Are We Really Falling Behind? Comparing Key Indicators Across International and Local Standardised Tests for Australian High School Science

IF 2.2 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Research in Science Education Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.1007/s11165-023-10129-2

Helen Georgiou

{"title":"Are We Really Falling Behind? Comparing Key Indicators Across International and Local Standardised Tests for Australian High School Science","authors":"Helen Georgiou","doi":"10.1007/s11165-023-10129-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There has been a strong narrative in Australia of falling attainment in high school science, with much of the campaign informed by results from international standardised tests such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which shows a year-on-year decline in scientific literacy of Australian 15-year-old students. These results have been used to justify significant policy and curriculum reform, despite the known limitations of PISA and a lack of additional evidence to support this decline in other tests. In this paper, results from standardised tests administered in Australia will be compared to create a fulsome picture of attainment for high school science students. Reports include both the compilation of data from existing reports and new analyses. With the latest (2018/9) reports from PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and National Assessment Program for Scientific Literacy (NAP-SL) (an Australian test of Science Literacy) and data shared by the NSW Department of Education on ‘The Validation of Assessment for Learning and Individual Development’ (VALID) test for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, this offers the most complete picture of student attainment in science to date. Results show that there are disagreements between tests on cohort achievement over time and distribution of attainment at different ‘proficiency levels’. These results suggest caution when using these key results from these tests to inform policy and pedagogy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10129-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a strong narrative in Australia of falling attainment in high school science, with much of the campaign informed by results from international standardised tests such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which shows a year-on-year decline in scientific literacy of Australian 15-year-old students. These results have been used to justify significant policy and curriculum reform, despite the known limitations of PISA and a lack of additional evidence to support this decline in other tests. In this paper, results from standardised tests administered in Australia will be compared to create a fulsome picture of attainment for high school science students. Reports include both the compilation of data from existing reports and new analyses. With the latest (2018/9) reports from PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and National Assessment Program for Scientific Literacy (NAP-SL) (an Australian test of Science Literacy) and data shared by the NSW Department of Education on ‘The Validation of Assessment for Learning and Individual Development’ (VALID) test for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, this offers the most complete picture of student attainment in science to date. Results show that there are disagreements between tests on cohort achievement over time and distribution of attainment at different ‘proficiency levels’. These results suggest caution when using these key results from these tests to inform policy and pedagogy.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

我们真的落后了吗？澳大利亚高中科学国际和地方标准化考试关键指标的比较

在澳大利亚，高中科学成绩下降的说法很强烈，这场运动的大部分内容都是根据国际学生评估计划（PISA）等国际标准化测试的结果进行的，该测试显示，澳大利亚15岁学生的科学素养同比下降。这些结果被用来证明重大的政策和课程改革是合理的，尽管PISA有已知的局限性，而且缺乏其他证据来支持其他测试的下降。在这篇论文中，将对澳大利亚标准化考试的结果进行比较，为高中理科学生创造一幅令人满意的成就图。报告既包括对现有报告数据的汇编，也包括新的分析。根据PISA、国际数学与科学研究趋势（TIMSS）和国家科学素养评估计划（NAP-SL）（澳大利亚科学素养测试）的最新报告（2018/9），以及新南威尔士州教育部共享的2015年、2016年、2017年和2018年“学习和个人发展评估验证”（VALID）测试数据，这提供了迄今为止最完整的学生在科学方面的成就。结果表明，在不同“熟练程度”下，队列成绩随时间变化的测试和成绩分布之间存在差异。这些结果表明，在使用这些测试的关键结果为政策和教育学提供信息时要谨慎。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

8.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.