Abstract
This study examined the individual, class, and school level variability of the students’ science achievement. It was hypothesized that there are school or teacher effects which contribute toward explaining achievement differences, besides the student level differences. Owing to the nested structure of the data in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, we used the Hierarchical Linear Modeling methodology. Besides the significant effect of engagement, the teachers’ teaching certification in science and the topic coverage were both significant factors as were the effect of school SES and availability of remedial and enrichment programs in science. The study makes a contribution to a better understanding of the opportunity to learn variables at classroom and school level in students’ science achievement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson B. J. (1990) Minorities and mathematics: The new frontier and challenges of the nineties. Journal of Negro Education 59(3): 260–272
Angell C., Kjærnsli M., Lie S. (2006) Curricular effects in patterns of student responses to TIMSS science items. In: Howie S. J., Plomp T. (eds) Contexts of learning mathematics and science. Routledge, London, pp 277–290
Butler M. B. (1999) Factors associated with students’ intentions to engage in science learning activities. Journal of research in science teaching 36: 455–473
Chang M., Singh K., Mo Y. (2007) Science engagement and science achievement: Longitudinal models using NELS data. Educational Research and Evaluation 13(4): 349–371
Darling-Hammond L. (1997) The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. The Jossey-Bass Education Series, San Francisco
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. National Research Council (U.S.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Fredricks J. A., Blumenfeld P. C., Paris A. H. (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59–109
Freedman M. P. (1997) Relationships among laboratory instruction, attitudes toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 343–357
Gamoran A., Nystrand M. (1992) Taking students seriously. In: Newmann F. M. (eds) Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 11–61
Guiton G., Oakes J. (1995) Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(3): 323–336
Hayes M. T., Deyhle D. (2001) Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiati. Science Education 85: 239–262
House J. D. (2000) Relationships between instructional activities and science achievement of adolescent students in Hong Kong: Finding from the third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Studies in Educational Evaluation 27: 275–289
Jensen A. R. (1998) The g factor and the design of education. In: Sternberg R. J., Williams W. M. (eds) Intelligence, instruction, and assessment: Theory into practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 111–131
Le V. N., Stecher B. M., Lockwood J. R., Hamilton L. S., Robyn A., Williams V. L. et al (2006) Improving mathematics and science education: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between reform-oriented instruction and student achievement. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
Lee O., Luykx A. (2006) Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Cambridge University Press, New York
Lee V. E. (2000) Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist 35(2): 125–141
Leinhardt G., Seewald A. M. (1981) Overlap: What’s tested, what’s taught?. Journal of Educational Measurement 18(2): 85–96
Li M., Ruiz-Primo M. A., Shavelson R. J. (2006) Towards a science achievement framework: The case of TIMSS 1999. In: Howie S., Plomp T. (eds) Contexts of learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS. Routledge, London
Liew J., McTigue E. M., Barrois L., Hughes J. (2008) Adaptive/effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on literacy and math achievement: A longitudinal study on 1st through 3rd graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23: 515–526
Martin, M. O. (eds) (2005) TIMSS 2003 user guide for the international database. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Mere K., Reiska P., Smith T. M. (2006) Impact of SES on Estonian Students’ Science Achievement across Different Cognitive Domains. Prospects 36(4): 497–516
National Academy of Sciences: National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Department of Education. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health (DHEW), Bethesda, MD.
Newmann F. M., Wehlage G. G., Lamborn S. D. (1992) The significance and sources of student engagement. In: Newmann F. M. (eds) Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 11–39
Oakes J., Gamoran A., Page R. (1992) Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In: Jackson P. W. (eds) Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. Macmillan, New York
Papanastasiou E., Zembylas M. (2004) Differential effects of science attitudes and science achievement in Australia, Cyprus, and the USA. International Journal of Science Education 26: 259–280
Raudenbush S.W., Bryk A.S. (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S., McKnight, C. C. (Winter, 2010–2011). Equality of educational opportunity: Myth or reality in U.S. schooling?. American Educator, 34(4), 12-19.
Schmidt W. H., McKnight C. C., Raizen S. (1997) A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL
Schwartz, W. (1998). Preparing middle school students for a career. http://npin.org/library/1998/n00061/n00061.html.
Singer J. D., Willett J. B. (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sofroniou N., Kellaghan T. (2004) The utility of third international mathematics and science study scales in predicting students’ state examination performance. Journal of Educational Measurement 41(4): 311–329
Stein M. L., Berends M., Fuchs D., McMaster K., Saenz L., Yen L. et al (2008) Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30: 368–388
Venezia, A., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2007). The Unequal Opportunity to Learn in California’s Schools: Crafting Standards to Track Quality (Working Paper 07-2): PACE, Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Wang J. (1998) Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20(3): 137–156
Winfield L. F., Woodard M. D. (1994) Assessment, equity, and diversity in reforming America’s schools. Educational Policy 8(1): 3–27
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mo, Y., Singh, K. & Chang, M. Opportunity to learn and student engagement: a HLM study on eighth grade science achievement. Educ Res Policy Prac 12, 3–19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9126-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9126-5