Cms.education.gov.il



State of IsraelMinistry of Education RAMA The National Authority for Measurement & Evaluation in EducationAbstract Main findings from the TIMSS 2011 study? ?Mathematics and science achievements among eighth graders in IsraelThe National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA) is pleased to present the main findings in Israel from the TIMSS 2011 study for 8th graders.The TIMSS study TIMSS – ?Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study? – is an international study in mathematics and science conducted by the ?IEA (?International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement?). The study is conducted once every four years, beginning from 1995. Israel has fully participated in the study since 1999, and on a regular basis since then in 2003, 2007, and 2011.The TIMSS 2011 study was carried out in Israel by the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA), and accompanied by a steering committee, which included academic experts from in the fields of mathematics and sciences and their teaching, experts in measurement and evaluation, and representatives of the Ministry of Education. The TIMSS study examines students’ mathematical and scientific knowledge in fourth and eighth grades, and the educational context of teaching these subjects in various countries. In Israel, the study is only carried out in the eighth grade, and this abstract therefore discusses the TIMSS 2011 study results only for that grade. The study enables reliable information to be obtained about Israel’s education system as compared to other education systems around the world. The study provides important information to the participating countries, regarding their students’ strengths and weaknesses in mathematics and science on a systematic level, and the educational context in which these subjects are studied. Likewise, changing trends over the years may be identified and these may then be examined in light of the curricula for the tested subjects, accepted teaching methods, and various intervention programs operated by the education system.The conceptual framework of the TIMMS tests revolves around two dimensions: the content dimension – which includes the various fields within each subject, and the cognitive dimension – which lists the cognitive skills which 8th grade students are expected to have mastered in these fields. Content domains in mathematics: numbers (29% of the questions), algebra (33% of the questions), geometry (19% of the questions), and data and chance (19% of the questions). Content domains in science: biology (37% of the questions), chemistry (20% of the questions), physics (25% of the questions), and earth sciences (18% of the questions)? ?The questions in the two knowledge domains also test the following cognitive skills: knowing – in mathematics, 36% of the questions, and in science 32% of the questions; applying – in mathematics, 39% of the questions, and in science 44% of the questions; reasoning – in mathematics, 25% of the questions, and in science, 24% of the questions. The conceptual framework, according to which the contents of the mathematics and science tests were determined, was constructed based on the mathematics and science curricula in the countries participating in the study, with an attempt made to create the broadest possible common denominator among the participating countries. The study included 14 versions of the test, with a total of 217 mathematics questions and 217 science questions. This large number of questions allowed a broad coverage of knowledge domains including all their topics and required reasoning skills. The study was accompanied by background questionnaires with the goal of collecting information about the educational context in which these knowledge domains were studied. The questionnaires were distributed to the students, mathematics and science teachers, and school principals. In each of the participating countries, approximately 5000 eighth graders from approximately 150 schools, sampled by the IEA, participated in the study. The sampling method used in the study ensured that a representative sample of the target population participate in each country. In total, around 240,000 eighth grade students from 42 countries around the world participated in the TIMSS 2011 study. In addition to these participating countries, eight independent regional educational authorities also participated in the study, such as several Canadian provinces and USA states, as well as three states in which students from a different age group (ninth grade) participated in the study. These states and provinces are reported in the TIMSS 2011 report using separate tables, and will not be surveyed in this abstract.The composition of participating countries varies slightly from one study to the next, and is different from the composition of countries participating in the PISA study. The TIMSS 2011 study in Israel4699 eighth graders from 151 schools, representative of all those studying in the regular education system (Hebrew speaking students under the State and State-Religious inspectorate and Arabic speaking students) participated in the study in Israel. As in previous TIMSS studies, the sampling framework did not include schools under the ultra-Orthodox inspectorate, nor special education students in their various learning frameworks.In each of the schools sampled for the study, one or two of the eighth grade classes in the school were randomly chosen to participate in the study. The tests were translated and adapted for Israel from English into the two accepted languages for teaching – Hebrew and Arabic. The translation and adaptation for these languages in Israel was carried out and administered by the RAMA, using designated translation teams and in coordination with, and under the supervision of the ?IEA. There was an improvement in the translation process for the TIMSS 2011 study, in comparison with the previous studies, and some of the repeated items were retranslated.The conceptual framework for the test was in complete congruence with the current mathematics and science and technology curricula in Israel for junior high schools. In mathematics – the new curriculum for junior high schools implemented in the education system since the 2009/10 school year; in science – the science and technology curriculum for junior high schools which was originally written in 1995/6 and which had its content and teaching order reprocessed and reorganized in 2009/10. In each class, the tests and questionnaires were administered by two RAMA testers, aided by a contact person from the school staff. The tests lasted for an hour and a half (45 minutes for each of the knowledge domains) with another half an hour for completion of the students’ questionnaires. While the students were being tested, quality control staff from RAMA and the IEA visited some of the classes. There were no special incidents recorded while the tests and questionnaires were being completed. The questionnaires for the teachers and principals were completed online. How the findings are reportedThe achievements in mathematics and science are each reported individually on the TIMSS score ranking. This ranking was determined by the ?IEA in 1995, so that the average score for participating countries in this study cycle would be 500, and the standard deviation would be 100. It should be emphasized that the “average for participating countries” has changed over the years, due both to variations in the composition and number of participating countries, and changes in the knowledge level of the students in the various countries.Results are reported by giving both a general score and scores according to content domains and cognitive skills.The score rankings for mathematics and science are divided into five proficiency levels which were determined and defined by the ?IEA, and which provide meaning to the reported scores. The proficiency levels were determined according to four threshold points on the score ranking: the threshold for “outstanding students” (score of 625 and over), the threshold for “high achievers” (score of 550 and over), the threshold for “intermediate students” (score of 475 and over), and the threshold for “low achievers” (score of 400 and above). A score under 400 is defined as “below the threshold”. Israel’s achievements in the TIMSS 2011 study – A description of the main findings.The data for Israel is presented below – From an international perspective – in comparison with the average for the 42 participating countries, (hereinafter “the average for participating countries”) and countries selected for comparison. The perspective of within Israel – according to language sector, gender, and socioeconomic background, and in comparison with the results of previous TIMSS studies. MathematicsIsrael from an international perspectiveThe average result in mathematics in Israel for 2011 is 516 score points. This average is higher than the “average for participating countries” (467), and ranks Israel in 7th place out of the 42 countries which participated in the study. This average is lower than the results for Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Russia which are ranked in positions 1-6. Israel’s results in mathematics place it in the same group as Finland, the USA, England, Hungary, and Australia, which are ranked in positions 8-12 (hereinafter “countries with similar results to Israel”). The average result in Israel is statistically significantly higher than the average results for the countries ranked in positions 13-42 in the ranking of participating countries. This achievement reflects a marked rise of 53 score points in Israel’s average score for mathematics, when compared to the TIMSS 2007 study. Israel’s improvement in its results between 2007 and 2011 is the third highest among the countries which participated in the last two studies, and the greatest among the countries with achievements which are high or similar to those of Israel.The distribution in student achievements in mathematics in Israel (325 score points) is the greatest among the countries with achievements which are high or similar to those of Israel (excluding Taiwan). For example, the average score in Finland (514) is very similar to that of Israel, but the distribution is far smaller (212 score points).Distribution according to proficiency levels: The percentage of students in Israel at the two highest proficiency levels (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) is 39%, higher than their percentage among countries with similar results to Israel. The percentage of students in Israel at the two lowest proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) is 32%. The percentage of students whose achievements are below the threshold (13%) is higher than their percentage among countries with similar results to Israel. The scores in the various content domains in mathematics: In Israel, the score averages in the three content domains: numbers, algebra, and geometry, are high and fairly similar to one another, and similar to the general score for mathematics – numbers (518), algebra (521) and data and chance (515). The scores for geometry (496) are lower. In each of the areas, the average score in Israel is higher than the “average for participating countries” (466, 470, 458, and 463, respectively). The scores in the cognitive dimensions (reasoning skills) in mathematics: the average score of students in Israel is similar for questions which examined “applying” (513), “knowing” (516), and “reasoning” (520). For the three reasoning skills, the scores in Israel are higher than the average for participating countries (465, 467, and 464, respectively). The perspective within Israel Changing trends over the years In 2011, there was a marked rise of 53 score points in the average score of the students from Israel in mathematics, as compared with 2007.The last decade has been characterized by a rise in the achievements of the students of Israel in mathematics in the TIMSS study, with the exception of one study in 2007 in which there was a sharp drop in scores as compared with the results of the TIMSS 2003 study. It should be noted, that a long teachers’ strike took place in Israel in 2007, and studies in junior high schools were interrupted. In total, since 1999, there has been a rise of 50 score points (approximately half a standard deviation) in the average of Israeli students in mathematics in the TIMSS studies. Between 2007 and 2011, the rate of students in Israel positioned in the two highest proficiency levels rose sharply (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) from 19% to 39%, and the percentage of students in the lowest two proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) dropped from 52% to 32%. The rise in the average scores from 2007 to 2011 is expressed in all content domains. The rise in the average scores in the areas of numbers, algebra, and data and chance is similar to the rise in the general score (around 50 score points). The greatest improvement in student achievements out of all the four domains was in geometry (a rise of approximately 60 score points). However, similarly to the TIMSS 2007 study, the Israeli students’ scores in geometry also remained the lowest of the four content domains in mathematics in the current study.For reasoning skills, there was a marked rise in the average scores for questions which examined “reasoning” and “knowing” (58 and 60 score points, respectively), and a more moderate rise in the questions which tested “applying” (40 score points). Language sector, socioeconomic background and gender Achievements according to language sectorThe average score in mathematics among Hebrew speakers is 536, and among Arabic speakers is 465 (a gap of 71 score points in favor of the Hebrew speakers). The average score in mathematics among Hebrew speakers corresponds to the achievement level for the 7th position in the ranking of the countries participating in the TIMSS 2011 study, and the average score in mathematics among Arabic speakers corresponds to the achievement level of the 22nd position in the ranking of the countries participating in the study.Between 1999 and 2011, there was a rise of 54 score points among Hebrew speakers, and a rise of 68 score points among Arabic speakers. The gap in mathematics between Hebrew speakers and Arabic speakers (71 score points) was slightly reduced as compared with the parallel gap in the TIMSS study 2007 (76 score points). This finding expresses the fact that the two language sectors improved to a similar extent between 2007 and 2011 (an improvement of 52 score points among Hebrew speakers and 57 score points among Arabic speakers). Among Hebrew speakers, 15% of students are above the “outstanding students” threshold, and the rate of students at the two highest proficiency levels (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) is 46%. Among Arabic speakers, 5% of students are above the “outstanding students” threshold, and 22% of students are at the two highest proficiency levels. Among Hebrew speakers, 7% of students are below the lowest threshold, and the rate of students at the two lowest proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) is 24%. Among Arabic speakers, 29% of students are below the lowest threshold, and 52% of students are at the two lowest proficiency levels. In light of the above, it is clear that there has been a rise in the percentage of outstanding students and high achievers in both language sectors, alongside a drop in the percentage of students in the two lowest proficiency levels as compared with 2007.Achievements according to socioeconomic background:The average scores for Hebrew speakers studying in schools of a high, middle and low socioeconomic background are 565, 521, and 493, respectively. In other words, there is a gap of 72 score points between the scores of students from schools of a high socioeconomic background, and those of a low one. The average scores for Arabic speakers studying in schools of a middle or low socioeconomic background are 507 and 454, respectively. In other words, there is a gap of 53 score points between the scores of students from schools of a middle socioeconomic background, and those of a low one. Performance gaps between the language sectors, after controlling of socioeconomic background: The performance gap between the language sectors (71 score points in favor of Hebrew speakers) is small when achievements are examined separately for each socioeconomic background: a performance gap of 14 score points (in favor of Hebrew speakers) between the students in both language sectors in schools of a middle socioeconomic background, and a performance gap of 39 score points (in favor of Hebrew speakers) between students from both language sectors in schools of low socioeconomic background. It would seem, therefore, that the general performance gap in scores between Hebrew speakers and Arabic speakers can be partially explained by the socioeconomic background of students in the two sectors.Achievements according to gender:Between 2007 and 2011, there was a large rise in scores for both boys and girls in Israel (50 score points among boys, and 55 score points among girls). Among Hebrew speakers, the boys’ and girls’ scores are high and identical (536). Between 2007 and 2011, there was a similar rise in the boys’ and girls’ scores (50 score points and 54 score points, respectively). Among Arabic speakers, girls’ scores are clearly higher than those of boys (482 and 447, respectively – a performance gap of 35 score points in favor of girls). This performance gap grew between 2007 and 2011 due to the greater improvement in scores of Arabic speaking girls (66 score points as opposed to 48 score points, respectively). ScienceIsrael from an international perspectiveThe average result in science in Israel for 2011 is 516 score points. This average is higher than the “average for participating countries” (477), and ranks Israel in 13th place out of the 42 countries which participated in the study. This average is lower than the results for Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Finland, Slovenia, Russia, Hong Kong, and England which are ranked in positions 1-9.Israel’s results in science place it in the same group as the USA, Hungary, Australia, Lithuania, New Zealand, and Sweden, which are ranked in positions 10-16, countries with a similar average score to Israel (hereinafter “countries with similar results to Israel”). The average result in Israel is higher than the average results for the countries ranked in positions 17-42 in the ranking of participating countries.This achievement reflects a marked rise of 48 score points in the average score for science, when compared to the TIMSS 2007 study. Israel’s improvement in its results between 2007 and 2011 is the second highest among the countries which participated in the last two studies, and the greatest among Western countries.The distribution in student achievements in science in Israel (309 score points) is the greatest among the countries with achievements which are high or similar to those of Israel (excluding Singapore). For example, the average score in Australia (519) is very similar to that of Israel, but the distribution is smaller (277). Distribution according to proficiency levels: The percentage of students in Israel at the two highest proficiency levels (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) is 39% – higher or similar to their percentage among countries with similar results to Israel. The percentage of students in Israel at the two lowest proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) is 31%. The percentage of students whose achievements are below the threshold (12%) is higher than their percentage among countries with similar results to Israel. The scores in the various content domains in science: in Israel, the average scores in the content domains were slightly higher for biology (523), similar to one another for chemistry and physics (514 in both areas), and similar to the general score for science, and lower for earth sciences (504). In all four areas, the average score in Israel is higher than the “average for participating countries” (475, 477, 474, and 474, respectively). The scores in the cognitive dimensions (reasoning skills) in science: the students in Israel achieved similar scores on average for questions which tested “knowing” (518) and “reasoning” (519), and were slightly lower for questions which tested “applying” (512). In the three reasoning skills, the scores in Israel are higher than the “average for participating countries” (477, 474, and 475, respectively). The perspective within Israel Changing trends over the years Between 2007 and 2011, there was a marked rise of 48 score points in the average score of students of Israel in science in the TIMSS study. During the last decade, there has been a marked rise in the achievements of the students of Israel in science in the TIMSS study, with the exception of the 2007 study, in which there was a sharp drop in scores as compared with the results of the TIMSS 2003 study. It should be noted that a long teachers’ strike took place in Israel in 2007, and studies in junior high schools were interrupted. In total, since 1999, there has been a rise of 48 score points (approximately half a standard deviation) in the average of Israeli students in science in the TIMSS studies.Between 2007 and 2011, the rate of students in Israel positioned in the two highest proficiency levels rose sharply (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) from 21% to 39%, and the percentage of students in the lowest two proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) dropped from 49% to 31%. The rise in the average scores from 2007 to 2011 is expressed in all content domains. The rise in the average scores is the greatest for biology (51 score points), followed by chemistry (47 score points), and lastly physics and earth sciences (42 score points in both fields). From all the domains, the scores are lowest for earth sciences in both 2007 and 2011. There was a substantial rise in the average score for reasoning skills, in questions which tested “applying” (56 score points), followed by “knowing” (46 score points), and “reasoning” (38 score points). The great improvement in 2011 for questions which tested “applying” narrowed the performance gap between the scores for the “applying” questions and those for the questions testing “knowing” and “reasoning” as compared to 2007.Language sector, socioeconomic background and gender Achievements according to language sector:The average score in science among Hebrew speakers is 530, and among Arabic speakers is 481 (a performance gap of 49 score points in favor of the Hebrew speakers). The average score in science among the Hebrew speakers corresponds to the achievement level for the 10th position in the ranking of the countries participating in the TIMSS 2011 study, and the average score in science among Arabic speakers corresponds to the achievement level of the 22nd position in the ranking of the countries participating in the study.Since 1999, there has been a rise of 46 score points among Hebrew speakers, and an even greater rise of 87 score points among Arabic speakers. The performance gap in science between Hebrew and Arabic speaking students (49 score points) was slightly reduced as compared with the parallel performance gap in the 2007 TIMSS study (63 score points). This finding expresses the fact that the two language sectors improved by varying degrees between 2007 and 2011 (an improvement of 45 score points among the Hebrew speakers and 59 score points among the Arabic speakers). Among the Hebrew speakers, 13% of the students are above the “outstanding students” threshold, and the rate of students at the two highest proficiency levels (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”) is 43%. Among the Arabic speakers, 7% of the students are above the “outstanding students” threshold, and 28% of the students are at the two highest proficiency levels. Among the Hebrew speakers, 8% of the students are below the lowest threshold, and the rate of students at the two lowest proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”) is 25%. Among the Arabic speakers, 23% of the students are below the threshold, and 46% of the students are at the two lowest proficiency levels. In light of the above, it is clear that there has been a rise in the percentage of outstanding students and high achievers in both language sectors, alongside a drop in the percentage of students in the two lowest categories as compared with 2007.Achievements according to socioeconomic background:The average scores for Hebrew speaking students studying in schools of a high, middle and low socioeconomic background are 555, 516, and 491, respectively. In other words, there is a performance gap of 64 score points between the scores of students from schools of a high socioeconomic background, and those of a low one. The average scores for Arabic speaking students studying in schools of a middle or low socioeconomic background are 523 and 471, respectively. In other words, there is a performance gap of 52 score points between the scores of students from schools of a middle socioeconomic background, and those of a low one. Performance gaps between the language sectors, after controlling for socioeconomic background: The performance gap between the language sectors (49 score points) becomes small and even reverses when achievements are examined separately for each socioeconomic background: a performance gap of 7 score points (in favor of Arabic speakers) between students from both sectors in schools of a middle socioeconomic background, and a performance gap of 20 score points (in favor of Hebrew speakers) between students from both sectors in schools of low socioeconomic background. Achievements according to gender:Between 2007 and 2011, there was a large rise in scores for both boys and girls in Israel (49 score points among boys, and 47 score points among girls). Among the Hebrew speakers, the boys’ and girls’ scores are similar to each other (531 and 528, respectively). Between 2007 and 2011, there was a similar rise in the boys’ and girls’ scores (46 score points and 43 score points, respectively).Among Arabic speakers, girls’ scores are clearly higher than those of boys (498 and 463, respectively – a performance gap of 35 score points in favor of girls). This performance gap is similar to that observed in 2007 (30 score points). We can see from here that the improvement in the scores of Arabic-speaking girls is somewhat greater in comparison to the Arabic-speaking boys (62 score points as opposed to 57 score points, respectively). Summary The data for Israel in the TIMSS 2011 study in mathematics and science indicates a marked improvement in the achievements of the Israeli students. The data indicates a rise of around 50 score points (around half a standard deviation) between the parallel scores from the TIMSS 2007 study and those from the current study. After this rise, the Israeli average for the two knowledge domains which were tested – mathematics and science – is at a markedly higher value than the “average for participating countries” (516 for mathematics and 516 for science in Israel, as compared with 467 for mathematics and 477 in science in the “average for participating countries”). These scores place Israel in a high position in the ranking of the participating countries: at 7th place in mathematics, and 13th in science (although still lower than the countries heading the list, which are mostly Far Eastern countries, such as Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore). These increases in the average scores are accompanied by a rise in the rate of students in the two highest proficiency levels (“high achievers” and “outstanding students”), as well as a real decline in the number of students in the lowest proficiency levels (“low achievers” and “below the threshold”). The improvement in scores is evident in both language sectors (Hebrew speakers and Arabic speakers), and for all three socioeconomic backgrounds. However, there is still a relatively high distribution (variance) characterizing Israel’s achievements: a performance gap of around two-thirds of a standard deviation for mathematics, and a smaller performance gap of around half a standard deviation for science. Likewise, performance gaps have remained between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. These gaps stand at about two-thirds of a standard deviation in the Hebrew speaking sector (among students from schools with a high socioeconomic background, and students from schools with a low socioeconomic background) and at about half a standard deviation among Arabic speaking students from schools with a medium socioeconomic background, as opposed to low socioeconomic background which characterizes the majority of this Arabic language sector. The differences in the scores due to socioeconomic background can explain some of the performance gaps between the two language sectors. A multi-year (since 1999) follow-up on the Israeli TIMSS study scores demonstrates that the last decade has been characterized by a rise in the scores of Israel’s students for mathematics and science, with the exception of 2007 when there was a decline in scores. In that year, it would seem that Israel’s achievements were negatively affected by an extended teachers’ strike in junior high schools. The rise in scores for 2011 may be explained by the introduction of the program for promoting achievements two years prior to the TIMSS 2011 study. As part of the program, the Ministry of Education invested additional resources (teaching hours, training, new and updated curricula) with the aim of raising achievement in language, mathematics and science in elementary and secondary schools. The TIMSS 2011 results support the view that the investment in educational resources contributes to raising both the level of knowledge and the mastery of cognitive skills for students in Israel.TIMSS 2011MathematicsSciencePositionCountryScorePositionCountryScore1Korea6131Singapore5902Singapore6112Taiwan5643Taiwan6093Korea5604Hong Kong5864Japan5585Japan5705Finland5526Russia5396Slovenia543Israel – Hebrew speaking5367Russia5427Israel5168Hong Kong5358Finland5149England5339USA509Israel – Hebrew speaking53010England50710USA52511Hungary50511Hungary52212Australia50512Australia51913Slovenia50513Israel51614Lithuania50214Lithuania51415Italy49815New Zealand51216New Zealand48816Sweden50917Kazakhstan48717Italy50118Sweden48418Ukraine50119Ukraine47919Norway49420Norway47520Kazakhstan490Average for participating countries46721Turkey48321Armenia467Israel – Arabic speakers481Israel – Arabic speakers546Average for participating countries47722Romania45822Iran47423United Arab Emirates45623Romania46524Turkey45224United Arab Emirates46525Lebanon?449?25Chile46126Malaysia44026Bahrain45227Georgia?431?27Thailand45128Thailand?427?28Jordan?449?29Macedonia?426?29Tunisia?439?30Tunisia?425?30Armenia43731Chile?416?31Saudi Arabia43632Iran?415?32Malaysia?426?33Qatar?410?33Syria?426?34Bahrain40934Palestinian Authority42035Jordan40635Georgia42036Palestinian Authority?404?36Oman42037Saudi Arabia39437Qatar?419?38Indonesia38638Macedonia40739Syria38039Lebanon40640Morocco?371?40Indonesia40641Oman36641Morocco?376?42Ghana?331?42Ghana306 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download