The effect of student characteristics and socioeconomic status on mathematics achievement in Türkiye: Insights from TIMSS 2011-2019

Abstract

This study examines the factors affecting the mathematics achievement of 8th-grade students in Türkiye using data from the TIMSS in 2011, 2015, and 2019. The data were analysed with multilevel (two-level) modelling. The first level was the student, and the second level was the school. At the student level, such affective characteristics as self-confidence in learning mathematics, liking to learn mathematics, and value given to learning mathematics, as well as educational resources, namely at home, gender, and the frequency of speaking the language of the test at home, were taken into consideration. At the school level, the school’s socioeconomic status was included in the model. The results showed that self-confidence in learning mathematics is the most important variable affecting students' mathematics achievement in all years. Besides, the school’s socioeconomic status has the strongest effect on students' mathematics achievement, which has increased over the years. The study also showed that those students who performed higher achievement in TIMSS 2011, 2015, and 2019 are confident in learning mathematics, have many educational resources at home, frequently speak Turkish at home, and are from affluent schools. On the other hand, for TIMSS 2011 and 2019, female students were more successful than male students. The effect of liking to learn mathematics on achievement was negative and significant only for TIMSS 2015, while the effect of value given to learning mathematics was positive and significant only for TIMSS 2019. However, the effect size values of the variables showed that this effect was not significant in practice.

Keywords

• TIMSS
• Türkiye
• Mathematics Achievement
• 8th-grade Students
• Multilevel Modelling

References

1. Abalı-Öztürk, Y., & Şahin, Ç. (2015). Matematiğe ilişkin akademik başarı-özyeterlilik ve tutum arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesi [Determining the relationships between aca-demic achievement, self-efficacy and attitudes towards maths]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 31(1), 343-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS2621
2. Abazaoğlu, İ., Yıldızhan, Y., & Yatağan, M. (2015). Science and mathematics education in Turkey. İlköğretim Online, 14(2), 557-573. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.77272
3. Acar-Güvendir, M. (2014). Öğrenci başarılarının belirlenmesi sınavında öğrenci ve okul özelliklerinin Türkçe başarısı ile ilişkisi [Student and school characteristics' relation to Turkish achievement in student achievement determination exam]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 163-180.
4. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu [STEM education Turkiye report]. Scala Basım.
5. Aksu, G., Guzeller, C. O., & Eser, M. T. (2017). Analysis of maths literacy performances of students with Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM): The case of PISA 2012 Turkey. Education & Science, 42(191), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6956
6. Akyüz, G. (2014). The effects of student and school factors on mathematics achievement in TIMSS 2011. Education and Science, 39(172), 150–162. https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/2867
7. Arıkan, S. (2017). TIMSS 2011 verilerine göre Türkiye’deki ev ödevi ve matematik başarısı arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between homework and mathematics achievement in Turkey according to TIMSS 2011]. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(26), 256-276. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315726438_TIMSS_2011_VERILERINE_GORE_TURKIYE'DEKI_EV_ODEVI_VE_MATEMATIK_BASARISI_ARASINDAKI_ILISKI
8. Arıkan, S., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Yağmur, K. (2016). Factors contributing to mathematics achievement differences of Turkish and Australian students in TIMSS 2007 and 2011. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2039-2059.

9. Arifoğlu, A. (2019). Öğrenci başarısına okul etkisinin araştırılması: TIMSS 2015 Türkiye verisine göre çok düzeyli bir analiz [Investigating the effect of school on student achie-vement: A multilevel analysis based on TIMSS 2015 Turkey data] [Doctoral Dissera-tion, Hacettepe University]. Yöktez.
10. Aydın, M. (2015). Öğrenci ve okul kaynaklı faktörlerin TIMMS matematik başarısına etkisi [The effect of student and school-related factors on TIMMS mathematics achievement]. [Unpuplished Doctoral Disseration, Necmettin Erbakan University]. Yöktez.
11. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self‐efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273
12. Barış, F. (2009). TIMSS-R ve TIMSS-2007 sınavlarının öğrenci başarısını yordayan değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of TIMSS-R and TIMSS-2007 exams in terms of variables predicting student achievement][Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe Uni-versity]. Yöktez.
13. Bassey, S. W., Joshua, M. T., & Asim, A. E. (2011). Gender differences and mathematics achievement of rural senior. Mathematics Connection, 1-8.
14. Belbase, S. (2013). Images, anxieties, and attitudes toward mathematics. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(4), 230-237.
15. Bellibas, M. S. (2016). Who are the most disadvantaged? Factors associated with the achievement of students with low socio-economic backgrounds. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.2.0257
16. Bos, K., & Kuiper, W. (1999). Modelling TIMSS data in a European comparative perspective: Exploring influencing factors on achievement in mathematics in grade 8. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(2), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.5.2.157.6946
17. Broer, M., Bai, Y., & Fonseca, F. (2019). Socioeconomic inequality and educational outcomes: Evidence from twenty years of TIMSS. Springer Nature.
18. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications.
19. Butt, I. H., & Dogar, A. H. (2014). Gender disparity in mathematics achievement among the rural and urban high school students in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Science, 34(1), 93-100.
20. Büyükötürk, Ş., Çakan, M., Tan, Ş., & Atar, H. Y. (2014). TIMSS 2011 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu: 8. Sınıflar [TIMSS 2011 national math and science report: Grade 8]. Yeni-lik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://timss.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_03/07135958_TIMSS-2011-8-Sinif.pdf
21. Chen, Q. (2014). Using TIMSS 2007 data to build mathematics achievement model of fourth graders in Hong Kong and Singapore. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1519-1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9505-x
22. Chmielewski, A. K. (2019). The global increase in the socioeconomic achievement gap, 1964 to 2015. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 517-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419847165
23. Chowa, G. A., Masa, R. D., Ramos, Y., & Ansong, D. (2015). How do student and school characteristics influence youth academic achievement in Ghana? A hierarchical linear modeling of Ghana YouthSave baseline data. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.09.009
24. Cingöz, Z. K., & Gür, B. (2020). The effect of economic, social and cultural status on academic achievement a comparison of PISA 2015 and TEOG 2017 results. İnsan ve Top-lum, 10(4), 247-288. https://doi.org/10.12658/M0563
25. Coleman, J. S. (1994). Family, school, and social capital. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 2272–2274). Pergamon Press.
26. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Government Printing Office. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf
27. Coşkun, B., & Karadağ, E. (2023). The effect of student and school characteristics on TIMSS 2015 science and mathematics achievement: The case of Türkiye. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(1), 203-227. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202318875
28. Çalışkan, M. (2014). Bir derse yönelik duyuşsal giriş özelliklerinin belirlenmesi: Bir ölçme modeli önerisi [Determination of affective entry characteristics for a particular course: A measurement model suggestion]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1), 57-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/22603/241532
29. Çavdar, D. (2015). TIMSS 2011 matematik başarısının öğrenci ve öğretmen özellikleri ile ilişkisi [The relationship between student and teacher characteristics and mathematics achievement in TIMSS 2011] [Master’s Thesis, Gazi University]. Yöktez.
30. Çiftçi, Ş. K., & Yıldız, P. (2019). The effect of self-confidence on mathematics achievement: The meta-analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 683-694. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12243a
31. Demir, I., & Kılıç, S. (2010). Using PISA 2003, examining the factors affecting students’ mathematics achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(38), 44-54.
32. Doğan, N., & Barış, F. (2010). Tutum, değer ve özyeterlik değişkenlerinin TIMSS-1999 ve TIMSS-2007 sınavlarında öğrencilerin matematik başarılarını yordama düzeyleri [The prediction levels of attitude, value and self-efficacy variables on students' mathematics achievement in TIMSS-1999 and TIMSS-2007 exams]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 1(1), 44-50. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/epod/issue/5808/77253
33. Dönmez, S. M. K., & Dede, Y. (2020). Ortaöğretime geçiş sınavları matematik sorularının matematiksel yeterlikler açısından incelenmesi [Analysis of mathematics questions in the exams for transition to secondary education in terms of mathematical profici-ency]. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(2), 363-374. https://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/327
34. Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı. [EARGED]. (2011). MEB 21. yy öğren-ci profili [MoNE 21st century student profile]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/earged/earged/21.%20yy_og_pro.pdf
35. Erdoğan, E., & Acar-Güvendir, M. (2019). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programında öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik özellikleri ile okuma becerileri arasındaki ilişki [The rela-tionship between students socioeconomic attributes and their reading skills in Prog-ramme For International Student Assessment]. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sos-yal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 493-523. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.548530
36. Ersan, O., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2020). Socioeconomic status and beyond: A multilevel analysis of TIMSS mathematics achievement given student and school context in Turkey. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00093-y
37. Erşan, Ö. (2016). TIMSS 2011 sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik başarılarını etkileyen faktörlerin çok düzeyli yapısal eşitlik modeliyle incelenmesi [Investigating the factors affecting the mathematics achievement of TIMSS 2011 eighth grade students with mul-tilevel structural equation modeling][Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe University]. Yöktez.
38. Ertürk, Z., & Erdinç-Akan, O. (2018). TIMSS 2015 matematik başarısını etkileyen değişken-lerin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi [The ınvestigation of the variables effecting TIMSS 2015 mathematics achievement with SEM]. Ulusal Eğitim Akademisi Dergi-si, 2(2), 14-34. https://doi.org/10.32960/uead.407078
39. Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept: Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 499-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.004
40. Foy, P., & Yin, L. (2016). Scaling the TIMSS 2015 achievement data. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.), Methods and procedures in TIMSS. http://timss.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015-methods/chapter-13.html
41. Foy, P., Fishbein, B., von Davier, M., & Yin, L. (2020). Implementing the TIMSS 2019 scaling methodology. In M. O. Martin, M. von Davier, & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Methods and Procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report (pp.12.1-12.146). https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods/chapter-12.html
42. Garson, G. D. (2019). Multilevel modeling: Applications in STATA®, IBM® SPSS®, SAS®, R, & HLM. SAGE Publications.
43. Gelbal, S. (2008). The effect of socio-economic status of eighth grade students on their achievement in Turkish. Egitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 1-13.
44. Gronmo, L. S., Lindquist, M., Arora, A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2013). TIMSS 2015 mathematics framework (Chapter 1). In I. V. S. Mullis & M. O. Martin (Ed), TIMSS 2015 Assessment Frameworks (pp. 11-27). http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html
45. Guo, J., & Woulfin, S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: An investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Review, 38(3), 153-161.
46. Gustafsson, J. E., Nilsen, T., & Hansen, K. Y. (2018). School characteristics moderating the relation between student socio-economic status and mathematics achievement in grade 8. Evidence from 50 countries in TIMSS 2011. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 57, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.09.004
47. Hansford, B. C., & Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement/performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 123-142.
48. Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus. Routledge.
49. Hilton, T. L., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Student interest and persistence in science: Changes in the educational pipeline in the last decade. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(5), 510-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1988.11780210
50. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.
51. Ismail, N. A. (2009). Understanding the gap in mathematics achievement of Malaysian students. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 389-394. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.5.389-394
52. Ismail, N. A., & Awang, H. (2008). Differentials in mathematics achievement among eighth-grade students in Malaysia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 559-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9109-4
53. Işlak, O. (2020). Prediction of mathematics achievement of students attending TIMSS 2015 according to student, family and school variables [Doktoral dissertation, Burdur Meh-met Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi]. Yöktez.
54. Ivanova, M., & Michaelides, M. P. (2022). Motivational components in TIMSS 2015 and their effects on engaging teaching practices and mathematics performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101173
55. Kadijević, Đ. (2008). TIMSS 2003: Relating dimensions of mathematics attitude to mathematics achievement. Zbornik Instituta za Pedagoska İstrazivanja, 40(2), 327-346.
56. Kalaycioglu, D. B. (2015). The influence of socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and anxiety on Mathematics achievement in England, Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the USA. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 1391-1401. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2731
57. Kaleli-Yılmaz, G., & Hanci, A. (2016). Examination of the 8th grade students' TIMSS mathematics success in terms of different variables. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(5), 674-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1102977
58. Kara, M. (2023). TIMSS 2019 matematik başarısını açıklayan değişkenlerin çok düzeyli yapı-sal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi [Examining the variables explaining TIMSS 2019 Mathematics achievement with multilevel structural equation modeling][Master’s Deg-ree Thesis, Hacettepe Univesity]. Yöktez.
59. Karaca, F. (2018). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin TIMSS matematik başarılarının bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi: Eskişehir ili örneği [Investigation of TIMSS mat-hematics achievement of eighth grade students in terms of some variables: The case of Eskisehir province] [Master’s Thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi University]. Yöktez.
60. Kaya, S. (2008). The effects of student-level and classroom-level factors on elementary students' science achievement in five countries [Doktoral dissertation, The Florida State University]. Proquest.
61. Ker, H. W. (2016). The impacts of student-, teacher-and school-level factors on mathematics achievement: An exploratory comparative investigation of Singaporean students and the USA students. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 254-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1026801
62. Khine, M. S., Al-Mutawah, M., & Afari, E. (2015). Determinants of affective factors in mathematics achievement: Structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(2), 199-211. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276294926_Determinants_of_Affective_Factors_in_Mathematics_Achievement_Structural_Equation_Modeling_Approach
63. Kilic, S., & Askin, Ö. E. (2013). Parental influence on students’ mathematics achievement: The comparative study of Turkey and best performer countries in TIMSS 2011. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2000-2007.
64. Kim, S. J., Park, J. H., Park, S. W., & Kim, S. S. (2013). The effects of school and students’ educational contexts in Korea, Singapore, and Finland using TIMSS 2011. 5th IEA International Research Conference, Singapore. http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC/IRC_2013/Papers/IRC-2013_Kim_etal.pdf
65. Koyuncu, İ. (2021). TIMSS international benchmarks of eighth graders in mathematics: A correspondence analysis study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 14(2), 179-194.
66. LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2016). Sample design in TIMSS 2015. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.), Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2015 technical report. http://timss.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015 -methods/chapter-3.html
67. LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2020). Sample design in TIMSS 2019. In M. O. Martin, M. Von Davier, & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2019 technical report . https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods/chapter-3.html
68. Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2006). Affect and mathematics education: PME perspectives. In Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 403-427). Brill.
69. Lee, C. Y., & Kung, H. Y. (2018). Math self-concept and mathematics achievement: Examining gender variation and reciprocal relations among junior high school students in Taiwan. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/82535
70. Lee, J. (2020). Non-cognitive characteristics and academic achievement in Southeast Asian countries based on PISA 2009, 2012, and 2015 (Working Paper No. 233). OECD Education.
71. Lee, J., & Chen, M. (2019). Cross-country predictive validities of non-cognitive variables for mathematics achievement: Evidence based on TIMSS 2015. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106230
72. Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009
73. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276
74. Liou, P. Y. (2014). Investigation of the big-fish-little-pond effect on students’ selfconcept of learning mathematics and science in Taiwan: Results from TIMSS 2011. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 23(3), 769-778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0152-3
75. Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1163-1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9325-9
76. Luo, W., Li, H., Baek, E., Chen, S., Lam, K. H., & Semma, B. (2021). Reporting practice in multilevel modeling: A revisit after 10 years. Review of Educational Research, 91(3), 311-355.
77. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (2013). TIMSS 2015 assessment design. In I.V.S. Mullis, & M.O. Martin, (Eds.), TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks (pp. 85–100). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html
78. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzales, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., Chrostowski, S. J. et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999: International science report. International Study Center.
79. Mau, W. C., & Lynn, R. (2010). Gender differences in homework and test scores in mathematics, reading and science at tenth and twelfth grade. Journal Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 2, 119-125.
80. Mohammadpour, E. (2012). A multilevel study on trends in Malaysian secondary school students' science achievement and associated school and student predictors. Science Education, 96(6), 1013-1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21028
81. Mohammadpour, E. (2013). A three-level multilevel analysis of Singaporean eighth-graders science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 212-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.005
82. Mohammadpour, E., & Abdul Ghafar, M. N. (2014). Mathematics achievement as a function of within-and between-school differences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 189-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725097
83. Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
84. Mullis, I. V. S., & Fishbein, B. (2020). Updating the TIMSS 2019 instruments for describing the contexts for student learning. In M. O. Martin, M. von Davier, & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Methods and Procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report . https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods/chapter-2.html
85. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. https://timss2019.org/reports/
86. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. http:// timssand-pirls.bc.edu/timss2015/internationalresults/timss2015/wp-content/uploads/2016/T15-20-years-of-TIMSS.pdf
87. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
88. Musca, S. C., Kamiejski, R., Nugier, A., Méot, A., Er-Rafiy, A., & Brauer, M. (2011). Data with hierarchical structure: impact of intraclass correlation and sample size on type-I error. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(74), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00074
89. National Center for Education Statistics. (n. d.). Overview. https://nces.ed.gov/timss/overview.asp
90. Okatan, Ö., & Tomul, E. (2021). Uluslararası öğrenci başarılarını değerlendirme programı’na (PISA) göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin matematik başarıları ile ilişkili değişkenlerin incelenmesi [Investigation of interrelated variables with students success in mathema-tics according to Programme For International Student Assessment (PISA)]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 57, 98-125. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maeuefd/issue/60050/663150
91. Olatunde, Y. R. (2010). Socio-economic background and mathematics achievement of students in some selected senior secondary schools in Southwestern Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 23-27.
92. Oral, I., & McGivney, E. (2013). Student performance in math and science in Turkey and determinants of success. Education Reform Initiative.
93. Ölçüoğlu, R., & Çetin, S. (2016). TIMSS 2011 sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik başa-rısını etkileyen değişkenlerin bölgelere göre incelenmesi [The investigation of the va-riables that affecting eight grade students’ TIMSS 2011 math achievement according to regions]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psycho-logy, 7(1), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.34424
94. Ölmez, I. B. (2020). Modeling mathematics achievement using hierarchical linear models. Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 944-957. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.695837
95. Özdemir, A., & Gelbal, S. (2016). Predictive power of primary and secondary school success criterion on transition to higher education examination scores. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 7(2), 309-334.
96. Özdemir, C. (2016). Equity in the Turkish education system: A multilevel analysis of social background influences on the mathematics performance of 15-year-old students. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 193-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115627159
97. Özer, Y., & Anıl, D. (2011). Examining the factors affecting students' science and mathematics achievement with structural equation modeling. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 313-324.
98. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2020). Covid-19 salgını ve eğitim [Covid-19 pandemic and educa-tion]. In M. Şeker, A. Özer & C. Korkut (Eds.), Küresel toplumun anatomisi: İnsan ve toplumun geleceği (p. 171-192). Tuba Publication.
99. Özer, M., Suna, H.E., Aşkar, P., & Çelik, Z. (2020). The impact COVID-19 school closures on educational inequalities. Insan ve Toplum, 10(4), 217 246. http://doi.org/10.12658/M0611
100. Özkan, Y. Ö., & Acar-Güvendir, M. (2014). Socioeconomic factors of students' relation to mathematic achievement: comparison of PISA and ÖBBS. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 776-789. http://dx.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2014.03.020
101. Öztekin-Bayır, Ö., & Tekel, E. (2021). Problems of Turkish education system and suggested solutions: What do pre-service teachers think?. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(1), 275-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021167894
102. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1997). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving: Implications of using different forms of assessment. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455
103. Papanastasiou, C. (2000). Internal and external factors affecting achievement in mathematics: Some findings from TIMSS. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26(1), 1-8.
104. Phan, H., Sentovich, C., Kromrey, J., Dedrick, R., & Ferron, J. (2010). Correlates of mathematics achievement in developed and developing countries: An analysis of TIMSS 2003 eighth-grade Mathematics scores. American Educational Research Association, Colorado, USA.
105. Polat, M., Gönen, E., Parlak, B., Yıldırım, A., & Özgürlük, B. (2016). TIMSS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri ön raporu 4. ve 8. Sınıflar [TIMSS 2015 national math and science preliminary report grades 4 and 8]. Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetle-ri Genel Müdürlüğü, Milli Eğitim Bakanlı-ğı.https://timss.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_03/07135609_TIMSS_2015_Ulusal_Rapor.pdf
106. Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. (1996). Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education, 69(5), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112714
107. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon , R. T., & Du Toit, M. ( 2011 ). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International.
108. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
109. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill.
110. Ross, J. A., Scott, G., & Bruce, C. D. (2012). The gender confidence gap in fractions knowledge: Gender differences in student belief-achievement relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(5), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00144.x
111. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
112. Sandoval-Hernández, A., & Białowolski, P. (2016). Factors and conditions promoting academic resilience: A TIMSS-based analysis of five Asian education systems. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(3), 511-520.
113. Sarı, M. H., Arıkan, S., & Yıldızlı, H. (2017). 8. sınıf matematik akademik başarısını yorda-yan faktörler-TIMSS 2015 [Factors predicting mathematics achievement of 8th graders in TIMSS 2015]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 8(3), 246-265. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.303689
114. Sarıer, Y. (2021). PISA uygulamalarında Türkiye’nin performansı ve öğrenci başarısını yor-dayan değişkenler [Turkey's performance in PISA applications and variables predicting student’s success]. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 25(3), 905-926. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1167361
115. Sarouphim, K. M., & Chartouny, M. (2017). Mathematics education in Lebanon: Gender differences in attitudes and achievement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9712-9
116. Sevgi, S. (2009). The connection between school and student characteristics with mathematics achievement in Turkey [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Yöktez.
117. Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.
118. Suna, H. E., Şenso, S., Parlak, B., & Özdemir, E. (2020). TIMSS 2019 Türkiye ön raporu [TIMSS 2019 Turkey preliminary report]. Directorate of Measurement, Evaluation and Testing Services, Ministry of National Education. http://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_12/10173505_No15_TIMSS_2019_Turkiye_On_Raporu_Guncel.pdf
119. Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gür, B., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61, 41-64. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0034
120. Şensoy, S., Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Eroğlu, E., & Altun, Ü. (2019). 2019 first placement results within the scope of the 2019 high school entrance system (Report no 8). Ministry of National Education. https://mtegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_07/23104940_LGS_2019_yerlestirme_22temmuz.pdf
121. Şirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
122. Tavsancil, E., & Yalcin, S. (2015). A determination of Turkish student’s achievement using hierarchical linear models in Trends in International Mathematics-Science Study (TIMSS) 2011. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 390-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891891
123. Thomson, S., Lokan, J., Lamb S., & Ainley, J. (2003). Lessons from the third international mathematics and science study. TIMSS Australia Monograph Series. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_monographs/9/
124. Tomul, E., & Savasci, H. S. (2012). Socioeconomic determinants of academic achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9149-3
125. Topal, H. (2021). Variable selection via the adaptive elastic net: Mathematics success of the students in Singapore and Turkey. Journal of Applied Microeconometrics, 1(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.53753/jame.1.1.04
126. Topçu, M. S., Erbilgin, E., & Arıkan, S. (2016). Factors predicting Turkish and Korean students' science and mathematics achievement in TIMSS 2011. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 12(7), 1711-1737. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1530a
127. Usta, H. G., & Demirtaşlı, R. N. (2018). PISA 2012 matematik okuryazarlığı üzerine ulusla-rarası bir karşılaştırma: Türkiye ve Finlandiya [An international comparison according to PISA 2012 mathematical literacy Turkey and Finland]. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11), 1389-1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.13377
128. Wang, F., King, R. B., & Leung, S. O. (2023). Why do East Asian students do so well in mathematics? A machine learning study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(3), 691-711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10262-w
129. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
130. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
131. Wilkins, J. L., & Ma, X. (2003). Modeling change in student attitude toward and beliefs about mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596628
132. Wilson, K., & Narayan, A. (2016). Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.926312
133. Yalcin, S., Demirtasli, R. N., Dibek, M. I., & Yavuz, H. C. (2017). The effect of teacher and student characteristics on TIMSS 2011 mathematics achievement of fourth-and eighth-grade students in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(3), 79-94. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159910
134. Yatağan, M. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının öğrenci ve öğretmen özellik-lerine göre değerlendirilmesi: TIMSS 2007 ve 2011 verileri ile bir durum analizi [Eva-luation of science and technology curriculum according to student and teacher charac-teristics: A case analysis with TIMSS 2007 and 2011 data][Unpublished Doctoral Dis-sertation, Gazi University]. Yöktez.
135. Yavuz, H. Ç., Demirtaşlı, R. N., Yalçın, S., & Dibek, M. İ. (2017). Türk öğrencilerin TIMSS 2007 ve 2011 matematik başarısında öğrenci ve öğretmen özelliklerinin etkileri [The effects of student and teacher level variables on TIMSS 2007 and 2011 mathematics achievement of Turkish students]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(189), 27-47. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6885
136. Yayan, B., & Berberoglu, G. (2004). A re-analysis of the TIMSS 1999 mathematics assessment data of the Turkish students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 87-104.
137. Yetkiner-Özel, Z. E., Özel, S., & Thompson, B. (2013). SES-related mathematics achievement gap in Turkey compared to European Union countries. Education & Science, 38(170), 179-193.
138. Yıldırım, H. H., Yıldırım, S., Ceylan, E., & Yetişir, M. İ. (2013). Türkiye perspektifinden TIMSS 2011 sonuçları [TIMSS 2011 results from Turkey's perspective]. Pelin Ofset Ti-po Matbaacılık.
139. Yılmaz, F., & Şekerci, H. (2016). Ana dil sorunsalı: Sınıf öğretmenlerinin deneyimlerine göre ilkokul öğrencilerinin yaşadıkları sorunlar [Native language problematic: Problems faced by primary school students according to the experiences of classroom teachers]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 47-63. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/enad/issue/32029/354378
140. Yoshino, A. (2012). The relationship between self-concept and achievement in TIMSS 2007: A comparison between American and Japanese Students. Int Rev Educ, 58, 199-219. https://doi.org/10.007/s11159-012-9283-7