Multilevel effects of student and classroom factors on elementary science achievement in five countries

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1337-1363

  Kaya, Sibel ^a   Rice, Diana C ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative study; Elementary school; Quantitative research; Science education; Teacher

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953533202     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903049785     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson-Levitt, K. (2001). Teaching culture. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
3. Aun, T. K., Riley, II J. P., Atputhasamy, L., & Subramaniam, R. (2006). School science achievement in Japan and Singapore: A tale of two cities. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5(1), 1-13.
4. Baker, D., Fabrega, R., Galindo, C., & Mishook, J. (2004). Instructional time and national achievement: Cross-national evidence. Prospects, 34(3), 311-334.
5. Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P. J., Herget, D., & Xie, H. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of US 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
7. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: The truth about the male and female brain. New York: Basic Books.
8. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, L. D. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Centre for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.
9. Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
10. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
11. Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement, and instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 115-130.
12. Bracey, G. W. (1998). TIMSS: The message and the myths. Principal, 77, 18-22.
13. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
14. Bray, M. (2007). Control of education: Issues and tensions in centralization and decentralization. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 175-196). Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
15. Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review, 22(6), 611-620.
16. Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271-285.
17. Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
18. Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. A., & Roney, K. (2004). Student achievement in high performing, suburban middle schools and low performing, urban middle schools: Plausible explanations for the differences. Education and Urban Society, 36(4), 428-456.
19. Burnstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
20. Campbell, J. R., & Wu, R. (1994). Gifted Chinese girls get the best mix of family processes to bolster their math achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(7), 685-696.
21. Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teacher College Record, 64, 723-733.
22. Coates, D. (2003). Education production functions using instructional time as an input. Education Economics, 11(3), 273-292.
23. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
24. Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2003). Disparities within: Unequal spending and achievement in an urban school district. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 18-36.
25. Connor, C. M., Rice, D. C., Canto, A., Underwood, P., Kaya, S., Fishman, B., & Morrison, F. J. (forthcoming). Development of a multidimensional model of science instruction to explore effects of science instruction on literacy development (manuscript in review).
26. Croninger, R. G., Rice, J. K., Rathbun, A., & Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 312-324.
27. Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). "Learner-centered" according to children. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 102-109.
28. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http:// epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
29. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/
30. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245-254.
31. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
32. Dimitrov, D. M. (1999). Gender differences in science achievement: Differential effect of ability, response format, and strands of learning outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 445-450.
33. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261-296.
34. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35. Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9). Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9
36. Fetler, M. (2001). Student mathematic achievement test scores, dropout rates, and teacher characteristics. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 151-168.
37. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.
38. Goesling, B. (2005). Rich land, poor schools: Inequality of national educational resources and achievement of disadvantaged students. In D. Baker & G. LeTendre (Eds.), National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling (pp. 71-85). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
39. Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16-25.
40. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-146.
41. Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Gender and orientations toward the future: Links to motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 91-120.
42. Greenfield, T. A. (1995). An exploration of gender participation patterns in science competitions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 735-748.
43. Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 901-933.
44. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
45. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
46. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
47. Honig, M. I., Kahne, J., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2001). School-community connections: Strengthening opportunity to learn and opportunity to teach. In V. Richardson (Ed.), History of research on teaching (pp. 998-1028). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
48. House, J. D. (2006). The effects of classroom instructional strategies on science achievement of elementary-school students in Japan: Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(2), 217-229.
49. House, J. D. (2008). Science beliefs, instructional strategies, and life sciences achievement in Japan: Results from the TIMSS 1999 assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(1), 103-113.
50. Husen, T., & Postlethwaite, N. (Eds.). (1994). The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
51. Iverson, B., & Walberg, H. (1982). Home environment and school learning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(3), 144-151.
52. Jovanovich, J., & King, S. S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who's doing the performing? American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 477-496.
53. Kahle, J. B. (2004). Will girls be left behind? Gender differences and accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 961-969.
54. Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 379-404.
55. Kahlenberg, R. D. (2001). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
56. Khong, L. Y. L., & Ng, P. T. (2005). School-parent partnerships in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4(1), 1-11.
57. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
58. Ladd, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of children's behavior and relationships in the school context: A child-by-environment perspective. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child behavior and development (pp. 43-104). New York: Wiley.
59. Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46(2), 154-171.
60. Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139-162.
61. Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 83-115.
62. Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2006). An instructional interven- tion's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857-887.
63. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in elementary science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411-438.
64. LeTendre, G. K. (Ed.). (1999). Competitor or ally. New York: Falmer.
65. LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 43-89.
66. Lytton, H., & Pyryt, M. C. (1998). Predictors of achievement in basic skills: A Canadian effective schools study. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(3), 281-301.
67. Ma, X., & Klinger, D. A. (2004). Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(1), 41-55.
68. Manning, M. L. (1998). Gender differences in young adolescents' mathematics and science achievement. Childhood Education, 74(3), 168-171.
69. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
70. Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2004). Overview of TIMSS 2003. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & S. J. Chortowski (Eds.), TIMSS 2003 technical report (pp. 3-20). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
71. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report: Findings from IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
72. Mitchell, D., & Mitchell, R. E. (1999). The impact of California's class size reduction initiative on student achievement: Detailed findings from eight school districts. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.
73. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
74. Morrell, P. D., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Students' attitudes toward school and classroom science: Are they independent? School Science and Mathematics, 98(2), 76-82.
75. Mukhopadhaya, P. (2002). Education policies as means to tackle income disparity: The Singapore case. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(12), 946-955.
76. Murdock, J. (2008). Comparison of curricular breadth, depth, and recurrence and physics achievement of TIMSS Population 3 countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1135-1157.
77. Murrell Jr, P. C. (2001). The community teacher: A new framework for effective urban teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
78. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine.
79. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). TIMSS 2007 Results. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_science95.asp
80. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110 (HR1), 107th Congress (2002).
81. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
82. NSB (National Science Board). (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the US science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/stem/index.jsp
83. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2000). Additional instruction time and learning time of 15-year-olds. Paris: OECD.
84. Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M., & Packard, B. W. L. (1998). Hands-on biology: A museum- school-university partnership for enhancing students' interest and learning in science. Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 267-288.
85. Pong, S., & Pallas, A. (2001). Class size and eighth-grade math achievement in the United States and abroad. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 251-273.
86. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
87. Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race and cultural/educational resources: Inequality, micro-political processes, and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72(3), 158-178.
88. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
89. Russell, N. U. (1997). Lessons from Japanese cram schools. In W. K. Cummings & P. Altbach (Eds.), The challenge of Eastern-Asian education: Lessons for America (pp. 153-170). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
90. Sammons, P., West, A., & Hind, A. (1997). Accounting for variations in pupil attainment at the end of key stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 489-511.
91. Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from TIMSS? Science, 282(5395), 1830-1831.
92. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
93. Smith, P., Molnar, A., & Zahorik, J. (2003). Class size reduction in Wisconsin: A fresh look at the data. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 72-74.
94. Solomon, J. (1997). Girls' science education: Choice, solidarity and culture. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 407-417.
95. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
96. Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101-109.
97. Swanson-Gehrke, R. (2005). Poor schools, poor students, successful teachers. Kappa Delta Pi, 42(1), 14-17.
98. Tan, J. (1998). The marketization of education in Singapore: Policies and implications. International Review of Education, 44(1), 47-63.
99. The Scottish Government. (2008). Schools: Curriculum and assessment. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/education/schools/curriculum
100. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2006). Handbook for decentralized education planning. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau of Education.
101. US Department of Education. (2000). Before it's too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf
102. US Department of Education. (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf
103. Walberg, H. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 214-229). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
104. Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
105. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
106. Woessman, L., & West, M. R. (2002). Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
107. Xin, T., Xu, Z., & Tatsuoka, K. (2004). Linkage between teacher quality, student achievement, and cognitive skills: A rule-space model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(3), 205-223.
108. Xu, Z., & Gulosino, C. A. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of teacher-parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and private schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345-367.