INITIAL FINDINGS FROM THE

THIRD INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE STUDY – REPEAT

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NCES 2001–028

Pursuing Excellence:

Comparisons of International 

Eighth-Grade Mathematics and

Science Achievement from a U.S.

Perspective, 1995 and 1999

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report December 2000
Pursuing Excellence: 

Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and

Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective,

1995 and 1999

Initial Findings from the 

Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat

Patrick Gonzales

Christopher Calsyn

Leslie Jocelyn

Kitty Mak

David Kastberg

Sousan Arafeh

Trevor Williams

Winnie Tsen

United States TIMSS–R Technical Review Panel

Margaret Cozzens, co-chair Susan Fuhrman, co-chair

Gordon Ambach Jerry Pine

Ruben Carriedo Andrew Porter

Colette Chabbott Francisco Ramirez

Denis P. Doyle Linda Rosen

Ramesh Gangolli William Schmidt

Gerry House* James W. Stigler

Jeremy Kilpatrick Lisa Towne*

Paul Kimmelman Susan Traiman

Shirley Malcom

*through June 2000
U.S. Department of Education 

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data

related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and

report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized

analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign nations.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate

indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education,

the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You,

as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

December 2000

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International EighthGrade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, NCES 2001–028, by Patrick Gonzales,

Christopher Calsyn, Leslie Jocelyn, Kitty Mak, David Kastberg, Sousan Arafeh, Trevor Williams, and Winnie Tsen. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–PUBS or go to the Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Contact: Patrick Gonzales (202) 502–7346

ii
This report, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and

Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, is a collaborative effort by the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and

the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). NCES is responsible for the

analyses presented in this report. Funding for the U.S. portion of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R) was provided by NCES and NSF, with additional funding from OERI.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A report of this nature and scope is never only the work of its authors. There are teams of people

who, behind the scenes, make substantial contributions of content and process that move a

report like this one toward completion. The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to

the design, writing, and production of this report for their thoughtful critique, insightful suggestions, and creativity.

Members of the TIMSS–R Interagency Management Team provided excellent ideas and direction from the start. Members include Janice Earle, Larry Suter, and Elizabeth VanderPutten, of

the National Science Foundation (NSF); Carol Fromboluti, Jill Edwards Staton, and Patricia

Ross of OERI; Laura Lippman, Eugene Owen, and Val Plisko of NCES; and Maggie McNeely,

formerly of OERI and now with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Team

received valuable support from Naoko Kataoka, Jay Moskowitz, Yasmin Shaffi, and Maria

Stephens of the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

Ellen Bradburn of NCES, Laura Salganik of the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI),

and Sally Dillow of AIR provided excellent technical and editorial advice. Invited reviewers who

gave of their time and expertise include the members of the TIMSS–R Technical Review Panel,

Senta Raizen of the National Center for the Improvement of Science Education, John Dossey of

Illinois State University, Mary Lindquist of Columbus State University, and Arnold Goldstein,

Patrick Rooney, Jeffrey Owings, Laura Lippman, and Marilyn McMillen, all of NCES.

Finally, the graphics and layout of the report would not have been possible without the creativity of Brian Henigin and Karen Moyes of Westat.

ON THE COVER: World 2000 mural, Copyright 2000, International Child Art Foundation. Kind

permission to reproduce the artwork was granted by the International Child Art Foundation

(ICAF), a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that nurtures, promotes, and celebrates children’s art and creativity locally, nationally, and internationally. The mural was created

on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on June 30, 1999, by child artists from 50 nations

around the world. The original mural is 16 feet by 24 feet and was created as part of the ChildArt

2000 Festival. For details, visit www.icaf.org.

iv
COMMISSIONER’S STATEMENT

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R) is the latest

chapter in one of the most comprehensive and rigorous international studies of schooling and student achievement ever conducted. TIMSS–R, conducted in 1999, comes four

years after TIMSS, and was designed to focus on the mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade students. NCES and the National Science Foundation (NSF)

supported the United States’ participation in TIMSS–R to provide an update on the

mathematics and science performance of U.S. eighth-grade students originally detailed

in the 1995 TIMSS study. This report, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International

Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999, presents

initial findings on how our eighth-grade students fared on TIMSS–R and whether there

have been significant changes in achievement in the four years since TIMSS.

TIMSS–R addresses the mission of NCES to gather and publish information on the

status and progress of education in the United States and other nations, and continues

the tradition of U.S. participation in international comparative studies of mathematics

and science education since the 1960s. TIMSS–R represents an advancement in traditional studies because it is the first international study specifically designed to track

changes in achievement. The data on mathematics and science achievement collected in

TIMSS–R can be compared to the 1995 TIMSS data to identify changes between the

eighth-grade students of yesterday and today, and relative changes between fourth-grade

students 4 years earlier and their classmates 4 years later. While the same students did

not participate in both studies, a scientific sampling of the two groups of students

provides the most accurate picture available of their mathematics and science performance from an international comparative perspective. Information from TIMSS–R, in

combination with what we have learned from the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), provides an opportunity to take stock of mathematics and science

performance of our students.

One of the most important steps in making good decisions is to have good data.

TIMSS–R fills that need and is one of the many surveys and assessments conducted by

NCES that can be used by U.S. educators, parents, policymakers, and business leaders to

make important decisions that will improve student learning. In addition to data on

student performance, TIMSS–R includes a wealth of information on the context within

which student learning takes place, such as teaching practices, students’ study habits,

teacher training and professional development, and school policies. Taken into consideration with other knowledge about the education systems of participating nations,

TIMSS and TIMSS–R provide a thoughtful and in-depth look into what our eighthgrade mathematics and science teachers teach and what our eighth-grade students learn

in comparison to their counterparts in other nations of the world.

In conclusion, TIMSS–R is a learning experience. The information presented in this

report is presented in a straightforward way, and is not intended to determine whether

U.S. performance is good or bad. Rather, it is intended to provide you, the reader, with 

v
the most accurate and up-to-date information available. The importance of this information, and its impact on American education, will depend on how it is used to improve

our mathematics and science education. My colleagues and I invite everyone dedicated

to enhancing the quality of our nation’s mathematics and science education to make the

fullest possible use of this rich resource.

Gary W. Phillips December 2000

Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics

vi
NSF DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT

It is critical that students in the United States achieve at high levels in mathematics and

science. The position of the U.S. in the world economy, the continuing demand for welltrained mathematicians and scientists, and the need for an informed citizenry able to

make intelligent public-policy decisions about important economic, medical, and environmental issues all depend upon it.

Studies such as TIMSS–R help us place the achievement of U.S. students into an international context and thus provide important additional sources of information for

evaluation of student abilities. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has co-funded

the TIMSS–R study and has actively participated in its management for this reason.

The careful design of the TIMSS–R study provides an opportunity to analyze trends in

the achievement of eighth-grade students in the 23 countries that participated in both

1995 and 1999. The results show that U.S. eighth-grade students continue to perform at

the international average in science and just below the international average in mathematics, with no statistically significant changes in their level of achievement from 1995

to 1999. Indeed, this is true for most of the countries participating in both years,

although some countries (e.g., Canada) did make significant gains. A thorough analysis

of the reasons for these exceptional gains may provide insight into possible strategies for

improving education in the United States.

The timing of TIMSS–R allows us to compare results across grades in the 17 nations that

participated in both the fourth-grade TIMSS in 1995 and the eighth-grade TIMSS–R in

1999. It is disturbing that the international ranking across these 17 nations of the U.S.

eighth-grade students is relatively poor in both mathematics and science when

compared with that of U.S. fourth-graders in 1995. This confirms the disappointing

showing of our eighth-grade students in international comparisons, and demonstrates

that the decline in relative performance during the middle school years is a continuing

and serious problem.

The initial TIMSS study indicated that student achievement is the result of multiple

factors. In schools, curriculum, teacher qualifications, and high expectations for all

students are critical. Other factors, such as the educational resources available to the

family, also may be key to student success. For example, achievement differences found

between student groups or by type of school may be narrowed or eliminated when

parent education and home resources are used in the analyses.

This first TIMSS–R report does not analyze the relationships between contextual variables and student achievement. However, it contains a preliminary comparison of the

U.S. with other nations on a number of factors. For example, U.S. eighth-grade teachers

are less likely to have majors and minors in mathematics and science than their counterparts in most other countries. This finding is consistent with other reports such as

Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission of Mathematics

and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.

vii
We look forward to further analysis of the data in this report, the release of data from 27

U.S. benchmarking jurisdictions that engaged in TIMSS–R as if they were separate

nations, and the companion classroom video studies. These will enrich our understanding of the factors that contribute to the disappointing achievement levels of U.S.

eighth-grade students. Similar detail from the 1995 TIMSS study revealed the importance of rigorous mathematics and science curricula and alerted researchers to the need

for teachers to have deep content knowledge in order to use those curricula successfully

and achieve high standards for all students.

NSF is pleased to have supported this important study and report. The data contained

within the TIMSS–R study will be used for years to understand issues and trends in the

teaching of mathematics and science. Simply said, it is an invaluable resource.

Rita R. Colwell December 2000

Director

National Science Foundation

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Commissioner’s Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

NSF Director’s Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Why are international comparisons of education important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Why a repeat of TIMSS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

What questions does this report address? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

What issues does this report not address? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

What is TIMSS–R? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Which nations participated in TIMSS–R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

How was TIMSS–R conducted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Are the results from TIMSS and TIMSS–R comparable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

How can we be sure the data are comparable across nations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

How does TIMSS–R relate to other large-scale studies of mathematics 

and science achievement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

How is the rest of the report organized? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Chapter 2: Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

What do the test scores mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders in 1999 . . . . . . . . .12

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

What percentage of our students scored at or above the international 

top 10 percent benchmark in 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

What percentage of our students scored at or above the international 

top 25 percent benchmark in 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

How well did U.S. eighth-graders perform in the different content 

areas in 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

What were students asked to do on the TIMSS–R assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

ix
How did different groups of students within the United States perform? . . . . .29

Was there a difference in the mathematics and science achievement of

U.S. eighth-grade boys and girls? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Did the achievement of U.S. students differ by race and ethnicity? . . . . . . . . . .31

Did the achievement of students in U.S. public and nonpublic schools

differ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Did the achievement of U.S. students of different national origins differ? . . . .31

Did the achievement of U.S. students differ by the level of their parents’

education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders Between

1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Did the performance of U.S. eighth-graders change between 1995 

and 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Did the percentage of U.S. students at or above the international 

top 10 percent benchmark change over the 4 years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Did the percentage of U.S. students at or above the international 

top 25 percent benchmark change over the 4 years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Did the performance of U.S. eighth-graders in the content areas 

change between 1995 and 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Did the performance of U.S. population groups change between 

1995 and 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

The Mathematics and Science Achievement of the 1995 Fourth-Grade 

Cohort in 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Has the relative performance of the United States changed between 

fourth and eighth grade over the 4 years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Chapter 3: Teaching and Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Teacher Preparation, Qualifications, and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . .44

What educational backgrounds did our mathematics teachers have

in 1999? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

What educational backgrounds did our science teachers have in 1999? . . . . . .46

How confident were mathematics teachers in their preparation to 

teach mathematics subjects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

How confident were science teachers in their preparation to teach

science subjects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

In what types of professional development activities did our 

mathematics teachers participate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

In what types of professional development activities did our science

teachers participate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Did our mathematics teachers observe one another teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Did our science teachers observe one another teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

x
What topics were emphasized in professional development activities 

for U.S. mathematics teachers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

What topics were emphasized in professional development activities 

for U.S. science teachers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Curriculum, Content Coverage, and Emphases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Who sets the curriculum in TIMSS–R nations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

How much of each TIMSS–R content area did the intended 

U.S. curriculum Cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

How much of the mathematics curriculum was taught? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

How much of the science curriculum was taught? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Which topics were emphasized most in U.S. eighth-grade curricula? . . . . . . . .54

Did the TIMSS–R nations’ curricula accommodate students 

with varying degrees of interests and abilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Classroom Practices and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

What kinds of skills did U.S. mathematics and science teachers 

report asking their students to use during lessons? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

What activities did U.S. students report occurring in their 

mathematics and science classes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

How often did U.S. students use calculators in their mathematics lessons? . . .58

Did students have access to computers and the Internet, and how 

did schools, teachers, and students report using these tools? . . . . . . . . . . .58

How often did U.S. students discuss completed homework or begin 

homework in their mathematics and science classes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

How much time did U.S. students spend studying mathematics or 

doing mathematics homework outside of school? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Chapter 4: Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Appendix 1: TIMSS Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Appendix 2: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Appendix 3: Supporting Data for Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Appendix 4: Supporting Data for Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

Appendix 5: Comparisons of All TIMSS and TIMSS–R Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

xi
LIST OF TABLES

A2.1: Coverage of target population, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

A2.2: Student and school samples and participation rates, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . .78

A2.3: Number of items by item format in main survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

A2.4: Number of mathematics items by content area in main survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

A2.5: Number of science items by content area in main survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

A2.6: Fourth- and eighth-grade nations in TIMSS: 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

A3.1: Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade 

students with standard errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

A3.2: Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade mathematics with 

standard errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

A3.3: Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade science with standard 

errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

A3.4: Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics content areas 

with standard errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

A3.5: Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas with 

standard errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

A3.6: Percent correct on mathematics assessment item examples with 

standard errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

A3.7: Percent correct on science assessment item examples with standard 

errors, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

A3.8: U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement with 

standard errors, by selected characteristics: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

A3.9: Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade 

students with standard errors, by sex, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

A3.10: Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievement with standard 

errors, by nation: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

A3.11: Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement with standard errors,

by nation: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

A3.12: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSS–R

1999 top 10 percent international benchmark of mathematics 

achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

A3.13: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSS–R 

1999 top 10 percent international benchmark of science 

achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

A3.14: Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areas with

standard errors: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

xii
A3.15: Comparisons of percent correct in science content areas with standard errors:

1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

A3.16: U.S. mathematics and science achievement with standard errors,

by selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

A3.17: Mathematics achievement of TIMSS–R 1999 nations that participated in 

1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to the average

across these nations with standard errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

A3.18: Science achievement of TIMSS–R 1999 nations that participated in 

1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to the average 

across these nations with standard errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

A4.1: Organization of science instruction at grade 8, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

A4.2: Eighth-grade mathematics teachers’ reports of their main area

of study with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

A4.3: Eighth-grade science teachers’ reports of their main area of study

with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

A4.4 Teachers’ beliefs about their preparation to teach mathematics and 

science with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

A4.5: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by teachers that 

participated in professional development activities that emphasized

different topics with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

A4.6: Percentages of eighth-grade students “taught” mathematics content 

areas with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

A4.7: Percentages of eighth-grade students “taught” science content areas

with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

A4.8: Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of selected activities

in their mathematics class “almost always” or “pretty often” with 

standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

A4.9: Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of selected activities

in their science class “almost always” or “pretty often” with 

standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

A4.10: Eighth-grade students’ reports of access to computers and the Internet 

with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

A4.11: Eighth-grade students’ reports of using computers in mathematics 

and science classes “almost always” or “pretty often” with standard 

errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

A4.12 Eighth-grade students’ reports of discussing or beginning homework 

in mathematics and science classes “almost always” or “pretty often”

with standard errors: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

A5.1 Mathematics and science achievement of TIMSS–R and TIMSS

nations with standard errors: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Participation in TIMSS and TIMSS–R: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Figure 2: Average mathematics and science achievement of eighth-grade 

students, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 3: Percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the TIMSS–R 1999 

top 10 percent in mathematics and science achievement,

by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 4: Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics content

areas, by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figure 5: Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas,

by nation: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 6: Example mathematics item 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Figure 7: Example mathematics item 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 8: Example mathematics item 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Figure 9: Example mathematics item 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Figure 10: Example mathematics item 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Figure 11: Example science item 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Figure 12: Example science item 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Figure 13: Example science item 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Figure 14 Example science item 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Figure 15: Example science item 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Figure 16: Example science item 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Figure 17: U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,

by selected characteristics: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Figure 18: Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievement, by nation:

1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 19: Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement, by nation: 1995

and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Figure 20: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade mathematics students 

reaching the TIMSS–R 1999 top 10 percent in mathematics 

achievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Figure 21: Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade science students reaching 

the TIMSS–R 1999 top 10 percent in science achievement,

by nation: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Figure 22: Changes in U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,

by U.S. selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

xiv
Figure 23: Mathematics achievement for TIMSS–R 1999 nations that 

participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades

relative to the average across these nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Figure 24: Science achievement for TIMSS–R 1999 nations that participated

in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to the 

average across these nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Figure 25: Eighth-grade mathematics teachers’ reports on their main area 

of study: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Figure 26: Eighth-grade science teachers’ reports on their main area of

study: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Figure 27: Teachers’ beliefs about their preparation to teach mathematics 

and science: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Figure 28: Percentages of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by teachers that 

participated in professional development activities that 

emphasized different topics: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Figure 29: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students “taught” mathematics 

content areas: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Figure 30: Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students “taught” science content 

areas: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Figure 31: Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of selected activities 

in their mathematics class “almost always” or “pretty often”: 1999 . . . . . .56

Figure 32: Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of selected activities 

in their science class “almost always” or “pretty often”: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . .57

Figure 33: Eighth-grade students’ reports of access to computer and the 

Internet: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Figure 34: Eighth-grade students’ reports on using computer in mathematics 

and science classes “almost always” or “pretty often”: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Figure 35: Eighth-grade students’ reports of discussing or beginning homework

in mathematics and science classes “almost always” or 

“pretty often”: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

xv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S.

Department of Education’s Office of Educational

Research and Improvement (OERI), and the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

joined together to support the participation of the

United States in the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat

(TIMSS–R), a successor to the 1995 Third

International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS).1 The joint research effort has produced

rich information on the mathematics and science

performance of U.S. eighth-grade students. This

report, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of

International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and

Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995

and 1999 presents initial findings from the

TIMSS–R study.

Why are international 

comparisons of education

important?

International comparisons of student achievement and various background factors related to

teaching and learning have been conducted for

over 30 years. Many observers believe that such

comparisons can help policymakers, researchers,

teachers, and parents understand what other

nations do to further the educational achievement

of their populations. Some also believe that if the

United States wants to remain internationally

competitive, we need to better understand how

our students perform in critical areas such as

mathematics and science. Moreover, some are of

the opinion that international assessments are one

way of seeing what our national, state, and local

standards mean in a world context. In short, international assessments can expand comparisons of

educational achievement to other systems outside

the United States; aid in our understanding of the

possible reasons for observed differences in

achievement; document the many varied education and learning practices around the world; get a

sense of resources available to students in different

nations; and improve the study of education itself

(Board on International Comparative Studies in

Education, 1990; Medrich and Griffith 1992).

Why a repeat of TIMSS?

The series of NCES reports on the 1995 TIMSS

study described the mathematics and science

performance of U.S. students in comparison to

their peers at three different grade levels (NCES

1996, 1997c, 1998, 2000a).2 The 1995 TIMSS

assessments revealed that U.S. fourth-graders

performed well in both mathematics and science

in comparison to students in other nations, U.S.

eighth-grade students performed near the international average in both mathematics and science,

and U.S. twelfth-graders scored below the international average and among the lowest of the TIMSS

nations in mathematics and science general

knowledge, as well as in physics and advanced

mathematics.

The participation of the United States in TIMSS

heightened the nation’s interest in improving

mathematics and science education. Although

work on improving mathematics and science

education began years before TIMSS, results from

TIMSS have had an impact on the way the United

States thinks about mathematics and science

education (Welch 2000).

TIMSS–R continues the tradition of international

comparative study of mathematics and science

education begun in the 1960s. The contribution of

TIMSS–R is unique, however, because its design

makes it possible to track changes in achievement

and certain background factors from the earlier

TIMSS study—a first for any international study.

Moreover, TIMSS–R is the first international

assessment that provides some indication of the

pace of educational change across nations,

informing expectations as to what can be

achieved. TIMSS–R provides valuable information

on the state of education in the United States and

other nations in 1999.

Thirty-eight nations chose to compare the mathematics and science performance of their students

in 1999. However, unlike TIMSS, the 1999

TIMSS–R study focused on eighth-grade students

only. TIMSS–R allows the United States to

compare the achievement of its eighth-graders in

2

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

1TIMSS collected data during the 1994–95 school year. TIMSS–R collected data during the 1998–99 school year. For convenience,

reference will be made to 1995 and 1999, respectively, throughout this report.

2See appendix 1 for a brief list of TIMSS-related publications.
the original TIMSS to the scores of its eighthgraders four years later in TIMSS–R. It also

provides an opportunity for the United States to

compare the relative performance of a cohort of

fourth-graders in 1995 to the relative performance

of a cohort of eighth-graders 4 years later in 1999.3

In short, TIMSS–R should help us understand the

overall progress that our schools, teachers, and

students are making toward achieving excellence

in mathematics and science.

What questions does this

report address?

This report highlights initial findings on the

performance of U.S. eighth-grade students relative

to students in other nations on the TIMSS–R

assessment. This report also describes the mathematics and science performance of students in

participating nations at two points in time: 1995

and 1999.

In general, this report addresses the following

questions:

■ How does the mathematics and science

knowledge of U.S. eighth-grade students

compare to that of students in other nations?

■ Has the level of mathematics and science

knowledge of eighth-grade students changed

since 1995, and has the relative international

standing of U.S. eighth-grade students

changed in the 4 years since the original

TIMSS?

■ How does the relative performance of U.S.

eighth-grade students in 1999 compare to the

relative performance of U.S. fourth-grade

students 4 years earlier, in 1995?

■ How do nations compare on educationrelated background factors studied in

TIMSS–R? 

Performance in the United States is presented

relative to that of other nations that participated

in each assessment.4 Comparisons in this report

are made among the 38 nations that participated

in TIMSS–R in 1999; among 23 nations that

participated in both TIMSS and TIMSS–R at the

eighth-grade level; and among the 17 nations that

participated at the fourth-grade level in TIMSS

and at the eighth-grade level in TIMSS–R.5 This

report is based on the comparative data published

in the reports TIMSS 1999 International

Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of

the Third International Mathematics and Science

Study at the Eighth Grade (Mullis et al. 2000) and

TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings

from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade

(Martin et al. 2000).

What issues does this report

not address?

Findings from comparisons between the results of

TIMSS and TIMSS–R cannot be interpreted to

indicate the success or failure of mathematics and

science reform efforts in the United States.

TIMSS–R was designed to specifications detailed

in the TIMSS curriculum frameworks (Robitaille

et al. 1993). International experts developed the

TIMSS curriculum frameworks to portray the

structure of the intended school mathematics and

science curricula from many different nations, not

specifically the United States. Thus, when interpreting the findings, it is important to take into

account the mathematics and science curricula

likely encountered by U.S. students in school.

TIMSS and TIMSS–R results are most useful when

they are considered in light of other knowledge

about education systems, including not only

curricula, but also factors such as trends in education reform, changes in the school-age

populations, and societal demands and expectations.

3

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

3Comparisons of fourth- and eighth-graders between TIMSS and TIMSS–R are made on the basis of two sets of cross-sectional,

nationally representative samples.

4Participants in TIMSS and TIMSS–R are referred to as nations throughout the text. However, several of the participants are not

independent jurisdictions, as is the case for Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region (SAR), Belgium-Flemish, and Chinese

Taipei.

5Throughout the text “grade 8” refers to the middle-school grade sampled for TIMSS-R as well as the higher of the two middleschool grades sampled for TIMSS; “grade 4” refers to the higher of the two elementary school grades sampled for TIMSS. This is

an accurate characterization of the samples for the United States and many of the other nations. Detailed information on the grades

sampled can be found in appendix 2 of this report for TIMSS–R and in Beaton et al. (1996a and 1996b) for TIMSS.
Change efforts in the United States began years

before TIMSS and TIMSS–R. These efforts to

create change in U.S. schools have been undertaken at the state and local levels, making it

difficult to determine by solely examining

national-level statistics the extent to which these

efforts have been implemented and the degree and

depth of the changes made. The 4 years between

TIMSS and TIMSS–R is a relatively short amount

of time to expect to see significant change. Finally,

this report focuses on variability in achievement

among nations. It is important to keep in mind

that the range of achievement observed among

nations could also be expected to be observed

within the United States (NCES 1997a and 1997b;

Johnson and Siegendorf 1998). Thus, as will be

shown later in the report, there are U.S. eighthgrade students who perform among the

top-performing students in the world, and there

are U.S. eighth-grade students who perform

among the lowest performing students in the

world.

This report should also not be construed to

suggest that specific school policies, professional

development techniques, instructional practices,

curricula or change strategies, or combinations of

these will lead to higher levels of achievement. The

factors that may contribute to high achievement

can vary from nation to nation. Nonetheless,

TIMSS–R provides valuable information that can

help the United States reflect on its own performance relative to other nations as we strive to

improve educational opportunities for all

students.

What is TIMSS–R?

TIMSS–R is the fourth comparison of mathematics and science achievement carried out by the

International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement (IEA). IEA conducted

studies of mathematics and science as separate

subjects at various times during the 1960s, 1970s,

and 1980s. The United States participated in each

of these studies. The Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) collected

data during the 1994–95 school year. TIMSS

provided an update on the performance of U.S.

students in mathematics and science during the

mid-1990s and a starting point for a regular cycle

of international assessments in mathematics and

science. Funded by the U.S. Department of

Education, NSF, the Government of Canada, the

World Bank, and participating nations, TIMSS

was the first IEA study to combine both mathematics and science in the same assessment. TIMSS

was also the largest and most comprehensive

international study of educational achievement

ever undertaken.

TIMSS–R follows the earlier TIMSS study by 4

years and focused on the mathematics and science

achievement of eighth-grade students. Most

importantly perhaps, TIMSS–R provides a second

data point in a regular cycle of international

assessments of mathematics and science that are

planned to chart trends in achievement over time,

much like the regular cycle of national assessments

in this nation, such as the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), or longitudinal

studies such as the National Educational

Longitudinal Study (NELS:88).

The United States sponsored three additional

components of TIMSS–R that will enrich our

knowledge of education in an international

context:

■ TIMSS–R Benchmarking Project—Twentyseven states, districts, and consortia of

districts throughout the United States participated as their own “nations” in this project,

following the same guidelines as the participating nations. When the findings from the

Benchmarking Project are released in April

2001, these 27 participating jurisdictions will

be able to assess their comparative international standing and judge their mathematics

and science programs in an international

context.

■ Videotape Classroom Study—the first TIMSS

Videotape Classroom Study examined eighthgrade mathematics teaching in three nations.

Building on the work of the first TIMSS videotape study (Stigler et al. 1999), the TIMSS–R

Videotape Classroom Study has been

expanded in scope to examine national

samples of eighth-grade mathematics and

science instructional practices in seven

nations. The study is designed to present

national-level portraits of mathematics and

science teaching practices that can provide a

more detailed context for understanding

4

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
mathematics and science teaching and

learning in the classroom. The first set of

results from the Videotape Classroom Study is

anticipated in late 2001.

■ NAEP/TIMSS–R Linking Study—A subsample of students taking the 2000 state NAEP

mathematics and science assessment also took

the TIMSS–R assessment. This provides an

opportunity to compare students’ performance on NAEP to their performance on

TIMSS–R, and allows for estimates of how

states participating in NAEP 2000 would have

performed had they participated in TIMSS–R.

Results from the TIMSS–R Benchmarking

Project will be used to check the results of this

linking study. Results will be released in late

2001.

With many states and districts creating content

and performance standards targeted at boosting

student achievement to “world class” levels in

mathematics and science, the Benchmarking

Project can provide reliable data on how state and

district students compare internationally in these

areas. Results from the TIMSS–R Videotape

Classroom Study should also add to our understanding of mathematics and science instructional

practices in nations with high student achievement levels on assessments such as TIMSS.

Findings from the NAEP/TIMSS–R Linking Study

will provide states the opportunity to compare

their students to their peers in other nations.

Which nations participated in

TIMSS–R?

The IEA invited all nations that participated in the

1995 TIMSS as well as other nations to participate

in the 1999 TIMSS–R. Interested nations met at

international meetings where study plans and

guidelines were discussed. Thirty-eight nations

collected data for TIMSS–R, including 26 that had

participated in TIMSS and 12 that were participating for the first time. Therefore, depending on the

analysis, the number of nations being compared

between TIMSS and TIMSS–R will change. The 38

nations that participated in TIMSS–R are shown

in figure 1. In addition, figure 1 lists the nations

that participated in both TIMSS and TIMSS–R.

How was TIMSS–R conducted?

The IEA, a Netherlands-based organization of

education and research institutions from its

member nations, conducted TIMSS–R. The IEA

delegated responsibility for the overall coordination and management of the project to the

International Study Center at Boston College. The

United States, the World Bank, and participating

nations paid for and carried out data collection

according to international guidelines.

NCES and NSF funded the collection of data in

the United States and also contributed toward

support of the international project. OERI has

contributed additional funding towards the U.S.

portion of the study. Westat, Inc., a private

research firm, handled the data collection in the

United States under contract to the Department of

Education. To help guide the study, NCES and

NSF established a TIMSS–R Technical Review

Panel (TRP). The members of the TRP are experts

in mathematics and science education, assessment, and international comparative studies.

TIMSS–R included two types of data collection

instruments: mathematics and science assessment

items in multiple-choice (77 percent) and freeresponse (23 percent) formats; and school,

teacher, and student questionnaires that requested

information to help provide a context for the

performance scores. An international panel of

assessment and content experts, following the

same assessment framework established for

TIMSS, developed the mathematics and science

items in TIMSS–R. Like the TIMSS assessment

items, the TIMSS–R items represent a range of

mathematics and science topics that are included

in the curricula of many different nations and,

thus, not aligned to any particular curriculum. See

appendix 2 for more details on the composition of

the TIMSS and TIMSS–R assessments and how

the achievement scores were derived.

5

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
6

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.—Participation in TIMSS and TIMSS–R: 1995 and 1999

TIMSS-R nations (1999)

8th grade

TIMSS-R nations that

participated at 8th grade in

TIMSS (1995)

TIMSS-R nations that

participated at 4th grade in

TIMSS (1995)

Australia Australia Australia

Belgium-Flemish1 Belgium-Flemish1

Bulgaria Bulgaria

Canada Canada Canada

Chile

Chinese Taipei

Cyprus Cyprus Cyprus

Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic

England England England

Finland

Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong SAR

Hungary Hungary Hungary

Indonesia

Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of

Israel Israel

Italy Italy2 Italy2

Japan Japan Japan

Jordan

Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic of

Latvia-LSS3 Latvia-LSS3 Latvia-LSS3

Lithuania Lithuania

Macedonia, Republic of

Malaysia

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands

New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand

Philippines

Romania Romania

Russian Federation Russian Federation

Singapore Singapore Singapore

Slovak Republic Slovak Republic

Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia

South Africa South Africa

Thailand Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

United States United States United States

Total 

Nations 38 26 17

1The Flemish and French educational systems in Belgium participated separately in TIMSS 1995. The Flemish

 educational system in Belgium participated in TIMSS-R 1999.

2Italy was unable to provide the International Study Center at Boston College with its data in time for these data to be

 included in the international reports for both the fourth and eighth grade in TIMSS 1995. However, its data for

 TIMSS 1995 are included in this report.

3Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

NOTE: Only nations that completed the necessary steps for their data to appear in the reports from the International

Study Center at Boston College are listed.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit A.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
The questionnaires asked for information on

topics such as students’ attitudes and beliefs about

learning, study habits and homework, and their

lives both in and outside of school; teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning,

teaching assignments, class size and organization,

instructional practices, and participation in

professional development activities; and principals’ viewpoints on policy and budget

responsibilities, curriculum and instruction

issues, student behavior problems, as well as

descriptions of the organization of schools and

courses.

Both public and nonpublic school students in all

participating nations received the TIMSS–R

assessments and questionnaires. Most nations,

including the United States, conducted the assessment 2 to 3 months before the end of the 1998–99

school year. Students with special needs and

disabilities that would make it very difficult for

them to take the test were excused from the assessment as accommodations were not offered in

TIMSS–R in the United States. Each participating

nation documented such exclusions, including the

United States. Each nation translated the assessments and questionnaires into the primary

language or languages of instruction. In the

United States, all materials were in English. The

student assessment portion required approximately one and a half hours to complete.

All participating nations drew nationally representative samples of students. In the United States, the

sample consisted of 221 schools and 9,072 eighthgrade students, which ensured a representative

sample of eighth-grade students in the United

States as a whole. Detailed information on

sampling is provided in appendix 2.

Are the results from TIMSS

and TIMSS–R comparable?

The data collected for TIMSS in 1995 and the data

collected for TIMSS–R in 1999 are comparable

because comparability was built into the design

and implementation. Through a careful process of

review, analysis, and refinement, the assessment

and questionnaire items were purposefully developed and field tested for similarity and for reliable

comparisons between TIMSS and TIMSS–R. After

careful review of all available data, including a test

for item reliability between old and new items, the

TIMSS and TIMSS–R assessments were found to

be very similar in format, content, and difficulty

level. Moreover, TIMSS and TIMSS–R data are on

the same eighth-grade scale to allow for reliable

comparisons between the two eighth-grade

cohorts over time. Procedures for conducting the

assessments were the same. Appendix 2 contains

more detailed information on these and other

technical aspects of TIMSS–R.

How can we be sure the data

are comparable across

nations?

TIMSS–R continues the tradition of fair and

accurate international comparisons of student

achievement and other educational factors. It is

not a comparison of other nations’ best students

to our nation’s average students. Moreover,

through the refinement of the scaling process that

allows comparisons within and across nations, the

TIMSS and TIMSS–R achievement scores can be

reliably compared. To ensure the comparability of

data across nations, the International Study

Center at Boston College instituted a series of

strict quality-control procedures. National school

and student samples were rigorously reviewed for

bias and international comparability by the

TIMSS–R Sampling Referee. A professional translation agency verified the accuracy of translated

materials. Project coordinators in each nation

received thorough training in data collection and

scoring procedures and their work was monitored

for scoring reliability. Quality control staff

conducted site visits in each participating nation

during the testing period to further ensure that

international data collection procedures were

followed. Data from each nation were extensively

reviewed for internal and cross-country consistency.

Nations collected data from a representative

national sample of students, but were permitted to

supplement their student samples to allow for the

analysis of data by variables of national interest. To

obtain reliable comparisons among nations, the

data were appropriately weighted to account for

sampling designs. Sampling and participation rate

7

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
irregularities arose in some nations. These irregularities are clearly noted in this and other

TIMSS–R reports. The United States met all international sampling and participation guidelines.

More detailed information on quality control can

be found in appendix 2 and the TIMSS 1999

Technical Report from Boston College (Martin and

Gregory 2000).

Finally, it should be noted that in addition to the

38 nations that participated in TIMSS–R in 1999,

this report separately discusses the 23 that participated in TIMSS at the eighth-grade level,6 and the

17 TIMSS-R nations that participated in TIMSS at

the fourth-grade level (see figure 1).7 In order to

make a fair comparison of how U.S. eighth-grade

students in 1999 compared to the eighth-graders

of 1995 or the fourth-graders of 1995, analyses

were conducted only among those nations that

participated in both TIMSS and TIMSS–R.

How does TIMSS–R relate to

other large-scale studies of

mathematics and science

achievement?

TIMSS–R is one of several large-scale studies

designed to examine the mathematics and science

performance of students. Two other large-scale

studies of mathematics and science achievement

are the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) and the Program for

International Student Assessment (PISA). NAEP is

an ongoing program that has reported on the

mathematics and science achievement of U.S.

students for some 30 years. PISA is a relatively new

international project and will report results for the

first time in late 2001. These three assessments

were designed with different purposes in mind,

and this is evident in the types of assessment items

as well as the content areas and topics covered in

each assessment.

TIMSS–R and NAEP assess students at the eighth

grade. TIMSS–R is based on the curricula that

students in participating nations are likely to have

encountered by grade 8, while NAEP is based on

an expert consensus of what students in the

United States should know and be able to do in

various academic subjects at that grade. PISA, on

the other hand, focuses on 15-year-old students

(most often tenth-graders in the United States)

and is designed to measure students’ mathematics

and science literacy—that is, students’ ability to

respond to “real life” situations both in and

outside of school. In contrast, TIMSS–R and

NAEP tend to focus on mathematics and science

as it is generally presented in classrooms and textbooks.

All three assessments cover a range of mathematics and science content areas and topics, but to

different degrees. In mathematics, for example,

TIMSS–R appears to place more emphasis on

number sense, properties and operations than the

other two studies; PISA tends to emphasize data

analysis more than the other two studies; and

NAEP appears to distribute its focus across the

content areas included in its assessment framework more than the other two studies. In science,

TIMSS–R appears to emphasize physical sciences

more than the other two assessments; PISA seems

to have a stronger emphasis on earth science than

TIMSS–R and NAEP; and NAEP appears to

distribute most science items among three content

areas: physical science, earth science, and life

science. As findings from these studies are

released, it is important to understand the differences and similarities among them to be able to

make sense of the findings in relation to each

other.

8

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

6Twenty-six nations participated in the eighth-grade level in TIMSS 1995 and TIMSS–R 1999. Three of the 26 nations—Israel, South

Africa, and Thailand—experienced significant difficulties with meeting international sampling or participation guidelines in 1995.

Therefore, these 3 nations are not included in analyses comparing achievement at the eighth-grade level between 1995 and 1999,

nor are they included in the international averages associated with these comparative analyses.

7Of the 42 nations that participated in TIMSS 1995 at the eighth-grade level, 26 also participated in TIMSS–R. Of the 26 nations

that participated in TIMSS 1995 at the fourth-grade level, 17 also participated in TIMSS–R. See table A2.6 in appendix 2 for a complete list of nations.
How is the rest of the report

organized?

The remainder of the report includes three additional chapters and several appendices:

Chapter 2 describes the relative performance of

U.S. eighth-grade students in mathematics and

science in comparison to their peers in participating nations. The chapter is divided into three

sections. First, achievement results for TIMSS–R

are described for the United States and the other

37 participating nations, including overall mathematics and science achievement, achievement in

five mathematics content areas and six science

content areas, and proportions of students in the

top 10 percent and top 25 percent of all students.

Sample mathematics and science items are

included to acquaint the reader with the TIMSS–R

assessment. The second section focuses on the 23

nations that participated in TIMSS and TIMSS–R

at the eighth-grade level, describing changes in

mathematics and science achievement over the 4

intervening years. The third section compares the

17 nations that participated in fourth-grade

TIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSS–R, examining

changes in the relative standing of the U.S. 1995

fourth-graders and 1999 eighth-graders.

Chapter 3 focuses on the education-related

contextual factors related to teaching and curriculum that were examined in TIMSS–R. The

chapter is divided into four sections. The first 

section describes mathematics and science teacher

preparation, qualifications, and ongoing professional development activities. The next section

examines the curriculum in the participating

nations, including the topics covered and emphasized in mathematics and science lessons. The

third section provides information on classroom

practices as reported by teachers and students.

The chapter ends with a brief discussion of how

much time eighth-grade students spend studying

mathematics and science outside of school.

Chapter 4 discusses future directions that the

analyses of TIMSS and TIMSS–R data could take.

Several appendices are included in this report to

provide additional information on the technical

aspects of the study as well as more detailed information on the analyses presented in the main

chapters of the report.

In addition to the text of this report, supplemental

information is provided in the five appendices.

Appendix 1 contains a selection of publications

that have been produced in relation to TIMSS

1995. Appendix 2 discusses several technical

aspects of the TIMSS and TIMSS–R studies. The

tables in Appendices 3 and 4 provide additional

information on the figures in Chapters 2 and 3,

respectively. Lastly, Appendix 5 provides a supplemental table containing comparisons of

mathematics and science achievement of the 54

nations that participated at the eighth-grade level

in either TIMSS, TIMSS–R, or both studies.

9

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

KEY POINTS

In 1999, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the international average in mathematics and science among

the 38 participating nations. 

Between 1995 and 1999, there was no change in eighth-grade mathematics or science achievement

in the United States. Among the 22 other nations, there was no change in mathematics achievement

for 18 nations, and no change in science achievement for 17 nations. 

There was an increase in mathematics achievement among U.S. eighth-grade black students between

1995 and 1999. There was no change in science achievement for this group of students over the

same period. U.S. eighth-grade white and Hispanic students showed no change in their mathematics

or science achievement over the 4 years.

No differences in performance were found between U.S. eighth-grade girls and boys in mathematics

in 1999, but boys outperformed girls in science.

The relative performance of the United States in mathematics and science was lower for eighthgraders in 1999 than it was for the cohort of fourth-graders 4 years earlier in 1995. 
As indicated in the previous chapter, the primary

intent of conducting TIMSS in 1995 and

TIMSS–R in 1999 was to take the first step in

measuring change in both achievement and

educational context at the international level. This

chapter describes the mathematics and science

achievement of students in the participating

nations. It is divided into three main sections, in

the following order:

■ findings for the 38 nations that participated in

TIMSS–R;

■ findings for the 23 nations that participated at

the eighth grade in both TIMSS and

TIMSS–R1; and

■ findings for the 17 nations that participated at

the fourth grade in TIMSS and eighth grade in

TIMSS–R.

To assist the reader, the number of nations being

compared in each analysis will be made explicit.

This is important, as the number of nations

included in the international average can vary

depending on the frame of reference in the

analysis.

What do the test scores mean? 

TIMSS–R test scores are on a scale of 1 to 1,000,

with a standard deviation of 100.2 TIMSS–R test

scores indicate where on the scale a group of

students would fall. In general, the higher the

score on TIMSS or TIMSS–R, the more items

correctly answered by a larger percentage of a

nation’s students. The lower the score on TIMSS

or TIMSS–R, the fewer items correctly answered

by a larger percentage of a nation’s students.

TIMSS and TIMSS–R used item response theory

to create the scale scores. The scales used in TIMSS

and TIMSS–R account for differences in the difficulty of items and allow students’ performance to

be summarized on a common metric. The scales

are thus a simplified method for making comparisons between nations. The scales measure

achievement on mathematics and science items

judged by international experts to be appropriate

for eighth-grade students in the participating

nations. Thus, higher performance indicates that

students are more proficient at middle-school

mathematics or science.

For all analyses presented in this report, differences between averages or percentages that are

statistically significant are discussed using

comparative terms such as “higher” and “lower.”

Differences that are not statistically significantly

are discussed as “similar to” or “not different

from” each other. To determine whether differences reported are statistically significant,

two-tailed t-tests, at the .05 level, were used.

Bonferroni adjustments are made when more than

two groups are compared simultaneously (e.g.,

black, white, and Hispanic students).

THE MATHEMATICS AND

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF

EIGHTH-GRADERS IN 1999

This section presents results for the 38 nations that

participated in TIMSS–R in 1999.

National averages for mathematics and science

from the 1999 TIMSS–R assessment are presented,

beginning with figure 2. Though tempting, it is

not correct to report U.S. scores by rank. This is

because the process of estimating each nation’s

score from the sample of students who took the

test produces only an estimate of the range within

which the nation’s real score lies. To conduct a fair

comparison of the United States to other nations,

nations are grouped according to whether their

performance is higher than, not different from, or

lower than the United States, given the margin of

error for the survey. Nations with a national

average higher than the U.S. average are indicated

in the uppermost band of shading. Nations with a

national average lower than the U.S. average are

12

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

1Twenty-six nations participated in TIMSS and TIMSS–R at the eighth grade. Of the 26 nations, 3 nations experienced significant

irregularities in their participation in 1995: Israel, South Africa, and Thailand. Findings for the other 23 nations are reported here.

2Because the standard deviation is 100, raw differences between scores can be translated into effect sizes by dividing the raw difference by the standard deviation. For example, if the raw difference between the scores of two nations is 75, this translates to an effect

size of 0.75 in TIMSS–R. The TIMSS–R scale was developed once a majority of nations had submitted data. At that time, the mean

was set to 500, with a standard deviation of 100. Once the remaining data was submitted by nations, it was fitted to the developed

scale, resulting in an actual mean slightly different than 500.
indicated in the lowermost band of shading.

Nations with a national average not different from

the U.S. average are shown unshaded and, for the

most part, lie between these shaded areas. Note

that the international average—the average of the

national average scores for all nations combined—

can be compared to the U.S. average in the same

way as a national average and is shaded to indicate

the significance of the difference.

13

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 2.—Average mathematics and science achievement of eighthgrade students, by nation: 1999

MATHEMATICS SCIENCE

Nation Average Nation Average

Singapore 604 Chinese Taipei 569

Korea, Republic of 587 Singapore 568

Chinese Taipei 585 Hungary 552

Hong Kong SAR 582 Japan 550

Japan 579 Korea, Republic of 549

Belgium-Flemish 558 Netherlands 545

Netherlands 540 Australia 540

Slovak Republic 534 Czech Republic 539

Hungary 532 England 538

Canada 531 Finland 535

Slovenia 530 Slovak Republic 535

Russian Federation 526 Belgium-Flemish 535

Australia 525 Slovenia 533

Finland1 520 Canada 533

Czech Republic 520 Hong Kong SAR 530

Malaysia 519 Russian Federation 529

Bulgaria 511 Bulgaria 518

Latvia-LSS2 505 United States 515

United States 502 New Zealand 510

England 496 Latvia-LSS2 503

New Zealand 491 Italy 493

Lithuania3 482 Malaysia 492

Italy 479 Lithuania3 488

Cyprus 476 Thailand 482

Romania 472 Romania 472

Moldova 469 (Israel) 468

Thailand 467 Cyprus 460

(Israel) 466 Moldova 459

Tunisia 448 Macedonia, Republic of 458

Macedonia, Republic of 447 Jordan 450

Turkey 429 Iran, Islamic Republic of 448

Jordan 428 Indonesia 435

Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 Turkey 433

Indonesia 403 Tunisia 430

Chile 392 Chile 420

Philippines 345 Philippines 345

Morocco 337 Morocco 323

South Africa 275 South Africa 243

International 

average of 38 nations 487 International average of 38 nations 488

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average

Average does not differ significantly from the U.S. average

Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average

1The shading of Finland may appear incorrect; however, statistically, its placement is correct.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics

and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International

Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
How well did U.S. eighthgraders perform in 1999?

In mathematics, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the

international average, outperforming their peers

in 17 of the 37 other TIMSS–R nations, performing similarly to students in 6 nations, and

performing lower than their peers in 14 nations.

In 1999, the U.S. average score was 502, with other

nations’ average mathematics scores ranging from

604 for Singapore to 275 for South Africa. Among

the top performing nations in 1999 were five Asian

industrialized nations—Singapore, Korea,

Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, and Japan.

Comparisons with five of the Group of Eight (G8)

nations are possible as well: in 1999, the United

States performed significantly better in mathematics than Italy, performed similarly to England,

but was outperformed by Japan, Canada, and the

Russian Federation.3

In science, U.S. eighth-graders exceeded the international average, outperforming their peers in 18

of the 37 other nations, performing similarly to

students in 5 nations, and performing lower than

their peers in 14 nations. In 1999, the U.S. average

score was 515, with other nations’ average science

scores ranging from 569 for Chinese Taipei to 243

for South Africa. Among the top performing

nations in science were four Asian industrialized

nations—Chinese Taipei, Singapore, Korea, and

Japan—and Hungary. Comparisons with other

participating G8 nations show that the United

States performed significantly better than Italy,

performed on par with the Russian Federation,

but performed lower than Japan, England and

Canada.

When looking across mathematics and science

achievement in 1999, 12 nations outperformed the

United States in both subjects: Australia, BelgiumFlemish, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Finland,

Hungary, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,

Singapore, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia.

Likewise, three nations performed similarly to the

United States in both subjects: Bulgaria, LatviaLSS, and New Zealand. Finally, U.S. eighth-graders

outperformed their peers in 17 nations across

both mathematics and science in 1999.4

What percentage of our

students scored at or above

the international top 10

percent benchmark in 1999?

Average achievement scores indicate how the

average student performs, but say little about the

performance of the nation’s students at different

levels. International benchmarks were devised to

provide a view of what proportion of a nation’s

students scored at or near various levels of

achievement. These international benchmarks

give a general indication of the relative distribution of scores within and across nations. For

example, if a nation has a high average score and a

large percentage of its students at or above the

upper international benchmarks, this indicates

that the nation’s students are concentrated among

the highest achieving students internationally.

TIMSS–R uses four benchmarks: the top 10

percent, the top 25 percent, the upper 50 percent,

and the upper 75 percent. Each benchmark is

based on all eighth-graders from all 38 nations in

1999. This report discusses two benchmarks in

detail: the top 10 percent benchmark, which refers

to the cutoff score that separates the top 10

percent of all students in 1999, and the similar top

25 percent benchmark. In 1999, the top 10 percent

of all students scored 616 or higher in mathematics and 616 or higher in science (data not shown).

The top 25 percent of all students scored 555 or

higher in mathematics and 558 or higher in

science (data not shown). Detailed information on

these two benchmarks, as well as the upper 50 and

upper 75 percent benchmarks, is found in tables

A3.2 (mathematics) and A3.3 (science) in

appendix 3.

14

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

3The United Kingdom, a member of the G8, is represented here by the score for England. France and Germany, the other two members of the G8, did not participate in TIMSS–R.

4An analysis of the overall mathematics and science achievement of the 54 nations that participated in TIMSS or TIMSS–R is provided in appendix 5.
15

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

In mathematics, 9 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

scored 616 or higher, placing them among the top

10 percent of all eighth-graders in the 38 nations

in 1999. This is a lower percentage of students

than in 8 nations, a similar percentage as in 13

nations, and a higher percentage than in 16

nations (figure 3). In contrast, 46 percent of

Singapore’s eighth-grade students scored 616 or

higher in mathematics in 1999. Among the five

participating G8 nations, only Japan had a significantly higher percentage of students who scored at

or above the international top 10 percent benchmark (33 percent) than the United States in

mathematics.

Figure 3.—Percentages of eighth-grade students reaching the 

TIMSS-R 1999 top 10 percent in mathematics and science

achievement, by nation: 1999

MATHEMATICS SCIENCE

Nation Percent Nation Percent

Singapore 46 Singapore 32

Chinese Taipei 41 Chinese Taipei 31

Korea, Republic of 37 Hungary 22

Hong Kong SAR 33 Korea, Republic of 22

Japan 33 England 19

Belgium-Flemish 23 Australia 19

Hungary 16 Japan 19

Slovenia1 15 Russian Federation 17

Russian Federation 15 Czech Republic 17

Netherlands 14 Netherlands 16

Slovak Republic 14 Slovenia 16

Australia 12 United States 15

Malaysia 12 Finland 14

Canada 12 Slovak Republic 14

Czech Republic 11 Bulgaria 14

Bulgaria 11 Canada 14

United States 9 New Zealand 12

New Zealand 8 Belgium-Flemish 11

Latvia-LSS2 7 Hong Kong SAR 10

England 7 Italy 7

Finland 6 Latvia-LSS2 7

Romania 5 (Israel) 7

Italy1 5 Malaysia 6

(Israel)1 5 Romania 6

Thailand 4 Lithuania3 6

Lithuania3 4 Jordan 4

Moldova 4 Moldova 4

Cyprus 3 Macedonia, Republic of 4

Jordan 3 Thailand 3

Macedonia, Republic of 3 Cyprus 2

Indonesia 2 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2

Turkey 1 Indonesia 1

Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 Chile 1

Chile 1 Turkey 1

Tunisia 0 Philippines 1

South Africa 0 South Africa 0

Philippines 0 Tunisia 0

Morocco 0 Morocco 0

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average

Average does not differ significantly from the U.S. average

Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average

1The shading of Italy, Israel, and Slovenia in mathematics may appear incorrect; however, statistically, their placement is correct.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics

and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International

Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
In science, 15 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

scored 616 or higher, placing them among the top

10 percent of all students internationally in 1999.

This was a lower percentage of students than in 4

nations, a similar percentage as in 13 nations, and

a higher percentage than in 20 nations (figure 3).

In contrast, 32 percent of Singapore’s eighth-grade

students scored 616 or higher in science in 1999.

Among the five participating G8 nations, none

had a significantly higher percentage of students

who scored at or above the international top 10

percent benchmark than the United States in

science.

What percentage of our

students scored at or above

the international top 25

percent benchmark in 1999?

An examination of the top 25 percent international benchmark offers yet another opportunity

to understand the performance of our eighthgrade students in mathematics and science in

1999. In mathematics, 28 percent of U.S. eighthgrade students scored 555 or higher, placing them

among the top 25 percent of all students internationally in 1999. This was a lower percentage than

in 11 nations, a similar percentage as in 9 nations,

and a higher percentage than in 17 nations. In

contrast, 75 percent of eighth-grade students in

Singapore scored 555 or higher in mathematics in

1999.

In science, 34 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

scored 558 or higher, placing them among the top

25 percent of all students internationally in 1999.

This was a lower percentage than in 5 nations, a

similar percentage as in 13 nations, and a higher

percentage than in 19 nations. In contrast, 58

percent of eighth-grade students in Chinese Taipei

scored 558 or higher in science in 1999.

How well did U.S. eighthgraders perform in the

different content areas in

1999?

An overall score is a useful summary of general

mathematics and science performance. However,

mathematics and science comprise a range of

content areas that can be conceptually distinct,

differ in levels of complexity, enter the curriculum

at different times, and be taught by different

teachers in separate courses. TIMSS–R assessed

five mathematics and six science content areas:

Mathematics5

■ Fractions and number sense

■ Measurement 

■ Data representation, analysis, and probability 

■ Geometry

■ Algebra 

Science

■ Earth science

■ Life science

■ Physics

■ Chemistry

■ Environmental and resource issues

■ Scientific inquiry and the nature of science

U.S. eighth-graders’ average score was higher than

the international average in three of the five mathematics content areas assessed in 1999: fractions

and number sense; data representation, analysis,

and probability; and algebra. They performed at

the international average in measurement and

geometry.

Figure 4 displays mathematics content area scores

for all 38 nations based on the TIMSS–R assessment. Six nations outperformed the United States

across all five mathematics content areas in 1999:

Belgium-Flemish, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong

SAR, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. New Zealand is

the only nation in TIMSS–R that performed

simiarly to the United States in all five content

areas. Seven nations performed below the United

States in all five mathematics content areas: Chile,

16

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

5TIMSS 1995 included proportionality among the mathematics content areas. After careful consideration, the proportionality items

were redistributed among several of the other mathematics content areas for the TIMSS and TIMSS–R data.
17

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 4.

—Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics content areas, by nation: 1999

Fractions and number sense Measurement Data representation, analysis, and probability Geometry Algebra

Nation Average Nation Average Nation Average Nation Average Nation AverageSingapore 608 Singapore 599 Korea, Republic of 576 Japan 575 Chinese Taipei 586Hong Kong SAR 579 Korea, Republic of 571 Singapore 562 Korea, Republic of 573 Korea, Republic of 585Chinese Taipei 576 Hong Kong SAR 567 Chinese Taipei 559 Singapore 560 Singapore 576Korea, Republic of 570 Chinese Taipei 566 Japan 555 Chinese Taipei 557 Japan 569Japan 570 Japan 558 Hong Kong SAR 547 Hong Kong SAR 556 Hong Kong SAR 569Belgium-Flemish 557 Belgium-Flemish 549 Belgium-Flemish 544 Belgium-Flemish 535 Belgium-Flemish 540Netherlands 545 Hungary 538 Netherlands 538 Slovak Republic 527 Hungary 536Canada 533 Netherlands 538 Slovenia 530 Bulgaria 524 Russian Federation 529Malaysia 532 Slovak Republic 537 Finland 525 Latvia-LSS1 522 Slovak Republic 525Finland 531 Czech Republic 535 Australia 522 Russian Federation 522 Slovenia3 525Slovenia 527 Australia 529 Slovak Republic 521 Netherlands 515 Canada3 525Hungary 526 Russian Federation 527 Canada 521 Czech Republic 513 Netherlands 522Slovak Republic 525 Slovenia 523 Hungary 520 Canada 507 Australia 520Australia 519 Canada 521 Czech Republic 513 Slovenia 506 Czech Republic 514Russian Federation 513 Finland 521 England 506 Australia 497 Bulgaria 512United States 509 Malaysia 514 United States 506 497 United States 506Czech Republic 507 England 507 Russian Federation 501 Lithuania2 496 Malaysia 505Bulgaria 503 Latvia-LSS1 505 New Zealand 497 Finland 494 Latvia-LSS1 499England 497 Italy 501 Latvia-LSS1 495 Hungary 489 England 498Latvia-LSS1 496 Bulgaria 497 Lithuania2 493 Romania 487 Finland 498New Zealand 493 New Zealand 496 Bulgaria 493 Thailand 484 New Zealand 497Cyprus 481 Romania 491 Malaysia 491 Cyprus 484 Lithuania2 487Lithuania2 479 United States 482 Italy 484 Tunisia 484 Italy 481(Israel) 472 Moldova 479 Thailand 476 Italy 482 Romania 481Thailand 471 Cyprus 471 Cyprus 472 Moldova 481 (Israel) 479Italy 471 Lithuania2 467 (Israel) 468 New Zealand 478 Cyprus 479Moldova 465 Thailand 463 Romania 453 United States 473 Moldova 477Romania 458 (Israel) 457 Moldova 450 England 471 Macedonia, Republic of 465Tunisia 443 Macedonia, Republic of 451 Tunisia 446 (Israel) 462 Thailand 456Iran, Islamic Republic of 437 Tunisia 442 Turkey 446 Macedonia, Republic of 460 Tunisia 455Macedonia, Republic of 437 Jordan 438 Macedonia, Republic of 442 Jordan 449 Jordan 439Jordan 432 Turkey 436 Jordan 436 Iran, Islamic Republic of 447 Iran, Islamic Republic of 434Turkey 430 Chile 412 Iran, Islamic Republic of 430 Indonesia 441 Turkey 432Indonesia 406 Iran, Islamic Republic of 401 Chile 429 Turkey 428 Indonesia 424Chile 403 Indonesia 395 Indonesia 423 Chile 412 Chile 399Philippines 378 Philippines 355 Philippines 406 Morocco 407 Morocco 353Morocco 335 Morocco 348 Morocco 383 Philippines 383 Philippines 345South Africa 300 South Africa 329 South Africa 356 South Africa 335 South Africa 293International average  of 38 nations 487 International average of 38 nations 487 International average of 38 nations 487 International average of 38 nations 487 International average of 38 nations 487

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. averageAverage does not differ significantly from the U.S. averageAverage is significantly lower than the U.S. average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.3The shading of Slovenia and Canada may appear incorrect; however, statistically, their placement is correct.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit

3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Malaysia
Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, the Philippines, South

Africa, and Turkey.Geometry and measurement are

the content areas in which the United States

performed lowest in terms of the number of

nations that outperformed the United States, but

the U.S. average was similar to the international

average in both content areas.

In interpreting these results, it is important to

consider the mathematics content areas and topics

that students have likely encountered in the years

leading up to and including eighth grade. For

example, if students in the United States were not

provided the opportunity to learn a particular

mathematics topic or content area by the time of

the assessment, it would be less likely that the

students would perform well in comparison to

their international peers in that area. Information

on the coverage of mathematics content areas, as

well as many other aspects of eighth-grade mathematics teaching and learning, is discussed in the

next chapter.

U.S. eighth-graders’ average score was higher than

the international average in five of the six science

content areas assessed in 1999: earth science; life

science; chemistry; environmental and resource

issues; and scientific inquiry and the nature of

science. They performed at the international

average of the 38 nations in physics.

Figure 5 displays science content area scores for

the 38 TIMSS–R nations in 1999. As with mathematics, the international performance of nations

differs when examining science by the six science

content areas. The international performance of

the United States is highest for life science; environmental and resource issues; and scientific inquiry

and the nature of science. Only two nations scored

higher than the United States in each of these

three content areas. Chinese Taipei outperformed

the United States in five of the six content areas,

however. As in mathematics, New Zealand is the

only nation that performed similarly to the United

States across all six content areas in science.

Finally, 12 nations performed below the United

States in all six science content areas: Chile,

Cyprus, Iran, Jordan, Macedonia, Moldova,

Morocco, the Philippines, Romania, South Africa,

Tunisia, and Turkey. Physics was the science

content area that the United States performed

lowest in terms of the number of nations that

outperformed the United States, but the U.S.

average was similar to the international average.

As with mathematics, it is important to understand the context within which science learning

occurs when interpreting these results. This

includes the science content areas and topics that

students have likely encountered in their science

lessons. Information on the coverage of the six

science content areas, as well as many other

aspects of eighth-grade science teaching and

learning, is covered in the following chapter.

18

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT
19

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 5.

—Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas, by nation: 1999

Earth science Life science Physics Chemistry Environmental and resource issues Scientific inquiry and the nature of science

Nation Average Nation Average Nation Average Nation Average Nation Average Nation AverageHungary 560 Chinese Taipei 550 Singapore 570 Chinese Taipei 563 Singapore 577 550Slovenia 541 544 Chinese Taipei 552 Hungary 548 567 Korea, Republic of 545Chinese Taipei 538 Singapore 541 Japan 544 Singapore 545 Australia 530 Japan3 543Slovak Republic 537 Netherlands 536 Korea, Republic of 544 Finland 535 Netherlands 526 Chinese Taipei 540Netherlands 534 Slovak Republic 535 Hungary 543 530 Korea, Republic of 523 England 538Japan 533 Hungary 535 Netherlands 537 Bulgaria 527 Canada 521 Australia 535Belgium-Flemish 533 Belgium-Flemish 535 Australia 531 Slovak Republic 525 Slovenia 519 Netherlands 534Czech Republic 533 Japan 534 Belgium-Flemish 530 England 524 Hong Kong SAR 518 Canada 532Korea, Republic of 532 England 533 Russian Federation 529 Korea, Republic of 523 England 518 Hong Kong SAR 531Russian Federation 529 Australia 530 England 528 Russian Federation 523 Czech Republic 516 Finland 528

525 Korea, Republic of 528 Czech Republic 526 Canada 521 Finland 514 Belgium-Flemish 526

Singapore 521 Canada 523 Slovenia 525 Australia 520 Belgium-Flemish 513 Hungary 526Finland 520 Slovenia 521 Hong Kong SAR 523 Hong Kong SAR 515 Slovak Republic 512 United States 522Bulgaria 520 Finland 520 Canada 521 Netherlands 515 United States 509 Czech Republic 522Australia 519 United States 520 Finland 520 Czech Republic 512 Thailand 507 New Zealand 521Canada 519 Russian Federation 517 Slovak Republic 518 Slovenia 509 Japan 506 Slovenia 513Hong Kong SAR 506 Hong Kong SAR 516 Lithuania2 510 United States 508 New Zealand 503 Slovak Republic 507New Zealand 504 Bulgaria 514 Bulgaria 505 Belgium-Flemish 508 Malaysia 502 Latvia-LSS1 495United States 504 Latvia-LSS1 509 New Zealand 499 New Zealand 503 Hungary 501 Russian Federation 491Italy 502 Thailand 508 United States 498 Italy 493 Russian Federation 495 Italy 489Latvia-LSS1 495 New Zealand 501 Latvia-LSS1 495 Latvia-LSS1 490 Latvia-LSS1 493 Malaysia 488Malaysia 491 Lithuania2 494 Malaysia 494 Iran, Islamic Republic of 487 Italy 491 Lithuania2 483Lithuania2 476 Italy 488 (Israel) 484 Lithuania2 485 Indonesia 489 Bulgaria 479Romania 475 Malaysia 479 Italy 480 Malaysia 485 483 (Israel) 476(Israel) 472 Moldova 477 Thailand 475 Jordan 483 Jordan 476 Moldova 471Thailand 470 Romania 475 Romania 465 Romania 481 Cyprus 475 Cyprus 467Moldova 466 Cyprus 468 Macedonia, Republic of 463 Macedonia, Republic of 481 Romania 473 Macedonia, Republic of 464Macedonia, Republic of 464 Macedonia, Republic of 468 Cyprus 459 (Israel) 479 Iran, Islamic Republic of 470 Thailand 462Cyprus 459 (Israel) 463 Jordan 459 Cyprus 470 Tunisia 462 Romania 456Iran, Islamic Republic of 459 Jordan 448 Moldova 457 Moldova 451 Turkey 461 Tunisia 451Jordan 446 Indonesia 448 Indonesia 452 Tunisia 439 Lithuania2 458 Iran, Islamic Republic of 446Tunisia 442 Turkey 444 Iran, Islamic Republic of 445 Thailand 439 (Israel) 458 Indonesia 446Chile 435 Tunisia 441 Turkey 441 Turkey 437 Chile 449 Turkey 445Turkey 435 Iran, Islamic Republic of 437 Chile 428 Chile 435 Moldova 444 Chile 441Indonesia 431 Chile 431 Tunisia 425 Indonesia 425 Macedonia, Republic of 432 Jordan 440Philippines 390 Philippines 378 Philippines 393 Philippines 394 Morocco 396 Philippines 403Morocco 363 Morocco 347 Morocco 352 Morocco 372 Philippines 391 Morocco 391South Africa 348 South Africa 289 South Africa 308 South Africa 350 South Africa 350 South Africa 329International average of38 nations 488 International average of 38 nations 488 International average of 38 nations 488 International average of 38 nations 488 International average of 38 nations 488 International average of 38 nations 488

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. averageAverage does not differ significantly from the U.S. averageAverage is significantly lower than the U.S. average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.3The shading of Japan may appear incorrect; however, statistically, its placement is correct.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

England

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Japan

Chinese Taipei

Singapore
What were students asked 

to do on the TIMSS–R 

assessment?

This section contains an example test item from

each of the five mathematics and six science

content areas assessed in 1999. Included are both

multiple-choice and free-response item formats.

Each example item is introduced with a brief

description, the content area it represents, the

correct answer or an example of a written

response that was marked as correct, the U.S.

percent correct, and the international average

percent correct.

Information on the percent correct for each of the

38 TIMSS–R nations is provided in tables A3.6

(mathematics example items) and A3.7 (science

example items) in appendix 3.

Figure 6 shows an example of a mathematics item

that relates to fractions and number sense. This

item asked students to choose the expression that

best estimated the sum of two three-digit

numbers using rounding. Ninety-three percent of

U.S. students correctly chose B as the answer. The

international average was 80 percent.

20

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 6.—Example mathematics item 1

The sum 691 + 208 is closest to the sum

A. 600 + 200

B. 700 + 200

C. 700 + 300

D. 900 + 200

Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 93 International average: 80

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

o
In this example of a measurement item (figure 7),

students were asked to find the area of a rectangle

contained in a given parallelogram. Thirty-four 

percent of U.S. students correctly answered this

item, while the international average was 43

percent.

21

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.9. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 7.—Example mathematics item 2

The figure shows a shaded rectangle inside a parallelogram.

What is the area of the shaded rectangle in square centimeters?

8-3 = 5

Answer: _______________________ 20 cm

4 4 . 5=20

5

Correct answer: 20 cm2 U.S. percent correct: 34 International average: 43

3 cm

8 cm 5

4 cm
Figure 8 is an example of an item from the data

representation, analysis, and probability content

area. In this item, students were asked to determine which of the two magazines was less

expensive, given the number of issues and cost of

each issue. In order to receive full credit for this 

item, students had to calculate the cost of 24 issues

for each magazine and arrive at the answer of Teen

Life being 3 ceds less expensive than Teen News. In

the United States, 26 percent of students received

full credit for this item; the international average

was 24 percent.

Chris plans to order 24 issues of a magazine. He reads the following advertisements

for two magazines. Ceds are the units of currency in Chris’ country.

Which magazine is the least expensive for 24 issues? How much less expensive?

Show your work.

20 18

x 3 x 3.5 - - $60 .90

+540

-

$63.0

3 ceds cheaper

Correct answer: Teen Life, 3 ceds cheaper U.S. percent correct: 26 International average: 24

22

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 8.—Example mathematics item 3

Teen Life

Magazine

24 issues

First four issues FREE

The remaining issues

3 ceds each.

Teen News

Magazine

24 issues

First six issues FREE

The remaining issues

3.5 ceds each.

2

4
Figure 9 is an example of an item from the

geometry content area. In this item, students were

asked to determine the measure of the fourth

angle of a quadrilateral, given the measurements

of the other three (figure 9). In order to correctly

answer this item, students needed the knowledge

that the sum of the four angles of a quadrilateral

always equals 360 degrees. Twenty percent of U.S.

students answered this item correctly. The international average was 40 percent.

Figure 10, an algebra item, asked students to determine the number of girls and the number of boys

in the fictitious club, given the total number of

members and the information that there were 14

more girls than boys. Full credit was given if

students gave the correct response of 36 boys and

50 girls and showed their work. Numerical, algebraic, and “guess and check” methods were all

accepted for full credit. Twenty-nine percent of

U.S. students received full credit on this item. The

international average was 33 percent.

A club has 86 members, and there are 14 more girls than boys. 

How many boys and how many girls are members of the club?

Show your work.

x+(14+x) = 86 86 -36 =50

2x+14 = 86

2x+14-14=86 - 14

- -

2x = 72

2 2

x = 36

There are 36 boys and 50 girls .

Correct answer: 36 boys and 50 girls U.S. percent correct: 29 International average: 33

23

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 9.—Example mathematics item 4

In a quadrilateral, each of two angles has a measure of 115o. If the 

measure of a third angle is 70o, what is the measure of the remaining angle?

A. 60o

B. 70o

C. 130o

D. 140o

E. None of the above

Correct answer: A U.S. percent correct: 19 International average: 40

o

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 10.—Example mathematics item 5
On the diagram, hills and valleys are shown by means of contour lines. Each

contour line indicates that all points on the line have the same elevation above

sea level.

In which direction does the river flow?

A. Northeast

B. Southeast

C. Northwest

D. Southwest

E. It is not possible to tell from the map.

Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 48 International average: 37

Figure 11 is an example of an earth science item.

This item asked students to read a contour map

and determine which direction a river is flowing.

In the U.S., 48 percent of students answered this

item correctly; the international average was 37

percent.

24

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 11.—Example science item 1

N

River

150 m

125 m

100 m

75 m

50 m

25m

100 m

75 m

50 m

25m

LAKE

o
In this life science item, students were given a food

web and asked to explain the effects of one part of

the web on another part (figure 12). Specifically,

they were asked to describe the consequences of

crop failure on the population of robins. Several

types of responses were given full credit. For

example, students could have answered that the

robin population would decrease due to predators 

eating more robins if mice die. They could have

also answered that the robin population would

increase based on predators dying due to lack of

food (mice). Other feasible explanations, such as

the robin population being unaffected because

mice would find other sources of grain, were also

given full credit.

25

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 12.—Example science item 2

Look at the food web above. If the corn crop failed one year what would most

likely happen to the robin population? Explain your answer.

The population would go down because, the mice

eat corn and if there is no corn for the mice

to eat they will die and if the mice die the

snake will have to eat more robins to stay

alive .

U.S. percent correct: 35 International average: 26

Sunlight

Corn Mouse

Oak tree Caterpillar

Snake

Robin

Hawk
Figure 13 shows an example of a science item that

relates to physics. Given data on fuel consumption

and work accomplished, students were asked to

determine and explain which of two machines was

more efficient by converting the information into 

common units or measures that could then be

compared. Thirty percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students answered both parts of this item

correctly. The international average was 31

percent.

26

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 13.—Example science item 3

Volume of Water Gasoline Used

Removed in 1 Hour in 1 Hour

(liters) (liters)

Machine A 1000 1.25

Machine B 500 0.5

B

Machine A and Machine B are each used to pump water from a river. The table

shows what volume of water each machine removed in one hour and how much

gasoline each of them used.

a) Which machine is more efficient in converting the energy in gasoline to work?

Answer:__________________________

b) Explain your answer:

l000 -: l.25 = 800

500 -: .5 = l000

Machine B is more efficient

because for every liter of gasoline

used it removed l000L of water.

With lL of gasoline Machine A

only removes 800L of water.

Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 30 International average: 31
Figure 14 shows an example of a science item that

relates to chemistry. This item asked students to

recall that when exposed to moisture and oxygen,

iron rusts, and that painting the iron could

prevent this reaction from happening. Sixty-six

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students correctly

answered this item. The international average was

67 percent.

In figure 15, an environmental and resource issues

item, students were asked to choose the best explanation for why insecticides become ineffective

over time. Sixty-two percent of U.S. students

answered this item correctly; the international

average was 48 percent.

27

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 14.—Example science item 4

Paint applied to an iron surface prevents the iron from rusting. Which ONE of

the following provides the best reason?

A. It prevents nitrogen from coming in contact with the iron.

B. It reacts chemically with the iron.

C. It prevents carbon dioxide from coming in contact with the iron.

D. It makes the surface of the iron smoother.

E. It prevents oxygen and moisture from coming in contact with the iron.

Correct answer: E U.S. percent correct: 66 International average: 67

o

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 2.13. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 15.—Example science item 5

Insecticides are used to control insect populations so that they do not destroy the crops. 

Over time, some insecticides become less effective at killing insects, and new

insecticidesmust be developed. What is the most likely reason insecticides become 

less effective over time?

A. Surviving insects have learned to include insecticides as a food source.

B. Surviving insects pass their resistance to insecticides to their offspring.

C. Insecticides build up in the soil.

D. Insecticides are concentrated at the bottom of the food chain.

Correct answer: B U.S. percent correct: 62 International average: 48

o
Figure 16 is an example of an item that relates to

scientific inquiry and the nature of science. In this

item, students were asked to describe a procedure

that could be used to determine the time it takes

for a person’s heart rate to return to normal after

exercising. They were also asked to list the materials needed for their procedure. In order to receive

full credit, students needed to include all of the 

following: somebody (or self) measuring

“normal” pulse rate with a timer or watch; having

the subject exercise; and measuring the time

interval between the completion of exercise and

the pulse rate returning to “normal.” Twenty-one

percent of U.S. students answered this item

correctly. The international average was 12

percent.

28

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 16.—Example science item 6

Suppose you want to investigate how long it takes for the heart rate to return to

normal after exercising. What materials would you use and what procedures

would you follow?

Materials

-

Stop watch

procedure

-

l. check heart rate

2. exercise

3. stop exercising, begin timing

4. check heart rate. when heart rate returns to original rate, stop timing.

U.S. percent correct: 21 International average: 12
How did different groups of

students within the United

States perform?

Comparisons of U.S. population group performance are common in the literature on student

achievement, especially comparisons by sex and

race/ethnicity. The Condition of Education (NCES

2000b), the Digest of Education Statistics (NCES

1999), Science and Engineering Indicators–2000

(National Science Board 2000), and the various

reports associated with each NAEP assessment

(e.g., NCES 1997a, 1997b, and 2000c) routinely

provide comparisons of the achievement of

selected population groups.

Population groups tend to be defined by demographic attributes such as sex, race/ethnicity,

language, and the like. Interest in the comparative

performance of population groups reflects a

concern that all students—regardless of race,

ethnicity, sex, or family background, among other

things—receive equitable educational opportunities. A national average score cannot describe the

range of achievement within a nation and whether

patterns of performance are associated with different subgroups.

The analyses that follow focus on five categories of

population groups in the United States; these

groups are defined by: sex, race/ethnicity, national

origin of parents, level of parental education, and

type of school attended.6 These analyses examine

the relationship between specific group characteristics and achievement. These are preliminary

analyses of the data from TIMSS–R. Future

analyses will examine the same relationships while

accounting for other factors.

Figure 17 shows the average mathematics and

science performance for the population groups

noted above. The results of testing the statistical

significance of the difference between group

averages are described to the right of the group

averages.7

Was there a difference in the

mathematics and science

achievement of U.S. eighthgrade boys and girls?

In mathematics, there was no evidence of a difference in achievement between U.S. eighth-grade

boys and girls in 1999. The average score for girls

was similar to the average score for boys. Of the

other nations in 1999, only four—the Czech

Republic, Iran, Israel, and Tunisia—showed differences in the achievement of boys and girls in

mathematics, all in favor of boys (see table A3.9,

appendix 3 for details).

In science, U.S. eighth-grade boys outperformed

eighth-grade girls in 1999. In all, the United States

and 15 other nations showed differences between

the average achievement of boys and girls, and all

differences favored boys.8 Twenty-two nations

showed no differences between boys and girls in

science. In addition to the United States, Canada,

Chile, Chinese Taipei, the Czech Republic,

England, Hungary, Iran, Korea, Latvia-LSS,

Lithuania, the Netherlands, Russian Federation,

Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Tunisia showed

differences in science achievement between boys

and girls (see table A3.9, appendix 3).

The TIMSS–R findings in mathematics are consistent with other studies conducted at this grade

level, such as NAEP (NCES, 1997a, 2000c). The

TIMSS–R findings for the United States in science

differ from the most recent results for NAEP and

long term trend NAEP (NCES, 1997b, 2000c)

where no difference in science achievement was

found between eighth-grade boys and girls.

Reasons for the different results in TIMSS–R and

NAEP may relate to the differences in the science

topics and content areas emphasized in the two

assessment frameworks and the relationship of the

frameworks to U.S. science curricula through the

eighth grade. Differences and similarities between 

29

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

6Data are analyzed based on students’reports of sex, race/ethnicity, national origin of parents, and level of parental education. Data

on type of school attended based on school sample.

7Other factors are not controlled for in these analyses.

8Readers may recall that there was no difference found in TIMSS 1995 between the science performance of U.S. eighth-grade boys

and girls (NCES 1996). As a result of rescaling the TIMSS data, the data show that U.S. eighth-grade boys outperformed girls in

science in 1995.
30

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 17.—U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement,

by selected characteristics: 1999

Characteristics Mathematics

average

Science

average Significance

Sex

Boys 505 524 Boys and girls performed similarly in mathematics. Boys

Girls 498 505 outperformed girls in science.

Race/ethnicity

White students 525 547 White students outperformed black and Hispanic students

in mathematics and science. Black and Hispanic students 

performed similarly to each other in mathematics. 

Hispanic students outperformed black students in science.

Black students 444 438

Hispanic students 457 462

Public/nonpublic school

Public 

school students 498 510

Nonpublic school students outperformed public school

Nonpublic students in mathematics and science.

school students 526 548

National origin of parents

Both U.S. born 510 527 In mathematics and science, students whose parents were

both U.S. born outperformed students whose parents were

both foreign born. In mathematics and science, students

whose parents were both U.S. born and students with one

U.S. born parent and one foreign born parent performed

similarly. In science, students with one U.S. born parent

and one foreign born parent outperformed students whose

parents were both foreign born.

Both foreign born 477 472

1 U.S. born, 

1 foreign born 496 509

Mother’s education

High school or less 484 499 In mathematics and science, students whose mothers

completed college outperformed students whose mothers

completed high school or less. In mathematics and science,

students whose mothers completed college outperformed

students whose mothers attended some college. In

mathematics and science, students whose mothers

attended some college outperformed students whose

mothers completed high school or less.

Some college 511 525

Completed college 539 554

Father’s education

High school or less 482 495 In mathematics and science, students whose fathers

completed college outperformed students whose fathers

completed high school or less. In mathematics and science,

students whose fathers completed college outperformed

students whose fathers attended some college. In

mathematics and science, students whose fathers attended

some college outperformed students whose fathers

completed high school or less.

Some college 512 529

Completed college 543 560

NOTE: Other factors are not controlled for in these analyses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabluations, 1999.
TIMSS–R and NAEP, as well as PISA, are discussed

in chapter 1. A more thorough analysis of

TIMSS–R science data for U.S. boys and girls may

reveal important insights into the differences

noted here.

Did the achievement of U.S.

students differ by race and

ethnicity?

Studies have regularly shown that white students

outperform the two largest minority groups in the

United States—namely, black students and

Hispanic students—in mathematics and science.

TIMSS-R results and other large-scale studies,

such as NAEP (NCES 1997a, 1997b, and 2000c),

present a similar picture of the achievement of

eighth-grade white students, black students, and

Hispanic students in the United States. In 1999,

the average score for white students was higher

than for either black students or Hispanic students

in mathematics. Black students and Hispanic

students performed similarly (see figure 17).

In science, the average 1999 score for U.S. eighthgrade white students was higher than for either

black students or Hispanic students, and Hispanic

students outperformed black students (see figure

17). The research literature offers several explanations for differences in the performance of

particular populations, generally suggesting that

various forms of inequality of opportunity result

in differences in achievement (Wilson 1987 and

1996; Jencks and Phillips 1998). These possible

explanations are not explored in the analyses

presented here.

Did the achievement of

students in U.S. public and

nonpublic schools differ? 

In both mathematics and science in 1999, the

average achievement score of U.S. eighth-grade

nonpublic school students was higher than the

average of their peers in U.S. public schools (figure

17).9 Competing explanations for differences in

the achievement of public and nonpublic students

in the United States are found in the research literature. One possible explanation is that the two

types of schools differ in the quality of the education offered to students (Coleman, Hoffer, and

Kilgore 1981, 1982). The rationale here is that

higher quality offerings lead to higher achievement. Another possible explanation offered in the

literature is that differences in achievement

between public and nonpublic school students are

the result of differences in the socioeconomic

status of the students recruited into each type of

school (Jimenez and Lockheed 1991). The rationale behind this argument is that different

opportunities for learning are created or nurtured

among students from different socioeconomic

backgrounds. The findings for public and

nonpublic students from TIMSS–R are consistent

with findings from NAEP (NCES 1997a, 1997b,

and 2000c). Indeed, in nations with sizable

numbers of nonpublic schools (e.g., Australia, the

United Kingdom, and the United States), on

average, students who attended nonpublic schools

did better than those who attended public schools

(Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore 1982; Williams and

Carpenter 1990; Halsey, Heath, and Ridge 1984).

The analyses presented here do not offer any

possible explanation for the observed differences;

rather, the analyses simply document achievement

differences between eighth-grade students in these

two types of schools. More thorough analysis of

the data, taking into account such factors as

race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status, may reveal

important insights into possible reasons for the

observed differences.

Did the achievement of U.S.

students of different national

origins differ? 

TIMSS–R asked students to indicate whether their

parents were U.S. or foreign-born. There is an

interest in the birthplace of students’ parents

because a sizeable proportion of students with

parents born outside the United States may not

speak English as their first language or may not

speak English at home with great frequency, if at

all. Since English is generally the language of

31

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

9Forty-four of the 221 schools sampled in the United States were nonpublic schools. Among these 44 nonpublic schools, 26 were

Catholic, 13 were Protestant/other religious, 4 were non-religious independent schools, and 1 was unspecified.
instruction in U.S. classrooms, students’ facility

with language may play a role in their ability to

adequately understand school subjects. Moreover,

immigrant status is often associated with lower

socioeconomic status and more limited educational opportunities. The average 1999

mathematics score of eighth-grade students whose

parents were both foreign-born was lower than the

score of students whose parents were both U.S.

born (figure 17). In science in 1999, the average

score of eighth-graders whose parents were both

foreign-born was lower than the score of students

with at least one parent born in the United States.

Did the achievement of U.S.

students differ by the level of

their parents’ education? 

The average mathematics performance of eighthgrade students in 1999 differed by their parents’

level of education. Students who reported that

their parents had completed college had a higher

average score in mathematics than students who

reported that their parents completed some

college and, in turn, these students had a higher

score than students whose parents had no more

than a high school education (figure 17).

The pattern in science is similar to mathematics in

1999. As the level of parental education rises, so do

the test scores of students. On average, in science,

eighth-grade students whose parents had

completed college outperformed students whose

parents had attended some college and these

students, in turn, outperformed students whose

parents had no more than a high school education

(figure 17).

The TIMSS–R results indicate that as parental

education levels increased so did the mathematics

and science performance of U.S. eighth-grade

students. The relationship between level of

parental education and the educational achievement of children is well-documented (Sewell,

Hauser, and Wolf 1976; Featherman 1981; Riordan

1997; NCES 1997a and 1997b).

THE MATHEMATICS AND

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF

EIGHTH-GRADERS BETWEEN

1995 AND 1999

This section presents results for the 23 nations

with comparable data that participated at the

eighth grade in both TIMSS and TIMSS–R.10 To

compare the performance of eighth-grade

students on TIMSS and TIMSS–R, both eighthgrade assessments used the same scale.11

Did the performance of U.S.

eighth-graders change

between 1995 and 1999?

For the 23 nations that participated in both

TIMSS and TIMSS–R, there was little change in

mathematics average scores over the 4-year

period. There was no change in eighth-grade

mathematics achievement between 1995 and 1999

in the United States as well as 18 other nations

(figure 18).12 Three nations—Canada, Cyprus,

and Latvia-LSS—showed an increase in overall

mathematics achievement between 1995 and

1999. One nation, the Czech Republic, experienced a decrease in overall achievement over the

32

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

10Twenty-six nations participated in TIMSS and TIMSS–R at the eighth grade. Of the 26 nations, 3 nations experienced significant

irregularities in their participation in 1995: Israel, South Africa, and Thailand. Findings for the other 23 nations are reported here.

Results for the 3 nations that experienced irregularities are provided in appendix 3, tables A3.10 and A3.11.

11The national averages presented here for the TIMSS grade 8 assessment differ a little from the averages appearing in previous

TIMSS reports published over the past several years. This is a result of rescaling the TIMSS 1995 grade 8 data to allow for reliable

comparisons to the TIMSS–R 1999 grade 8 data.

12The finding that there has been no change in the overall mathematics score from 1995, when the United States performed at the

international average, to 1999, when the United States performed above the international average, may appear to be inconsistent.

However, readers are cautioned from drawing conclusions based on the relative position of the United States in comparison to the

international average for all 42 nations in 1995 and all 38 nations in 1999. A more accurate analysis of change in achievement over

the 4 years is the one presented above: a comparison between only the 23 nations that participated in both 1995 and 1999, and the

international average of scores for these nations.
same period.13 The reader is cautioned against

comparing the relative change in one nation to the

relative change in another nation.

In the United States and 17 other nations, there

was no change in the science achievement score of

eighth-graders between 1995 and 1999. Four

nations documented an increase in science

33

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 18.—Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics 

achievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 average 1999 average

1995–1999

difference3

(Latvia-LSS)1 488 505 ▲

Canada 521 531 ▲

Cyprus 468 476 ▲

Hong Kong SAR 569 582 ●

(Netherlands) 529 540 ●

(Lithuania)2 472 482 ●

United States 492 502 ●

Belgium-Flemish 550 558 ●

Korea, Republic of 581 587 ●

(Australia) 519 525 ●

Hungary 527 532 ●

Iran, Islamic Republic of 418 422 ●

Russian Federation 524 526 ●

Slovak Republic 534 534 ●

(Slovenia) 531 530 ●

(Romania) 474 472 ●

(England) 498 496 ●

Japan 581 579 ●

Singapore 609 604 ●

Italy 491 485 ●

New Zealand 501 491 ●

(Bulgaria) 527 511 ●

Czech Republic 546 520 ▼

International average of 23 nations 519 521 ●

 The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

 The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the

 next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to

 rounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both

years. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved sampling

procedures.

The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported differences. Thus, a small difference

between the 1995 and 1999 averages for one nation may be significant while a large difference for another nation

may not be significant.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

▲

●

▼

17

10

9

13

11

10

9

8

6

6

5

4

2

0

-1

-1

-1

-2

-4

-6

-10

-16

-26

2

13In a separate analysis of just those 48 mathematics items (out of 155) in common between TIMSS and TIMSS–R, the same picture of overall eighth-grade mathematics achievement emerges. Results of this separate analysis revealed that 3 nations—Canada,

Cyprus, and Latvia-LSS—experienced increases in their mathematics performance over the 4 years on the in-common items. One

nation, the Czech Republic, experienced a decrease in its mathematics performance over the same period of time. The remaining

19 nations, including the United States, experienced no change in overall mathematics achievement on the set of 48 in-common

items between TIMSS and TIMSS–R.
achievement between 1995 and 1999: Canada,

Hungary, Latvia-LSS, and Lithuania (figure 19).

One nation, Bulgaria, showed a decline in science 

over the 4 years.14 Again, the reader is cautioned

against comparing the relative change in one

nation to the relative change in another nation.

34

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 19.—Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement, by

nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 average 1999 average

1995–1999

difference3

(Latvia-LSS)1 476 503

(Lithuania)2 464 488

Canada 514 533

Hungary 537 552

Hong Kong SAR 510 530

(Australia) 527 540

Cyprus 452 460

Russian Federation 523 529

(England) 533 538

(Netherlands) 541 545

Slovak Republic 532 535

Korea, Republic of 546 549

United States 513 515

Belgium-Flemish 533 535

(Romania) 471 472

 Italy 497 498

New Zealand 511 510

Japan 554 550

(Slovenia) 541 533

Singapore 580 568

Iran, Islamic Republic of 463 448

Czech Republic 555 539

(Bulgaria) 545 518

International average of 23 nations 518 521

 The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

 The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the

 next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to

 totals due to rounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both

years. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved sampling

procedures.

The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported differences. Thus, a small difference

between the 1995 and 1999 averages for one nation may be significant while a large difference for another nation

may not be significant.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

▲

●

▼

▲

▲

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

27

25

19

16

20

14

8

7

5

3

3

3

2

2

1

1

-1

-5

-8

-12

-15

-16

-27

3

14In a separate analysis of just those 48 science items (out of 143) in common between TIMSS and TIMSS–R, a similar picture of

overall eighth-grade science achievement emerges. Results of this separate analysis revealed that 3 nations—Canada, Hungary, and

Latvia-LSS—experienced increases in science performance over the 4 years on the in-common items. The remaining 20 nations—

including the United States—experienced no change in overall mathematics achievement on the set of 48 in-common items

between TIMSS and TIMSS–R.
In sum, eighth-grade mathematics and science

scores in the United States showed no changes

between 1995 and 1999. The lack of change in

national averages over a relatively short period of

4 years may indicate that longer periods of monitoring achievement may be necessary to detect

change. It may also indicate that change efforts

implemented at the local level may not yet be

impacting achievement measured at the national

level. Of course, careful consideration of TIMSS

and TIMSS–R data as well as other data on the

teaching and learning of mathematics and science

in middle school is needed to better address the

possible reasons why change was not evident over

the 4 years.

Did the percentage of U.S.

students at or above the 

international top 10 percent

benchmark change over the 

4 years?

As was discussed earlier in this chapter, average

achievement scores indicate how the average

student performs, but reveal little about the

performance of a nation’s top students. The

following analyses document changes in the

percentages of students who scored at or above the

international top 10 percent and top 25 percent

benchmarks. Detailed information on changes in

these two international benchmarks is provided in

tables A3.12 (mathematics) and A3.13 (science) in

appendix 3.

The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scored

at or above the international top 10 percent

benchmark of students in mathematics showed no

change between 1995 and 1999. None of the other

22 nations documented a change either. The 1999

top 10 percent cut-off score was 616 in mathematics. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 6 percent of

U.S. eighth-graders scored 616 or higher in mathematics in 1995, placing them among the top 10

percent of all students internationally.15 In 1999,

this percentage was 9 percent (figure 20).

35

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

15Readers may note that previous reports on TIMSS indicated that 5 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were included among all

students internationally who scored at or above the international top 10 percent benchmark in mathematics, whereas the percentage reported here is 6 percent. This difference is due to the way that the percentage of students in mathematics in 1995 is calculated for comparative purposes. To compare the percentage of students who scored at or above the international top 10 percent

benchmark in mathematics in 1995 to those in 1999, the score point used to determine the top 10 percent in 1999 was also applied

to the 1995 data. This, of course, was not the case when the data was initially reported for TIMSS. This procedure was applied to

the science data as well.
36

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 20.—Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade 

mathematics students reaching the TIMSS-R 1999 top 10 

percent in mathematics achievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 percentage of

students

1999 percentage of

students

1995–1999

difference3

Hong Kong SAR ●

Belgium-Flemish ●

Canada ●

United States ●

Hungary ●

(Latvia-LSS)1 ●

(Netherlands) ●

(Slovenia) ●

Russian Federation ●

Korea, Republic of ●

(Australia) ●

(Lithuania)2 ●

Iran, Islamic Republic of ●

(Romania) ●

Singapore ●

(England) ●

New Zealand ●

Japan ●

Cyprus ●

Slovak Republic ●

Italy ●

Czech Republic ●

(Bulgaria) ●

International average of 23 nations ●

 The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school

 year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to

 rounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both

years. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved sampling

procedures.

1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

1995 percentage of students reaching the top 10 percent is based on 1999 top 10 percent calculations.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

▲

●

▼ 

28

19

9

6

13

5

12

13

12

36

11

3

0

5

46

8

8

34

4

14

7

19

19

14

5

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

-1

-8

-8

1

33

23

12

9

16

7

14

15

15

37

12

4

1

5

46

7

8

33

3

14

6

11

11

15
As in mathematics, the percentage of U.S. eighthgraders who scored at or above the international

top 10 percent benchmark of students in science

showed no change between 1995 and 1999. The

1999 top 10 percent cut-off score was 616 in

science. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 13

percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 616 or

higher in science in 1995, placing them among the

top 10 percent of all students internationally. In

1999, this percentage was 15 percent (figure 21).

Among the 22 other nations that participated in

TIMSS and TIMSS-R at the eighth-grade level,

only 2 nations showed a change in the proportion

of students scoring at or above the international

top 10 percent benchmark over the same four-year

period: Hungary documented an increase while

Bulgaria documented a decrease.

37

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 21.—Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade science

students reaching the TIMSS-R 1999 top 10 percent in science

achievement, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 percentage of

students

1999 percentage of

students

1995–1999

difference3

Hungary

Russian Federation

Canada

(Latvia-LSS)1

(Lithuania)2

(Australia)

(England)

United States

Korea, Republic of

(Netherlands)

Italy

Hong Kong SAR

Iran, Islamic Republic of

New Zealand

(Romania)

(Slovenia)

Cyprus

Slovak Republic

Belgium-Flemish

Singapore

Japan

Czech Republic

(Bulgaria)

International average of 23 nations

 The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

 The 1999 average does not differ significantly from the 1995 average

 The 1999 average is significantly lower than the 1995 average

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school

 year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to

 rounding.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both

years. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations with approved sampling

procedures.

1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

1995 percentage of students reaching the top 10 percent is based on 1999 top 10 percent calculations.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

▲

●

▼

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▼

●

8

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

-2

-4

-10

1

22

17

14

7

6

19

19

15

22

16

8

10

2

12

6

16

2

14

11

32

19

17

14

14

14

13

11

4

3

17

17

13

20

15

7

9

2

11

6

16

3

15

12

33

21

21

24

13
Did the percentage of U.S.

students at or above the 

international top 25 percent

benchmark change over the 4

years?

The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scored

at or above the international top 25 percent

benchmark of students in mathematics showed no

change between 1995 and 1999. The 1999 international top 25 percent cut-off score was 555 in

mathematics. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 24

percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 555 or

higher in mathematics in 1995, placing them

among the top 25 percent of all students internationally.16 In 1999, this percentage was 28

percent. Only one nation showed a change in the

percentage of its students who scored at or above

the international top 25 benchmark over this same

period of time—the Czech Republic documented

a decrease.

The percentage of U.S. eighth-graders who scored

at or above the international top 25 percent

benchmark of students in science showed no

change between 1995 and 1999. The 1999 international top 25 percent cut-off score was 558 in

science. Applied to the 1995 TIMSS data, 34

percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored 558 or

higher in science in 1995, placing them among the

top 25 percent of all students internationally. In

1999, this percentage was also 34 percent. Four

nations—Canada, Hungary, Latvia-LSS, and

Lithuania—showed an increase in the percentage

of students who scored at or above the international top 25 benchmark over this same period of

time.

Did the performance of U.S.

eighth-graders in the content

areas change between 1995

and 1999?

Comparisons of performance on the mathematics

and science content areas can be made among the

23 nations that participated in TIMSS and

TIMSS–R at the eighth-grade level. Detailed information on changes in performance in the

mathematics and science content areas between

1995 and 1999 is provided in tables A3.14 and

A3.15 in appendix 3.

In the five mathematics content areas in common

between TIMSS and TIMSS–R, there was no

change in the performance of U.S. eighth-graders

nor of their peers in most of the other 22 nations.

However, Canada and Latvia-LSS documented

increases in performance in four of the five mathematics content areas over the 4-year period:

fractions and number sense; data representation,

analysis and probability; geometry; and algebra. No

nation showed a change in the performance of its

students in measurement. On the other hand, the

Czech Republic showed a decrease in three

content areas: fractions and number sense;

geometry; and algebra. The only other nation to

show a decrease over the four years was Bulgaria in

the area of data representation, analysis, and probability.

In the four science content areas in common

between TIMSS and TIMSS–R,17 there was no

change in the performance of U.S. eighth-graders

nor of their peers in most of the other 22 nations.

Only one nation, Canada, recorded an increase in

the performance of its eighth-graders in all four

science content areas over the 4 years. Hungary

and Latvia-LSS showed increases in the performance of their students in two of the four science

content areas. The Czech Republic and Slovak

Republic experienced decreases in physics over the

same four years, and Slovenia documented a

decrease in earth science.

38

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

16To compare the percentage of students who scored at or above the international top 25 percent benchmarks in mathematics and

science in 1995 to those in 1999, the score point used to determine the top 25 percent in 1999 was also applied to the 1995 data.

17The TIMSS–R science assessment reflects the inclusion of 10 new items in the areas of environmental and resource issues, and scientific inquiry and the nature of science. In TIMSS, these areas were reported as a single content area. Therefore, there are four science content areas in common between the two studies that can be reported.
Did the performance of U.S.

population groups change

between 1995 and 1999?

TIMSS and TIMSS–R data for several population

groups showed an increase in performance

between 1995 and 1999 in mathematics and

science.18 U.S. eighth-grade black students

showed an increase in their mathematics achievement over the 4 years. Students whose parents

were both U.S. born also showed an increase in

mathematics achievement between 1995 and

1999. Students whose mothers or fathers attended

some college or completed college also showed an

increase in their mathematics performance over

the 4 years. Finally, U.S. eighth-grade students

whose mothers or fathers completed college

showed an increase in science achievement over

the 4 years (figure 22). There was no change found

for the other groups of students shown in figure

22 over the 4 years in mathematics or science.

39

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

18The U.S. sample for TIMSS did not include sufficient numbers of nonpublic school students to reliably calculate achievement

scores for this group.

Figure 22.—Changes in U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science

achievement, by U.S. selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999

MATHEMATICS SCIENCE

1995

average

1999

average

1995–1999

difference*

1995

average

1999

average

1995–1999

difference*

Sex Sex

Boys 495 505 10 Boys 520 524 5

Girls 490 498 8 Girls 505 505 0

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity

White students 516 525 9 White students 544 547 3

Black students 419 444 25 Black students 422 438 16

Hispanic students 443 457 14 Hispanic students 446 462 16

National origin 

of parents

National origin 

of parents

Both U.S. born 496 510 13 Both U.S. born 521 527 6

Both foreign born 474 477 2 Both foreign born 465 472 6

1 U.S. born, 

1 foreign born 482 496 13

1 U.S. born, 

1 foreign born 498 509 11

Mother’s education Mother’s education

High school 

or less 479 484 6

High school 

or less 497 499 2

Some college 498 511 13 Some college 522 525 3

Completed college 511 539 27 Completed college 531 554 23

Father’s education Father’s education

High school 

or less 474 482 8

High school 

or less 494 495 1

Some college 498 512 14 Some college 521 529 8

Completed college 515 543 28 Completed college 534 560 25

 The 1999 average is significantly higher than the 1995 average

 The 1999 average is not significantly different from the 1995 average

 The 1999 average is significantly below the 1995 average

*Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 average from the 1999 average. Detail may not sum to totals due to

 rounding.

NOTE: Other factors are not controlled for in these analyses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

●

●

●

▲

●

▲

●

●

●

▲

▲

●

▲

▲

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

▲

●

●

▲

▲

●

▼
THE MATHEMATICS AND

SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF

THE 1995 FOURTH-GRADE

COHORT IN 1999

TIMSS and other studies before it have suggested

that the international performance of the United

States relative to other nations appears lower at

grade 8 in both mathematics and science than at

grade 4. TIMSS–R provides data about the cohort

of fourth-grade students in 1995 in comparison to

the cohort of eighth-grade students four years

later in 1999. However, direct comparisons

between the 1995 fourth-grade assessment and the

1999 eighth-grade assessment are complicated by

several factors: First, the fourth-grade and eighthgrade assessments include different test questions.

By necessity, the kind of mathematics and science

items that can be asked of an eighth-grader may be

inappropriate for a fourth-grader. Second, because

mathematics and science differ between the two

grades, the content areas assessed also differ. That

is, geometry and physics at grade 4 are different

from geometry and physics at grade 8, for

example. Without a sufficient set of in-common

test items between the grade 4 and grade 8 assessments, it can be difficult to construct a reliable and

meaningful scale on which to compare the 1995

fourth-graders to 1999 eighth-graders. Thus, for

purposes of this report, comparisons between

fourth and eighth grade are based on the performance relative to the international average of the 17

nations that participated in fourth-grade TIMSS

and eighth-grade TIMSS–R.

Has the relative performance

of the United States changed

between fourth and eighth

grade over the 4 years?

Figures 23 and 24 display a comparison of the

average scores of the 17 nations between fourthgrade TIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSS–R to the

international averages at both grades for each

subject. The numbers shown in the figures are

differences from the international average for the

17 nations. Nations are sorted into three groups:

above the international average; similar to the

international average; and below the international

average.

In mathematics, the U.S. fourth-grade score in

1995 was similar to the international average of

the 17 nations in common between fourth-grade

TIMSS and eighth-grade TIMSS–R. At the eighth

grade in 1999, the U.S. average in mathematics was

below the international average of the 17 nations.

Thus, U.S. fourth-graders performed at the international average in 1995 and U.S. eighth-graders

performed below the international average in 1999

in mathematics, suggesting that the relative

performance of the cohort of 1995 U.S. fourthgraders in mathematics was lower relative to this

group of nations 4 years later. The data also

suggest that, in mathematics, the relative performance of the cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in

Canada was higher relative to this group of

nations in 1999; the relative performance of the

cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in the Czech

Republic, Italy, and the Netherlands was lower

relative to this group of nations 4 years later; and

the relative performance of the cohort of 1995

fourth-graders in the 12 other nations was

unchanged relative to this group of nations 4 years

later.

40

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT
41

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 23.—Mathematics achievement for TIMSS-R 1999 nations that

participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to

the average across these nations

1995 1999

Fourth grade Eighth grade

Difference from average across 17 nations1 Difference from average across 17 nations1

Singapore Singapore

Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic of

Japan Hong Kong SAR

Hong Kong SAR Japan

(Netherlands) Netherlands

Czech Republic Hungary

(Slovenia) Canada

(Hungary) Slovenia

United States Australia

(Australia) Czech Republic

(Italy) Latvia-LSS2

Canada United States

(Latvia-LSS)2 England

(England) New Zealand

Cyprus Italy

New Zealand Cyprus

Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of

International average 

of 17 nations

International average 

of 17 nations

Average is significantly higher than the international average

Average does not differ significantly from the international average

Average is significantly lower than the international average

1Difference is calculated by subtracting the international average of the 17 nations from the national average of each 

 nation.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. See

NCES (1997c) for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

73

63

50

40

32

23

8

4

0

0

-7

-12

-18

-33

-42

-48

-130

517

80

63

58

55

16

8

7

6

1

-4

-19

-22

-28

-33

-39

-48

-102

524
In science, the U.S. fourth-grade score in 1995 was

above the international average of the 17 nations

in common between fourth-grade TIMSS and

eighth-grade TIMSS–R. At the eighth grade in

1999, the U.S. average in science was similar to the

international average of the 17 nations. Thus, U.S.

fourth-graders performed above the international

average in 1995 and U.S. eighth-graders

performed similar to the international average in

1999 in science. As in mathematics, this suggests

that the relative performance of the cohort of U.S.

fourth-graders in science was lower relative to this

group of nations 4 years later. The data also

suggest that, in science, the relative performance of

the cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in Singapore

and Hungary was higher relative to this group of

nations in 1999; the relative performance of the

cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in Italy and the

New Zealand was lower relative to this group of

nations 4 years later; and the relative performance

of the cohort of 1995 fourth-graders in the 12

other nations was unchanged relative to this group

of nations 4 years later.

The available evidence appears to confirm what

had been suggested 4 years ago: that the relative

performance of U.S. students in mathematics and

science is lower at the eighth grade than at the

fourth grade among this group of nations.

42

CHAPTER 2—ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 24.—Science achievement for TIMSS-R 1999 nations that

participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to

the average across these nations

1995 1999

Fourth grade Eighth grade

Difference from average across 17 nations1 Difference from average across 17 nations1

Korea, Republic of Singapore

Japan Hungary

United States Japan

(Australia) Korea, Republic of

Czech Republic Netherlands

(Netherlands) Australia

(England) Czech Republic

Canada England

(Italy) Slovenia

Singapore Canada3

(Slovenia) Hong Kong SAR

Hong Kong SAR United States

(Hungary) New Zealand

New Zealand Latvia-LSS2

(Latvia-LSS)2 Italy

Cyprus Cyprus

Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of

International average 

of 17 nations

International average 

of 17 nations

Average is significantly higher than the international average

Average does not differ significantly from the international average

Average is significantly lower than the international average

1Difference is calculated by subtracting the international average of the 17 nations from the national average of each

 nation.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

3The shading of Canada in eighth grade may appear incorrect; however, statistically, its placement in correct.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. See

NCES (1997c) for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

62

39

28

28

18

17

14

12

10

10

8

-6

-6

-9

-27

-64

-134

514

44

28

25

24

21

16

15

14

9

9

5

-9

-15

-21

-26

-64

-76

524
CHAPTER 3

TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

KEY POINTS

It is too early in the process of data analysis to provide strong evidence to suggest factors that may

be related to patterns of achievement on TIMSS–R. However, differences in teaching and curriculum

between the United States and other TIMSS–R nations were noted.

U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely than their international peers to be taught mathematics by

teachers who majored in mathematics, but as likely as others to be taught by teachers who majored

in mathematics education. 

U.S. eighth-grade students were as likely as their international peers to be taught science by teachers

with a college major or main area of study in biology, chemistry, or science education but less likely

to be taught science by teachers with a degree in physics. 

A greater percentage of U.S. eighth-graders than of their international peers reported using computers

frequently in mathematics and science classes. 

U.S. eighth-grade students spent less time than their international peers studying mathematics or science outside of school and doing mathematics or science homework outside of school.
Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers have

paid a great deal of attention to the preparation,

ongoing professional development, instructional

practices, and curricular focus of teachers. Much

of this attention has focused on developing

programs, teaching methods, and curriculum

materials to improve the achievement of all

students. TIMSS–R collected data from students,

teachers, and schools about systems, programs,

curricular emphases, instructional practices, and

other factors that have been put into place to

support improved student learning.

The relationships between achievement and

education-related background factors are

complex. In this initial report, it was not possible

to explore the potential relationships between

achievement and the context of teaching, learning,

and curriculum in the United States and the other

participating nations with the care and thought

needed to be confident in our interpretations.

Therefore, although this report presents findings

on the context of teaching, learning, and curriculum in the United States and the 37 other nations

that participated in TIMSS–R in 1999, it does not

relate any changes or differences in achievement to

these background factors. Examination of these

factors is included to stimulate discussion of the

many varied approaches taken by nations. More

in-depth analyses of the data that take into

account the complex systems that support student

learning, as well as findings from the data-rich

TIMSS Video Study and the forthcoming

TIMSS–R Videotape Classroom Study, will

provide a better basis for understanding these

interconnections and will lead to important

findings.

This chapter is organized into three sections, in

the following order:

■ findings on the preparation and qualifications

of mathematics and science teachers, as well 

as their ongoing professional development

activities;

■ findings on the intended and implemented

mathematics and science curricula; and

■ findings on classroom practices and activities.

The analyses that follow are limited to data

collected in 1999 for the 38 TIMSS–R nations. For

some analyses in science, comparisons are limited 

to the nations that generally organized science

instruction as a single, general/integrated subject

or as separate subjects in 1999. Unless otherwise

indicated, the 38 TIMSS–R nations are compared

in the science analyses in this chapter. A list of the

nations that generally organized science instruction as a general/integrated subject or as separate

subjects at the eighth grade are provided in table

A4.1 in appendix 4.

TEACHER PREPARATION,

QUALIFICATIONS, AND

PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

TIMSS–R collected information on the academic

preparation, qualifications, and ongoing professional development of the mathematics and

science teachers of eighth-grade students.

Teachers’ educational backgrounds and confidence in their abilities to teach mathematics and

science were some of the factors considered as

indicators of the extent to which teachers are

prepared to teach. Data collected in TIMSS–R do

not, however, provide a complete picture of

teacher preparedness.

What educational backgrounds

did our mathematics teachers

have in 1999?

Over the last several years, some have argued that

it is important for teachers to have subject matter

expertise, and one indication of this is a major in

subjects they teach, either at the bachelor’s or

master’s level. TIMSS–R asked the mathematics

and science teachers of eighth-grade students

about their majors at the bachelor’s and master’s

level. Teachers could indicate that they had more

than one major or main area of study if applicable.

U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely than

their international peers to be taught by a mathematics teacher with a bachelor’s or master’s degree

majoring in mathematics. In 1999, 41 percent of

U.S. eighth-grade students had a mathematics

teacher whose bachelor’s degree or master’s major 

44

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM
or main area of study was in mathematics, a

smaller percentage than the international average

of 71 percent of students (figure 25). Compared to

the United States, a higher percentage of students

in 29 of the 37 other nations were taught by a

mathematics teacher with a bachelor’s or master’s

or equivalent major in mathematics. Canada and

Italy were the only nations that reported lower

percentages than the United States.

U.S. eighth-grade students were as likely as their

international peers to be taught by a mathematics

teacher with a bachelor’s or master’s degree major

in mathematics education. Thirty-seven percent

of U.S. eighth-grade students were taught mathematics by a teacher whose bachelor’s or master’s

major was in mathematics education. This is

comparable to the international average of 31

percent of students.

45

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

Mathematics Mathematics 

Education

Science/

Science Education

Education Other

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

41

71

37

31

16

35

54

32

46

32

United States

International average*

Bachelor’s or master’s degree major

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Mullis et al. (2000) for details.

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Science includes biology, physics, chemistry, and science education.

Based on mathematics teachers' reports of main area or areas of study for bachelor’s and/or master’s degree; more than one category could be selected.

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 25.—Eighth-grade mathematics teachers’ reports on their

main area of study: 1999
What educational backgrounds

did our science teachers have

in 1999?

For this analysis, science teachers of U.S. students

were compared to science teachers in other

nations that generally taught science as a

general/integrated science curriculum.1 In

addition to the United States, 22 other nations

indicated they generally teach their eighth-grade

students with this type of a science curriculum

(see table A4.1). Unlike mathematics teachers,

science teachers often obtained degrees in the

different content areas of science such as biology,

physics, and chemistry. Therefore, it is important

to compare the percentage of students whose

teachers held a bachelor’s or master’s degree in one

of these specific areas. Teachers could indicate

that they had more than one major or main area of

study, if applicable.

In 1999, 47 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students

were taught by science teachers with a college

major or main area of study in biology, 13 percent

of our students were taught by science teachers

with a college major or main area of study in

physics, and 21 percent of our students were

taught by science teachers with a college major or

main area of study in chemistry (figure 26). The

percentage of U.S. students taught by science

teachers with a college major or main area of study

in biology or chemistry was similar to the international averages for these categories, while the

percentage of U.S. students taught science by

teachers with a college major or main area of study

in physics was lower than the international

average.

46

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

47

42

13

23 21

30

43 44

14

25

56

30

45

29

Bachelor’s or master’s degree major

Biology Physics Chemistry Science

Education

Mathematics/

Mathematics

Education

Education Other

United States

International average1

2

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

1The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Martin et al. (2000) for details.

2Other may include areas of study in earth science fields.

NOTE: Based on science teachers’ reports of main area or areas of study for bachelor’s and/or master’s degree; more than one 

category could be selected.

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported teaching a general/integrated science

curriculum.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 26.—Eighth-grade science teachers’ reports on their main

area of study: 1999

1The National Research Coordinator of each nation was asked to complete a questionnaire that, among other things, asked if science was taught as a general/integrated subject or as separate subjects such as Earth Science, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. The

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) supplied information for the United States. The United States is one of 23 nations

in TIMSS–R that, in general, teaches science as a general/integrated subject at the eighth-grade level. The questionnaire did not distinguish between general science and integrated science. See table A4.1 in appendix 4.
In addition to, or in lieu of, content area–specific

degrees, teachers can also major in science education. In 1999, 43 percent of U.S. eighth-grade

science students were taught by science teachers

with a bachelor’s or master’s degree major in

science education. This was similar to the international average of 44 percent.

How confident were 

mathematics teachers in 

their preparation to teach

mathematics subjects?

In addition to asking about the educational background of teachers, TIMSS–R asked teachers how

confident they were to teach mathematics as a

gauge of their own sense of preparedness.

In general, more U.S. teachers of eighth-grade

students reported feeling very well prepared to

teach mathematics compared to their counterparts in other nations in 1999. In mathematics,

the United States was among the top group of

nations in which a large percentage of its students

were taught by teachers who reported feeling “very

well prepared” to teach mathematics (figure 27).

On average, 90 percent of U.S. eighth-graders had

teachers who felt “very well prepared” to teach

across the topics covered by the TIMSS–R mathematics framework. In this respect, the United

States was similar to 9 nations and was higher than

25 nations as well as the international average.

Ninety percent or more of U.S. eighth-grade

students were taught by teachers who reported

they were “very well prepared” to teach 7 of the 

12 topics asked about.2 For the other 5 topics

(measurement–units, instruments, and accuracy;

geometric figures–definitions and properties;

geometric figures–symmetry; simple probabilities–

understanding and calculations; and coordinate

geometry), 75 to 86 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

were taught by mathematics teachers who felt

“very well prepared” to teach these topics. For 11

of the 12 mathematics topics covered in TIMSS–R,

the percentage of U.S. students taught by teachers

who felt “very well prepared” exceeded the international average.

Interpretation of these data should take into

account cultural and curricular issues, however.

For example, teachers in some cultures may be

more reserved about discussing their strengths

and abilities. Teachers’ reports on their confidence

levels to teach a subject area may be influenced by

cultural norms and expectations. Moreover,

teachers’ reports on their confidence levels may

also reflect the emphases of the curricula they are

expected to teach. For example, if the mathematics standards or curriculum emphasizes a

particular set of topics and does not emphasize

another set of topics, teachers may feel less

prepared to teach those topics that they are not

usually expected to present. Curricular issues are

dealt with to a certain degree in TIMSS–R, and the

areas emphasized in each nation’s curriculum as

well as the topics covered by teachers are discussed

later in this chapter.3 Cultural issues are outside

the scope of TIMSS–R but can be found throughout the research literature.

47

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

2The 7 mathematics topics where 90 percent or more of U.S. eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who report they were

“very well prepared” are fractions, decimals, and percentages; ratios and proportions; perimeter, area, and volume; algebraic representation; evaluate and perform operations on algebraic expressions; solving linear equations and inequalities; representation and interpretation of data in graphs, charts, and tables.

3TIMSS–R collected information from the mathematics and science teachers of the eighth-graders about the curricular topics covered and emphasized most in the classroom. TIMSS–R did not include an in-depth curriculum analysis, as in TIMSS.
48

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

Figure 27.—Teachers’ beliefs about their preparation to teach

mathematics and science: 1999

Percentage of eighth-grade students whose

mathematics teachers reported feeling very well

prepared to teach mathematics

Percentage of eighth-grade students whose science

teachers reported feeling very well prepared to

teach science

Nation Percent Nation Percent

Macedonia, Republic of 92 Macedonia, Republic of 72

United States 90 Czech Republic 64

Cyprus 89 Turkey 63

Slovak Republic 89 New Zealand 59

Jordan 88 United States 58

Czech Republic 88 Indonesia 58

New Zealand 88 Romania 57

Romania 85 Morocco 57

Australia 84 Cyprus 57

(Israel)1 84 Jordan 57

Netherlands 84 Australia 55

Turkey 83 (Israel) 55

Finland 81 South Africa 53

Iran, Islamic Republic of 81 Netherlands 50

Malaysia 81 Finland 47

Indonesia 81 Belgium-Flemish 47

Belgium-Flemish 80 Bulgaria 46

Canada 79 Singapore 46

Singapore 78 Canada 44

Chinese Taipei 78 Italy 42

Morocco 75 Chinese Taipei 42

Latvia-LSS2 73 Iran, Islamic Republic of 42

Hong Kong SAR 72 Philippines 41

South Africa 71 Moldova 39

Italy 69 Latvia-LSS2 37

Bulgaria 66 Hong Kong SAR 34

Moldova 64 Tunisia 32

Philippines 64 Korea, Republic of 31

Korea, Republic of 61 Thailand 30

Hungary 59 Hungary 29

Tunisia 51 Chile 29

Slovenia 50 Malaysia 22

Chile 44 Japan 17

Thailand 32 England —

Japan 23 Lithuania —

England — Russian Federation —

Lithuania — Slovak Republic —

Russian Federation — Slovenia —

International average 

of 35 nations 73 International average of 33 nations 46

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average

Average does not differ significantly from the U.S. average

Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average

— Data not available.

1The shading of Israel may appear incorrect; however, statistically its placement is correct.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that provided data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; 

Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
How confident were science

teachers in their preparation 

to teach science subjects?

Overall, the picture of teacher confidence in

presenting science topics appears different from

the one described for mathematics. Fifty-eight

percent of U.S. eighth-graders had science

teachers who felt “very well prepared” to teach

across the science topics covered in the TIMSS–R

framework (figure 27). In comparison to the 37

other TIMSS–R nations, the United States was

similar to 11 nations and was higher than 20

nations as well as the international average. It

appears that science teachers reported feeling less

confident about their preparedness to teach

eighth-grade science topics than their mathematics counterparts when considering the

international average percentage of students

taught by a teacher who felt “very well prepared”

to teach mathematics (73 percent) or science (46

percent), internationally.

Forty to sixty-five percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students had science teachers who felt “very well

prepared” to teach 9 of the 10 topics asked about.

In only one topic area, scientific methods and

inquiry skills, did science teachers of more than 80

percent of eighth-grade students in the United

States feel “very well prepared” to teach.

Compared to the international average, the United

States had a higher percentage of its students

taught by science teachers who felt “very well

prepared” to teach in 4 of the 10 science topic

areas: earth science–features; earth science–solar

system; environmental and resource issues; and

scientific methods and inquiry skills. In the other 6

topic areas,4 the United States was similar to the

international average.

Again, interpretation of these data should take

into account possible cultural and curricular

issues that can affect teachers’ reports of their

confidence to teach subject-specific topics.

In what types of professional

development activities did 

our mathematics teachers

participate?

The United States asked mathematics and science

teachers of TIMSS–R students to describe their

professional development experiences during the

1998–99 school year, defined as June 1998 to May

1999. Only U.S. teachers were asked about their

participation in 11 types of professional development activities5; thus, cross-national comparisons

cannot be made.

Of the 11 types of professional development asked

about in the U.S. teacher questionnaires, withindistrict workshops or institutes and courses for

college credit were generally the most frequent

types of activities that mathematics teachers of

U.S. eighth-grade students participated in during

the 1998–99 school year. On average, U.S. eighthgrade students were taught mathematics by

teachers who attended 12 clock hours of withindistrict workshops or institutes and 9 clock hours

of courses for college credit6 over the course of a

year. These professional development activities

may or may not have been specifically mathematics-focused.

In what types of professional

development activities did our

science teachers participate?

The story appears similar for the science teachers

of U.S. students. Of the 11 types of professional

development activities asked about in the teacher

questionnaires, within-district workshops or institutes and courses for college credit were generally

the most frequent types of activities that science

teachers of U.S. eighth-grade students participated

in during the 1998–99 school year. On average,

49

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

4The 6 science topics where the United States had a similar percentage of students with teachers feeling “very well prepared” compared to the international average are biology–human systems; biology–plant and animal life; chemistry–matter; chemistry–chemical

reactivity; physics–types of energy; and physics–light.

5U.S. mathematics and science teachers were asked about their participation in the following 11 types of professional development

activities: within-district workshops or institutes; courses for college credit; out-of-district workshops and institutes; teacher collaboratives or networks; out-of-district conferences; immersion or internship activities; receiving mentoring, coaching, lead teaching, or observation; teacher resource centers; committees or task forces; teacher study groups; and other forms of organized professional development. These questions were not asked in any other nation in TIMSS–R.

6This average includes teachers who did not take any courses for college credit; therefore, the average hours spent in such courses by

those teachers who took them may be underreported.
U.S. eighth-grade students were taught by a

science teacher who attended around 12 clock

hours of within-district workshops or institutes

and 12 clock hours of courses for college credit. In

addition, science teachers of U.S. eighth-grade

students spent almost 7 clock hours in committees

or task forces over the course of a year.

Did our mathematics teachers

observe one another teaching?

Some research suggests that the experience of

teachers observing other teachers can contribute

to the sharing of good practices. TIMSS–R asked

the mathematics and science teachers of U.S.

eighth-grade students about the number of class

periods they observed other teachers in the last

year and the number of periods other teachers

observed them in the past year. It is important to

note that the questionnaire did not ask teachers

about the purpose of their participation in observation activities. Again, this question was asked

only of U.S. mathematics and science teachers.

In general, the mathematics teachers of U.S.

eighth-grade students rarely participated in observational activities. On average, U.S. eighth-grade

students were taught by mathematics teachers

who spent 1 class period during the 1998–99

school year observing other teachers and who

were observed by other teachers during 2 class

periods. There were no differences in the average

number of class periods mathematics teachers

observed other teachers or were observed by other

teachers based on years of teaching experience.

Did our science teachers

observe one another teaching?

The science teachers of U.S. eighth-grade students

also rarely participated in observational activities.

On average, U.S. eighth-graders were taught by

science teachers who observed other teachers for 1

class period during the 1998–99 school year and

who were observed by other teachers for 1 class

period. However, the situation was different for

U.S. eighth-grade students whose science teachers

had the fewest years of experience (0–5 years):

their teachers spent approximately 3 periods

observing other teachers, a greater number of

periods than science teachers with more years of

experience.

What topics were emphasized

in professional development

activities for U.S. mathematics

teachers?

In addition to exploring the types of professional

development activities in which teachers of U.S.

eighth-grade students participated, the U.S. mathematics and science teacher questionnaires asked

about the topics emphasized during professional

development activities.

Overall, mathematics teachers of U.S. eighthgrade students reported their professional

development activities emphasized curriculum

more than any other topic. Mathematics teachers

who stated their professional development activities emphasized curriculum either “quite a lot” or

“a great deal” taught 64 percent of U.S. eighthgrade students (figure 28). This was a higher

percentage than the percentage for any other topic

asked about.

50

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM
What topics were emphasized

in professional development

activities for U.S. science

teachers?

Professional development activities related to

curriculum also appear to be most frequent

among science teachers of U.S. eighth-grade

students, followed closely by activities related to

general teaching methods, use of technology in

instruction, and deepening teachers’ knowledge of

science. Fifty-nine percent of eighth-grade

students were taught by science teachers reporting

their professional development activities emphasized curriculum either “quite a lot” or “a great

deal” (figure 28). This percentage was similar to

the percentage of eighth-grade students taught by

science teachers reporting their professional development activities emphasized general teaching

methods, using technology, and deepening

teacher’s knowledge of science.

CURRICULUM, CONTENT

COVERAGE, AND EMPHASES

Data on teacher preparation and professional

development provide information on the readiness of teachers to instruct students. Combining

these data with information on what teachers

present and how they present it gives us a more

complete picture of teaching and learning experiences in classrooms around the world. The

following sections discuss the structure and scope

of U.S. mathematics and science curricula in

comparison to other TIMSS–R nations, as well as

the instructional practices of mathematics and

science teachers in the participating nations.

51

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

Figure 28.—Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by

teachers that participated in professional development activities that

emphasized different topics: 1999

Professional development topic

Percentage of U.S. 8th-grade students taught by

teachers who said their professional development

activities emphasized the topic “quite a lot” or 

“a great deal”

Mathematics Science

Curriculum 64 59

Subject-specific teaching methods in mathematics or

 science 40 40

General teaching methods 38 44

Approaches to assessment 33 37

Use of technology in instruction 44 46

Strategies for teaching diverse student populations 21 23

Information on how students learn mathematics or

 science 21 23

Deepening teacher’s knowledge of mathematics or

 science 28 50

Leadership development 16 19

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.
Who sets the curriculum in

TIMSS–R nations?

Most of the 38 TIMSS–R nations have implemented a national mathematics and science

curriculum. Australia, Canada, and the United

States are the three TIMSS–R nations with regionally or locally determined curricula. Curriculum

is determined at the state or provincial level in

Australia and Canada. Curriculum is determined

at the local level in the United States. Throughout

this report, we treat Australia, Canada, and the

United States as if they each had a national

curriculum, for comparative purposes. However,

it is important to remember that these three

nations do not have national curricula in mathematics and science.

How much of each TIMSS–R

content area did the intended

U.S. curriculum cover? 

In an effort to better understand the mathematics

and science achievement of eighth-grade students,

TIMSS–R collected information on each nation’s

mathematics and science curricula as it was

intended to be taught to students.7 This information can put achievement results in perspective by

revealing those content areas that most eighthgrade students have been exposed to in their

educational experiences up to and including

eighth grade, and those that they have not yet been

exposed to.8 For example, if the intended mathematics or science curriculum in a nation does not

emphasize the topics in a particular content area,

or only a select group of students is intended to

learn a particular topic, then we would be less

likely to expect that nation’s students to perform

well in that content area on TIMSS–R.

Across the five content areas in mathematics and

the six content areas in science examined in

TIMSS–R, the intended U.S. mathematics and

science curricula appear to have had a higher

percentage of overall coverage of the TIMSS–R

content areas than the international average. In

mathematics, 93 percent of the topics included in

the content areas overall were intended to be

taught to all or almost all (at least 90 percent) of

U.S. students in 1999. The international average

of intended coverage to all or almost all students

was 75 percent of the topics in the five mathematics content areas. One hundred percent of the

topics in three mathematics content areas—fractions and number sense; measurement; and data

representation, analysis, and probability—were

intended to be taught to all or almost all U.S.

eighth-grade students. Eighty-five percent of the

topics in geometry and 82 percent of the topics in

algebra were intended to be covered.

Similarly, 86 percent of the topics in the six science

content areas overall were intended to be taught to

all or almost all (at least 90 percent) of U.S.

students in 1999. The international average across

the TIMSS–R nations was 62 percent. One

hundred percent of the topics in five of the six

science content areas—earth science; biology;

physics; environmental and resource issues; and

scientific inquiry and the nature of science—were

intended to be taught to all or almost all U.S.

eighth-grade students. Fifty percent of topics in

chemistry were intended to be covered.

52

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

7Findings are based on information provided by each nation’s National Research Coordinator (NRC). In the United States, this

information was provided by the Council of Chief State School Officers.

8Schmidt, McKnight, et al. (1997) and Schmidt, Raizen, et al. (1997) conducted in-depth analyses of the mathematics and science

topics covered in the textbooks and curriculum guides used in nations as well as the depth of the topics presented. TIMSS–R did

not collect information on the depth of coverage of topics by mathematics and science teachers. Comparisons between the findings of Schmidt et al. and TIMSS–R cannot be made here.
How much of the mathematics

curriculum was taught?

TIMSS–R asked mathematics and science teachers

of eighth-grade students about the curriculum

that is actually taught in the classroom. Like information about the intended curriculum,

information about what is actually taught can put

achievement scores into perspective by revealing

what content areas have and have not been

covered by the time students near completion of

the eighth grade.

The percentage of eighth-graders whose teachers

reported they had taught each content area in

mathematics and science varied across the

TIMSS–R nations. “Taught” is defined as the sum 

of percentages of students whose teachers

reported these areas as either taught before this

year or taught more than five periods this year.

Four of the five mathematics content areas—fractions and number sense; measurement; data

representation, analysis, and probability; and

algebra—were taught to between 91 percent and

99 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students, which

was higher than the international average of the

TIMSS-R nations for each of these content areas.

On the other hand, 65 percent of U.S. eighthgrade students were taught geometry according to

their mathematics teachers, a percentage similar to

the international average (figure 29).

53

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

Content areas

99 95 91

86

92

59

65

58

98

88

United States

International average 

Fractions and

number sense

Measurement Data representation,

analysis, and probability

Geometry Algebra

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: “Taught” equals the sum of percentages of students whose mathematics teachers reported these content areas as either

“taught before this year” or “taught more than five periods this year.”

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and Science

Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 29.—Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students “taught”

mathematics content areas: 1999
How much of the science

curriculum was taught?

The percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students

taught the six science content areas in TIMSS–R

varied as well. Science teachers of 95 percent of

U.S. eighth-graders reported that scientific inquiry

and the nature of science was taught before the

TIMSS–R assessment (figure 30). Science teachers

of between 70 and 81 percent of U.S. eighthgraders reported that the other five content

areas—earth science; biology; physics; chemistry;

and environmental and resource issues—were

taught before the assessment was given. Four of

the six content areas—earth science; biology;

physics; and scientific inquiry and the nature of

science—were taught to a higher percentage of

U.S. eighth-graders than the international

averages for each of these four areas.

Which topics were emphasized

most in U.S. eighth-grade

curricula?

In 1999, a higher percentage of U.S. eighth-grade

students had mathematics teachers who reported

emphasizing general mathematics (28 percent) or

algebra (27 percent) than the international

averages of the 38 nations for each of these topics.

U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely to be in

classes where the emphasis was a combination of

algebra and geometry or algebra, geometry,

numbers, and other topics than the international

average. No nation had a greater percentage of

students taught by mathematics teachers who

emphasized algebra as a single topic than the

United States. That is, U.S. eighth-grade students

were more likely to be in a mathematics class that

emphasized algebra as a discrete topic than their

international peers, who were more likely to be in

mathematics classes that combine algebra with

other topics such as geometry. Evidence from the

TIMSS study showed that what is interpreted as

algebra can vary among mathematics teachers

from different nations (Stigler et al. 1999).

54

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

Content areas

78

57

81

60

70

53

73

67

78

72

95

80

United States

International average 

Earth science Biology Physics Chemistry Environmental and

resource issues

Scientific inquiry

and the nature

of science

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: “Taught” equals the sum of percentages of students whose science teachers reported these topics as either “taught before this

year” or “taught more than five periods this year.”

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and Science

Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Figure 30.—Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students “taught” science content areas: 1999
The majority of U.S. eighth-grade students were in

a science class where the teacher emphasized one

of three subjects the most: general/integrated

science, earth science, or physical science. Forty-one

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students were in a

class where general/integrated science was emphasized, which is lower than the international

average (58 percent) of the nations that generally

teach general/integrated science. The 28 percent of

U.S. students whose teachers emphasized earth

science was above the international average of 5

percent, and the 21 percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students whose teachers emphasized physical

science was also higher than the international

average of 11 percent. Fewer U.S. eighth-grade

students had teachers who emphasized biology (5

percent) or physics (2 percent) than the international averages (14 percent and 6 percent,

respectively).

Did the TIMSS–R nations’

curricula accommodate

students with varying degrees

of interests and abilities?

The United States was one of 30 TIMSS–R nations

that addressed the issue of students having varying

levels of interests and abilities in their mathematics curricula, and one of 27 nations that addressed

differentiation in their science curricula.9 The two

most common approaches to addressing differentiation in mathematics and science classes were

teaching the same curriculum to all students, with

teachers adapting to different student needs, or

“streaming” students by grade or ability level.

These approaches have also been taken in the

United States.

When schools were asked how their mathematics

classes accommodated students with different

abilities or interests in mathematics and science,

schools of 79 percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students responded that enrichment mathematics

was offered, which was above the international

average of 58 percent.10 In science, schools of 34

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students said they

offered enrichment science classes, a lower

percentage than the international average of 50

percent. In addition, 64 percent of U.S. eighthgrade students were in schools that offered

remedial mathematics, similar to the international

average of 72 percent. Seventeen percent of U.S.

eighth-grade students were in schools offering

remedial science, a lower percentage than the

international average of 53 percent.

CLASSROOM PRACTICES

AND ACTIVITIES

TIMSS–R asked eighth-grade students and their

mathematics and science teachers about various

practices and activities that took place in the classroom, including use of calculators in mathematics

lessons and use of computers and the Internet in

science and mathematics lessons. The kinds of

skills that students are asked to practice and the

types of activities that they participate in during

lessons can promote and reinforce learning,

particularly when combined with a coherent and

well-planned curriculum. Students’ and teachers’

reports of some of the practices and activities in

the classroom are presented below.

What kinds of skills did U.S.

mathematics and science

teachers report asking their

students to use during

lessons?

Mathematics teachers of eighth-grade students

were surveyed on whether they asked their

students to perform each of the following in “most

or every lesson”: explain the reasoning behind an

idea; represent and analyze relationships using

tables, charts, or graphs; work on problems with

no solution; write equations to represent relationships; and practice computational skills. A greater

percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students were

asked by their mathematics teachers to write equations to represent relationships in most or every

lesson (54 percent) than the international average

(43 percent). U.S. students were as likely to be

asked by their mathematics teachers to practice

each of the other skills as their international peers.

55

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

9Based on information provided by each nation’s National Research Coordinator (NRC).

10School information provided by the principal or head administrator of the school.
A similar question was asked of science teachers in

all 38 TIMSS–R nations. Science teachers

reported on whether they asked their eighth-grade

students in “most or every lesson” to explain the

reasoning behind an idea; represent and analyze

relationships using tables, charts, or graphs; work

on problems with no solution; write explanations

about what was observed and why it happened; or

put events or objects in order. Eighty percent of

U.S. eighth-grade students were asked by their

science teachers to explain the reasoning behind

an idea in most or every science lesson, a higher

percentage than the international average of 67

percent of students. A majority of U.S. eighthgrade students (59 percent) were also asked by

their science teachers to write explanations about

what was observed and why it happened in most

or every science lesson, which was similar to the

international average of 52 percent. U.S. eighthgrade students were also as likely as their

international peers to be asked to represent and

analyze relationships, work on problems with no

solution, and put events or objects in order in

most or every science lesson.

What activities did U.S.

students report occurring in

their mathematics and science

classes?

Students were asked to report on how often their

mathematics teachers showed them how to do a

mathematics problem, asked them to work from

worksheets or textbooks on their own, asked them

to work on mathematics projects, or asked them to

use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems. Ninety-four percent of U.S.

eighth-grade students said that their teachers

showed them how to do mathematics problems

“almost always” or “pretty often” (figure 31). This

was higher than the international average of 86

percent. Only one nation, Singapore, had a greater

percentage of students report that their mathematics teachers showed them how to do a problem

during the lesson almost always or pretty often

than the United States. A greater percentage of

U.S. eighth-grade students also reported that they

worked from worksheets or textbooks on their

56

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

Activities in mathematics class

94

86

59

29

36

United States

International average

Teacher shows how to 

do a mathematics problem

Students work on 

worksheet or from textbooks

Students work on 

mathematics projects

86

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 31.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of

selected activities in their mathematics class “almost always” or

“pretty often”: 1999
own almost always or pretty often during mathematics lessons (86 percent) than the international

average (59 percent). On the other hand, a smaller

percentage of U.S. students reported that they

worked on mathematics projects during their

mathematics lessons (29 percent) than the international average (36 percent). Finally, TIMSS–R

data indicate that 23 percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students reported that they almost always use

things from everyday life in solving mathematics

problems during their mathematics lessons. This

was a greater percentage than the international

average of 15 percent (not included in figure).

Students were also asked to report on how often

their science teachers showed them how to do a

problem, asked them to work from worksheets or

textbooks on their own, asked them to work on

science projects, demonstrated an experiment in

class, or asked students to conduct an experiment

in class. In science, 69 percent of U.S. eighthgraders reported being shown how to do science

problems by their science teachers “almost always”

or “pretty often” during their science lessons

(figure 32). This was a lower percentage than the

international average (80 percent) of the 23

nations that teach an integrated/general science

curriculum. Seventy-six percent of U.S. eighthgrade students also reported that they were almost

always or pretty often asked to work from worksheets or textbooks and 59 percent stated that they

work on science projects during science lessons,

greater percentages than the international averages

of 56 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

When students were asked how often their science

teachers gave demonstrations of experiments, 71

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students reported

that this occurred almost always or pretty often

during their science lessons in 1999.

Internationally, among the 23 nations with

general/integrated science in eighth grade, an

equivalent percentage of their international peers

reported that their science teachers gave demonstrations of experiments during science lessons.

When students were asked how often they did an

57

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

69

80 76

56 59

51

71 71

65

57

United States

International average of 23 nations

Activities in science class

Teacher shows 

how to do a 

science problem

Students work on 

worksheets or 

from textbooks

Students work on 

science projects

Teacher 

demonstrates

a science experiment

Students 

conduct 

experiments

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations that reported teaching a general/integrated science

curriculum in 1999.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 6.10, R3.11, and R3.13. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 32.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of

selected activities in their science class “almost always” or “pretty

often”: 1999
experiment or practical investigation in their

science lesson, 65 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

reported that this occurred almost always or pretty

often during their science lessons. This represented a higher percentage of students than the

international average of 57 percent.

How often did U.S. students

use calculators in their mathematics lessons? 

In 1999, 42 percent of U.S. eighth-grade students

reported that they “almost always” used calculators in their mathematics lessons. This was a

higher percentage of students than the international average (19 percent). In comparison to the

United States, two nations—the Netherlands and

Australia—had a higher percentage of students

responding that they used calculators almost

always in their mathematics lessons. Eight percent

of U.S. eighth-grade students reported never using

calculators in their mathematics lessons, which

was lower than the international average of 32

percent of students.

Did students have access to

computers and the Internet,

and how did schools, teachers,

and students report using

these tools?

Some believe that access to computers, software,

and the Internet provides additional tools for

teachers to create meaningful lessons from which

students can learn, helping to reinforce and

supplement their classroom learning. In short, it

is believed that these technological tools can, when

coherently integrated into lessons, create additional opportunities for learning.

Access to computers and the Internet is the first

step toward using these technological tools in

teaching and learning mathematics and science.

U.S. students had a high level of access to computers and the Internet at home and at school relative

to eighth-graders in other nations in 1999. Eighty

percent of U.S. eighth-graders reported that they

had a computer in their home, a higher percentage

than the international average of 45 percent

(figure 33). Fifty-nine percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students reported having Internet access at home,

58

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

80

45

59

18

76

25

81

43

United States

International average

Have compter at home Have Internet 

access at home

Have Internet 

access at school

Have Internet 

access elsewhere

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits R1.1 and 6.17. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 33.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of access to computers

and the Internet: 1999
76 percent reported access at school, and 81

percent reported access elsewhere (e.g., libraries or

community centers); all of these percentages were

greater than the international averages.

Access to computers, software, and the Internet

and, by extension, their use in and for mathematics and science lessons, can be affected by

shortages of these tools at school. Schools of 47

percent of U.S. eighth-grade students reported

that shortages of computers for instruction

affected mathematics instruction “some” or “a lot,”

similar to the international average of 57 percent.

Schools of 45 percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students also reported that shortages of computers

for instruction affected science instruction “some”

or “a lot,” a smaller percentage than the international average of 59 percent. In regard to computer

software, schools of almost half of U.S. eighthgrade students reported that shortages affected

mathematics instruction and science instruction

“some or a lot” (48 percent and 47 percent, respectively), which were similar to the international

averages.

U.S. eighth-grade students were more than twice

as likely as their peers in other nations to be in

schools with networked computer access to the

Internet. Ninety-one percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students were in schools that reported Internet

access, a higher percentage than the international

average of 41 percent. Internationally, an average

of 29 percent of students were in schools that

reported they had no Internet access at all and no

plans to get it—more than a quarter of all students

surveyed internationally. Less than 1 percent of

U.S. eighth-grade students were enrolled in a

school that reported no access to the Internet and

no plans to obtain access.

Access to computers and the Internet is one thing,

but using them is another. Eighth-grade students

were asked how often they use computers in their

mathematics and science classes, and how often

their teachers use computers to demonstrate ideas

in class.

Twelve percent of U.S. eighth-graders reported

using computers in mathematics class “almost

always” or “pretty often” in 1999, which was a

higher percentage than the international average

of 5 percent (figure 34). Sixty-one percent of U.S.

eighth-grade students reported that they never

used computers in their mathematics classes,

59

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

Mathematics Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

12 5

21 8

United States

International average

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.15. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS

1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the

Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 34.—Eighth-grade students’ reports on using computers in

mathematics and science classes “almost always” or “pretty often”:

1999
which was below the international average of 80

percent. Nine percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students reported that their teachers used

computers to present mathematics ideas almost

always or pretty often, which was higher than the

international average of 5 percent.

Among U.S. eighth-graders who indicated access

to the Internet, 13 percent reported they used email to work with students in other schools on

mathematics projects at least once a month, and

17 percent said that they used the World Wide

Web to access information for mathematics

projects at least once a month. A higher percentage of U.S. eighth-graders reported using the

World Wide Web to access information for mathematics projects than the international average.

In science, 21 percent of U.S. eighth-graders

reported using computers in science class “almost

always” or “pretty often” in 1999, which was higher

than the international average of 8 percent (figure

34).11 Twenty percent of U.S. students reported

their teachers used computers to present science

ideas, which was higher than the international

average of 10 percent.12 Among U.S. eighth-grade

students who indicated access to the Internet, 9

percent e-mailed students in other schools about

science projects at least once a month, and 29

percent accessed information on the World Wide

Web for science projects at least once a month.

U.S. students’ use of e-mail in this way for sciencerelated projects was lower than the international

average, and use of the Internet to access science

information for science-related projects was

higher than the international average.13

How often did U.S. students

discuss completed homework

or begin homework in their

mathematics and science

classes?

Many believe that homework is an important part

of the learning process and that more homework

leads to improvements in achievement. Prior

TIMSS reports have not found a relationship

between amount of homework assigned or hours

spent on homework and achievement levels across

nations (NCES, 1996, 1997c, 1998). That is, there

was no consistent pattern of greater amounts of

homework relating to higher achievement on

TIMSS.

Homework can also be used to stimulate discussion in the classroom, however. TIMSS–R asked

eighth-grade students how often they discuss their

completed homework in their mathematics and

science classes. A higher percentage of U.S. eighthgrade students reported that they discussed their

completed homework during mathematics class

than their international peers (figure 35). When

asked whether they could begin their mathematics

homework in class, a higher percentage of U.S.

students reported that they could than students in

32 other nations. Seventy-four percent of U.S.

eighth-graders reported that they “almost always”

or “pretty often” could begin their mathematics

homework during class compared to the international average of 42 percent.

When compared to their peers in the 22 other

nations that offer a general/integrated science

curriculum, a higher percentage of U.S. eighthgrade students reported that they discussed their

science homework in class than their peers in 15

nations. Sixty-three percent of U.S. eighth-graders

reported that they “almost always” or “pretty

often” discussed their completed science

homework in class compared to the international

average of 51 percent (figure 35). Among these

same nations, the United States had a higher

percentage of students who reported that they

began their homework in science class than in 15

nations. Fifty-seven percent of U.S. eighth-grade

students reported that they “almost always” or

“pretty often” could begin their science homework

during science class, compared to the international average of 41 percent.

60

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

11Comparisons among the 23 nations that generally teach general/integrated science.

12Comparisons among the 23 nations that generally teach general/integrated science.

13Comparisons among all 38 TIMSS–R nations.
How much time did U.S.

students spend studying 

mathematics or doing 

mathematics homework

outside of school? 

On average, U.S. eighth-grade students spent less

time outside of school studying mathematics 

or science and doing mathematics or science

homework than their international peers.14 U.S.

students spent an average of approximately threequarters of an hour on a normal school day either 

studying mathematics or doing mathematics

homework, which is lower than their international

peers, who spent an average of 1 hour. U.S.

students spent about half an hour on science

outside of school, less time than their peers in all

TIMSS–R nations, who spent an average of 1 hour.

61

CHAPTER 3—TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of students

Homework-related activities

79

55

74

42

63

51

57

41

United States

International average

Discuss completed 

homework in 

mathematics class

Begin homework in 

mathematics class

Discuss completed 

homework in science class

Begin homework 

in science class

◆Significant difference between U.S. average and international average in this category.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.10. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS

1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the

Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Figure 35.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of discussing or beginning homework in mathematics and science classes “almost always”

or “pretty often”: 1999

14This finding is consistent with prior reports on TIMSS. In an earlier NCES (1996) report, comparisons were made among

Germany, Japan, and the United States only. Data published in Beaton et al. (1996a, 1996b) are also consistent with the numbers

reported here.

CHAPTER 4

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The findings presented in this report examine the

performance of U.S. eighth-grade students in

comparison to their peers internationally. Most

importantly, perhaps, this report documents the

mathematics and science performance of our

students between two points in time, a first for any

international study. Regular participation in

international data collections, such as TIMSS and

TIMSS–R, provides an unprecedented opportunity to examine the pace of change in education in

the United States and other nations over time,

informing expectations of what can be achieved.

TIMSS and TIMSS–R were designed to document

the mathematics and science performance of

nations in comparison to one another. These

studies were developed to document the systems

put into place to support school mathematics and

science teaching and learning in many different

nations and the outcomes of these systems as

measured on a set of items agreed upon at the

international level. TIMSS and TIMSS–R were not

specifically designed to indicate the success or

failure of specific improvement efforts in the

United States.

Of course, as with any study, the findings also raise

many new questions, ones that can be pursued

through future analyses of the TIMSS and

TIMSS–R data, through analyses of other largescale data sets such as NAEP, or through future

data collections. This report presents an initial

examination of the TIMSS and TIMSS–R data.

Future reports are planned, and these will focus on

more in-depth analyses of the data. In addition,

each nation participating in TIMSS–R will release

its own analysis of the data. Insights from each

nation’s findings can add to our understanding of

what policies and practices may have contributed

to observed changes in achievement. The TIMSS

data set has been available for analysis by

researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for

some time. The TIMSS–R data set will also be

made available in the first half of 2001. Finally, the

results of the TIMSS–R Benchmarking Project

involving 27 states, districts, and consortia of

districts, available in April 2001, will provide an

opportunity to examine eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement data at a more local

level.

Among the many questions raised by the findings

in this report are the following:

■ Why did U.S. students’ performance relative to

the international average decrease as grade

levels increase? What is happening in the

intervening years between the fourth and

eighth grades in the United States?

■ Has the educational context for mathematics

and science changed in the United States

between 1995 and 1999?

■ What education-related background factors

are related to high achievement across

nations? What education-related background

factors are related to changes in achievement

across nations over time? 

■ What is the relationship between performance

in mathematics and performance in science at

the student, school, and national levels? 

■ What is the relationship between international

benchmarks of performance (e.g., top 10

percent) and the actual assessment items?

Which items are students at or above the

international top 10 percent benchmark likely

to answer correctly? Which items are students

at or above the international top 25 percent

benchmark likely to answer correctly?

■ In what areas of mathematics have black

students in the United States been making

progress? How does this progress relate to

policies at the national, state, and local levels?

■ What are possible reasons for the achievement

gap in science between girls and boys in

TIMSS–R? Did girls and boys differ in

achievement on the content areas? How do

these findings relate to decisions made at the

national, state, and local levels?

■ When controlling for other factors, how do

different groups of U.S. students perform on

TIMSS–R?

■ What policies and practices have been instituted in nations that experienced significant

increases and in those that experienced

significant decreases in achievement? What is

the relationship between these policies and

practices and achievement?

64

CHAPTER 4—FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Of course, there are many other questions that a

study such as this raises. And some of the 

questions raised cannot be answered solely by

examining data from TIMSS and TIMSS–R. It is

expected, however, that further analyses of TIMSS

and TIMSS–R will help address many of these

questions and raise new ones to be pursued in

future data collections. The additional 

components of TIMSS–R—that is, the TIMSS–R

Videotape Classroom Study, the TIMSS–R

Benchmarking Project, and the NAEP/TIMSS–R

Linking Study—will add to the rich resources

available for analysis and reflection. Moreover, it

is hoped that TIMSS–R, including these component studies, will continue to stimulate discussion

of the state of mathematics and science teaching

and learning in the United States among

researchers, policymakers, practitioners, parents,

and students, much as TIMSS did.

65

CHAPTER 4—FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Works Cited
Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.

(1996a). Mathematics Achievement in the

Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Beaton, A.E., Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.

(1996b). Science Achievement in the Middle

School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Board on International Comparative Studies in

Education, National Research Council. (1990).

A Framework and Principles for International

Comparative Studies in Education. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1981).

Public and Private Schools: An Analysis of High

School and Beyond, a National Longitudinal

Study for the 1980s (NCES 82–230).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1982).

High School Achievement. New York: Basic

Books.

Featherman, D. L. (1981). The Life-Span

Perspective. In The National Science

Foundation’s 5-Year Outlook on Science and

Technology (vol. 2). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Halsey, A.H., Heath, A.F., and Ridge, J.M. (1984).

The Political Arithmetic of Public Schools. In

G. Walford (Ed.), British Public School: Policy

and Practice (pp. 9–44). Lewes, DE: Falmer

Press.

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (1998). The BlackWhite Test Score Gap. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution.

Jimenez, E. and Lockheed, M.E. (Eds.). (1991).

Private Versus Public Education: An

International perspective. Special issue of

International Journal of Educational Research,

15.

Johnson, E.G. and Siegendorf, A. (1998). Linking

the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) and the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS):

Eighth-Grade Results (NCES 98–500).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Martin, M.O. and Gregory, K.D. (Eds.). (2000).

TIMSS 1999 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J.,

Gregory, K.D., Smith, T.A., Chrostowski, S.J.,

Garden, R.A., and O’Connor, K.M. (2000).

TIMSS 1999 International Science Report:

Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at

the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

Medrich, E.A. and Griffith, J.E. (1992).

International Mathematics and Science

Assessments: What Have We Learned? (NCES

92–011). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J.,

Gregory, K.D., Garden, R.A., O’Connor, K.M.,

Chrostowski, S.J., and Smith, T.A. (2000).

TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report:

Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at

the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1996). Pursuing

Excellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth-Grade

Mathematics and Science Teaching, Learning,

Curriculum, and Achievement in International

Context (NCES 97–198). L. Peak. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1997a). NAEP 1996

Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the

States: Findings from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NCES 97–488). C.M.

Reese, K.E. Miller, J. Mazzeo, and J.A. Dossey.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

68

WORKS CITED
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1997b). NAEP

1996 Science Report Card for the Nation and the

States (NCES 97–497). C.T. O’Sullivan, C.M.

Reese, and J. Mazzeo. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1997c). Pursuing

Excellence: A Study of U.S. Fourth-Grade

Mathematics and Science Achievement in

International Context (NCES 97–255). M.

Frase, P. Jakworth, L. Martin, M. Orland, E.

Owen, L. Peak, W. Schmidt, L. Suter, S.

Takahira, and T. Williams. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1998). Pursuing

Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade

Mathematics and Science Achievement in

International Context (NCES 98–049). S.

Takahira, P. Gonzales, M. Frase, and L.S.

Salganik. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (1999). Digest of

Education Statistics: 1998 (NCES 1999–036).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (2000a).

Mathematics and Science in the Eighth Grade:

Findings from the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (NCES

2000–014). T. Williams, D. Levine, L. Jocelyn, P.

Butler, C. Heid, and J. Haynes. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (2000b). The

Condition of Education: 2000 (NCES

2000–062). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.

Department of Education. (2000c). NAEP 1999

Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of

Student Performance (NCES 2000–469). J.R.

Campbell, C.M. Hombo, and J. Mazzeo.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Science Board. (2000). Science and

Engineering Indicators–2000 (NSB–00–1).

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Riordan, C. (1997). Equality and Achievement: An

Introduction to the Sociology of Education. New

York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Robitaille, D.F., Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.,

McKnight, C., Britton, E., and Nicol, C. (1993).

Curriculum Frameworks for Mathematics and

Science. TIMSS monograph no. 1. Vancouver,

BC: Pacific Educational Press.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Valverde, G.A.,

Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. (1997). Many

Visions, Many Aims, Volume 1: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School

Mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D.,

Bianchi, L.J., and Wolfe, R.G. (1997). Many

Visions, Many Aims, Volume 2: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School

Science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Sewell, W.H., Hauser, R.M., and Wolfe, W.C.

(1976). Causes and Consequences of Higher

Education: Models of the Status Attainment

Process. In W.H. Sewell, R.C. Hauser and D.L.

Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and Achievement

in American Society. New York: Academic Press.

Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S.,

and Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape

Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an

Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-Grade

Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and

the United States (NCES 1999–074).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Welch, C.M. (2000). United States. In D.F.

Robitaille, A.F. Beaton, and T. Plomp (Eds.),

The Impact of TIMSS on the Teaching and

Learning of Mathematics and Science (pp.

161–167). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational

Press.

69

WORKS CITED
Williams, T.H. and Carpenter, P.G. (1990). Private

Schooling and Public Achievement. Australian

Journal of Education, 34 (1), 3–24.

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The

Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears.

Political Science Quarterly, 111, 567–595.

70

WORKS CITED
Appendix 1

TIMSS Publications
The following reports are intended to serve as

examples of some of the numerous publications

that have been produced in relation to the 1995

Third International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS). For an extended version of this

list, please visit the NCES TIMSS web site at

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss95.

TIMSS Summary and

Achievement Reports

Beaton, A.E., Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.

(1996). Science Achievement in the Middle

School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.

(1996). Mathematics Achievement in the Middle

School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Beaton, A.E.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L.

(1997). Science Achievement in the Primary

School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.

(1997). Mathematics Achievement in the

Primary School Years: IEA’s Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,

MA: Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E.,

Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A.

(1998). Mathematics and Science Achievement

in the Final Year of Secondary School: IEA’s Third

International Mathematics and Science Study.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (1996).

Pursuing Eexcellence: A Study of U.S. EighthGrade Mathematics and Science Teaching,

Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement in

International Context (NCES 97–198).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (1997).

Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. FourthGrade Mathematics and Science Achievement in

International Context (NCES 97–255).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (1998).

Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. TwelfthGrade Mathematics and Science Achievement in

International Context (NCES 98–049).

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (1999).

Highlights from TIMSS (NCES 1999–081).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (2000).

Mathematics and Science in the Eighth Grade:

Findings from the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (NCES

2000–014). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

TIMSS Resource Kit

United States Department of Education. Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

(1997). Attaining Excellence: A TIMSS Resource

Kit (ORAD 97–1010). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

United States Department of Education (1999).

Attaining Excellence: TIMSS as a Starting Point

to Examine Mathematics Assessments (ORAD

1999–1104). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

72

APPENDIX 1—TIMSS PUBLICATIONS
TIMSS Videotape Classroom

Study Reports

National Center for Education Statistics, United

States Department of Education. (2000).

Highlights from the TIMSS Videotape Classroom

Study (NCES 2000–094). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S.,

and Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape

Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an

Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-Grade

Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and

the United States (NCES 1999–074).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

TIMSS Curriculum Study

Reports

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Cogan, L.C.,

Jakwerth, P.M., and Houang, R.T. (1999).

Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a

Closer Look at U.S. Mathematics and Science

Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., and Raizen, S.A.

(1997). A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of

U.S. Science and Mathematics Education.

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Valverde, G.A.,

Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. (1997). Many

Visions, Many Aims Volume 1: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School

Mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D.,

Bianchi, L.J., and Wolfe, R.G. (1997). Many

Visions, Many Aims Volume 2: A Cross-National

Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School

Science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

TIMSS Case Study Reports

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

United States Department of Education (1998).

The Educational System in Japan: Case Study

Findings (SAI 98–3008). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

United States Department of Education.

(1998). The Educational System in Germany:

Case Study Findings (SAI 1999–3001).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

United States Department of Education (1998).

The Educational System in the United States:

Case Study Findings (SAI 1999–3000).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Policy Publications Resulting

from TIMSS

National Research Council. (1999). Global

Perspectives for Local Action: Using TIMSS to

Improve U.S. Mathematics and Science

Education. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

United States Department of Education (1998).

Policy Brief: What the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Means

for Systemic School Improvement. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Silver, E.A. (1998). Improving Mathematics in

Middle School: Lessons from TIMSS and Related

Research (ORAD 98–1107). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilson, L.D. and Blank, R.K. (1999). Improving

Mathematics Education Using Results from

NAEP and TIMSS. Washington, DC: Council

of Chief State School Officers.

73

APPENDIX 1—TIMSS PUBLICATIONS

Appendix 2

Technical Notes
SAMPLING INFORMATION

TIMSS–R nations were asked to identify eligible

students based on a common set of criteria,

allowing for adaptation to nation-specific situations. The international desired population

consisted of all students in the nation who were

enrolled in the upper of the two adjacent grades

that contained the greatest proportion of thirteenyear-olds at the time of testing. In the United

States and most other nations, this corresponds to

grade 8. If the national desired population of a

nation fell below 65 percent, the nation’s name is

annotated to reflect this fact (table A2.1).

The international guidelines specified the following sampling standards:

■ The sample was to be representative of at least

90 percent of students in the total population

eligible for the study. Therefore, national

exclusion rates were required to be less than 10

percent.

■ The school participation rate without the use

of replacement schools were required to be at

least 50 percent, and

■ School and student participation rates 

(after replacements) were required to be 85

percent or

■ The combined participation rate (the product

of school and student participation rates 

after replacements) were required to be at least

75 percent.

Nations were also required to submit a sampling

plan for approval by the TIMSS International

Study Center.

All deviations from the international guidelines

are bolded in table A2.1.

A NOTE ON U.S.

EXCLUSION RATES

The reported exclusion rate for the United States

for grade 8 TIMSS was 1.7 percent, and 3.9 percent

for TIMSS–R. The difference in the exclusion rate

for the United States between TIMSS and

TIMSS–R may be explained as a difference in

reporting procedures between the two studies,

rather than an increase in the number of students

declared not eligible to participate in the

TIMSS–R assessment.

For the four nations that sampled more than one

classroom per school, including the United States,

exclusion of students could have occured at three

levels: at the school level, at the classroom level,

and at the student level. In the United States, there

was negligible exclusion at the school level in both

TIMSS and TIMSS–R. Tracking procedures

accounted for exclusions of students within

selected classes, but did not account for whole

classroom exclusion. Thus, the reported U.S.

TIMSS grade 8 exclusion rate of 1.7 percent

covered only student-within-classroom exclusions, not whole classroom exclusions. It is likely,

therefore, that this represents an underestimate of

the overall exclusion rate.

For TIMSS–R, reporting procedures for exclusion

rates in the United States were revised to permit

tracking of excluded classrooms. Thus, the United

States reports an exclusion rate within classrooms

of 1.1 percent and a classroom exclusion rate of

2.8 percent in TIMSS–R, for a total within-school

exclusion rate of 3.9 percent. The U.S. TIMSS–R

exclusion rate is consistent with experience in the

National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) when accommodations are not offered.

The available evidence thus points to no real

change in the level of exclusion for the United

States in TIMSS–R compared to TIMSS.

WEIGHTING, SCALING AND

PLAUSIBLE VALUES

Before the data were analyzed, responses from the

groups of students assessed were assigned

sampling weights to ensure that their representation in TIMSS–R results matched their actual

percentage of the school population in the grade

assessed. Based on these sampling weights, the

analyses of TIMSS–R data were conducted in two

major phases—scaling and estimation. During the

scaling phase, item response theory (IRT) procedures were used to estimate the measurement

characteristics of each assessment question.

During the estimation phase, the results of the

scaling were used to produce estimates of student

achievement. Subsequent analyses related these

achievement results to the background variables

76

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES
77

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES

Table A2.1.—Coverage of target population, by nation: 1999

Nation

Years of

formal

schooling

International

desired

population

coverage

National

desired

population

overall

exclusion

School

participation

rate before

replacement

Combined

participation

rate

Notes on sampling

standards

Australia 8 or 9 100 2.5 84 85

Belgium-Flemish 8 100 0.8 71 88

Bulgaria 8 100 4.6 96 93

Canada 8 100 6.0 94 93

Chile 8 100 2.8 98 96

Chinese Taipei 8 100 1.6 100 99

Cyprus 8 100 0.8 100 97

Czech Republic 9 100 5.2 96 95

England 9 100 5.0 51 78

Finland 7 100 3.7 97 96

Hong Kong SAR 8 100 0.8 75 75

Hungary 8 100 4.3 98 93

Indonesia 8 100 0.0 88 97

Iran, Islamic Republic of 8 100 4.4 96 98

(Israel) 8 100 16.1 99 94 Exclusion rate over 10

percent

Italy 8 100 6.7 94 97

Japan 8 100 1.3 93 89

Jordan 8 100 3.0 99 99

Korea 8 100 4.0 100 100

Latvia-LSS1 8 61 4.0 97 91

Exclusion of 39 percent

of student population

(non-Latvian-speaking

students)

Lithuania2 8.5 87 4.5 100 88

Exclusion of 13 percent

of student population

(non-Lithuanianspeaking students)

Macedonia, Republic of 8 100 1.1 99 98

Malaysia 8 100 4.6 99 99

Moldova 9 100 2.3 97 98

Morocco 7 100 1.0 99 93

Netherlands 8 100 0.6 58 82

New Zealand 8.5 to 9.5 100 2.4 93 91

Philippines 7 100 3.2 99 93

Romania 8 100 3.7 98 97

Russian Federation 7 or 8 100 1.7 98 96

Singapore 8 100 0.0 100 98

Slovak Republic 8 100 7.2 95 95

Slovenia 8 100 3.0 98 94

South Africa 8 100 2.3 84 82

Thailand 8 100 3.3 95 99

Tunisia 8 100 0.1 85 98

Turkey 8 100 1.9 99 99

United States 8 100 3.9 82 84

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2, A.5, and A.8. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
78

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES

Table A2.2.—Student and school samples and participation rates, by

nation: 1999

Nation Sample of schools Sample of

students

School

participation

after replacement

(weighted)

Student

participation

(weighted)

Australia 170 4032 93 90

Belgium-Flemish 135 5259 89 97

Bulgaria 163 3272 97 96

Canada 385 8770 95 96

Chile 185 5907 100 96

Chinese Taipei 150 5772 100 99

Cyprus 61 3116 100 97

Czech Republic 142 3453 100 96

England 128 2960 85 90

Finland 159 2920 100 96

Hong Kong SAR 137 5179 76 98

Hungary 147 3183 98 95

Indonesia 150 5848 100 97

Iran, Islamic Republic of 170 5301 100 98

(Israel) 139 4195 100 94

Italy 180 3328 100 97

Japan 140 4745 93 95

Jordan 147 5052 100 99

Korea 150 6114 100 100

Latvia-LSS1 145 2873 98 93

Lithuania2 150 2361 100 89

Macedonia, Republic of 149 4023 99 98

Malaysia 150 5577 100 99

Moldova 150 3711 100 98

Morocco 173 5402 99 92

Netherlands 126 2962 85 95

New Zealand 152 3613 97 94

Philippines 150 6601 100 92

Romania 147 3425 98 98

Russian Federation 189 4332 100 97

Singapore 145 4966 100 98

Slovak Republic 145 3497 96 98

Slovenia 149 3109 99 95

South Africa 194 8146 91 93

Thailand 150 5732 100 99

Tunisia 149 5051 100 98

Turkey 204 7841 100 99

United States 221 9072 90 94

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits A.6, A.7, and A.8. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.
collected by TIMSS–R. TIMSS–R data are

extremely important in terms of the cost to obtain

them and the reliance placed on the reports that

use them. Therefore, the scaling and analysis of

these data were carefully conducted and include

extensive quality control checks.

Weighting—Responses from the groups of

students were assigned sampling weights to adjust

for over-representation or under-representation

from a particular group. For example, the United

States desired to report information on the

achievement of students in public and nonpublic

schools. This required that the United States oversample nonpublic school students to get enough

information for this group of students in order to

do that. Sampling weights were applied to the

data for public and nonpublic students in order to

ensure that the U.S. student sample represents the

overall eighth-grade student population. The use

of sampling weights is necessary for the 

computation of statistically sound, nationallyrepresentative estimators. The weight assigned to a

student’s responses is the inverse of the probability

that the student would be selected for the sample.

When responses are weighted, none are discarded,

and each contributes to the results for the total

number of students represented by the individual

student assessed. Weighting also adjusts for

various situations such as school and student

nonresponse because data cannot be assumed to

be randomly missing. The internationally-defined

weighting specifications for TIMSS–R require that

each assessed student’s sampling weight should be

the product of (1) the inverse of the school’s probability of selection, (2) an adjustment for

school-level nonresponse, (3) the inverse of the

classroom’s probability of selection, and (4) an

adjustment for student-level nonresponse. All

TIMSS–R analyses are conducted using these

sampling weights.

Scaling—TIMSS–R used Item Response Theory

(IRT) methods to produce score scales that

summarized the achievement results. With this

method, the performance of a sample of students

in a subject area or sub-area could be summarized

on a single scale or a series of scales, even when

different students had been administered different

items. Because of the reporting requirements for

TIMSS–R and because of the large number of

background variables associated with the assessment, a large number of analyses had to be

conducted. The procedures TIMSS–R used for the

analyses were developed to produce accurate

results for groups of students while limiting the

testing burden on individual students.

Furthermore, these procedures provided data that

could be readily used in secondary analyses. IRT

scaling provides estimates of item parameters

(e.g., difficulty, discrimination) that define the

relationship between the item and the underlying

variable measured by the test. Parameters of the

IRT model are estimated for each test question,

with an overall scale being established as well as

scales for each predefined content area specified in

the assessment framework. For example, in 1999

the TIMSS–R assessment had five scales describing

mathematics content strands, and science had

scales for six fields of science.

TIMSS 1995 utilized a one parameter IRT model

to produce score scales that summarized the

achievement results. The TIMSS data were

rescaled using a three parameter IRT model, to

match the procedures used to scale the 1999

TIMSS–R data. The move from a one parameter

model to a three parameter model was initiated to

provide better estimates of student achievement.

After careful study of the rescaling process, the

International Study Center concluded that the fit

between the original TIMSS data and the rescaled

TIMSS data met acceptable standards. However, as

a result of rescaling, the average achievement

scores of some nations changed from those

initially reported in 1996 (NCES 1996) and 1997

(NCES, 1997c). The rescaled TIMSS scores are

reported here.

Plausible Values—During the scaling phase,

plausible values were used to characterize scale

scores for students participating in the assessment.

To keep student burden to a minimum, TIMSS–R

administered few assessment items to each

student—too few to produce accurate contentrelated scale scores for each student. To account

for this, for each student TIMSS–R generated 

five possible content-related scale scores that

represented selections from the distribution of

content-related scale scores of students with

similar backgrounds who answered the assessment

items the same way. The plausible-values technology is one way to ensure that the estimates of the

average performance of student populations and

the estimates of variability in those estimates are

79

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES
more accurate than those determined through

traditional procedures, which estimate a single

score for each student. During the construction of

plausible values, careful quality control steps

ensured that the subpopulation estimates based

on these plausible values were accurate. Plausible

values were constructed separately for each

national sample.

TIMSS–R uses the plausible-values methodology

to represent what the true performance of an individual might have been, had it been observed,

using a small number of random draws from an

empirically derived distribution of score values

based on the student’s observed responses to

assessment items and on background variables.

Each random draw from the distribution is

considered a representative value from the distribution of potential scale scores for all students in

the sample who have similar characteristics and

identical patterns of item responses. The draws

from the distribution are different from one

another to quantify the degree of precision (the

width of the spread) in the underlying distribution of possible scale scores that could have caused

the observed performances. The TIMSS–R plausible values function like point estimates of scale

scores for many purposes, but they are unlike true

point estimates in several respects. They differ

from one another for any particular student, and

the amount of difference quantifies the spread in

the underlying distribution of possible scale scores

for that student. Because of the plausible-values

approach, secondary researchers can use the

TIMSS–R data to carry out a wide range of

analyses.

ITEM DEVELOPMENT AND

REPLACEMENT

TIMSS–R utilized the same assessment framework

designed for TIMSS. Approximately one third of

the original 1995 TIMSS assessment items were

kept secure so that they could be included in the

1999 TIMSS–R assessment to provide trend data.

For the approximately two thirds of items that

were released to the public, a panel of international assessment and content experts and the

National Research Coordinators (NRCs) of each

participating country developed and reviewed

replacement items that closely matched the

content of the original items. Through this

process, over 300 science and mathematics items

were developed as potential replacement items, of

which 277 items were carefully chosen to be field

tested. Approximately 1000 students per country

participated in this field test.

All of the potential replacement items and the

secured items, as well as the questionnaires, were

field tested in 31 nations. Field test results for each

item were carefully reviewed and examined for

problems. Items that did not perform well during

the field test—based on a clear set of criteria—

were either revised to correct the problem or set

aside. Of the 277 potential replacement items, 202

were selected based on the results of the field test.

The item development process resulted in the

replacement of TIMSS items released to the public

with new items that had similar characteristics in

terms of item format, performance expectation,

content area, and difficulty level.

As a result, the TIMSS–R assessments consisted of

298 items—96 non-released items and 202

replacement items, organized into 26 blocks of

items among 8 test booklets. A summary of item

characteristics in TIMSS and TIMSS–R is

provided below.

80

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES

Table A2.3.—Number of items by item format in main survey:

1995 and 1999

Response type TIMSS TIMSS–R

Multiple choice 227 230

Free response 59 68

Total 286 298

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), Field

Test Report, Table 8.1, 1999.
TRANSLATION VERIFICATION

The TIMSS–R instruments were prepared in

English and translated into the primary language

or languages of instruction in each nation. In

addition, it was sometimes necessary to adapt the

instruments for cultural purposes, even in the

nations that tested in English. Adaptations were

approved by the International Study Center if they

did not in any way change the substance or intent

of the question or answer choices. For example,

use of the word “weight” may be an unfamiliar

colloquial term for “mass” to some students; a

change from “weight” to “weight (mass)”would be

an acceptable clarification in this case.

Each nation prepared translations of the instruments according to translation guidelines

established by the International Study Center.

Adaptations to the instruments were documented

by each nation. The goal of the translation guidelines was to produce translated instruments of the

highest quality that would provide comparable

data across participating nations.

Translated instruments were verified by an independent, professional translation agency prior to

final approval and printing of the instruments.

Nations were required to submit copies of the final

printed instruments administered in TIMSS–R to

the International Study Center. Further details on

the translation process can be found in the TIMSS

1999 Technical Report (Martin and Gregory, 2000).

81

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES

Table A2.4.—Number of mathematics items by content area in

main survey: 1995 and 1999

Content area TIMSS TIMSS–R

Algebra 27 28

Data representation, analysis and probability 21 21

Fractions and number sense 51 52

Geometry 23 23

Measurement 18 20

Proportionality 11 11*

Total 151 155

*Proportionality items in TIMSS–R distributed among other content areas. Therefore, TIMSS–R does not

 report proportionality as a separate content area.

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), Field Test

Report, Table 8.2, 1999.

Table A2.5.—Number of science items by content area in main

survey: 1995 and 1999

Content area TIMSS TIMSS–R

Chemistry 19 19

Earth science 22 22

Life science 40 39

Physics 40 39

Environmental and resource issues * 6 12

Scientific inquiry and the nature of science* 8 12

Total 135 143

*The TIMSS–R Science Assessment reflects the inclusion of 10 new items in the areas of Environmental and

 Resource Issues and Scientific Inquiry and the Nature of Science. This will permit the results in these two

 content areas to be reported separately in TIMSS–R, which was not the case in TIMSS.

SOURCE: Boston College, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), Field Test

Report, Table 8.3, 1999.
ITEM SCORING

The TIMSS–R assessments items included both

multiple choice and free-response items. The

National Research Coordinator (NRC) in each

nation was responsible for the scoring and coding

of data in that nation, following established international guidelines. The NRC and, in some cases,

additional staff, attended in-depth training

sessions to introduce participants to the TIMSS–R

coding system and to provide extensive practice in

scoring example items. The training sessions were

generally conducted over several days.

Information on within-country agreement among

coders was collected and documented by the

International Study Center. A percentage of

student responses in each nation were to be scored 

independently by two coders. Information on

coding and scoring reliability was also used to

calculate cross-country agreement among the

coders. The International Study Center carefully

monitored and documented the reliability of

scoring within and across nations. The results of

calculating reliability on scoring of the freeresponse items in each nation can be found in

Martin et al. (2000) and Mullis et al. (2000).

Further details on the item scoring process can be

found in Martin and Gregory (2000).

TIMSS 1995

PARTICIPATING NATIONS

Table A2.6 describes the complete list of nations

that participated in TIMSS 1995 at the fourth and

eighth grades.

82

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES
83

APPENDIX 2—TECHNICAL NOTES

Table A2.6.—Fourth- and eighth-grade nations in TIMSS: 1995

Nations that participated in 

TIMSS at eighth grade (1995)

Nations that participated in 

TIMSS at fourth grade (1995)

(Australia) (Australia)

(Austria) (Austria)

Belgium-Flemish

(Belgium-French)

(Bulgaria)

Canada Canada

(Colombia)

Cyprus Cyprus

Czech Republic Czech Republic

(Denmark)

(England) (England)

France

(Germany)

(Greece) Greece

Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong SAR

Hungary (Hungary)

Iceland Iceland

Iran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of

Ireland Ireland

(Israel) (Israel)

(Italy)1 (Italy)1

Japan Japan

Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic of

(Kuwait) (Kuwait)

(Latvia-LSS)2 (Latvia-LSS)2

(Lithuania)3

(Netherlands) (Netherlands)

New Zealand New Zealand

Norway Norway

Portugal Portugal

(Romania)

Russian Federation

(Scotland) Scotland

Singapore Singapore

Slovak Republic

(Slovenia) (Slovenia)

(South Africa)

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

(Thailand) (Thailand)

United States United States

Total Nations 42 27

1Italy was unable to provide the International Study Center at Boston College with their data in time for it to be

 included in the international reports for both the fourth and eighth grade in TIMSS 1995. However, their data

 for TIMSS 1995 appear in this report.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school

 year.

NOTE: Only nations that completed the necessary steps for their data to appear in the reports from the International

Study Center at Boston College are listed.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth, eighth or both

grades in 1995. See NCES (1996) for details regarding eighth-grade data. See NCES (1997c) for details for fourthgrade data.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit A.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Appendix 3

Supporting Data for Chapter 2
86

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.1.—Average mathematics and science achievement of

eighth-grade students with standard errors, by nation: 1999

Mathematics Science

Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e.

Australia 525 4.8 Australia 540 4.4

Belgium-Flemish 558 3.3 Belgium-Flemish 535 3.1

Bulgaria 511 5.9 Bulgaria 518 5.4

Canada 531 2.5 Canada 533 2.1

Chile 392 4.4 Chile 420 3.7

Chinese Taipei 585 4.0 Chinese Taipei 569 4.4

Cyprus 476 1.8 Cyprus 460 2.4

Czech Republic 520 4.2 Czech Republic 539 4.2

England 496 4.2 England 538 4.8

Finland 520 2.7 Finland 535 3.5

Hong Kong SAR 582 4.3 Hong Kong SAR 530 3.7

Hungary 532 3.7 Hungary 552 3.7

Indonesia 403 4.9 Indonesia 435 4.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 3.4 Iran, Islamic Republic of 448 3.8

(Israel) 466 3.9 (Israel) 468 4.9

Italy 479 3.8 Italy 493 3.9

Japan 579 1.7 Japan 550 2.2

Jordan 428 3.6 Jordan 450 3.8

Korea, Republic of 587 2.0 Korea, Republic of 549 2.6

Latvia-LSS1 505 3.4 Latvia-LSS1 503 4.8

Lithuania2 482 4.3 Lithuania2 488 4.1

Macedonia, Republic of 447 4.2 Macedonia, Republic of 458 5.2

Malaysia 519 4.4 Malaysia 492 4.4

Moldova 469 3.9 Moldova 459 4.0

Morocco 337 2.6 Morocco 323 4.3

Netherlands 540 7.1 Netherlands 545 6.9

New Zealand 491 5.2 New Zealand 510 4.9

Philippines 345 6.0 Philippines 345 7.5

Romania 472 5.8 Romania 472 5.8

Russian Federation 526 5.9 Russian Federation 529 6.4

Singapore 604 6.3 Singapore 568 8.0

Slovak Republic 534 4.0 Slovak Republic 535 3.3

Slovenia 530 2.8 Slovenia 533 3.2

South Africa 275 6.8 South Africa 243 7.9

Thailand 467 5.1 Thailand 482 4.0

Tunisia 448 2.4 Tunisia 430 3.4

Turkey 429 4.3 Turkey 433 4.3

United States 502 4.0 United States 515 4.6

International average 

of 38 nations 487 0.7 International average of 38 nations 488 0.7

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school

 year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;

Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
87

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.2.—Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade

mathematics with standard errors, by nation: 1999

Nation

Percentages of students reaching international benchmarks

Top 10 percent Top 25 percent Top 50 percent Top 75 percent

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Australia 1.8 2.7 73 2.4 94 0.8

Belgium-Flemish 1.4 1.7 85 1.4 98 0.7

Bulgaria 2.3 3.0 66 2.6 91 1.3

Canada 1.1 1.5 77 1.3 96 0.6

Chile 0.5 1.1 15 1.8 48 2.0

Chinese Taipei 1.7 1.5 85 1.0 95 0.6

Cyprus 0.4 0.8 51 1.1 84 0.8

Czech Republic 1.4 2.1 69 2.3 94 1.1

England 0.9 1.9 58 2.1 89 1.3

Finland 0.9 1.7 75 1.5 96 0.5

Hong Kong SAR 2.3 2.4 92 1.5 99 0.6

Hungary 1.2 1.9 74 1.6 94 1.0

Indonesia 0.4 0.9 22 1.4 52 2.2

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.2 0.8 25 1.7 63 1.5

(Israel) 0.6 1.3 47 1.8 77 1.9

Italy 0.7 1.4 52 2.1 83 1.4

Japan 1.1 1.0 89 0.5 98 0.3

Jordan 0.5 0.9 32 1.5 62 1.4

Korea, Republic of 1.0 0.9 91 0.5 99 0.2

Latvia-LSS1 0.9 1.8 63 2.0 92 1.0

Lithuania2 0.7 2.0 52 2.4 86 1.8

Macedonia, Republic of 0.4 1.0 38 1.9 72 1.8

Malaysia 1.4 2.4 69 2.2 94 0.8

Moldova 0.7 1.5 45 2.2 81 1.7

Morocco 0.0 0.2 5 0.4 27 1.1

Netherlands 2.3 4.1 81 3.5 96 1.3

New Zealand 1.2 2.4 56 2.5 85 1.5

Philippines 0.1 0.5 8 1.4 31 2.5

Romania 1.1 1.9 49 2.6 80 2.1

Russian Federation 1.8 2.8 72 2.7 94 1.2

Singapore 3.5 2.7 93 1.3 99 0.3

Slovak Republic 1.4 2.3 78 1.8 96 0.6

Slovenia 1.2 1.4 74 1.4 95 0.7

South Africa 0.2 0.4 5 1.0 14 2.0

Thailand 0.8 1.8 44 2.6 81 1.6

Tunisia 0.1 0.5 32 1.6 80 1.3

Turkey 0.3 1.0 27 1.9 65 2.0

United States 1.0 1.6 61 1.9 88 1.0

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

12

23

11

12

1

41

3

11

7

6

33

16

2

1

5

5

33

3

37

7

4

3

12

4

0

14

8

0

5

15

46

14

15

0

4

0

1

9

37

54

30

38

3

66

17

33

24

31

68

41

7

5

18

20

64

11

68

26

17

12

34

16

0

45

25

1

19

37

75

40

39

1

16

4

7

28
88

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.3.—Percentiles of achievement in eighth-grade science with

standard errors, by nation: 1999

Nation

Percentages of students reaching international benchmarks

Top 10 percent Top 25 percent Top 50 percent Top 75 percent

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Australia 1.6 2.3 2.0 93 0.9

Belgium-Flemish 1.4 1.6 1.7 96 1.3

Bulgaria 2.1 2.5 2.2 88 1.5

Canada 0.9 1.3 1.2 94 0.6

Chile 0.4 1.0 1.6 56 1.7

Chinese Taipei 1.9 2.0 1.3 95 0.7

Cyprus 0.5 0.8 1.6 74 1.4

Czech Republic 1.7 2.2 1.8 95 0.8

England 1.9 2.3 2.0 92 1.0

Finland 1.4 1.9 1.5 95 0.7

Hong Kong SAR 1.1 2.1 2.1 95 1.0

Hungary 1.4 1.7 1.4 95 0.8

Indonesia 0.3 0.9 1.6 64 2.4

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.3 1.0 1.7 68 1.7

(Israel) 0.6 1.2 1.9 72 2.0

Italy 0.9 1.7 2.0 83 1.2

Japan 1.1 1.4 1.0 96 0.5

Jordan 0.5 1.0 1.5 66 1.6

Korea, Republic of 1.1 1.2 1.0 94 0.5

Latvia-LSS1 1.3 2.5 2.0 88 1.4

Lithuania2 0.9 1.9 2.1 83 1.8

Macedonia, Republic of 0.5 1.6 1.9 70 2.2

Malaysia 0.9 1.9 2.2 85 1.5

Moldova 0.5 1.2 1.8 70 1.6

Morocco 0.0 0.2 0.5 20 1.1

Netherlands 2.3 3.8 3.5 95 1.6

New Zealand 1.4 2.1 2.2 86 1.6

Philippines 0.3 0.7 1.7 31 2.6

Romania 0.8 1.9 2.5 75 2.1

Russian Federation 2.4 2.8 2.5 90 1.0

Singapore 3.3 3.5 2.6 94 1.4

Slovak Republic 1.4 2.0 1.7 94 0.7

Slovenia 1.1 1.7 1.5 93 0.7

South Africa 0.2 0.6 1.4 13 2.0

Thailand 0.7 2.0 2.5 84 1.3

Tunisia 0.1 0.4 1.5 62 2.0

Turkey 0.2 0.8 1.8 62 2.4

United States 1.2 1.9 2.0 85 1.3

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.6. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

19

11

14

14

1

31

2

17

19

14

10

22

1

2

7

7

19

4

22

7

6

4

6

4

0

16

12

1

6

17

32

14

16

0

3

0

1

15

74

76

65

73

22

83

39

74

72

74

75

79

27

32

45

54

80

38

77

59

51

40

53

39

5

79

61

13

45

68

80

74

71

6

47

19

25

62

43

39

34

38

5

58

12

41

42

39

35

49

6

9

20

23

48

15

46

24

20

15

21

15

1

46

32

3

19

38

56

39

39

2

15

3

6

34
89

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.4.

—Average eighth-grade achievement in mathematics content areas with standard errors, by nation: 1999

Fractions and number sense Measurement Data representation, analysis, and probability Geometry Algebra

Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e.

Australia 519 4.3 Australia 529 4.9 Australia 522 6.3 Australia 497 5.7 Australia 520 5.1Belgium-Flemish 557 3.1 Belgium-Flemish 549 4.0 Belgium-Flemish 544 3.8 Belgium-Flemish 535 4.1 Belgium-Flemish 540 4.6Bulgaria 503 6.6 Bulgaria 497 6.6 Bulgaria 493 6.1 Bulgaria 524 5.9 Bulgaria 512 5.1Canada 533 2.5 Canada 521 2.4 Canada 521 4.5 Canada 507 4.7 Canada 525 2.4Chile 403 4.9 Chile 412 4.9 Chile 429 3.8 Chile 412 5.4 Chile 399 4.3Chinese Taipei 576 4.2 Chinese Taipei 566 3.4 Chinese Taipei 559 5.1 Chinese Taipei 557 5.8 Chinese Taipei 586 4.4Cyprus 481 3.0 Cyprus 471 4.0 Cyprus 472 4.6 Cyprus 484 4.6 Cyprus 479 1.6Czech Republic 507 4.8 Czech Republic 535 5.0 Czech Republic 513 5.9 Czech Republic 513 5.5 Czech Republic 514 4.0England 497 3.8 England 507 3.8 England 506 8.0 England 471 4.2 England 498 4.9Finland 531 3.8 Finland 521 4.7 Finland 525 3.8 Finland 494 6.0 Finland 498 3.1Hong Kong SAR 579 4.5 Hong Kong SAR 567 5.8 Hong Kong SAR 547 5.4 Hong Kong SAR 556 4.9 Hong Kong SAR 569 4.5Hungary 526 4.2 Hungary 538 3.5 Hungary 520 5.9 Hungary 489 4.3 Hungary 536 4.1Indonesia 406 4.1 Indonesia 395 5.1 Indonesia 423 4.4 Indonesia 441 5.1 Indonesia 424 5.7Iran, Islamic Republic of 437 4.5 Iran, Islamic Republic of 401 4.7 Iran, Islamic Republic of 430 6.0 Iran, Islamic Republic of 447 2.9 Iran, Islamic Republic of 434 4.9(Israel) 472 4.4 (Israel) 457 5.1 (Israel) 468 5.1 (Israel) 462 5.4 (Israel) 479 4.5Italy 471 5.0 Italy 501 5.0 Italy 484 4.5 Italy 482 5.6 Italy 481 3.6Japan 570 2.6 Japan 558 2.4 Japan 555 2.3 Japan 575 5.1 Japan 569 3.3Jordan 432 3.2 Jordan 438 4.4 Jordan 436 7.8 Jordan 449 7.1 Jordan 439 5.3Korea, Republic of 570 2.7 Korea, Republic of 571 2.8 Korea, Republic of 576 4.2 Korea, Republic of 573 3.9 Korea, Republic of 585 2.7Latvia-LSS1 496 3.7 Latvia-LSS1 505 3.5 Latvia-LSS1 495 4.8 Latvia-LSS1 522 5.6 Latvia-LSS1 499 4.3Lithuania2 479 4.3 Lithuania2 467 4.0 Lithuania2 493 3.6 Lithuania2 496 5.8 Lithuania2 487 3.7Macedonia, Republic of 437 4.7 Macedonia, Republic of 451 5.2 Macedonia, Republic of 442 6.2 Macedonia, Republic of 460 6.1 Macedonia, Republic of 465 4.0Malaysia 532 4.7 Malaysia 514 4.6 Malaysia 491 4.0 Malaysia 497 4.4 Malaysia 505 4.8Moldova 465 4.2 Moldova 479 4.9 Moldova 450 5.7 Moldova 481 5.0 Moldova 477 3.7Morocco 335 3.6 Morocco 348 3.5 Morocco 383 3.5 Morocco 407 2.2 Morocco 353 4.7Netherlands 545 7.1 Netherlands 538 5.8 Netherlands 538 7.9 Netherlands 515 5.5 Netherlands 522 7.7New Zealand 493 5.0 New Zealand 496 5.3 New Zealand 497 5.0 New Zealand 478 4.2 New Zealand 497 4.7Philippines 378 6.3 Philippines 355 6.2 Philippines 406 3.5 Philippines 383 3.4 Philippines 345 5.8Romania 458 5.7 Romania 491 4.9 Romania 453 4.7 Romania 487 6.4 Romania 481 5.2Russian Federation 513 6.4 Russian Federation 527 6.0 Russian Federation 501 4.8 Russian Federation 522 6.0 Russian Federation 529 4.9Singapore 608 5.6 Singapore 599 6.3 Singapore 562 6.2 Singapore 560 6.7 Singapore 576 6.2Slovak Republic 525 4.8 Slovak Republic 537 3.3 Slovak Republic 521 4.6 Slovak Republic 527 7.3 Slovak Republic 525 4.6Slovenia 527 3.7 Slovenia 523 3.7 Slovenia 530 4.2 Slovenia 506 6.2 Slovenia 525 2.9South Africa 300 6.0 South Africa 329 4.8 South Africa 356 3.8 South Africa 335 6.6 South Africa 293 7.7Thailand 471 5.3 Thailand 463 6.2 Thailand 476 4.0 Thailand 484 4.4 Thailand 456 4.9Tunisia 443 2.8 Tunisia 442 3.1 Tunisia 446 5.1 Tunisia 484 4.4 Tunisia 455 2.7Turkey 430 4.3 Turkey 436 6.5 Turkey 446 3.3 Turkey 428 5.7 Turkey 432 4.6United States 509 4.2 United States 482 3.9 United States 506 5.2 United States 473 4.4 United States 506 4.1

International average of 38 nations 487 0.7 International average of 38 nations 487 0.7 International average of 38 nations 487 0.7 International average of 38 nations 487 0.7 International average of 38 nations 487 0.7

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Table A3.5.

—Average eighth-grade achievement in science content areas with standard errors, by nation: 1999

Earth science Life science Physics Chemistry Environmental and resource issues Scientific inquiry and the nature of science

Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e.

Australia 519 6.1 Australia 530 4.4 Australia 531 6.3 Australia 520 5.0 Australia 530 6.3 Australia 535 4.9Belgium-Flemish 533 3.5 Belgium-Flemish 535 4.6 Belgium-Flemish 530 3.5 Belgium-Flemish 508 3.3 Belgium-Flemish 513 3.5 Belgium-Flemish 526 4.9Bulgaria 520 5.7 Bulgaria 514 6.9 Bulgaria 505 5.8 Bulgaria 527 5.7 Bulgaria 483 6.4 Bulgaria 479 5.6Canada 519 3.7 Canada 523 3.8 Canada 521 3.8 Canada 521 5.4 Canada 521 3.5 Canada 532 5.1Chile 435 7.0 Chile 431 3.7 Chile 428 5.6 Chile 435 5.2 Chile 449 4.8 Chile 441 4.7Chinese Taipei 538 3.0 Chinese Taipei 550 3.3 Chinese Taipei 552 3.9 Chinese Taipei 563 4.3 Chinese Taipei 567 4.0 Chinese Taipei 540 4.9Cyprus 459 5.4 Cyprus 468 3.8 Cyprus 459 2.9 Cyprus 470 3.4 Cyprus 475 4.3 Cyprus 467 4.6Czech Republic 533 6.9 Czech Republic 544 4.1 Czech Republic 526 4.2 Czech Republic 512 5.2 Czech Republic 516 5.7 Czech Republic 522 5.7England 525 3.9 England 533 6.2 England 528 4.5 England 524 5.5 England 518 5.8 England 538 5.1Finland 520 5.5 Finland 520 4.0 Finland 520 4.4 Finland 535 4.5 Finland 514 7.1 Finland 528 4.0Hong Kong SAR 506 4.3 Hong Kong SAR 516 5.5 Hong Kong SAR 523 4.9 Hong Kong SAR 515 5.2 Hong Kong SAR 518 4.9 Hong Kong SAR 531 2.8Hungary 560 3.9 Hungary 535 4.0 Hungary 543 4.3 Hungary 548 4.7 Hungary 501 6.6 Hungary 526 5.9Indonesia 431 6.4 Indonesia 448 3.6 Indonesia 452 5.5 Indonesia 425 3.9 Indonesia 489 4.8 Indonesia 446 4.3Iran, IslamicRepublic of 459 5.2 Iran, Islamic Republic of 437 3.7 Iran, Islamic Republic of 445 5.7 Iran, Islamic Republic of 487 4.1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 470 5.5 Iran, Islamic Republic of 446 5.3(Israel) 472 5.2 (Israel) 463 4.0 (Israel) 484 5.3 (Israel) 479 4.7 (Israel) 458 4.0 (Israel) 476 8.3Italy 502 5.9 Italy 488 4.6 Italy 480 4.1 Italy 493 4.8 Italy 491 5.4 Italy 489 4.6Japan 533 6.2 Japan 534 5.4 Japan 544 2.9 Japan 530 3.1 Japan 506 5.5 Japan 543 2.8Jordan 446 3.5 Jordan 448 4.1 Jordan 459 3.6 Jordan 483 5.5 Jordan 476 6.0 Jordan 440 5.5Korea, Republic of 532 2.7 Korea, Republic of 528 3.6 Korea, Republic of 544 5.1 Korea, Republic of 523 3.7 Korea, Republic of 523 4.5 Korea, Republic of 545 7.3Latvia-LSS1 495 5.4 Latvia-LSS1 509 3.9 Latvia-LSS1 495 3.9 Latvia-LSS1 490 3.7 Latvia-LSS1 493 5.2 Latvia-LSS1 495 4.7Lithuania2 476 4.4 Lithuania2 494 4.6 Lithuania2 510 4.3 Lithuania2 485 4.6 Lithuania2 458 5.1 Lithuania2 483 6.4Macedonia,Republic of 464 4.2 Macedonia, Republic of 468 4.9 Macedonia, Republic of 463 6.0 Macedonia, Republic of 481 6.1 Macedonia, Republic of 432 4.2 Macedonia, Republic of 464 3.6Malaysia 491 4.2 Malaysia 479 5.4 Malaysia 494 4.1 Malaysia 485 3.5 Malaysia 502 4.4 Malaysia 488 4.5Moldova 466 4.2 Moldova 477 3.9 Moldova 457 5.5 Moldova 451 5.6 Moldova 444 6.2 Moldova 471 3.9Morocco 363 3.3 Morocco 347 2.8 Morocco 352 4.2 Morocco 372 4.8 Morocco 396 5.1 Morocco 391 4.2Netherlands 534 7.2 Netherlands 536 7.2 Netherlands 537 6.5 Netherlands 515 6.4 Netherlands 526 8.5 Netherlands 534 6.5New Zealand 504 5.8 New Zealand 501 5.6 New Zealand 499 4.7 New Zealand 503 4.9 New Zealand 503 5.2 New Zealand 521 6.8Philippines 390 5.0 Philippines 378 5.7 Philippines 393 6.3 Philippines 394 6.5 Philippines 391 7.6 Philippines 403 5.5Romania 475 5.5 Romania 475 6.0 Romania 465 6.8 Romania 481 6.1 Romania 473 6.6 Romania 456 5.5Russian Federation 529 5.1 Russian Federation 517 6.5 Russian Federation 529 6.3 Russian Federation 523 8.0 Russian Federation 495 6.6 Russian Federation 491 4.9Singapore 521 7.3 Singapore 541 7.2 Singapore 570 6.7 Singapore 545 8.3 Singapore 577 8.3 Singapore 550 5.9Slovak Republic 537 4.3 Slovak Republic 535 6.2 Slovak Republic 518 4.1 Slovak Republic 525 4.9 Slovak Republic 512 4.5 Slovak Republic 507 3.9Slovenia 541 4.3 Slovenia 521 3.9 Slovenia 525 4.4 Slovenia 509 5.4 Slovenia 519 3.4 Slovenia 513 4.3South Africa 348 4.8 South Africa 289 7.3 South Africa 308 6.7 South Africa 350 4.0 South Africa 350 8.5 South Africa 329 6.4Thailand 470 3.9 Thailand 508 4.5 Thailand 475 4.2 Thailand 439 4.3 Thailand 507 3.0 Thailand 462 4.2Tunisia 442 2.7 Tunisia 441 5.0 Tunisia 425 6.3 Tunisia 439 3.7 Tunisia 462 5.0 Tunisia 451 3.4Turkey 435 4.6 Turkey 444 4.5 Turkey 441 4.0 Turkey 437 5.0 Turkey 461 3.6 Turkey 445 6.3United States 504 4.2 United States 520 4.1 United States 498 5.5 United States 508 4.8 United States 509 6.4 United States 522 4.3Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.9

Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.7

Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.9

Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.8

Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.7

Internationalaverage of 38nations

488 0.7

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.s.e. means standard error.SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

90

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2
91

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.6.—Percent correct on mathematics assessment item

examples with standard errors, by nation: 1999

Nation

Percentage of students responding correctly

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Australia 91 0.8 1.8 2.0 36 2.3 2.4

Belgium-Flemish 96 0.7 2.0 1.7 70 2.7 1.9

Bulgaria 86 1.6 3.2 2.6 49 3.1 3.0

Canada 93 0.7 1.6 1.8 36 3.0 2.6

Chile 65 1.3 1.2 1.0 23 1.8 1.2

Chinese Taipei 89 0.7 1.4 1.8 61 1.8 1.7

Cyprus 85 1.1 1.9 1.8 30 3.1 1.8

Czech Republic 91 1.0 2.9 2.5 40 3.0 2.8

England 92 1.0 2.3 1.9 43 2.9 2.3

Finland 91 1.0 2.3 2.0 53 3.2 2.3

Hong Kong SAR 93 0.7 1.6 1.8 60 2.4 2.3

Hungary 93 0.9 2.0 2.1 39 2.4 2.0

Indonesia 54 1.6 1.4 0.5 22 1.7 1.2

Iran, Islamic Republic of 58 1.5 2.0 0.7 23 1.8 1.1

(Israel) 83 1.6 1.8 1.5 35 2.8 1.8

Italy 77 1.9 2.1 1.7 41 2.2 1.5

Japan 95 0.5 1.2 1.5 73 1.7 1.7

Jordan 66 1.5 1.5 1.1 35 2.2 1.3

Korea, Republic of 93 0.6 1.3 1.5 56 2.1 1.2

Latvia-LSS1 87 1.4 2.5 2.1 39 2.9 2.4

Lithuania2 84 1.5 2.4 2.0 35 3.0 2.1

Macedonia, Republic of 79 1.4 1.9 1.3 36 2.7 1.6

Malaysia 88 0.8 1.9 1.4 49 2.5 1.8

Moldova 66 1.6 2.6 1.8 40 3.0 1.9

Morocco 43 1.2 0.9 0.4 26 1.8 0.6

Netherlands 95 0.8 4.7 2.7 39 3.5 2.5

New Zealand 88 1.0 2.3 1.7 27 2.3 2.3

Philippines 53 1.6 1.0 0.7 13 1.4 0.9

Romania 73 1.8 2.7 2.2 48 3.2 3.0

Russian Federation 83 1.9 2.8 2.4 49 2.9 2.7

Singapore 97 0.5 1.5 2.1 67 2.4 2.5

Slovak Republic 90 1.1 2.5 2.3 49 2.9 3.0

Slovenia 92 0.8 2.1 2.1 53 2.5 1.9

South Africa 37 1.6 0.7 0.3 15 1.3 1.0

Thailand 77 1.5 2.1 1.8 22 2.0 1.7

Tunisia 67 1.3 1.6 0.8 38 2.2 1.0

Turkey 74 1.3 1.7 1.3 29 1.8 1.5

United States 93 0.7 1.4 1.4 19 1.3 1.1

International average 

of 38 nations 80 0.2 0.3 0.3 40 0.4 0.3

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national percentages of the 38 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat

(TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings

from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2.3, 2.9, and 2.18.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

55

65

52

58

7

75

41

46

48

57

78

45

20

25

28

48

80

26

78

44

35

25

56

38

8

55

41

6

43

49

83

57

49

3

33

38

20

34

43

29

42

22

32

5

50

21

34

17

28

34

35

5

9

19

27

39

12

52

35

25

17

19

16

2

25

18

3

20

30

57

36

36

1

21

9

10

26

24

37

62

41

42

8

66

34

46

34

32

62

46

14

14

30

24

53

13

61

32

23

16

32

26

5

38

32

9

38

40

72

53

37

4

20

10

20

29

33
92

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.7.—Percent correct on science assessment item examples with

standard errors, by nation: 1999

Nation

Percentage of students responding correctly

Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Australia 53 2.0 2.4 2.8 72 1.7 66 2.5 2.2

Belgium-Flemish 53 1.6 2.2 3.5 70 1.6 53 2.7 1.5

Bulgaria 41 3.3 2.9 3.2 76 1.7 50 3.3 0.8

Canada 46 1.3 1.8 1.9 72 1.6 60 3.0 1.4

Chile 14 1.1 1.4 1.3 64 1.1 38 1.9 0.6

Chinese Taipei 61 1.4 2.2 2.1 91 0.7 76 1.7 1.3

Cyprus 21 1.3 2.1 2.3 62 1.6 31 2.4 0.8

Czech Republic 40 1.9 3.0 2.6 72 1.8 57 3.3 1.7

England 51 1.6 3.1 3.0 76 1.6 56 2.6 1.8

Finland 48 1.8 2.6 3.0 83 1.3 57 3.0 1.5

Hong Kong SAR 61 1.6 2.3 2.0 79 1.4 74 2.2 1.3

Hungary 44 1.8 2.4 2.5 81 1.3 70 2.8 1.0

Indonesia 18 0.9 1.8 2.1 47 1.5 27 2.0 0.7

Iran, Islamic Republic of 23 1.4 1.3 1.8 76 1.3 38 2.3 0.4

(Israel) 25 1.2 1.7 2.6 66 1.7 51 2.5 1.0

Italy 21 1.4 2.2 2.3 65 1.6 50 2.3 1.0

Japan 52 1.2 2.1 2.1 70 1.3 68 1.7 1.3

Jordan 19 1.1 1.4 1.9 78 1.2 32 2.1 0.8

Korea, Republic of 50 1.1 1.7 1.8 73 1.1 47 2.0 1.1

Latvia-LSS1 37 1.9 2.5 2.5 69 1.7 38 2.9 1.0

Lithuania2 38 1.7 2.0 2.8 74 1.6 51 2.9 1.1

Macedonia, Republic of 28 1.9 2.2 2.5 65 1.8 37 2.8 1.1

Malaysia 51 1.6 2.1 1.8 66 1.7 24 1.3 0.5

Moldova 32 1.6 1.4 2.0 47 1.9 42 2.8 0.6

Morocco 17 1.0 0.8 1.0 24 1.1 20 1.9 0.5

Netherlands 49 2.9 4.7 3.9 80 2.2 61 3.5 2.7

New Zealand 41 1.9 2.7 2.6 66 1.7 56 2.5 2.0

Philippines 16 0.9 2.1 0.9 48 1.6 33 1.8 0.5

Romania 26 1.9 2.4 2.8 71 1.7 48 2.8 0.7

Russian Federation 50 2.5 2.6 2.6 81 1.3 60 3.6 1.1

Singapore 44 2.4 2.5 3.2 81 1.8 69 2.2 2.6

Slovak Republic 43 2.2 2.5 2.9 73 1.5 45 2.9 1.1

Slovenia 59 2.1 2.1 3.0 70 1.6 57 3.1 1.1

South Africa 21 0.9 0.8 0.7 26 1.7 25 1.5 0.2

Thailand 26 1.3 1.5 2.2 70 1.2 49 2.4 0.7

Tunisia 16 0.9 1.3 1.9 44 1.3 21 1.6 0.5

Turkey 26 1.0 2.1 2.3 58 0.9 43 2.2 0.8

United States 48 1.6 2.1 1.9 66 1.4 62 1.8 1.3

International average 

of 38 nations 37 0.3 0.4 0.4 67 0.2 48 0.4 0.2

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national percentages of the 38 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Boston College, International Study Center, Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R),

unpublished tabulations, 1999; Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 2.3, 2.13, and 2.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

30

23

3

26

2

24

6

19

31

17

20

11

5

2

9

6

19

5

30

7

6

7

2

4

2

20

28

2

3

6

32

8

8

1

4

2

4

21

12

44

45

20

38

11

55

13

26

46

26

36

28

19

9

15

22

28

12

54

20

14

21

31

8

2

36

38

17

19

30

72

21

23

3

14

13

23

35

26

48

51

28

43

8

44

27

30

42

40

32

38

20

21

35

23

46

19

52

26

38

20

20

19

7

58

42

4

22

33

49

50

33

3

28

19

17

30

31
93

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.8.—U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement

with standard errors, by selected characteristics: 1999

Mathematics Science

Characteristics Average s.e. Characteristics Average s.e.

Sex Sex

Boys 505 4.8 Boys 524 5.2

Girls 498 3.8 Girls 505 4.6

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity

White students 525 4.6 White students 547 4.0

Black students 444 5.3 Black students 438 5.7

Hispanic students 457 6.3 Hispanic students 462 7.4

National origin of parents National origin of parents

Both U.S. born 510 3.8 Both U.S. born 527 4.1

Both foreign born 477 8.7 Both foreign born 472 8.0

1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 496 6.4 1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 509 7.0

Mother’s education Mother’s education

High school or less 484 3.5 High school or less 499 6.1

Some vocational

 + some college 511 3.9 Some vocational + some college 525 5.3

Completed college 539 5.4 Completed college 554 4.9

Father’s education Father’s education

High school or less 482 4.0 High school or less 495 5.9

Some vocational

 + some college 512 4.3 Some vocational + some college 529 6.7

Completed college 543 5.6 Completed college 560 4.7

Public/nonpublic school Public/nonpublic school

Public school students 498 4.3 Public school students 510 4.9

Nonpubic school students 526 7.4 Nonpublic school students 548 7.1

NOTE: Other factors not controlled for in these analyses.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.
94

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.9.—Average mathematics and science achievement of eighthgrade students with standard errors, by sex, by nation: 1999

Mathematics Science

Nation Girls Boys Nation Girls Boys

Average s.e. Average s.e. Average s.e. Average s.e.

Australia 524 5.7 526 5.7 Australia 532 5.1 549 6.0

Belgium-Flemish 560 7.2 556 8.3 Belgium-Flemish 526 4.7 544 7.2

Bulgaria 510 5.9 511 6.9 Bulgaria 511 5.8 525 6.5

Canada 529 2.5 533 3.2 Canada 526 3.2 540 2.4

Chile 388 4.3 397 5.8 Chile 409 4.3 432 5.1

Chinese Taipei 583 3.9 587 5.3 Chinese Taipei 561 3.9 578 5.7

Cyprus 479 2.1 474 2.7 Cyprus 455 3.1 465 3.0

Czech Republic 512 4.0 528 5.8 Czech Republic 523 4.8 557 4.9

England 487 5.4 505 5.0 England 522 6.2 554 5.3

Finland 519 3.0 522 3.5 Finland 530 4.0 540 4.5

Hong Kong SAR 583 4.7 581 5.9 Hong Kong SAR 522 4.4 537 5.1

Hungary 529 4.0 535 4.3 Hungary 540 4.0 565 4.5

Indonesia 401 5.4 405 5.0 Indonesia 427 6.5 444 4.8

Iran, Islamic Republic of 408 4.2 432 4.8 Iran, Islamic Republic of 430 5.7 461 4.4

(Israel) 459 4.2 474 4.8 (Israel) 461 6.0 476 5.5

Italy 475 4.5 484 4.3 Italy 484 4.1 503 5.6

Japan 575 2.4 582 2.3 Japan 543 2.8 556 3.6

Jordan 431 4.7 425 5.9 Jordan 460 5.0 442 5.9

Korea, Republic of 585 3.1 590 2.2 Korea, Republic of 538 4.0 559 3.2

Latvia-LSS1 502 3.8 508 4.4 Latvia-LSS1 495 5.6 510 4.8

Lithuania2 480 4.7 483 4.8 Lithuania2 478 4.4 499 5.0

Macedonia, Republic of 446 5.3 447 4.3 Macedonia, Republic of 458 6.0 458 5.4

Malaysia 521 4.7 517 6.0 Malaysia 488 5.5 498 5.8

Moldova 468 4.1 471 4.7 Moldova 454 4.4 465 5.4

Morocco 326 5.3 344 4.1 Morocco 312 5.9 330 5.9

Netherlands 538 7.6 542 7.0 Netherlands 536 7.1 554 7.3

New Zealand 495 5.5 487 7.6 New Zealand 506 5.4 513 7.0

Philippines 352 6.9 337 6.5 Philippines 351 8.2 339 8.9

Romania 475 6.3 470 6.2 Romania 468 6.4 475 6.5

Russian Federation 526 6.0 526 6.4 Russian Federation 519 7.1 540 6.2

Singapore 603 6.1 606 7.5 Singapore 557 7.9 578 9.7

Slovak Republic 532 4.2 536 4.5 Slovak Republic 525 3.4 546 4.5

Slovenia 529 3.0 531 3.6 Slovenia 527 3.7 540 3.7

South Africa 267 7.5 283 7.3 South Africa 234 9.2 253 7.7

Thailand 469 5.7 465 5.5 Thailand 481 4.6 484 4.4

Tunisia 436 2.4 460 2.9 Tunisia 417 3.3 442 4.3

Turkey 428 4.7 429 4.4 Turkey 431 4.8 434 4.3

United States 498 3.9 505 4.8 United States 505 4.6 524 5.5

International average 

of 38 nations 485 0.8 489 0.9 International average of 38 nations 480 0.9 495 0.9

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 38 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS

1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the

Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
95

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.10.—Comparisons of eighth-grade mathematics achievement

with standard errors, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 1999 1995–1999 difference3

Average s.e. Average s.e. Average s.e.

(Australia) 519 3.8 525 4.8 6.1

Belgium-Flemish 550 5.9 558 3.3 6.8

(Bulgaria) 527 5.8 511 5.9 8.2

Canada 521 2.2 531 2.5 3.2

Cyprus 468 2.2 476 1.8 2.9

Czech Republic 546 4.5 520 4.2 6.1

(England) 498 3.0 496 4.2 5.2

Hong Kong SAR 569 6.1 582 4.3 7.5

Hungary 527 3.2 532 3.7 4.9

Iran, Islamic Republic of 418 3.9 422 3.4 5.2

Italy 491 3.4 485 4.8 6.0

Japan 581 1.6 579 1.7 2.2

Korea, Republic of 581 2.0 587 2.0 2.8

(Latvia-LSS)1 488 3.6 505 3.4 5.0

(Lithuania)2 472 4.1 482 4.3 6.1

(Netherlands) 529 6.1 540 7.1 9.5

New Zealand 501 4.7 491 5.2 7.1

(Romania) 474 4.6 472 5.8 7.4

Russian Federation 524 5.3 526 5.9 8.0

Singapore 609 4.0 604 6.3 7.4

Slovak Republic 534 3.1 534 4.0 4.9

(Slovenia) 531 2.8 530 2.8 3.9

United States 492 4.7 502 4.0 6.2

International average 

of 23 nations 519 0.9 521 0.9 1.3

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)4 513 6.2 482 4.7 7.8

(South Africa)4 278 9.2 275 6.8 11.5

(Thailand)4 516 6.1 467 5.1 7.9

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

4Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. 

 These nations’ averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details. 

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See

appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for detatils for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

6

8

-16

10

9

-26

-1

13

5

4

-6

-2

6

17

10

11

-10

-1

2

-4

0

-1

9

2

-32

-3

-49
96

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.11.—Comparisons of eighth-grade science achievement with

standard errors, by nation: 1995 and 1999

Nation 1995 1999 1995–1999 difference3

Average s.e. Average s.e. Average s.e.

(Australia) 527 4.0 540 4.4 6.0

Belgium-Flemish 533 6.4 535 3.1 7.1

(Bulgaria) 545 5.2 518 5.4 7.5

Canada 514 2.6 533 2.1 3.3

Cyprus 452 2.1 460 2.4 3.3

Czech Republic 555 4.5 539 4.2 6.1

(England) 533 3.6 538 4.8 5.8

Hong Kong SAR 510 5.8 530 3.7 6.8

Hungary 537 3.1 552 3.7 4.9

Iran, Islamic Republic of 463 3.6 448 3.8 5.2

Italy 497 3.6 498 4.8 5.9

Japan 554 1.8 550 2.2 3.0

Korea, Republic of 546 2.0 549 2.6 3.4

(Latvia-LSS)1 476 3.3 503 4.8 5.9

(Lithuania)2 464 4.0 488 4.1 5.7

(Netherlands) 541 6.0 545 6.9 9.1

New Zealand 511 4.9 510 4.9 6.9

(Romania) 471 5.1 472 5.8 7.8

Russian Federation 523 4.5 529 6.4 7.9

Singapore 580 5.5 568 8.0 9.8

Slovak Republic 532 3.3 535 3.3 4.5

(Slovenia) 541 2.8 533 3.2 4.4

United States 513 5.6 515 4.6 7.2

International average 

of 23 nations 518 0.9 521 0.9 1.3

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)4 509 484 5.7

(South Africa)4 263 243 7.9

(Thailand)4 510 482 4.0

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

4Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. 

 These nations’ averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details. 

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See

appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for detatils for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.3. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

14

2

-27

19

8

-16

5

20

16

-15

1

-5

3

27

25

3

-1

1

7

-12

3

-8

2

3

-25

-20

-28

8.3

13.7

6.2

6.3

11.1

4.7
97

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.12.—Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students 

reaching the TIMSS–R 1999 top 10 percent international benchmark 

of mathematics achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation

1995 percentage of

students

1999 percentage of

students 1995–1999 difference3

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 1.2 1.8 2.2

Belgium-Flemish 1.6 1.4 2.2

(Bulgaria) 2.0 2.3 3.0

Canada 0.9 1.1 1.4

Cyprus 0.4 0.4 0.6

Czech Republic 2.1 1.4 2.5

(England) 1.2 0.9 1.6

Hong Kong SAR 2.6 2.3 3.4

Hungary 1.1 1.2 1.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.3 0.2 0.4

Italy 0.8 1.0 1.2

Japan 1.0 1.1 1.5

Korea, Republic of 1.2 1.0 1.4

(Lativa-LSS)1 0.8 0.9 1.2

(Lithuania)2 0.5 0.7 0.9

(Netherlands) 2.1 2.3 3.1

New Zealand 1.2 1.2 1.7

(Romania) 0.8 1.1 1.3

Russian Federation 1.4 1.8 2.2

Singapore 3.0 3.5 4.7

Slovak Republic 1.2 1.4 1.8

(Slovenia) 1.1 1.2 1.5

United States 0.9 1.0 1.4

International average 

of 23 nations 0.4 0.3 0.4

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)4 1.5 0.7 1.6

(South Africa)4 0.2 0.2 0.3

(Thailand)4 2.1 0.8 2.3

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

4Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. 

 These nations’ averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See

appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See (NCES 1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

11

19

19

9

4

19

8

28

13

0

7

34

36

5

3

12

8

5

12

46

14

13

6

14

8

0

10

12

23

11

12

3

11

7

33

16

1

6

33

37

7

4

14

8

5

15

46

14

15

9

15

6

0

4

1

4

-8

3

-1

-8

0

5

3

0

-1

0

2

3

1

3

0

0

2

0

-1

2

3

1

-3

0

-5
98

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.13.—Comparisons of percentages of eighth-grade students 

reaching the TIMSS–R 1999 top 10 percent international benchmark 

of science achievement with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Nation

1995 percentage 

of students

1999 percentage 

of students 1995–1999 difference3

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 1.3 1.6 2.0

Belgium-Flemish 1.2 1.4 1.8

(Bulgaria) 1.8 2.1 2.8

Canada 0.7 0.9 1.1

Cyprus 0.4 0.5 0.6

Czech Republic 2.2 1.7 2.6

(England) 1.8 1.9 2.6

Hong Kong SAR 1.2 1.1 1.7

Hungary 1.2 1.4 1.9

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.5 0.3 0.6

Italy 1.0 1.1 1.5

Japan 1.0 1.1 1.6

Korea, Republic of 1.0 1.1 1.6

(Lativa-LSS)1 0.7 1.3 1.4

(Lithuania)2 0.7 0.9 1.1

(Netherlands) 2.0 2.3 3.0

New Zealand 1.3 1.4 1.9

(Romania) 0.9 0.8 1.2

Russian Federation 1.2 2.4 2.8

Singapore 3.2 3.3 4.6

Slovak Republic 1.3 1.4 1.8

(Slovenia) 1.2 1.1 1.7

United States 1.2 1.2 1.7

International average 

of 23 nations 0.3 0.4 0.4

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)4 1.8 0.8 2.0

(South Africa)4 0.5 0.2 0.6

(Thailand)4 1.3 0.7 1.5

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Difference is calculated by subtracting the 1995 score from the 1999 score. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

4Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. 

 These nations’ averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See

appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.7. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

17

12

24

11

3

21

17

9

14

2

7

21

20

4

3

15

11

6

13

33

15

16

13

13

12

1

6

3

-1

-10

3

0

-4

2

1

8

0

1

-2

2

3

3

1

0

0

4

-1

0

0

2

1

-4

0

-2

19

11

14

14

2

17

19

10

22

2

8

19

22

7

6

16

12

6

17

32

14

16

15

14

8

0

3
99

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.14.—Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areas

with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

 Percent correct in mathematics content areas

Nation

Total mathematics trend

items (48 items)

Fractions and number sense

trend items (17 items)

Measurement trend items 

(6 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 68 0.9 69 1.1 68 0.8 70 1.0 71 0.9 73 1.1

Belgium-Flemish 73 1.3 76 1.2 75 1.2 77 0.8 77 1.5 79 1.7

(Bulgaria) 70 1.3 65 1.3 67 1.6 61 1.4 69 1.5 63 1.1

Canada 67 0.5 70 0.4 69 0.5 72 0.5 64 0.6 67 0.7

Cyprus 54 0.5 56 0.4 55 0.5 58 0.5 45 0.8 46 0.6

Czech Republic 72 1.0 67 0.9 67 1.2 61 1.1 80 0.8 77 1.0

(England) 64 0.6 63 0.9 65 0.7 65 0.9 67 0.8 66 1.2

Hong Kong SAR 77 1.3 79 0.9 78 1.3 81 0.9 76 1.4 77 1.0

Hungary 67 0.8 68 0.8 63 0.8 65 0.9 73 0.8 74 0.7

Iran, Islamic Republic of 44 0.6 44 0.6 46 0.7 45 0.7 31 1.0 34 0.7

Italy 60 0.9 58 1.1 57 1.0 55 1.1 64 1.2 63 1.2

Japan 78 0.3 78 0.3 76 0.4 76 0.4 75 0.4 74 0.5

Korea, Republic of 80 0.4 81 0.4 76 0.5 77 0.4 81 0.6 83 0.4

(Latvia-LSS)1 59 0.8 64 0.8 54 0.9 59 0.9 66 1.0 70 1.0

(Lithuania)2 56 1.0 57 1.0 52 1.0 54 1.1 57 0.9 56 0.9

(Netherlands) 70 1.6 74 1.6 70 1.3 75 1.7 76 1.6 77 1.6

New Zealand 64 1.1 62 1.2 65 1.0 63 1.2 66 1.2 65 1.3

(Romania) 55 1.0 54 1.1 51 0.9 50 1.1 57 1.2 57 1.3

Russian Federation 68 1.4 68 1.3 64 1.7 64 1.4 69 1.1 73 1.3

Singapore 84 0.7 83 1.1 87 0.6 85 1.0 86 0.7 83 1.1

Slovak Republic 69 0.7 69 0.9 66 0.8 67 1.1 75 0.7 75 0.9

(Slovenia) 69 0.7 70 0.6 68 0.8 69 0.7 72 0.8 72 0.7

United States 61 1.1 63 0.9 63 1.1 66 0.9 53 1.1 55 1.1

International average 

of 23 nations 65 0.2 65 0.2 64 0.2 64 0.2 66 0.2 66 0.2

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)3 66 1.3 59 1.1 67 1.2 61 1.0 63 1.5 55 1.1

(South Africa)3 29 1.2 27 0.8 32 1.2 29 0.8 30 1.4 28 0.7

(Thailand)3 65 1.3 54 1.0 66 1.3 55 1.1 63 1.5 51 1.2

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations’

 averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2

for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
100

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.14.—Comparisons of percent correct in mathematics content areas 

with standard errors: 1995 and 1999—Continued

Nation

Percent correct in mathematics content areas

Data represenation, analysis,

and probability trend items 

(8 items)

Geometry trend items 

(6 items)

Algebra trend items 

(11 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 71 0.8 74 1.0 58 1.1 59 1.4 67 1.0 69 1.2

Belgium-Flemish 74 1.3 77 1.3 66 1.4 69 1.9 72 1.6 73 1.3

(Bulgaria) 74 1.3 66 1.1 76 1.2 73 1.5 71 1.5 66 1.4

Canada 70 0.7 73 0.5 61 0.7 64 0.7 64 0.7 70 0.6

Cyprus 56 0.7 59 0.6 56 0.8 59 0.7 53 0.6 54 0.6

Czech Republic 75 0.8 73 0.8 73 1.2 67 1.2 72 1.3 65 1.1

(England) 71 0.7 73 0.9 51 1.0 49 1.2 61 0.8 60 1.2

Hong Kong SAR 74 1.1 78 0.8 78 1.6 80 1.1 78 1.4 79 1.0

Hungary 74 0.6 75 0.9 56 1.1 55 1.1 70 0.9 72 0.8

Iran, Islamic Republic of 45 0.7 47 0.6 44 0.9 44 0.8 48 0.9 47 0.8

Italy 67 0.9 65 1.3 59 1.2 58 1.3 58 1.0 55 1.3

Japan 79 0.3 80 0.4 84 0.4 82 0.5 79 0.4 79 0.5

Korea, Republic of 85 0.5 85 0.3 83 0.6 84 0.5 81 0.4 83 0.5

(Latvia-LSS)1 63 0.9 69 0.8 67 1.0 73 0.9 56 1.0 60 0.9

(Lithuania)2 61 1.0 66 0.9 64 1.3 63 1.4 55 1.2 54 1.2

(Netherlands) 77 1.6 80 1.5 62 1.8 66 1.7 65 2.1 70 2.0

New Zealand 70 1.0 69 1.3 55 1.3 51 1.4 60 1.2 60 1.5

(Romania) 57 1.1 56 1.1 62 1.3 59 1.3 56 1.2 55 1.3

Russian Federation 69 1.4 69 1.2 71 1.0 70 1.6 69 1.5 71 1.4

Singapore 79 0.8 79 1.1 82 0.9 81 1.3 83 0.9 82 1.3

Slovak Republic 71 0.8 73 0.9 71 0.9 71 1.2 67 1.0 66 1.1

(Slovenia) 75 0.7 76 0.7 64 0.9 63 0.9 69 0.8 69 0.7

United States 67 1.0 69 0.9 50 1.1 52 1.0 63 1.3 66 1.0

International average 

of 23 nations 68 0.2 69 0.2 63 0.2 63 0.2 64 0.2 65 0.2

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)3 66 1.5 62 1.1 65 1.6 56 1.3 65 1.6 59 1.2

(South Africa)3 31 1.1 29 0.8 23 1.2 22 0.7 27 1.4 26 1.0

(Thailand)3 66 1.0 58 1.0 68 1.4 57 1.3 64 1.5 50 1.1

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations’

 averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2

for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
101

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.15.—Comparisons of percent correct in science content areas with 

standard errors: 1995 and 1999

 Percent correct in science content areas

Nation

Total science trend items 

(48 items)

Earth science trend items 

(11 items)

Life science items 

(13 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 68 0.6 69 0.7 64 0.7 64 0.9 75 0.6 76 0.7

Belgium-Flemish 69 0.8 69 0.5 68 0.8 67 0.7 76 1.0 77 0.7

(Bulgaria) 74 0.9 72 0.8 70 1.1 68 1.0 82 0.8 80 0.8

Canada 65 0.4 68 0.3 61 0.6 64 0.5 72 0.5 75 0.4

Cyprus 56 0.4 57 0.3 53 0.5 53 0.4 67 0.6 67 0.5

Czech Republic 74 0.7 72 0.6 73 0.9 69 0.8 84 0.7 83 0.6

(England) 68 0.5 70 0.6 63 0.7 65 0.7 75 0.6 77 0.7

Hong Kong SAR 66 0.8 69 0.5 60 0.8 63 0.5 77 0.9 79 0.6

Hungary 73 0.5 76 0.5 74 0.7 76 0.7 81 0.6 82 0.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 59 0.5 57 0.7 57 0.6 55 0.7 62 0.6 60 0.6

Italy 65 0.7 64 0.8 62 0.9 62 1.0 72 0.8 72 0.8

Japan 71 0.3 72 0.3 65 0.4 68 0.4 77 0.4 78 0.4

Korea, Republic of 71 0.4 72 0.3 70 0.5 71 0.4 76 0.5 76 0.4

(Latvia-LSS)1 63 0.5 65 0.5 61 0.8 64 0.8 71 0.7 75 0.6

(Lithuania)2 62 0.7 65 0.7 58 0.9 60 0.8 68 0.8 71 0.7

(Netherlands) 71 1.0 71 1.1 65 1.4 68 1.3 81 1.0 81 1.3

New Zealand 64 0.7 63 0.7 59 0.8 59 0.8 70 0.9 70 0.9

(Romania) 62 0.9 62 0.8 61 1.0 60 1.0 69 1.0 68 0.8

Russian Federation 69 0.8 72 1.1 65 0.7 67 1.2 75 0.8 77 1.1

Singapore 74 0.9 71 1.2 64 1.0 61 1.0 80 0.9 78 1.3

Slovak Republic 70 0.6 71 0.6 67 0.8 67 0.8 76 0.6 84 0.6

(Slovenia) 72 0.5 70 0.5 76 0.6 73 0.6 76 0.5 76 0.6

United States 66 0.7 67 0.6 62 0.8 62 0.7 75 0.8 76 0.8

International average 

of 23 nations 66 0.1 67 0.1 63 0.2 63 0.2 73 0.2 74 0.2

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)3 67 0.9 63 0.8 61 1.0 57 0.9 74 1.1 68 0.9

(South Africa)3 37 1.1 35 0.7 34 1.0 34 0.5 38 1.4 37 0.9

(Thailand)3 65 0.8 58 0.8 63 0.9 52 0.9 79 0.7 72 0.8

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in 1995. These nations’

averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both years. See appendix 2

for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
102

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.15.—Comparisons of percent correct in science content 

areas with standard errors: 1995 and 1999—Continued

Nation

 Percent correct in science content areas

Physics trend items (15 items) Chemistry trend items (5 items)

1995 1999 1995 1999

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

(Australia) 62 0.6 64 0.7 71 0.9 72 1.0

Belgium-Flemish 64 0.9 63 0.5 72 0.8 70 0.8

(Bulgaria) 69 1.1 67 0.9 80 1.4 76 1.1

Canada 61 0.5 64 0.4 71 0.6 74 0.6

Cyprus 50 0.4 53 0.4 62 0.7 61 0.6

Czech Republic 68 0.6 65 0.7 72 1.0 70 0.9

(England) 65 0.6 65 0.7 72 1.0 73 0.9

Hong Kong SAR 62 0.8 64 0.5 68 1.3 72 0.9

Hungary 63 0.5 69 0.6 78 0.8 83 0.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of 56 0.7 54 0.8 66 0.7 64 0.9

Italy 59 0.7 58 0.9 68 1.1 66 1.2

Japan 69 0.3 69 0.3 74 0.6 74 0.6

Korea, Republic of 68 0.4 69 0.4 72 0.7 73 0.5

(Latvia-LSS)1 56 0.6 57 0.6 62 0.8 68 0.8

(Lithuania)2 58 0.7 61 0.7 68 1.0 70 1.2

(Netherlands) 66 0.8 66 1.0 72 1.2 73 1.2

New Zealand 59 0.6 58 0.6 70 1.1 68 1.0

(Romania) 57 1.0 57 0.9 65 1.1 65 1.2

Russian Federation 66 1.1 68 1.3 74 1.4 77 1.3

Singapore 74 0.8 72 1.0 81 1.1 76 1.6

Slovak Republic 65 0.7 62 0.7 77 0.8 74 1.0

(Slovenia) 65 0.6 63 0.5 72 1.0 71 0.8

United States 61 0.6 62 0.6 72 1.2 72 1.0

International average 

of 23 nations 62 0.1 62 0.1 70 0.2 70 0.2

Nations with unapproved sampling procedures at the classroom level in 1995

(Israel)3 62 0.9 62 0.7 73 1.3 69 1.2

(South Africa)3 37 1.2 34 0.7 38 1.3 35 1.0

(Thailand)3 59 0.9 53 0.8 50 1.1 45 1.0

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next

 school year.

3Israel, South Africa and Thailand experienced significant difficulties with meeting international guidelines in

 1995. These nations’ averages are not included in the international average.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, or both

years. See appendix 2 for details regarding 1999 data. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995 data.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations.

The 1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 3.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
103

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.16.—U.S. mathematics and science achievement with

standard errors, by selected characteristics: 1995 and 1999

MATHEMATICS

1995 1999

Characteristics Average s.e. Characteristics Average s.e.

Sex Sex

Boys 495 5.5 Boys 505 4.8

Girls 490 4.7 Girls 498 3.9

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity

White students 516 3.5 White students 525 4.6

Black students 419 6.8 Black students 444 5.3

Hispanic students 443 3.8 Hispanic students 457 6.3

National origin of parents National origin of parents

Both U.S. born 496 4.5 Both U.S. born 510 3.8

Both foreign born 474 8.5 Both foreign born 477 8.7

1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 482 11.1 1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 496 6.4

Mother’s education Mother’s education

High school or less 479 4.2 High school or less 484 3.5

Some vocational+some college 498 5.2 Some vocational+some college 511 3.9

Completed college 511 6.3 Completed college 539 5.4

Father’s education Father’s education

High school or less 474 4.4 High school or less 482 4.0

Some vocational+some college 498 4.7 Some vocational+some college 512 4.2

Completed college 515 5.7 Completed college 543 5.6

SCIENCE

Sex Sex

Boys 520 5.9 Boys 524 5.5

Girls 505 5.5 Girls 505 4.6

Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity

White students 544 3.3 White students 547 4.0

Black students 422 8.3 Black students 438 5.7

Hispanic students 446 5.0 Hispanic students 462 7.4

National origin of parents National origin of parents

Both U.S. born 521 4.9 Both U.S. born 527 4.1

Both foreign born 465 8.9 Both foreign born 472 8.0

1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 498 11.5 1 U.S. born, 1 foreign born 509 7.0

Mother’s education Mother’s education

High school or less 497 4.8 High school or less 499 6.1

Some vocational+some college 522 6.2 Some vocational+some college 525 5.3

Completed college 531 6.5 Completed college 554 4.9

Father’s education Father’s education

High school or less 494 5.0 High school or less 495 5.9

Some vocational+some college 521 5.4 Some vocational+some college 529 6.7

Completed college 534 6.0 Completed college 560 4.7

NOTE: Other factors not controlled for in these analyses.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS-R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.
104

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.17.—Mathematics achievement of TIMSS-R 1999 nations

that participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative

to the average across these nations with standard errors

1995 1999

Fourth grade Eighth grade

Nation Difference2 s.e. Nation Difference2 s.e.

(Australia) 3.0 Australia 4.7

Canada 3.3 Canada 2.7

Cyprus 3.1 Cyprus 1.9

Czech Republic 3.1 Czech Republic 4.1

(England) 3.3 England 4.0

Hong Kong SAR 3.8 Hong Kong SAR 4.2

(Hungary) 3.5 Hungary 3.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of 4.8 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.3

(Italy) 4.5 Italy 4.6

Japan 2.0 Japan 1.8

Korea, Republic of 1.9 Korea, Republic of 2.0

(Latvia-LSS)1 4.4 Latvia-LSS1 3.3

(Netherlands) 2.9 Netherlands 6.8

New Zealand 4.2 New Zealand 4.9

Singapore 4.3 Singapore 5.9

(Slovenia) 3.1 Slovenia 2.8

United States 2.9 United States 3.8

International average 

of 17 nations 0.9 International average of 17 nations 1.0

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2The difference between the national average and the international average for each of the 17 nations.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. See

NCES (1997c) for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

 0

-12

-42

23

-33

40

 4

-130

-7

50

63

-18

32

-48

73

 8

 0

517

 1

 7

-48

-4

-28

58

 8

-102

-39

55

63

-19

16

-33

80

 6

-22

524
105

APPENDIX 3—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 2

Table A3.18.—Science achievement of TIMSS-R 1999 nations that

participated in 1995 at both the fourth and eighth grades relative to

the average across these nations with standard errors

1995 1999

Fourth grade Eighth grade

Nation Difference2 s.e. Nation Difference2 s.e.

(Australia) 3.5 Australia 4.3

Canada 3.0 Canada 2.1

Cyprus 3.1 Cyprus 2.3

Czech Republic 3.0 Czech Republic 4.1

(England) 3.1 England 4.5

Hong Kong SAR 3.3 Hong Kong SAR 3.5

(Hungary) 3.3 Hungary 3.6

Iran, Islamic Republic of 4.4 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.7

(Italy) 4.4 Italy 4.5

Japan 1.9 Japan 2.4

Korea, Republic of 2.2 Korea, Republic of 2.6

(Latvia-LSS)1 4.7 Latvia-LSS1 4.9

(Netherlands) 3.1 Netherlands 6.5

New Zealand 5.1 New Zealand 4.8

Singapore 4.6 Singapore 7.6

(Slovenia) 3.9 Slovenia 3.3

United States 3.2 United States 4.5

International average 

of 17 nations 0.9 International average of 17 nations 1.1

1Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

2The difference between the national average and the international average for each of the 17 nations.

NOTE: Fourth and eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines at fourth grade in 1995. See

NCES (1997c) for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 17 nations.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 1.4. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

28

12

-64

18

14

-6

-6

-134

10

39

62

-27

17

-9

10

 8

28

514

16

 9

-64

15

14

 5

28

-76

-26

25

24

-21

21

-15

44

 9

-9

524

Appendix 4

Supporting Data for Chapter 3
108

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.1.—Organization of science instruction at grade 8, by

nation: 1999

Nations teaching science as a single

general/integrated subject Nations teaching science as separate subjects

Australia Belgium-Flemish

Canada Bulgaria

Chile Chinese Taipei1

Cyprus Czech Republic

England Finland

Hong Kong SAR Hungary

Iran, Islamic Republic of Indonesia2

Israel Latvia

Italy Lithuania3

Japan Macedonia, Republic of

Jordan Moldova

Korea, Republic of Morocco

Malaysia Netherlands

New Zealand Romania

Philippines Russian Federation

Singapore Slovak Republic

South Africa Slovenia

Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

United States

1In Chinese Taipei, separate sciences are taught starting in grade 7, with biology in grade 7 and physics/chemistry in

 grade 8. Students were administered the general version of the questionnaire and asked about “natural science.”

 Science analyses based on teacher background data treat Chinese Taipei as teaching separate science subjects;

 science analyses based on student background data treat Chinese Taipei as teaching general/integrated science.

2In Indonesia, students are taught “IPA science” by separate biology and physics teachers, but students receive a

 single composite grade. Students were administered the general version of the questionnaire and asked about “IPA

 science.” Science analyses based on teacher background data treat Indonesia as teaching separate science subjects;

 science analyses based on student background data treat Indonesia as teaching general/integrated science.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school

 year.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 5. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
109

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.2.—Eighth-grade mathematics teachers’ reports of their

main area of study with standard errors: 1999

Area of study

Percentage of students whose mathematics teachers 

reported a major area of study

U.S. average International average*

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Mathematics 41 3.4 71 0.6

Mathematics education 37 3.4 31 0.6

Science/science education 16 2.4 35 0.6

Education 54 3.4 32 0.6

Other 46 3.6 32 0.6

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Mullis et al. (2000) for

details.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Science includes biology, physics, chemistry, and science education.

Based on mathematics teachers’ reports of major or main area of study for bachelor’s and/or master’s degree; more

than one category could be selected.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.

Table A4.3.—Eighth-grade science teachers’ reports of their main

area of study with standard errors: 1999

Area of study

Percentage of students whose science teachers reported 

a major area of study

U.S. average International average*

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Biology 47 3.5 42 0.8

Physics 13 2.2 23 0.7

Chemistry 21 3.0 30 0.8

Science education 43 3.7 44 0.9

Mathematics/mathematics education 14 2.5 25 0.7

Education 56 3.6 30 0.7

Other 45 3.7 29 0.8

*The item response rate for this question was less than 70 percent in some nations. See Martin et al. (2000) for details.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

Based on science teachers’ reports of major or main area of study for bachelor’s and/or master’s degree; more than one

category could be selected.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.1. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
110

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.4.—Teachers’ beliefs about their preparation to teach

mathematics and science with standard errors: 1999

Percentage of 8th-grade students whose

mathematics teachers reported feeling very well

prepared to teach mathematics

Percentage of 8th-grade students whose science

teachers reported feeling very well prepared to

teach science

Nation Percent s.e. Nation Percent s.e.

Australia 84 2.7 Australia 55 1.8

Belgium-Flemish 80 1.4 Belgium-Flemish 47 2.1

Bulgaria 66 4.8 Bulgaria 46 1.9

Canada 79 1.7 Canada 44 1.7

Chile 44 2.8 Chile 29 1.9

Chinese Taipei 78 2.6 Chinese Taipei 42 2.6

Cyprus 89 0.9 Cyprus 57 1.4

Czech Republic 88 1.8 Czech Republic 64 2.0

England — — England — —

Finland 81 1.9 Finland 47 1.7

Hong Kong SAR 72 2.6 Hong Kong SAR 34 2.4

Hungary 59 3.3 Hungary 29 1.4

Indonesia 81 2.1 Indonesia 58 2.7

Iran, Islamic Republic of 81 1.8 Iran, Islamic Republic of 42 2.8

(Israel) 84 1.6 (Israel) 55 1.7

Italy 69 2.3 Italy 42 2.1

Japan 23 2.6 Japan 17 1.7

Jordan 88 1.7 Jordan 57 2.6

Korea, Republic of 61 2.5 Korea, Republic of 31 1.9

Lativa-LSS* 73 2.1 Lativa-LSS* 37 1.5

Lithuania — — Lithuania — —

Macedonia, Republic of 92 1.0 Macedonia, Republic of 72 1.3

Malaysia 81 2.5 Malaysia 22 2.3

Moldova 64 3.2 Moldova 39 1.6

Morocco 75 1.3 Morocco 57 1.4

Netherlands 84 5.3 Netherlands 50 1.7

New Zealand 88 1.9 New Zealand 59 2.1

Philippines 64 2.3 Philippines 41 2.3

Romania 85 1.3 Romania 57 1.5

Russian Federation — — Russian Federation — —

Singapore 78 2.7 Singapore 46 2.4

Slovak Republic 89 1.5 Slovak Republic — —

Slovenia 50 2.9 Slovenia — —

South Africa 71 1.9 South Africa 53 2.8

Thailand 32 3.0 Thailand 30 2.4

Tunisia 51 2.6 Tunisia 32 1.9

Turkey 83 1.6 Turkey 63 2.2

United States 90 1.2 United States 58 1.5

International average 

of 35 nations 73 0.4 International average of 33 nations 46 0.4

*Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested which represents 61 percent of the population.

— Data not available.

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details. 

Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; 

Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit R3.2. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
111

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.5.—Percentage of U.S. eighth-grade students taught by

teachers that participated in professional development activities that

emphasized different topics with standard errors: 1999

Professional Development Topic

Percentage of U.S. 8th-grade students taught by teachers

who said their professional development activities

emphasized the topic “quite a lot” or “a great deal”

Mathematics Science

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Curriculum 64 3.2 59 3.7

Subject-specific teaching methods in

mathematics or science 40 3.9 40 3.5

General teaching methods 38 3.4 44 3.9

Approaches to assessment 33 3.1 37 3.9

Use of technology in instruction 44 3.7 46 2.6

Strategies for teaching diverse student 

 populations 21 3.0 23 2.5

Information on how students learn 

 mathematics or science 21 2.8 23 4.3

Deepening teacher’s knowledge of mathematics

 or science 28 3.4 50 2.4

Leadership development 16 2.6 19 2.4

NOTE: s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Table A4.6.—Percentage of eighth-grade students “taught”

mathematics content areas with standard errors: 1999

Fractions and

number sense Measurement

Data

representation,

analysis, and

probability

Geometry Algebra

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 99 0.7 91 1.6 92 1.7 65 2.9 98 0.9

International average 95 0.3 86 0.5 59 0.7 58 0.7 88 0.5

NOTE: “Taught” equals the sum of percentages of students whose mathematics teachers reported these topics as either

“taught before this year” or “taught more than five periods this year.”

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.

Table A4.7.—Percentage of eighth-grade students “taught” science

content areas with standard errors: 1999

Earth science Biology Physics Chemistry

Environmental

and resource

issues

Scientific

inquiry and the

nature of

science

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 78 3.1 81 3.2 70 3.6 73 3.6 78 2.6 95 1.7

International

 average

57 0.7 60 0.7 53 0.7 67 0.6 72 0.6 80 0.6

NOTE: “Taught” equals the sum of percentages of students whose science teachers reported these topics as either “taught

before this year” or “taught more than five periods this year.”

Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and

Science Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpublished tabulations, 1999.
112

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.8.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of

selected activities in their mathematics class “almost always” or

“pretty often” with standard errors: 1999

Teacher shows how to do

a mathematics problem

Students work on

worksheets or from

textbooks

Students work on

mathematics projects

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 94 0.6 86 0.7 29 1.3

International average 86 0.2 59 0.2 36 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.9.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of the occurrence of selected

activities in their science class “almost always” or “pretty often” with

standard errors: 1999

Teacher show how

to do a science

problem

Students work on

worksheets or

from textbooks

Students work on

science projects

Teacher

demonstrates a

science experiment

Students conduct

experiments

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 69 1.4 76 1.5 59 1.3 71 1.1 65 1.5

International

 average of 23

 nations

80 0.2 56 0.3 51 0.3 71 0.3 57 0.3

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 23 nations that reported teaching a general/integrated science

curriculum in 1999.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits 6.10, R3.11, and R3.13. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.10.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of access to computers

and the Internet with standard errors: 1999

Have computer at

home

Have Internet

access at home

Have Internet

access at school

Have Internet

access elsewhere

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 80 1.2 59 1.7 76 3.2 81 0.9

International average 45 0.2 18 0.2 25 0.3 43 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The interational average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibits R1.1 and 6.17. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston

College.
113

APPENDIX 4—SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER 3

Table A4.11.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of using computers

in mathematics and science classes “almost always” or “pretty

often” with standard errors: 1999

Mathematics Science

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 12 1.1 21 1.4

International average 5 0.1 8 0.2

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The interational average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.15. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College;

Mullis et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.18. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Table A4.12.—Eighth-grade students’ reports of discussing or

beginning homework in mathematics and science classes “almost

always” or “pretty often” with standard errors: 1999

Discuss completed

homework in

mathematics class

Begin homework in

mathematics class

Discuss completed

homework in 

science class

Begin homework in

science class

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

United States 79 1.2 74 1.6 63 1.9 57 2.0

International

 average

55 0.2 42 0.2 51 0.3 41 0.3

NOTE: Eighth grade in most nations. See appendix 2 for details.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the nations that reported data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: Martin et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.10. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; Mullis

et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Exhibit 6.11. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Appendix 5

Comparisons of all TIMSS and TIMSS-R Nations
116

APPENDIX 5—COMPARISONS OF ALL TIMSS AND TIMSS-R NATIONS

HOW DOES THE UNITED

STATES PERFORM IN

COMPARISON TO ALL

TIMSS AND TIMSS–R

NATIONS?

Variation in the number of nations in international studies conducted to date can make

interpretation of international averages and

comparisons of performance of the United States

to other nations difficult. This is particularly true

when attempts are made to look at changes in the

relative performance of the United States over the

years. However, TIMSS–R was specifically

designed to allow for a direct comparison of

mathematics and science achievement of eighthgraders over 4 years' time. The establishment of a

common scale for the eighth grade components of

TIMSS and TIMSS–R allows us to develop the best

set of international comparisons, and the best

estimate of the relative international performance

of the United States to date. TIMSS included 42

nations. TIMSS–R included 38 nations, of which

26 are in common between TIMSS and TIMSS–R.

Combining the scores of nations from TIMSS and

TIMSS–R allows us to use a comparison group of

54 nations for this purpose. Not only does this

increase the overall number of nations with which

the United States is compared, but this extended

list will also go some way toward overcoming criticisms that the comparison group of nations in the

past has been biased toward developed nations

with a heavy European participation.

Any attempt to combine the results from TIMSS

and TIMSS–R raises the question of which

national average to use for the 26 nations that

participated in both TIMSS and TIMSS–R. From

one point of view, it may be best to use the 1995

scores from these nations even though they have a

1999 score. In this case we would be comparing 

nations on the basis of their first participation in a

TIMSS-like assessment. On the other hand, it may

be most appropriate to use the most recent data

available and so use the 1999 scores for the 26

nations in both studies. As it turns out, the results

are quite similar, so for the purposes of this presentation we will use the most recent data (1999)

for those nations that participated in TIMSS–R.

When looking at the data available for the 54

nations that participated in either TIMSS,

TIMSS–R, or both, at the eighth grade, the United

States performed above the international average

of the 54 nations in mathematics. Seventeen

nations outperformed the United States, 22

nations performed lower than the United States,

and 14 nations performed similarly to the United

States.

In science, the United States also performed above

the international average of the 54 nations.

Fourteen nations outperformed the United States,

26 nations performed lower than the United

States, and 13 nations performed similarly to the

United States

The findings from this combined

TIMSS/TIMSS–R comparison are shown in table

A5.1.

Relative to other nations in mathematics and

science, the United States appears to have done

better in science than in mathematics, if ‘better’ is

defined as fewer nations outperforming the

United States in one subject or the other. That is,

when looking at the achievement of all 54 nations

that participated in TIMSS or TIMSS–R, 14

nations outperformed the United States in eighth

grade science whereas 17 nations outperformed

the United States in eighth grade mathematics.

These comparisons reflect the achievement of U.S.

eighth-graders against the achievement of their

peers in 53 other nations, the broadest spectrum

of nations to date.
117

APPENDIX 5—COMPARISONS OF ALL TIMSS AND TIMSS-R NATIONS

Table A5.1.—Mathematics and science acheivement of TIMSS-R and

TIMSS nations with standard errors: 1995 and 1999

Mathematics Science

Nation Average s.e. Nation Average s.e.

Singapore 604 6.3 Chinese Taipei 569 4.4

Korea, Republic of 587 2.0 Singapore 568 8.0

Chinese Taipei 585 4.0 Hungary 552 3.7

Hong Kong SAR 582 4.3 Japan 550 2.2

Japan 579 1.7 Korea, Republic of 549 2.6

Belgium-Flemish 558 3.3 (Netherlands) 545 6.9

(Netherlands) 540 7.1 (Australia) 540 4.4

Slovak Republic 534 4.0 Czech Republic 539 4.2

Switzerland* 534 2.7 (Austria)* 539 3.8

Hungary 532 3.7 (England) 538 4.8

Canada 531 2.5 Finland 535 3.5

(Slovenia) 530 2.8 Slovak Republic 535 3.3

France* 530 2.8 Belgium-Flemish 535 3.1

(Austria)* 529 3.1 (Slovenia) 533 3.2

Russian Federation 526 5.9 Canada1 533 2.1

(Australia) 525 4.8 Hong Kong SAR 530 3.7

Finland1 520 2.7 Russian Federation 529 6.4

Czech Republic 520 4.2 Sweden* 523 2.9

Malaysia 519 4.4 Ireland* 518 5.1

Ireland* 519 4.8 (Bulgaria) 518 5.4

(Belgium-French)* 518 3.8 (Germany)* 518 5.5

Sweden* 513 2.7 United States 515 4.6

(Bulgaria) 511 5.9 Norway* 514 2.4

(Latvia-LSS)2 505 3.4 New Zealand 510 4.9

(Germany)* 502 4.5 Switzerland* 509 2.8

United States 502 4.0 Spain* 504 2.3

Norway* 499 2.2 (Latvia-LSS)2 503 4.8

(Denmark)* 497 3.1 (Scotland)* 501 5.6

(England) 496 4.2 Italy 493 3.9

(Scotland)* 493 5.7 Malaysia 492 4.4

New Zealand 491 5.2 (Lithuania)3 488 4.1

Iceland* 484 4.9 France* 488 3.2

Spain* 483 2.3 (Greece)* 486 2.8

(Lithuania)3 482 4.3 Iceland* 484 5.8

Italy 479 3.8 (Thailand) 482 4.0

(Greece)* 479 3.4 Portugal* 473 3.1

Cyprus 476 1.8 (Romania) 472 5.8

(Romania) 472 5.8 (Denmark)* 472 3.8

Moldova 469 3.9 (Israel) 468 4.9

(Thailand) 467 5.1 (Belgium-French)* 466 3.8

(Israel) 466 3.9 Cyprus 460 2.4

Portugal* 451 3.0 Moldova 459 4.0

Tunisia 448 2.4 Macedonia, Republic of 458 5.2

Macedonia, Republic of 447 4.2 Jordan 450 3.8

Turkey 429 4.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of 448 3.8

Jordan 428 3.6 Indonesia 435 4.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 3.4 Turkey 433 4.3

Indonesia 403 4.9 Tunisia 430 3.4

Chile 392 4.4 Chile 420 3.7

(Colombia)* 360 6.4 (Kuwait)* 415 5.6

(Kuwait)* 355 5.8 (Colombia)* 393 6.9

Philippines 345 6.0 Philippines 345 7.5

Morocco 337 2.6 Morocco 323 4.3

(South Africa) 275 6.8 (South Africa) 243 7.9

International average 

of 54 nations 486 0.6 International average of 54 nations 488 0.6

Average is significantly higher than the U.S. average

Average does not differ significantly from the U.S. average

Average is significantly lower than the U.S. average 

*Denotes score from 1995 (no 1999 score available).

1The shading of Finland and Canada may appear incorrect; however, statistically its placement is correct.

2Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were tested.

3Lithuania tested the same cohort of students as other nations, but later in 1999, at the beginning of the next school year.

NOTE: Parentheses indicate nations not meeting international sampling and/or other guidelines in the year for which data are reported. 

See appendix 2 for details for 1999. See NCES (1996) for details for 1995.

The international average is the average of the national averages of the 54 nations.

1995 scores are based on re-scaled data.

s.e. means standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Third International Mathematics and Science

Study–Repeat (TIMSS–R), unpubished tabulations, 1999.



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NCES 2001–028

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of

Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (B)

United States 

Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1395

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300