Session Information
09 SES 04 A, Findings from International Comparative Achievement Studies: Relationships in Mathematics and Science Performance
Paper Session
Contribution
Background
Since 1995, Norwayhas participated in all TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) surveys, and 8th graders’ science performance has declined steadily since then. However, in 2011 this negative trend turned, and the only significant contribution to this enhanced science achievement was from the sub-domain Earth Science (Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012). The purpose of this study is to explore some plausible reasons behind the increased science performance, with special focus on Earth Science.
The declining performances in Norway have received major attention in media and policy, and perhaps due to the increased focus on large-scale testing, national tests and other surveys were introduced. According to Cosmovici et al. (2009), an era of increased emphasis on performance in media, policy and practice, which in particular was due to PISA 2000, was reflected in an increased academic support from the teachers as well as academic motivation among the students .
However, the main change within practice occurred during the implementation of a new curriculum in 2006 called “Knowledge Promotion”. As the name indicates, this curriculum turned the focus towards learning and performance, and the students who participated in TIMSS 2011 were the first to follow this curriculum. Although different notions have been used to address such a focus on performance (e.g. academic optimism, academic success, academic pressure, learning environment or emphasis on performance), it has been shown to positively influence students’ achievement (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006).
In addition to increased emphasis on performance (EP), the main change within science in this curriculum was the extended content of Astronomy (UDIR, 2012) which is part of Earth Science in the TIMSS framework . This may have provided the students with a better opportunity to learn (OTL). Previous research has underlined the importance of OTL for performance (Floden, 2002).
This study addresses the above issues through the following research question: What is the impact of changes in EP and OTL on increased science performance, and especially Earth Science performance?
Theoretical framework
Identifying properties of schools that affect learning and learning outcomes, and that unlike SES (socioeconomic status) are within the control of the schools, has been a great challenge within educational research (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, & Demetriou, 2009; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). However, within the field of EER (Educational Effectiveness Research), schools’ trust in students, parents and teachers, schools’ collective efficacy expressing beliefs in success, and schools’ academic pressure expressing a clear goal of prioritizing achievement, have all been found to affect performance (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). This underlines the importance of EP in the whole institution; among teachers, parents as well as students for achievement.
Other school factors that may affect performance, and that are commonly associated with OTL, comprise instructional practice, such as topic coverage (Mo, Singh, & Chang, 2012).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Cosmovici, E. M., Idsoe, T., Bru, E., & Munthe, E. (2009). Perceptions of Learning Environment and On‐Task Orientation Among Students Reporting Different Achievement Levels: A Study Conducted Among Norwegian Secondary School Students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), 379-396. Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. Porter, Gamoran, A. (Ed.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231–266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2009). A synthesis of studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research. British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807-830. doi: 10.1080/01411920903165603 Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal Leadership: Creating a Culture of Academic Optimism to Improve Achievement for All Students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203-229. doi: 10.1080/15700760600805816 Mo, Y., Singh, K., & Chang, M. (2012). Opportunity to learn and student engagement: a HLM study on eighth grade science achievement. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1-17. doi: 10.1007/s10671-011-9126-5 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user´s guide. Sixth Edition. (3rd ed ed.). Los Angeles:: Muthén & Muthén. UDIR. (2012). Curricula in English. from http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.