38

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

The Influence of the Teacher on Pakistani Grade VIII Student Mathematics

Achievement
Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal

Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Anthony William Pell

Formerly School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK/Faculty of

Education, University of Cambridge, UK
Shafiq-ur-Rehman

Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract
Teacher cognitive performance has been found to be the strongest predictor of student
achievement in Pakistan Grade VIII mathematics and too far exceeds that of contextual
student and school data. Data from a national survey of mathematics has been drawn
upon to show by multi-level analysis that 53% of the variance of students' achievement
scores lies within the schools and their teachers. Other significant predictors of student
achievement account for relatively little variance. This is possible because when systems
focus on rote-learning and memorization, studies which do not measure this strategy are
likely to omit considerable achievement variance. Another major finding is that the
wide range of teacher cognition questions the whole concept of a teacher as leader.
Standards are so low that in 10% of schools the students outscore the teachers on the
same mathematics test. Although there is no rural/urban divide in teacher achievement,
in Punjab a socio-economic migration in the urban areas away from mathematics
teaching causes teacher performance for both sexes to fall to very low levels. Evidence
is presented that teaching methodology is located at the second didactical contract level
(Douady, 1997), where both teacher and student accept the content of mathematics
without challenge.
Keywords: Prediction of student mathematics achievement, Teacher mathematics
achievement, Middle schools,Rote-learning

Background: The Social Context

In Pakistan there are about 271,604 schools (public) for a population in excess
of 177 million (Government of Pakistan, 2009, 2012). The adult literacy rate is 57.7%,
indicating educational shortfall in achieving the targets set for literacy (Government of
Pakistan, 2012). It is the priority of the government to increase the school effectiveness
and the quality of education imparted by the schools. In this respect, relevant measures
and strategies are being explored and researched to achieve this very desirable goal.
Even so, Pakistan spends less than 2% of its GDP on education, which puts the
country amongst the twelve worst performing nations (Crisis Group, 2004). The United
Nations Development Programme ranks education in Pakistan as the worst outside
Africa (McCutcheon, 2007). This is not because of a lack of planning but because of
multiple failures of implementation (Ashan, 2003; Burki, 2005; Mitchell, Humayun,
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

39
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

&Muzaffar, 2005). The culture of Pakistan is complex and resistant to change

(Aubusson& Watson, 1999). Niaz (2010) has argued from a historical development of
Pakistan that the country's ruling elite is yet to make the transition from the British
bureaucratic empire to an organised, democratic state, giving support to the argument
that the country has regressed some 300 years in socio-political terms since its birth in
1947 (Cowasjee, 2009).
The Teaching Problem in Pakistan
As in many countries, the management of education follows closely the power
coercive strategies of Chin & Benne (1985), where systems run under top-down
direction. Teaching in the Government schools tends to be poor, involving learning by
rote from the textbook, characteristic of a dysfunctional system. Creativity, curiosity or
any open-ended endeavour is not welcomed and knowledge is not there to be
questioned (Dawn, 2009). Teachers tend to be uninterested in their work and do not
inspire students by bringing in knowledge from anywhere other than the prescribed
textbook (Hussain, 2012). In higher levels of education, there is little emphasis on
problem solving and critical thinking (Greaney&Hasan, 1998. p.140). Teacher
achievement standards in the schools can be surprisingly low. Bregmanand Mohammad
(1998) refer to Grade V teachers achieving just 60% average on a mathematics paper on
which their students achieved 40%.
In the process of schooling worldwide, the teacher is a key factor in enhancing
learning and achievement (Berk, 2005; Hattie, 2003: Heck, 2009). Consequently, in
Less Developed Countries, such as Pakistan, constraints on social and technological
advancement are strongly imposed by a lack of quality in the teaching force.
This review of schooling in the context of Pakistan is intended to help those
unfamiliar with the country appreciate the scale of the problems faced, where the basic
conditions and issues are far removed from those in the more developed societies.
The Teaching of Mathematics
The report of a recent survey of mathematics teaching to 15 year olds in 41
countries explains the significance of mathematics as a school subject (OECD, 2010,
p.32)
.........full participation in many modern societies requires more than a
basicknowledge of mathematics and a high level of mathematical
competence is essential in many occupational areas. In addition,
mathematics is the foundation of much of the scientific and technical
activity that distinguishes advanced from less advanced societies.
Developing students mathematical competence at a much higher level
than is required for everyday communication is thus a goal of most school
programmes.

In learning mathematics, variables affecting student achievement are expected to

be drawn from both teacher and student behaviour (Koehler &Grouws, 1992). Teacher
behaviour is mediated by mathematical ability, attitudes towards the subject, knowledge
of pedagogy and of the cognitive psychology of the learners. Student behaviour derives
from self-efficacy in mathematics and cognitive and affective experiences in the subject,
which arise almost exclusively from classroom encounters (OECD, 2010, p.32).

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

40
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Mathematics is a very emotive subject and feelings about it can run high
(OECD, 2009, p.114). Regardless of teaching methodology, students need to show
some mastery if they are to progress vocationally (Norris, 2011; OECD 2010). Research
findings identify mathematics achievement more closely related with proximal school
and personal variables such as homework, instructional materials, classroom
management, motivation and cognitive thinking (Wang, Haertel, &Walberg, 1993),
than with distal variables such as state and district policies and administrative practices.
There has been a movement to change the teaching of mathematics significantly
in the West in recent years, with the focus being shifted from the rote application of
rules and techniques to the teaching of concepts and their understanding (Lokan&
Greenwood, 2000). Freudenthal (1973) expressed the connection between problem
solving and subject matter oganisation as these defined the mathematical application
and guided discovery of knowledge (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), where the
learning is student centred at the point of entry to a contextual problem and formal
mathematical knowledge is then 'revealed' in an exercise guided by the teacher. Even
today there are differences of opinion about which methods are effective, probably
arising from a disconnection between research on learning and research on teaching
(Hiebert&Grouws, 2007). The OECD survey (2010) reported that although most
teachers expressed an interest in trying new approaches, more than half of them used
traditional (transmissive) methods. Dimmock (2002) draws attention to the significant
cultural variations that occur in learning, which are drawn upon in the OECD (2010)
report to explain the apparent conflict of teaching and learning associations with
mathematics achievement across different groups of countries.
In Pakistan thetextbook has a particular significance and authority (Shah, 2006;
Stewart et al., 2000), so it is not unusual to see the traditional transmissive approach to
mathematics teaching in the classroom. In terms of Douady'sdidactical contracts,
Pakistani teachers operate at the second of these contracts:neither the teachers nor the
students debate or explore the meaning and value of mathematics (1997, p.377).
Mathematics is a prescribed, closed body of information. There is evidence that the
second contract approach is widespread and not just limited to Pakistan (Haylock,
2001; Hiebert&Grouws, 2007; Norris, 2011).
Contextual Variables Affecting Achievement in Mathematics
Motivation/Attitudes
The drive to learn mathematics; self-belief in the capacity to do well in
mathematics and liking of mathematics are all expected to be correlated with high
subject performance according to Bandura (1993). From an international meta-analysis
of 113 studies at the elementary and secondary level, Ma and Kishore (1997) concluded
that attitude towards mathematics has a stronger influence on achievement at the
secondary level with a mean correlation of 0.25. Over all the studies, the correlation of
0.11 has only a small effect size. It is not argued that the attitude/achievement relation is
causative, rather than a teacher is able to cultivate subject interest and motivation in the
students, is operating in a feedback loop where attitude and achievement reinforce each
other (OECD, 2010).
The forced nature of a transmissive learning environment is unlikely to allow
personal reflection on the subject matter to give the degree of control needed to form
positive attitudes (Ajzen, 1988). In high-stakes, examination driven, rote-learning
classrooms like those found in Pakistan (Bregman& Mohammad, 1998), the subject
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

41
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

interest-achievement link might be expected to be weak (Koller, Baumert, and

Schnabel, 2005).
Gender
Various international studies on gender and mathematics achievement show that
boys to do better than girls (Ercikan, McCreith, & Lapointe, 2005; Zhang & Manon,
2000). However, the gender effect on mathematics learning in Pakistan appears rather
confused and mixed, although from a teacher's perspective, the subject is seen as "male"
(Halai, 2007), which would be expected to depress the girls performance (Middleton &
Spanias, 1999). There are conflicting gender-achievement results from the primary
school (Khan et al., 1999; Saeed, Gondal, & Bushra, 2005). Where boys performed
better, it was because their male teachers were more able in mathematics than the
female teachers who taught the girls (Warwick & Jatoi, 1994). In middle schools at
Grade VIII, Tayyaba (2010) reported that boys do better, but by the time students leave
the secondary education sector at the end of Grade X, girls are outperforming boys
and do not differ in subject attitudes (Farooq & Shah, 2008). Halai (2010) suggests this
is most likely because the relatively small proportion of girls still studying mathematics
at this stage have been self-selected to be the most able in the subject.
Demographic and School Effects
Schools can affect the students' performances and reduce the difference in
achievement (Alegre & Ferrer, 2009). School effectiveness can be measured by average
student performance (Cervini, 2009), and there are school attributes such as classroom
and school resources (furniture/school condition) and teaching resources (teacher
guides, videos etc.) which have effect on students' performance.Additional factors
include time on task, homework, opportunity to learn, time lost on non-instructional
activities, quality of curriculum, instructional material and quality of assessment
practices. Many of the relationships identified are supported by recent research
syntheses, particularly those by Wang et al.(1993), Scheerens and Bosker (1997) and
Marzano (2003) and by a number of reports based on PISA 2000 (e. g., Kirsch et al.,
2002; Artelt, Baumert, Julius-McElvany, & Peschar, 2003).
Charagh, Chaudhary, and Gilani (1999), attribute the poor performance of
students to inadequate educational resources and ineffective teaching. Malik (2002)
referred to poverty, parents carelessness and lack of interest in education as the main
factors that cause the high rate of incomplete primary education. Achievement
variations across the regions and districts according to a rural/urban divide have been
reported by Khan et al. (1999), Saeed et al. (2005) and Tayyabba (2010).
Teachers in the public (government) schools in Pakistan use either Urdu or
English as the medium of instruction. At home, more than ten different regional
languages are used by students. This implies that for many students, mathematics is
being taught in a second language, so it is pertinent to investigate home and school
when researching achievement.
Earlier mathematics achievement studies (Ma & Kishor, 1997; Naseer, Patnam,
& Raza, 2010; NEAS, 2005; Saeed et al., 2005; Shah, 2003) have used traditional
correlational analyses in examining the effects of contextual variables on students
performance, and have not paid attention to the multilevel aspects of data, as
recommended by Ma and Kishor (1997). These studies have considered that different
contextual variables function independently on students mathematics achievement.
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

42
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

This means mathematics achievement can be predicted by students' ability, attitude

towards mathematics, home background, parental expectations and school
environment. The multilevel modeling technique has been used more recently to
predict achievement in mathematics (Chang, Singh, & Filer, 2009; OECD, 2010).
These studies explain the relative amounts of variance that can be attributed to the
independent, contextual variables in two-level designs, where the students are 'nested'
within schools (Rasbash et al., 2000). The OECD international mathematics survey
analysis concluded that the strongest associations with achievement were the socioeconomic composition of the school and the students sense of self-efficacy in the
subject.
The NEAS Surveys in Pakistan
The National Educational Assessment System (NEAS) programme
(Government of Pakistan, 2009; Iqbal & Rehman, 2010; NEAS, 2005) was established
in 2002 as a project of the Ministry of Education of the Government of Pakistan as a
necessary first step in realizing 'Education for All' goals (UNESCO, 2000, 2003-04).
Subject monitoring of achievement in Urdu, mathematics, science and social studies
would be carried out periodically to assess students achievement in Grades IV and
VIII. This would identify the range and depth of improvement necessary for achieving
the UNESCO goals. Main objective of NEAS wasto bring improvements in the quality
of the curriculum, instructional material and teaching practices. The second phase of
the NEAS was planned by the federal government to monitor the standards of
education system in Pakistan and measure students learning (Ahmad, 2010). Presently
NEAS is working under the Ministry of Education and Training. The recent activities
performed by NEAS include:
Developing Test Administration Manual Grade 8 for pilot study 2013
Developing Test Administration Manual Grade 4 for pilot study 2013
Review of student background questionnaire
Translation of items in the subject of science Grade 4
After the establishment of NEAS it has become possible to implement and
facilitate the assessment policies through federal and regional assessment centers.
NEAS and its regional partner institutions can monitor the overall system efficiency,
students performance and recognize the areas where help is required to improve the
effectiveness of education system in Pakistan.
The Present Research
The research questions addressed in this paper are;
Q1. What is the relevant contribution of the teacher to student achievement in
mathematics at PakistaniGrade VIII?
Q2. What are the significant contextual variables contributing to student
achievement in mathematics?
Q3. What are the significant contextual variables associated with teacher
achievement in mathematics?

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

43
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Research Methods and Procedure

To answer the research questions, the NEAS databank from the 2007
nationwide survey of Grade VIII mathematics was drawn upon. This permitted the
exploration of student and teacher achievement across a range of student, parent,
teacher, head teacher and school contextual measures. The population was all the
Grade VIII students enrolled in the government schools of Pakistan. Two-stage
stratified random sampling had been used to draw a nationally representative sample
from just over 39000 schools (Iqbal 2011, p.108) from eight geographical regions.
1. Baluchistan
2. FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas)
3. FANA (NowGilgit-BiltistanProvince)
4. NWFP (NowKhyber-PakhtunkhwaProvince, KPK)
5. Punjab
6. Sindh
7. AJK (Azad Jammu Kashmir)
8. ICT (IslamabadCapitalTerritory)
Samples of 20 students (the minimum was fixed at 6) and their mathematics
teachers were drawn by NEAS from the 794 participating schools. A total of 13,964
students contributed data.The achievement test for the teachers was the same as that for
the students, which allowed a direct comparison of performance. NEAS used
questionnaires to collect attitudinal data from the students and teachers, information
about home circumstances from the parents and administrative and attitudinal data
from the head teachers.
The NEAS student achievement scores were accompanied by item responses
for the individual questions which allowed reliability check. Student achievement scores
were subjected to successive correlational analyses of increasing complexity: simple
bivariate, linear regression and multi-level modelling. Where possible, questionnaire
data was subjected to factor analysis to summarise some of the attitudinal responses as
valid core concept such as "liking mathematics" and "extended teaching".
Results
Reliability Check of Student Achievement Test
The test comprised a set of 33 multiple-choice questions with a four-point
answer format. There were two parallel papers A and B constructed to the same
specification, ten questions of which were common to both papers. This parallel paper
arrangement is a measure adopted in the national 'high stakes' examinations, where
malpractice is widespread (Greaney&Hasan, 1998, p.159). Inspection of the 33
questions showed that 79% measured at the lower cognitive levels of knowledge and
comprehension. The remaining 21% measured higher level application, where two
comprehension concepts had to be linked to obtain a solution. In administering the
examination, supervisors had distributed the two versions of the test paper alternately to
the students. Test A was distributed to 6994 students and the remaining 6970 students
received Test B. Alpha reliabilities for the two tests were 0.80 for Test A and a weaker
0.72 for Test B, both values being on the low side for an objective achievement test
(Nuttall&Willmott, 1972)Therefore, an additional variable of test version was added to
analyses.
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

44
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Research Questions 1 and 2

Q1. What is the relevant contribution of the teacher to student achievement in
mathematics at Pakistani Grade VIII?
Q2. What are the significant contextual variables contributing to student
achievement in mathematics?
Individual items on the NEAS questionnaires were inspected for correlations with
achievement. Only the items of teacher mathematics achievement, teacher experience,
being a boy, speaking Saraeki at home, frequency of homework, and attending a rural
school had significant correlations (p<.05, at least a small effect size). The teacher
achievement correlation at 0.32 (N=5083), p<.01) reached a moderate effect size
(Cohen, 1988), which suggests that it is a powerful mediating variable. The mean test
score for those 222 teachers uniquely associated with the sample of students at their
schools was 23.4 (SD=7.5) out of a maximum of 33 marks. Individual teacher scores
ranged from 4 (two teachers) to 33 (12 teachers). Seventeen percent of the teachers
scored less than half marks. In 24 out of a total of 267 schools the student mean score
exceeded the teacher's score. This variability in a teacher competence measure might
be a surprise to international readers but reflects the current situation in Pakistan
presented in the Introduction.
When the analysis turns to multiple linear regression Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) to investigate the relative contributions of the contextual data to student
achievement collected in the NEAS survey, it emerges that the strongest predictor
variables of student achievement are the teacher's own mathematics test score
(accounting for 11% of variance in student achievement),going to school in Punjab
province (1.9%) and the student speaking Saraeki at home (3.8%). These three variables
account for four fifths of the explained variance (21.3%) in the student achievement
scores.
Although it is possible to introduce further teacher-specific measures from the
teacher questionnaire into the regression prediction equation, the patchy nature of the
teachers' responses attenuates the sample heavily because of missing data. To test
whether there were significant differences from school to school and hence teacher to
teacher in the student achievement correlational profile a multi-level analysis was
carried out with students nested within schools (teachers).
An exploratory three-level analysis using schools nested within Districts showed
insignificant variation at this highest level. The initial "null" analysis omits any
explanatory variables and tests the two-level student/school design (Table 1).
Table 1

Variance in student mathematics achievement scores in the null model

Variance attributed to
Variance
SE
Three-level
Students
Schools
Districts

15.188 **
15.725 **
1.498

0.423
2.029
1.363

15.186 **
17.301 **

0.423
1.873

Two-level
Students
Schools

**p<0.01
In the two-level model, Constant=13.570 (0.307), N=2778
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

45
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

2*Loglikelihood = -15985.270

Table 1 shows that 53.3% of the variance in students' mathematics scores is

located in the schools.The explanatory variables for the analysis were those identified
from the initial linear multiple regression investigation. Reports of research on multilevel modelling usually suggest that continuous variables should be centred on their
respective means (Rasbash et al., 2000). Consequently, the four "scale" variables have
been centred in this way, although in practice only Constant is affected. Each
explanatory variable was entered into the model as a fixed parameter, (i.e. the
coefficient is taken as constant for all students). The variable was retained if its
introduction caused a significant fall in the value of the loglikelihood statistic (Rasbash
et al., 2000). The coefficient was then allowed to vary randomly across the schools and
tested for significance with the loglikelihood statistic. This Level 2 variation was
incorporated into the model if significant. The model can be represented by the
following regression equation:
Student
= constant + teacher + Punjab + Head's + maths+ Test
achievement team preference version + Liking + Test maths
0ij

1j

3j

5j

The beta coefficients are computed by the software to get the best possible
match between each student's actual achievement score and the value obtained by
substituting the corresponding scores for the student on each of the significant variables.
Variables constant, teacher achievement, and Test version show significant, random
Level 2 school variations, which are denoted by subscript j. Subscript i indicates
random pupil variation. The equation is best interpreted by referring to the resulting
coefficients appearing in Table 2, where only the significantly contributing variables are
shown to avoid over-complexity for the reader. Effect sizes are computed by dividing
coefficients or variances by standard deviations, which are calculated in turn from
standard errors and sample sizes (2778 pupils at Level 1 and 197 teachers/schools at
Level 2) (Rethinam, Pyke, & Lynch, 2008).
Fixed variations show the importance of teacher's own mathematics cognition.
Location in the Punjab and the school 'ethos' measure of parent/teacher support for
high achievement, both have a contextual significance. Attitudes to mathematics and
preferring it to other subjects are significant student contributions. The classroom is the
source of the homework frequency variable. The concern with the dual testing policy of
NEAS is confirmed with the significant Test A effect: students score 1.286 more on
average (out of 33) if they receive this paper.
There are significant variations from school to school for three of the variables.
This means that the fixed variation coefficients for these variables will have standard
deviations given by the square roots of the three random variances. Teachers'
achievement scores, parent/teacher "ethos" ratings and writing Test A show significant
school variations.

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

46
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Table 2

Coefficients and variances in the two-level analysis of students' mathematics

achievement scores
Parameter
Coefficient Variance
SE
p
a

Fixed variation
Constant
Student variance in Constant
School variance in Constant
Teacher's mathematics score
(scale from 4 to 33)
School in Punjab (scores 1)
Headteacher's parent/teacher
support (scale 1 to 5)
Mathematics preference over
three other subjects (scores 1)
Test version A(scores 1)
Liking mathematics (scale 0 to 1)
How often do you get homework
in Mathematics? (scale 1 to 4)

12.446

ES

0.225

0.286
0.404
1.364
0.031

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

0.823
0.681
0.644
0.138

0.960
0.881

0.423
0.339

0.012
0.005

0.043
0.049

0.829

0.179

<0.001

0.088

1.286
1.108
0.286

0.206
0.328
0.087

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

0.118
0.064
0.062

14.509
12.337

Random variation: schools

Teacher's mathematics score
(scale from 4 to 33)
Headteacher's parent/teacher
team (scale 1 to 5)
Test version A(scores 1)

0.044

0.015

0.002

0.209

6.764

2.217

<0.001

0.217

4.266

0.829

<0.001

0.367

Coefficients significantly different from zero from changes in loglikelihood statistic

Final 2*Loglikelihood = -15 652.590, N=2778

Comparing the variances for students and schools from Tables 1 and 2, the
partition of explained variance is:
for Level 1 students, 0.667 or 4.46%;
by 4.964 for Level 2 schools, or 28.69%,
by 5.631 for both levels, or 17.33%.
By explaining an overall 17.33% of variance in mathematics achievement scores,
the full multi-level model has an effective multiple linear regression type, multiplecorrelation of 0.416 (Luke, 2004, p. 37). The NEAS survey has collected variables
which explain little of the variance which can be attributed to the students themselves,
but it has identified a range of significant contextual variables, the most important of
which is the teacher's own mathematical ability.
An analysis of the teachers' coefficient of 0.225 of Table 2 shows that just three
of 197 teachers score significantly above the norm of 0.225 (at p<.05) and only four
below, so despite Level 2 variation the effect of teacher cognition in mathematics is
practically consistent from school to school.
An inspection of the NEAS teacher questionnaire responses relating to
experience, qualifications and approach to mathematics teaching was unable to identify
any significant differences between this small sample of seven teachers at the extremes.

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

47
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Research Question 3
Q3. What are the significant contextual variables associated with teacher
achievement in mathematics?
As far as possible, teacher questionnaire data was factor analysed to reduce its
complexity. Analysis then proceeded with breakdowns of the teacher attitudes and
views on classroom practice by demographic variables and teacher qualifications. A
profile of a self-perceived approach to Grade VIII mathematics teaching showed
exclusive use of the textbook by 89% (of 756 teachers); homework given after every
lesson by 85%; using homework and written testing to assess progress by 97%; most
teachers make written records of students' responses to questions, but the highest
achieving teachers keep no record at all; in-service mathematics is infrequent with 71%
reporting no training during the last two years. Of these teacher variables, only the
recording of students' responses showed any correlation with teacher achievement and
qualifications.
Significant associates with teacher achievement cannot be separated from the
effect of gender. Male teachers have significantly higher achievement scores (M=24.49,
SD=7.72, n=307 for males; M=19.86,SD=8.41, N=273 for females, p<.01, medium
effect size); their students do better (M=13.34, SD=3.99, N=440 for male teachers;
M=12.49, SD=4.06, N=341 for female teachers, p<.01, small effect size) and are slightly
more positive about the subject (M=0.89, SD=0.09, N=437 for males; M=0.87,
SD=0.11, N=352 for females, p<.05, small effect size).
The relative importance of the multivariate contributions to teacher
achievement is summarised in the linear multiple regression analysis of Table 3, which
confirms the strength of the gender variable in reducing scores by over 4 marks for
female teachers. The PTC qualification is the minimum for entering the profession.
Table 3

The strongest contextual variables associated with teacher achievement in mathematics

Unstandardized
p
Variance
a

Significant variables
(Constant)
Teacher's gender (female scores 1)
Rural location (scores 1)
School in ICT (scores 1)
School in KPK (scores 1)
Professional qualification PTC (scores 1)
Teacher's age (scale 1 to 5)
Academic qualification beyond Masters
(scores 1)

Coefficients

contributed

SE

19.58
-4.18
3.60
6.56
3.20
-5.19
0.95

1.38
0.68
0.65
1.57
0.95
2.06
0.40

< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
0.012
0.016

7.9
3.8
2.0
1.6
0.8
0.8

-4.23

1.87

0.024

0.6

Coefficients significantly different from zero

Multiple correlation 0.43, N=554 (large effect size)

Further analysis of the location effect, which favours rural teachers, shows that
this is attributed to one region only: the Punjab. In this province, mean scores for both
male and female teachers in urban areas are very low (M=17.54, SD=10.57, N=149 for
urban; M=27.01, SD=5.71, N=93 for rural, p<.01, large effect size). The class mean
achievements reflect this location effect, also with a large effect size.
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

48
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Discussion
Q1.What is the relevant contribution of the teacher to student achievement in
mathematics at Pakistani Grade VIII?
Inspecting the coefficients and standard errors of Table 2 shows that teacher
cognitive achievement is the highest contributing variable to student mathematics
achievement in terms of its effect size and the Wald Test t-ratio, which is obtained from
the division of coefficient and standard error. Further, Table 1 reports that 53.3% of
the variance of students' achievement scores lies within the schools and their teachers.
This is comparable with the East Asian countries of Japan and Hong Kong-China,
where the percentage is around 50% (OECD, 2010, p.74). If schools and teachers are
very similar within a country, the percentage of student score variance arising from
external sources will be low. Finland is a good example with only 4% of variance due to
the schools. The conclusion is that the high degree of variability in schools and teachers
in Pakistan is not untypical in Asia.
A major finding is the clear demonstration that teacher cognition ranges widely
and the normally accepted definition of 'teacher' as savant and student guide no longer
applies. In 10% of the schools, the teacher scores lie below the mean student sample
score, and this is on a test measuring, for the most part, at the lower cognitive levels.
The positive association of student performance with teacher cognition is largely
consistent across the schools, regardless of Level 2 school variation which affects only
4% of schools.
Q2. What are the significant contextual variables contributing to student
achievement in mathematics?
The interpretation of the results of the multi-level analysis (Table 2) shows that
student achievement variance explained is just one seventh of the school variance after
the addition of contextual variables. This outcome might be compared with the
international findings from OECD (2010, p.76), where the average is between one half
and one third depending upon the completeness of the model. The relatively low
contribution of Pakistani student variance is explained by the lack of any correlation
with parental occupation, social composition of the school or school size. In addition,
the NEAS survey did not include several variables measured in the OECD study,
namely students' attitudes to school, mathematical self-efficacy and anxiety, students'
learning strategies, school disciplinary climate and student-teacher relations.
It can be hypothesised at this point that students' learning strategies might hold
the key to the difficulty of accounting for much student variance in Pakistan. In
relatively low-performing countries, as the OECD point out, students tend to use
memorisation strategies much more than others. There is a very high negative
correlation between the use of memorisation and achievement, which has important
implications for all low-achieving countries (OECD, 2010, p.126). If as the evidence
suggests, Pakistani government education is extremely, if not entirely focused on rotelearning and memorisation, without a direct measure of this 'technique', the variance
associated with it will always be missed.
The direction of this discussion now leads directly to the significance of
homework frequency in Table 2, although the effect size is small. The OECD report
points out the importance of homework especially for extending study time by drawing
on The Carroll Model (Carroll, 1989). According to this model, students exposed to
low-quality instruction would be expected to require more time to learn than those
exposed to better instruction. National policies that limit school hours allow schools to
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

49
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

organise homework as an extension of the school day. This is a necessary policy for
Pakistan because of excessive summer temperatures. The OECD report presents some
ambiguity in findings for the association of homework frequency in mathematics and
achievement. In more than half the countries surveyed the association is negative
(OECD, 2010, p.93), which might be attributed to the weaker students getting more
homework. Intriguingly, research from the USA (Rose & Betts, 2001; Cooper,
Robinson, &Patall, 2006) demonstrates a positive association. If this finding is related to
the continual employment of 'recitation' teaching (Hiebert&Grouws, 2007, p.392), then
homework provides the time to practice these low-level memorisation strategies, so a
positive homework-achievement link, as in Pakistan, could be indicative of a rotelearning approach to mathematics content.
In terms of effect size, the use of alternative achievement test versions follows
teacher cognition as the strongest predictor of student achievement. The use of two
parallel papers gives Test A students a 4% advantage. As well as questions of varying
difficulty, the profiles of difficulty with content vary, which leads to different validities.
Hence the Level 2 school variation, where some teachers are better able to handle
some topics rather than others. The NEAS attempt to standardise the marks of the two
test versions is unconvincing. There seems no reason when monitoring surveys are
conducted by NEAS why a single paper cannot be used, as supervision is much easier
than with a complete year group and malpractice in a 'low-stakes' environment is most
unlikely.
The significance of school location in Punjab is not unsurprising. This province
is relatively more prosperous and arguably the best run. It has the highest population,
the greatest number of schools, colleges, universities and teachers. The per capita
income, parents' educational level, and literacy rate are all higher compared to other
regions of the country. Attending school in Punjab rather than any other province, is
then a quasi-measure of socio-economic status and consistent with the OECD (2010)
and other studies which show the importance of this variable.
The positive association of achievement with attitudes to mathematics appears
but only after controlling for other variables, and then with only a low effect size. It is of
interest that a simple bivariate correlation is not significant, which by itself suggests
support for the hypothesis that the link is weak for assessment-driven students (Koller et
al., 2005). This attitudinal relationship is supported by the 'preference for mathematics
over other subjects' link with achievement, which has in fact a higher effect size in the
predictive equation.
The school "ethos" measure is derived from items completed by the head
teacher. The scale refers to the support teacher and parents give to high achievement at
the school. The most highly achievement oriented school can add more than 4 marks
to a student's total on average, and the researcher has to move into the socio-cultural
dynamic of the staff and parents of the Pakistani school for further investigation
(Bregman & Mohammad, 1998).
Q3.What are the significant contextual variables associated with teacher
achievement inmathematics?
Teacher gender is the strongest of the NEAS variables associated with teacher
achievement (Table 3). The weaker performance of female teachers confirms the
results from the earlier research in the Pakistani primary school (Warwick & Jatoi,
1994). As far as it is possible to deduce a teaching methodology from the NEAS data, a
strong textbook-led approach, homework and written-test supported, with a zealous
recording of students' responses support the initial hypothesis that Pakistani
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

50
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

mathematics teaching is firmly located at the second didactical contract level (Douady,
1997, p.377). The most able teachers seem confident to move away from the
administrative chore or recording students' responses, but it is notable that there is no
teacher ability effect mediating any of the other classroom variables.
Despite the low frequency of in-service training, if what little is provided is
effective, it is reasonable to expect some positive effect on teacher achievement. Not
only is this absent, but the amount of in-service stands isolated in the analysis showing
no association with any NEAS variable. Expanding Douady's concept of the didactical
contract, the second level has been extended from classroom learning to the
administration of the educational system. In-service training is provided because it is
expected to exist, but there is no 'ownership' by the participants and no personal
impact.
Mean teacher achievement scores are highest in ICT and KPK so it is no
surprise to see these regions as significant contributors to the Table 3 regression.
Neither is the appearance of teacher age as a predictive variable: older teachers will be
more familiar with the content and will have learned from earlier experiences. Teachers
with the lowest professional qualification that requires less than one year's formal
training will have problems with interpreting content appropriately with more than half
having no more mathematics learning than that from their own schools. The negative
effect of academic doctoral level can be explained only if the teacher is working outside
the area of scholarship.
The rural school predictive effect is due entirely to the very low achievement of
urban teachers in Punjab province. Elsewhere, the location difference is not significant.
The Punjab result is at first sight surprising given its relative prosperity and organisation,
but this might be the very explanation. Potential teachers in Punjab have far more
opportunity for career advancement in the urban areas, which means that teachers in
the schools are drawn from a pool lacking the most able. It is only in the rural areas of
Punjab that the relatively better regional socio-economic climate is apparent, as
alternatives of employment in these areas are much more restricted. This hypothesis is
supported by an analysis of rural areas only where Punjab outscores all other regions on
teacher achievement, student achievement and attitudes, all with a large effect size.
Conclusions
In the introduction, a rather dismal profile of teaching and learning in Pakistan
was presented where a rote-learned, text book oriented curriculum was taught at the
lowest cognitive levels by uninspired teachers with low cognitive skills. Our research
addressed these issues with respect to mathematics to identify how much weight should
be born by the teacher for this state of affairs by apportioning the teacher's contribution
to student achievement in comparison with other relevant student, school and
demographic variables.
The over-riding significance of teacher cognitive ability has been established. A
major further finding is that teacher cognition ranges so widely and questions the whole
concept of a teacher leading students in learning, when teacher standards are so low that
in 10% of schools the students outscore the teachers.
The contribution of the contextual variables to student achievement is below the
OECD average. It has been suggested that this is because the significance of homework
frequency item on achievement is indicative of a rote-learning approach to mathematics
content. In a system focused on rote-learning and memorisation, studies which do not
measure this strategy are likely to omit considerable achievement variance.
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

51
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

The evidence of analysis of the NEAS teacher questionnaire data is that

Pakistani mathematics teaching is firmly located at the Douady's second didactical
contract level(Douady, 1997, p.377). Further evidence for this comes from the isolation
of the effects of in-service training on teacher achievement, as far as this can be
established from the Grade VIII teacher test.
Gender is the strongest predictive variable of teacher achievement. Males
generally score much higher than females and this extends the results from the earlier
research in the Pakistani primary school to the middle school. Although there is no
rural/urban divide in teacher achievement, in Punjab a socio-economic migration in the
urban areas away from mathematics teaching causes teacher performance for both sexes
to fall to very low levels.
Having presented the initial evidence for Pakistani mathematics teachers
working at the second didactical contract level,a follow-up study of teacher attitudes to
their work explores this in greater depth and suggests how it might be possible to move
away from rote-learning to the fourth contract level (Pell, Iqbal, &Rehman, 2012).
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes, UK: Open
University Press.
Alegre, M. ., & Ferrer, G. (2009). School regimes and education equity: some insights
based on PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 433-461.
Artelt, C., J. Baumert, N. Julius-McElvany, & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life:
Student approaches to learning: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Ashan, M. (2003). An analytic review of Pakistan's educational policies and plans.
Research Papers in Education, 18(3), 259-280.
Aubusson, P. J., & Watson, K. (1999). Issues and problems related to science
curriculum implementation in Pakistan: Perception of three Pakistani
curriculum managers. Science Education, 83(5), 603-620.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teacher effectiveness.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 4862.
Bregman, J., & Mohammad, N. (1998). Primary and secondary education. In P.
Hoodbhoy (Ed.), Education and the state: Fifty years of Pakistan (pp. 68-101).
Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Burki, S. J. (2005). Educating the Pakistani masses. In R. M. Hathaway (Ed.),
Education reform in Pakistan: Building for the future (pp. 15-31). Washington,
D.C.: International Center for Scholars.
Cervini, R A. (2009). Class, school, municipal, and state effects on mathematics
achievement in Argentina: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 20(3), 319- 340.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-Year retrospective and prospective view.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.
Charagh, A. Chaudhary, S. & Gilani, U. (1999). Learning achievement of grades 3 and
5 children in rural primary schools. A study conducted by Punjab Curriculum
Development and Research Centre. Islamabad: UNESCO.

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

52
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Chang, M., Singh, K., & Filer, K. (2009). Language factors associated with achievement
grouping in math classrooms: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 27-45.
Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1985). General strategies for effecting changes in human
systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of
Change, Fourth Edition (pp. 22-45). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve
academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of
Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.
Cowasjee, A. (2010, August 15). Sixty-three and down on our knees. Dawn, p7.
Available [on-line] http://archives.dawn.com/archives/19461
Crisis Group, (2004). Pakistan: Reforming the education sector. Asia Report No. 84.
International Crisis Group. In R. M. Hathaway (Ed.), Education reform in
Pakistan: Building for the future (pp. 166-172). Washington, D.C.: International
Center for Scholars.
Dawn, (2009, May 20). Curriculum of hatred. Dawn newspaper editorial. Available [online] http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30854
Dimmock, C. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in interpreting and doing research. In
M. Coleman & A. R. J. Briggs (Eds.), Research methods in educational
leadership and management (pp. 28-42). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Douady, R. (1997). Didactic engineering. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning
and teaching mathematics. An international perspective (pp. 373-401). Hove:
Psychology Press.
Ercikan, K., McCreith, T., & Lapointe, V. (2005). Factors associated with mathematics
achievement and participation in advanced mathematics courses: An
examination of gender differences from an international perspective. School
Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 5-14.
Farooq, M. S., & Shah, S. Z. (2008). Students attitude towards mathematics. Pakistan
Economic and Social Review, 46(1), 75-83.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel.
Greaney, V., & Hasan, P. (1998). Public examinations in Pakistan: A system in need of
reform. In P. Hoodbhoy (Ed.), Education and the state: Fifty years of Pakistan
(pp. 136-171). Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Government of Pakistan. (2009). National Educational Policy, 2009. Islamabad:
Ministry of Education.
Government of Pakistan. (2012). Pakistan economic survey 2010-11. Islamabad:
Ministry of Finance.
Halai, A. (2007). Boys are better mathematicians! Gender issues in mathematics
classrooms in Pakistan. In R. Qureshi& J. F. A. Rarieya (Eds.), Gender &
Education in Pakistan (pp.109-125). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Halai, A. (2010). Gender and Mathematics Education in Pakistan: A situation analysis.
The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(1),47- 62
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence? Australian

Council for Educational Research,Annual Conference on Building Teacher

Quality,
Melbourne.
Available [on-line] http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

53
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Haylock, D. (2001). Mathematics explained for primary teachers. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing.
Heck, R. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a
multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2),
227-249.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on
students' learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Hussain, I. (2012). Anything goes. Dawn newspaper editorial. Available [on-line]
http://www.dawn.com/2012/05/12/anything-goes/
Iqbal, H. M. (2011). Education in Pakistan. Developmental Milestones. Karachi:
Paramount Publishing Enterprise.
Iqbal, H. M., & Rehman, S. (2010). Evaluating the achieved objectives: Performance of
Grade-IV students in mathematics. Bulletin of Education and Research, 33(2),
1-22.
Khan, H., Shah, S., Ahmad, M., Amin, N., Khalid, H., & Malik, A. (1999). Measuring
learning achievement at primary level in Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry
of Education, Academy of Educational Planning and Management.
Kirsch, I., Long, J. D., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseu, C.
(2002). Reading for change: performance and engagement across countries.
Paris, OECD.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work?: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their
effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
andlearning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp.
115-125). New York: Macmillan.
Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2005). Does interest matter? The relationship
between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448-470.
Lokan. J., & Greenwood, L. (2000). Mathematics achievement at lower secondary level
in Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 9-26.
Luke, D. A. (2004). Multi-level modelling. London: Sage Publications.
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward
mathematics and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 27-47.
Malik, Z. M. (2002). Causes of dropout in primary schools: A study of primary schools
of Sargodha Tehsil during the years, 1996-97 & 1997-98. Pakistan Journal of
Applied Sciences, 2(6), 646-648.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McCutcheon, S. (2007). Punjabi reforms: Riding for education. Punjabi Education
Sector
Reform
Program.
Available
[on-line]
http://www.r4e.org/education/Pakistan/punjabi_reforms.htm
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics:
findings, generalizations and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 30(1), 65-88.
c

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

54
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Mitchell, J., Humayun, S., & Muzaffar, I. (2005). Education sector reforms in Pakistan:
demand generations as an alternative recipe. In R. M. Hathaway (Ed.),
Education Reform in Pakistan: Building for the Future (pp. 107-122).
Washington, D.C.: International Center for Scholars.
Naseer, M. F., Patnam, M., & Raza, R. R. (2010). Transforming public schools: Impact
of the CRI program on child learning in Pakistan. Economics of Education
Review, 29, 669683.
NEAS, National Educational Assessment System, (2005). National assessment report,
2005. Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
Niaz, I. (2010). The culture of power and governance of Pakistan 1947-2008. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
Norris, E. (2011). Solving the maths problem: International perspectives on
mathematics education. London: Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures and Commerce.
Nuttall, D. L., & Willmott, A. S. (1972). British examinations: Techniques of Analysis.
Slough: NFER Publishing Co.
OECD, (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results
from TALIS. Paris: OECD.
OECD, (2010). Mathematics teaching and learning strategies in PISA. Paris: OECD.
Parveen, S. (2008). Female education and national development: As viewed by women
activists and advocates. Bulletin of Education and Research, Lahore, 30(1), 3341.
Pell, A. W., Iqbal, H. M., & Rheman, S. (2012). Pakistani Grade VIII mathematics
teaching as the transmission of low-level knowledge. Manuscript in preparation.
Rareiya, J. F. A. (2007). Gender and education - whose agenda is it? In R. Qureshi & J.
F. A. Rarieya (Eds.), Gender & Education in Pakistan (pp. 259-264). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rasbash, J, Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., Woodhouse,
G., Draper, D., Langford, I., & Lewis, T. (2000). A user's guide to MLwiN.
Version 2.1. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Rethinam, V., Pyke, C., & Lynch, S. (2008). Using multi-level analyses to study the
effectiveness of science curriculum materials. Evaluation and Research in
Education, 21(1), 18-42.
Rose, H., & Betts, J. R. (2001). Math matters: The links between high school
curriculum, college graduation, and earnings. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.
Saeed, M., Gondal, M. B., & Bushra, M. (2005). Assessing achievement of primary
grader students and factors affecting achievement in Pakistan. International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 486 499.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Shah, D. (2003). Country report on decentralization in the education system of
Pakistan: Policies and strategies. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning
and Management Ministry of Education.
Shah, S. (2006). Educational leadership: an Islamic perspective. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 363-385.
Stewart, S. M., Bond, M., Ho, L. M., Zaman, R. M., Dar, R., & Anwar, M. (2000).
Perceptions of parents and adolescent outcomes in Pakistan. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 336-352.

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

55
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August, 2013, Vol. 14(1)

Tayyaba, S. (2010). Mathematics achievement in middle school level in Pakistan:

Findings from the First National Assessment. International Journal of
Educational Management. 24(3), 221-249.
UNESCO, (2000). World education report, 2000: the right to educationtowards
education for all throughout life. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2003-04). Gender and education for all: The leap to quality. Global
Monitoring
Report.
Available
[on-line]
http://www.unesco.org/education/efa_report/zoom_regions_pdf/soweasia.pdf
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.
Warwick, D. P., & Jatoi, H. (1994). Teacher gender and student achievement in
Pakistan. Comparative Education Review, 38(3), 377-399.
Zhang, L., & Manon, J. (2000). Gender achievement: Understanding gender
differences and similarities in mathematics assessment. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
About the Author
Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal is Professor and the Dean, Faculty of Education, University of
the Punjab, Lahore. He was a Fulbright Fellow at the University of Texas, Austin in the
area of Cognitive Psychology. He has been awarded three national awards by the
government of Pakistan and HEC for his research and contribution to the field of
education. (drhmiqbal@gmail.com)
Anthony Pell is a former teacher whose Doctorate is in physics education. His main
interests are attitude measurement, curriculum development, teacher education and
project management. He has been a research analyst and research associate at the
Universities of Leicester and Cambridge. (awpell1984@gmail.com)
Shafiq-ur-Rehman is a Lecturer in Mathematics Education at the Institute of Education
and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, where he is currently pursuing his Ph
D. He has more than twenty years teaching experience in schools and university.
(shafiqurrehman1@yahoo.com)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hafiz Muhammad
Iqbal, Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan
Contact: drhmiqbal@gmail.com

2013 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734