Rather, ecological variables are necessary to examine structural, contextual, and sociological effects on human behavior and disease development. Schwartz, 1994 b, p. 823 Many attempts have been made to define (e.g., Rohner, 1984) and then to measure culture. Given the classic definition of culture provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), this mapping has usually been made by using values. The most widely known value mapping is the work of Hofstede (1980), whose four value dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity-Femininity are used as organizing and explanatory constructs in many disciplines. Tapping values salient to Chinese people, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) has identified one additional dimension to the Hofstede four: Confucian Work Dynamism, or short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). All five dimensions of culture-level values have provided the conceptual impetus for numerous cross-cultural studies. Several major cross-cultural projects have been conducted subsequent to Hofstede's (1980) groundbreaking work. With his theory-derived value survey, Schwartz (1994 a) has identified seven culture-level dimensions, namely, Conservatism, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Egalitarian Commitment, Mastery, and Harmony. Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) have identified two reliable value dimensions at the cultural level from their analysis of managerial values: Egalitarian Commitment versus Conservatism, and Utilitarian Involvement versus Loyal Involvement. Smith and Bond (1998, Ch. 3) concluded that these different value surveys have produced convergent results, lending support to the validity of the cultural dimensions originally identified by Hofstede (1980). Recently, House and his associates (2003) have orchestrated a major project to identify cultural dimensions across 62 countries. A distinctive feature of this multicultural project is that values associated with leadership were measured concurrently with ideal and actual leadership behaviors. The House team has identified nine culture-level dimensions:

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Regarding these commercial rights a non-exclusive license has been granted to the publisher. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The foundations of socioeconomic inequities and the educational outcomes of efforts to reduce gaps in socioeconomic status are of great interest to researchers around the world, and narrowing the achievement gap is a common goal for most education systems. This review of the literature focuses on socioeconomic status (SES) and its related constructs, the association between SES and educational achievement, and differences among educational systems, together with changes over time. Commonly-used proxy variables for SES in education research are identified and evaluated, as are the relevant components collected in IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Although the literature always presents a positive association between family SES and student achievement, the magnitude of this relationship is contingent on varying social contexts and education systems. TIMSS data can be used to assess the magnitude of such relationships across countries and explore them over time. Finally, the literature review focuses on two systematic and fundamental macro-level features: the extent of homogeneity between schools, and the degree of centralization of education standards and norms in a society.

International large-scale assessments may be used to understand differences in average student performance across countries over time. Differences in achievement are associated with students' background characteristics and, while the most salient background variables may differ across education systems, a substantial amount of the variance in student achievement is normally explained by family socioeconomic status (SES). Family SES is thus considered an important factor in education research, but there are still challenges regarding how to best measure SES operationally. In addition to measuring student achievement, the IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) has been collecting background information from students, their teachers, and principals at four-year intervals since 1995. This study uses data from the IEA's TIMSS grade eight mathematics and science assessments to examine changes in the achievement gaps between high-and low-SES students between 1995 and 2015 for 13 education systems, as operationalized by a modified version of the TIMSS home educational resources index. The performance of disadvantaged students may also be tracked over time. These measures explain a sizeable amount of variation in the TIMSS achievement scores and, in conjunction with data on the countries' education systems and other macroeconomic indicators, can provide country-specific analyses and an across-country synthesis.

Abstractfound that were large enough to warrant the removal of prompts from the item pool. Several potential causes of high DIF values for some prompts are discussed with respect to the content characteristics of these prompts.

To assess education system trends in the inequality of educational outcomes, a robust socioeconomic index for TIMSS trend analysis is needed. This chapter begins by outlining the TIMSS data and sample design, as well as changes in the sample design over time, with special emphasis on the aspects that are specifically related to family socioeconomic status and student achievement. To analyze trends over the entire 20 years of TIMSS data, the analysis was limited to education systems that participated in the first cycle in 1995, the most recent cycle in 2015, and at least one other administration in between. After assessing the completeness of the data, 13 educational systems were included in the study:

No abstract

No abstract