Boey Kok Leong an - NIE Digital Repository

TitleSingapore students’ trend in the performance in mathematics by gender inTIMSS 2003 and 2007Author(s) Boey Kok Leong and Jaguthsing DindyalSource 5th East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Tokyo, 18-22 August 2010This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document orany part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyrightowner.The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document.

Singapore Students’ Trend in the Performance in Mathematics by GenderIn TIMSS 2003 and 2007Boey Kok LeongNIE, Nanyang Technological Universitykokleong.boey@nie.edu.sgJaguthsing DindyalNIE, Nanyang Technological Universityjaguthsing.dindyal@nie.edu.sgAbstractIn this study we report the secondary analysis of the gender-related data from theTrends in International Mathematics and Science Study in 2003 and 2007 (TIMSS2003 & 2007) for Singapore students in Mathematics. It was noted that girls inSingapore performed significantly better than boys in TIMSS 2007 at both grades 4 and8 in mathematics. Similar results for mathematics were obtained in the TIMSS 2003whereby, in addition, girls from Singapore performed better than boys in all reportedcontent domains at grades 4 and 8.Keywords: TIMSS 2007 Grade 8, TIMSS 2003 Grade 4, Mathematics, GenderIn 2000, gender equality became one of the eight United Nations MillenniumDevelopment Goals. As such, gender has emerged internationally as a social andpolitical issue (Adams, 2002). It is important to mention that we look at gender not onlyfrom the perspective of females but also as a male issue. We shall take a closer lookat the performance of grade 4 students in 2003 and grade 8 students four years later.In this presentation, we report the secondary analysis of the Mathematics data forSingapore from the TIMSS International Data Base and the International TIMSS Report(Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2008), with a focus on gender. TIMSS 2003 data were used toprovide for comparison of the data from TIMSS 2007 (see Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2004).Also, for an overview of the gender perspective we included the gender related fromthe top-five performing countries in mathematics. In our analysis, we looked into theoverall performance in mathematics of the students and their performance by genderwithin content domains and cognitive domains at grade 4 in 2003 and grade 8 in 2007.Students’ self-confidence was also examined from a gender perspective. The samplein the analyses presented were responses from the international databases from thesetwo studies. SAS was utilised to compute various statistics and the correspondingstandard errors. The performance by gender of the students on the TIMSS 2003 and2007 mathematics items was also examined. In addition, we look at achievementitems from each of the content domains for significant differences in performance bystudent gender, paying particular attention to the trend items.DataTIMSS surveyed students in their fourth and eighth years of school. The datacollected from the students and their teachers provided an opportunity to investigateresults by gender for both Mathematics and Science. The TIMSS 2003 (Martin, 2005)and 2007 data (Foy & Olson, 2009) has been used in the analysis of the results of thispaper. A word of caution is appropriate here; since, the sampling of the teachers inTIMSS 2003 and 2007 were based on participating students (i.e. the Mathematics andScience teachers of the sampled students were sampled), teachers’ responses did notnecessarily represent all teachers of each grade. The responses only representedteachers of the representative samples of students assessed.

FindingsTeachers’ genderFor TIMSS 2003 at grade 4, each East Asian country had larger percentages ofstudents taught by female teachers for mathematics than male teachers (see Table 1).In TIMSS 2007 at grade 8, however, only Chinese Taipei, Korea and Singapore hadlarger percentages of students taught by female teachers than male teachers.Table 1: Percentage of Pupils by Teacher Gender in TIMSS 2003 & 2007 from the top5 performing countriesGrade 4 in 2003 Grade 8 in 2007CountryFemale Male Female MaleChinese Taipei 80 (2.9) 20 (2.9) 57 (4.4) 43 (4.4)Hong Kong, SAR 73 (4.3) 27 (4.3) 40 (3.8) 60 (3.8)Japan 63 (3.8) 37 (3.8) 43 (3.7) 57 (3.7)Korea - - - - 64 (3.2) 36 (3.2)Singapore 82 (3.1) 18 (3.1) 64 (2.7) 36 (2.7)International Average 80 (0.6) 20 (0.6) 57 (0.5) 43 (0.5)Source: Exhibits 6.3 in (Mullis, 2004), exhibits 6.1 in (Mullis, 2008)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesis.International averages were obtained by averaging the mean scores for each of the participating countriesWith the exception of Hong Kong and Japan in TIMSS 2003 grade 4, there wasinsufficient evidence to conclude that there was a relationship in each country betweenperformance by boys or girls and their teachers’ gender for each TIMSS. However, itwas also noted that in each TIMSS, students taught by female teachers eitheroutperformed or performed as well as students taught by male teachers (see Tables2A, 2B, 3A & 3B). It was noted that in Japan, there was no significant differences inthe performance by any of the groups.Table 2A: TIMSS 2003 Grade 4 Mean Scores by Teacher/Student GenderCountry F/G F/B M/G M/BChisquarep-valueChineseTaipei567 (1.7) 565 (2.0) 554 (4.4) 557 (6.5) 0.0112 0.9158Hong Kong,SAR577 (3.4) 576 (3.7) 569 (7.8) 570 (7.0) 0.0017 0.9667Japan 562 (2.4) 567 (2.5) 563 (3.4) 566 (3.9) 0.0018 0.9664Singapore 607 (5.3) 599 (6.2) 550 (11.5) 558 (12.2) 0.1108 0.7392( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisF: Female teacher M: Male teacher B: Boy G: Girl

Table 2B: Comparison of TIMSS 2003 Grade 4 Mean Mathematics Scoresby Teacher/Student GenderChineseTaipeiF/G F/B M/G M/BHong Kong,SARF/G F/B M/G M/BF/G ○ ○ ▲ ○ F/G ○ ○ ○ ○F/B ○ ○ ▲ ○ F/B ○ ○ ○ ○M/G ▼ ▼ ○ ○ M/G ○ ○ ○ ○M/B ○ ○ ○ ○ M/B ○ ○ ○ ○Japan F/G F/B M/G M/B Singapore F/G F/B M/G M/BF/G ○ ○ ○ ○ F/G ○ ○ ▲ ▲F/B ○ ○ ○ ○ F/B ○ ○ ▲ ▲M/G ○ ○ ○ ○ M/G ▼ ▼ ○ ○M/B ○ ○ ○ ○ M/B ▼ ▼ ○ ○F: Female teacher M: Male teacher B: Boy G: GirlAn arrow pointing upwards indicates the group in the row has a significantly higher mean score than thecorresponding group in the column. A downward arrow indicates a significantly lower mean score (of therow group relative to the column group).Table 3A: TIMSS 2007 Grade 8 Mean Scores by Teacher/Student GenderCountry F/G F/B M/G M/BChisquarevaluep-Chinese Taipei 600 (5.2) 597 (6.2) 597 (8.2) 600 (9.6) 0.013 0.9092Hong Kong,SAR597 (7.4) 565 (16.9) 568 (7.2) 569 (8.9) 0.4453 0.5046Japan 572 (6.8) 578 (5.2) 565 (4.7) 568 (4.3) 0.0048 0.9445Rep of Korea 601 (4.5) 600 (4.6) 581 (4.8) 598 (6.0) 0.1225 0.7264Singapore 604 (5.0) 590 (6.0) 595 (9.1) 577 (8.6) 0.0098 0.9213( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisF: Female teacher M: Male teacher B: Boy G: GirlTable 3B: Comparison of TIMSS 2007 Grade 8 Mean Mathematics Scores byTeacher/Student GenderChinese TaipeiHong Kong,F/G F/B M/G M/B& JapanSARF/G F/B M/G M/BF/G ○ ○ ○ ○ F/G ○ ○ ▲ ▲F/B ○ ○ ○ ○ F/B ○ ○ ○ ○M/G ○ ○ ○ ○ M/G ▼ ○ ○ ○M/B ○ ○ ○ ○ M/B ▼ ○ ○ ○Rep of Korea F/G F/B M/G M/B Singapore F/G F/B M/G M/BF/G ○ ○ ▲ ○ F/G ○ ○ ○ ▲F/B ○ ○ ▲ ○ F/B ○ ○ ○ ○M/G ▼ ▼ ○ ▼ M/G ○ ○ ○ ○M/B ○ ○ ▲ ○ M/B ▼ ○ ○ ○F: Female teacher M: Male teacher B: Boy G: GirlAn arrow pointing upwards indicates the group in the row has a significantly higher mean score than thecorresponding group in the column. A downward arrow indicates a significantly lower mean score (of therow group relative to the column group).

In TIMSS 2003, girls outperformed boys at grade 4 in the knowledge andapplying cognitive domains in Singapore (see Table 4) Internationally as well asChinese Taipei, Hong Kong and Japan, girls performed as well as the boys. 4 yearslater in TIMSS 2007, more differences were noted. In each of the 3 cognitive domains,girls had higher achievement scores in Mathematics than boys at grade 8, both inSingapore and internationally (see Table 5), as well as girls from Hong Kong in theApplying domain.Table 4: Average Achievement in the Mathematics Cognitive Domains by Gender atGrade 4 in TIMSS 2003CountryKnowledge Applying ReasoningGirl Boy Girl Boy Girl BoyChinese Taipei 564 (2.4) 566 (2.6) 561 (2.0) 562 (2.2) 565 (2.6) 562 (2.7)Hong Kong SAR 574 (3.9) 573 (3.6) 576 (3.5) 577 (3.5) 565 (4.0) 563 (3.8)Japan 565 (2.6) 564 (3.0) 563 (2.6) 569 (2.3) 559 (2.1) 564 (2.6)Singapore 632 (6.4) ▲ 620 (7.2) 599 (5.8)▲ 590 (6.6) 578 (6.2) 570 (6.8)International Avg 496 (0.9) 495 (0.9) 494 (0.8) 497 (0.8) 496 (0.9) 495 (0.8)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisSource: Exhibits 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3 in (Mullis, 2004)▲Mean achievement significantly higher than the other gender in that domain.Table 5: Average Achievement in the Mathematics Cognitive Domains by Gender atGrade 8 in TIMSS 2007CountryKnowledge Applying ReasoningGirl Boy Girl Boy Girl BoyChinese Taipei 592 (4.3) 593 (4.9) 596 (4.5) 592 (5.6) 591 (4.4) 592 (5.1)Hong Kong SAR 573 (4.9) 564 (8.1) 580 (4.8) ▲ 567 (7.3) 563 (5.0) 551 (7.9)Japan 562 (3.2) 569 (2.9) 560 (2.8) 560 (3.3) 568 (3.4) 567 (3.5)Rep of Korea 592 (3.7) 598 (3.4) 597 (3.7) 596 (2.8) 577 (3.1) 580 (2.7)Singapore 600 (3.9) ▲ 586 (4.4) 590 (3.8) ▲ 573 (4.2) 586 (4.6) ▲ 571 (4.9)International Avg 452 (0.6) ▲ 450 (0.6) 454 (0.6) ▲ 447 (0.6) 471 (0.6) ▲ 465 (0.7)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisSource: Exhibit 3.3 in (Mullis, 2008)▲Mean achievement significantly higher than the other gender in that domain.In TIMSS 2003, girls at grade 4 outperformed boys in Geometry and Data inSingapore and internationally (see Table 6). The same cohort of students continued toshow this trend in TIMSS 2007 grade 8 (see Table 7). Girls in Singapore performedbetter than boys grade 4 in Number topics but there was no difference 4 years later.We also noted that the gap between boys and girls in Japan seemed to have widened.It was the reverse for Algebra 1 .1 We compare results between topics in Patterns and relationship at grade 4 with Algebra at grade 8.

Table 6: Average Achievement in Mathematics Content Areas by Gender for TIMSS2003 Grade 4Content Area Number Patterns & Measurement Geometry DataRelationshipCountry Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl BoyChineseTaipei568(2.5)567(2.1)555(2.4)555(2.9)556(2.0)552(2.1)593(4.9)591(5.3)567(4.5)564(4.1)Hong Kong,SAR575(3.5)573(3.6)568(4.4)568(3.6)561(3.0564(2.9)573(4.6)567(7.5)554(4.2)544(6.7)Japan 553(2.5)558(2.3)551(1.9)557(2.0)567(2.0)569(2.0)573(2.9)572(3.2)573(2.5)573(3.1)Singapore 617(5.9)▲InternationalAverage495(0.8)608(6.7)496(0.8)583(5.4)496(0.8)▲575(6.0)495(0.8)569(4.5)493(0.8)564(5.2)498(0.7)586(3.7)▲454(0.6)▲571(4.2)448(0.6)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisSource: Exhibit 3.3 in (Mullis, 2004)▲ Mean achievement significantly higher than the opposite gender in that domain.581(4.5)▲453(0.5)▲Table 7: Average Achievement in Mathematics Content Areas by Gender for TIMSS2007 Grade 8568(4.3)449(0.6)Content Area Number Algebra Geometry Data & ChanceCountry Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl BoyChinese Taipei 574(4.6)579(4.9)622(5.8)613(6.3)593(4.9)591(5.3)567 (4.5) 564(4.1)Hong Kong,SAR570(5.1)564(7.7)573(5.1) ▲558(7.5)573(4.6)567(7.5)554 (4.2) 544(6.7)Japan 545(3.3)558(3.1) ▲560(4.0)559(3.3)573(2.9)572(3.2)573 (2.5) 573(3.1)Rep of Korea 575(3.4)591(2.8) ▲596(4.1)596(3.9)585(2.7)588(3.3)580 (2.5) 579(2.5)Singapore 601(3.9)593(4.3)589(3.9) ▲569(4.5)586(3.7) ▲571(4.2)581 (4.5)▲568(4.3)InternationalAverage448(0.6)453(0.6) ▲457(0.6) ▲444(0.6)454(0.6) ▲448(0.6)453 (0.5)▲449(0.6)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisSource: Exhibit 3.3 in (Mullis, 2008)▲ Mean achievement significantly higher than the opposite gender in that domain.Due to limitation of space, the discussion will focus only on results from TIMSS2007 from this point. At Grade 8, the percentage of boys with higher self-confidence inlearning mathematics was significantly higher than the percentage of girls (Table 8).TIMSS 2007 created an Index of Students' Positive Affect Toward Mathematics(PATM) with Trends. This index was based on students’ responses to the following:I enjoy learning Mathematics; Mathematics is boring, and I like Mathematics. Withthe exception of Singapore, the percentage of boys with high PATM wassignificantly higher than the girls from each country (see Table 9).

Table 8: Index of Grade 8 Students' Self-Confidence in Learning Mathematics (SCM)in TIMSS 2007CountryChineseTaipeiHong Kong,SARJapanRep ofKoreaSingaporePercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementHigh SCM Medium SCM Low SCMGirl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy20 35 25 28 55 37(1.1) (1.4) ▲ (0.9) (1.0) ▲ (1.4) ▲ (1.3)681 671 620 601 560 528(4.6) (4.6) (5.7) ▲ (5.8) (4.8) ▲ (5.4)23 38 39 40 38 23(1.1) (1.5) ▲ (1.2) (1.6) (1.2) ▲ (1.0)627 619 581 542 546 527(5.1) (6.4) (5.8) ▲ (9.3) (6.1) (8.5)11 22 34 36 54 41(0.8) (1.0) ▲ (1.1) (1.2) (1.1) ▲ (1.2)644 634 592 580 537 532(6.0) (4.3) (3.8) ▲ (4.0) (3.6) (3.9)23 33 35 32 41 34(1.0) (1.2) ▲ (1.1) ▲ (0.9) (1.1) ▲ (1.2)670 667 610 602 540 531(3.9) (2.8) (3.9) (3.9) (3.5) (3.8)39 43 33 35 28 22(1.4) (1.3) ▲ (1.1) (1.3) (1.2) ▲ (1.0)645 632 584 562 558 534(4.1) ▲ (4.4) (5.2) ▲ (5.8) (5.5) ▲ (5.9)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesis▲ Mean significantly higher than the opposite genderTable 9: Index of Grade 8 Students' Positive Affect Toward Mathematics (PATM) inTIMSS 2007CountryChinese TaipeiHong Kong, SARJapanRep of KoreaSingaporePercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementHigh PATM Medium PATM Low PATMGirl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy30 44 19 18 51 39(1.4) (1.5) ▲ (0.9) (0.9) (1.7) ▲ (1.6)653 660 611 598 562 530(4.7) (4.5) (7.6) (5.7) (4.5) ▲ (6.1)43 50 22 22 35 27(1.5) (1.5) ▲ (1.2) (1.1) (1.4) ▲ (1.7)607 600 579 554 542 519(5.7) (7.4) (5.8) ▲ (8.8) (6.9) (9.9)27 34 29 31 44 36(1.5) (1.2) ▲ (1.3) (1.2) (1.5) ▲ (1.4)612 607 567 567 542 544(5.1) (4.6) (3.7) (4.2) (3.5) (4.2)30 35 22 24 48 41(1.2) (1.2) ▲ (0.8) (0.8) (1.4) ▲ (1.1)648 651 599 600 560 556(3.7) (3.4) (4.8) (4.6) (3.6) (3.8)62 59 20 20 19 21(1.5) (1.2) (1.0) (0.7) (1.1) (1.0)620 609 580 570 557 534(4.1) (4.3) (6.0) (6.6) (5.9) ▲ (8.0)( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesis▲ Mean significantly higher than the opposite gender

We noticed a similar pattern from the index of Students’ Valuing Mathematics(SVM) from the 5 countries. Other than Singapore, the percentage of boys with highSVM was significantly higher than the girls from each country (see Table 10).Table 10: Index of Grade 8 Students' Valuing Mathematics (SVM) in TIMSS 2007CountryChinese TaipeiHong Kong,SARJapanRep of KoreaSingaporePercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievementPercentageAchievement( ) Standard errors appear in parenthesisHigh SVM Medium SVM Low SVMGirl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy41 49 42 36 18 15(1.6) (1.5) ▲ (1.4) ▲ (1.3) (1.2) (1.1)617 628 600 595 554 512(6.3) (5.8) (5.1) (5.2) (5.7) ▲ (8.5)58 63 34 28 8 9(1.4) (1.8) ▲ (1.2) ▲ (1.5) (0.8) (0.9)595 582 566 556 511 510(4.9) (8.4) (6.2) (8.9) (12.3) (11.1)39 47 47 39 14 14(1.4) (1.2) ▲ (1.2) ▲ (1.1) (1.0) (0.9)583 585 566 570 536 536(5.5) (4.1) (2.9) (4.0) (6.8) (6.6)48 58 40 33 12 8(1.4) (1.2) ▲ (1.2) ▲ (1.1) (0.9) ▲ (0.6)615 618 585 579 550 553(3.7) (3.4) (3.9) (4.8) (6.1) (6.4)77 76 19 19 4 5(1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (0.5) (0.5)552604 592 597 583511(10.9)(4.0) ▲ (4.5) (6.2) (6.8)(11.1)▲▲ Mean significantly higher than the opposite genderIn Singapore, the number of Mathematics achievement items at grade 8where higher percentage of girls than boys answered correctly was 48 (seeTable 11). On the other hand, there were only 2 items whereby significantlyhigher percentage of boys than girls answered correctly. A simple comparisonof the number of items by content domains showed girls have more items withsignificantly higher percentages correct than boys. This concurred with thebetter achievement scores by girls in Algebra, Data and Change, as well asGeometry (see Table 7).Table 11: Performance in number of achievement items by Gender in TIMSS 2007 forSingaporeCognitiveDomainKnowingApplyingItems not releasedReleased itemsContentDomainNo Girls Boys No Girlsdifference better better difference betterTotalAlg 17 6 0 6 3 32Data 7 1 0 3 3 14Geo 6 0 0 2 0 8Num 14 2 0 8 3 27Alg 5 6 0 3 1 15Data 10 1 0 4 3 18

ReasoningGeo 10 1 1 10 5 27Num 8 2 1 13 4 28Alg 12 1 0 4 0 17Data 3 1 0 3 1 8Geo 7 1 0 3 1 12Num 4 1 0 2 1 8Total 103 23 2 61 25 214Alg: Algebra Data: Data and Chance Geo: Geometry Num: NumberConclusionFemale students have generally been the disadvantaged group worldwide.Although, there has been a narrowing of the gender gap, gender differences still existin many parts of the word. This brief overview of the gender-related data aboutperformance in mathematics of students from Singapore demonstrates that femalestudents are doing fairly well when compared to their male counterparts. In fact, thebetter performance of female students has not been considered an issue by the policymakers. One may ask: what are the implications of better performance by femalestudents and better female scores by students in certain specific teacher-studentgroups for policy and teacher education? However, it would certainly be valuableknowledge to the mathematics education community to know how certain types ofitems, in certain content domains and testing certain specific cognitive domains areapproached and successfully or unsuccessfully completed by the two genders.ReferencesAdams, D. (2002). Education and national development: Priorities, policies, andplanning. Hong Kong: Asian Development Bank.Foy, P. & Olson, J.F. (Eds.). (2009). TIMSS 2007 International Database and UserGuide. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Martin, M. O. (Ed.) (2005). TIMSS 2003 User guide for the international database.Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Mullis, I. Martin, M. O., V. S, & Foy, P. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International MathematicsReport. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study CentreMullis, I. Martin, M. O., V. S, & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International MathematicsReport. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study CentreCopyright (c) 2010 Boey Kok Leong and Jaguthsing Dindyal. The authors grant a nonexclusivelicense to the organisers of the EARCOME5, Japan Society of MathematicalEducation, to publish this document in the Conference Proceedings. Any other usageis prohibited without the consent or permission of the authors.