ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table B.30.2: Allocation of teacher sample in ParaguaySchool Participation Status—Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementUrban—public 71 0 63 2 0 6Urban—private 9 0 9 0 0 0Urban—op (subsidized) 15 0 14 0 0 1Rural—public 51 0 42 6 0 3Rural—private 2 0 2 0 0 0Rural—op (subsidized) 2 0 1 0 0 1Total 150 0 131 8 0 11Note: 10 schools were regarded as non-participating because the within-school participation rate was below 50%.B.31. Poland• Special education schools and very small schools (fewer than 10 students in the targetgrade) were excluded at the school level.• Explicit stratification was performed by urbanization (rural, small town, medium-sizetown, big city), resulting in four explicit strata.• No implicit stratification was applied.Table B.31: Allocation of student sample and teacher sample in PolandSchool Participation Status—Student Survey and Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementRural 53 0 53 0 0 0Small town 31 0 31 0 0 0Medium-size town 31 0 31 0 0 0Big city 35 0 34 1 0 0Total 150 0 149 1 0 0B.32. Russian Federation• Very small schools (fewer than five students in the target grade), special needs schools, andevening schools were excluded at the school level.• A sample of 45 regions out of 86 was first sampled with PPS. The largest 16 regions weresampled with certainty. A sample of schools was then drawn within each region.• Explicit stratification was performed by region type (certainty, non-certainty). For a betteroverview, see Table B.32, which gives the school sample allocation for all 45 regions.• Implicit stratification was applied by school location (nine levels), giving a total of 229implicit strata.Appendices307
Table B.32: Allocation of student sample and teacher sample in the Russian FederationSchool Participation Status—Student Survey and Teacher SurveyParticipating SchoolsExplicit Strata Total IneligibleNon-ParticipatingSampled Schools Schools Sampled First Second Schoolsreplacement replacementAltay kr 4 0 4 0 0 0Arhangelsk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Astrakhan obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Belgorod obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Bransk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Zabaikasky kr 4 0 4 0 0 0(Chita obl)Evrey-Auto obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Hanty-Mansii ok 4 0 4 0 0 0Karachaevo- 4 0 4 0 0 0CherkessiaKarelia 4 0 4 0 0 0Kirov obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Komi 4 0 4 0 0 0Kostroma obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Kurgan obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Kursk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Lipetsk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Novosibirsk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Omsk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Orenburg obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Pensa obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Primorsk kr 4 0 4 0 0 0Sakha 4 0 4 0 0 0Saratov obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Smolensk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Stavropol kr 4 0 4 0 0 0Udmurtia 4 0 4 0 0 0Vladimir obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Volgograd obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Voronezh obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Bashkortostan 8 0 8 0 0 0Chelyabinsk obl 6 0 6 0 0 0Dagestan 2 0 2 0 0 0Irkutsk obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Kemerovo obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Krasnodar kr 8 0 8 0 0 0Krasnoyarsk kr 6 0 6 0 0 0Moscow 10 0 10 0 0 0Moscow obl 8 0 8 0 0 0N Novgorod obl 6 0 6 0 0 0Perm kr 4 0 4 0 0 0Rostov obl 6 0 6 0 0 0Samara obl 4 0 4 0 0 0Sankt-Petersburg 4 0 4 0 0 0Sverdlovsk obl 6 0 6 0 0 0Tatarstan 8 0 8 0 0 0Total 210 0 210 0 0 0308 <strong>ICCS</strong> <strong>2009</strong> 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:
50 ICCS 2009 technical report
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:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Figure 12.24 shows the results of t
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
All of the items associated with Qu
Page 241 and 242:
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:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Question 4 asked students to rate t
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258: Students’ perceptions of public s
Page 259 and 260: Figure 12.34: Confirmatory factor a
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 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 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: Table B.29.1: Allocation of student
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 331 and 332: Table D.3: Years of further schooli
Page 333 and 334: 332 ICCS 2009 technical report
show all

ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?