ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Teacher questionnaireTeachers’ perceptions of school governanceTwo scales were derived from questions regarding school governance. Table 12.22 presents thereliabilities for these scales, both of which are included in the ICCS teacher database. The scalesare:• Teachers’ participation in school governance (TCHPART);• Teachers’ perceptions of students’ influence on decisions about school (TSTUDINF).Question 11 presents a series of statements for teachers. These were used to form the scaleteachers’ participation in school governance (TCHPART). Respondents were asked to indicate thenumber of teachers in their respective schools who were participating in each of the activitiesindicated by the statements (response options were “all or nearly all,” “most of them,” “someof them,” “none or hardly any”). This scale had a reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.86 for thepooled ICCS sample, and the country reliabilities ranged from 0.72 to 0.91 (see Table 12.22).Table 12.23 shows the item wording as well as the item parameters that were used for scaling.The higher values on this scale reflect greater teacher participation in school governance.Question 13 of the teacher questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the extent to whichstudents’ opinions were taken into account when decisions were being made about schoolrelatedmatters (“to a large extent,” “to a moderate extent,” “to a small extent,” “not at all”).The first four items were used to construct the scale teachers’ perceptions of students’ influence ondecisions about school (TSTUDINF). The larger scale values reflect perceptions of higher degreesof student influence. The scale had a reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.80 for the pooledICCS sample; the country reliabilities ranged from 0.60 to 0.87 (see Table 12.22). Table 12.23presents the item parameters used for scaling.The confirmatory factor analysis of these two items sets showed an acceptable model fit(see Figure 12.13). The size of the factor loadings illustrated that these items measured theunderlying construct well. The two latent factors were positively correlated at 0.49.Teachers’ perceptions of teaching in classesThe reliabilities for the three scales that were derived from questions regarding teaching inclassrooms are reported in Table 12.24. These scales, which are included in the ICCS teacherdatabase, are:• Confidence in teaching methods (CONFTCH);• Teachers’ use of assessment (TCASSESS);• Teachers’ reports of students’ participation in class activities (TSTCLACT).The six items relating to Question 10 in the teacher questionnaire were used to form the scaleconfidence in teaching methods (CONFTCH). This question asked teachers to rate their confidencein using a variety of teaching methods and approaches (“very confident,” “quite confident,” “notvery confident,” “not confident at all”). The scale reliability of CONFTCH was 0.73 for thepooled ICCS sample, and the country reliabilities ranged from 0.58 to 0.82 (see Table 12.24).Table 12.25 shows the item wording as well as the item parameters that were used for scaling.The higher values on this scale reflect higher levels of confidence in teaching methods.Question 18 was designed to determine the extent of teachers’ use of assessment (TCASSESS).Response categories were “to a large extent,” “to a moderate extent,” “to a small extent or not atall”). The six items that formed the scale listed a range of purposes for which assessment taskscould be used. Higher scale scores corresponded to greater use of assessments. This scale had areliability of 0.77 for the pooled ICCS sample, while the country reliabilities ranged from 0.55to 0.85 (see Table 12.24). Table 12.25 shows the item parameters that were used for scaling.SCALING PROCEDURES FOR ICCS questionnaire ITEMS195
Table 12.22: Reliabilities for scales reflecting teachers’ perceptions of school governanceCountry Participation in Schl. Governance Students’ InfluenceAustria 0.86 0.64Belgium (Flemish) 0.82 0.81Bulgaria 0.87 0.79Chile 0.86 0.83Chinese Taipei 0.86 0.77Colombia 0.85 0.79Cyprus 0.87 0.79Czech Republic 0.86 0.69Denmark 0.80 0.64Dominican Republic 0.79 0.78England 0.82 0.80Estonia 0.79 0.76Finland 0.83 0.68Greece 0.83 0.68Guatemala 0.84 0.84Hong Kong SAR 0.84 0.87Indonesia 0.72 0.84Ireland 0.85 0.80Italy 0.87 0.78Korea, Republic of 0.88 0.75Latvia 0.79 0.78Liechtenstein 0.81 0.63Lithuania 0.84 0.79Luxembourg 0.91 0.78Malta 0.82 0.81Mexico 0.91 0.81Netherlands 0.91 0.81New Zealand 0.82 0.76Norway 0.85 0.63Paraguay 0.80 0.74Poland 0.86 0.72Russian Federation 0.80 0.73Slovak Republic 0.84 0.79Slovenia 0.85 0.73Spain 0.89 0.76Sweden 0.81 0.73Switzerland 0.81 0.60Thailand 0.85 0.83ICCS average 0.86 0.80196ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 5 and 6:
School sampling design 63Within-sch
Page 7 and 8:
6ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 9 and 10:
Table 9.9: Numbers of NRC responses
Page 11 and 12:
Table 12.37: Item parameters for sc
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 12.7: Confirmatory factor an
Page 15 and 16:
Table B.21.1: Allocation of student
Page 17 and 18:
ICCS collected data from more than
Page 19 and 20:
• A 30-minute school questionnair
Page 21 and 22:
ReferencesAmadeo, J., Torney-Purta,
Page 23 and 24:
Table 2.1: Test development process
Page 25 and 26:
PanelingPaneling is a team-based ap
Page 27 and 28:
Development of constructed-response
Page 29 and 30:
Table 2.6: Field trial item mapping
Page 31 and 32:
Released test itemsTwo clusters of
Page 33 and 34:
32 ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 35 and 36:
• Civic identities, comprising tw
Page 37 and 38:
The context of the wider community
Page 39 and 40:
The international options offered t
Page 41 and 42:
Some of the constructs measured thr
Page 43 and 44:
Discussion with national centers an
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
was that the test would focus on kn
Page 49 and 50:
Asian questionnaire developmentThe
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Of these, the survey instruments (c
Page 55 and 56:
Adaptation of the instrumentsIn the
Page 57 and 58:
International translation verifiers
Page 59 and 60:
Quality control monitor reviewIEA h
Page 61 and 62:
Teacher target populationICCS defin
Page 63 and 64:
Table 6.1: Population coverage and
Page 65 and 66:
Table 6.2: School, student, and tea
Page 67 and 68:
The team next selected a sample fro
Page 69 and 70:
Systematic sampling was used for se
Page 71 and 72:
In a small number of countries, the
Page 73 and 74:
Class non-response adjustment (WGTA
Page 75 and 76:
Teacher non-response adjustment (WG
Page 77 and 78:
Calculating participation ratesFor
Page 79 and 80:
Table 7.1: Unweighted participation
Page 81 and 82:
The unweighted overall participatio
Page 83 and 84:
Table 7.4: Weighted participation r
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7.5: Categories into which co
Page 87 and 88:
Table 7.7: Participation by country
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
• The School Sampling Manual (ICC
Page 93 and 94:
School coordinators were required t
Page 95 and 96:
For countries administering the sch
Page 97 and 98:
Scoring the ICCS assessmentThe succ
Page 99 and 100:
Quality control throughout the data
Page 101 and 102:
Table 8.3: Weighted percentages of
Page 103 and 104:
ICCS International Study Center (20
Page 105 and 106:
They received an overview of the st
Page 107 and 108:
Survey administration activities du
Page 109 and 110:
Table 9.3: Percentages of IQCM resp
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Table 9.9: Numbers of NRC responses
Page 117 and 118:
Table 9.12: Numbers of NRC response
Page 119 and 120:
The majority of countries used the
Page 121 and 122:
ReferencesICCS International Study
Page 123 and 124:
After the item-statistics review ha
Page 125 and 126:
Documentation and structure checkFo
Page 127 and 128:
Filter questions, which appeared in
Page 129 and 130:
SummaryTo achieve a high standard o
Page 131 and 132:
Test coverage and item dimensionali
Page 133 and 134:
Table 11.1: Item total-score correl
Page 135 and 136:
Assessment of scorer reliabilitiesT
Page 137 and 138:
Table 11.3: Gender DIF estimates fo
Page 139 and 140:
Table 11.4 shows the percentages of
Page 141 and 142:
fell below 70 percent were removed.
Page 143 and 144:
Table 11.6: National items excluded
Page 145 and 146: Table 11.7: Final item parameters u
Page 147 and 148: Table 11.9: Median test reliabiliti
Page 149 and 150: The approach chosen was essentially
Page 151 and 152: Figure 11.6: Scatterplot for link i
Page 153 and 154: Here, s 2 represents the variance o
Page 155 and 156: Table 11.15: Reliabilities for Euro
Page 157 and 158: ReferencesAdams, R. (2002). Scaling
Page 159 and 160: their parents’ levels of educatio
Page 161 and 162: Teacher questionnaireIndividual tea
Page 163 and 164: In the case of items with more than
Page 165 and 166: Figure 12.1: Summed category probab
Page 167 and 168: Table 12.1: Reliabilities for scale
Page 169 and 170: Figure 12.3: Confirmatory factor an
Page 171 and 172: Table 12.4: Item parameters for sca
Page 179 and 180: Table 12.9: Reliabilities for scale
Page 183 and 184: Table 12.12: Item parameters for sc
Page 185 and 186: Students’ attitudes toward instit
Page 191 and 192: Table 12.17: Reliabilities for scal
Page 195: Table 12.21: Factor loadings and re
Page 201 and 202: In Question 19, teachers were asked
Page 205 and 206: Figure 12.15: Confirmatory factor a
Page 209 and 210: Teachers’ reports of teaching civ
Page 213 and 214: School questionnairePrincipals’ r
Page 217 and 218: Principals’ reports on the local
Page 221 and 222: Principals’ reports on school cli
Page 231 and 232: Figure 12.23: Confirmatory factor a
Page 233 and 234: Figure 12.24 shows the results of t
Page 239 and 240: All of the items associated with Qu
Page 243 and 244: Figure 12.28 shows the results of t
Page 245 and 246: In Question 4, students were asked
Page 247 and 248:
Table 12.56: Reliabilities for scal
Page 249 and 250:
Figure 12.30: Confirmatory factor a
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Question 4 asked students to rate t
Page 255 and 256:
Table 12.63: Item parameters for sc
Page 257 and 258:
Students’ perceptions of public s
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Table 13.1: Numbers of sampling zon
Page 265 and 266:
Table 13.2: Example of computation
Page 267 and 268:
Table 13.3: National averages for c
Page 269 and 270:
The ICCS international report also
Page 271 and 272:
The software package HLM 6.08 (Raud
Page 273 and 274:
Table 13.4: Coefficients of missing
Page 275 and 276:
During the multiple regression anal
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
SummaryThe jackknife repeated repli
Page 283 and 284:
Staff at the IEA Data Processing an
Page 285 and 286:
Republic of KoreaTae-Jun KimKorean
Page 287 and 288:
Appendix B: Characteristics of nati
Page 289 and 290:
Table B.3: Allocation of student sa
Page 291 and 292:
B.6. Colombia• Night schools, wee
Page 293 and 294:
Table B.8.2: Allocation of teacher
Page 295 and 296:
B.12. Estonia• Schools for adults
Page 297 and 298:
B.14. Greece• Night schools and s
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
B.20. Korea• Special education sc
Page 303 and 304:
B.23. Lithuania• Special needs sc
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Table B.29.1: Allocation of student
Page 309 and 310:
Table B.32: Allocation of student s
Page 311 and 312:
B.34. Slovenia• Dislocated units
Page 313 and 314:
B.36. Sweden• Special needs schoo
Page 315 and 316:
B.38. Thailand• Special education
Page 317 and 318:
Table C1: Descriptions of cognitive
Page 319 and 320:
Table C1: Descriptions of cognitive
Page 321 and 322:
Table D.1: List of international an
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Table D.3: Years of further schooli
Page 333 and 334:
show all

ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?