Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 mathematics item 2 21
Example mathematics item 3 22
Example mathematics item 4 23
Example mathematics item 5 23
Example science item 1 24
Example science item 2 25
Example science item 3 26
Example science item 4 27
Example science item 5 27
Example science item 6 28
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
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 Italy, Israel, and Slovenia in mathematics may appear incorrect; however, statistically, their 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 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
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2
Indonesia 1
Chile 1
Turkey 1
Philippines 1
South Africa 0Tunisia 0Morocco 0
31
15
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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.
Figure 7.Example mathematics item 2
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.
Figure 8.Example mathematics item 3
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.
Figure 9.Example mathematics item 4
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.
Figure 10.Example mathematics item 5
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
SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR),unpublished tabulations, 1999.
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.
Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 48 International average: 37
SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR),unpublished tabulations, 1999.
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
Figure 12.Example science item 2
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
SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR),unpublished tabulations, 1999.
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
Figure 13.Example science item 3
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.
Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 30 International average: 31
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
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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.
Figure 14.Example science item 4
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.
Figure 15.Example science item 5
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.
Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 62 International average: 48
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
Figure 16.Example science item 6
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
SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science StudyRepeat (TIMSSR),unpublished tabulations, 1999.
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
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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.
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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
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 schoolyear.
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.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
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 schoolyear.
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.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: 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.
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
CHAPTER 2 ACHIEVEMENT
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
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
'Difference is calculated by subtracting the international average of the 17 nations from the national average of eachnation.
2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.
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.
2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.
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.
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.
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
Iran, Islamic Republic of 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
International averageof 35 nations
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
Iran, Islamic Republic of 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
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
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.
International averageof 33 nations
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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.
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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.
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
Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.
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.
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.
2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.
3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next schoolyear.
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
International averageof 38 nations 488 0.7
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 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.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
APPENDIX 3-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2
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.
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 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
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
International averageof 38 nations
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
Completed college 543 5.6
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
Completed college 554 4.9
Father's educationHigh school or less 495 5.9Some vocational
+ some college 529 6.7
Completed college 560 4.7
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
International averageof 38 nations
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
International averageof 38 nations
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
International averageof 23 nations
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
International averageof 23 nations
518 0.9 521 0.9 3 1.3
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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.
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: 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
Korea, Republic of 36 1.2 37 1.0 2 1.4
(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
International averageof 23 nations
14 0.4 15 0.3 1 0.4
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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
'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.
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
Korea, Republic of 20 1.0 22 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
International averageof 23 nations
13 0.3 14 0.4 1 0.4
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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
'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.
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 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
International averageof 23 nations 65 0.2 65 0.2 64 0.2 64 0.2 66 0.2 66 0.2
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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
'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.
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
Russian Federation 69 1.4 69 1.2 71 1.0 70 1.6 69 1.5 71 1.4
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
International averageof 23 nations 68 0.2 69 0.2 63 0.2 63 0.2 64 0.2 65 0.2
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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
'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.
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
Russian Federation 69 0.8 72 1.1 65 0.7 67 1.2 75 0.8 77 1.1
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
International averageof 23 nations
66 0.1N
67 0.1 63 0.2 63 0.2 73 0.2 74 0.2
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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
APPENDOX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2
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
Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995
(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.
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 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
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
International averageof 17 nations 517 0.9
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
International averageof 17 nations 524 1.0
'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
APPENDOX 3-SUPPORTONG DATA FOR CHAPTER 2
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
International averageof 17 nations 514 0.9
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
International averageof 17 nations
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.
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.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
APPENDIX 4-SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3
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
International averageof 35 nations
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
International averageof 33 nations
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
International averageof 54 nations 486 0.6
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
Denotes score from 1995 (no 1999 score available).1The shading of Finland and Canada may appear incorrect; however, statistically its placement is correct.
2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.
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
International averageof 54 nations 488 0.6
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)