IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 (IQB-BT 2016)
(vormals als Ländervergleich bezeichnet)
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Hinweise zur Nutzung der Daten
> Scientific Use Files beantragen
| Datensatz veröffentlicht am | 30.09.2019 |
|---|---|
| Version | v2 |
| aktuelle Version verfügbar seit | 24.11.2022 |
| Erhebungszeitraum | 2016 |
| Stichprobe | Schüler*innen der Jahrgangsstufe 4 (N=31.335); Lehrkräfte Deutsch (N=597), Mathematik (N=551), Deutsch & Mathematik (N=836); Schulleitung (N=1.408); Schulen (N=1.508) |
| Erhebungseinheit | Eltern Lehrkräfte Schüler*innen Schulleitung |
| erfasste Kompetenzen | Deutsch, Mathematik |
| Region | deutschlandweit, Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Thüringen |
| Leitung | Schipolowski, Dr. Stefan Stanat, Prof. Dr. Petra |
| Datengebende | Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB) |
| Auftraggebende / Mittelgebende | Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) |
| Link zur Studie | https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/bt/BT2016 |
| Verwandte Studien | IQB-LV 2011 (DOI: 10.5159/IQB_LV_2011_v3) |
| Zitationsvorschlag | Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S., Mahler, N., Kohrt, P. & Wittig, J. (2019). IQB-Bildungstrend Primarstufe 2016 (IQB-BT 2016) (Version 2) [Datensatz]. Berlin: IQB – Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen. http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_BT_2016_v2 |
| Datenrestriktion / Zugangshinweise | Kognitive Grundfähigkeiten dürfen nicht als abhängige Variable in den Analysen verwendet werden. Nutzende des Datensatzes müssen stets das Skalenhandbuch zitieren. Schipolowski, S., Busse, J., Rjosk, C., Mahler, N., Becker, B. & Stanat, P. (2019). IQB-Bildungstrend 2016. Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik. (Schriftenreihe des Institutes zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen Band 10). Berlin: Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB). https://doi.org/10.18452/25471 |
Projektbeschreibung
Im IQB-Bildungstrend 2016 untersuchte das Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB) im Auftrag der Kultusministerkonferenz zum zweiten Mal, inwieweit Viertklässler*innen die bundesweit geltenden Bildungsstandards der Kultusministerkonferenz in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik für den Primarbereich erreichten. Durch einen Vergleich mit den Ergebnissen des IQB-Ländervergleichs 2011 ist es möglich zu prüfen, inwieweit sich das Kompetenzniveau der Schüler*innen der 4. Jahrgangsstufe in den einzelnen Ländern in einem Zeitraum von fünf Jahren verändert hat. Am IQB-Bildungstrend 2016 nahmen ca. 30.000 Schüler*innen der 4. Jahrgangsstufe aus über 1.500 Schulen teil. In jeder der nach einem Zufallsverfahren gezogenen Schulen wurde ebenfalls per Zufall eine Klasse bestimmt, die an der Testung teilnahm. In Förderschulen wurde davon abweichend eine größere Testgruppe gebildet, die in der Regel mehrere Lerngruppen umfasste. Der Zeitraum der Datenerhebung erstreckte sich von Mitte Mai bis Mitte Juli 2016, unterschied sich jedoch leicht zwischen den einzelnen Ländern. (IQB)
Blank data sets
For a first overview of the data sets and their variables, dummy data sets containing the variables used and the value labels relating to them are provided for download here.
- IQB-BT-2016_Students_v1_Blank data set (SPSS)
- IQB-BT-2016_Teachers_v1_Blank data set (SPSS)
- IQB-BT-2016_Principals_v1_Blank data set (SPSS)
Documentation
Here you can find further documentation:
Notes on the use of the data
Are the competence estimators of the PISA, IGLU and IQB studies comparable with each other?
In principle, the achievement tests used in German large scale assessment studies (PISA, IGLU and IQB studies) correlate highly, but the underlying competence models differ. The IQB tests are based on the educational standards of the The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (Kultusministerkonferenz, KMK) and as a result more closely aligned with the German school curriculum than PISA tests.
Comparability can be tested using IRT methods based on studies in which both PISA and IQB items were used. Some studies for comparison are, for example
- an den Ham, Ann-Katrin; Ehmke, Timo; Hahn, Inga; Wagner, Helene; Schöps, Katrin (2016). Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenz in PISA, im IQB-Ländervergleich und in der National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) – Vergleich der Rahmenkonzepte und der dimensionalen Struktur der Testinstrumente. In: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [Hrsg.]: Forschungsvorhaben in Ankopplung an Large-Scale-Assessments. Berlin, Bundesministerium für Bildungund Forschung, S. 140-160.
- Jude, Nina,Klieme, Eckhard [Hrsg.](2013). PISA 2009 - Impulse für die Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung. Weinheim u.a.: Beltz. (Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft 59)
- Hartig, Johannes, Frey, Andreas (2012).Validität des Tests zur Überprüfung des Erreichens der Bildungsstandards in Mathematik Zusammenhänge mit den bei PISA gemessenen Kompetenzen und Varianz zwischen Schulen und Schulformen. Diagnostica 58, S. 3-14.
The extent of comparability must be considered separately for reading and mathematical literacy and for secondary and primary education. Although it can be assumed that federal state differences can be well mapped using both measures, it is unfortunately not possible to analyse trends on a common metric.
How many classes per school are included in the sample in the IQB studies?
In the IQB studies, one class per school is usually included in the sample. Exceptions are made for some federal states and for some types of schools (e.g. special education schools). Information on sampling in the studies can be found in the results reports or scale manuals.
Here is a brief summary of the sampling procedure:
- National Assessment Study 2008/2009: One 9th grade class per school; the entire class took part in the test; special education schools were not part of the sample.
- National Assessment Study 2011: in regular schools: One 4th grade class per school; the entire class took part in the test; at special schools, all students in 4th grade with a special need in the area of learning, language, or emotional and social development participated across all classes.
- National Assessment Study 2012: In grammar schools ("Gymnasium"), one 9th grade class was included in the study, in other school types (with the exception of special education schools), two classes per school (if available) were included. The entire classes took part in the test. At special schools, all students in 4th grade with a special need in the area of learning, language, or emotional and social development participated across all classes.
- IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2015: In regular schools, one ninth grade class per school was included in the sample; the entire class took part in the test. In special education schools, all ninth grade adolescents with special needs in the area of learning, language, or emotional and social development participated in the study.
- IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016: in regular schools: one 4th grade class per school; the entire class took part in the test; at special schools, all students in 4th grade with a special need in the area of learning, language, or emotional and social development participated across all classes.
- IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2018: In grammar schools ("Gymnasium"), one 9th grade class was included in the study, in other school types (with the exception of special education schools), two classes per school (if available) were included. The entire classes took part in the test. At special schools, all students in 4th grade with a special need in the area of learning, language, or emotional and social development participated across all classes.
Is it possible to record the age of students (to the day) in the IQB studies?
Information on the year and age of birth of students is collected as standard in the IQB studies and is available for re- and secondary analyses of the data. However, for reasons of data protection, exact information on the date of birth was not recorded and is not available in the data sets. The exact test date is also not included in most data sets. Often, however, the data sets contain an age variable that was calculated using the year and month of birth in relation to the test.
How are teacher data set and student data sets linked?
In the IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 Study there is one ID (ZIDteach) in the student data set and there are several IDs in the teacher data set (see Scale Manual):
- ZIDteachD = ID German teachers
- ZIDteachM = ID Mathematics teachers
- ZIDteachD2 = ID for German teachers who teach in several tested classes (only at special education schools)
- ZIDteachM2 = ID for mathematics teachers who teach in several tested classes (only at special education schools)
For linkage the variable ZIDteach in the student data set would have to be renamed in order to match the teachers` data (it can be used as the variables ZIDteachD or ZIDteachM etc.). This is necessary in order to use only one teacher per student group in wide formatdata sets.
The variable ZIDteach is a combination of school ID (IDSCH) and a string variable of the class taught at special education schools. This is necessary because at special education schools all students of the 4th grade and all German and mathematics teachers took part in the study.This means that within a school there are several classes which cannot be identified in any other way. At general education schools, one class per school was tested. There is a maximum of two teachers per class (i.e. one German teacher and one maths teacher). Thus the variable ZIDteach at general education schools corresponds to the school ID (IDSCH).
Literature
Selected literature is listed 
here (as of August 2023).
The IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 Report (German only), a summary (english and german version) and more information can be found here.
2023
Bach, M. (2023). Heterogeneous responses to school track choice: Evidence from the repeal of binding track recommendations. Economics of Education Review, 95, 102412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102412
2022
Hinz, A. (2022). Bildungsungleichheit am Übergang in die Sekundarstufe I: Die Entscheidung für ein Gymnasium unter intersektionaler Perspektive von Geschlecht, sozialem Status und Migrationshintergrund (Masterarbeit): Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen.
Gutfleisch, T., & Kogan, I. (2022). Parental occupation and students’ STEM achievements by gender and ethnic origin: Evidence from Germany. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 82(100735). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2022.100735
2021
Grewenig, E. (2021). School Track Decisions and Teacher Recommendations: Evidence from German State Reforms (ifo Working Papers No. 353). München: ifo Institut - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München (ifo Institut). Retrieved from ifo Institut - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München (ifo Institut) website: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/wp-2021-353-grewenig-teacher-recommendation.pdf
Kölm, J., & Gresch, C. (2021). Elterliche Schulwahlmotive und der Besuch einer Förderschule oder einer allgemeinen Schule bei Kindern mit und Kindern ohne Zuwanderungshintergrund. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:23916
Weishaupt, H. (2021). Wann sind Grundschulen in „sozial schwierigen Lagen“ und was bedeutet dies für Lehrkräfte, Schülerinnen und Schüler? Die Deutsche Schule, 114(1).
2020
Gresch, C., Kuhl, P., Grosche, M., Sälzer, C., & Stanat, P. (Eds.). (2020). Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27608-9
Kocaj, A., Jansen, M., Kuhl, P., & Stanat, P. (2020). Zusammenhänge der Klassenkomposition an Förderschulen und allgemeinen Schulen mit schulischen Kompetenzen, akademischem Selbstkonzept und Interesse [Relations between classroom composition at special education schools and regular schools with individual school achievement, academic self-concept, and interest]. In C. Gresch, P. Kuhl, M. Grosche, C. Sälzer, & P. Stanat (Eds.), Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen (Vol. 39, pp. 213–262). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27608-9_8
2019
Schipolowski, S., Busse, J., Rjosk, C., Mahler, N., Becker, B., & Stanat, P. (2019). IQB-Bildungstrend 2016 - Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik [IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 scaling manual. Documentation of the survey instruments in the subjects German and Mathematics] (Schriftenreihe des Institutes zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen No. Band 10). Berlin: Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB). https://doi.org/10.18452/25471
Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S., Mahler, N., Kohrt, P., & Wittig, J. (2019). IQB-Bildungstrend Primarstufe 2016 (IQB-BT 2016) [IQB Trends in Student Achievement 2016 (IQB-BT 2016)] (Version 2) [Data set]. Berlin: IQB - Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen. https://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_BT_2016_v2
2017
Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S., & Haag, N. (Eds.). (2017). IQB-Bildungstrend 2016: Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich [IQB Trends in Student Achievement. The Second National Assessment of German and Mathematics Proficiencies at the End of Fourth Grade]. Münster, New York: Waxmann. Retrieved from https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/bt/BT2016/Bericht
2016
Kreis, A., Wick, J., & Kosorok Labhart, C. (Eds.). (2016). Netzwerke im Bildungsbereich: Vol. 9. Kooperation im Kontext schulischer Heterogenität. Münster, New York: Waxmann.