cy nmssa - national monitoring study of student ... · 1 introduction to the national monitoring...

W ā n a n g a t i a t e P u t a n g a T a u i r a

National Monitoring Studyof Student Achievement

NMSSA

Science2017 – Key Findings

NM

SSA • CYCLE 2

NMSSA Report 17 : SCIENCE 2017 – KEY FINDINGS

W ā n a n g a t i a t e P u t a n g a Ta u i r aNational Monitoring Studyof Student Achievement

NMSSA Report 17CYCLE 2

NM

SSA • CYCLE 2

NMSSA Report 17 : SCIENCE 2017 – KEY FINDINGS

ISSN: 2350-3254 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-927286-43-2 (Print) 2350-3238 (Online) 978-1-927286-44-9 (Online)

Report 17: NMSSA, Science 2017 – Key Findings

W a n a n g a t i a t e P u t a n g a Ta u i r a

National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement

Science

2017

Key Findings Educational Assessment Research Unit

and New Zealand Council for Educational Research

NMSSA Report 17

© 2018 Ministry of Education, New Zealand

Key reports for Science 2017 (all available online at http://nmssa.otago.ac.nz/reports/index.htm)

17: Science 2017 – Key Findings 18: Technical Information 2017

National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement Report 17: Science 2017 – Key Findings published by Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago, and New Zealand Council for Educational Research

under contract to the Ministry of Education, New Zealand ISSN: 2350-3254 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-927286-43-2 (Print) ISSN: 2350-3238 (Online) ISBN: 978-1-927286-44-9 (Online)

National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

Tel: 64 3 479 8561 • Email: [email protected]

NMSSA Report 17: Science 2017 – Key Findings 5

Contents

Acknowledgements 6

Executive summary 7

Chapter 1: Introduction to the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement 9

Chapter 2: 2017 NMSSA Science Study 11

Chapter 3: Student Achievement in Science 18

Chapter 4:

Contextual findings: Learning and Teaching in Science 25

Appendix: Summary Statistics 46

2017 Project Team EARU NZCER

Management Team Sharon Young Charles Darr Albert Liau

Lynette Jones Jane White

Design/Statistics/ Psychometrics/Reporting

Alison Gilmore Albert Liau Mustafa Asil

Charles Darr Hilary Ferral Jess Mazengarb

Curriculum/Assessment Sharon Young Jane White Catherine Morrison Neil Anderson Gaye McDowell

Sandy Robbins Lorraine Spiller Chris Joyce Rose Hipkins Ally Bull

Programme Support Lynette Jones Jess Mazengarb Linda Jenkins James Rae Pauline Algie Lee Baker External Advisors: Jeffrey Smith – University of Otago, Marama Pohatu – Te Rangatahi Ltd

6 NMSSA Report 17: Science 2017 – Key Findings

Acknowledgements

The NMSSA project team wishes to acknowledge the very important and valuable support and contributions of many people to this project, including:

• members of the reference groups: Technical, Māori, Pacific and Special Education • members of the curriculum advisory panel for science • principals, teachers and students of the schools where the tasks were piloted and trials

were conducted • principals, teachers and Board of Trustees' members of the schools that participated in

the 2017 main study including the linking study • the students who participated in the assessments and their parents, whānau and caregivers • the teachers who administered the assessments to the students • the teachers and senior initial teacher education students who undertook the marking • the Ministry of Education Research Team and Steering Committee.


Executive Summary

Introduction The National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA) is designed to assess student achievement across the New Zealand Curriculum at Year 4 and Year 8 in English-medium state and state-integrated schools. The study is organised in five–year cycles. The first cycle ran from 2012 to 2016.

In 2017, NMSSA assessed science achievement using a nationally representative sample of about 2,100 students at each year level. Results were reported on a measurement scale called the Science Capabilities (SC) scale. Questionnaires were also used to gather contextual information from students, teachers and principals.

Science was last assessed by NMSSA in 2012. The measurement scales used in 2012 and 2017 were linked on the basis of assessment tasks that were used at both points of time. This allowed results from the separate studies to be compared.

This report is designed to provide a succinct overview of key findings from the 2017 science study. The report is supplemented by a report focused on curriculum insights for teachers, a technical report and an online interactive statistical application. All reports and the interactive application can be found on the NMSSA website (www.nmssa.otago.ac.nz)1.

Key findings Achievement in 2017 Most students (94 percent) in Year 4 were achieving at or above curriculum expectations (Developed Level 1 and 2), while in Year 8 a minority (20 percent) were achieving at or above curriculum expectations (3 and 4)2.

The difference in average scores between Year 4 and Year 8 indicates that students made about 8 SC units of ‘progress’ per year between Year 4 and Year 8.

Girls scored higher, on average, than boys by 4 SC units at both year levels.

At both year levels, students from high decile schools scored higher, on average, than those from mid decile schools, who, in turn, scored higher than those from low decile schools. The difference between the average scores for students in the high and low decile bands was 23 SC units at Year 4 and 20 SC units at Year 8.

Māori and Pacific students, who were more likely than other students to attend mid and low decile schools, scored lower, on average, than non-Māori and non-Pacific students, respectively. Scores for Māori students were lower, on average, than non-Māori by 12 SC units at both year levels. Pacific students scored lower, on average, than non-Pacific by 18 SC units at Year 4 and 14 SC units at Year 8.

1 The curriculum insights report will be released after the key findings report. 2 In the New Zealand Curriculum, achievement objectives for science are the same for levels 1 and 2 and almost the same for Levels 3 and

4. To differentiate between different levels of performance at Levels 1 and 2, and Levels 3 and 4, the curriculum alignment exercise in 2012 defined an 'emerging' and 'developed' expectation for the achievement objectives contained in each pair of levels. At the end of Year 4, the curriculum expectation is for most students to have achieved at Developed Level 1 and 2. At Year 8, the curriculum expectation is for most students to have achieved at Developed Level 3 and 4 by the end of the school year.


Change in achievement between 2012 and 2017 Differences in the overall average scores for Year 4 and Year 8 students between 2012 and 2017 were not statistically significant. Statistically significant increases in average achievement scores were recorded, however, for several population subgroups including: Year 4 Asian students, Year 8 girls, Year 8 Māori students, Year 8 Pacific students, and Year 4 and Year 8 students in low decile schools. These increases ranged from 5 to 9 SC units.

Contextual findings From students Most students were positive or very positive about learning science at school and expressed confidence as science learners. Students in Year 8 tended to be less positive about science and, overall, expressed lower levels of confidence in science than students in Year 4. Both attitude to science and confidence in science were positively associated with achievement. The correlations, however, were generally weak.

Students were given a list of learning opportunities in science and asked whether they did each one ‘sometimes’, ‘often’, ‘very often’ or ‘never’. Most students indicated they did each one at least sometimes. The exception to this was the opportunity related to entering a science competition or fair where the majority of students responded ‘never’.

Most students rated the difficulty of their science learning as ‘about right for me’.

From teachers A higher proportion of the Year 8 teachers than Year 4 teachers indicated they had school leadership responsibilities in science. Year 8 teachers were also more likely to indicate that they had a qualification related to science.

Most teachers indicated that they enjoyed teaching science and were confident about teaching it. About 20 percent of teachers at both year levels indicated low levels of confidence in teaching science.

Overall, the majority of teachers indicated that they had adequate access to a range of resources for teaching science. However, 30 to 40 percent of teachers at both year levels did not agree that they had access to suitable spaces to teach science or appropriate teaching materials.

Around 60 percent of teachers at Year 4 and Year 8 reported that they had participated in professional learning and development associated with science in the last five years.

Teachers generally reported infrequent opportunities for professional interactions with colleagues related to teaching science.

From principals At Year 8, 67 percent of principals rated their school’s overall provision in science as either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ compared with 46 percent of those at Year 4.

Overall, the majority of principals indicated that science was mainly taught in blocks or modules (Figure 4.21). At Year 8, 34 percent of principals indicated that science was mainly taught as a regularly timetabled subject. This compared with 9 percent of principals at Year 4.

Seventy-seven percent of principals at Year 4 and 80 percent at Year 8 indicated that the inclusion of students with special education needs in science was either ‘good’ or ‘very good’. A greater proportion of Year 8 principals responded using ‘very good’ compared with those at Year 4 (59 percent at Year 8 compared with 44 percent at Year 4).

Fifty percent of principals at Year 4 and 40 percent at Year 8 indicated that teachers in their school had little or no access to external professional learning and development in science.

Forty percent of principals at Year 4 and 28 percent at Year 8 indicated that science had not been a focus for development at their school in the last 5 years.


1 Introduction to the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement

This chapter provides a broad overview of the purpose and features of the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA), introduces the focus of the study for 2017, and outlines the structure of the science report.

1. National Monitoring in brief: purpose and features NMSSA is designed to assess student achievement at Year 4 and Year 8 in New Zealand English-medium state and state-integrated schools. The main purposes of NMSSA are to:

• provide a snapshot of student achievement against the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) • identify factors that are associated with achievement • assess strengths and weaknesses across the curriculum • measure change in student achievement over time • provide high-quality, robust information for policy makers, curriculum planners and educators.

The study is carried out over five-year cycles. The results from the first cycle (2012–2016) set the baseline for measuring change in student achievement over time in subsequent cycles. The second cycle, which began in 2017, provides the first opportunity to compare learning outcomes over time.

NMSSA designs and carries out studies in up to two learning areas each year. The study includes an assessment of student performance and the collection of contextual information from students, teachers and principals to help us understand the factors associated with students’ achievement. In relation to specific learning areas, the contextual information includes: students’ attitudes, engagement and opportunities to learn; teachers’ confidence in teaching the specific learning area and the learning experiences provided for students; and teachers’ and principals’ views of the professional and curriculum support provided by the school for the learning area.

Advisory panels of curriculum experts3, reference groups for the priority learner groups (Māori, Pacific and special education needs) and a technical reference group provide support for the project.

2. The focus of the NMSSA study for 2017 The focus for the 2017 NMSSA study was science, previously assessed in 2012 and health and physical education (PE) 4, previously assessed in 2013. In science, nationally representative samples5 of about 2100 students from 100 schools at each of Year 4 and Year 8 took part in group-administered assessment. A subset of about 800 students at each year level took part in individual or group activity-based assessments and interviews.

Experienced, specially trained teacher assessors conducted the assessments during Term 3 (July to September 2017).

3 The science advisory panel comprised discipline experts, advisors, teacher educators and researchers as well as classroom teachers and

representatives of the Ministry of Education. 4 The findings for health and PE can be found in NMSSA Report 16: Health and PE 2017 – Key Findings. 5 Information about the sampling process and the achieved samples can be found in Appendix 1 of NMSSA Report 18: Technical

Information 2017.


3. Structure of the science report This report is designed to provide a succinct overview of the 2017 NMSSA science study. The report is set out in four chapters.

• Chapter 1 provides an overview of the 2017 NMSSA programme. • Chapter 2 briefly describes the 2017 science programme, including information about the

achievement measures and the contextual questionnaires. • Chapter 3 presents the findings related to achievement in science and reports these against the

levels of the science learning area of the New Zealand Curriculum. It also reports on changes in achievement observed between 2012 and 2017.

• Chapter 4 looks at contextual factors related to teaching and learning in science using questionnaire data collected from students, teachers and principals.

An appendix to the report contains statistical information related to the achievement measures.

4. Further information This report is supplemented by two other reports and an online interactive statistical application.

The report Science 2017 Insights provides in-depth information for teachers and schools about the 2017 science assessment including annotated examples of questions and tasks used in the assessment.

The report Technical Information 2017 contains background and technical information, including information about the characteristics of the samples of students, teachers and principals from whom data were collected, the conceptualisation and development of the science assessment programme, construction of the measurement scale, procedures for linking data from 2012 and 2017 and the methodology of the study.

The online interactive application allows users to generate tables and graphs using achievement and contextual data generated by the 2017 study.

All reports and the interactive application can be found on the NMSSA website (www.nmssa.otago.ac.nz). Note the report Science 2017 Insights will be made available on the website after the other reports.


2 2017 NMSSA Science Study

This chapter provides an overview of the 2017 NMSSA science study. It includes two parts.

• Part 1 briefly describes the science learning area of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC)6. • Part 2 describes the components of the 2017 NMSSA science study.

1. Science and the New Zealand Curriculum Science in the NZC is about students exploring ‘… how both the natural physical world and science itself work so that they can participate as critical, informed and responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role’7.

To help teachers and students work towards this purpose the science learning area strands are organised into two types of strands.

The Nature of Science strand is about ‘what science is and how scientists work’. The Nature of Science is the overarching core strand and is required learning up to Year 10. There are four sub-strands to the Nature of Science strand: Understanding about science; Investigating in science; Communicating in science and Participating and contributing. Four contextual strands provide some guidance about appropriate science knowledge to be developed. The four contextual strands are: Physical World; Material World; Living World and Planet Earth and Beyond. The NZC says that a school curriculum should integrate both the Nature of Science and contextual strands.

The science capabilities8 supplement the description of science in the NZC. They were developed to help teachers weave together the Nature of Science sub-strands and contextual strands while developing the skills required for critical, informed, responsible citizens. The science capabilities are:

• gather and interpret data • use evidence • critique evidence • interpret representations • engage in science.

Table 2.1 shows the relationship between the Nature of Science substrands and the science capabilities.

Table 2.1 The relationship between the Nature of Science substrands and the science capabilities

Nature of Science substrands

Understanding about science

Investigating in science

Communicating in science

Participating and contributing

Matching science capabilities

• Gather and interpret data

• Gather and interpret data

• Interpret representations

• Engaging in science

• Use evidence • Use evidence • Critique evidence • Critique evidence

6 Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. 7 The New Zealand Curriculum, p.17. 8 More information about the science capabilities can be found at the following website: http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-

capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities.

2017 NMSSA science study


An advisory panel of science curriculum experts met with the NMSSA project team in 2016 to consider the shape of the NMSSA science study. The NMSSA team drew on the panel discussion, and the 2012 NMSSA science study, to develop an assessment framework9 and programme for the 2017 study. The components of the 2017 science study are outlined in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Components of the 2017 NMSSA science programme

Component Focus Approach

Assessments 1. Achievement in

science •

•

the science capabilities: o gather and interpret data o use evidence o critique evidence o interpret representations o engage with science

knowing science

• A two-part assessment incorporating: o a 45-minute group-administered

paper-and-pencil assessment completed by about 2,100 students at each year level

o a series of ‘in-depth’ tasks administered as part of one-to-one student interviews and a paper-and-pencil task completed by students working independently; completed by about 800 students at each year level

Contextual information 2. Student

questionnaire

3. Teacher and principal questionnaires

•

• •

• • •

attitudes to science and confidence in science opportunities to learn science at school teacher and principal views of science instruction in their school teacher confidence as science educators opportunities for student learning in science provision for teaching science including resourcing and opportunities for professional learning and development in science

•

•

paper-and-pencil questionnaire completed by about 2,100 students at each year level

separate teacher and principal questionnaires, completed by 203 teachers and 97 principals in Year 4, and 166 teachers and 85 principals in Year 8

Component 1: Achievement in science The first component of the 2017 science programme assessed achiecalled the Science Capabilities (SC) assessment. The assessment,capabilities described above, was made up of two parts. The first parin the study (2,094 at Year 4 and 2,040 at Year 8), involved a assessment. The second part involved a number of ‘in-depth’ tasks,

vement in science using an assessment which was focused on the science t, which was completed by all students group-administered paper-and-pencil

which were completed by a sample of the students who took part in the group-administered assessment (up to 8 students in each school).

The SC assessment combined the two separate assessments of achievement used in the 2012 study. This allowed for all results to be reported on one rather than two scales. As well as making use of the majority of tasks developed for the 2012 study, a range of new tasks was written for the 2017 SC assessment to provide broader curriculum coverage.

Examples of questions and tasks from the SC assessment Two of the questions developed for the group-administered part of the SC assessment are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. The first figure shows a selected-response question and the second an example of a short constructed-response question.

The question shown in Figure 2.1 addresses the capability: ‘Using evidence’. Students are asked to identify which statement about plastic is not relevant to the question being asked.

9 See Appendix 11 in NMSSA Report 18: Technical Information 2017.


Figure 2.1 An example of a selected-response question from the group-adminstered part of the Science Capabilities (SC)

assessment

The item shown in Figure 2.2 addresses the capability ‘Interpret representations’. Students are asked to read and interpret a graph. Students need to link how the the water flow is represented in the middle of the graph—a rapid increase followed by a swift decrease—to their knowledge of rivers and rain.


Figure 2.2 An example of a short constructed-response question from the group-administered part of the Science Capabilities (SC) assessment

Figure 2.3 shows an example of a task that was used in the in-depth part of the SC assessment. Called ‘Mystery object’ , the task was administered as part of a video-recorded one-to-one interview with a teacher assessor. The figure shows the task instructions, questions and assessment intent for each question.

The Mystery object task focused on the science capability ‘Gather and interpret data’. Students had to systematically collect evidence that could help them identify an unseen object while resisting the impulse to make a decision based on an initial impression.


TASK: Mystery object Supplies: Two ice cream containers (A and B) with lids on – container A is sealed with a biro inside; container B contains a biro, roll of cellotape, marble, drawing pin, pencil and rubber.

Instruction to student: Pick up Container A and without opening it try and work out what is inside. Question 1. What do you think the object might be? Question 2. What makes you think so? Assessment intent

Can students link what they can hear or feel to a property of the object they have suggested? E.g. I can hear it rolling when I tip the container; It’s something quite light; It sounds like a…

Question 3. How sure are you that you are right about what is inside? Not sure, a bit sure, or very sure? Question 4. Without looking inside the container, what else could you do to be more sure of what it might be? Assessment intent

Can students gives a plausible suggestion that requires doing something different, like using some sort of tool? E.g. get a magnet; use a model; use a metal detector/x-ray; weigh an item and then compare that with the weight of the box/get another container with a pen in it and shake it.

Hand student container B. Instruction to student: Look inside container B. Explore with the objects to see if you can work out what is in container A.

Question 5. What do you now think is inside container A? Assessment intent

Are students able to systematically compare the sounds of objects in container B with container A (more than one comparison)? E.g. they test and check/re-check; puts the lid on (to more accurately compare the sound).

Question 6. What makes you think so? Question 7. How sure do you feel that you are right? Not sure, a bit sure or very sure? Assessment intent

Can students identify any similarities between the item(s) they are testing and their earlier observations of container A? Can they use observations from exploring container B as evidence? E.g. when you shake the container with the pen in it, it makes the same noise as container A.

Figure 2.3 An example of an interview task used in the in-depth part of the Science Capabilities (SC) assessment

Reporting achievement on the SC assessment An analysis approach based on Item Response Theory (IRT)10 was used to construct a measurement scale for the SC assessment. The approach included generating plausible values to estimate achievement distributions for the population11. The techniques used to do the scaling were similar to those used in studies such as PISA and TIMSS12.

For ease of understanding, the SC scale was standardised so that: • the average of all students (Year 4 and Year 8 combined) was equal to 100 scale score units • the average standard deviation for the two year levels was equal to 20 scale score units.

In order to compare results from 2012 with those from 2017, the scale developed to report achievement on the 2012 group-administered assessment was linked to the SC scale by comparing the scale locations of the common questions used in both assessments. The process involved in the linking study involved reconstructing the 2012 achievement distributions using the plausible values approach employed in 2017. This means that 2012 achievement statistics used in this report vary from the statistics presented in the original 2012 report.

The SC scale description Figure 2.4 provides a description of the science knowledge and skills measured by the SC scale. The scale description was developed directly from the data collected using the SC assessment in the science study.

10 IRT was used to construct measurements of cognitive abilities and attitudes. IRT uses a mathematical model to describe the relationship

between people (in terms of their levels of ability or the strengths of their attitude) and the probability of answering an item correctly or indicating a particular level of response to items. IRT uses flexible techniques for linking assessments made up of different questions to a common reporting scale. The common scale allows the performance of students to be compared regardless of which questions they answered. IRT was also used to construct the Attitudes to Health/PE and Confidence in Health/PE scales. This is developed further in Appendix 2 of NMSSA Report 18: Technical Information 2017.

11 See Appendix 12 of NMSSA Report 18: Technical Information 2017 for information about the generation of plausible values. 12 TIMSS and PISA are examples of international comparative studies of student achievement. They are organised by the International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), respectively. Many countries from around the world participate in such programmes.


Figure 2.4 Description of the Science Capabilities (SC) scale


Reporting achievement against curriculum levels Compared to other learning areas, science in the NZC is atypical, in that the achievement objectives for Levels 1 and 2 are exactly the same, and for Levels 3 and 4 almost the same. To differentiate between different levels of performance at Levels 1 and 2, and Levels 3 and 4, the 2012 curriculum alignment exercise defined an 'emerging' and 'developed' expectation for the achievement objectives contained at each pair of levels. The 2012 curriculum alignment exercise determined performance expectations (cut-scores) on the 2012 scale associated with achieving at Developed Level 1 and 2; Emerging Level 3 and 4 and Developed Level 3 and 4 and Above. Linking the 2012 scale to the 2017 (SC) scale allowed the cut-scores to be located on the 2017 scale.

Component 2: Student perspectives on science All students in the 2017 NMSSA science study were asked to complete a student questionnaire that was administered in a paper-and-pencil format. At Year 4, each part of the questionnaire was read to the students by a teacher assessor. In Year 8, students could request support with reading as required. The questionnaire asked students about themselves, their attitude to science, their confidence in science, how difficult they found science and their opportunities to learn science.

IRT was used to construct reporting scales for the questions in the student questionnaire related to attitude and confidence. As for the SC achievement scale, these scales were set to have an average of 100 scale score units and an average standard deviation of 20 scale score units across the year levels. Two measurement scales were constructed: Attitude to Science and Confidence in Science. Students were also asked to indicate how often they experienced a range of learning opportunities in science at school.

Component 3: Teacher and principal perspectives on learning science The third component involved two separate questionnaires developed for teachers and principals, respectively.

The teacher questionnaire included sections asking teachers about their attitude to science, confidence as a science teacher, the opportunities for students to learn science at school, and professional development and support. IRT was used to construct a reporting scale based on the responses to the questions related to confidence as a science teacher. The Confidence in Teaching Science scale was set to have an average of 100 scale score units and an average standard deviation of 20 scale score units across the year levels.

The principals of the schools involved in the study were also asked to complete a questionnaire. Principals were able to delegate the task to a member of the school leadership team as required.

The principal questionnaire asked a range of questions about teaching and learning in science across the school including questions related to strategic planning, assessment planning and policy, inclusion of diverse learners in science, professional support for teaching science and resourcing for science.

3 Student Achievement in Science

This chapter describes Year 4 and Year 8 student achievement in science based on results from the 2017 Science Capabilities (SC) assessment.

Within this chapter any reported differences between groups are statistically significant unless stated otherwise.

Full tables of results related to reporting in this chapter are available in Appendix 1.

1. Overall achievement on the Science Capabilities (SC) assessment

Year 8 students scored higher, on average, than those in Year 4 with some overlap between the distributions of achievement Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the distributions of achievement on the SC scale for Year 4 and Year 8, respectively. On average, Year 8 students scored 33 units higher on the SC scale than Year 4 students. This indicates that, overall, students make about 8 SC units of ‘progress’ per year between Year 4 and Year 8. The annualised difference of 8 SC units can be considered to represent the amount of ‘progress’ associated with about one year of instruction.

There was a degree of overlap between the score distributions.


Figure 3.1 Distribution of scores for Year 4 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale

Figure 3.2 Distribution of scores for Year 8 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale


2. Achievement against the curriculum

Most students in Year 4 were achieving at or above curriculum expectations, while most students in Year 8 were not meeting curriculum expectations

At Year 4, 94 percent of students achieved at or above the minimum score on the SC scale associated with achieving at ‘Developed Level 1 and 2’ (Figure 3.3). At the end of Year 4, the curriculum expectation is for most students to have achieved at Developed Level 1 and 2.

At Year 8, the curriculum expectation is for most students to have achieved at Developed Level 3 and 4. However, at Year 8 only 20 percent of students achieved at that level. Most students at Year 8 (about 80 percent) were achieving at Emerging Level 3 and 4 or above.

As stated earlier, the average amount of annual ‘progress’ between Year 4 and Year 8 is about 8 SC units per year. Students who achieve at or around the cut-score for achieving at Developed Level 1 and 2 in Year 4 would have to progress at about 21 SC units per year to reach the Developed Level 3 and 4 cut-score at Year 8.

Figure 3.3 Percentage of students achieving at different curriculum levels, by year level

3. Achievement by student-level variables Figures 3.4 and 3.5 display the score distributions on the SC scale at Year 4 and Year 8 for all students and by gender and ethnicity13.

On average, girls scored higher in science than boys at both Year 4 and Year 8 Girls scored higher, on average, than boys at Year 4 and Year 8 (by 4 units at both year levels).

There were differences in science achievement related to ethnicity and special education needs status At both year levels, non-Māori students scored higher, on average, than Māori (by 12 SC units at both year levels).

At both year levels, non-Pacific students scored higher, on average, than Pacific by 18 SC units at Year 4 and 14 SC units at Year 8).

At Year 4 and Year 8, students with no special education needs scored higher, on average, than those with special education needs (by 16 SC units at Year 4 and 19 SC units at Year 8).

13 Non-prioritised ethnicity was used where students could identify with up to three ethnicities. This meant they could be present in multiple

ethnic groups. Student ethnicity data were obtained from National Student Number information held on the Ministry of Education ENROL database. The ‘New Zealand European’ category included New Zealand Pākehā, Australians and British/Irish. The ‘Pacific’ category included Tokelauan, Fijian, Niuean, Tongan, Cook Islands Māori, Samoan and other Pacific peoples. The ‘Asian’ category included Filipino, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Other Southeast Asian, Indian, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Japanese, Korean and other Asians.


Figure 3.4 Distribution of scores for Year 4 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale, by gender and ethnicity (NZE=New Zealand European)

Figure 3.5 Distribution of scores for Year 8 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale, by gender and ethnicity (NZE=New Zealand European)


4. Achievement by school-level variables Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show the performance of students according to school decile14 band and school type15.

Students attending high decile schools scored higher, overall, on the SC assessment than those attending mid or low decile schools

At both year levels, the average score on the SC assessment for students from high decile schools was higher than the average scores for students from mid and low decile schools. At Year 4, the difference between the average scores for students in the high and low decile bands was 23 SC units. At Year 8, it was 20 SC units.

Students attending secondary schools scored higher, on average, on the SC assessment than those attending intermediate and full primary schools

At Year 8, the average scores for students from intermediate schools and full primary schools on the SC assessment were very similar. Students from both intermediate schools and full primary schools however, scored lower, on average, than students from secondary schools by about 5.5 SC units. It is important to note that nearly all of the secondary schools in the study were mid and high decile schools.

At Year 4, the average scores for students from contributing schools and full primary schools were very similar.

14 The low decile band comprised students in decile 1 to decile 3 schools, the mid band comprised students in decile 4 to decile 7 schools,

and the high band comprised students in decile 8 to decile 10 schools. 15 A composite school combines students from different year levels that are typically found in separate primary or secondary schools.

A restricted composite, sometimes known as a middle school, caters for Years 7 to 10. A contributing school caters for Years 1 to 6 of schooling. A full primary school caters for Years 1 to 8 of schooling. Secondary schools cater for Year 7 to Year 15 of schooling, although many cater for Year 9 to Year 15 only. An intermediate school caters for Years 7 and 8 of schooling.


Figure 3.6 Distribution of scores for Year 4 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale, by decile band and school type

Figure 3.7 Distribution of scores for Year 8 students on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale, by decile band and school type


5. Changes in achievement since 2012 Science was last assessed by NMSSA in 2012. In order to make comparisons between 2012 and 2017 a linking exercise was undertaken based on the common items used in the assessments administered at both points of time16. This allowed student achievement in 2012 to be located on the scale constructed to report 2017 data.

As noted in Chapter 1, the process involved in the linking study involved reconstructing the 2012 achievement distributions using the plausible values approach employed in 2017. This means that achievement statistics for 2012 presented in this section vary from the statistics presented in the original 2012 report.

Differences in the overall average scores for Year 4 and Year 8 students between 2012 and 2017 were not statistically significant The linking exercise showed increases of around 3 SC units in average achievement for all students at both Year 4 and Year 8 between 2012 and 2017 (Figure 3.8). The difference however, was not statistically significant at either year level.

Figure 3.8 Average achievement in science in 2012 and 2017,

by year level

The proportion of students achieving at or above curriculum expectations at each year level showed a corresponding increase (Figure 3.9). Again the change was not statistically significant.

Figure 3.9 The proportion of students achieving at or above curriculum

expectations in 2012 and 2017, by year level

16 See Appendix 9 of Report 18:Technical Information 2017 for details of the exercise used to link results from 2012 with 2017.

Statistically significant increases in average achievement were recorded for several population subgroups between 2012 and 2017 The average scores for Year 4 Asian students, Year 8 girls, Year 8 Māori students, Year 8 Pacific students, and Year 4 and Year 8 students in low decile schools increased between 2012 and 2017 (Table 3.1)17.


Table 3.1 Change in average scale score on the Science Capabilities (SC) scale between 2012 and 2017 by year level, gender, ethnicity and decile band

Year 4 Year 8

Difference in average

scores (SC units)*

95 percent confidence

interval

Difference in average

scores (SC units)*

95 percent confidence

interval

All students +2.65 (-0.72, 6.02) All students +3.13 (-0.24, 6.5)

Girls +3.13 (-0.48, 6.74) Girls +5.78 (2.17, 9.39)

Boys +2.41 (-1.2, 6.02) Boys +0.48 (-3.13, 4.09)

NZE +2.41 (-0.96, 5.78) NZE +1.93 (-1.44, 5.3)

Māori +3.13 (-1.21, 7.47) Māori +5.54 (1.2, 9.88)

Pacific +5.06 (0, 10.12) Pacific +8.67 (3.37, 13.97)

Asian +6.50 (1.44, 11.56) Asian +4.82 (-0.72, 10.36)

Low +4.82 (0.48, 9.16) Low +8.91 (4.57, 13.25)

Mid +2.65 (-0.96, 6.26) Mid +2.89 (-0.72, 6.5)

High +3.37 (-0.24,6.98) High +0.72 (-2.89, 4.33)

* Bolded numbers indicate the difference is statistically significant (p<0.05)

17 It is important to note the size of the confidence interval when considering the differences in average scores between 2012 and 2017. For

some population groups these intervals are very wide.


4 Contextual findings: Learning and Teaching in Science

This chapter explores data collected about learning and teaching in science using the student, teacher and principal questionnaires. The chapter is divided into three sections with each focused on one of the questionnaires. Where the same or similar questions were asked in 2012, a short description looking back at the responses made in that year is provided.

1. Students’ perspectives on learning in science All students in the 2017 NMSSA science study were asked to complete a student questionnaire. The questionnaire asked students about themselves, their confidence in learning science, opportunities to learn science at school and how difficult they found science at school.

Attitude to science Overall, students were positive about learning science at school Most students in Year 4 and Year 8 indicated at least some level of agreement with each of five statements related to their attitude towards learning science at school (Figure 4.1). For example, at Year 4, 65 percent of students used ‘agree a lot’ or ‘totally agree’ to respond to the statement ‘I like learning about science at school’. At Year 8 the corresponding percentage was 52 percent.

Year 8 students were less likely than those in Year 4 to use the ‘totally agree’ category when responding to the statements. However, at both year levels the proportion of students who selected ‘do not agree at all’ for each statement was similar.

Figure 4.1 Percentage of student responses to statements about their attitude to science, by year level


Looking back In 2012, students rated how much they agreed with four statements about their attitude to science: ‘I like doing science at school’; ‘I would like to do more science at school’; ‘I want to keep learning about science’; and ‘I think science is interesting’. The response scale in 2012 used different response categories to those used in 2017: ‘heaps’; ‘quite a lot’; ‘a little’; and ‘not at all’. Similarly to 2017, most students at both year levels in 2012, were enthusiastic about learning science at school with students in Year 4 typically responding more positively to each statement than those in Year 8. For example, 82 percent of students at Year 4 and 65 percent at Year 8 used ‘heaps’ or ‘quite a lot’ to rate how much they agreed with the statement: ‘I like learning about science at school’.

Attitude to Science Scale Responses to the five attitude statements were used to locate students on an Attitude to Science scale. To aid interpretation, the scale was broken down into three score ranges. The ‘very positive’ part of the scale was associated with students mainly using the ‘totally agree’ category, the ‘positive’ section of the scale was associated with students mainly using either ‘agree a lot’ or ‘agree a little’, and the ‘not positive’ part of the scale was associated with students mainly using ‘do not agree at all’.

On average, Year 8 students scored lower on the Attitude to Science scale than Year 4 students

Year 8 students, on average, scored lower on the Attitude to Science scale than Year 4 students by 10 scale score units (Figure 4.2). It has been typical of most learning areas assessed by NMSSA to see lower attitude scores, on average, for Year 8 students compared to students in Year 4.

Figure 4.2 Distribution of students’ scores on the Attitude to Science scale, by year level

There were differences in Attitude to Science scores related to gender, ethnicity

and school type While Attitude to Science scores were similar, on average, across decile bands, there were some differences associated with gender, ethnicity and school type.

On average, girls in both year levels scored higher on the Attitude to Science scale than boys by 4 scale score units.

On average, at Year 8, Māori students scored lower on the Attitude to Science scale than non-Māori by 5 scale score units.

On average, at Year 8, Pacific students scored higher on the Attitude to Science scale than non Pacific students by 3 scale score units.

At Year 4, students with special education needs were less positive about science, on average, than those with no special education needs (by 4 scale score points).

At Year 8, students in secondary schools were more positive about science compared with those attending full primary or intermediate schools (by 5.5 and 6 scale score units, respectively).


Confidence in science

Overall, students indicated confidence in their science abilities Overall, most students at both Year 4 and Year 8 indicated some level of agreement with each of five statements related to their sense of confidence as a science learner (Figure 4.3). A relatively low proportion of students in both year levels used the ‘do not agree at all’ response categories when responding to each of the statements.

Figure 4.3 Percentage of student responses to statements about their confidence in science, by year level

Looking back In 2012, students were asked how much they agreed with three statements regarding their confidence in science that were the same or similar to the statements used in 2017: 'I am good at science'; 'My teacher thinks I’m good at science'; and 'My family/whānau think I am good at science'. The response scale used in 2012 was different from the one used in 2017. In 2012, students responded to the statements by selecting from: ‘heaps’; ‘quite a lot’; a little’; and ‘not at all’. As in 2017, most students in 2012 showed some level of agreement with each statement and, overall, students in Year 4 indicated higher levels of agreement with each statement compared to students in Year 8. For example, in 2012 at Year 4, 60 percent of students responded ‘heaps’ or ‘quite a lot’ to the statement ‘I am good at science’. At Year 8 the corresponding percentage was 38 percent.


Confidence in Science Scale Responses to the five statements related to confidence were used to construct a Confidence in Science scale. In a similar way to the Attitude to Science scale, the Confidence in Science scale was divided into three score ranges: ‘very confident’; ‘confident’; and ‘not confident’.

Students in Year 8, on average, indicated less confidence in science than students in Year 4 Year 8 students scored lower, on average, on the Confidence in Science scale than Year 4 students by 8 scale score units. Overall, most students at both year levels scored in the ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ part of the scale.

Figure 4.4 Distribution of students’ scores on the Confidence in

Science scale, by year level

There were differences in Confidence in Science scale scores associated with a range of

school and student level variables At both year levels, students from low decile schools indicated that they were less confident in science, on average, than those from schools in the mid and high decile bands. The difference in average scores between students in low and mid decile schools was 6 scale score units at Year 4 and 2 scale score units at Year 8. The difference between the average scores for students in low and high decile schools was 5.5 scale score units at Year 4 and 5 scale score units at Year 8.

Māori students indicated less confidence, on average, than non-Māori at both year levels (by 3 scale score units at Year 4 and 6 scale score units at Year 8).

Pacific students were less confident, on average, than non-Pacific at both year levels (by 6 scale score units at Year 4 and 3 scale score units at Year 8).

At Year 8, students with special education needs were less confident, on average, than those with no special education needs by 6 scale score points.

At Year 8, students from secondary schools indicated more confidence in science, on average, than students attending full primary and intermediate schools (by 4.5 and 4 scale score units, respectively).


The relationship between attitude to science, confidence in science and achievement in science

Students’ Attitude to Science and Confidence in Science scale scores were weakly associated with achievement in science Scores on both the Attitude to Science scale and Confidence in Science scale were weakly correlated with achievement on the Science Capabilities (SC) assessment at both year levels (Table 4.1). At both year levels the magnitude of the correlation coefficient was greater between confidence and achievement than attitude and achievement. For both attitude and confidence, the association with achievement was stronger at Year 8 than Year 4.

Table 4.1 Correlations between the attitudinal scales (Attitude to Science and Confidence in Science) and achievement in science, by year level

Attitude to Science* Confidence in Science*

Achievement (SC units)

in science at Year 4 0.11 0.15

Achievement (SC units)

in science at Year 8 0.21 0.31

* Bolded correlations were statistically significant at p<0.01

Students’ opportunities to learn science Most students in Year 4 and Year 8 indicated that they were involved in a range of

science learning experiences Presented with a range of statements describing learning opportunities in science, most students in Year 4 and Year 8 indicated that they were involved in each opportunity at least ‘sometimes’ (Figure 4.5). The exception to this was: ‘Enter science competitions or fairs’ where more than half of the students at each year level responded ‘never’.

In general, the pattern of responses to the learning opportunity statements was similar across gender, ethnicity and decile band. Again, the exception was the statement related to entering science competitions or fairs. Overall, students from low decile schools, Māori students and Pacific students indicated lower involvement in science competitions and fairs compared with students from mid and high decile schools, non-Māori, and non-Pacific students, respectively. In each case the difference was greater than 10 percentage points.


Figure 4.5 Percentage of students’ responses regarding their involvement in a range of learning opportunities in science, by year level

Looking back In 2012, students were asked to rate statements describing learning opportunities in science, inquiry or topic at school. Three of the statements were close matches to those used in 2017 about science: ‘Find information by yourself for your science topic’; ‘Go on trips outside school to learn more about your science topic’; and ‘Enter science competitions’. The 2012 response scale asked students to respond by selecting from a 5-point scale: ‘heaps’, ‘quite a lot’, ‘sometimes’, ‘hardly ever’ and ‘never’. This differed from the 4-point scale used in 2017 (‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ and ‘very often’). The proportions of students using ‘heaps’ and ‘quite a lot’ to respond to the three statements in 2012 were similar to the proportions responding with ‘often’ and ‘very often’ in 2017. As in 2017, the majority of students at both year levels indicated that they ‘never’ entered science competitions.


Students’ perceptions of the difficulty of their science learning

Most students at Year 4 and Year 8 rated the learning they did in science as ‘about right for me’ When asked to rate the learning they did in science in terms of difficulty, 83 percent of students at Year 8 and 76 percent at Year 4 responded using the ‘about right for me’ category (Figure 4.6). Of the remaining students, a greater proportion at each year level indicated that the science they did was ‘too easy’ rather than ‘too hard’.

Figure 4.6 Percentage of students’ responses

regarding the difficulty of their science programmes, by year level

At Year 4 there were differences related to decile and ethnicity in how students

perceived the difficulty of their learning in science At Year 4, 18 percent of students from low decile schools indicated the learning they did in science was ‘too hard’ compared with 7 and 5 percent of students from mid and high decile schools, respectively.

At Year 4, 64 percent of Pacific students indicated their science learning was ‘about right for me’ compared with 77 percent of non-Pacific students. Twenty-one percent of Pacific students indicated their learning in science was ‘too easy’ and 15 percent indicated it was ‘too hard’.

Asian students in Year 4 were more likely to respond that their learning in science was ‘about right for me’ compared with non-Asian students (86 percent compared with 74 percent). Nine percent of Asian students indicated their learning in science was ‘too easy’ and 5 percent indicated it was ‘too hard’.

At Year 4, a greater proportion of students with special education needs than those with no special education needs indicated their learning in science was either too easy or too hard At Year 4, 40 percent of students with special education needs indicated that their learning in science was either ‘too easy’ (23 percent) or ‘too hard’ (17 percent). This compared with 23 percent of students without special education needs. At Year 8, there was no notable difference in the way students with and without special education needs responded.


2. Teachers’ perspectives on learning and teaching in science Up to three teachers from each school were asked to fill in the teacher questionnaire. The teachers invited to participate were those who had the most students involved in the NMSSA study, and/or were specialist science teachers. Table 4.2 shows the number of teachers who responded by school decile band.

Table 4.2 Number of teachers responding to the questions in the teacher questionnaire related to science, by school decile band and year level

Decile band Year 4 (n) Year 8 (n)

Low 44 30

Mid 85 71

High 74 65

TOTAL 203 166

At Year 4, 80 percent of the teachers who responded were female and 50 percent had taught for 11 years or more. At Year 8, 67 percent of the teachers who responded were female and 66 percent had taught for 11 years or more.

Thirty-six percent of the teachers at Year 8 and 18 percent at Year 4 indicated that they had syndicate or school leadership responsibilities for science. A greater proportion of Year 8 teachers from mid and high decile schools indicated they had leadership responsibilities compared with those from low decile schools (40 percent compared with 27 percent, respectively). When making year level comparisons it is important to bear in mind that a greater proportion of teachers who responded at Year 8 had leadership responsibilities than those teaching Year 4.

Note that the teachers who completed the questionnaires at each year level do not necessarily constitute nationally representative samples. The findings related to teachers should be interpreted as a broad indication of New Zealand teachers’ views about learning in science.

Qualifications in science

Year 8 teachers were more likely than Year 4 teachers to indicate that they had a qualification related to science The proportions of teachers who indicated that they had a specialist focus in their teacher training, an undergraduate or post graduate science qualification, and/or work experience in science were greater at Year 8 than at Year 4 (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Percentage of teachers indicating that they had a specialist focus in their teacher training, qualifications related to science, and/or work experience in science, by year level

Year 4 (%)* Year 8 (%)

Specialist science education focus in initial teacher education 5.4 12.8

Undergraduate/post graduate qualification 3.5 18.9

Work experience 1.5 6.7

* Teachers were able to tick all categories that applied


Teachers’ enjoyment of science Most teachers indicated that they enjoyed teaching science

The vast majority of teachers at Year 4 and Year 8 agreed that they enjoyed the science learning area and liked teaching science (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7 Percentage of teachers’ responses to attitudes to teaching science statements, by year level

Looking back In 2012, teachers were asked how much they agreed with two statements related to enjoying science and science teaching: ‘I personally enjoy science’ and ‘I like teaching science’. Unlike the response scale used in 2017, teachers could select ‘neutral’ when making a response. At Year 4 about 75 percent of teachers either ’agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with each statement. This compared with about 90 percent of teachers at Year 8. Similarly to 2017, very few teachers in 2012 used ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ to respond to either of the statements.

Teachers’ confidence as science teachers Most teachers indicated confidence as science teachers

Most teachers used the ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ categories to respond to each of a series of nine statements related to their confidence in teaching science (Figure 4.8). The highest level of disagreement at both year levels was to the statements: ‘I have the necessary skills and knowledge to teach science to a diverse range of students’ and ‘I can respond to difficult questions from my students in science’.

For nearly all of the statements, Year 8 teachers were more likely than teachers at Year 4 to respond using the ‘strongly agree’ category. The exception to this was the statement ‘I integrate science learning with other curriculum areas or themes’. For this statement a slightly greater proportion of Year 4 teachers than Year 8 teachers used the ‘strongly agree’ response category (29 percent compared with 25 percent).

Figure 4.8 Percentage of teachers’ responses to statements regarding their confidence in teaching science, by year

level


Looking back In 2012, teachers were asked to rate their level of agreement with three statements related to their confidence as science teachers: ‘I feel confident about teaching science’; ‘I am happy with the ways that I teach science’; and ‘I am confident that I have the necessary knowledge and skills to teach science to a diverse range of students’. The second two statements are similar to ones used in 2017. The response scale, however, differed from the one used in 2017 in that teachers could select ‘neutral’ in 2012. Sixty percent of teachers used ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to respond to the first statement and 50 percent to the second and third. For each statement the ‘neutral’ category was used by 30 to 40 percent of teachers. As in 2017, Year 8 teachers, overall, expressed higher levels of agreement than Year 4 teachers to each statement.


Confidence in Teaching Science scale

Teachers’ responses to the nine confidence statements were used to construct a Confidence in Teaching Science scale18. The scale was divided into ‘very confident’, ‘confident’ and ‘not confident’ score regions in the same way as the student attitude and confidence scales.

On average, Year 8 teachers scored higher on the Confidence in Teaching Science scale than Year 4 teachers As indicated by their responses to the confidence in teaching statements, teachers of Year 8 students scored more highly, on average, on the Confidence in Teaching Science scale than those teaching at Year 4 (Figure 4.9).

About 20 percent of teachers indicated low levels of confidence in teaching science

Although most teachers scored in the ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ regions of the Confidence in Teaching Science scale, scores for around 20 percent of teachers were located in the ‘not confident’ region.

At Year 8, teachers from secondary and intermediate schools indicated higher levels of confidence, on average, than those from full primary schools. At Year 4, teachers from full primary schools indicated higher levels of confidence, on average, than those from contributing schools.

Figure 4.9 Distribution of teachers’ scores on the Confidence in Teaching

Science scale, by year level

18 2017 is the first year that NMSSA has constructed measurement scales based on teachers’ responses.


Teachers’ confidence across the science strands and substrands

Most teachers indicated that they were confident teaching across the science strands and substrands Most teachers reported that they felt either ‘moderately confident’ or ‘very confident’ teaching each of the underlying Nature of Science substrands (Figure 4.10). For each statement, Year 8 teachers were more likely than Year 4 teachers to respond with ‘very confident’.

Figure 4.10 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding their confidence in teaching the Nature of Science

substrands, by year level

The vast majority of teachers at both year levels also indicated confidence teaching each of the context strands (Figure 4.11). Out of the four contextual strands, teachers, overall, indicated they were most confident teaching the Living World strand. Year 8 teachers were more likely than Year 4 teachers to use ‘very confident’ when responding to each statement.

Figure 4.11 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding their confidence in teaching the contextual science

strands, by year level


Opportunities for students to learn science

Teachers’ indicated wide variation in the amount of time spent on learning in science per term Teachers indicated that the amount of time allocated to learning science each term varied widely across classrooms (Figure 4.12). At both year levels the most common response category used was 11-20 hours (34 percent at Year 4 and 30 percent at Year 8). Teachers at Year 8 were more likely than those at Year 4 to indicate more than 20 hours were allocated per term (28 percent at Year 8 compared with 17 percent at Year 4).

Figure 4.12 Percentage of teachers’ responses

regarding the amount of time students spent learning science, by year level

Most teachers agreed that students experience a wide range of learning opportunities

in science, however there were differences related to school decile Teachers were presented with a series of statements that described different learning opportunities in science. They were asked to indicate how often students in their class had each experience in science at school (Figure 4.13). Most teachers indicated that each one happened at least sometimes.

Overall, teachers from low decile schools indicated that each of the listed learning opportunities occurred less often than teachers from mid and high decile schools. This was particularly true for the learning opportunity related to organised science activities, such as science fairs. At Year 4, 46 percent of teachers from low decile schools used ‘never’ to respond compared with 18 percent of teachers from high decile schools. At Year 8, 41 percent of teachers from low decile schools responded with ‘never’ compared with 3 percent of those from high decile schools.

Most of the learning opportunities rated by the teachers were either the same or similar to ones that were rated by students (see Figure 4.5). Overall, teachers indicated that the students in their classes experienced each of the learning opportunities more often than the students themselves indicated that they were involved in each one. Students were much more likely than teachers to respond ‘never’ to each statement.


Figure 4.13 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding opportunities for students to learn science, by year level

Looking back In 2012, teachers rated how frequently their students ‘had’ each of a similar list of learning opportunities in science. Teachers in 2012 responded using a different scale to that used in 2017: ‘never’, ‘at least once a year’, ‘at least once a term’, ‘at least once a month’; and ‘at least once a week’. Where the statements describing the opportunities were the same or similar, teachers in 2012 responded ‘never’ at a similar rate to teachers in 2017. The exception was for the statement ‘Take part in organised science activities (e.g. science fairs)’. In 2012, 38 percent of teachers in Year 4 responded ‘never’ to this statement compared with 24 percent of Year 4 teachers in 2017.

Resourcing and professional learning and development in science

Most teachers agreed that they had access to adequate resources for teaching science Overall, the majority of teachers indicated that they had adequate access to a range of resources for teaching science (Figure 4.14). However, sizeable groups at both year levels did not agree that they had access to suitable spaces to teach science or appropriate teaching materials.


Figure 4.14 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding access to resources for teaching science, by year level

Most teachers indicated that they had participated in professional learning and

development associated with science in the last 5 years Around 60 percent of teachers at Year 4 and Year 8 reported that they had participated in professional learning and development (PLD) associated with science in the last 5 years (Figure 4.15). At both year levels about 20 percent of teachers indicated that they had never been involved in science PLD.

Looking back In 2012, about 55 percent of teachers at each year level reported that they had participated in professional learning and development (PLD) associated with science in the last 5 years.

Figure 4.15 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding

whether they had participated in professional learning and development associated with science in the last 5 years, by year level


Many teachers reported infrequent opportunities for professional interactions with colleagues about teaching science Teachers were asked how often they were involved in four types of professional interactions with colleagues about teaching science (Figure 4.16). For each type of interaction, relatively large proportions of teachers indicated that the interaction occurred ‘about once a year’ or ‘never’. At Year 4, 55 percent of teachers reported that they ‘never’ observed a colleague teaching science (compared with 33 percent at Year 8).

Figure 4.16 Percentage of teachers’ responses regarding professional interactions, by year level

Looking back In 2012, teachers also rated how frequently they were involved in each of a list of professional interactions. The list was similar to the one used in 2017. As in 2017, relatively large proportions of teachers in 2012 indicated that the interactions happened infrequently (once a year or never). Often these proportions were greater for teachers in 2012 than in 2017. For instance, in 2012, about 80 percent of teachers in Year 4 and 70 percent in Year 8 reported that they had never observed a colleague teaching science. This compared with 59 and 43 percent of Year 4 and Year 8 teachers respectively in 2017.


Teachers’ ratings of the professional support they received for teaching science were mixed Teachers had mixed views regarding the quality of professional support they received for teaching science with the largest group rating it as ‘fair’ (Figures 4.17 and 4.18). Teachers from low decile schools were more likely to respond using ‘very poor’ than those from high or mid decile schools, particularly at Year 4.

Figure 4.18 Percentage of Year 8 teachers’ ratings of the

professional support they receive for teaching and learning, by decile band

Figure 4.17 Percentage of Year 4 teachers’ ratings of the professional support they receive for teaching and learning, by decile band

3. Principals’ perspectives on learning and teaching science All principals from the schools in the NMSSA science study were asked to complete a principal questionnaire. Table 4.4 shows the number of principals who completed the principal questionnaire by school decile band and year level. Table 4.4 shows the number of principals by school type and year level.

Table 4.4 Number of principals responding to the questions in the principal questionnaire related to science, by school decile band and year level

Decile band Year 4 (n) Year 8 (n)

Low 23 16

Mid 40 36

High 34 33

TOTAL 97 85

Table 4.5 Number of principals type and year level

responding to the questions in the principal questionnaire related to science, by school

School type Year 4 (n) Year 8 (n)

Contributing 62 -

Full primary 34 33

Intermediate - 35

Secondary (Year 7-15) - 14

Composite (Year 1-15) 1 3

TOTAL 97 85


The school’s provision for science

Principals at Year 8 were more positive about the provision for science in their school compared with principals at Year 4 Principals were asked to rate how well each of nine statements about the provision of teaching and learning in science reflected what happened in their school (Figure 4.19). A greater proportion of the Year 8 principals than Year 4 principals used ‘very like our school’ to respond to each statement.

Figure 4.19 Percentage of principals’ ratings of statements related to school approaches to teaching and learning

science, by year level


The same pattern was evident when principals were asked to rate the provision for science in their school overall (Figure 4.20). At Year 8, 67 percent of principals rated their school’s overall provision as either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ compared with 46 percent of those at Year 4.

Figure 4.20 Percentage of principals’ ratings of their

school’s overall provision for learning in science, by year level

Science was mainly taught in blocks or modules

Overall, the majority of principals indicatedthat science was mainly taught in blocks ormodules (Figure 4.21). However, there wereyear level differences. At Year 8, 34 percent ofprincipals indicated that science was mainlytaught as a regularly timetabled subject. Thiscompared with nine percent of principals atYear 4.

Figure 4.21 Percentage of principals’ responses

regarding how science was mainly taught in their school, by year level

Inclusion of students with special education needs

Most principals rated their school’s inclusion of students with special education needs in science as either good or very good.


Seventy-seven percent of principals at Year 4 and 80 percent at Year 8 indicated that the inclusion of students with special education needs in science was either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ (Figure 4.22). A greater proportion of Year 8 principals responded using ‘very good’ compared with those at Year 4 (59 percent at Year 8 compared with 44 percent at Year 4)19.

Figure 4.22 Percentage of principals’ ratings of their

school’s inclusion of students with special education needs in science programmes, by year level

Professional learning and development in science

Large percentages of principals indicated that teachers in their school had little or no access to external professional learning and development in science Access to external PLD appeared to be limited for a large proportion of schools (Figure 4.23). At Year 4, 50 percent of principals indicated that teachers in their schools had ‘no’ or ‘little access’ to external PLD in science. This compared with 40 percent of Year 8 principals.

At Year 4 this issue was more pronounced for principals from low decile schools compared with those from mid and high decile schools. Here, 65 percent of principals in low decile schools reported no or little access compared with 45 and 44 percent of principals from mid and high decile schools, respectively.


regarding access to professional learning and development, by year level

19 Commentary on how students with special education needs self- reported their own attitude to science and confidence in science can be

found earlier in this chapter.

Science had not been a major or minor focus for development for a notable proportion of schools in the last five years


Forty percent of principals at Year 4 and 28 percent at Year 8 indicated that science had not been a focus for development at their school in the last 5 years (Figure 4.24). There were also differences associated with school decile band. Thirteen percent of Year 4 principals from low decile schools indicated that science had been a major development focus in the last 5 years compared with 21 percent and 32 percent of principals from mid and high decile schools, respectively.


regarding whether science had been a focus for development in the last 5 years, by year level


Appendix: Summary Statistics

Tables:

Table A1.1 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 students 47

Table A1.2 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 students 48

Table A1.3

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4 students 49

Table A1.4

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 students 49

Table A1.5

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8

by subgroup 50

Table A1.6

Table A1.7

SC levels: Year 4 students 51

SC levels: Year 8 students 52

Table A1.8

Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 Māori students 53

Table A1.9 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 Māori students 53

Table A1.10

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4

Māori students 54

Table A1.11

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 Māori students 54

Table A1.12

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8 Māori by subgroup 54

Table A1.13

Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 Pacific students 55

Table A1.14 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 Pacific students 55

Table A1.15

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4

Pacific students 56

Table A1.16

Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 Pacific students 56

Table A1.17 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8 Pacific students by subgroup 56


Table A1.1 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 students

Group Sample size Mean Confidence interval for the

mean

Standard deviation

All 2094 83.4 (82.3 , 84.5) 20.6

Gender

Girls 1039 85.4 (83.9 , 86.8) 20.0

Boys 1055 81.4 (79.9 , 82.9) 21.0

Ethnicity

Māori 484 74.1 (72.1 , 76.2) 19.1

Non-Māori 1610 86.2 (85.0 , 87.4) 20.2

Pacific 254 67.7 (64.7 , 70.7) 20.6

Non-Pacific 1840 85.6 (84.5 , 86.6) 19.6

Asian 287 89.4 (86.8 , 92.0) 18.9

Non-Asian 1807 82.4 (81.3 , 83.6) 20.7

NZE 1238 88.3 (87.1 , 89.6) 18.5

Non-NZE 856 76.3 (74.5 , 78.0) 21.4

Decile band

Low decile 487 69.0 (66.8 , 71.1) 20.3

Mid decile 833 83.8 (82.2 , 85.3) 18.6

High decile 774 92.1 (90.6 , 93.6) 17.6

School type

Contributing school 1356 88.0 (78.6 , 97.4) 18.8

Full primary school 716 83.5 (82.2 , 84.8) 20.3

Composite school (Year 1-15) 22 83.0 (81.1 , 84.8) 21.2

Special education needs

SEN (combined) 129 68.2 (64.0 , 72.4) 20.3

No SEN 1964 84.4 (83.3 , 85.5) 20.2


Table A1.2 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 students

Group Sample size Mean Confidence interval for the mean

Standard deviation

All 2040 116.6 (115.6 , 117.6) 19.4

Gender

Girls 1034 118.4 (117.1 , 119.8) 18.7

Boys 1006 114.7 (113.3 , 116.2) 19.8

Ethnicity

Māori 473 107.2 (105.3 , 109.1) 17.8

Non-Māori 1564 119.5 (118.3 , 120.6) 18.9

Pacific 224 104.0 (101.3 , 106.8) 17.4

Non-Pacific 1813 118.2 (117.1 , 119.2) 19.0

Asian 205 121.8 (118.6 , 125.0) 19.4

Non-Asian 1832 116.0 (115.0 , 117.1) 19.3

NZE 1285 120.8 (119.6 , 122.0) 17.9

Non-NZE 752 109.4 (107.8 , 111.1) 19.7

Decile band

Low decile 399 104.3 (102.2 , 106.4) 18.1

Mid decile 827 115.4 (113.8 , 116.9) 18.8

High decile 814 123.9 (122.5 , 125.3) 17.1

School type

Composite 69 122.8 (118.0 , 127.6) 17.1

Full primary 661 115.0 (113.3 , 116.7) 19.2

Intermediate 901 115.2 (113.7 , 116.8) 20.0

Restricted Composite 19 130.2 (120.4 , 140.0) 18.2

Secondary 390 120.7 (118.6 , 122.8) 17.5


SEN (combined) 104 99.0 (94.9 , 103.1) 17.9

No SEN 1933 117.5 (116.5 , 118.6) 19.0


Table A1.3 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4 students

Subgroup 1 Sample size subgroup 1


Difference in means*

CI for the difference in

means

Effect size

Gender

Girls 1039 Boys 1055 -4.0 (-5.5 , -2.5) -0.20

Ethnicity

Māori 484 Non-Māori 1610 12.1 (10.5 , 13.7) 0.61

Pacific 254 Non-Pacific 1840 17.9 (15.7 , 20.1) 0.91

Asian 287 Non-Asian 1807 -7.0 (-9.0 , -5.0) -0.34

NZE 1238 Non-NZE 856 -12 (-13.5 , -10.5) -0.61

Decile band

Low decile 487 Mid decile 833 14.8 (13.0 , 16.6) 0.77

Low decile 487 High decile 774 23.1 (21.3 , 24.9) 1.24

Mid decile 833 High decile 774 8.3 (6.8 , 9.8) 0.46

School type

Contributing 1356 Full primary 716 -0.5 (-2.1 , 1.1) -0.02

SEN 129 No SEN 1964 16.2 (13.2 , 19.2) 0.80 * Differences in means in bold font are statistically significant Table A1.4 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 students

Subgroup 1 Sample size subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Sample size

subgroup 2 Difference in means*


means Effect size

Gender

Girls 1034 Boys 1006 -3.7 (-5.1 , -2.3) -0.19

Ethnicity

Māori 473 Non-Māori 1564 12.3 (10.7 , 13.9) 0.66

Pacific 224 Non-Pacific 1813 14.2 (12.2 , 16.2) 0.75

Asian 205 Non-Asian 1832 -5.8 (-8.1 , -3.5) -0.30

NZE 1285 Non-NZE 752 -11.4 (-12.8 , -10.0) -0.61

Decile band




School type

Full primary 661 Intermediate school

901 0.2 (-1.4 , 1.8) 0.01

Full primary 661 Secondary school (Year 7-15)

390 5.7 (3.8 , 7.6) 0.31

Intermediate 901 Secondary school (Year 7-15)

390 5.5 (3.7 , 7.3) 0.29


SEN (combined) 104 No SEN 1933 18.5 (15.5 , 21.5) 0.98 * Differences

in means in bold font are statistically

significant


Table A1.5 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8 by subgroup

Group Year sample

4 size

Year sample

8 size

Year 8–Year 4 difference in

means

CI for in

difference means

Effect size

All 2094 2040 33.2 (32.2 , 34.2) 1.66

Gender

Girls 1039 1034 33.0 (31.6 , 34.4) 1.71

Boys 1055 1006 33.3 (31.8 , 34.8) 1.63

Ethnicity

Māori 484 473 33.1 (31.1 , 35.0) 1.79

Pacific 254 224 36.3 (33.5 , 39.2) 1.90

Asian 287 205 32.4 (29.5 , 35.3) 1.70

NZE 1238 1285 32.5 (31.3 , 33.7) 1.79

Decile band

Low decile 487 399 35.3 (33.2 , 37.4) 1.83

Mid decile 833 827 31.6 (30.1 , 33.1) 1.69

High decile 774 814 31.8 (30.4 , 33.2) 1.83


SEN (combined) 129 104 30.8 (26.7 , 34.9) 1.6

Tabl

e A1

.6

SC le

vels:

Yea

r 4 st

uden

ts

Sam

ple

Em

ergi

ng L

1 an

d De

velo

ped

L1

Emer

ging

L3

and

Deve

lope

d L3

Gr

oup

CI (%

) CI

(%)

CI (%

) CI

(%)

size

2 (%

) an

d 2

(%)

4 (%

) an

d 4+

(%)

All

2094

6.

4%

(5.1

, 7.

7)

76.5

%

(74.

3 , 7

8.7)

16

.7%

(1

4.8

, 18.

6)

0.4%

(0

.1 ,

0.7)

Gend

er

Gi

rls

1039

4.

9%

(3.3

, 6.

5)

76.3

%

(73.

2 , 7

9.4)

18

.3%

(1

5.5

, 21.

1)

0.5%

(0

.0 ,

1.0)

Bo

ys

1055

7.

9%

(6.0

, 9.

8)

76.7

%

(73.

7 , 7

9.7)

15

.2%

(1

2.6

, 17.

8)

0.3%

(0

.0 ,

0.7)

Ethn

icity

Māo

ri 48

4 10

.3%

(7

.1 ,

13.5

) 83

.1%

(7

9.1

, 87.

1)

6.4%

(3

.8 ,

9.0)

0.

2%

(0.0

, 0.

7)

Non

-Māo

ri 16

10

5.2%

(3

.9 ,

6.5)

74

.5%

(7

2.0

, 77.

0)

19.8

%

(17.

5 , 2

2.1)

0.

4%

(0.0

, 0.

8)

Pacif

ic 25

4 20

.6%

(1

4.7

, 26.

5)

75.1

%

(68.

7 , 8

1.5)

4.

2%

(1.3

, 7.

1)

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

N

on-P

acifi

c 18

40

4.4%

(3

.3 ,

5.5)

76

.7%

(7

4.4

, 79.

0)

18.5

%

(16.

4 , 2

0.6)

0.

4%

(0.1

, 0.

7)

Asia

n 28

7 2.

0%

(0.1

, 3.

9)

74.4

%

(68.

4 , 8

0.4)

22

.6%

(1

6.8

, 28.

4)

0.9%

(0

.0 ,

2.2)

N

on-A

sian

1807

7.

1%

(5.7

, 8.

5)

76.8

%

(74.

5 , 7

9.1)

15

.8%

(1

3.8

, 17.

8)

0.3%

(0

.0 ,

0.6)

N

ZE

1238

2.

9%

(1.8

, 4.

0)

75.9

%

(73.

1 , 7

8.7)

20

.7%

(1

8.0

, 23.

4)

0.5%

(0

.0 ,

1.0)

Non

-NZE

85

6 11

.4%

(8

.9 ,

13.9

) 77

.4%

(7

4.1

, 80.

7)

11.0

%

(8.5

, 13

.5)

0.2%

(0

.0 ,

0.6)

Deci

le b

and

Lo

w d

ecile

48

7 17

.7%

(1

3.6

, 21.

8)

77.2

%

(72.

7 , 8

1.7)

5.

0%

(2.7

, 7.

3)

0.1%

(0

.0 ,

0.4)

M

id d

ecile

83

3 4.

5%

(2.8

, 6.

2)

80.4

%

(77.

2 , 8

3.6)

15

.0%

(1

2.1

, 17.

9)

0.2%

(0

.0 ,

0.6)

High

dec

ile

774

1.4%

(0

.4 ,

2.4)

71

.8%

(6

8.0

, 75.

6)

26.1

%

(22.

4 , 2

9.8)

0.

7%

(0.0

, 1.

4)

Scho

ol ty

pe

Co

mpo

site

22

2.0%

(0

.0 ,

9.0)

74

.1%

(5

2.2

, 96.

0)

23.7

%

(2.5

, 44

.9)

0.2%

(0

.0 ,

2.4)

Co

ntrib

utin

g 13

56

6.1%

(4

.6 ,

7.6)

76

.9%

(7

4.2

, 79.

6)

16.6

%

(14.

2 , 1

9.0)

0.

4%

(0.0

, 0.

8)

Full

prim

ary

716

7.1%

(4

.9 ,

9.3)

75

.7%

(7

1.9

, 79.

5)

16.8

%

(13.

5 , 2

0.1)

0.

4%

(0.0

, 1.

0)

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

need

s

SE

N co

mbi

ned

129

20.1

%

(11.

8 , 2

8.4)

75

.9%

(6

7.1

, 84.

7)

3.9%

(0

.0 ,

7.9)

0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

No

SEN

1964

5.

5%

(4.3

, 6.

7)

76.5

%

(74.

3 , 7

8.7)

17

.6%

(1

5.6

, 19.

6)

0.4%

(0

.1 ,

0.7)


Tabl

e A1

.7

Grou

p

All

Gend

er

Girls

Bo

ys

Ethn

icity

M

āori

Non

-Māo

ri

Pacif

ic N

on-P

acifi

c

Asia

n N

on-A

sian

NZE

N

on-N

ZE

Deci

le b

and

Low

dec

ile

Mid

dec

ile

High

dec

ile

Scho

ol ty

pe

Com

posit

e Fu

ll pr

imar

y

Inte

rmed

iat

Rest

ricte

d C

Seco

ndar

y

Spec

ial e

duca

tion

SEN

(com

bin

No

SEN

SC

e ompo

site

ed)

leve

ls:

need

s

Year

8 st

uden

ts

Sam

ple

Em

ergi

ng L

1 an

d De

velo

ped

L1 a

nd

Emer

ging

L3

and

Deve

lope

d L3

and

CI

(%)

CI (%

) CI

(%)

CI (%

) siz

e 2

(%)

2 (%

) 4

(%)

4+ (%

) 20

40

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

24

.2%

(2

2.0

, 26.

4)

55.7

%

(53.

1 , 5

8.3)

20

.0%

(1

7.9

, 22.

1)

10

34

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

21

.1%

(1

8.1

, 24.

1)

57.0

%

(53.

4 , 6

0.6)

21

.9%

(1

8.9

, 24.

9)

1006

0.

1%

(0.0

, 0.

3)

27.4

%

(24.

1 , 3

0.7)

54

.5%

(5

0.8

, 58.

2)

18.0

%

(15.

2 , 2

0.8)

473

0.1%

(0

.0 ,

0.4)

41

.2%

(3

5.9

, 46.

5)

51.8

%

(46.

4 , 5

7.2)

6.

9%

(4.2

, 9.

6)

1564

0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

19.0

%

(16.

7 , 2

1.3)

57

.0%

(5

4.1

, 59.

9)

24.0

%

(21.

5 , 2

6.5)

22

4 0.

2%

(0.0

, 0.

9)

46.5

%

(38.

7 , 5

4.3)

48

.9%

(4

1.1

, 56.

7)

4.5%

(1

.3 ,

7.7)

1813

0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

21.4

%

(19.

1 , 2

3.7)

56

.7%

(5

4.0

, 59.

4)

21.9

%

(19.

6 , 2

4.2)

20

5 0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

17.1

%

(10.

9 , 2

3.3)

53

.5%

(4

5.3

, 61.

7)

29.3

%

(21.

9 , 3

6.7)

1832

0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

24.9

%

(22.

5 , 2

7.3)

56

.1%

(5

3.4

, 58.

8)

18.9

%

(16.

8 , 2

1.0)

12

85

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

15

.4%

(1

3.0

, 17.

8)

60.1

%

(56.

9 , 6

3.3)

24

.5%

(2

1.7

, 27.

3)

752

0.1%

(0

.0 ,

0.4)

39

.1%

(3

4.9

, 43.

3)

48.6

%

(44.

3 , 5

2.9)

12

.3%

(9

.5 ,

15.1

)

b

399

0.1%

(0

.0 ,

0.5)

49

.6%

(4

3.7

, 55.

5)

44.3

%

(38.

5 , 5

0.1)

6.

1%

(3.3

, 8.

9)

827

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

25

.0%

(2

1.5

, 28.

5)

57.5

%

(53.

5 , 6

1.5)

17

.5%

(1

4.4

, 20.

6)

814

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

11

.0%

(8

.4 ,

13.6

) 59

.6%

(5

5.6

, 63.

6)

29.4

%

(25.

7 , 3

3.1)

69

0.

0%

(0.0

, 0.

0)

12.8

%

(3.4

, 22

.2)

57.7

%

(43.

8 , 7

1.6)

29

.4%

(1

6.6

, 42.

2)

661

0.1%

(0

.0 ,

0.4)

26

.8%

(2

2.8

, 30.

8)

55.8

%

(51.

3 , 6

0.3)

17

.3%

(1

3.9

, 20.

7)

901

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

27

.0%

(2

3.5

, 30.

5)

54.1

%

(50.

2 , 5

8.0)

18

.8%

(1

5.8

, 21.

8)

19

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

9.

9%

(0.0

, 26

.0)

44.2

%

(17.

5 , 7

0.9)

45

.9%

(1

9.1

, 72.

7)

390

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

16

.1%

(1

1.7

, 20.

5)

59.5

%

(53.

7 , 6

5.3)

24

.4%

(1

9.3

, 29.

5)

10

4 0.

2%

(0.0

, 1.

2)

60.5

%

(49.

3 , 7

1.7)

36

.2%

(2

5.2

, 47.

2)

3.1%

(0

.0 ,

7.1)

19

33

0.0%

(0

.0 ,

0.0)

22

.3%

(2

0.1

, 24.

5)

56.8

%

(54.

2 , 5

9.4)

20

.9%

(1

8.7

, 23.

1)



Table A1.8 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 Māori students


mean

Standard deviation

All 484 74.1 (72.1 , 76.2) 19.1 Gender

Girls 234 77.4 (74.7 , 80.1) 17.4

Boys 250 71.1 (68.1 , 74.0) 20.1 Decile band

Low decile 217 66.7 (63.9 , 69.5) 17.5

Mid decile 189 77.3 (74.3 , 80.2) 17.2

High decile 78 87.2 (82.2 , 92.3) 18.9 School type

Composite 13 77.4 (68.5 , 86.4) 13.7

Contributing 336 73.6 (71.2 , 75.9) 18.3

Full primary 135 75.2 (70.9 , 79.5) 21.3

Table A1.9 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 Māori students

Group Sample size Mean Confidence

interval for the mean

Standard deviation

All 473 107.2 (105.3 , 109.1) 17.8 Gender

Girls 241 109.9 (107.2 , 112.5) 17.5

Boys 232 104.4 (101.7 , 107.2) 17.7 Decile band

Low decile 172 102.1 (99.0 , 105.2) 17.3

Mid decile 224 108.1 (105.4 , 110.7) 16.8


Composite 10 102.1 (92.1 , 112.1) 13.5

Full primary 164 104.9 (101.7 , 108.1) 17.3

Intermediate 246 107.8 (105.0 , 110.5) 18.3

Secondary 51 112.7 (107.3 , 118.1) 16.6


Table A1.10 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4 Māori students





means

Effect size

Gender

Girls 234 Boys 250 -6.3 (-9.1 , -3.5) -0.33

Decile band




School type

Contributing 336 Full primary 135 1.6 (-1.8 , 5.0) 0.08 * Differences in means in bold font are statistically significant

Table A1.11 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 Māori students





means

Effect size

Gender

Girls 241 Boys 232 -5.5 (-8.2 , -2.8) -0.31

Decile band




School type

Full primary 164 Intermediate 246 2.9 (-0.0 , 5.8) 0.16 * Differences in means in bold font are statistically significant

Table A1.12 Achievement subgroup

on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8 Māori by

Group Year sample

4 size

Year sample

8 size


means

CI for difference

means in

Effect size

All 484 473 33.1 (31.1 , 35.0) 1.79 Gender

Girls 234 241 32.4 (29.8 , 35.1) 1.85

Boys 250 232 33.4 (30.5 , 36.2) 1.76 Decile band

Low decile 217 172 35.4 (32.5 , 38.3) 2.03

Mid decile 189 224 30.8 (28.0 , 33.6) 1.81

High decile 78 77 28.9 (24.0 , 33.8) 1.57


Table A1.13 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 4 Pacific students


mean

Standard deviation

All 254 67.7 (64.7 , 70.7) 20.6

Gender

Girls 136 70.4 (66.3 , 74.4) 20.1

Boys 118 64.6 (60.2 , 69.1) 20.8 Decile band

Low decile 155 61.3 (57.8 , 64.8) 18.8

Mid decile 67 73.6 (68.5 , 78.6) 17.7


Contributing school 151 67.0 (63.2 , 70.7) 19.8


Table A1.14 Achievement on the SC scale: Summary statistics for Year 8 Pacific students

Group Sample size Mean Confidence interval for the mean

Standard deviation

All 224 104.0 (101.3 , 106.8) 17.4

Gender

Girls 105 106.4 (102.6 , 110.2) 16.5

Boys 119 102.0 (98.1 , 105.8) 17.9

Decile band

Low decile 138 101.0 (97.8 , 104.2) 16.1

Mid decile 55 107.3 (101.5 , 113.1) 18.3

High decile 31 111.8 (104.1 , 119.5) 18.3

School type


Intermediate school 126 103.6 (100.1 , 107.2) 17.1

Secondary school (Year 7-15) 43 110.7 (105.0 , 116.4) 16.0


Table A1.15 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 4 Pacific students




means Effect size

Gender

Girls 136 Boys 118 -5.8 (-10.0 , -1.6) -0.28

Decile band




School type

Contributing 151 Full primary 102 1.8 (-2.6 , 6.2) 0.09 * Differences in means in bold font are statistically significant

Table A1.16 Achievement on the SC scale: Differences between subgroup means for Year 8 Pacific students




means Effect size

Gender

Girls 105 Boys 119 -4.4 (-8.2 , -0.6) -0.25

Decile band



Mid decile 55 High decile 31 4.5 (-2.2 , 11.2) 0.25

School type**

Full primary 55 Intermediate 126 3.8 (-0.8 , 8.4) 0.22 * Differences in means in bold font are statistically significant

Table A1.17 Achievement by subgroup

on the SC scale: Differences between means for Year 4 and Year 8 Pacific students

Group Year sample

4 size

Year sample

8 size


means

CI for difference

means in Effect size

All 254 224 36.3 (33.5 , 39.2) 1.9

Gender

Girls 136 105 36.0 (32.2 , 39.9) 1.93

Boys 118 119 37.3 (33.2 , 41.5) 1.92

Decile band

Low decile 155 138 39.7 (36.4 , 43.1) 2.26

Mid decile 67 55 33.7 (28.3 , 39.1) 1.88

High decile 32 31 25.2 (17.4 , 33.1) 1.32

W ā n a n g a t i a t e P u t a n g a T a u i r a

National Monitoring Studyof Student Achievement

NMSSA

NM

SSA • C

NM

SSA • CYCLE 2

CLE 2Y

N NM MS SS SA A R Re ep po or rt t 1 17 7

SCIENCE : : SCIENCE 2017

2017 – – KE KEY Y FINDINGS

FINDINGS

CYNM

ISSN: 2350-3254 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-927286-43-2 (Print) 2350-3238 (Online) 978-1-927286-44-9 (Online)

Report 17: NMSSA, Science 2017 – Key Findings

Science2017 – Key Findings

W ā n a n g a t i a t e P u t a n g a Ta u i r aNational Monitoring Studyof Student Achievement

SSA Report 17CLE 2

cy nmssa - national monitoring study of student ... · 1 introduction to the national monitoring...

Documents