Math Pakistan

International Journal of Educational Management
Mathematics achievement in middle school level in Pakistan: Findings from the First
National Assessment
Saadia Tayyaba
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Saadia Tayyaba, (2010),"Mathematics achievement in middle school level in Pakistan", International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 221 - 249
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541011031583
Downloaded on: 11 July 2015, At: 01:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 882 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Frank H. Bezzina, (2010),"Investigating gender differences in mathematics performance and in selfregulated learning: An empirical study from Malta", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 669-693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610151011074407
Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Bashir Gondal, Bushra, (2005),"Assessing achievement of primary grader
students and factors affecting achievement in Pakistan", International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 486-499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540510617436
Cecelia M. Brown, Teri J. Murphy, (2000),"Research in undergraduate mathematics education", Reference
Services Review, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 65-81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320010313858
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543663 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm
Mathematics achievement in
middle school level in Pakistan
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
Findings from the First National Assessment

Saadia Tayyaba
221
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Abstract
Purpose The general objective of this paper is to investigate the mathematics achievement of
middle grade students in Pakistan. Specifically: to determine whether mathematics achievement varies
systematically across students and schools; to what extent the mathematics curriculum and
frameworks are implemented in schools; to what extent gender and location account for differences in
mathematics achievement (at item and test scores levels); to what extent student demographics, home
background, and homework variables predict mathematics achievement; to what extent schools
physical and academic resources predict mathematics achievement; and to what extent student- and
school-level variables interact to predict achievement indirectly.
Design/methodology/approach The approach was to undertake a quantitative survey of 14,440
students from 770 schools across the country. The analytic strategy included item-level Rasch
analysis, DIF analysis across gender and regional location, and MLM analysis to test various studentand school-level models.
Findings Rasch analysis indicated that students were able to pass low-rigour items requiring
simple mathematical skills. The DIF analysis indicated that items favouring female students in either
content domain belonged to knowledge of concepts to recall basic facts, terminologies, numbers, and
geometric properties. Items favouring male students in either domain belonged to the problem solving
level. MLM analysis revealed that at the student level, gender, location, and some home background
and homework variables contributed towards mathematics achievement. At the school level,
availability of learning resources and better physical facilities were found to be associated with
increase in achievement scores.
Research limitations/implications Only a few major variables with policy and research
implications were tested to keep the interpretations clear and simple. The next stage of this study
could examine the more complex pattern of relationships and interactions among relationships for
subgroups.
Practical implications The study has implications for a review of the gender gap in school
enrolment, the national curriculum for mathematics, homework policy, the role of regional languages
as a medium of instruction in schools, the provision of school resources, and learning aids in schools.
Originality/value The paper shows that the estimated models were successful in explaining the
variation in average achievement in terms of proportion of variance explained and significance of
estimates of the effects.
Keywords Assessment, Mathematics, Schools, Pakistan
Paper type Research paper
Concerns over the quality of education in Pakistan have been expressed in all national
education policies formulated since the independence of the country. These concerns
were heightened when Pakistan joined the global, joint UNESCO-UNICEF Monitoring
of Learning international initiative in 1996. Education sector reforms were developed,
aimed at improving all aspects of education, including infrastructures, human
resources, curriculum, teaching/learning material, and periodic assessments of
students achievement at both national and regional levels in the country. This resulted
International Journal of Educational

Management
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2010
pp. 221-249
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
DOI 10.1108/09513541011031583
IJEM
24,3
222
in a number of assessment studies being conducted between 1984 and 2005 with the
financial and technical support of UN or multi-donor agencies (Haque et al., 2000; Mirza
and Hameed, 1994; Pervez, 1995; Saeed et al., 2005; Shah, 1984; Bureau of Curriculum
Development and Extension Centre Balochistan, 2000; NWFP Bureau of Curriculum
Development and Extension Services, 1999; UNESCO, 2001).
During the 1990s the testing activity increased but the findings were more or less a
replication of the same disappointing results of the previous decade in terms of
students performance in mathematics and other core subjects. The available research
literature from this period suggests that different agents had very different perceptions
of the performance and problems of the education system. Head teachers, for example,
were not satisfied with the quality and standards of teaching and the role of parents in
homework support. Teachers cited the lack of physical facilities and teaching resources
as the major cause of low performance. School supervisors and district education
administrators were more concerned about inadequate physical conditions, poor school
administration, and lack of coordination between schools and communities (Charagh
et al., 1999).
Most of these studies were one-time project-driven activities and for this reason
could not become a part of the system. Lack of administrative infrastructure also
prevented a pooling together of national capacity for planning and execution of
learning assessment studies and held back progress in the field. Some non-government
organisations and universities also contributed some research aimed at monitoring and
evaluating the quality of education in the country (see, for example, Action Aid
Pakistan, 1999; Punjab Literacy Watch, 1999). However, the reports produced from
these studies have only occasionally captured the attention of senior decision makers in
the Ministry of Education, because of inappropriate methodologies, erroneous
sampling procedures, and inaccessible reporting formats.
Another major limitation of these studies was that they focused only on primary
education (in Pakistan primary schooling covers kindergarten to grade five). The
formal education system in Pakistan consists of primary, secondary, and
post-secondary levels further divided into sublevels. Five years of secondary
education follow five years of primary school, after three years in secondary schools,
middle school (eighth year of schooling) is completed and this is considered to be the
terminal stage of elementary education. This grade level is particularly important
because after completion of this grade students are called upon to make
curriculum-related decisions that ultimately influence their achievement in core
subjects like mathematics in high school. These decisions can limit or expand both the
future choices of academic subjects to which these students have access as well as their
high school options. Examining the mathematics achievement of grade eight students
would provide a much needed link for building the understanding of students
achievement and its antecedents. In spite of governments concerted efforts and
resources devoted to improving the quality of education, the implementing agencies
did not pay sufficient attention to investigating learning achievements at this grade
level and for the most part it has been ignored in the previous studies conducted at
either national or provincial level as revealed by a careful analysis of the available
published and unpublished documents.
With a view of monitoring the performance of the education system, the National
Assessment System (NEAS) was established in 2002 with the financial support of the
World Bank to monitor students performance at terminal stages of primary and

elementary education. Currently the system is responsible for carrying out annual
national assessments at Grade IV and VIII levels in government schools across the
nation in core subjects including mathematics, science, and language. The system
works in collaboration with the regional assessment systems and disseminates the
major findings for various stakeholders after each cycle of the assessment. So far, three
national assessments of Grade IV have been conducted, between years 2005 and 2007.
The first national learning assessment study of fourth-grade children was conducted in
2005. Around 12,000 children at government schools from all states and provinces of
Pakistan were assessed using national curriculum based tests in languages,
mathematics, and science. Consistent with the previous findings from Pakistan, the
average achievement scores (based on IRT calibrations) indicated enormously low
levels of achievement in mathematics and science across the years. The low
achievement in these core subjects was viewed with great concern by the Ministry of
Education and policymakers.
To further investigate the performance of students in the core subjects, the first
Grade VIII pilot and National Assessment were conducted in 2007. The present
investigation is based on data from the first National Assessment of Grade VIII
students to investigate students achievement and several student- and school-related
factors affecting mathematics achievement. Achievement at this grade level could be
attributed to a dynamic interaction between cognitive, affective, attitudinal and
motivational variables; these variables have emerged as salient factors affecting
mathematics performance in recent years (Singh et al., 2002). Accordingly,
mathematics achievement is considered to be a function of several inter-related
variables, such as students ability, attitudes, home background, parental and peer
influences, and school conditions and resources. Many of these variables (family
background, SES) are difficult to change and are outside the control of educators.
Others are student-related attitudinal variables that can influence access to
post-secondary and occupational opportunities. Thus, understanding the role of such
variables in mathematics achievement deserves serious attention. On an international
level, a multitude of studies exist, ranging from case studies to large-scale surveys
investigating the effects of student and school related variable on mathematics
achievement Pakistan lags far behind (see Beaton et al., 1996; Howie, 2002; Ma, 1995;
Maqsud and Khalique, 1991). Therefore, the present study is an attempt to investigate
the student- and school-level factors that might influence students achievement.
Research objectives
The present study uses National Assessment data to address the following research
questions:
.
Does mathematics achievement vary systematically across students and
schools?
.
To what extent are the mathematics curriculum and frameworks implemented in
schools?
.
To what extent do gender and location account for differences in mathematics
achievement (at item and test scores levels)?
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
223
IJEM
24,3
224
To what do extent student demographics, home background, and homework

variables predict mathematics achievement?
To what extent do schools physical and academic resources predict
mathematics achievement?
To what extent do student and school level variables interact to predict
achievement indirectly?
Method
Data source and sample
The empirical basis for this study is the national sample of Grade VIII students. The
sample was selected using NEMIS[1] Pakistans current database. The desired
population included all Grade VIII students enrolled in government schools in the
country. The sample design was selected to meet the criteria set down by the
International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement, which requires
sample estimates of the population to be adjusted by weighting procedures to remove
the potential bias arising from differential probability of selection, and to have
sampling errors for the major variables of study with 95 per cent confidence limits for
sample estimates of population percentages of 5 percentage points. Using a
two-stage stratified random sampling method, 15,260 students were selected from 770
schools across the country. The participation rate at the student and school levels was
93 per cent and 99 per cent, respectively. Within schools, a simple random sample of 20
students from all Grade VIII students was selected using random number tables. The
minimum cluster size was fixed at six for logistic and practical reasons. Sampling
weights[2] (student and school) were used to adjust for disproportionate allocation of
the sample across regions and also to account for the small loss of student data due to
the problems of enrolment in some regions. Government schools in Pakistan are
divided in to three categories:
(1) boys schools;
(2) girls schools; and
(3) co-educational schools.
The sample included 61 per cent boys schools, 37 per cent girls schools and 2 per cent
coeducational schools. The sampled students were mostly in high (63 per cent) middle
(24 per cent), and higher secondary (12 per cent) schools. The representation of rural
students in the sample was 62 per cent. There were 37 per cent girls in the sample.
Measures
Mathematics achievement
The dependent outcome measure in this study was the Mathematics Achievement Test
developed by the national assessment team. The test consisted of 56 multiple choice
and constructed response items. The mathematics objective that formed the basis for
the assessment was designed as matrix comprising four content areas and three kinds
of cognitive domain. The content areas are:
.
number sense and properties;
.
measurement and geometry;
.
.
information handling (preliminary statistics); and

algebra.
Each content domain includes several topics presented as objectives of the

mathematics curriculum. Furthermore, each content domain includes items
developed to address three cognitive domains:
(1) conceptual understanding;
(2) procedural knowledge; and
(3) problem solving.
The target percentage of the mathematics achievement test devoted to covering the
content and cognitive domains is based on the national curriculum[3]. Composite test
scores based on the item response theory (IRT) procedure of the Rasch scale (Wright
and Stone, 1979) constitute the dependent variable in this study. The Rasch procedure
scores the test items and then estimates students ability on each item as a function of
the difficulty of the test item and the students response to other test items. The
purpose of the Rasch scaling was to make the achievement scores independent of the
sample (student ability) and item difficulty. The curricular validity of these tests was
assessed beforehand by curriculum experts, taking into account various content and
ability areas[4]. To supplement the achievement results, students, parents,
mathematics teachers and head teachers were administered questionnaires about
their background, school resources, school conditions and instructional practices in
mathematics. This section describes the details of background questionnaires.
Student characteristics
Major demographic characteristics known to influence mathematics achievement
namely, gender, geographical location, and SES were included in the student
background questionnaire. Gender and location were the basic stratification variables
in the sample.
Students family background. This questionnaire includes information on students
demographics and home background collected from students and the parental
background questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised items to assess parental
education, occupation, and parental support in homework, parent-child
communication, and mothers expectations of their children to do well in
mathematics. The questionnaire also included questions on home language, family
size, and SES.
Students self-confidence and attitudes towards mathematics. An index developed by
Mullis et al. (1998) was used to assess general attitudes towards mathematics,
self-confidence, and liking of mathematics as a subject.
School-related variables. School-related variables were assessed using the head
teacher background questionnaire, which included questions on the availability of the
physical facilities (e.g. electricity, water supply, furniture, boundary wall, playground,
heating and medical facilities) and academic resources (curriculum document,
textbooks, teacher guides, teaching kit, AV aids, and library) in the school. The
questionnaire also included information on class size, instructional time per week,
duration of periods, and availability of separate classrooms for the students.
Descriptive statistics of the study measures are reported in the Appendix.
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
225
IJEM
24,3
Data analysis
Data analysis is reported in two parts. Part 1 reports an evaluation of the test items to
ascertain the fit statistics and item difficulty indices, and Part 2 reports the results of
MLM models estimated to examine the impact of various student and school level
variables on students achievement.
226
Part 1: Item-level analysis

The students responses were subjected to Rasch analysis, which produces estimates of
item difficulty and item-person distribution maps. These estimates take into account
the varying difficulties of the items across test booklets as well as the performance and
ability of the students responding to each set of items. The Rasch model states that the
outcome of the encounter shall be taken to be entirely governed by the difference
between the ability of the person and the difficulty of the item (Wright and Stone,
1979). When the Rasch model fits, the results are independent of the sample of persons
and of the particular items, within some broad limits.
The item-person map of the test provides details of the distribution of item difficulty
and students ability on the logit scale. The map (Figure 1) is centred on a value of 0
(mean) with items clearly ranked above and below SD points. The map shows that
students on the upper left of the map are better than items on the lower right, meaning
that those easier items were not difficult enough to challenge more able students on the
upper left of the map. On the other hand, the items on the upper right outsmart
examinees on the lower left, which implies that these difficult items are beyond their
ability level. Also there were some students on the top left hand side of the map for
whom there were no items to match their ability level. Most of the items cluster around
the mean (0) and 1SD. The item distribution is approximately normal in appearance,
but there are some outliers i.e. some students located at the far end of the distribution
appear as outliers or misfits.
To further probe the misfit in the items, item-fit indices were computed and item
content was examined to ascertain the content areas that students found particularly
difficult to respond correctly to. A visual inspection of MNSQ in both infit and outfit
statistics revealed that all items were within the critical range, having mean square
values less than 1.5 and greater than 0.5 (Linacre, 1999), and were thus considered
productive for measurement. The proportion correct values ranged between 0.14 and
0.67. The item difficulty estimates are presented in the Measure column of Table I
followed by the standard error and fit estimates. The measure ranged between 1.47 and
1.33. Table I presents the fit indices and a description of the content of the test items.
Students achievement of cognitive and content domains
Given that the mathematics test included items from different curricular areas, it is
important to examine the strength and weaknesses of the students in these content
areas to ascertain how their achievement relates to the curriculum. The following
section reports results of the students achievement in different cognitive and content
domains.
Geometry and measurement. The results indicated that geometry and measurement
was the most difficult domain for students. Less than 20 per cent students passed items
that required application of geometric properties to solve problems, measure or
estimate the size of given angles involving area and volume, and divide line segments
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
227
Figure 1.
Item -person map
Table I.
Item fit statistics and
description of the test
items
MB33
CM32
MB30
MB23
MB28
MA30
MB25
MA21
MB19
MA27
MB27
CM29
MA25
MA33
MB15
MB21
MA26
CM24
MA18
MB13
CM14
CM31
MA13
CM03
MB26
MB22
MA16
MB20
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
1
1
2
4
2
4
1
1
3
3
1
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
1
4
3
Domain
Application of geometric properties to solve problems

Dividing line segments in a given number of parts and ratio
Find out proportion
Word problem of compound proportions using daily life examples
Measure and estimate size of given angles
Compute square root of natural numbers
Find out linear equations
Statement and use of Pythagorass theorem
Evaluate an algebraic expression
Compute square root of common fraction
Use ordered pairs, intercepts, or intersections to locate points and lines in
Cartesian plane
Compare algebraic expression to determine equivalence
Application of polynomials
Measurement of surface area and volume of a sphere
Determine measure of angle in triangle
Evaluate an algebraic expression
Measurement formulas for diagonal in square or rhombus
Investigating net profit and loss with given commission
Measure, draw and estimate size of surface area and volume
Find out compound proportion from daily life
Evaluate additive inverse
Select and use appropriate formula for measurement of surface area, and
area of cone
Equality of sets
Equality of sets
Concept of averages
Concept of base of number system
Concept of averages
Compute square root of fraction and decimal
Description
14
17
16
17
17
21
20
22
23
26
25
26
28
28
28
30
31
31
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
37
38
38
0.65
0.64
0.58
0.56
0.5
0.4
0.38
0.34
0.27
0.22
0.21
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.04
0
20.01
Percentage
correct
1.47
1.26
1.25
1.21
1.20
0.97
0.95
0.92
0.77
0.7
Measure
0.95
1.15
0.95
1.03
0.90
1.03
0.94
1.06
1.08
1.12
0.95
1.14
0.85
1.05
0.96
1.03
1.12
0.93
1.23
1.08
1.08
0.98
1.15
1.02
1.20
1.18
1.13
0.99
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
SE
0.94
0.02
1.20
0.03
0.94
0.02
1.04
0.03
0.88
0.03
1.04
0.03
0.93
0.03
(continued)
1.10
1.10
1.18
0.96
1.20
0.81
1.09
0.97
1.03
1.16
0.91
1.64
1.25
1.27
1.12
1.33
1.11
1.33
1.27
1.25
1.01
Outfit
MNSQ
Infit
228
Item
S. No. code
IJEM
24,3
MA28
MA09
MB18
MA12
MA07
MA23
MB06
MA20
MB09
MA22
MA11
CM05
MA08
MA19
MA02
MA15
MB11
MA06
MB08
MB12
MB07
CM17
CM04
MB02
MB01
MB16
CM10
MA01
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
4
1
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
1
Domain
Compute square root of fraction and decimal

Calculating income tax
Determine fraction of shaded figure
Compute multiplicative inverse
Divide a quantity in a given ratio
Compute square root of natural numbers
Concept of mode
Concept of averages
Identify congruent triangles and their corresponding measures
Use the principles of commutativity, associativity, and distributivity
Evaluate algebraic expression
Identify areas of quadrilateral regions and their corresponding measures
Finding surface area of cone
evaluate sets and subsets
Simplifying algebraic expression involving brackets
Solve problems involving compound proportions
Concept of sets
Simplifying algebraic expression involving brackets
Solve problems involving compound proportions
Converting the numbers from decimal system
Concept of base of number system
Use multiples and factors of numbers
Find out elements of sets
Description
20.07
20.19
20.2
20.2
20.23
20.24
20.27
20.34
20.34
20.35
20.39
20.46
20.52
20.54
20.55
20.59
20.62
20.69
20.7
20.72
20.78
20.83
20.93
20.95
20.98
21.03
21.05
21.33
Measure
40
42
42
43
43
43
43
46
45
46
47
48
50
50
50
51
51
53
53
53
54
56
58
58
59
60
61
67
Percentage
correct
Outfit
0.90
1.00
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.97
1.04
0.99
0.94
0.93
0.91
0.97
1.02
0.97
0.86
1.01
0.93
0.90
0.90
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.85
0.89
0.98
Infit
0.92
1.01
1.04
1.07
1.04
1.01
0.95
0.98
0.98
1.03
1.00
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.97
0.98
0.96
0.90
1.00
0.94
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.97
0.96
0.89
0.93
0.96
MNSQ
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
SE
Notes: Ten items were common across test booklets. a1, algebra; 2, data analysis; 3, geometry; 4, number sense. bMeasure is based on IRT item difficulty
index in relation to persons ability to respond an item correctly. cMNSQ infit t standardized information weighted mean square statistics; MNSQ
outfit t standardized outlier-sensitive mean square fit statistics
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Item
S. No. code
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
229
Table I.
IJEM
24,3
230
in given numbers of parts and ratios. The evaluation of the National Curriculum
Document reveals an emphasis for Grade VIII students to be able to analyse the
properties and characteristics of a variety of two- and three-dimensional geometric
figures, including lengths of sides and sizes of angles, and to provide explanations
based on geometric relationships. However, the results do not seem to reflect proper
delivery and implementation of the curriculum as there is a marked discrepancy
between the expectations of the curriculum and actual achievement. Around 3 per cent
of students passed 80 per cent of items, whereas 9 per cent of students could not pass a
single item of this domain.
Algebra. In the national curriculum the algebra domain includes recognising and
extending patterns, using algebraic symbols to represent mathematical situations, and
developing fluency in producing algebraic expressions and solving linear equations.
Contrary to the expectations of the curriculum, students were not able to demonstrate
an understanding of relatively formalised algebraic concepts. The analysis showed
that evaluating or simplifying algebraic expressions involving brackets, addition, and
subtraction of polynomials (up to a degree of four), simultaneous linear equations, and
establishment of formulas were difficult for the students. Similarly students were not
able to solve real-world problems using algebraic models or to explain relationships
involving algebraic expressions. Less than 30 per cent students could pass items at the
problem-solving level. Items at the conceptual understanding and procedural
knowledge level were of moderate difficulty for the students. Students were able to
respond correctly to items involving concept of sets, for example, equality of sets,
finding out subsets of a set, and power sets. Overall, 3 per cent of the students
responded correctly to all items and around 2 per cent could not respond to any item.
Number sense properties and operation. Items requiring the solution of word
problems of compound proportions from daily life, construction of pentagons, regular
hexagons and octagons, construction of squares and rhombi when measures of their
diagonals are given, and bases of number systems were difficult for the students.
At the conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge levels, students were
able to some extent to pass items requiring addition, subtraction, and multiplication of
numbers with different bases, finding square roots of natural numbers, representing
common and decimal fractions and operations with decimal and fractions using models
(e.g. number lines). Six per cent of students passed all items in this domain and the
percentage who could not attempt any item correctly was less than 1 per cent.
Data analysis and information handling. This domain included data organisation
and representation, interpretation and chance (i.e. identifying, calculating and
comparing characteristics of data sets) in general terms and given a context, and using
the chances of a particular outcome to solve problems. Data analysis and information
handling were also passed at the conceptual and procedural levels.
Differential item functioning across groups
An analysis of differential item functioning was conducted to identify items that may
favour one group of students against another group of the ability. The existence of DIF
may also indicate that an item requires knowledge, skill, or experience by members of
one group that is not relevant to, or required of, the contrasting group. The
performance of each item by the focal group (e.g. female group) was compared with the
performance of a reference group (e.g. male) of students. Item bias and stability
coefficients[5] were computed to identify the potentially biased items.
Tables II and III report the results of DIF across gender and location. Table III shows
that 13 items (23 per cent) were moderately different in their functioning in terms of
difficulty across male and female students. These items had bias values equal to or greater
than 0.05 and stability coefficients of less than 0.95. With reference to content domains,
four items from geometry and five items from number sense favoured female students.
Two algebra items were indicated as having DIF, and these items favoured male students.
Data analysis and information handling is the minimally tested domain with just four
items in the test, of which only one item was flagged in favour of male students.
Overall, the majority of items were not substantially different across gender or
regional location. The gender-level analysis of DIF indicated that items that favoured
female students in either content domain belonged to knowledge of concepts to recall
basic facts, terminologies, numbers, and geometric properties. Items favouring male
students in either domain belonged to problem solving and reasoning, which involves
making logical deductions based on specific assumptions and rules, analysis,
synthesis, and generalisation in more widely applicable terms. The items that involved
application of mathematical knowledge and skills for solving algebraic expressions,
functions, equations, geometric figures or statistical data were not substantially
different across groups.
Twenty items (35 per cent) were flagged as having DIF across rural and urban
students. The highest number of items favouring rural students were from the geometry
and number sense content domains. Content evaluation of these items indicated that the
geometry items favouring rural students involved measurement of areas and volumes of
spheres, cones, and quadrilateral regions, informal proof of Pythagorass theorem, and
exploring diagonals in squares or rhombi. Four algebra items were flagged for DIF in
favour of urban students and three items were in favour of rural students. The items that
favoured rural students included comparing algebraic expressions to determine
equivalence and concepts and equality of sets. Items favouring urban students included
the evaluation of an algebraic expression for a specific value. There was only one item
from the data analysis content domain, and this item favoured urban students. The only
item from the data analysis domain differing across location involved the use of the
concept of averages and favoured rural students.
Part 2: MLM models
Two-level MLM models were developed to estimate the effects of student- and
school-level variables on students achievement. MLM was chosen because it takes into
account the nested nature of the data (e.g. students nested within schools, schools
within districts) and provides a means of explaining how variance in some outcomes
(e.g. students achievement scores) is a function of both individual differences (student
level) and (school level), whereas conventional techniques based on ordinary least
square regression tend to systematically underestimate the school effects because of
their limited capacity to decompose variance (Zigarelli, 1996) into within-component
and between-components.
The estimated models reflect several groups of student- and school-level variables that
have been deemed theoretically to be important in school effectiveness research and that
might have practical implications for policy decisions. Various conceptually similar
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
231
IJEM
24,3
232
Table II.
Area indices across group
Gender
Item no.
cm03
cm04
cm29
ma01
ma02
ma06
ma11
ma13
ma19
ma25
mb07
mb11
mb12
mb19
mb21
ma16
ma20
mb06
mb26
cm05
cm31
cm32
ma08
ma18
ma21
ma26
ma33
mb09
mb15
mb27
mb28
mb33
cm10
cm14
cm17
cm24
ma07
ma09
ma12
ma15
ma22
ma23
ma27
ma28
ma30
mb01
mb02
mb08
Location
Contenta
Bias
Stability
Bias
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20.0451
20.0098
20.0299
20.0217
20.0053
0.0308
20.0012
20.0331
0.0083
20.0057
0.0064
0.0155
20.0283
20.0076
0.0258
0.0356
0.0606
0.0148
20.0506
20.0215
0.0641
0.0167
0.0350
20.0004
0.0007
20.0163
20.0078
0.0658
20.0469
0.0133
20.0166
20.0210
0.0408
20.0201
0.0001
20.0530
20.0690
20.0806
20.0172
20.1327
0.0481
0.0354
0.0233
0.0226
0.0053
20.0165
20.0383
20.0364
0.9501
0.9738
0.9588
0.9750
0.9717
0.9654
0.9830
0.9413
0.9836
0.9397
0.9861
0.9612
0.9707
0.9844
0.9616
0.9583
0.9310
0.9564
0.9462
0.9677
0.9129
0.9702
0.9537
0.9776
0.9115
0.9565
0.9547
0.9026
0.9416
0.9798
0.9747
0.9740
0.9546
0.9719
0.9859
0.9363
0.9240
0.9032
0.9696
0.8626
0.9496
0.9541
0.9624
0.9689
0.9859
0.9694
0.9576
0.9572
0.0171
0.0252
0.0010
0.0508
0.0676
0.0259
0.0465
20.0542
20.0172
20.0078
0.0326
0.0506
0.0087
0.0526
20.0010
20.0119
0.0597
0.0147
0.0089
0.0567
0.0149
0.0759
0.0171
20.0088
0.0244
0.0487
0.0666
0.0501
20.0025
0.0291
20.0108
20.0048
0.0324
20.0150
0.0685
20.0171
20.0301
0.0316
0.0007
0.0556
20.0157
0.0106
20.0167
0.0100
0.0285
0.0561
0.0127
0.0171
Stability
0.9768
0.9413
0.9855
0.9113
0.9148
0.9582
0.9401
0.9317
0.9757
0.9772
0.9545
0.9384
0.9812
0.9422
0.9703
0.9544
0.9420
0.9741
0.9737
0.9344
0.9813
0.8635
0.9706
0.9704
0.9464
0.9437
0.9233
0.9367
0.9748
0.9422
0.9701
0.9870
0.9631
0.9817
0.9318
0.9689
0.9588
0.9643
0.9704
0.9402
0.9699
0.9702
0.9741
0.9680
0.9382
0.9231
0.9658
0.9706
(continued)
Gender
Item no.
mb13
mb16
mb18
mb20
mb22
mb23
mb25
mb30
Location
Contenta
Bias
Stability
Bias
Stability
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20.0931
0.0257
0.0074
20.0363
20.0295
0.0135
20.0002
20.0289
0.9009
0.9719
0.9777
0.9580
0.9567
0.9739
0.9671
0.9248
20.0288
0.0458
20.0088
0.0091
0.0130
0.0694
20.0032
20.0112
0.9616
0.9443
0.9704
0.9772
0.9790
0.9430
0.9823
0.9671
Notes: a1, algebra; 2, data analysis; 3, geometry; 4, number sense
Content
Algebra
Data analysis
Geometry
Number sense
Total items in the test
Total items
19
4
16
27
66a
233
Table II.
DIF items for gender

Male
Female
2
1
5
8
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
4
1
5
DIF items for

location
Rural
Urban
3
7
4
14
4
1
1
6
Note: aTen items were common across two test booklets
variables were grouped together to build-up theoretically coherent models. The models
consisted of student-level models predicting outcomes (mathematics achievement),
within-school and between-school models predicting differences, and increments in
achievement from student-level models between schools. The effects of student- and
school-level variables were first estimated separately to identify significant variables
related to variation among students and schools in mathematics achievement. These
variables were then combined to produce parsimonious combined models. The MLM
analysis was conducted using MLwiN software (Rasbash et al., 2005).
Results
Unconditional model
As a preliminary step in multilevel analysis, an unconditional baseline model
equivalent to a one way ANOVA model with random effects (Raudenbush and Bryk,
2002) was estimated to partition the variance in mathematics achievement into within
and between school components. The results are presented in Table IV.
According to Table IV the average mathematics achievement scores are (457.06,
SE 5:64). The results also show that for average achievement, the estimate of
reliability[6] is 91 per cent; this shows that most of the variance around average
achievement is parameter variance and has the potential to be explained by further
modeling. The s 2 parameter represents the within-school variability, whereas t00
represents the between-schools variability. The adjusted intra-class correlation (ICC)
Table III.
Summary of items
favouring each of the
gender and location
groups
IJEM
24,3
234
indicates that about 61 per cent of the variance in mathematics achievement was due to
systematic differences in the average achievement of students attending different
schools. This outcome provides justification for developing further hierarchical models
to evaluate the student- and school-level effects.
It is important to note that because of the large sample size, variables of little
substantive significance can achieve statistical significance; hence, the results are
described in terms of effect sizes[7]. Results of the student- and school-level variables
on mathematics achievement are presented in Tables V-XII.
Student demographics
The student demographics model estimates mathematics achievement as a function of
the mean achievement of students gender, geographical location, age, and SES. School
mean achievement was modelled as a random parameter. Effect sizes were computed
to represent change in average mathematics achievement when other variables are
controlled. According to Table V, the average mathematics achievement of girls is 0.29
SD units lower than that of boys. The coefficient for girls indicates that there is a
decrease in the strength of the relationship between achievement and gender in schools
Independent variables
Coefficient
Intercept: mean achievement
457.06
(5.64)
3,624.54
7,291.15
0.33
0.91
0.61
Table IV.
Unconditional baseline
model for partitioning
variance in mathematics
achievement
Within-school variability (s )
Between-school variability (t00)
Proportion of variance between schools (ICC)a
Reliability of the intercept (l)
Proportion of variance between schools, adjusted for reliabilityb
Notes: aThe intra-class correlation (ICC) is calculated using the formula t00 =t00 s 2 . bThe adjusted
ICC is calculated using the formula t00 =t00 s 2 * l
Fixed effects
Gender (1 girls)
Location (1 urban)
Age
SES (0 mean)
Table V.
Student demographics as
predictors of
mathematics
achievement
Random effects
Intercept
s2
ICC
Reliability
a
Coefficient
SE
Effect sizea
456.08
2 15.58 * * *
2 30.29 * * *
2 3.42
5.21 *
6.35
6.73
6.88
0.45
1.13
2 0.289
2 0.563
0.062
0.096
Variance component
2,899.81b
5423.02b
0.34b
0.95
Notes: Effect sizes are computed by dividing each b coefficient by pooled within SD. This value is
computed by taking the square root of s 2 from the baseline model. bVariance component
Fixed effects
Mean achievement
Location: urban
Home language: national
Number of siblings (mean 0)
Fathers education: primary
Matriculate
Intermediate
Higher education
Mothers education
Primary
Matriculate
Intermediate
Higher education
SES (mean 0)
Random effects
s2
t00
ICC
Reliability
Coefficient
SE
Effect size
462.18
237.63 * * *
25.84 *
20.51
21.88
2.56
1.26
1.32
7.53
8.27
4.71
0.587
5.43
6.11
5.03
5.07
2 0.669
0.103
2 0.009
2 0.033
0.045
0.022
0.023
2.98 *
1.72
7.24 *
3.80 *
1.27
3.81
5.24
6.66
10.18
2.65
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
235
0.053
0.030
0.128
2 0.067
0.022
Parameter variance
3,159.85a
5,636.73a
35a
0.92
Notes: Reference category: location rural, language regional, fathers education illiterate.
a
Parameter variance. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:000
with a higher percentage of girls. For every standard deviation unit above the average
percentage of girls in the school, the average achievement was 0.29 units lower in that
school. Average achievement of urban students is 2 0.56 SD lower than rural students,
and average mathematics achievement increases by 0.09 SD for every SD unit increase
in SES. The effect size of SES is very small and shows a weaker association with
achievement. Age was not found to be associated with achievement.
Home background variables
Table VI summarises the effects of home background variables on average
mathematics achievement. This model determines whether home background
variables affect the average achievement of students within the same school and
whether demographic and home background variables interact to affect the
achievement indirectly. The model suggests that students location has a strong
effect on achievement. Home language had a significant effect on achievement; the
direction of effect, however, was negative, indicating that if home language was Urdu,
this significantly decreased mathematics achievement scores. The number of siblings
was not found to be associated with achievement. SES showed a negligible effect on
achievement when combined with home background variables. Low fathers education
showed a negative effect on students achievement; however, an increase in fathers
education did not have a statistically significant effect on students achievement. The
effect of mothers education is more pronounced than effect of fathers education;
students achievement increased with every SD unit increase in mothers education. As
Table VI.
Home background
variables as predictors of
mathematics
achievement
IJEM
24,3
236
Fixed effects
Frequency of tutoring
Daily
Once or twice a week
Frequency of homework
Daily
Once a week
Twice a week
Time on homework
15-30 minutes
30-60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
Parental help with homework
Yes
Attitudes towards homework (mean 0)
Random effects
s2
t00
ICC
Table VII.
Student homework
variables as predictors of
mathematics
achievement
Reliability
Coefficient
SE
Effect size
458.93
5.56
2 10.73 * *
22.43
6.84
5.12
0.17
0.004
12.41 * *
16.41 * *
28.66 * *
4.61
4.93
6.19
0.204
0.270
0.476
15.60 *
4.69
20.79
4.49
8.32
6.15
0.257
0.077
20.013
27.35 *
21.80
12.72
2.69
0.450
20.029
Parameter variance
3,679.58a
5401.31a
40a
0.95
Notes: Reference category: tutoring never; frequency of homework never; time spent on
homework less than 15 minutes; parental help with homework no. aParameter variance. *
p , 0:05; * *p , :01; * * *p , 0:000
in the unconditional model, the reliability of this model is high (0.92), indicating that
most of the variance around the intercept is parameter variance. The amount of
parameter variance explained by this model (35 per cent) is less than the unconditional
model, but it is significant.
Homework variables
Table VII presents the results of homework variables. Frequency of homework was
associated with achievement in a positive direction. The results indicate that students in
classes with a greater homework frequency scored highly on the mathematics
achievement test. It is interesting to note, however, that the effect of less frequent
homework (once or twice a week) was more pronounced than getting homework with a
high frequency (daily). Similarly, less time spent on mathematics homework increased
achievement and spending more time showed a negative effect on achievement scores.
Mathematics achievement scores increased by 0.26 SD units if the amount of time spent on
homework was between 15 and 30 minutes and tended to decrease if the length of time
spent was greater than 30 minutes. High frequency of tutoring was negatively associated
with achievement. Daily tutoring decreased achievement by 0.17 SD units compared to
students receiving no tutoring during the present academic year. Parental help in
homework increased mathematics achievement by 0.45 SD units, indicating that if
parents help their children with homework, they tend to perform better in mathematics.
Fixed effects
Gender: girls
Location: urban
SES
Mothers expectations moderate
Mothers expectations high
Parental communication: better
Good
Self confidence: moderate
Self confidence: high
Attitude towards mathematics: neutral
Attitude towards mathematics: positive
Liking of subject: mathematics
Random effects
s2
t00
ICC
Reliability
Coefficient
SE
Effect size
404.06
23.46
245.18 * * *
3.37 *
6.95 *
13.21 * *
27.05 * * *
29.76 * * *
5.15 *
16.37 * * *
9.65 * *
23.05 * * *
16.23 * *
6.57
7.37
5.86
1.45
6.46
6.94
7.27
6.44
3.56
4.10
2.98
3.29
2.30
2 0.06
0.75
0.05
0.11
0.22
0.45
0.49
0.08
0.27
0.16
0.38
0.27
Parameter variance
3,063.05a
5,414.00a
36
0.95
Notes: Reference category: gender boys; location rural; mothers expectations low; parental
communication poor; self 2 confidence low; attitudes towards mathematics negative;
liking of subject language, science, social studies. aParameter variance. *p , 0:05; * *p , :01;
* * *p , 0:000
Coefficient
Fixed effects
Class size: less than 20
Self confidence: moderate
Self confidence: high
Attitude towards mathematics: neutral
Attitude towards mathematics: positive
Random effects
s2
t00
ICC
Reliability
441.12
9.06 * *
12.17 * *
27.30 * * *
12.99 * *
27.58 * * *
SE
Effect size
4.10
15.01
3.72
4.27
3.27
3.55
0.152
0.205
0.460
0.219
0.475
Parameter variance
3,516.70
5,828.09
38
0.95
Notes: Reference category: class size more than 20; self 2 confidence low; attitudes towards
mathematics negative. aParameter variance. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:000
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
237
Table VIII.
Self-confidence, liking for
mathematics, mother
expectations, and
communication with
parents predictors of
mathematics
achievement
Table IX.
Class size,
self-confidence, and
attitudes towards
mathematics predictors
of achievement
IJEM
24,3
Coefficient
Fixed effects
Mean achievement
238
Location: urban
School gender: girls schools
School gender: mixed schools
SES (mean 0)
Academic resources: medium
Academic resources: high
Physical facilities: medium
Physical facilities: high
Amount of instruction in mathematics (mean 0)
Random effects
s -2
t00
ICC
Table X.
School resources as
predictors of
mathematics
achievement
Table XI.
Summary of interactions
across within-school and
between-school variables
Reliability
SE
453.02
(9.32)
2 52.17 * * *
2 1.46
2 44.74 * * *
5.01 *
6.53 *
10.65 * *
23.75 * * *
26.64 * * *
0.96
4.10
6.08
1885
14.01
1.45
12.54
8.46
2.21
10.70
4.35
Effect size
0.862
-0.223
0.743
0.07
0.108
0.176
0.394
0.442
20.012
Parameter variance
3,247.93a
5,686.95a
36a
0.95
Notes: Reference category: location rural; school gender boys schools; academic
resources low; physical facilities low; aParameter variance. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p ,
0:000
Variable
Coefficient
SE
Student school gender

Boys boys school
Girls girls school
Girls mixed school
Boys mixed school
Urban girls
Rural girls
SES location
Language location
Gender mothers education mothers expectation
Class size location academic resources
448.42
3.89
254.85 * * *
20.58
242.66 * * *
19.84 * *
5.56 *
217.08 * *
3.32 *
221.75 * * *
6.14
1.17
11.90
11.77
8.48
8.54
0.92
2.32
0.81
4.30
Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , :001; p , 0:000
The effect associated with students attitude towards homework was small and negative
(2 0.02). The homework variables explained 40 per cent of the total variance.
Attitudinal variables
Students self confidence, mothers expectations of their childrens performance in
mathematics, and students attitudes to and liking of the subject were estimated in this
457.06
(5.64)
3,624.54
7,291.15
0.33
0.14
0.09
456.08
(6.35)
2,899.81
5,423.02
0.34
0.19
0.25
462.18
(7.53)
3,159.85
5,636.73
0.35
0.13
0.22
458.93
(5.56)
3,679.58
5,401.31
0.40
0.02
0.26
404.06
(6.57)
3,063.05
5,414.00
0.36
0.15
0.26
Self-confidence, expectations,
liking of math ematics
386.44
(15.87)
3,243.98
5,239.36
0.38
0.10
0.28
Level 1
final
model
452.02
(9.32)
3,247.93
5,686.95
0.36
0.10
0.22
441.12
(4.10)
3,516.70
5,828.09
0.38
0.03
0.20
Level 2 models
Class size/
selfSchool
confidence
resources
456.83
(11.41)
3,662.39
5,470.88
0.40
0.01
0.25
Level 2
final
model
Notes: s 2, level 1 variance; t00, intercept variance. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. R21 is the proportion of level 1 variance accounted for by
the current model, using the formula: R21 s2baseline model 2 s2current model =s2baseline model . R22 is the proportion of explained intercept variance accounted for
by the current model, using the formula: R22 t00 baseline model 2 t00 current model =t00 baseline model
s2
t00
ICC
R21
R22
Intercept
Home
Homework
Parameters Baseline Demographics background variables
Level 1 models
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
239
Table XII.
Summary of parameter
variance explained by
each model
IJEM
24,3
240
model using gender, location and SES as control variables. The results indicate that the
average mathematics achievement scores of rural boys with average SES are
significantly higher than those of girls. The scores increase significantly for every one
SD unit increase in mothers expectations for their children to do well in mathematics.
Good parental communication increased achievement by 0.49 SD units; a one-unit
increase in attitudes towards mathematics increased achievement by 0.38 SD units; a
liking for mathematics over other subjects increased achievement scores by 0.27 SD
units. The results are summarised in Table VIII.
Class size and students attitude variables
An additional model was estimated to see the interaction of class size with students
self-confidence and attitudes towards mathematics. The results indicated that in small
classes (with less than 20 students on the roll) students were more confident, had high
positive attitudes towards mathematics and scored higher as compared to classes with
more than 20 students on the roll. Achievement tended to increase by 0.46 SD with
every one SD unit increase in self confidence, whereas the increment in achievement
was expected to be 0.47 SD units with every single unit increase in attitudes towards
mathematics. The results are summarised in Table IX.
School resources as predicators of mathematics achievement
Table X presents the results for the school resources model. For the most part, the
major differences in school resources associated with achievement across location and
school gender were academic resources and physical facilities. The effect of SES was
small; however, the availability of high academic resources (availability of library,
curriculum document, teacher guides, AV aids, usable blackboards) increased
achievement scores by 0.18 SD units. Similarly, better physical facilities in the schools
increased achievement scores by 0.44 SD units. The average amount of instruction time
per week was not associated with achievement. The availability of separate
classrooms, the percentage of classes learning in the open air and corridors, and school
size did not show any statistically significant effects on achievement.
Cross-level interaction
Table XI presents the results of additional cross-level interactions. The interaction
between students and school gender indicated that girls in mixed schools performed
slightly better than boys in boys schools; however, girls scores in mixed schools were
significantly lower than the scores of boys in mixed schools. Boys in mixed schools
scored slightly lower than boys in boys schools. The interaction of location and gender
was found to be in favour of rural boys versus urban girls. However, rural girls
outperformed urban boys. A one-point increase in the average SES was associated with
a 5.56-point increase in achievement in rural schools. The pattern of interaction
between language and location indicated that rural students speaking the national
language at home scored 2 17.08 points lower than if they were speaking a regional
language. A one-point increase in mothers education and expectations was associated
with a 3.32-point increase in girls mathematics achievement. A small class size (less
than 20) in rural schools with low academic resources was significantly negatively
associated with achievement.
Variance decomposition
MLM models also provide an estimate of the amount of parameter variance around
average achievement left to explain after estimation of each model. This was
compared to the amount of parameter variance in the unconditional model before
estimating conditional models and presented as proportion of parameter variance
explained by each model. Table XII reports a summary of the parameter variance
explained by each model. Since these models were estimated separately, with some
common variables, they can be compared to the baseline model to see if other
variables added any explanatory power. The baseline model explained 33 per cent
of the total (unadjusted) variance. The inclusion of student home background and
homework variables explained an additional 2 per cent and 5 per cent of the total
variance, respectively. The final level 1 model added 5 per cent of the total variance
in the baseline model. Adding HW variables as the predictors of achievement
reduced the within school variance by 0.02 per cent meaning that HW variables
account for large variation at the school level. The range of explained amount of
variance for all models is between 33 per cent and 40 per cent. The level 1 final
model explained 38 per cent of the total variance, whereas the level 2 final model
explained 40 per cent of the total variance. The proportional reduction in the final
level 1 model was 10 per cent for the within-school parameters and 28 per cent for
the between-school parameters. For the level 2 final model, proportional reduction
was 1 per cent for the within and 25 per cent for the between parameters. Thus,
even though student- and school-level variables were found to be significantly
associated with average achievement, additional variables should be tested to
explain more of the variance.
Summary of the results

Multilevel analysis produced several interesting results with the models that
attempted to explain variation in average math achievement across levels. The
baseline model indicated that around 61 percent of the (adjusted) variance in
mathematics achievement was due to systematic difference in the average achievement
of students attending different schools. According to the results, the significant student
level predictors of mathematics achievement included student gender, home
background, homework variables, self-confidence, attitudes towards mathematics,
liking for mathematics, and parental support in homework. Among the school level
variables, school gender, availability of physical facilities and academic resources in
the school, amount of instructional time, and class size were found be associated with
mathematics achievement. Number of sibling, age, father education and occupation,
school size, and availability of separate classroom were not associated with
achievement. School gender, geographical location, homework and student attitude
variables interactions were also significantly associated with achievement. The
highest proportion of variance explained by the final level 1 model was 40 per cent; and
for the level 2 model it was 38 per cent. Thus, the results of variance decomposition
show that even though student- and school-level variables explained a significant
amount of the variance associated with average achievement, additional variables are
needed to be tested to explain more of the variance.
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
241
IJEM
24,3
242
Discussion
Using data from the first national assessment of Grade VIII students in Pakistan, this
study produced several interesting results with Rasch measurement and multilevel
models that attempted to explain variation in mathematics achievement. The average
achievement of students in mathematics was significantly lower than the set mean
based on IRT scaling. Item-level Rasch analysis indicated that students were able to
pass low-rigour items requiring simple mathematical skills such as recalling
mathematical definitions and formulas. High-rigour items requiring students to use
cognitively demanding skills for example, reasoning and problem solving were
difficult for the students. Geometry and measurement elicited the weakest scores
relative to students average performance in mathematics. Less than 20 per cent
students were able to pass items that required the application of geometric properties
at a problem-solving level. In algebra, most of the students failed to demonstrate an
understanding of relatively formalised algebraic expressions. Less than 30 per cent of
students could pass the items at the problem-solving level in this domain. Items
involving conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge were moderately
difficult. However, students were able to respond correctly to items involving the
concept of sets. In the number sense domain, items requiring addition, subtraction, and
multiplication of the numbers with different bases, finding the square roots of natural
numbers, and operations with decimal and fractions using models (e.g. number lines)
were passed at conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge level. Data
analysis and information handling items, the least emphasised domain in the
curriculum, were also responded to at the conceptual level.
The analysis of DIF indicated that the majority of items were not substantially
different across gender or regional location. The gender-level analysis of DIF indicated
that items favouring female students in either content domain belonged to knowledge
of concepts to recall basic facts, terminologies, numbers, and geometric properties.
Items favouring male students in either domain belonged to the problem-solving level,
which involves analysis, synthesis, and generalization in more widely applicable
terms. Items that involved application of mathematical knowledge and skills, for
solving algebraic expressions, functions, equations, geometric figures or statistical
data were not substantially different across group. These findings are consistent with
previous research reporting that males exhibit superior deductive, problem solving,
and spatial skills, whereas girls display better verbal skills (e.g. Berberoglu, 1995;
Hedges and Nowell, 1995; Nowell and Hedges, 1998). Twenty (35 per cent) of the items
were flagged as having DIF across rural and urban students, of which the geometry
and data analysis items favoured rural students, whereas four algebra items were
flagged for DIF in favour of urban students and three were flagged in favour of rural
students.
The findings of the multilevel analysis revealed that several student- and
school-level variables are important in predicting mathematics achievement. The
results show that 61 per cent of the (adjusted) variation in mathematics achievement
was due to systematic differences in the average achievement of students attending
different schools. At the student level, a number of variables were observed to
contribute towards mathematics achievement. First, gender shows a significant
influence on achievement scores in favor of boys, both directly and through the
interaction of student and school gender. This finding is consistent with other findings
indicating that girls lag markedly behind boys in mathematics achievement and
cognitive skills (Alderman et al., 1996), though not consistent with some more recent
studies that indicate few gender differences (Delgado and Prieto, 2004; Mullis et al.,
2000; Spelke, 2005). Boys scores were also significantly higher in mixed schools.
Indeed, several sets of explanations on gender gaps in mathematics achievement have
been offered in the extant literature, ranging from genetic to environmental influences,
sex-role stereotypes, and student-teacher interaction. The most plausible explanation
in the case of Pakistan associated with the achievement gap, however, is considered to
be the low enrolment and high dropout rate of girls, particularly in rural areas, and
differential role expectations and attitudes of parents towards girls education. The
influence of geographic location on mathematics achievement in favour of rural
students might be surprising given the fact that the profile of sampled rural and urban
government schools differ significantly in terms of access to school resources,
academic resources, teacher qualification and student home background.
The effects of home background have been well documented in the research literature.
It has been posited that home background has a positive effect on learning achievement
when it focuses and mobilises the child and provides a nurturing environment; familial
support and expectations as well as support for learning at home regulate and positively
influence achievement regardless of socioeconomic conditions of the family (Connell et al.,
1994). The results of the present study confirm the impact of home background variables
on students achievement. The home background model explained 35 percent of the total
variance. Home language had a statistically significant effect on achievement. The results
showed that if student speak a regional language at home, their mathematics scores
increase by 0.10 SD units. The fact that there are around eight dominant recognised
languages in the country presents several logistical challenges for the education system.
As per curriculum requirements, Urdu is the medium of instruction in government-owned
schools. However, the problem is that in the majority of schools (especially rural schools),
a regional language is used as the unofficial language of instruction, because in most cases
the mother tongue of the students and teachers is the same. As a result, a regional
language is associated with high achievement scores. It was also observed from the data
that only 17 per cent teachers use the national language to explain mathematics concepts
in the classroom; furthermore, the effect of language remained the same when it was
estimated separately. The strength of the language variable in favour of regional
languages is a promising result for national assessment but needs to be distinguished
from ethnic and socio-economic factors inherent in the country given the political history
of the provinces.
Father education was not found to be associated with student achievement;
however, mothers education showed a significant effect on achievement; with every
one SD unit increase in mothers education, student performance increased
significantly. It is interesting to note that in the national sample 57 per cent of
mothers were completely illiterate, 0.03 per cent had passed intermediate-level
education, and 0.01 per cent had obtained graduation or post-graduation. SES was
associated significantly with achievement when estimated separately, but the
significance disappeared when it was estimated with the home background model.
The homework model appeared to be a strong predictor of achievement; this model
explained 40 per cent of the total variance. The frequency of homework was associated
with mathematics achievement, however; a lesser frequency of homework (twice a
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
243
IJEM
24,3
244
week) showed a more pronounced impact. Similarly, less time spent on mathematics
homework was significantly associated with increase in scores. Thus, the results do
not support the typical more is better view of homework. Parental help with
homework also increased students performance. Consistent with the existing literature
on homework research, the results suggest that parents might well help increase
mathematics performance by helping their children in homework, monitoring, and
keeping track of their after-school activities (Trautwein et al., 2002). The results were
also suggestive concerning extra tutoring in mathematics. The frequency analysis
revealed that around 24 per cent students never receive any tutoring for mathematics,
and around 55 per cent reported getting occasional tutoring in mathematics, and that
frequency of tutoring was negatively associated with achievement. Self-confidence,
mothers expectations of their children performance in mathematics, students
attitudes towards mathematics and liking of mathematics as a subject were found to be
significantly associated with an increase in mathematics achievement. The homework
model explained 39 per cent of the total variance.
The results indicated that the more positively disposed students were towards
mathematics, the better they were likely to perform. Similarly, students who reported
that their mothers thought doing well in mathematics was important were more likely
to achieve higher scores.
The school resources model explained 35 per cent of the total variance. The major
differences in school resources associated with achievement across location and school
gender were academic resources and physical facilities. The availability of learning
resources (availability of a library, curriculum documents, teacher guides, AV aids,
usable blackboards, textbooks) increased achievement scores significantly; however,
less than 50 per cent of rural as well as urban schools reported the availability of
learning resources in the schools. Likewise, better physical facilities in schools were
found to be associated with an increase in achievement scores but less than 50 percent
of schools had access to physical facilities ranging from medium to high levels. Rural
schools were more likely to have poor facilities than urban schools.
Although the effect of amount of instruction time per week was not statistically
significant, it indicated that less than average instructional time decreases
achievement scores. The availability of separate classrooms, the percentage of
classes learning in the open air and in corridors, and school and class size did not show
any statistically significant relationship with achievement. This finding again is in line
with the existing school resources research, particularly in developing countries, where
the effects of school resources variables have been examined in several studies but no
systematic evidence that availability of school resources would increase academic
achievement has been reported.
Conclusion and directions for future research
This study is only the beginning of a detailed analysis of relationships between various
student- and school-related variables and mathematics achievement using national
assessment data from Pakistan. Only a few major variables with policy and research
implications were tested to keep the interpretations clear and simple. The next stage of
this study could examine the more complex pattern of relationships and interactions
among relationships for subgroups. For example, examining the average achievement
of boys and girls in single-sex schools separately might produce a more powerful
explanation of the gender gap in achievement. In addition, future research can include
teacher background variables to investigate the effects of teachers qualifications,
training, and teaching strategies on achievement. The estimated models were
successful in explaining the variation in average achievement in terms of proportion of
variance explained and significance of estimates of the effects. Furthermore, the use of
a large dataset weighted for differences in sampling units, the application of IRT
scaling, and hierarchical linear modelling for estimating direct and indirect effects lend
further credence to the results. The intercept equations in MLM models are reliable
because the dependent variable has shown the least sampling error and the most
parameter variance as shown by MLM statistics. Overall, most of the hypothesised
relationships were statistically significant, substantial in size, and supported the
robustness of the theoretical models regarding the importance of these factors in
predicting mathematics achievement.
Notes
1. The National Education Management Information System (NEMIS) maintains the updated
list of all schools in the country by various geographical and demographic characteristics.
Sampling frames for the present sample were drawn from NEMISs most recent available
database.
2. An explanation of the rationale, derivation, and appropriate use of sampling weights is
available separately from the author.
3. The National Curriculum allocates a 40 per cent weighting to number sense, 25 per cent to
measurement and geometry, 30 per cent to algebra, and 5 per cent to information handling;
the cognitive strands weighting includes procedural knowledge (40 per cent), and 30 per cent
each to the conceptual understanding and problem solving ability strands, each. The
frameworks for mathematics assessment are based on the National Curriculum Document;
therefore the allocation of test items reflects the weighting of the national curriculum
4. The tests underwent several content validation reviews by a national team of mathematics
subject experts besides an empirical psychometric evaluation on a sample of 2000 students;
the validity was further enhanced by the use of content analysis of the Grade VIII National
Curriculum and adherence to test blue print during the test construction. Detailed reports on
psychometric properties of the achievement test and background questionnaires may be
obtained from the author.
5. The bias coefficient summarises the area between each item response function for the two
groups. The computed value corresponds to the average signed difference between the
probabilities of success for the two populations after controlling for proficiency. This value
can be interpreted as the expected disadvantage of Group A over Group B on each item. The
theoretical range is between 2 1 and 1; a coefficient over 0.10 or under 20.10 is considered
problematic. Stability reflects whether the items are equally discriminating for students in
different groups. Stability corresponds to the unsigned area difference between the two
groups and the coefficient is closer to 1 for the items fair across groups.
6. Reliability estimates in MLM models correspond to the proportion of the total variance that
parameter variance represents.
7. Effect sizes are SD units that allow comparison of outcomes with different metrics and can
be interpreted as the SD unit change in the dependent variable associated with a one-unit SD
change in an independent variable. Effect sizes of .0.5 SD are considered large, between
0.3-0.5 are considered moderate, effect sizes between 0.1 and 0.3 are considered small, and
effect sizes ,0.1 SD unit are negligible (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1984).
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
245
IJEM
24,3
246
References
Action Aid Pakistan (1999), Comparative Analysis of Public, Private and NGO Schools, Action
Aid Pakistan, Islamabad.
Alderman, H., Behrman, J.R., Ross, D.R. and Sabot, R. (1996), Decomposing the gender gap in
cognitive skills in a poor rural economy, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 31,
pp. 229-54.
Beaton, A., Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E., Kelley, D. and Smith, T. (1996), Mathematics
achievement in the middle school years, IEAs Third International Mathematics and
Science Study, TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College, Chestnut
Hill, MA.
Berberoglu, G. (1995), Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of computation, word
problems, and geometry questions across gender and SES groups, Studies in Educational
Evaluation, Vol. 21, pp. 439-56.
Bureau of Curriculum and Extension Centre Balochistan (1999), Learning achievement of grade
3 and 5 children in rural primary schools of district Pishin, Bureau of Curriculum and
Extension Centre Balochistan, Quetta.
Charagh, A., Chaudhary, S. and Gillani, U. (1999), Learning Achievement of Grades 3 and 5
Children in Rural Primary Schools, Punjab Curriculum Development and Research Centre,
Islamabad.
Connell, J.P., Spencer, M.B. and Aber, J.L. (1994), Educational risks and resilience in
African-American youth: context, self, action, and outcomes in schools, Child
Development, Vol. 65, pp. 493-506.
Delgado, A.R. and Prieto, G. (2004), Cognitive mediators and sex-related differences in
mathematics, Intelligence, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Haque, M., Kalhoro, S. and Saeed, S. (2000), Baseline Survey of Learning, Bureau of Curriculum
Development and Extension Wing Sindh, Jamshoro.
Hedges, L.V. and Nowell, A. (1995), Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and
number of high scoring individuals, Science, Vol. 269, pp. 41-5.
Howie, S. (2002), English language proficiency and contextual factors influencing mathematics
achievement of secondary school pupils in South Africa, unpublished thesis, University
of Twente, Enschede.
Linacre, J.M. (1999), Understanding Rasch measurement: estimation methods for the Rasch
measures, Journal of Outcome Measurement, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 382-405.
Ma, X. (1995), The effect of informal testing frequency upon mathematics learning of high
school students in China, Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 596-603.
Maqsud, M. and Khalique, C. (1991), Relationship of some socio-personal factors to mathematics
achievement of secondary and university students in Bophuthatswana, Educational
Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 377-90.
Mirza, M. and Hameed, A. (1994), Differential achievement of primary age students and the cost
effectiveness by school type, Primary and Non-Formal Education Wing, Islamabad.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Fierros, E.G., Goldberg, A.L. and Steven, E.S. (2000), Gender
differences in mathematics achievement, IEAs Third International Mathematics and
Science Study, TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L. and Smith, T.A. (1998),
Mathematics and science in the final year of secondary school, IEAs Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College,
Chestnut Hill, MA.
NWFP Bureau of Curriculum Development and Extension Services (1999), Learning
Achievement of Grade 3 and 5 Children in Rural Primary Schools, NWFP Bureau of
Curriculum Development and Extension Services, Peshawar.
Nowell, A. and Hedges, L.V. (1998), Trends in gender differences in academic achievement from
1960 to 1994: an analysis of differences in mean, variance, and extreme scores, Sex Roles,
Vol. 39, pp. 21-43.
Pervez, M. (1995), Basic Competencies of Children in Pakistan, UNICEF, Islamabad.

Punjab Literacy Watch (1999), Levels of Pupil Achievement in Primary Schools of Punjab:
A Sample Study, UNESCO, Pakistan.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. and Prosser, B. (2005), A Users Guide to MLwiN Version 2.0,
Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Application and Data
Analysis Methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1984), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data
Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Saeed, M., Gondal, M.B. and Bushra (2005), Assessing primary grade students and factors
affecting achievement in Pakistan, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 9, pp. 486-99.
Shah, M.H. (1984), National Achievement Tests (Protocol Analysis), Primary and Non-Formal
Education Wing, Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
Singh, K., Granville, M. and Dika, S. (2002), Mathematics and science achievement: effects of
motivation, interest, and academic engagement, The Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 323-32.
Spelke, E.S. (2005), Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical
review, American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 950-8.
Trautwein, U., Koller, O., Schmitz, B. and Baumert, J. (2002), Do homework assignments
enhance achievement: a multilevel analysis in 7th grade mathematics, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 26-50.
UNESCO (2001), Learning Achievement in Primary Schools of Pakistan: A Quest for Quality
Education, UNESCO and Curriculum Wing, Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
Wright, B.D. and Stone, M.H. (1979), Best Test Design, Mesa Press, Chicago, IL.
Zigarelli, M.A. (1996), An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools research,
The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 90, pp. 103-10.
Further reading
Government of Pakistan (2001), National Curriculum for Mathematics Grades 1-12, Ministry of
Education, Islamabad.
Government of Pakistan (2002), Education Sector Reforms: Action Plan 2001-2005, Ministry of
Education, Islamabad.
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
247
IJEM
24,3
Appendix
Percentage
(weighted)a
SE
Mean
achievement
School gender
Boys
Girls
Mixed
0.61
0.37
0.02
0.002
0.003
0.001
465.26
446.23
432.84
93.90
87.32
92.63
Student gender
Girls
Rural
Home language
0.37
0.62
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.01
446.85
474.65
439.17
87.84
93.74
87.84
Number of siblings (mean 0)
460.21
Fathers education
Illiterate
Primary
Matriculate
Intermediate
Higher education
0.25
0.28
0.3
0.1
0.086
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0034
457.44
458.71
464.23
457.28
451.40
83.14
95.59
94.78
94.38
96.23
Mothers education
Illiterate
Primary
Matriculate
Intermediate
Higher education
0.57
0.27
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.001
460.17
460.70
448.71
449.63
450.47
90.64
95.42
94.07
97.77
98.48
SES (mean 0)
455.45
87.73
0.06
0.21
28.5
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
433.21
451.08
460.85
466.57
76.84
88.08
91.10
95.67
Time spent on homework

Less than 15 minutes
15-30 minutes
30-60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
0.03
0.83
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.01
439.33
462.88
443.95
443.37
78.29
93.98
82.41
78.96
Parental help with homework: yes
0.93
0.01
458.66
92.52
Attitudes towards homework (mean 0)
463.30
91.65
Mother expectations
Low
Moderate
High
0.06
0.14
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
440.70
457.18
460.83
75.34
92.22
93.02
(continued)
Variable
248
Frequency of homework
Never
Daily
Once a week
Twice a week
Table AI.
Descriptive statistics of
the study variables
SD
9057
Variable
Percentage
(weighted)a
SE
Mean
achievement
SD
Parental communication
Poor
Better
Good
0.02
0.26
0.71
0.0
0.01
0.01
424.60
454.92
460.03
91.38
89.21
92.93
Self-confidence
Low
Moderate
High
0.14
0.34
0.52
0.01
0.01
0.01
437.42
452.16
468.87
79.45
87.38
97.02
Attitudes towards mathematics

Negative
Neutral
Positive
0.08
0.31
0.61
0.00
0.01
0.01
436.76
446.98
468.14
74.86
83.21
97.24
Liking of the subject: mathematics

Class size: less than 20
0.25
0.08
0.01
0.01
472.94
460.21
94.72
95.74
Physical facilities in school

Low
Medium
High
0.14
0.45
0.4
0.02
0.02
0.02
448.34
461.17
456.79
86.03
94.18
92.35
Academic resources
Low
Medium
High
0.434
0.396
0.17
0.025
0.024
0.019
455.58
463.42
456.24
88.38
96.98
90.20
Notes: Descriptive statistics are based on n weighted by TOTWT; number of students 14; 144,
number of schools 770
Corresponding author
Saadia Tayyaba can be contacted at: saadia.tayyaba@psy.ox.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Mathematics
achievement in
Pakistan
249
Table AI.

Math Pakistan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Math Pakistan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Educational Management

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Findings from the First National Assessment

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

International Journal of Educational

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

World Bank to monitor students performance at terminal stages of primary and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

To what do extent student demographics, home background, and homework

information handling (preliminary statistics); and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Each content domain includes several topics presented as objectives of the

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Part 1: Item-level analysis

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Application of geometric properties to solve problems

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Compute square root of fraction and decimal

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Notes: a1, algebra; 2, data analysis; 3, geometry; 4, number sense

DIF items for gender

DIF items for

Note: aTen items were common across two test booklets

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Intercept: mean achievement

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Student school gender

Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , :001; p , 0:000

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Summary of the results

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Pervez, M. (1995), Basic Competencies of Children in Pakistan, UNICEF, Islamabad.

Number of siblings (mean 0)

Time spent on homework

Parental help with homework: yes

Attitudes towards homework (mean 0)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB At 01:47 11 July 2015 (PT)

Attitudes towards mathematics

Liking of the subject: mathematics

Physical facilities in school

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Вам также может понравиться

Notes: p , 0:05; *p , :001; p , 0:000