Report on Year 9 post- PMB students performance on a set of test questions adapted from TIMSS sample (Khadijatal KBSchool ).

Introduction This study has been conducted as part of a clustered thematic study. The goal of this study is to investigate if the students in Brunei are able to answer some of the TIMSS questions and to see if there is any significant correlation between the students individual performance to some factors attained through the students personal details enquired in the students questionnaires. Initially, the idea of this study was guided by the module coordinator that was then assigned to be carried out as a groups project. For this particular report, it would only contain those data collected by one of the teams members that had been gathered together for this study. However, the research procedure regarding the task that had been carried out and timeline used throughout this study were practically shared as a group. Note that, this group is made up of four secondary school teachers. Table 1: Research Procedure Task Discussion of study Creating questions for pen- paper test Seeking for consent and making arrangement to come to school and administer the test Administering the test Marking Analysis Write up Time line 25th- 31st January 1st February- 28th February 1st March- 7th March 8th March- 21st March 22nd March- 14th May

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sample In this report the sample population consists of 39 students from two intact classes; these students had been classified as the best ones amongst the PMB 2009 cohort in School . The

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

selection was both of purposive and convenience sampling. The test item was initially set for Year 8, however the Year 9 students had been selected instead considering they had completely covered all of the topics that had been included in the test items. Instruments A set of TIMMS sample questions (Appendix 1), a set of modified PISA students questionnaire (Appendix 2), a set of modified TIMSS teachers questionnaire (Appendix 3), a set of modified PISA schools questionnaire (Appendix 4) and a set of modified TIMMS curricula questionnaire (Appendix 5) had been suggested to be used as research instrument for this study. Test item The development of the test items had been done as a group. It had been discussed and validated by a Mathematics Educator. Being adapted from TIMMS, most of the questions are similar to the TIMMS questions sample (Appendix 1); some had been altered or restructured accordingly to suit Bruneis context. While a few questions were omitted such as; reading the scale seemed too easy, some ratio questions may be too hard and unfamiliar distance-ime graphs. The modified test items were divided into two sections, namely section A and section B (See Appendix 6). Questionnaire (students, teachers, school and curricula) All of the questionnaires utilised for this study had been modified by the group and module coordinator. In School , he students questionnaires were administered together with the test items as the teacher of the two classes only agreed to lend one hour of each classes mathematics periods to be used for this study. The time was sufficient as the students did manage to complete on time. As the two selected classes were taught by the same teacher, the teacher questionnaire was only administered to one teacher. The school questionnaire went missing (not returned), whilst the curricula questionnaire respond is attached to this document as Appendix 7.

Results and Data Analysis

Students result In school , the highest score was 90% and the lowest score was 17.5%. While the average

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

score was 57.44%. The results were recorded and analysed further using SPSS.

Validity and reliability of the test item used Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 39 100.0 a Excluded 0 .0 Total 39 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .86 40
Resulted from the split marks: example for Q7, it has 3 marks so in the data it is being broken down to Q7a, Q7b and Q7C

As we could see from the Reliability Statistics table above, the Cronbachs Alpha is 0.86; the test items are reliable.

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

Students performance in School . The table below shows the analysis of students performance on each question.
Descriptive Statistics N QA1 QA2 QA3 QA4 QA5 QA6 QA7a QA7b QA7c QA8 QB1a QB1b QB2a QB2b QB3a QB3b QB4a QB4b QB5a QB5b QB5c QB6a QB6b QB6c QB7a QB7b QB7c QB8a QB8b QB8c QB9a QB9b QB9c QB10a QB10b QB11a QB11b QB11c QB12a QB12b Valid N (listwise) 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 Maximum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Mean .74 .97 .36 .62 .41 .64 .69 .64 .64 .59 .92 .85 .87 .87 .28 .28 .79 .59 .56 .13 .13 .79 .77 .74 .64 .64 .59 .23 .21 .18 .62 .54 .51 .64 .64 .79 .79 .77 .18 .10 Std. Deviation .442 .160 .486 .493 .498 .486 .468 .486 .486 .498 .270 .366 .339 .339 .456 .456 .409 .498 .502 .339 .339 .409 .427 .442 .486 .486 .498 .427 .409 .389 .493 .505 .506 .486 .486 .409 .409 .427 .389 .30735

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

Which questions were well answered or vice versa in School ?

The table below shows the order of which question from those that was easily answered down to the hardest. For questions with more than 1 mark, the split may have resulted in split ranking as well. This table then shows which question and the amount of score was easily attained in the test items.

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

Descriptive Statistics N QA2 QB1a QB2b QB2a QB1b QB11b QB11a QB6a QB4a QB11c QB6b QB6c QA1 QA7a QA6 QB10b QB10a QB7b QB7a QA7c QA7b QB9a QA4 QA8 QB7c QB4b QB5a QB9b QB9c QA5 QA3 QB3b QB3a QB8a QB8b QB8c QB12a QB5c QB5b QB12b Valid N (listwise) 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 Maximum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Mean .97 .92 .87 .87 .85 .79 .79 .79 .79 .77 .77 .74 .74 .69 .64 .64 .64 .64 .64 .64 .64 .62 .62 .59 .59 .59 .56 .54 .51 .41 .36 .28 .28 .23 .21 .18 .18 .13 .13 .10 Std. Deviation .160 .270 .339 .339 .366 .409 .409 .409 .409 .427 .427 .442 .442 .468 .486 .486 .486 .486 .486 .486 .486 .493 .493 .498 .498 .498 .502 .505 .506 .498 .486 .456 .456 .427 .409 .389 .389 .339 .339 .30735

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

Comparing gender and classes

Since for the this report, only the school s students are being analysed. Therefore the only comparison that could be done is by gender and class. Comparing gender: Male performed better. Std. Dev is approximately 17.

Effect size

= = 0.144

(59.000- 56.46)/ 17.622

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

The male students just performed slightly better than the female students. As for the difference of performance between the two classes is predictable as the classes consist of students who had been streamed; 9 SC 3 is supposed to be better. The results show the same. Total * class Total class Mean 9SC 3 69.00 9 SC 4 50.21 Total 57.44

N 15 24 39

Std. Deviation 12.53 15.98 17.27

Effect size= (69.00 50.21)/ 15.981 = 18.79/ 15.981 = 1.18 Approx= 1.2 Therefore in this case, the average student in 9SC 3 could rank 88th percentile in the 9 SC 4 class.

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

Any correlations between whatever data attained from the questionnaire that seem to contribute to the students performance?
1. Correlation between students performance and their confidence

Correlations Total (%) Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 39 Pearson Correlation -.291 Sig. (2-tailed) .081 N 37 marks sum of maths confidence -.291 .081 37 1 37

Total marks (%)

sum of maths confidence

The Pearsons correlation shown is a negative, which usually implies if one variable increases the other would decrease or hence negative correlation. For this case, the interpretation is the opposite due to the way the data was entered, the statement that says the most positive (SA) was given 1 point (See Figure 1). Therefore the -0.291actually shows a positive correlation between students performance and their confidence, however the sig. (2- tailed) value of 0.081 shows that the correlation is statistically not significant. The lack of significance resulted here could be due to the size (not big enough; less than the ideal 100) and nature of the sample (intact classes; students have a closer range of ability).

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

2. Correlation between students performance and their time spent on studying maths.

Correlations Total marks (%) 1 39 15a.Time spent studying maths at school .419** .009 38 15b.Time spent studying maths out of sch time .140 .402 38 15c. Time spent studying maths independently .367* .024 38

Total marks (%)

Pearson Corr Sig. (2-tailed) N

3. Correlation between students performance and Out of school study time.

Correlations 16. Out-of-school Total marks (%) Total marks (%) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 16. Out-of-school lessons attended Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 39 -.500** .006 29 29 1 lessons attended -.500** .006 29 1

There is a significant correlation between students performance and their out-of-school time lessons. Students who actually have one to one lessons with a teacher tends to perform better.

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010

4. Correlation importance

between

students

performance

and

Subjects

Correlations 17a.School Total marks (%) Total marks (%) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 17a.School science Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 17b.Mathematics Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 17c.English Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 39 -.019 .911 38 -.205 .216 38 .046 .782 38 38 .147 .378 38 .326* .046 38 38 .448** .005 38 38 1 science -.019 .911 38 1 17b.Mathematics -.205 .216 38 .147 .378 38 1 17c.English .046 .782 38 .326* .046 38 .448** .005 38 1

No correlation between students performance and how they value each subjects importance. Correlations are shown by students as follows: if they consider English important, they tend to consider maths important too. Similarly, those who consider English important do consider science important.

Discussion/ Conclusion
In school , the results shows that more than 50% of the sample performed higher than the sample average score. The interesting correlations were students performance with extra time students spend studying on their own and the nature of their out-of-school-lesson (one-on-one).

09M1113EM5307: THEMATICS STUDY11/5/2010