SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı:

Examination of TIMSS Mathematics Data with Multilevel Measurement Models in Respect to Content, Cognitive and Topic Areas

Önder KÖKLÜ
Pages
226–240
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Detailed investigation revealed that studentsgenerally fail in procedures in fractions and conversions among fraction,decimal, and percent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research study aims to identify TIMMS 8th grade mathematics itemgroups and the specification of items in which Turkish 8th grade studentshave signıfıcantly lower level of correct responses compared to all other 8thgrade participants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, total 260 (82 from 1999, 88 from 2007,and 90 from 2011) items released by International Association for theEvaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) were grouped according tocognitive, content and sub-content domains.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Detailed investigation revealed that studentsgenerally fail in procedures in fractions and conversions among fraction,decimal, and percent.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This research study aims to identify TIMMS 8th grade mathematics itemgroups and the specification of items in which Turkish 8th grade studentshave signıfıcantly lower level of correct responses compared to all other 8thgrade participants. For this purpose, total 260 (82 from 1999, 88 from 2007,and 90 from 2011) items released by International Association for theEvaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) were grouped according tocognitive, content and sub-content domains. Then, mean correct responsesof released items for each participant country were obtained from IEA’syearly almanac. Finally, data were analyzed by using MultilevelMeasurement Models and differences in achievement levels betweenTurkish 8th graders and their peers from other participating countries werepredicted and tested in the context of item groups. Analysis of data showedthat performance of Turkish students statistically significantly lower thanperformance of students from rest of the other participant countries inNumber (Content Domain)-Fractions and Decimals (Topic Area)-Knowing(Cognitive Domain) item group. Detailed investigation revealed that studentsgenerally fail in procedures in fractions and conversions among fraction,decimal, and percent.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖKLÜ, Ö. (2022). Examination of TIMSS Mathematics Data with Multilevel Measurement Models in Respect to Content, Cognitive and Topic Areas. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı:, 226–240. https://ajindex.com/articles/428358

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Acar, T. (2011). Maddenin Farklı Fonksiyonlaşmasında Örneklem Büyüklüğü: Genelleştirilmiş Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme Uygulaması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 11(1), 279-288.
  2. Bauer D. J. (2003). Estimating Multilevel Linear Models as Structural Equation Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 135-167.
  3. Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A.Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York: Macmillan. Binici, S. (2007). Random-effects differential item functioning via hierarchical generalized linear model and generalized linear latent mixed model: A comparison of estimation methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Birgin, O. & Gürbüz, R. (2009). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Öğrencilerinin Rasyonel Sayılar Konusundaki İşlemsel ve Kavramsal Bilgi Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 529-550.
  4. Bulgar, S. (2003). Children’s sense-making of division of fractions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 319-334.
  5. Carpenter, T. (1988). Teaching as problem solving. In R. Charles, & E. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 187–202).
  6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Chaimongkol, S. (2005). Modeling differential item functioning (dif) using multilevel logistic regression models: A Bayesian Perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Chu KL, Kamata A.(2005). Test equating in the presence of DIF items. Journal of Appl Meas. 6(3):342-54.
  7. Davis, R. B., & Maher, C. A. (1990). What do we do when we ‘do mathematics’? In: N. Noddings (Ed.), Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. Monograph No. 4). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. C. Berliner,& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491–549). New York: Macmillan. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Pauwels, A. (1990). Influence of the semantic structure of word problems on second graders’ eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 359–365.
  8. Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M. S., & Marino, M. S. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1985(16), 3–17.