Researchers who participate in IEA studies have a unique opportunity to work collaboratively with their counterparts from many different countries and disciplinary backgrounds over a period of several years on questions of shared academic interest. Once the data for a given study have been collected and the first round of international reports published, however, opportunities for that kind of collaboration tend to be much less frequent. A major strength of IEA studies compared to other large-scale, international studies is that they are classroom based, thereby making it possible for researchers and policy makers to investigate linkages between students’ achievement and a wide range of variables. Those variables could be related to instructional practices, to students’ and teachers’ background and attitudes, to school organizational patterns, or to opportunity to learn, to name a few. The research questions that TIMSS was designed to address make it clear that these kinds of relational, multi-variate analyses were among the major goals of the project. The international reports of the TIMSS–95 results that were published by the International Study Center at Boston College between 1996 and 1999 were intended to provide comprehensive coverage of the basic findings of the study. They were not intended to provide in-depth analyses of research and policy issues; instead, their main purpose was to make the basic findings of the study widely available in a timely manner. This they certainly did.

Now that the initial results of The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) have been released, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) has turned its attention to what happens next. The TIMSS data are potentially useful to researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others interested in evidence regarding factors that influence student learning. But although the study has produced a remarkable volume of intriguing data, it is by no means complete. Scholarly review of the initial data, evaluations of claims based on the data, and follow-up secondary analysis based on the primary findings are all integral parts of a study of this magnitude, but the bulk of this very important work has not yet begun. Because of the board's serious concern that this necessary work has not been undertaken, or funded, it held a workshop on June 17 and 18, 1998, to explore different perspectives on possible next steps. The workshop was an invaluable opportunity for the board to explore issues and questions it has addressed over the years and to solidify its thinking about many of them. Because the board is convinced of the importance of moving forward with the TIMSS data, it presents in this report both recommendations as to what ought to be done and many of the innovative specific ideas that emerged from the workshop. These recommendations reflect the board's conviction, based on its many years of involvement with and deliberations about TIMSS, that this study is an extremely rich resource for the policy, scholarly, and practice communities, and that all of these groups have a responsibility to take full advantage of it. The recommendations and discussion in this report are intended to assist both researchers and funders who are considering further work with TIMSS, and a broader audience of researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others who have followed the TIMSS results and are eager to use them. This report is, in a sense, the culmination of many years of effort for the board.

Now that the initial results of The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) have been released, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) has turned its attention to what happens next. The TIMSS data are potentially useful to researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others interested in evidence regarding factors that influence student learning. But although the study has produced a remarkable volume of intriguing data, it is by no means complete. Scholarly review of the initial data, evaluations of claims based on the data, and follow-up secondary analysis based on the primary findings are all integral parts of a study of this magnitude, but the bulk of this very important work has not yet begun. Because of the board's serious concern that this necessary work has not been undertaken, or funded, it held a workshop on June 17 and 18, 1998, to explore different perspectives on possible next steps. The workshop was an invaluable opportunity for the board to explore issues and questions it has addressed over the years and to solidify its thinking about many of them. Because the board is convinced of the importance of moving forward with the TIMSS data, it presents in this report both recommendations as to what ought to be done and many of the innovative specific ideas that emerged from the workshop. These recommendations reflect the board's conviction, based on its many years of involvement with and deliberations about TIMSS, that this study is an extremely rich resource for the policy, scholarly, and practice communities, and that all of these groups have a responsibility to take full advantage of it. The recommendations and discussion in this report are intended to assist both researchers and funders who are considering further work with TIMSS, and a broader audience of researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others who have followed the TIMSS results and are eager to use them. This report is, in a sense, the culmination of many years of effort for the board.

Now that the initial results of The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) have been released, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) has turned its attention to what happens next. The TIMSS data are potentially useful to researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others interested in evidence regarding factors that influence student learning. But although the study has produced a remarkable volume of intriguing data, it is by no means complete. Scholarly review of the initial data, evaluations of claims based on the data, and follow-up secondary analysis based on the primary findings are all integral parts of a study of this magnitude, but the bulk of this very important work has not yet begun. Because of the board's serious concern that this necessary work has not been undertaken, or funded, it held a workshop on June 17 and 18, 1998, to explore different perspectives on possible next steps. The workshop was an invaluable opportunity for the board to explore issues and questions it has addressed over the years and to solidify its thinking about many of them. Because the board is convinced of the importance of moving forward with the TIMSS data, it presents in this report both recommendations as to what ought to be done and many of the innovative specific ideas that emerged from the workshop. These recommendations reflect the board's conviction, based on its many years of involvement with and deliberations about TIMSS, that this study is an extremely rich resource for the policy, scholarly, and practice communities, and that all of these groups have a responsibility to take full advantage of it. The recommendations and discussion in this report are intended to assist both researchers and funders who are considering further work with TIMSS, and a broader audience of researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and others who have followed the TIMSS results and are eager to use them. This report is, in a sense, the culmination of many years of effort for the board.

This handbook is the first of its kind to provide a general and comprehensive overview of virtually every aspect of International Large Scale Assessment (ILSA). It includes historical, economic, and policy perspectives, theoretical foundations, methodology, and reviews of findings from analyses of ILSA data. After decades, during which ILSAs have generated knowledge within central areas of education research and gained increased and substantial impact on educational policy, practice and research, such a broad overview for a wide-ranging audience is much needed. With contributions from authors and editors from all continents, this handbook appeals to an international audience and keeps a neutral perspective, not favoring one ILSA over another. The handbook is suitable to be read by politicians, researchers and stakeholders who are seeking an overview of ILSAs, their history and development, and both potential benefits and limitations with regard to policy implications. The reviews of findings from studies analyzing ILSA data will be of interest to stakeholders, teachers, researchers, and policymakers. Considering that the reviews extend to all fields pertaining to educational research, the book will be valuable to all researchers interested in education. Students may use the book to learn about ILSAs in the context of policy, theoretical underpinnings, or research. Moreover, the methodology section is written in a manner that is understandable and accessible for students, stakeholders, or researchers not familiar with these data. This methodology part, however, is also a valuable resource for researchers who are familiar with ILSA data, as it provides overviews of the design and sampling procedures of several ILSAs, and includes advice on methods of analysis.Even the owners of the ILSAs may find the book valuable, as it contains overviews and insights into a number of ILSAs, provides information how the data is used by the research community, and includes recommendations for future instruments.

This book is the result of research from over fifteen countries, asking which background and environmental factors influence achievement in mathematics and science. This research is based on data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which was conducted under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in 1995 and 1998. In many countries researchers have started secondary analysis of the data in search for relationships between contextual factors and achievement. In these analyses two different approaches can be distinguished, which can be characterised by the metaphors of ‘fishing’ and ‘hunting’. In the ‘fishing’ approach, researchers begin with an open mind, considering all possible context variables as potentially influential. Applying analysis techniques such as regression analysis, Lisrel, PLS, HLM, and MLN, they then identify important factors within their countries or across a number of countries. In the ‘hunting’ approach, researchers hypothesise certain context variables and trace the effect of these variables on mathematics and/or science achievement.