ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 13.4: Coefficients of missing indicators in hierarchical linear analysis of ICCS dataCoefficients of Missing Indicators for:CountryExpected years ofeducationFrequency of mediainformationPerceptions ofopenness in classroomdiscussionsParental interest inpolitical and socialissuesDiscussion of politicaland social issues withparentsRecent voting for classrepresentative / schoolparliamentMissing schoolquestionnaireAustria -58.7 (15.0) -92.7 (22.4) -18.5 (14.3) 13.7 (17.1) -20.4 (28.7) -36.8 (23.3) 0.3 (9.2)Belgium (Flemish) -6.4 (14.1) 0.0 (0.0) -54.4 (25.9) -30.0 (18.5) -2.6 (32.9) -57.1 (22.3) -31.6 (18.0)Bulgaria -71.7 (19.4) 4.9 (13.5) -33.5 (13.2) -20.3 (13.2) -35.2 (11.4) -29.7 (9.5) 0.0 (0.0)Chile -36.6 (17.8) -41.5 (19.9) -38.9 (13.4) -14.6 (13.0) 4.5 (20.2) -30.6 (12.3) 3.6 (11.3)Chinese Taipei 20.2 (24.4) -42.0 (35.2) 7.1 (38.4) 30.6 (29.1) 3.9 (24.8) -83.4 (28.3) 2.6 (5.4)Colombia -62.1 (20.6) -16.2 (9.8) -37.0 (10.3) -25.0 (5.2) -20.5 (7.8) -20.4 (7.3) -20.2 (24.5)Cyprus^ -15.1 (16.0) -37.6 (17.3) -34.7 (10.7) -38.3 (9.7) -22.5 (15.6) -40.8 (10.7) 15.7 (5.6)Czech Republic † -18.0 (10.7) -41.4 (17.1) -52.6 (18.1) -29.9 (10.1) -30.2 (19.2) -7.6 (12.0) 12.9 (7.2)Denmark -29.1 (9.4) 42.4 (40.3) -43.1 (18.4) -10.0 (14.8) -57.8 (43.4) -40.1 (14.1) -15.0 (8.3)Dominican Republic ~ 9.4 (9.8) -8.5 (5.4) -11.1 (6.1) -25.0 (6.1) -2.6 (4.1) -16.4 (4.2) -9.5 (8.7)England ‡ -24.5 (10.6) -32.7 (24.0) -59.2 (25.8) -42.5 (8.3) 1.9 (18.7) -55.6 (19.4) 3.9 (9.3)Estonia -33.1 (15.2) -101.6 (61.1) -8.4 (28.0) -30.0 (23.2) 7.5 (28.5) -60.1 (24.6) 0.6 (9.1)Finland -39.3 (16.4) -29.5 (46.1) -25.5 (14.5) -14.4 (13.7) 34.5 (34.4) -5.8 (16.0) 1.1 (23.4)Greece -33.9 (17.5) -14.2 (28.1) -39.9 (24.8) -51.7 (32.4) -22.5 (26.6) -29.4 (14.1) -23.4 (11.4)Guatemala¹ 3.2 (21.8) -8.0 (10.2) -24.0 (10.9) -21.6 (10.4) -18.0 (7.0) -3.2 (9.5) 31.1 (14.6)Indonesia -27.7 (11.7) -0.1 (13.7) -6.8 (9.8) -33.5 (8.2) -9.5 (9.5) -9.5 (9.8) 26.8 (23.1)Ireland -28.6 (8.5) -54.2 (29.5) -20.8 (16.3) -19.4 (9.5) -44.4 (20.2) -31.3 (13.7) -11.5 (15.4)Italy -26.4 (24.8) 33.8 (34.2) -53.7 (28.0) 1.5 (27.6) -65.2 (23.6) -3.4 (16.5) -11.0 (22.3)Korea, Republic of¹ -37.3 (20.9) -132.2 (58.4) -71.6 (26.8) 3.1 (35.7) 21.8 (44.7) -28.6 (16.5) -2.3 (6.7)Latvia -53.8 (13.9) 11.9 (27.3) -10.4 (21.7) -5.5 (19.6) -17.4 (21.2) -39.4 (21.0) -32.7 (14.5)Lithuania -51.6 (35.2) 4.4 (32.9) 41.1 (30.9) -45.4 (13.4) -5.5 (30.7) -92.8 (21.7) -4.1 (12.5)Malta^ -14.4 (15.4) -42.2 (34.0) -6.7 (25.1) -28.1 (18.2) -45.0 (20.1) -32.7 (18.7) -79.4 (16.8)Mexico -49.2 (12.0) -2.5 (22.2) -20.2 (16.6) -39.9 (10.2) -12.6 (9.2) -39.7 (9.0) 13.2 (12.6)New Zealand -76.2 (17.3) -1.1 (27.0) -36.5 (19.6) -30.2 (10.9) -6.1 (22.8) -33.0 (13.9) 2.3 (10.4)Norway † -22.2 (14.5) -22.4 (24.1) -9.6 (21.2) -24.8 (8.3) -8.6 (21.0) -27.7 (15.5) 12.8 (9.9)Paraguay¹ ~ -71.1 (27.4) -6.6 (9.3) -15.7 (8.6) -11.3 (11.2) -13.4 (7.5) -23.9 (7.2) -9.2 (14.9)Poland 5.1 (40.5) -125.2 (52.4) 43.9 (47.3) -19.8 (21.4) 22.1 (32.5) -38.3 (48.2) 0.0 (0.0)SCALING PROCEDURES FOR ICCS questionnaire ITEMS271
Table 13.4: Coefficients of missing indicators in hierarchical linear analysis of ICCS data (contd.)Coefficients of Missing Indicators for:CountryExpected years ofeducationFrequency of mediainformationPerceptions ofopenness in classroomdiscussionsParental interest inpolitical and socialissuesDiscussion of politicaland social issues withparentsRecent voting for classrepresentative / schoolparliamentMissing schoolquestionnaireRussian Federation -56.6 (16.8) 6.0 (11.7) -49.4 (14.8) -11.2 (23.8) -29.2 (11.9) -18.4 (12.4) -29.5 (12.7)Slovak Republic² -36.1 (32.4) -69.8 (35.0) -24.4 (33.0) -32.7 (15.8) 26.3 (23.8) -46.5 (19.7) 19.5 (18.9)Slovenia -30.6 (18.8) -19.9 (21.1) -13.1 (37.7) -56.1 (17.4) -2.3 (20.4) -37.8 (16.6) -13.2 (9.0)Spain -35.1 (31.7) -137.5 (34.6) -32.9 (28.2) -40.2 (14.9) 28.2 (27.1) -36.2 (18.7) 5.6 (9.1)Sweden -18.9 (8.1) -28.2 (52.0) 24.7 (25.9) -34.2 (10.8) 10.2 (24.7) -17.2 (13.2) 4.8 (8.2)Switzerland † -22.2 (9.3) 3.6 (31.4) 12.4 (25.9) -21.2 (15.4) -46.0 (27.9) 16.3 (22.5) -2.8 (9.9)Thailand 16.4 (21.9) -30.1 (23.0) 4.8 (18.9) -22.4 (11.4) -21.5 (19.6) -26.3 (11.2) -0.3 (11.7).ICCS average -30.4 (3.4) -30.3 (5.3) -21.1 (4.0) -22.9 (2.9) -11.7 (4.1) -31.9 (3.1) -4.1 (2.3)Notes:( ) Standard errors appear in parentheses. Coefficients significant at p < .05 in bold.272ICCS 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:
Page 171 and 172:
Table 12.4: Item parameters for sca
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Table 12.9: Reliabilities for scale
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Students’ attitudes toward instit
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Table 12.17: Reliabilities for scal
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Table 12.21: Factor loadings and re
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
In Question 19, teachers were asked
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Figure 12.15: Confirmatory factor a
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Teachers’ reports of teaching civ
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
School questionnairePrincipals’ r
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Principals’ reports on the local
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222: Principals’ reports on school cli
Page 223 and 224: Table 12.37: Item parameters for sc
Page 227 and 228: Table 12.40: Reliabilities for scal
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 253 and 254: Question 4 asked students to rate t
Page 257 and 258: Students’ perceptions of public s
Page 261 and 262: 260ICCS 2009 technical report
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: The software package HLM 6.08 (Raud
Page 275 and 276: During the multiple regression anal
Page 277 and 278: Table 13.6: Coefficients of missing
Page 279 and 280: Table 13.7: Coefficients of missing
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 301 and 302: B.20. Korea• Special education sc
Page 303 and 304: B.23. Lithuania• Special needs sc
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:
Table D.1: List of international an
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?