zea

land

478

4.2

New

Zea

land

497

4.7

Phili

ppin

es37

86.

3Ph

ilipp

ines

355

6.2

Phili

ppin

es40

63.

5Ph

ilipp

ines

383

3.4

Phili

ppin

es34

55.

8

Rom

ania

458

5.7

Rom

ania

491

4.9

Rom

ania

453

4.7

Rom

ania

487

6.4

Rom

ania

481

5.2

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

513

6.4

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

527

6.0

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

501

4.8

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

522

6.0

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

529

4.9

Sing

apor

e60

85.

6Si

ngap

ore

599

6.3

Sing

apor

e56

26.

2Si

ngap

ore

560

6.7

Sing

apor

e57

66.

2

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

54.

8Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

537

3.3

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

14.

6Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

527

7.3

Slov

ak R

epub

lic52

54.

6

Slov

enia

527

3.7

Slov

enia

523

3.7

Slov

enia

530

4.2

Slov

enia

506

6.2

Slov

enia

525

2.9

Sout

h A

fric

a30

06.

0So

uth

Afr

ica

329

4.8

Sout

h A

fric

a35

63.

8So

uth

Afr

ica

335

6.6

Sout

h A

fric

a29

37.

7

Tha

iland

471

5.3

Tha

iland

463

6.2

Tha

iland

476

4.0

Tha

iland

484

4.4

Tha

iland

456

4.9

Tun

isia

443

2.8

Tun

isia

442

3.1

Tun

isia

446

5.1

Tun

isia

484

4.4

Tun

isia

455

2.7

Tur

key

430

4.3

Tur

key

436

6.5

Tur

key

446

3.3

Tur

key

428

5.7

Tur

key

432

4.6

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

94.

2U

nite

d St

ates

482

3.9

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

65.

2U

nite

d St

ates

473

4.4

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

64.

1

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

0.7

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

0.7

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

0.7

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

0.7

Inte

rnat

iona

l ave

rage

of 3

8 na

tions

487

0.7

1Des

igna

ted

LSS

bec

ause

onl

y L

atvi

an-s

peak

ing

scho

ols

wer

e te

sted

whi

ch r

epre

sent

s 61

per

cent

of

the

popu

latio

n.

2Lith

uani

a te

sted

the

sam

e co

hort

of

stud

ents

as

othe

r na

tions

, but

late

r in

199

9, a

t the

beg

inni

ng o

f th

e ne

xt s

choo

l yea

r.N

OT

E: E

ight

h gr

ade

in m

ost n

atio

ns. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.Pa

rent

hese

s in

dica

te n

atio

ns n

ot m

eetin

g in

tern

atio

nal s

ampl

ing

and/

or o

ther

gui

delin

es. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.T

he in

tern

atio

nal a

vera

ge is

the

aver

age

of th

e na

tiona

l ave

rage

s of

the

38 n

atio

ns.

oc)

s.e.

mea

ns s

tand

ard

erro

r.SO

UR

CE

: Mul

lis e

t al.

(200

0). T

IMSS

199

9 In

tern

atio

nal M

athe

mat

ics

Rep

ort:

Find

ings

fro

m lE

A's

Rep

eat o

f th

e T

hird

Int

erna

tiona

l Mat

hem

atic

s an

d Sc

ienc

e St

udy

at th

e E

ight

hG

rade

. Exh

ibit

3.1.

Che

stnu

t Hill

, MA

: Bos

ton

Col

lege

.

103

104

(.0

Tab

le A

3.5.

-Ave

rage

eig

hth-

grad

e ac

hiev

emen

t in

scie

nce

cont

ent a

reas

with

sta

ndar

der

rors

, by

natio

n: 1

999

Ear

th s

cien

ceL

ife

Scie

nce

Phys

ics

Che

mis

try

Env

iron

men

tal a

ndre

sour

ce is

sues

Scie

ntif

ic in

quir

y an

dth

e na

ture

of

scie

nce

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Nat

ion

Ave

rage

s.e.

Aus

tral

ia51

96.

1A

ustr

alia

530

4.4

Aus

tral

ia53

16.

3A

ustr

alia

520

5.0

Aus

tral

ia53

06.

3A

ustr

alia

535

4.9

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h53

33.

5B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

535

4.6

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h53

03.

5B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

508

3.3

Bel

gium

-Fle

mis

h51

33.

5B

elgi

um-F

lem

ish

526

4.9

Bul

gari

a52

05.

7B

ulga

ria

514

6.9

Bul

gari

a50

55.

8B

ulga

ria

527

5.7

Bul

gari

a48

36.

4B

ulga

ria

479

5.6

Can

ada

519

3.7

Can

ada

523

3.8

Can

ada

521

3.8

Can

ada

521

5.4

Can

ada

521

3.5

Can

ada

532

5.1

Chi

le43

57.

0C

hile

431

3.7

Chi

le42

85.

6C

hile

435

5.2

Chi

le44

94.

8C

hile

441

4.7

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

538

3.0

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

550

3.3

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

552

3.9

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

563

4.3

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

567

4.0

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

540

4.9

Cyp

rus

459

5.4

Cyp

rus

468

3.8

Cyp

rus

459

2.9

Cyp

rus

470

3.4

Cyp

rus

475

4.3

Cyp

rus

467

4.6

Cze

ch R

epub

lic53

36.

9C

zech

Rep

ublic

544

4.1

Cze

ch R

epub

lic52

64.

2C

zech

Rep

ublic

512

5.2

Cze

ch R

epub

lic51

65.

7C

zech

Rep

ublic

522

5.7

Eng

land

525

3.9

Eng

land

533

6.2

Eng

land

528

4.5

Eng

land

524

5.5

Eng

land

518

5.8

Eng

land

538

5.1

Finl

and

520

5.5

Finl

and

520

4.0

Finl

and

520

4.4

Finl

and

535

4.5

Finl

and

514

7.1

Finl

and

528

4.0

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

506

4.3

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

516

5.5

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

523

4.9

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

515

5.2

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

518

4.9

Hon

g K

ong

SAR

531

2.8

Hun

gary

560

3.9

Hun

gary

535

4.0

Hun

gary

543

4.3

Hun

gary

548

4.7

Hun

gary

501

6.6

Hun

gary

526

5.9

Indo

nesi

a43

16.

4In

done

sia

448

3.6

Indo

nesi

a45

25.

5In

done

sia

425

3.9

Indo

nesi

a48

94.

8In

done

sia

446

4.3

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

459

5.2

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

437

3.7

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

445

5.7

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

487

4.1

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

470

5.5

Iran

, Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of

446

5.3

(Isr

ael)

472

5.2

(Isr

ael)

463

4.0

(Isr

ael)

484

5.3

(Isr

ael)

479

4.7

(Isr

ael)

458

4.0

(Isr

ael)

476

8.3

Ital

y50

25.

9It

aly

488

4.6

Ital

y48

04.

1It

aly

493

4.8

Ital

y49

15.

4It

aly

489

4.6

Japa

n53

36.

2Ja

pan

534

5.4

Japa

n54

42.

9Ja

pan

530

3.1

Japa

n50

65.

5Ja

pan

543

2.8

Jord

an44

63.

5Jo

rdan

448

4.1

Jord

an45

93.

6Jo

rdan

483

5.5

Jord

an47

66.

0Jo

rdan

440

5.5

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f53

22.

7K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

528

3.6

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f54

45.

1K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

523

3.7

Kor

ea, R

epub

lic o

f52

34.

5K

orea

, Rep

ublic

of

545

7.3

Lat

via-

LSS

149

55.

4L

atvi

a-L

SS1

509

3.9

Lat

via-

LSS

149

53.

9L

atvi

a-L

SS1

490

3.7

Lat

via-

LSS

149

35.

2L

atvi

a-L

SS1

495

4.7

Lith

uani

a247

64.

4L

ithua

nia2

494

4.6

Lith

uani

a251

04.

3L

ithua

nia2

485

4.6

Lith

uani

a245

85.

1L

ithua

nia2

483

6.4

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

464

491

4.2

4.2

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

468

479

4.9

5.4

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

463

494

6.0

4.1

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

481

485

6.1

3.5

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

432

502

4.2

4.4

Mac

edon

ia,

Rep

ublic

of

Mal

aysi

a

464

488

3.6

4.5

Mol

dova

466

4.2

Mol

dova

477

3.9

Mol

dova

457

5.5

Mol

dova

451

5.6

Mol

dova

444

6.2

Mol

dova

471

3.9

Mor

occo

363

3.3

Mor

occo

347

2.8

Mor

occo

352

4.2

Mor

occo

372

4.8

Mor

occo

396

5.1

Mor

occo

391

4.2

Net

herl

ands

534

7.2

Net

herl

ands

536

7.2

Net

herl

ands

537

6.5

Net

herl

ands

515

6.4

Net

herl

ands

526

8.5

Net

herl

ands

534

6.5

New

Zea

land

504

5.8

New

Zea

land

501

5.6

New

Zea

land

499

4.7

New

Zea

land

503

4.9

New

Zea

land

503

5.2

New

Zea

land

521

6.8

Phili

ppin

es39

05.

0Ph

ilipp

ines

378

5.7

Phili

ppin

es39

36.

3Ph

ilipp

ines

394

6.5

Phili

ppin

es39

17.

6Ph

ilipp

ines

403

5.5

Rom

ania

475

5.5

Rom

ania

475

6.0

Rom

ania

465

6.8

Rom

ania

481

6.1

Rom

ania

473

6.6

Rom

ania

456

5.5

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

529

5.1

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

517

6.5

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

529

6.3

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

523

8.0

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

495

6.6

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

491

4.9

Sing

apor

e52

17.

3Si

ngap

ore

541

7.2

Sing

apor

e57

06.

7Si

ngap

ore

545

8.3

Sing

apor

e57

78.

3Si

ngap

ore

550

5.9

Slov

ak R

epub

lic53

74.

3Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

535

6.2

Slov

ak R

epub

lic51

84.

1Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

525

4.9

Slov

ak R

epub

lic51

24.

5Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

507

3.9

Slov

enia

541

4.3

Slov

enia

521

3.9

Slov

enia

525

4.4

Slov

enia

509

5.4

Slov

enia

519

3.4

Slov

enia

513

4.3

Sout

h A

fric

a34

84.

8So

uth

Afr

ica

289

7.3

Sout

h A

fric

a30

86.

7So

uth

Afr

ica

350

4.0

Sout

h A

fric

a35

08.

5So

uth

Afr

ica

329

6.4

Tha

iland

470

3.9

Tha

iland

508

4.5

Tha

iland

475

4.2

Tha

iland

439

4.3

Tha

iland

507

3.0

Tha

iland

462

4.2

Tun

isia

442

2.7

Tun

isia

441

5.0

Tun

isia

425

6.3

Tun

isia

439

3.7

Tun

isia

462

5.0

Tun

isia

451

3.4

Tur

key

435

4.6

Tur

key

444

4.5

Tur

key

441

4.0

Tur

key

437

5.0

Tur

key

461

3.6

Tur

key

445

6.3

Uni

ted

Stat

es50

44.

2U

nite

d St

ates

520

4.1

Uni

ted

Stat

es49

85.

5U

nite

d St

ates

508

4.8

Uni

ted

S6te

s50

96.

4U

nite

d St

ates

522

4.3

Inte

rnat

iona

lIn

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rnat

iona

lIn

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rnat

iona

lIn

tern

atio

nal

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.9

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.7

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.9

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.8

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.7

aver

age

of 3

8na

tions

488

0.7

'Des

igna

ted

LSS

bec

ause

onl

y L

atvi

an-s

peak

ing

scho

ols

wer

e te

sted

whi

ch r

epre

sen

s 61

per

cent

of

the

popu

latio

n.

2Lith

uani

a te

sted

the

sam

e co

hort

of

stud

ents

as

othe

r na

tions

, but

late

r in

199

9, a

t he

begi

nnin

g of

the

next

sch

ool

year

.N

OT

E: E

ight

h gr

ade

in m

ost n

atio

ns. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.Pa

rent

hese

s in

dica

te n

atio

ns n

ot m

eetin

g in

tern

atio

nal s

ampl

ing

and/

or o

ther

gui

delin

es. S

ee a

ppen

dix

2 fo

r de

tails

.T

he in

tern

atio

nal a

vera

ge is

the

aver

age

of th

e na

tiona

l ave

rage

s of

the

38 n

atio

ns.

s.e.

mea

ns s

tand

ard

erro

r.

SOU

RC

E: M

artin

et a

l. (2

000)

. TIM

SS 1

999

Inte

rnat

iona

l Sci

ence

Rep

ort:

Find

ings

fro

m lE

A's

Rep

eat o

f th

e T

hird

Int

erna

tiona

l Mat

hem

atic

s an

d Sc

ienc

e St

udy

at th

e E

ight

hG

rade

.E

xhib

it 3.

1. C

hest

nut H

ill, M

A: B

osto

n C

olle

ge.

106

APPEMX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.6.-Percent correct on mathematics assessment itemexamples with standard errors, by nation: 1999

NationPercentage of students responding correctly

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10

Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e.

Australia 91 0.8 55 1.8 29 2.0 36 2.3 37 2.4

Belgium-Flemish 96 0.7 65 2.0 42 1.7 .70 2.7 62 1.9

Bulgaria 86 1.6 52 3.2 22 2.6 49 3.1 41 3.0

Canada 93 0.7 58 1.6 32 1.8 36 3.0 42 2.6

Chile 65 1.3 7 1.2 5 1.0 23 1.8 8 1.2

Chinese Taipei 89 0.7 75 1.4 50 1.8 61 1.8 66 1.7

Cyprus 85 1.1 41 1.9 21 1.8 30 3.1 34 1.8

Czech Republic 91 1.0 46 2.9 34 2.5 40 3.0 46 2.8

England 92 1.0 48 2.3 17 1.9 43 2.9 34 2.3

Finland 91 1.0 57 2.3 28 2.0 53 3.2 32 2.3

Hong Kong SAR 93 0.7 78 1.6 34 1.8 60 2.4 62 2.3

Hungary 93 0.9 45 2.0 35 2.1 39 2.4 46 2.0

Indonesia 54 1.6 20 1.4 5 0.5 22 1.7 14 1.2

Iran, Islamic Republic of 58 1.5 25 2.0 9 0.7 23 1.8 14 1.1

(Israel) 83 1.6 28 1.8 19 1.5 35 2.8 30 1.8

Italy 77 1.9 48 2.1 27 1.7 41 2.2 24 1.5

Japan 95 0.5 80 1.2 39 1.5 73 1.7 53 1.7

Jordan 66 1.5 26 1.5 12 1.1 35 2.2 13 1.3

Korea, Republic of 93 0.6 78 1.3 52 1.5 56 2.1 61 1.2

Latvia-LSS1 87 1.4 44 2.5 35 2.1 39 2.9 32 2.4

Lithuania2 84 1.5 35 2.4 25 2.0 35 3.0 23 2.1

Macedonia, Republic of 79 1.4 25 1.9 17 1.3 36 2.7 16 1.6

Malaysia 88 0.8 56 1.9 19 1.4 49 2.5 32 1.8

Moldova 66 1.6 38 2.6 16 1.8 40 3.0 26 1.9

Morocco 43 1.2 8 0.9 2 0.4 26 1.8 5 0.6

Netherlands 95 0.8 55 4.7 25 2.7 39 3.5 38 2.5

New Zealand 88 1.0 41 2.3 18 1.7 27 2.3 32 2.3

Philippines 53 1.6 6 1.0 3 0.7 13 1.4 9 0.9Romania 73 1.8 43 2.7 20 2.2 48 3.2 38 3.0

Russian Federation 83 1.9 49 2.8 30 2.4 49 2.9 40 2.7

Singapore 97 0.5 83 1.5 57 2.1 67 2.4 72 2.5

Slovak Republic 90 1.1 57 2.5 36 2.3 49 2.9 53 3.0

Slovenia 92 0.8 49 2.1 36 2.1 53 2.5 37 1.9

South Africa 37 1.6 3 0.7 1 0.3 15 1.3 4 1.0

Thailand 77 1.5 33 2.1 21 1.8 22 2.0 20 1.7

Tunisia 67 1.3 38 1.6 9 0.8 38 2.2 10 1.0

Turkey 74 1.3 20 1.7 10 1.3 29 1.8 20 1.5

United States 93 0.7 34 1.4 26 1.4 19 1.3 29 1.1


80 0.2 43 0.3 24 0.3 40 0.4 33 0.3

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national percentages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat(TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findingsfrom lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2.3, 2.9, and 2.18.Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

107 91

APPEGOX 3-SUFFORTM DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.7.-Percent correct on science assessment item examples withstandard errors, by nation: 1999

NationPercentage of students responding correctly

Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

Australia 53 2.0 44 2.4 48 2.8 72 1.7 66 2.5 30 2.2Belgium-Flemish 53 1.6 45 2.2 51 3.5 70 1.6 53 2.7 23 1.5Bulgaria 41 3.3 20 2.9 28 3.2 76 1.7 50 3.3 3 0.8Canada 46 1.3 38 1.8 43 1.9 72 1.6 60 3.0 26 1.4Chile 14 1.1 11 1.4 8 1.3 64 1.1 38 1.9 2 0.6Chinese Taipei 61 1.4 55 2.2 44 2.1 91 0.7 76 1.7 24 1.3Cyprus 21 1.3 13 2.1 27 2.3 62 1.6 31 2.4 6 0.8Czech Republic 40 1.9 26 3.0 30 2.6 72 1.8 57 3.3 19 1.7England 51 1.6 46 3.1 42 3.0 76 1.6 56 2.6 31 1.8Finland 48 1.8 26 2.6 40 3.0 83 1.3 57 3.0 17 1.5Hong Kong SAR 61 1.6 36 2.3 32 2.0 79 1.4 74 2.2 20 1.3Hungary 44 1.8 28 2.4 38 2.5 81 1.3 70 2.8 11 1.0Indonesia 18 0.9 19 1.8 20 2.1 47 1.5 27 2.0 5 0.7Iran, Islamic Republic of 23 1.4 9 1.3 21 1.8 76 1.3 38 2.3 2 0.4(Israel) 25 1.2 15 1.7 35 2.6 66 1.7 51 2.5 9 1.0Italy 21 1.4 22 2.2 23 2.3 65 1.6 50 2.3 6 1.0Japan 52 1.2 28 2.1 46 2.1 70 1.3 68 1.7 19 1.3Jordan 19 1.1 12 1.4 19 1.9 78 1.2 32 2.1 5 0.8Korea, Republic of 50 1.1 54 1.7 52 1.8 73 1.1 47 2.0 30 1.1

Latvia-LSS1 37 1.9 20 2.5 26 2.5 69 1.7 38 2.9 7 1.0

Lithuania2 38 1.7 14 2.0 38 2.8 74 1.6 51 2.9 6 1.1

Macedonia, Republic of 28 1.9 21 2.2 20 2.5 65 1.8 37 2.8 7 1.1

Malaysia 51 1.6 31 2.1 20 1.8 66 1.7 24 1.3 2 0.5Moldova 32 1.6 8 1.4 19 2.0 47 1.9 42 2.8 4 0.6Morocco 17 1.0 2 0.8 7 1.0 24 1.1 20 1.9 2 0.5Netherlands 49 2.9 36 4.7 58 3.9 80 2.2 61 3.5 20 2.7New Zealand 41 1.9 38 2.7 42 2.6 66 1.7 56 2.5 28 2.0Philippines 16 0.9 17 2.1 4 0.9 48 1.6 33 1.8 2 0.5Romania 26 1.9 19 2.4 22 2.8 71 1.7 48 2.8 3 0.7Russian Federation 50 2.5 30 2.6 33 2.6 81 1.3 60 3.6 6 1.1Singapore 44 2.4 72 2.5 49 3.2 81 1.8 69 2.2 32 2.6Slovak Republic 43 2.2 21 2.5 50 2.9 73 1.5 45 2.9 8 1.1

Slovenia 59 2.1 23 2.1 33 3.0 70 1.6 57 3.1 8 1.1

South Africa 21 0.9 3 0.8 3 0.7 26 1.7 25 1.5 1 0.2Thailand 26 1.3 14 1.5 28 2.2 70 1.2 49 2.4 4 0.7Tunisia 16 0.9 13 1.3 19 1.9 44 1.3 21 1.6 2 0.5Turkey 26 1.0 23 2.1 17 2.3 58 0.9 43 2.2 4 0.8United States 48 1.6 35 2.1 30 1.9 66 1.4 62 1.8 21 1.3

International averageof 38 nations 37 0.3 26 0.4 31 0.4 67 0.2 48 0.4 12 0.2

92

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national percentages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R),unpublished tabulations, 1999; Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2.3, 2.13, and 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

108

8 PHNOM 3-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.8.-U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievementwith standard errors, by selected characteristics: 1999

MathematicsCharacteristics Average s.e.

SexBoys 505 4.8Girls 498 3.8

Race/ethnicityWhite students 525 4.6Black students 444 5.3Hispanic students 457 6.3

National origin of parentsBoth U.S. born 510 3.8Both foreign born 477 8.71 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 496 6.4

Mother's educationHigh school or less 484 3.5

Some vocational+ some college

511 3.9

Completed college 539 5.4

Father's educationHigh school or less 482 4.0Some vocational

+ some college512 4.3


Public/nonpublic schoolPublic school students 498 4.3Nonpubic school students 526 7.4

ScienceCharacteristics Average s.e.

SexBoys 524 5.2

Girls 505 4.6

Race/ethnicityWhite students 547 4.0Black students 438 5.7Hispanic students 462 7.4

National origin of parentsBoth U.S. born 527 4.1

Both foreign born 472 8.01 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 509 7.0

Mother's educationHigh school or less 499 6.1Some vocational

+ some college 525 5.3


Father's educationHigh school or less 495 5.9Some vocational

+ some college 529 6.7


Public/nonpublic schoolPublic school students 510 4.9Nonpublic school students 548 7.1

NOTE: Other factors not controlled for in these analyses.s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

10993

%PPENDOX 3-SUPPORTMG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.9.-Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade students with standard errors, by sex, by nation: 1999

Mathematics

NationGirls Boys

Average 1 s.e. Average I s.e.

Australia 524 57 526 5.7Belgium-Flemish 560 7.2 556 8.3Bulgaria 510 5.9 511 6.9Canada 529 2.5 533 3.2Chile 388 4.3 397 5.8Chinese Taipei 583 3.9 587 5.3Cyprus 479 2.1 474 2.7Czech Republic 512 4.0 528 5.8England 487 5.4 505 5.0Finland 519 3.0 522 3.5Hong Kong SAR 583 4.7 581 5.9Hungary 529 4.0 535 4.3Indonesia 401 5.4 405 5.0Iran, Islamic Republic of 408 4.2 432 4.8(Israel) 459 4.2 474 4.8Italy 475 4.5 484 4.3Japan 575 2.4 582 2.3Jordan 431 4.7 425 5.9Korea, Republic of 585 3.1 590 2.2

Latvia-LSS1 502 3.8 508 4.4

Lithuania2 480 4.7 483 4.8

Macedonia, Republic of 446 5.3 447 4.3Malaysia 521 4.7 517 6.0Moldova 468 4.1 471 4.7Morocco 326 5.3 344 4.1

Netherlands 538 7.6 542 7.0New Zealand 495 5.5 487 7.6Philippines 352 6.9 337 6.5Romania 475 6.3 470 6.2Russian Federation 526 6.0 526 6.4Singapore 603 6.1 606 7.5Slovak Republic 532 4.2 536 4.5Slovenia 529 3.0 531 3.6South Africa 267 7.5 283 7.3Thailand 469 5.7 465 5.5Tunisia 436 . 2.4 460 2.9Turkey 428 4.7 429 4.4United States 498 3.9 505 4.8


485 0.8 489 0.9

94

Science

NationGirls Boys

Average I s.e. Average I s.e.

Australia 532 5.1 549 6.0Belgium-Flemish 526 4.7 544 7.2

Bulgaria 511 5.8 525 6.5Canada 526 3.2 540 2.4Chile 409 4.3 432 5.1

Chinese Taipei 561 3.9 578 5.7Cyprus 455 3.1 465 3.0Czech Republic 523 4.8 557 4.9England 522 6.2 554 5.3Finland 530 4.0 540 4.5Hong Kong SAR 522 4.4 537 5.1

Hungary 540 4.0 565 4.5Indonesia 427 6.5 444 4.8Iran, Islamic Republic of 430 5.7 461 4.4(Israel) 461 6.0 476 5.5Italy 484 4.1 503 5.6Japan 543 2.8 556 3.6Jordan 460 5.0 442 5.9Korea, Republic of 538 4.0 559 3.2

Latvia-LSS1 495 5.6 510 4.8

Lithu an ia2 478 4.4 499 5.0

Macedonia, Republic of 458 6.0 458 5.4Malaysia 488 5.5 498 5.8Moldova 454 4.4 465 5.4Morocco 312 5.9 330 5.9Netherlands 536 7.1 554 7.3New Zealand 506 5.4 513 7.0Philippines 351 8.2 339 8.9Romania 468 6.4 475 6.5Russian Federation 519 7.1 540 6.2Singapore 557 7.9 578 9.7Slovak Republic 525 3.4 546 4.5Slovenia 527 3.7 540 3.7South Africa 234 9.2 253 7.7Thailand 481 4.6 484 4.4Tunisia 417 3.3 442 4.3Turkey 431 4.8 434 4.3United States 505 4.6 524 5.5


480 0.9 495 0.9

iDesignated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at theEighth Grade. Exhibit 1.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

PPENODX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA IFOIR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.10.-Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievementwith standard errors, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation1995 1999 1995-1999 difference3

Average I s.e. Average I s.e. Average I s.e.

(Australia) 519 3.8 525 4.8 6 6.1

Belgium-Flemish 550 5.9 558 3.3 8 6.8(Bulgaria) 527 5.8 511 5.9 -16 8.2Canada 521 2.2 531 2.5 10 3.2Cyprus 468 2.2 476 1.8 9 2.9Czech Republic 546 4.5 520 4.2 -26 6.1

(England) 498 3.0 496 4.2 -1 5.2Hong Kong SAR 569 6.1 582 4.3 13 7.5Hungary 527 3.2 532 3.7 5 4.9Iran,.Islamic Republic of 418 3.9 422 3.4 4 5.2

Italy 491 3.4 485 4.8 -6 6.0Japan 581 1.6 579 1.7 -2 2.2Korea, Republic of 581 2.0 587 2.0 6 2.8

(Latvia-LSS)1 488 3.6 505 3.4 17 5.0

(Lithuania)2 472 4.1 482 4.3 10 6.1

(Netherlands) 529 6.1 540 7.1 11 9.5New Zealand 501 4.7 491 5.2 -10 7.1

(Romania) 474 4.6 472 5.8 -1 7.4Russian Federation 524 5.3 526 5.9 2 8.0Singapore 609 4.0 604 6.3 -4 7.4Slovak Republic 534 3.1 534 4.0 0 4.9(Slovenia) 531 2.8 530 2.8 -1 3.9United States 492 4.7 502 4.0 9 6.2


519 0.9 521 0.9 2 1.3

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)4 513 6.2 482 4.7 -32 7.8

(South Africa)4 278 9.2 275 6.8 -3 11.5

(Thailand)4 516 6.1 467 5.1 -49 7.9

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

4Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995.These nations' averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. Seeappendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for detatils for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

1 11 95

APPENDOX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOIR CHAPTER 2

96

Table A3.11.-Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement withstandard errors, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation1995 1999 1995-1999 difference3

Average s.e. Average s.e. Average s.e.

(Australia) 527 4.0 540 4.4 14 6.0

Belgium-Flemish 533 6.4 535 3.1 2 7.1

(Bulgaria) 545 5.2 518 5.4 -27 7.5

Canada 514 2.6 533 2.1 19 3.3

Cyprus 452 2.1 460 2.4 8 3.3

Czech Republic 555 4.5 539 4.2 -16 6.1

(England) 533 3.6 538 4.8 5 5.8

Hong Kong SAR 510 5.8 530 3.7 20 6.8

Hungary 537 3.1 552 3.7 16 4.9

Iran, Islamic Republic of 463 3.6 448 3.8 -15 5.2

Italy 497 3.6 498 4.8 1 5.9

Japan 554 1.8 550 2.2 -5 3.0

Korea, Republic of 546 2.0 549 2.6 3 3.4

(Latvia-LSS)1 476 3.3 503 4.8 27 5.9

(Lithuania)2 464 4.0 488 4.1 25 5.7

(Netherlands) 541 6.0 545 6.9 3 9.1

New Zealand 511 4.9 510 4.9 -1 6.9

(Romania) 471 5.1 472 5.8 1 7.8

Russian Federation 523 4.5 529 6.4 7 7.9

Singapore 580 5.5 568 8.0 -12 9.8

Slovak Republic 532 3.3 535 3.3 3 4.5

(Slovenia) 541 2.8 533 3.2 -8 4.4

United States 513 5.6 515 4.6 2 7.2


518 0.9 521 0.9 3 1.3


(Israel)4 509 6.3 484 5.7 -25 8.3

(South Africa)4 263 11.1 243 7.9 -20 13.7

(Thailand)4 510 4.7 482 4.0 -28 6.2

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.


NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. Seeappendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for detatils for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

112

APPENDOX 3-S1WP0iTON DATA FOR CliAPTEIR 2

Table A3.12.-Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade studentsreaching the TIMSS-R 1999 top 10 percent international benchmarkof mathematics achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation1995 percentage of

students1999 percentage of

students1995-1999 difference3

Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 11 1.2 12 1.8 1 2.2

Belgium-Flemish 19 1.6 23 1.4 4 2.2(Bulgaria) 19 2.0 11 2.3 -8 3.0

Canada 9 0.9 12 1.1 3 1.4

Cyprus 4 0.4 3 0.4 -1 0.6Czech Republic 19 2.1 11 1.4 -8 2.5

(England) 8 1.2 7 0.9 0 1.6

Hong Kong SAR 28 2.6 33 2.3 5 3.4Hungary 13 1.1 16 1.2 3 1.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 0.3 1 0.2 0 0.4Italy 7 0.8 6 1.0 -1 1.2

Japan 34 1.0 33 1.1 0 1.5


(Lativa-LSS)1 5 0.8 7 0.9 3 1.2

(Lithuania)2 3 0.5 4 0.7 1 0.9

(Netherlands) 12 2.1 14 2.3 3 3.1

New Zealand 8 1.2 8 1.2 0 1.7

(Romania) 5 0.8 5 1.1 0 1.3

Russian Federation 12 1.4 15 1.8 2 2.2

Singapore 46 3.0 46 3.5 0 4.7Slovak Republic 14 1.2 14 1.4 -1 1.8

(Slovenia) 13 1.1 15 1.2 2 1.5

United States 6 0.9 9 1.0 3 1.4


14 0.4 15 0.3 1 0.4


(Israel)4 8 1.5 6 0.7 -3 1.6

(South Africa)4 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.3

(Thailand)4 10 2.1 4 0.8 -5 2.3


41srael, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995.These nations' averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. Seeappendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See (NCES 1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

11397

APPENDOX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.13.-Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade studentsreaching the TIMSS-R 1999 top 10 percent international benchmarkof science achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation1995 percentage

of students1999 percentage

of students 1995-1999 difference3

Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 17 1.3 19 1.6 3 2.0Belgium-Flemish 12 1.2 11 1.4 -1 1.8

(Bulgaria) 24 1.8 14 2.1 -10 2.8Canada 11 0.7 14 0.9 3 1.1

Cyprus 3 0.4 2 0.5 0 0.6Czech Republic 21 2.2 17 1.7 -4 2.6(England) 17 1.8 19 1.9 2 2.6Hong Kong SAR 9 1.2 10 1.1 1 1.7

Hungary 14 1.2 22 1.4 8 1.9

Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 0.5 2 0.3 0 0.6Italy 7 1.0 8 1.1 1 1.5

Japan 21 1.0 19 1.1 -2 1.6


(Lativa-LSS)1 4 0.7 7 1.3 3 1.4

(Lithuania)2 3 0.7 6 0.9 3 1.1

(Netherlands) 15 2.0 16 2.3 1 3.0New Zealand 11 1.3 12 1.4 0 1.9

(Romania) 6 0.9 6 0.8 0 1.2

Russian Federation 13 1.2 17 2.4 4 2.8Singapore 33 3.2 32 3.3 -1 4.6Slovak Republic 15 1.3 14 1.4 0 1.8

(Slovenia) 16 1.2 16 1.1 0 1.7

United States 13 1.2 15 1.2 2 1.7


13 0.3 14 0.4 1 0.4


(Israel)4 12 1.8 8 0.8 -4 2.0

(South Africa)4 1 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.6

(Thailand)4 6 1.3 3 0.7 -2 1.5



NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. Seeappendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

98

APPENDOX 3-SUPPOIFITONG DATA FOR CHAPTER .2

Table A3.14.-Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areaswith standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation

Percent correct in mathematics content areasTotal mathematics trend

items (48 items)Fractions and number sense

trend items (17 items)Measurement trend items

(6 items)1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

(Australia) 68 0.9 69 1.1 68 0.8 70 1.0 71 0.9 73 1.1

Belgium-Flemish 73 1.3 76 1.2 75 1.2 77 0.8 77 1.5 79 1.7(Bulgaria) 70 1.3 65 1.3 67 1.6 61 1.4 69 1.5 63 1.1

Canada 67 0.5 70 0.4 69 0.5 72 0.5 64 0.6 67 0.7Cyprus 54 0.5 56 0.4 55 0.5 58 0.5 45 0.8 46 0.6Czech Republic 72 1.0 67 0.9 67 1.2 61 1.1 80 0.8 77 1.0

(England) 64 0.6 63 0.9 65 0.7 65 0.9 67 0.8 66 1.2

Hong Kong SAR 77 1.3 79 0.9 78 1.3 81 0.9 76 1.4 77 1.0Hungary 67 0.8 68 0.8 63 0.8 65 0.9 73 0.8 74 0.7Iran, Islamic Republic of 44 0.6 44 0.6 46 0.7 45 0.7 31 1.0 34 0.7Italy 60 0.9 58 1.1 57 1.0 55 1.1 64 1.2 63 1.2

Japan 78 0.3 78 0.3 76 0.4 76 0.4 75 0.4 74 0.5Korea, Republic of 80 0.4 81 0.4 76 0.5 77 0.4 81 0.6 83 0.4(Latvia-LSS)1 59 0.8 64 0.8 54 0.9 59 0.9 66 1.0 70 1.0

(Lithuania)2 56 1.0 57 1.0 52 1.0 54 1.1 57 0.9 56 0.9(Netherlands) 70 1.6 74 1.6 70 1.3 75 1.7 76 1.6 77 1.6

New Zealand 64 1.1 62 1.2 65 1.0 63 1.2 66 1.2 65 1.3

(Romania) 55 1.0 54 1.1 51 0.9 50 1.1 57 1.2 57 1.3

Russian Federation 68 1.4 68 1.3 64 1.7 64 1.4 69 1.1 73 1.3

Singapore 84 0.7 83 1.1 87 0.6 85 1.0 86 0.7 83 1.1

Slovak Republic 69 0.7 69 0.9 66 0.8 67 1.1 75 0.7 75 0.9(Slovenia) 69 0.7 70 0.6 68 0.8 69 0.7 72 0.8 72 0.7United States 61 1.1 63 0.9 63 1.1 66 0.9 53 1.1 55 1.1



(Israel)3 66 1.3 59 1.1 67 1.2 61 1.0 63 1.5 55 1.1

(South Africa)3 29 1.2 27 0.8 32 1.2 29 0.8 30 1.4 28 0.7

(Thailand)3 65 1.3 54 1.0 66 1.3 55 1.1 63 1.5 51 1.2


3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations'averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

115 99

APPENDDX 3-SUFPOIRTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.14.-Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areaswith standard errors: 1995 and 1999-Continued

Nation

Percent correct in mathematics content areasData represenation, analysis,and probability trend items

(8 items)

-Cieometry trend items(6 items)

Algebra trend items(11 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

(Australia) 71 0.8 74 1.0 58 1.1 59 1.4 67 1.0 69 1.2

Belgium-Flemish 74 1.3 77 1.3 66 1.4 69 1.9 72 1.6 73 1.3

(Bulgaria) 74 1.3 66 1.1 76 1.2 73 1.5 71 1.5 66 1.4

Canada 70 0.7 73 0.5 61 0.7 64 0.7 64 0.7 70 0.6

Cyprus 56 0.7 59 0.6 56 0.8 59 0.7 53 0.6 54 0.6

Czech Republic 75 0.8 73 0.8 73 1.2 67 1.2 72 1.3 65 1.1

(England) 71 0.7 73 0.9 51 1.0 49 1.2 61 0.8 60 1.2

Hong Kong SAR 74 1.1 78 0.8 78 1.6 80 1.1 78 1.4 79 1.0

Hungary 74 0.6 75 0.9 56 1.1 55 1.1 70 0.9 72 0.8Iran, Islamic Republic of 45 0.7 47 0.6 44 0.9 44 0.8 48 0.9 47 0.8Italy 67 0.9 65 1.3 59 1.2 58 1.3 58 1.0 55 1.3

Japan 79 0.3 80 0.4 84 0.4 82 0.5 79 0.4 79 0.5Korea, Republic of 85 0.5 85 0.3 83 0.6 84 0.5 81 0.4 83 0.5

(Latvia-LSS)1 63 0.9 69 0.8 67 1.0 73 0.9 56 1.0 60 0.9

(Lithuania)2 61 1.0 66 0.9 64 1.3 63 1.4 55 1.2 54 1.2

(Netherlands) 77 1.6 80 1.5 62 1.8 66 1.7 65 2.1 70 2.0

New Zealand 70 1.0 69 1.3 55 1.3 51 1.4 60 1.2 60 1.5

(Romania) 57 1.1 56 1.1 62 1.3 59 1.3 56 1.2 55 1.3


Singapore 79 0.8 79 1.1 82 0.9 81 1.3 83 0.9 82 1.3

Slovak Republic 71 0.8 73 0.9 71 0.9 71 1.2 67 1.0 66 1.1

(Slovenia) 75 0.7 76 0.7 64 0.9 63 0.9 69 0.8 69 0.7United States 67 1.0 69 0.9 50 1.1 52 1.0 63 1.3 66 1.0



(Israel)3 66 1.5 62 1.1 65 1.6 56 1.3 65 1.6 59 1.2

(South Africa)3 31 1.1 29 0.8 23 1.2 22 0.7 27 1.4 26 1.0

(Thailand)3 66 1.0 58 1.0 68 1.4 57 1.3 64 1.5 50 1.1


3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations'averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). T1MSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

1001.1 6

APPENDOX 3-SURTUNG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.15.-Comparisons of percent correct in science content areas withstandard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation

Percent correct in science content areasTotal science trend items

(48 items)Earth science trend items

(11 items)Life science items

(13 i ems)1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

(Australia) 68 0.6 69 0.7 64 0.7 64 0.9 75 0.6 76 0.7

Belgium-Flemish 69 0.8 69 0.5 68 0.8 67 0.7 76 1.0 77 0.7

(Bulgaria) 74 0.9 72 0.8 70 1.1 68 1.0 82 0.8 80 0.8

Canada 65 0.4 68 0.3 61 0.6 64 0.5 72 0.5 75 0.4

Cyprus 56 0.4 57 0.3 53 0.5 53 0.4 67 0.6 67 0.5

Czech Republic 74 0.7 72 0.6 73 0.9 69 0.8 84 0.7 83 0.6

(England) 68 0.5 70 0.6 63 0.7 65 0.7 75 0.6 77 0.7

Hong Kong SAR 66 0.8 69 0.5 60 0.8 63 0.5 77 0.9 79 0.6

Hungary 73 0.5 76 0.5 74 0.7 76 0.7 81 0.6 82 0.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 59 0.5 57 0.7 57 0.6 55 0.7 62 0.6 60 0.6

Italy 65 0.7 64 0.8 62 0.9 62 1.0 72 0.8 72 0.8

Japan 71 0.3 72 0.3 65 0.4 68 0.4 77 0.4 78 0.4

Korea, Republic of 71 0.4 72 0.3 70 0.5 71 0.4 76 0.5 76 0.4

(Latvia-LSS)1 63 0.5 65 0.5 61 0.8 64 0.8 71 0.7 75 0.6

(Lithuania)2 62 0.7 65 0.7 58 0.9 60 0.8 68 0.8 71 0.7

(Netherlands) 71 1.0 71 1.1 65 1.4 68 1.3 81 1.0 81 1.3

New Zealand 64 0.7 63 0.7 59 0.8 59 0.8 70 0.9 70 0.9

(Romania) 62 0.9 62 0.8 61 1.0 60 1.0 69 1.0 68 0.8


Singapore 74 0.9 71 1.2 64 1.0 61 1.0 80 0.9 78 1.3

Slovak Republic 70 0.6 71 0.6 67 0.8 67 0.8 76 0.6 84 0.6

(Slovenia) 72 0.5 70 0.5 76 0.6 73 0.6 76 0.5 76 0.6

United States 66 0.7 67 0.6 62 0.8 62 0.7 75 0.8 76 0.8


66 0.1N

67 0.1 63 0.2 63 0.2 73 0.2 74 0.2


(Israel)3 67 0.9 63 0.8 61 1.0 57 0.9 74 1.1 68 0.9

(South Africa)3 37 1.1 35 0.7 34 1.0 34 0.5 38 1.4 37 0.9

(Thailand)3 65 0.8 58 0.8 63 0.9 52 0.9 79 0.7 72 0.8

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

31srael, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations'averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

I 7 101


102

Table A3.15.-Comparisons of percent correct in science contentareas with standard errors: 1995 and 1999-Continued

N afion

Percent correct in science content areasPhysics trend items (15 items) Chemistry trend items (5 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

(Australia) 62 0.6 64 0.7 71 0.9 72 1.0Belgium-Flemish 64 0.9 63 0.5 72 0.8 70 0.8(Bulgaria) 69 1.1 67 0.9 80 1.4 76 1.1

Canada 61 0.5 64 0.4 71 0.6 74 0.6Cyprus 50 0.4 53 0.4 62 0.7 61 0.6Czech Republic 68 0.6 65 0.7 72 1.0 70 0.9(England) 65 0.6 65 0.7 72 1.0 73 0.9Hong Kong SAR 62 0.8 64 0.5 68 1.3 72 0.9Hungary 63 0.5 69 0.6 78 0.8 83 0.6Iran, Islamic Republic of 56 0.7 54 0.8 66 0.7 64 0.9Italy 59 0.7 58 0.9 68 1.1 66 1.2Japan 69 0.3 69 0.3 74 0.6 74 0.6Korea, Republic of 68 0.4 69 0.4 72 0.7 73 0.5(Latvia-LSS)1 56 0.6 57 0.6 62 0.8 68 0.8

(Lithuania)2 58 0.7 61 0.7 68 1.0 70 1.2

(Netherlands) 66 0.8 66 1.0 72 1.2 73 1.2

New Zealand 59 0.6 58 0.6 70 1.1 68 1.0(Romania) 57 1.0 57 0.9 65 1.1 65 1.2Russian Federation 66 1.1 68 1.3 74 1.4 77 1.3

Singapore 74 0.8 72 1.0 81 1.1 76 1.6

Slovak Republic 65 0.7 62 0.7 77 0.8 74 1.0(Slovenia) 65 0.6 63 0.5 72 1.0 71 0.8United States 61 0.6 62 0.6 72 1.2 72 1.0

International averageof 23 nations 62 0.1 62 0.1 70 0.2 70 0.2


(Israel)3 62 0.9 62 0.7 73 1.3 69 1.2

(South Africa)3 37 1.2 34 0.7 38 1.3 35 1.0

(Thailand)3 59 0.9 53 0.8 50 1.1 45 1.0

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohor of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the nextschool year.

3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in1995. These nations' averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or bothyears. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.


1 18

APPIEMIX 3-SUPPORTMG DATA FOR CRAFTER 2

Table A3.16.-U.S. mathematics and science achievement withstandard errors, by selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999

MATHEMATICS1995 1999

Characteristics Average s.e. Characteristics Average s.e.

Sex SexBoys 495 5.5 Boys 505 4.8Girls 490 4.7 Girls 498 3.9

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicityWhite students 516 3.5 White students 525 4.6Black students 419 6.8 Black students 444 5.3

Hispanic students 443 3.8 Hispanic students 457 6.3

National origin of parents National origin of parentsBoth U.S. born 496 4.5 Both U.S. born 510 3.8

Both foreign born 474 8.5 Both foreign born 477 8.71 U.S. born, I foreign born 482 11.1 1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 496 6.4

Mother's education Mother's educationHigh school or less 479 4.2 High school or less 484 3.5Some vocational+some college 498 5.2 Some vocational+some college 511 3.9

Completed college 511 6.3 Completed college 539 5.4

Father's education Father's educationHigh school or less 474 4.4 High school or less 482 4.0Some vocational+some college 498 4.7 Some vocational+some college 512 4.2Completed college 515 5.7 Completed college 543 5.6

SCIENCESex SexBoys 520 5.9 Boys 524 5.5

Girls 505 5.5 Girls 505 4.6

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicityWhite students 544 3.3 White students 547 4.0Black students 422 8.3 Black students 438 5.7Hispanic students 446 5.0 Hispanic students 462 7.4

National origin of parents National origin of parentsBoth U.S. born 521 4.9 Both U.S. born 527 4.1

Both foreign born 465 8.9 Both foreign born 472 8.01 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 498 11.5 1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 509 7.0

Mother's education Mother's educationHigh school or less 497 4.8 High school or less 499 6.1

Some vocational+some college 522 6.2 Some vocational+some college 525 5.3

Completed college 531 6.5 Completed college 554 4.9

Father's education Father's educationHigh school or less 494 5.0 High school or less 495 5.9Some vocational+some college 521 5.4 Some vocational+some college 529 6.7Completed college 534 6.0 Completed college 560 4.7

NOTE: Other factors not controlled for in these analyses.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

1031 1 9

APPENDDX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.17.-Mathematics achievement of TIMSS-R 1999 nationsthat participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relativeto the average across these nations with standard errors

1995

Fourth gradeNation Difference2 s.e.

(Australia) 0 3.0Canada -12 3.3Cyprus -42 3.1

Czech Republic 23 3.1(England) -33 3.3Hong Kong SAR 40 3.8(Hungary) 4 3.5Iran, Islamic Republic of -130 4.8(Italy) -7 4.5Japan 50 2.0Korea, Republic of 63 1.9

(Latvia-LSS)1 -18 4.4(Netherlands) 32 2.9New Zealand -48 4.2Singapore 73 4.3(Slovenia) 8 3.1

United States 0 2.9


1999

Eighth gradeNation Difference2 s.e.

Australia 1 4.7Canada 7 2.7Cyprus -48 1.9Czech Republic -4 4.1

England -28 4.0Hong Kong SAR 58 4.2Hungary 8 3.6Iran, Islamic Republic of -102 3.3Italy -39 4.6Japan 55 1.8

Korea, Republic of 63 2.0Latvia-LSS1 -19 3.3

Netherlands 16 6.8New Zealand -33 4.9Singapore 80 5.9Slovenia 6 2.8United States -22 3.8


'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2The difference between the national average and the international average for each of the 17 nations.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. SeeNCES (1997c) for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

104


Table A3.18.-Science achievement of TIMSS-R 1999 nations thatparticipated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative tothe average across these nations with standard errors

1995

Fourth gradeNation Difference2 s.e.

(Australia) 28 3.5Canada 12 3.0Cyprus -64 3.1

Czech Republic 18 3.0(England) 14 3.1

Hong Kong SAR -6 3.3(Hungary) -6 3.3Iran, Islamic Republic of -134 4.4(Italy) 10 4.4Japan 39 1.9

Korea, Republic of 62 2.2

(Latvia-LSS)1 -27 4.7(Netherlands) 17 3.1

New Zealand -9 5.1

Singapore 10 4.6(Slovenia) 8 3.9United States 28 3.2


1999

Eighth gradeNation Difference2 s.e.

Australia 16 4.3Canada 9 2.1

Cyprus -64 2.3Czech Republic 15 4.1England 14 4.5Hong Kong SAR 5 3.5Hungary 28 3.6Iran, Islamic Republic of -76 3.7Italy -26 4.5Japan 25 2.4Korea, Republic of 24 2.6

Latvia-LSS1 -21 4.9Netherlands 21 6.5New Zealand -15 4.8Singapore 44 7.6Slovenia 9 3.3United States -9 4.5


524 1.1

'Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.2The difference between the national average and the international average for each of the 17 nations.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. SeeNCES (1997c) for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.s.e, means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade, Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

1051 21

n-fo:jo-JormliK

Supporting Data for Chapter 3

122

APPENDON 4SUPPORTNG DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

108

Table A4.1.Organization of science instruction at grade 8, bynation: 1999

Nations teaching science as a singlegeneral/integrated subject Nations teaching science as separate subjects

Australia Belgium-FlemishCanada Bulgaria

Chile Chinese Taipei I

Cyprus Czech RepublicEngland FinlandHong Kong SAR HungaryIran, Islamic Republic of Indonesia2Israel Latvia

Italy Lithuania3Japan Macedonia, Republic ofJordan MoldovaKorea, Republic of MoroccoMalaysia NetherlandsNew Zealand RomaniaPhilippines Russian FederationSingapore Slovak RepublicSouth Africa SloveniaThailandTunisiaTurkeyUnited States

'In Chinese Taipei, separate sciences are taught starting in grade 7, with biology in grade 7 and physics/chemistry ingrade 8. Students were administered the general version of the questionnaire and asked about "natural science."Science analyses based on teacher background data treat Chinese Taipei as teaching separate science subjects;science analyses based on student background data treat Chinese Taipei as teaching general/integrated science.

2In Indonesia, students are taught "IPA science" by separate biology and physics teachers, but students receive asingle composite grade. Students were administered the general version of the questionnaire and asked about "IPAscience." Science analyses based on teacher background data treat Indonesia as teaching separate science subjects;science analyses based on student background data treat Indonesia as teaching general/integrated science.


NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 5. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

123

APPENEHN 4SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.2.Eighth-grade mathematics teachers' reports of theirmain area of study with standard errors: 1999

Area of study

Percentage of students whose mathematics teachersreported a major area of study

U.S. average International average*Percent s.e. Percent

Is.e.

MathematicsMathematics educationScience/science educationEducationOther

41 3.437 3.416 2.4

54 3.446 3.6

71 0.6

31 0.635 0.632 0.632 0.6

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Mullis et al. (2000) fordetails.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Science includes biology, physics, chemistry, and science education.Based on mathematics teachers' reports of major or main area of study for bachelor's and/or master's degree; morethan one category could be selected.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of theThird International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

Table A4.3.Eighth-grade science teachers' reports of their mainarea of study with standard errors: 1999

Area of study

Percentage of students whose science teachers reporteda major area of study

U.S. average International average*Percent I s.e. Percent

Is.e.

BiologyPhysicsChemistryScience educationMathematics/mathematics educationEducationOther

47 3.5

13 2.2

21 3.0

43 3.7

14 2.5

56 3.645 3.7

42 0.823 0.730 0.844 0.925 0.730 0.729 0.8

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Martin et al. (2000) for details.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Based on science teachers' reports of major or main area of study for bachelor's and/or master's degree; more than onecategory could be selected.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

109124


110

Table A4.4.-Teachers' beliefs about their preparation to teachmathematics and science with standard errors: 1999

Percentage of 8th-grade students whosemathematics teachers reported feeling very well

prepared to teach mathematicsNation Percent s.e.

Australia 84 2.7Belgium-Flemish 80 1.4

Bulgaria 66 4.8Canada 79 1.7

Chile 44 2.8Chinese Taipei 78 2.6Cyprus 89 0.9Czech Republic 88 1.8

EnglandFinland 81 1.9

Hong Kong SAR 72 2.6Hungary 59 3.3Indonesia 81 2.1Iran, Islamic Republic of 81 1.8

(Israel) 84 1.6

Italy 69 2.3Japan 23 2.6Jordan 88 1.7

Korea, Republic of 61 2.5Lativa-LSS* 73 2.1LithuaniaMacedonia, Republic of 92 1.0Malaysia 81 2.5Moldova 64 3.2Morocco 75 1.3

Netherlands 84 5.3New Zealand 88 1.9Philippines 64 2.3Romania 85 1.3

Russian FederationSingapore 78 2.7Slovak Republic 89 1.5

Slovenia 50 2.9South Africa 71 1.9Thailand 32 3.0Tunisia 51 2.6Turkey 83 1.6

United States 90 1.2


73 0.4

Percentage of 8th-grade students whose scienceteachers reported feeling very well prepared to

teach scienceNation Percent s.e.

Australia 55 1.8

Belgium-Flemish 47 2.1

Bulgaria 46 1.9

Canada 44 1.7

Chile 29 1.9

Chinese Taipei 42 2.6Cyprus 57 1.4

Czech Republic 64 2.0EnglandFinland 47 1.7

Hong Kong SAR 34 2.4Hungary 29 1.4

Indonesia 58 2.7Iran, Islamic Republic of 42 2.8(Israel) 55 1.7Italy 42 2.1

Japan 17 1.7

Jordan 57 2.6Korea, Republic of 31 1.9

Lativa-LSS* 37 1.5

LithuaniaMacedonia, Republic of 72 1.3

Malaysia 22 2.3Moldova 39 1.6

Morocco 57 1.4

Netherlands 50 1.7New Zealand 59 2.1

Philippines 41 2.3Romania 57 1.5

Russian FederationSingapore 46 2.4Slovak RepublicSloveniaSouth Africa 53 2.8Thailand 30 2.4Tunisia 32 1.9

Turkey 63 2.2United States 58 1.5


46 0.4

*Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.Data not available.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: 'Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

1 25

APPIENIODX 4-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTIEIR 3

Table A4.5.-Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught byteachers that participated in professional development activities thatemphasized different topics with standard errors: 1999

Professional Development Topic

Percentage of U.S. 8th-grade students taught by teacherwho said their professional development activities

emphasized the topic "quite a lot" or "a great deal"Mathematics Science

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Curriculum 64 3.2 59 3.7

Subject-specific teaching methods inmathematics or science

40 3.9 40 3.5

General teaching methods 38 3.4 44 3.9

Approaches to assessment 33 3.1 37 3.9

Use of technology in instruction 44 3.7 46 2.6

Strategies for teaching diverse studentpopulations 21 3.0 23 2.5

Information on how students learnmathematics or science

21 2.8 23 4.3

Deepening teacher's knowledge of mathematicsor science

28 3.4 50 2.4

Leadership development 16 2.6 19 2.4

NOTE: s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Table A4.6.-Percentage of eighth-grade students "taught"mathematics content areas with standard errors: 1999

Fractions andnumber sense Measurement

Datarepresentation,analysis, andprobability

Geometry Algebra

Percenti s.e. Percenti s.e. Percenti s.e. Percenti s.e. Percent s.e.

United StatesInternational average

99 0.795 0.3

91 1.6

86 0.592 1.7

59 0.765 2.9

58 0.798 0.988 0.5

NOTE: "Taught" equals the sum of percentages of students whose mathematics teachers reported these topics as either"taught before this year" or "taught more than five periods this year."Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Table A4.7.-Percentage of eighth-grade students "taught" sciencecontent areas with standard errors: 1999

Earth science Biology Physics ChemistryEnvironmentaland resource

issues

Scientificinquiry and the

nature ofscience

Percent s.e. Percent 1 s.e. Percent [ s.e. Percent 1 s.e. Percent 1 s.e. Percent 1 s.e.

United StatesInternationalaverage

78 3.1

57 0.7

81 3.2

60 0.7

70 3.6

53 0.7

73 3.6

67 0.6

78 2.6

72 0.6

95 1.7

80 0.6

NOTE: "Taught" equals the sum of percentages of s udents whose science teachers reported these topics as either "taughtbefore this year" or "taught more than five periods this year."Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics andScience Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999. 111

APPIENDM 4.SOPPORTDIMO DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

112

Table A4.8.Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence ofselected activities in their mathematics class "almost always" or"pretty often" with standard errors: 1999

Teacher shows how to doa mathematics problem

Students work onworksheets or from

textbooks

Students work onmathematics projects

Percent I s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e.

United StatesInternational average

94 0.686 0.2

86 0.7

59 0.229 1.3

36 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.9.Eighth-grade students' reports of the occurrence of selectedactivities in their science class "almost always" or "pretty often" withstandard errors: 1999

Teacher show howto do a science

problem

Students work onworksheets orfrom textbooks

Students work onscience projects

Teacherdemonstrates a

science exyeriment

Students conductexperiments

Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 69 1.4 76 1.5 59 1.3 71 1.1 65 1.5

Internationalaverage of 23nations

80 0.2 56 0.3 51 0.3 71 0.3 57 0.3

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations that reported teaching a general/integrated sciencecurriculum in 1999.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 6.10, R3.11, and R3.13. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.10.Eighth-grade students' reports of access to computersand the Internet with standard errors: 1999

Have computer athome

Have Internetaccess at home

Have Internetaccess at school

Have Internetaccess elsewhere

Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e.

United States 80 1.2 59 1.7 76 3.2 81 0.9International average 45 0.2 18 0.2 25 0.3 43 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The interational average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits R1.1 and 6.17. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege.

127

APPENDIX 4SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.11.Eighth-grade students' reports of using computersin mathematics and science classes "almost always" or "prettyoften" with standard errors: 1999

Mathematics Science

PercentI

s.e. PercentI

s.e.

United States 12 1.1 21 1.4

International average 5 0.1 8 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The interational average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.15. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from I EA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.12.Eighth-grade students' reports of discussing orbeginning homework in mathematics and science classes "almostalways" or "pretty often" with standard errors: 1999

Discuss completedhomework in

mathematics class

Begin homework inmathematics class

Discuss completedhomework inscience class

Begin homework inscience class

Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent I s.e. Percent s.e.

United StatesInternational

average

79 1.2

55 0.2

74 1.6

42 0.2

63 1.9

51 0.3

57 2.0

41 0.3

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.10. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mulliset al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from lEA's Repeat of the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

128 113

AppeardiniKComparisons of all TIMSS and TIMSSR Nations

129

APPIENDOX 5-CONIPAROSONS OF ALL MISS AND IllWASS-.R HATOONS

Now DBES THE UMTED

SIMS PERFORM M.

COMPARDSOW 70 ALL

MSS ANDmoms?Variation in the number of nations in interna-tional studies conducted to date can makeinterpretation of international averages andcomparisons of performance of the United Statesto other nations difficult. This is particularly truewhen attempts are made to look at changes in therelative performance of the United States over theyears. However, TIMSSR was specificallydesigned to allow for a direct comparison ofmathematics and science achievement of eighth-graders over 4 years time. The establishment of acommon scale for the eighth grade components ofTIMSS and TIMSSR allows us to develop the bestset of international comparisons, and the bestestimate of the relative international performanceof the United States to date. TIMSS included 4 2nations. TIMSSR included 38 nations, of which26 are in common between TIMSS and TIMSSR.Combining the scores of nations from TIMSS andTIMSSR allows us to use a comparison group of54 nations for this purpose. Not only does thisincrease the overall number of nations with whichthe United States is compared, but this extendedlist will also go some way toward overcoming crit-icisms that the comparison group of nations in thepast has been biased toward developed nationswith a heavy European participation.

Any attempt to combine the results from TIMSSand TIMSSR raises the question of whichnational average to use for the 26 nations thatparticipated in both TIMSS and TIMSSR. Fromone point of view, it may be best to use the 1995scores from these nations even though they have a1999 score. In this case we would be comparing

116

nations on the basis of their first participation in aTIMSS-like assessment. On the other hand, it maybe most appropriate to use the most recent dataavailable and so use the 1999 scores for the 26nations in both studies. As it turns out, the resultsare quite similar, so for the purposes of this pres-entation we will use the most recent data (1999)for those nations that participated in TIMSSR.

When looking at the data available for the 54nations that participated in either TIMSS,TIMSSR, or both, at the eighth grade, the UnitedStates performed above the international averageof the 54 nations in mathematics. Seventeennations outperformed the United States, 22nations performed lower than the United States,and 14 nations performed similarly to the UnitedStates.

In science, the United States also performed abovethe international average of the 54 nations.Fourteen nations outperformed the United States,26 nations performed lower than the UnitedStates, and 13 nations performed similarly to theUnited States

The findings from this combinedTIMSS/TIMSSR comparison are shown in tableA5.1.

Relative to other nations in mathematics andscience, the United States appears to have donebetter in science than in mathematics, if 'better' isdefined as fewer nations outperforming theUnited States in one subject or the other. That is,when looking at the achievement of all 54 nationsthat participated in TIMSS or TIMSSR, 14nations outperformed the United States in eighthgrade science whereas 17 nations outperformedthe United States in eighth grade mathematics.These comparisons reflect the achievement of U.S.eighth-graders against the achievement of theirpeers in 5 3 other nations, the broadest spectrumof nations to date.

130

APPEND:DOI( 5-COMPARDSONS OF ALL TOMS AIM THSS-H HAMS

Table A5.1.-Mathematics and science acheivement of TIMSS-R andTIMSS nations with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

MathematicsNation Average s.e.Singapore 604 6.3Korea, Republic of 587 2.0Chinese Taipei 585 4.0Hong Kong SAR 582 4.3Japan 579 1.7

Belgium-Flemish 558 3.3(Netherlands) 540 7.1

Slovak Republic 534 4.0Switzerland* 534 2.7Hungary 532 3.7Canada 531 2.5(Slovenia) 530 2.8France* 530 2.8(Austria)* 529 3.1

Russian Federation 526 5.9

(Australia) 525 4.8Finland' 520 2.7

Czech Republic 520 4.2Malaysia 519 4.4Ireland* 519 4.8(Belgium-French)* 518 3.8Sweden* 513 2.7(Bulgaria) 511 5.9(Latvia-LSS)2 505 3.4(Germany)* 502 4.5United States 502 4.0Norway* 499 2.2

(Denmark)* 497 3.1

(England) 496 4.2(Scotland)* 493 5.7New Zealand 491 5.2Iceland* 484 4.9Spain" 483 2.3(Lithuania)3 482 4.3Italy 479 3.8(Greece)" 479 3.4Cyprus 476 1.8

(Romania) 472 5.8Moldova 469 3.9(Thailand) 467 5.1

(Israel) 466 3.9Portugal* 451 3.0Tunisia 448 2.4Macedonia, Republic of 447 4.2Turkey 429 4.3Jordan 428 3.6Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 3.4Indonesia 403 4.9Chile 392 4.4(Colombia)* 360 6.4(Kuwait)* 355 5.8Philippines 345 6.0Morocco 337 2.6(South Africa) 275 6.8



Denotes score from 1995 (no 1999 score available).1The shading of Finland and Canada may appear incorrect; however, statistically its placement is correct.


3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in the year for which data arereported.See appendix 2 for details for 1999. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 54 nations.1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy-Repeat (T1MSS-R), unpubished tabulations, 1999.

ScienceNation Average s.e.Chinese Taipei 569 4.4Singapore 568 8.0Hungary 552 3.7Japan 550 2.2Korea, Republic of 549 2.6(Netherlands) 545 6.9(Australia) 540 4.4Czech Republic 539 4.2(Austria)* 539 3.8(England) 538 4.8Finland 535 3.5Slovak Republic 535 3.3Belgium-Flemish 535 3.1

(Slovenia) 533 3.2

Canada' 533 2.1

Hong Kong SAR 530 3.7Russian Federation 529 6.4Sweden* 523 2.9Ireland* 518 5.1

(Bulgaria) 518 5.4(Germany)* 518 5.5United States 515 4.6Norway* 514 2.4New Zealand 510 4.9Switzerland* 509 2.8Spain 504 2.3(Latvia-LSS)2 503 4.8(Scotland)* 501 5.6Italy 493 3.9Malaysia 492 4.4(Lithuania)3 488 4.1

France' 488 3.2(Greece)* 486 2.8

Iceland* 484 5.8

(Thailand) 482 4.0Portugal* 473 3.1(Romania) 472 5.8(Denmark)* 472 3.8(Israel) 468 4.9(Belgium-French)5 466 3.8Cyprus 460 2.4Moldova 459 4.0Macedonia, Republic of 458 5.2Jordan 450 3.8Iran, Islamic Republic of 448 3.8Indonesia 435 4.5Turkey 433 4.3Tunisia 430 3.4Chile 420 3.7(Kuwait)* 415 5.6(Colombia)* 393 6.9Philippines 345 7.5Morocco 323 4.3(South Africa) 243 7.9


1 31

117

9

SBN 0- 6-050748-0

1

780160

9 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 1

507489

132

1111ANiql

ot'Z'O

United StatesDepartment of Education

ED Pubs8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1395

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use

$300

Postage and Fees PaidU.S. Department of

EducationPermit No. G-17

Standard Mail (B)

1Alf-15Th

%

-JoWr:7"4:

; -

NCES 2001-028

u

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

®

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

EIKThis document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)