School and Instruction Effects on Mathematics Achievement

Download School and Instruction Effects on Mathematics Achievement

Post on 16-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 12 November 2014, At: 06:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK</p><p>School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An InternationalJournal of Research, Policy andPracticePublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20</p><p>School and Instruction Effectson Mathematics AchievementRoel J. Bosker a , Ed J.J. Kremers b &amp; Els Lugthart ca Department of Education , University of Twenteb Cito , National Institute for EducationalMeasurementc RION , Institute for Educational ResearchPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.</p><p>To cite this article: Roel J. Bosker , Ed J.J. Kremers &amp; Els Lugthart (1990) School andInstruction Effects on Mathematics Achievement, School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 1:4, 233-248,DOI: 10.1080/0924345900010401</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010401</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0924345900010401http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010401</p></li><li><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f B</p><p>irm</p><p>ingh</p><p>am] </p><p>at 0</p><p>6:26</p><p> 12 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>School Effectiveness and School Improvement 0924-3453/90/0104-0233S3.001990, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 233-248 Swets &amp; Zeitlinger</p><p>School and Instruction Effects on MathematicsAchievement</p><p>Roel J. BoskerDepartment of Education, University of Twente</p><p>Ed J.J. KremersCito, National Institute for Educational Measurement</p><p>Els LugthartRION, Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of Groningen</p><p>ABSTRACT</p><p>Much research into school effectiveness fails to distinguish between pupil and class-room or teacher effects on the one hand, and 'real' school effects on the other. MoreoverDutch research into effective secondary schools is primarily concerned with pupilattainment whereas most Anglo-Saxon literature on this topic deals with pupil cogni-tive achievement. In this article an attempt is made to contribute to these topics byusing a large scale Dutch data set on pupil achievement in secondary education. Aftera short descriptive paragraph on pupil achievement in Dutch secondary education, amultilevel instructional and school effects model of pupil achievement is developedand tested. The results show that it is hard to distinguish instructional and teachereffects from school effects and that there are complicated cross-level interaction effectson achievement. For some pupils, instructional factors are more important than forothers; some instructional features only play a significant role in specifically organizedschools.</p><p>This article is based on a paper presented to the Third International Congress for SchoolEffectiveness in Jerusalem in January 1990. The research reported in this article wascarried out under the authority of the Ministry of Education and Science.</p><p>Correspondence: Dr R.J. Bosker, University of Twente, Department of Education, Divi-sion of Educational Administration, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands.E-mail address: TOBOSKER@HENUT5.</p><p>Manuscript submitted: August 14, 1990Accepted for publication: October 12,1990</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f B</p><p>irm</p><p>ingh</p><p>am] </p><p>at 0</p><p>6:26</p><p> 12 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>234 ROELJ.BOSKERETAL.</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>In this article we report the findings of a research project into effective schoolscarried out in secondary education in the Netherlands.</p><p>This research was part of more extensive research that had been carried outwithin the framework of innovation plans for Dutch secondary education. Recentlythe Dutch government proposed a common core curriculum in the lower years ofsecondary education. At the moment this consists of separate types of schools,varying from junior vocational to secondary grammar (for more details see Fig-ure 1). The main objectives of the core curriculum are to increase the cognitivelevel of pupils in general and that of disadvantaged pupils in particular (Ministryof Education and Science, 1987; WRR, 1987).</p><p>This extensive research was essentially a baseline study. In a national sampleof 650 secondary schools, the Dutch National Institute for Educational Measurement(Cito) and the Institute for Educational Research of the University of Groningen(RION) assessed characteristics of school, curriculum and classroom organizationand the cognitive and social performance of pupils. The results of the baselinestudy will be compared with the performance of pupils after the introduction of.the core curriculum in the near future (Peschar, 1988). The main aim of assessinginstructional and organizational characteristics also is to gain more insight intothe possible educational effects of the core curriculum on the school and itsteachers. Failure or success of the innovation can then be explained by theseintervening variables, or success might be demonstrated under certain organiza-tional and instructional conditions (Lugthart et al., 1989; Peschar, 1988).</p><p>Inequality of educational opportunity in secondary education is a predominanttopic in Dutch educational sociological research. But most studies in this areadeal with educational and occupational attainment (cf. Bakker, Dronkers &amp; Meijnen,1989), and do not pay attention to pupil cognitive achievement. Through thisbaseline study an explicit relation with pupil achievement can be established.</p><p>We begin this article with a short explanation of the design of the baselinestudy and of the main results. After that we will elaborate on our research intoeffective schools. In relation to this, we will discuss the following four questions:1. Do schools differ in the cognitive achievement of their pupils?2. Do schools differ in the relations between educational level of the parents, sex,</p><p>ethnicity and cognitive achievement?3. Can these differences be explained by characteristics of effective instruction</p><p>and effective schools, like 'opportunity to learn', 'direct instruction' and'press to achieve'?</p><p>4. How far are these relations contingent on factors like 'school type', 'schoolsize' and 'school organization'?</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f B</p><p>irm</p><p>ingh</p><p>am] </p><p>at 0</p><p>6:26</p><p> 12 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>SCHOOL AND INSTRUCTION EFFECTS ON MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT 235</p><p>DESIGN OF BASELINE STUDY</p><p>InstrumentsTests for cognitive achievementTests for the subjects of Biology, English, Dutch (the mother tongue) and Math-ematics were taken. The tests referred to those subject areas that could be testedwith pen and paper and they were composed of both open and multiple choicequestions. The test duration was 100 minutes (two timetable hours). The test wasthe same for pupils of the various school types and they therefore containedquestions of varying degrees of difficulty. The tests contained sub-tests withquestions that fitted in with the present curriculum as well as questions thatbelonged to the proposed core curriculum. In this new core curriculum practicalapplication will have more emphasis.</p><p>Tests for non-cognitive skillsInformation was collected from pupils about their attitudes towards school andabout their social skills. In this article we do not refer to these skills (see Boskeret al., 1990 for this information).</p><p>Background information on pupilsThe following data were recorded: sex, age, length of stay in secondary education(i.e. repeating a class), level of education reached by parents, and ethnicity.</p><p>Questionnaire for school managementThis questionnaire for the principal deals with aspects of school organization,such as the transition period and schoolcareer of pupils, innovation activities,pupil counselling and certain aspects of school culture (e.g. rules on homework,acceptance of truancy, pupil assessment provision).</p><p>Questionnaire for teachersTeachers of classes that participated were requested to provide information abouttheir teaching method. They were also asked to comment on the content of thetests in relation to their own teaching.</p><p>Research populationThe research population included pupils who were taught in the three schooltypes for general secondary education within the Dutch educational system, thatis secondary grammar, senior secondary schools, and junior secondary. Furthermore,the target population consisted of the two largest school types within juniorvocational education: technical and domestic science schools. Within these fiveschool types we looked specifically at pupils in their third year. The plans forinnovation at the lower stage also presuppose a period of three years secondaryschooling. The research population included all pupils in the third grade of sec-ondary education: pupils that had never repeated a class as well as pupils that hadrepeated a class once or more often.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f B</p><p>irm</p><p>ingh</p><p>am] </p><p>at 0</p><p>6:26</p><p> 12 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>236 ROELJ.BOSKERETAL.</p><p>Sample and designThe research population was composed of 20 subpopulations (4 subjects x 5school types). For each subpopulation a representative sample was taken, follow-ing a three-stage sampling procedure: schools were sampled at random, withineach school two classes were sampled where possible, and within each class allpupils were 'sampled in time'. In total more than 27,000 pupils from 1,308classes participated in the baseline study. The allocation of test-booklets to pupilswithin classes was completely at random.</p><p>In order to limit the workload for schools and pupils, all pupils participated inthe tests for one of the four subjects only. It was only for that subject that aschool average could be calculated.</p><p>Pre-tests and baseline studies were carried out simultaneously because therewas no time to do a separate pre-test of the test material for the subjects. Thus thenumber of items that could be pre-tested was in fact greater than needed. Also thenumber of items were too numerous to be answered by a pupil within the avail-able testing time. We decided therefore to choose a matrix sampling design inwhich the items of each school subject are divided over a number of test bookletsaccording to the principle of 'nominal equivalence'. This principle means thatwe tried to create comparable test booklets on the basis of content specifications(for example distribution of questions on subject area, type of question, estimateddifficulty). The allocation of booklets to pupils was done at random.1 For a de-tailed description of sample and design we refer to Kremers (1990). For thecomparison, the scores of the pupils on the separate booklets have been madeequivalent.2</p><p>SOME RESULTS OF THE BASELINE STUDY</p><p>Our results show a remarkable gap between the level of pupil achievement fromjunior vocational schools and general secondary schools:3 the first group achievesmuch less than the second group. Within junior vocational education, theachievement of technical pupils and domestic science pupils does not differ agreat deal. Within general secondary education we see a level of achievementrising from junior secondary to senior secondary and secondary grammar schools.</p><p>The differences in achievement between boys and girls are very small. ForBiology, English and Dutch boys and girls in all five types of schools achievedabout the same results. It is only for Mathematics that boys do better in all typesof schools than girls.</p><p>On average about a quarter of the pupils have repeated a grade once or moreoften at the end of the third year. The percentage of repeaters varies enormouslyaccording to school type. The range varies from 32% for junior secondary to 11%for secondary grammar education. For all school types boys repeat grades moreoften than girls. Pupils who repeated a grade achieved the same results as thosepupils who did not repeat a grade. This goes for each school subject and eachschool type and also for subpopulations (subject * school type).</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f B</p><p>irm</p><p>ingh</p><p>am] </p><p>at 0</p><p>6:26</p><p> 12 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>SCHOOL AND INSTRUCTION EFFECTS ON MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT 237</p><p>It appears that the higher the educational level of the parents, the better theachievements of the pupils on the tests. This trend can be seen for each subject, ifwe take the results of the pupils from all school types together. This trend iscaused by the unequal participation of certain pupils in the higher valued generalsecondary school types. In the Dutch education system these pupils' parents tendto have a high level of education themselves.</p><p>Within school types we do not see this trend. There is no systematic relationbetween the level of education of the parents and achievements on the tests.</p><p>Ethnic minorities have lower test results than pupils of Dutch origin. Thistrend can be noted in each subject, again if we take the results of the pupils fromall school types together. The differences are the greatest for Dutch (mother-tongue) pupils. Within ethnic minorities those pupils of Turkish or Moroccanorigin have the lowest test results. It is rather striking that this trend can also beseen within the school types; so we can say that there is still a systematic relationbetween ethnicity and test results.</p><p>STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS</p><p>Before answering specific questions on school effectiveness we have to dwellsomewhat on the statistical aspects of this study. As outlined in the sample anddesign paragraph, pupils in this study were sampled using a three-stage samplingstrategy: first schools were sampled, then within each of these schools, if possi-ble, two classes in the third grade were sampled and finally all of the pupils inthose classes made up the final sample. It makes sense to con...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >