Download to read offline
Uploaded byChristian Bokhove
Talk for the BSRLM day conference June 2019
1) The document discusses a study that uses TIMSS 2011 data to examine the role of opportunity to learn (OTL) factors in geometry achievement across six countries. 2) It develops a framework called the DOC framework that examines OTL at the national, school/classroom, and student levels, with a focus on curriculum-related variables. 3) Preliminary results show differences between countries in factors like socioeconomic status, homework time, geometry instruction time, and teacher preparedness, and their relationships with achievement vary in complex ways between countries.
More Related Content
Similar to Talk for the BSRLM day conference June 2019
More from Christian Bokhove
Talk for the BSRLM day conference June 2019
- 1. THE ROLE OF‘OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN’ IN THE GEOMETRY CURRRICULUM A multilevel comparison of six countries Dr. Christian Bokhove BSRLM day conference 8 June 2019
- 2. enGasia project • England– Geometry - Asia • British Academy • 3 years International Partnership • England, Japan, Hong Kong Christian Bokhove, University of Southampton, United Kingdom Mikio Miyazaki, Shinshu University, Japan Allen Leung, Hong Kong Baptist University Ida Mok, University of Hong Kong Kotaro Komatsu, Shinshu University, Japan Kimiho Chino, Shinshu University, Japan
- 3. Background • International largescaleassessments like PISA and TIMSS for secondary mathematics • English government looks to Asia • Focus on ‘geometry’ or ‘space and shapes’ as at face value there seem to be a lot of curriculum differences. Even larger gap. UK/ENG JAP HK KOR SGP USA PISA 2012 475 (494) 558 (536) 567 (561) 573 (554) 580 (573) 463 (481) TIMSS 2015 514 (518) 598 (586) 602 (594) 612 (606) 617 (621) 500 (518) TIMSS 2011 498 (507) 586 (570) 597 (586) 612 (613) 609 (611) 485 (509) TIMSS 2007 513 (513) 584 (570) 580 (572) 600 (597) 590 (593) 480 (508)
- 4. Curriculum changes For exampleKey Stage 3 (11-13 yr olds) “understand, from their experience of constructing them, that triangles satisfying SSS, SAS, ASA and RHS are unique, but SSA triangles are not” (DfEE, 1999, p. 38) “use the standard conventions for labelling the sides and angles of triangle ABC, and know and use the criteria for congruence of triangles” (DfE, 2013, p.8)
- 5. Aims of thispart of the study Understand the role of curricular elements in mathematics and science achievement, with a particular emphasis on geometry education, at lower secondary level within and across selected countries in the East and West. 1. Align different frameworks into one framework 2. Use largescale assessment data to explore its application
- 6. Dynamic model • Dynamicmodel of educational effectiveness, as developed by Creemers and Kyriakides (2008) The first implication for our theoretical lens is that we will adopt a multilevel approach in our study.
- 7. Opportunity to Learn •Carroll (1963) • Schmidt and others: greater OTL in mathematics was related to higher student achievement in mathematics. • But many definitions (e.g. see Scheerens et al., 2017). • Interaction with SES We propose that we focus on variables regarding ‘opportunity to learn’ (OTL) in our study. In doing so we should include controls for SES and proxies for quality of instruction.
- 8. TIMSS curriculum framework •Intended • Implemented • Attained • Contrary to PISA has a curriculum focus. We use TIMSS 2011 data in this study because of its curriculum focus.
- 9. DOC framework Dynamic modelOpportunity to learn Curriculum - TIMSS National OTL School and classroom OTL Student OTL
- 10. DOC framework Dynamic modelOpportunity to learn Curriculum - TIMSS National level Curriculum content coverage Intended curriculum Classroom (teacher) and school • Instructional hours in the classroom • Curriculum content coverage • Curriculum content preparation • Degree and experience teacher Implemented curriculum Student Time spent on mathematics Socio-Economic Status Attained curriculum
- 11. Using the model:research questions I. How much of the variance in student achievement is explained by student- and classroom-level OTL curriculum factors within and across the six countries? II. How much are these OTL curriculum factors related to geometry achievement at grade eight in England, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore and the USA?
- 12. Secondary data analysis •TIMSS 2011 • Complex sampling design (Rutkowski et al, 2010) • Weights • Plausible Values • Multilevel models • Multilevel models in HLM 6.08.
- 13. Variables Dependent variables: • 5Plausible Values for Geometry achievement Student level variables: • Home Economic Resources as proxy for SES • Weekly time for homework Classroom (teacher) level variables: • Classroom SES and Homework time • OTL measures: percentage geometry content coverage and mathematics instructional hours per week • Teacher: edulevel, years experience, teachers prepared to teach geometry
- 14.
- 15. Some interesting thingsto note • SES England, Japan, USA comparable. Singapore, Hong Kong slightly lower. Korea much higher. • English, Japanese, Korean students less time homework. • Japan lowest number of mathematics instruction hours, USA highest. • Geometry taught highest in Japan and Korea, lowest England and Singapore. • English teachers feel most prepared to teach geometry, Japanese teachers least. And more…
- 16.
- 17. Some interesting thingsto note • Japan and Korea very little variance at classroom level: homogeneous. • At student level SES positive predictor in Japan, Korea, England, USA. But not Singapore and Hong Kong, likely more homogeneity. • OTL predictors mixed picture. For example: • Homework differential effect student and class level • Geometry content coverage not predictor • Most teacher quality variables not predictor • Instructional hours in Japan
- 18. Conclusions 1 I. Howmuch of the variance in student achievement is explained by student- and classroom-level OTL curriculum factors within and across the six countries? Differs between countries, might reveal heterogeneity.
- 19. Conclusions 2 II. Howmuch are these OTL curriculum factors related to geometry achievement at grade eight in England, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Korea, Singapore and the USA? Geometry content coverage and teacher preparedness no predictors. Teacher variables only here and there. Instructional hours important for Japan. Weekly time spent on homework differential effects but not always intuitive. In short: it’s complex
- 20. Discussion • Interplay SESand OTL (curriculum time) …what can we address? • Definitions of OTL • Academic Learning Time? • Quality of instruction? • Role shadow education • These analyses need to be complemented with more detailed, qualitative data about the curriculum. For example low scores Japan on the task to the right; they only did Pythagoras one year later. Which of these is the reason that triangle PQR is a right angle triangle? A. 32 + 42 = 52 B. 5 < 3 + 4 C. 3 + 4 = 12 – 5 D. 3 > 5 – 4
- 21. Thank you • C.Bokhove@soton.ac.uk •University of Southampton • Twitter: @cbokhove • Website: www.bokhove.net • British Academy IPM-2014 PM130271 project
Editor's Notes
- #2 The recent move towards more 'evidence informed teaching' has seemingly increased the interest of schools in researchers and academia, and of academia in schools. This development presents us with several questions. How can we best organise this relationship? Do teachers need research literacy skills? Why would academia be interested in cultivating teacher-researcher links? This talk will explore these questions and give several examples of research projects, most concerning mathematics in secondary education, where fruitful collaboration between me as researcher and classroom teachers, brought benefits to the school and higher education. I will try to convey what opportunities and chances there are in working together, but also -in light of workload discussions- some of the risks.