Abstracts - Earli

effort; and is continuous or ongoing. Samejima’s Graded Response model was also used to selectitems with optimal measurement characteristics. In a second survey, the 50 item CoL-II wasadministered to a nationally representative sample of over 800 secondary school students. Afurther sample of 250 students also completed the CoL-II and a standardised achievement test. Thepaper will report the yet un-analysed results from this national profile of students’ conceptions oflearning and the relationship between conception of learning and achievement.Dimensions of grades; Achievement and non-AchievementAlli Klapp Lekholm, Department of Education, Göteborg University, SwedenThe main focus of this presentation is the result from a study investigating dimensions of gradesby discerning achievement and non-achievement in grades. Achievement may reflect a subjectspecificdimension of grades while non-achievement may reflect a common dimension of grades.The distinction between indirect and direct influences in grades is also made. Non-achievementmay influence grades indirectly, by influencing student subject knowledge, which in turninfluences grades. On the other hand, non-achievement may not influence student subjectknowledge but still influence grades which may be interpreted as a direct influence in grades. Thedata analysed were taken from the ETF (Evaluation Through Follow-up) an ongoing longitudinalproject in Sweden. The participants were 8874 ninth grade students, who left compulsory school in2003. Two measurements were used, subject grades and national test scores in Swedish, Englishand mathematics from the end of compulsory school. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) wasused, and a two-level model was executed in order to control for differences between schools. Theresult indicated that grades measure both achievement and non-achievement. The influence ofachievement in grades seems to vary both concerning subject grades and national tests andbetween schools. Non-achievement seems to influence grades in all subjects and without anysignificant differences between schools which may support the hypothesis of a common factor ingrades.School and district effects in the literacy and mathematics achievement of Toronto District SchoolBoard students measured by provincial assessment: A preliminary application of hierarchicallinear modeling in school effectiveness studyRobert S. Brown, Toronto District School Board, CanadaErhan Sinay, Toronto District School Board, CanadaIn Ontario, standardized assessment of student achievement has for the past nine years been theresponsibility of EQAO (Education Quality and Accountability Office), an independent Crowncorporation. There are four different assessments between Grade 3 and Grade 10. This cohort fromthe Toronto District School Board (1997-8 through 2005-6) is the first examination of a cohortparticipating in all four assessments, across eight years, going from the elementary into thesecondary panel. The Toronto District School Board is considered one of the most diverse in theworld. Preliminary analysis found that early (Grade 3) elementary Math performance is a generalindicator of secondary (Grade 9) Math performance, but the prediction is by no means precise.Moreover, performance in early Reading appeared to be a slightly better predictor of secondaryMath performance than early Math performance. This indicates that the difference between subjectspecific assessments may not be as great as generally perceived. Our more detailed study modeledthe school and district effects in the Literacy and Math scores of the Education Quality andAccountability Testing program using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Principal ComponentAnalysis (PCA) of the test scores from the EQAO Reading and Writing conducted to derive acomposite score as the outcome measure of overall student literacy achievement. Three-level– 725 –