The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was the largest international study of curriculum, instruction and achievement in science and mathematics. The study included detailed questionnaires and achievement tests administered in over 50 countries worldwide at three different grade levels: elementary, middle school, and high school. Students, teachers and principals completed questionnaires, while students completed achievement tests in both science and mathematics. The State of Minnesota participated in TIMSS as a "mini-nation" and as such has data that are representative of Minnesota and comparable to the U.S. and other countries. This paper is summary of the findings from three reports produced by the Center for Applied Research & Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota. The full reports are available on CAREI's TIMSS web page as are links to U.S. and international TIMSS results. 

With the increasing emphasis on standards-based teaching, the TIMSS data provide a unique opportunity to examine relationships between various teaching strategies and achievement. By better understanding the relationship between specific instructional strategies and achievement we can make more informed decisions about how to help improve instruction in science and mathematics. To this end, this paper examines the relationship between various instructional strategies and student achievement at three levels: grades 3-4, grades 7-8, and grade 12. The main sources for these analyses were the TIMSS teacher and student questionnaires, and student achievement tests. The Minnesota TIMSS study included over 200 schools and over 2,000 students throughout the state. The student questionnaires included items about mathematics and science classrooms, student backgrounds, student activities, and instructional techniques used by teachers. Teacher questionnaires included items about teaching situations, perceptions of math or science education, the use of different teaching techniques, and the curriculum teachers use.

Figure 1. Middle School Mathematics Students' Perceptions of Class Activities by Achievement Level

In both mathematics and science there was a general trend of higher scores at the elementary level to lower scores at the middle school and high school level. Compared to other countries, science scores in Minnesota were above the international average at both the elementary and middle school level while only average at the high school level. Only one other country had science scores that were higher than the scores of Minnesota students in elementary and middle school. At the high school level 5 countries outperformed Minnesota students in science. Mathematics scores in Minnesota were not nearly as positive. Students in Minnesota scored near the international average at all three grade levels. Compared to other countries, Minnesota mathematics scores were lower than 6 countries at the elementary and middle school level and lower than 10 countries at the high school level. The mediocre showing at the upper grade levels has raised concern among educators in Minnesota and has led to a search for ways to improve student achievement. At CAREI we analyzed the TIMSS data to look for relationships between specific teaching techniques and achievement to better understand the impact of instruction on achievement. The relationships between teaching techniques and student achievement in mathematics and science are complex. At all three grade levels mathematics and science teachers in Minnesota exhibited very few common teaching practices and even fewer standards-based techniques. For the purposes of this study standards-based techniques were defined by the teaching techniques recommended in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1995) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989). At the elementary level, the most common standards-based techniques were: 

• work on problems in mathematics, and 
• work on projects in science. 

At the middle school level the most common standards-based techniques in mathematics were: 

• use calculators
• use real-life examples
• ask students about their prior knowledge. 
• In science, the most common standards-based techniques were: 
• work on projects
• work in small groups
• ask students about their prior knowledge
• do experiments
• use real-life examples. 

At the high school level, the most common standards-based techniques in mathematics were: 

• write equations to represent relationship 
• apply mathematics to everyday problems
• work on problems with no immediate solution. 

In science, the most common standards-based techniques were: 

• write explanations about what was observed
• conduct laboratory experiments
• explain reasoning behind an idea
• apply science to everyday problems. 

Figure 2. Middle School Science Students' Perceptions of Class Activities by Different Achievement Levels

There were fewer common teaching practices at the primary grade level compared to the middle school level, suggesting elementary school teachers use more diverse teaching strategies. At the primary school level mathematics teaching is more standards-based than science teaching, however, at the middle school level the pattern is reversed and science teaching appears more standards-based than mathematics teaching. The use of standards-based teaching shows mixed relationships with achievement at the elementary and middle school level. In conjunction with the standards, elementary grade mathematics classes with higher achievement copy notes from the board less, and discuss homework more. In contrast to the standards, higher achieving elementary school mathematics classes were more likely to work on their own with textbooks or worksheets, work less on computers, and do fewer projects than classes with lower achievement.   Higher achieving elementary science classes use computers and calculators less than lower achieving classes. The middle school results are displayed in the following figures. Math classes with higher achievement use more calculators, discuss homework more, and have more assigned homework, however, higher achieving classes also do less group work, fewer projects, and less working on computers than classes with lower achievement. (See Figure 1). 

Middle school science classes with higher achievement participate more in hands-on activities, but use computers less and use fewer examples from everyday life. (See Figure 2). Positive relationships between standards-based teaching and achievement were most common at the 12th grade level. In mathematics, students with higher achievement were more likely to: 

• Explain reasoning behind an idea 
• Analyze relationships using tables, charts or graphs 
• Work on problems with no immediate solutions 
• Write equations to represent relationships 
• Solve equations 
• Practice computational skills 
• Apply models to data 
• Watch teacher demonstrate how to do problems 

In science, students with higher achievement were more likely to: 

• Explain reasoning behind an idea 
• Analyze relationships using tables, charts or graphs 
• Work on problems with no immediate solution 
• Write explanations about what was observed 
• Organize events and give reasons 
• Apply models to data 
• Apply science to everyday problems 
• Conduct laboratory experiments 
• Collect data in the classroom 
• Watch teacher demonstrate concepts 

The Minnesota TIMSS results provide both good news and bad news for science and mathematics teaching. The good news is that Minnesota elementary students performed relatively well in both science and mathematics. However, the bad news is that performance of students in middle school and high school students is near or below other countries. These results should provide a wake up call to teachers around the State to search for ways to improve instruction in both science and mathematics. It is tempting to rest on our laurels and believe that because our students in Minnesota perform above the U.S. average in science and mathematics everything is okay. However, if our 3rd and 4th grade students can be tops in the world, there is no reason to believe that middle school and high schools students cannot do the same. The results of this analysis provide some insight into how instruction can be improved. First of all, the results show that teaching in Minnesota is quite diverse. Common teaching techniques were rare at all grade levels suggesting that there is little consensus about the best teaching methods. The TIMSS data also provide important information about relationships between teaching methods and achievement. The consistent relationships between standards-based teaching and achievement at the 12th grade level suggest students who engage in more standards-based activities are achieving at higher levels. Standards-based techniques such as explain reasoning behind an idea, analyze relationships using tables, charts or graphs and work on problems with no immediate solutions were all found to be associated with higher achievement. It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean that the standards-based teaching caused the higher achievement. It could be that the higher achieving students are in different types of classes than lower achieving students. In other words, these results could indicate that higher achieving students (who happen to be in more advanced or honors science and mathematics classes) could be exposed to more standards-based activities than lower achieving students who happen to be in less advanced courses. If this is the case, it suggests there is a difference in access to standards-based activities and that lower achieving students may have less access to more standards-based activities. Overall, the TIMSS data provide a fascinating and detailed look of the state of curriculum, instruction and achievement in science and mathematics education. This paper includes only a brief snapshot of the data that are available. There are other reports that focus on curriculum, instruction and achievement in Minnesota, the U.S. and other countries. Readers are encouraged to examine the various TIMSS reports that are available through SciMath/MN and the National Center for Educational Statistics. For links to more TIMSS results please visit the CAREI website.