ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

allowed to continue if they needed extra time. In countries participating in a regional module,students were given additional time to complete the regional instrument. Test administratorswere required to document the starting and ending time of each part of the assessmentadministration on the test administration form. Table 8.2 details the time allotted to thedifferent parts of the student assessment.Table 8.2: Time allowed for administering the ICCS student instrumentsInstrumentStudent achievement bookletStudent questionnaireAdministering the European module instrument(where applicable)Administering the Latin American module instrument(where applicable)Administering the Asian module instrument(where applicable)Length45 minutes exactly40+ minutes12 minutes exactly (test)17 +minutes (questionnaire)29 +minutes (total)15 minutes exactly (test)15+ minutes (questionnaire)30+ minutes (total)20+ minutesThe test administrator used the student tracking form to distribute the booklets to the correctstudents and to document student participation. The school coordinator used the informationon the participation status form to calculate the participation rate. If this was below 90 percentin any class, the school coordinator then had to hold a makeup session for the absent studentsbefore returning all of the testing materials to the national center.The national centers entered the information recorded on the student and teacher trackingforms into WinW3S software.Quality controlConsiderable effort was invested in developing standardized materials and procedures toensure maximum comparability of the data collected in each country. In order to furtherensure the quality of the ICCS data, an international quality control program was developed todocument data collection activities around the world. The NRCs were required to nominate aninternational quality control monitor (IQCM) for their country. This person was then hired andtrained by the IEA Secretariat. The role and responsibilities of the IQCMs were described in theInternational Quality Control Monitor Manual and included collecting and submitting a number ofICCS materials from the national centers, observing test sessions in 15 of the sampled schoolsin the particular country, interviewing school coordinators and/or the test administrators, andchecking final assessment instruments.The international project team also asked countries to conduct their own quality controlprocedures in 10 percent of the sampled schools. To assist them, the international team alsoprovided countries with a National Quality Control Monitor Manual, modified to suit the nationalsystem and used for training the observers. Chapter 9 provides details on the quality-controlprocedures for ICCS.ICCS SURVEY OPERATIONS PROCEDURES95
Scoring the ICCS assessmentThe success of assessments containing constructed-response questions depends on the degree towhich student responses are scored reliably. Six of the ICCS assessment items were constructedresponseitems, and it was critical to the quality of the ICCS results that they were scored ina reliable manner. This was accomplished by providing national centers with explicit scoringguides, extensive training of scoring staff, and continuous monitoring of the quality of thework during scoring procedures.International scoring training was conducted, during which national center staff members weretrained to score the constructed-response items in the ICCS assessment. Scoring training wasrun both before the field trial and before the main survey. The training that took place prior tothe field trial provided the participants with their first opportunity to give extensive feedbackon the scoring guides. The training that they received was based on a set of pilot responsescollected in three English-speaking countries. The training conducted prior to the main surveyenabled national center staff to give additional feedback on the scoring guides, with thatfeedback based on their experiences of scoring the field-trial items.The ICCS Main Survey Scoring Guide for Open-Ended Response Items, the development of which isdescribed in detail in Chapter 2, was reviewed during the scoring training preceding the mainsurvey. The scorer training employed a sample set of student responses collected during thefield trial in English-speaking ICCS countries that had already been scored.The responses applied during scorer training were a mixture of those that clearly representedthe scoring categories and those that were relatively difficult to score because they werepartially ambiguous, unusually expressed, or on the “borderlines” of scoring categories. Thescores that national center staff gave to these practice papers were shared with the group, withdiscussion focusing on discrepancies in particular. The scoring guides and practice responseswere refined following the scoring training to clarify areas of uncertainty identified during thescorer training.Once training had been completed, the ISC provided national centers with a final set of scoredsample responses as well as the final version of the scoring guide. National centers used thisinformation to train their scoring staff on how to apply the scoring guides for constructedresponseitems. In some cases, national centers created their own example papers and practicepapers from the student responses collected in their country.To prepare for this task, the ISC provided national centers not only with suggestions on how toorganize staff but also with materials, procedures, and details on the scoring process. The ISCencouraged the national centers to hire scorers who were attentive to detail and familiar witheducation and who, to the greatest extent possible, had a background in civic and citizenshipeducation. The ISC also provided guidelines on how to train scorers to accurately and reliablyscore the constructed-response achievement items.Documenting scoring reliabilityIn order to demonstrate the quality of the ICCS data, it was important to document thereliability of the scoring process within countries. Scoring reliability within each countryrequired two different scorers to independently score a random sample of 300 responses foreach constructed-response item. This number corresponded to 100 responses from each of theseven test booklets. The WinW3S software included a facility that allowed scorers to obtain arandom sample of test booklets designated to be scored twice.The degree of agreement between the scores, as assigned by the two scorers, provided ameasure of the reliability of the scoring process. Items with relatively low inter-rater reliability96 ICCS 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: 44ICCS 2009 technical report
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: 88ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 91 and 92: • The School Sampling Manual (ICC
Page 93 and 94: School coordinators were required t
Page 95: For countries administering the sch
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 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:
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 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:
332 ICCS 2009 technical report
show all

ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?