Identifying national cultures of mathematics education: Analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 385-402

  Klieme, Eckhard ^a   Baumert, J̈rgen ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035438376     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03173189     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adams, R.J., & Wilson, M.R. (1996). A random coefficients multinomial logit: A generalized approach to fitting Rasch models. In G. Engelhard & M. Wilson (Eds.), Objective measurement III: Theory into practice (pp. 143-166). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
2. Adams, R., Wilson, M., & Wang, W.C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23.
3. Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 23-29.
4. Baumert, J., Bos, W., Klieme, E., Lehmann, R.H., Lehrke, M., Hosenfeld, I., Neubrand, J., & Watermann, R. (Eds.). (1999). Testaufgaben zu TIMSS/III. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung und voruniversitäre Mathematik und Physik der Abschlußklassen der Sekundarstufe II (Population 3). Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung, 62).
5. Baumert, J., Bos, W., & Lehmann, R. (Eds.). (2000). TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik-und Naturwissenschaftsstudie - Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn: Vol. 2. Mathematische und physikalische Kompetenzen am Ende der gymnasialen Oberstufe. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
6. Baumert, J., Lehmann, R., Lehrke, M., Schmitz, B., Clausen M., Hosenfeld, I., Köller, O., & Neubrand, J. (1997). TIMSS - Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich. Deskriptive Befunde. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
7. Baumert, J., Bos, W., & Watermann, R. (2000a). Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung im internationalen Vergleich. In J. Baumert, W. Bos, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik-und Naturwissenschaftsstudie - Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn: Vol. 1. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung am Ende der Pflichtschulzeit (pp. 135-198). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
8. Baumert, J., Bos, W., & Watermann, R. (2000b). Fachleistungen im voruniversitären Mathematik-und Physikunterricht im internationalen Vergleich. In J. Baumert, W. Bos, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik-und Naturwissenschaftsstudie - Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn: Vol. 2. Mathematische und physikalische Kompetenzen am Ende der gymnasialen Oberstufe (pp. 129-180). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
9. Baumert, J., Klieme, E., & Watermann, R. (1999). Jenseits von Gesamttest-und Untertestwerten: Analyse differentieller Itemfunktionen am Beispiel des mathematischen Grundbildungstests der Dritten Internationalen Mathematik-und Naturwissenschaftsstudie der IEA (TIMSS). In H.-J. Herber & F. Hofmann (Eds.), Schulpädagogik und Lehrerbildung. Festschrift zum 60. Gebunstag von Josef Thonhauser (pp. 301-324). Innsbruck: Studien Verlag.
10. Becker, J.P., Sawada, T., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Some findings of the US-Japan cross-cultural research on students' problem-solving behaviours. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley. (Eds.), International comparison in mathematics education (pp. 121-139). London: Falmer Press.
11. Blum, W., & Wiegand, B. (1998). Wie kommen die deutschen TIMSS-Ergebnisse zustande? In W. Blum & M. Neubrand (Eds.), TIMSS und der Mathematikunterricht (pp. 23-34). Hannover: Schroedel.
12. Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural research and methodology series (vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13. Calvert, T. (2001). Exploring differential item functioning (DIF) with the Rasch model: A cross-country comparison of gender differences on eighth grade science items. Seattle, WA: AERA.
14. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items (vol. 4). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Cogan, L.S., & Schmidt, W.H. (1999). An examination of instructional practices in six countries. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparison in mathematics education (pp. 68-85). London: Falmer Press.
17. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
18. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dodrecht: Riedel.
19. Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Husén, T., & Postlethwaite, T.N. (1996). A brief history of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Assessment in Education, 3, 129-141.
21. Keeves, J.P., & Masters, G.N. (1999). Introduction. In G.N. Masters & J.P. Keeves (Eds.), Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Pergamon.
22. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J.G. (1985). Understanding and solving ward arithmatic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109-129.
23. Klieme, E. (2000). Fachleistungen im voruniversitären Mathematik-und Physikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen, Kompetenzstufen und Unterrichtsschwerpunkte. In J. Baumert, W. Bos, & R. Lehmann (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik-und Naturwissenschaftsstudie - Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn: Vol. 2. Mathematische und physikalische Kompetenzen am Ende der gymnasialen Oberstufe (pp. 57-128). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
24. Klieme, E., & Bos, W. (2000). Mathematikleistung und mathematischer Unterricht in Deutschland und Japan: Triangulation qualitativer und quantitativer Analysen am Beispiel der TIMS-Studie. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3.
25. McDonnell, L.M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept as a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses, 17, 305-322.
26. Miller, M.D., & Linn, R.L. (1988). Invariance of item characteristic functions with variations in instructional coverage. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 205-220.
27. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., & Smith, T.A. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement in the final year of secondary school. IAE's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
28. Muthen, B., Huang, L., Jo, B., Khoo, S., Goff, G., Novak, J., & Shin, J. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn effects on achievement: Analytical aspects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 371-403.
29. Neubrand, J., Neubrand, M., & Sibberns, H. (1998). Die TIMSS-Aufgaben aus mathematik-didaktischer Sicht: Stärken und Defizite deutscher Schülerinnen und Schüler. In W. Blum & M. Neubrand (Eds.), TIMSS und der Mathematikunterricht (pp. 17-24). Hannover: Schroedel.
30. Neubrand, M., Biehler, R., Blum, W., Cohors-Fresenborg, E., Flade, L., Knoche, N., Lind, D., Löding, W., Möller, G., & Wynands, A. (2001). Grundlagen der Ergänzung des internationalen PISA-Mathematik-Tests in der deutschen Zusatzerhebung. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 33, 1-15.
31. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (in press). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Ramseier, E. (1999). Task difficulty and curricular priorities in science: Analysis of typical features of the Swiss performance in TIMSS. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5, 105-126.
33. Reusser, K. (1996). From cognitive modeling to the design of pedagogical tools. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & M. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 81-103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers.
34. Rost, J., & Carstensen, C. H. (2000). Multidimensional Rasch measurement via item component models and faceted designs. Accepted to Applied psychological Measurement.
35. Scheuneman, J.D., & Bleistein, C.A. (1999). Item bias. In G.N. Masters & J.P. Keeves (Eds.), Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment (pp. 220-234). Oxford: Pergamon.
36. Schmidt, W.H., Jakwerth, P.M., & McKnight, C. (1998). Curriculum sensitive assessment: Content does make difference. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 503-527.
37. Schmidt, W.H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L.S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., Shimizu, K., Sawada, T., Valverde, G.A., McKnight, C., Prawat, R.S., Wiley, D.E., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D., & Wolfe, R.G. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow. An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
38. Seeger, F., Voigt, J., & Waschescio, U. (Eds.). (1998). The culture of the mathematics classroom. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
39. Shavelson, R.J., & Webb, N.M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40. Stein, M.K., Grover, B.W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 455-488.
41. Stigler, J.W., Gonzalez, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1996). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and preliminary findings. Prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Los Angeles, CA.
42. Tatsuoka, K.K., Linn, R.L., Tatsuoka, M.M., & Yamamoto, K. (1988). Differential item functioning resulting from use of different solution strategies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 301-319.
43. Van der Linden, W.J. (1998). A discussion of some methodological issues in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 569-577.
44. Voigt, J. (1984). Interaktionsmuster und Routinen im Mathematikunterricht [Patterns of interaction and routines in mathematics classrooms], Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
45. Westbury, I. (1993). American and Japanese achievement… again. Educational Researcher, 22, 21-25.
46. Wolf, R.M. (1998). Validity issues in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 491-501.
47. Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J., & Wilson, M.R. (1998). ACER Conquest. Generalised Item Response Modelling Software. Unpublished manual, Camberwell, Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.