Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS

Australian Journal of Education

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 154-171

  Lamb, Stephen ^a   Fullarton, Sue ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Curriculum policy; International studies; Mathematics achievement; School effectiveness; Socioeconomic influences; Teacher effectiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036702845     PISSN: 00049441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/000494410204600205     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Affrassa, T.H. & Keeves, J.P. (1999). Student-level factors that influence mathematics achievement of Australian students: A path analysis with comparisons over time. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of AARE, December 1999, Melbourne.
2. Anderson, L.W., Ryan, D.W., & Shapiro, B.J. (1989). The IEA classroom environment study. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
3. Bosker, R.J. & Witziers, B. (1996). The magnitude of school effects or does it really matter which school a student attends? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
4. Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., Partland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., & York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
6. Hay Mcber. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness. Report commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment. London: Department for Education and Employment.
7. Hill, P.W. (1994). The contribution teachers make to school effectiveness. In P.W. Hill, P. Holmes-Smith, K. Rowe, & V.J. Russell. (Eds.), Selected reports and papers on findings from the first phase of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Educational Research.
8. Hill, P.W. & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1-34.
9. Hill, P.W. & Rowe, K.J. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 310-333.
10. Hill, P.W., Rowe, K.J., Holmes-Smith, P., & Russell, V.J. (1996). The Victorian Quality Schools Project: A study of school and teacher effectiveness (Report, Vol. 1). Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Educational Research.
11. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
12. Lamb, S.P. (1997). Access to level of mathematics study in high school: Social area and school differences. In People in mathematics education. Conference Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 286-293). Aotearoa, NZ: MERGA.
13. Lamb, S. & Fullarton, S. (2000). Classroom and teacher effects in mathematics achievement: Results from TIMMS. In Mathematics education beyond 2000. Conference proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Fremantle: MERGA.
14. Larkin, A.I. & Keeves, J.P. (1984). The class size question: A study at different levels of analysis. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
15. Lee, V.E. & Smith, J.B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-228.
16. Lokan, J., Ford, P., & Greenwood, L. (1996). Mathematics & science on the line: Australian Junior Secondary Students' Performance in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS Australia Monograph, No. 1). Melbourne: ACER.
17. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: The junior years. Somerset: Open Books.
18. National Center for Education Standards. (2000). NAEP 1996: Trends in academic progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
19. Nuttall, D., Goldstein, H., Prosser, R., & Rasbash, J. (1989). Differential school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(7), 769-776.
20. Raudenbush, S.W. & Willms, J.D. (Eds.). (1991). Schools, classrooms and pupils: International studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. New York: Academic Press.
21. Rowe, K.J. & Hill, P.W. (1994). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research: How many levels? In P.W. Hill, P. Holmes-Smith, K. Rowe, & V.J. Russell (Eds.), Selected reports and papers on findings from the first phase of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Educational Research.
22. Scheerens, J. (1993). Basic school effectiveness research: Items for a research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 17-36.
23. Scheerens, J., Vermeulen, C.J.A.J., & Pelgrum, W.J. (1989). Generalizability of instructional and school effectiveness indicators across nations. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(7), 789-799.
24. Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Cogan, L.S., Jakwerth, P.M., & Houang, R.T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at US mathematics and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Smith, D. & Tomlinson, S. (1989). The school effect. London: Policy Studies Institute.