	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Out of date

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page is out of date, it refers to 2007 in the future tense.

147.188.244.18 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

POV

The charts are very misleading, either list all countries or only the top 10. Frigo 05:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Third"

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the TIMSS often called the "Third" International Mathematics and Science Study? For example, both the chart of the 1997 and the chart for the 2003 study in this article are labeled the "Third International Math and Science Study." This is not explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.184.57 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

TIMSS was the third in a series of assessments of the mathematics and science knowledge and skills of students around the world. After the TIMSS 1995 data collection, there was collective agreement that the study should continue on a 4-year cycle, so that countries could follow trends in student achievement. Following the naming conventions of prior studies, the follow up study should have been called the Fourth International Mathematics and Science Study (FIMSS), and the subsequent study should have been called the Fifth International Mathematics and Science Study (also FIMSS). To avoid confusion among educators and policymakers, and to build on the name recognition of the 1995 study, it was decided to keep the TIMSS moniker by changing "Third" to "Trends." Thus, TIMSS is now known as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Each subsequent data collection is differentiated by the year of data collection (e.g., TIMSS 1999, TIMSS 2003, and TIMSS 2007).

Pagonzales (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The History of TIMSS

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

- Directly taken from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Website [1]

First International Mathematics Study (FIMS)

Twelve countries participated in this First International Mathematics Study (FIMS). They collected data in 1964 on two populations-13-year-olds and students at the pre-university year. The study identified several different factors influencing both the learning and teaching of mathematics.

Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS)

During 1980–81, IEA conducted the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS), with 20 countries participating, and in 1983–84 carried out the Second International Science Study (SISS), with 24 countries. Both studies tested three populations of students. This strategy of carrying out a repeated study over an interval of several years provided important information on changes in standard of achievement in different countries, especially in the case of science.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

In 1995, IEA completed data collection for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Forty-five countries participated in TIMSS, with more than half a million students encompassing five grades tested.

The subsequent data collection for TIMSS (at present known as Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) took place in 1999 and 2003.

--MathChique (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)MathChiqueReply

1997 TIMSS??

TIMSS was not conducted in 1997. It was first done in 1995, then every 4 years, meaning 1999, 2003, and 2007. This chart is either made up if the citations are correct, or has the wrong date. Someone is retarded.

150.250.191.244 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)somekidtryingtowritearesearchpaperReply

I deleted it. The data appears to be wrong. Naur (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

1995 Scores

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am having trouble verifing the scores listed in the tables for the year 1995. According to the National Council for Educational Statistics reports for trends in math and science, the 1995 numbers differ considerably. Additionally, there does not appear to be a source given for the data in the "Top 10 countries by subject and year" tables. In the "older results" section, the 1995 data source is given as an issue of The Economist. However, I have been unable to verify that as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.222.154.100 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article could be much improved with more sources.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have some Source Lists to Share with Other Wikipedians on my user subpages that would be helpful for updating this article. The subpages on IQ and human intelligence are reasonably complete now, always to be updated more, and the subpages on race and human genetics will be updated a lot more over the next few months. For this particular article, I will keep digging up sources on international education comparisons, and I encourage you to do the same and to suggest those for additions to the citation lists. Feel free to refer to those to edit this article and articles on related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Recent scores

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can anyone publish the recent statistics and make a map? I'll see what I can do myself but time is limited. Thanks! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I have added the scores myself but someone should make a map. Also I suggest adding the entire list of countries (at least for the latest set, like with HDI stats) if anyone has time to do it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why top European counties?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Why European counties are given a special ranking category? Either we do the whole list of all countries or we do top 10. The more useful info is ranking for the 4th grade and the 12th grade. Those can show the trend from lower grade to higher grade levels. If there is no objection, I will remove European ranking and add top 10 for those two grades instead. Z22 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apparently there is no data for 12th grade. So I should say that we remove the European ranking and add the 4th grade rankings similar to what we currently have for 8th grade. Z22 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Math

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perception of student in Mathematics subject 49.151.250.111 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

Talk:Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

Contents