[01] Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. [02] Fariha Bibi, University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan. [03] Namra Tayyab Saad Iqbal, English Language Department, Preparatory Year Program, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

The study aimed at assessing the Pakistani grade VIII students’ attainment and the factors associated with their performance in science. Secondary analysis of data collected by the National Educational Assessment System (NEAS) from 13371 participants from 742 schools was carried out to investigate these issues. Both OLS linear and multi-level regression analysis revealed that only 9.3% variance can be explained by variables such as student attitudes, parental expectation, time spent on homework, having a desk at home, teacher questioning and school laboratory facilities. More than 90% variance can be attributed to the factors related to provinces, teacher and head-teacher attributes, parent characteristics and some other variables. Only parental expectation of student success shows a significant level 2 school variation. Negative predictors of attainment are family size, extensive text-book coverage, excessive involvement in extra-curricular activities, speaking Punjabi at home, and attending school in Sindh province. Students generally do better in the more developed provinces of the Punjab and the Islamabad Capital Territory. The relatively fewer mixed schools in an otherwise highly segregated system are notable for the under achievement of both boys and girls. From the present study the factors affecting students’ attainment in science were highlighted and it could guide in controlling and manipulating those variables where possible, to improve student achievement in science. Further analysis of the achievement data clearly reveal the effect of mother tongue on students’ performance, and hence implication of using English as a medium of instruction for students’ achievement.

Achievement in Science, Contextual Factors, School Variation, Parental Expectation

[01] Bloom, B. S. (1959). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co In. [02] 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. [03] Carrotte, P. (1999). Turning academics into teachers. In S. Rowland et al. Teaching in Higher Education, 4 (3), 411–14. [04] Chisman, D.G. (1984). Pakistan Science Education: Participation and cooperation for Development Programme. Paris: UNESCO. [05] Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Earlbaum. [06] Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors influencing the academic achievement of the Turkish urban poor. International Journal of Educational Development 29, pp. 17–29. [07] Gary, N. M. (2006). Family size, family type, and student achievement: cross national differences and the role of socioeconomic and school factors,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37, pp. 1-24. [08] Government of Pakistan (1959). Report of the Commission on National Education 1959, Islamabad, Ministry of Education, Islamabad . [09] Government of Pakistan (1979). National Education Policy and Implementation Program, 1979, Ministry of Education, Islamabad. [10] Hathaway, R. M. (2005) Introduction. In R.M. Hathaway (ed.) Education Reform in Pakistan: Building for the Future pp. 1_14. Washington, DC: International Center for Scholars. [11] Hill, J. C. &Tanveer, S. A. (1990) Developing a Program to Improve Science Education in Pakistan: A Six Year Implementation Cycle. Science Education, 74 (2), pp. 241-251. [12] Hoffman, K. M., & Stage, E. K. (1993). Science for all: Getting it right for the 21st century. Educational Leadership, 50(5), 27-31. [13] Iqbal, H. M. & Bashir, M. (2006) Elementary Students' Achievement in Science: A comparison with TIMSS Results. Science, Technology & Development, Islamabad, 25 (4), pp. 1-6. [14] Iqbal, H. M. & Mahmood, N., (2000). Science teacher education in Pakistan: Policies and practices. In Abell, S. K. (Ed). (2000). Science teacher education: An international perspective. London, Kluwer Academic Publishers. [15] Iqbal, H. M. (2004) Education in Pakistan Today. Personal communication, University of the Punjab, Lahore. [16] Iqbal, H. M., &Shayer, M. (1995). Distribution of Piagetian cognitive levels in middle school students and its match with science curricula. Bulletin of Education and Research, Lahore, XVII–XVIII (1, 2), 42-48. [17] Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., &Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, pp. 1019–1041. [18] Krueger, A. and Lindahl, M. (2001). Education and Growth: Why and for Whom? Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 1101-1136. [19] Lindahl, M. (2005). Home versus school learning: a new approach to estimating the effect of class size on achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 107 (2), pp. 375–394. [20] Luke, D. A. (2004) Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications Inc. [21] Nation (2009, September 15) Education in Ruins. The Nation. Editorial. On WWW at http://www.nation.com.pk/E-Paper/Lahore/2009-09-15/page-6.(Accessed 15.10.09). [22] Nuttall, E. V., Nuttall, R. L., Polit, D., & Hunter, J. B., (1976). The effects of family size, birth order, sibling separation and crowding on the academic achievement of boys and girls. American Educational Research Journal, 3, pp. 217-223. [23] Salahuddin, N. &Salahuddin, I (1998) Reforming medical education. In P. Hoodbhoy (ed.). Education and the State. Fifty years of Pakistan, pp.308-343. Karachi: Oxford University Press. [24] Short, D. J. &Spanos, G. (1989). Teaching mathematics to limited English proficient students. Retrieved from www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/english.htm [25] Spurlin, Q. (1995) Making science comprehensible for language minority students. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 6(2), pp. 71-78. [26] Ukeje, B. O. (1999). Teacher education in Nigeria: Current status, 21st century challenges and strategies for improvement. Paper presented at the Inter-University Collaborative Workshop on Teacher Education at the University of Jos, Nigeria. [27] Young, D. J., (1998). Rural and Urban Differences in Student Achievement in Science and Mathematics: A Multilevel Analysis, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(4), pp. 386 — 418 [28] Youngman, M. B. (1979) Analysing Social and Educational Research Data. London: McGraw Hill.