Why Using International Comparative Math and Science Achievement Data from TIMSS Is Not Helpful

Abstract

Collecting and using international comparative-achievement data is not helpful, even if Canadian and U.S. schools, for instance, far surpass other assessed countries. To use such data reported by the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) researchers for policychanging purposes is a distracting and misleading approach to assessing science and math teaching in any group of countries with widely differing characteristics (Wang 2001). Such global comparative assessments generally serve no productive purpose, because very little useful information can be discovered and reasonably applied to existing school programs. Researchers working for TIMSS-like organizations, such as the Netherlands-based International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA), have provided us with other policy products of much greater usefulness. Canada and the United States reportedly have uninspiring science and math education programs that lack reasonable rigor, based on their students ’ performances on achievements tests when matched with many so-called comparative performances reported by other countries

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.