___

• Adeogun, A. A., & Osifila, G. I. (2008). Relationship between educational resources and students’ academic performance in Lagos State Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Management, 5(6), 144-153. Retrieved from http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/ejournals/ijern
• Akyüz, G. (2014). TIMSS 2011’de öğrenci ve okul faktörlerinin matematik başarısına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 150-162. Retrieved from: http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/2867
• Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2009. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 182-192. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.03.006.
• Anıl, D. (2009). Uluslararası öğrenci başarılarını değerlendirme programı (PISA)’nda Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen bilimleri başarılarını etkileyen faktörler. Eğitim ve Bilim, Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(152 ), 87-100. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/594/74
• Atar, H. Y. (2014). Öğretmen niteliklerinin TIMSS 2011 fen başarısına çok düzeyli etkileri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 121-137. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/2894
• Atar, H. Y., & Atar, B. (2012). Examining the effects of Turkish Education reform on students’ TIMSS 2007 science achievements. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2632-2636. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1002867.pdf
• Aypay, A., Erdogan, M., & Sozer, M. A. (2007). Variation among schools on classroom practices in science based on TIMSS-1999 in Turkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(10), 1417-1435. doi: 10.1002/tea.20202
• Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & Letendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman Loxley Effect” on Mathematics and Science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291-312. doi: 10.1086/341159
• Batyra, A. (2017). Gender gaps in student achievement in Turkey: Evidence from the programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2015. Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative.
• Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2016). Who are the most disadvantaged? Factors associated with the achievement of students with low socio-economic backgrounds. Educational Sciences: Theory &Practice, 16(2), 691-710. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.2.0257
• Berberoğlu, G., (2004). Student learning achievement. Paper Commissioned for the Turkey ESS. World Bank, Washington, DC.
• Bilican-Demir, S. (2018). The effect of teaching quality and teaching practices on PISA2012 mathematics achievement of Turkish students. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(4), 645-658. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.463409
• Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Boedeker, P. (2017). Hierarchical linear modeling with maximum likelihood, restricted maximum likelihood, and fully bayesian estimation. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 22(2), 1-19.
• Börkan, B., & Bakış, O. (2016). Determinants of academic achievement of middle schoolers in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(6), 2193-2217. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.6.0227
• Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J., (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2), 55-71. doi: 10.2307/1602387
• Buchmann, C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual review of Sociology, 27, 77-103. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.77
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (4. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1996). School resources and student outcomes: an overview of the literature and new evidence from North and South Carolina. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(4), 31-40. doi: 10.3386/w5708
• Chevalier, A., & Lanot, G., (2002). The relative effect of family characteristics and financial situation on educational achievement. Education Economics 10(2), 165-181. doi: 10.1080/09645290210126904
• Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321-336. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.003 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
• Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartlant, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfall, F.D., & York, R.L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06389.v3
• Çiftçi, Ş. K. (2015). Effects of secondary school student’ perceptions of mathematics education quality on mathematics anxiety and achievement. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1487-1502. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.6.2829
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of the state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1), 1-30. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
• Dayioğlu, M., & Türüt-Aşik, S. (2007). Gender differences in academic performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher Education, 53(2), 255-77. doi: 10.2307/29735052
• Dincer, M. A., & Uysal, G. (2010). The determinants of student achievement in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(6), 592-598. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.05.005
• Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development. The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist, 56(6), 497-504. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.497
• Enders, C. K. & Tofighi, D. D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue, Psychol. Methods, 12(2), 121-138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
• Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors influencing the academic achievement of the Turkish urban poor. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.03.003
• Erberber, E., Stephens, M., Mamedova, S., Ferguson, S., & Kroeger, T. (2015). Socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are academically successful: Examining academic resilience crossnationally. IEA’s Policy Brief Series, No. 5, Amsterdam, IEA.
• Farkas, G., Sheehan, D., & Grobe, R.P. (1990). Coursework mastery and school success: gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. American Educational Research Journal 27(4), 807-827. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102 /00028312027004807
• Ferreira, F. H., & Gignoux, J., (2010). Inequality of opportunity for education: Turkey. In: R. Kanbur & S. Michael (Eds.), Equity and growth in a globalizing world. Commission on growth and development (pp. 131-156). Washington DC: The World Bank.
• Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2007.0022
• Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research 64(1), 122-131. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001119
• Gamboa, L. F., & Waltenberg, F. D. (2012). Inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in Latin America: Evidence from PISA 2006–2009. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 694-708. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.05.002
• Gelbal, S. (2008). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyoekonomik özelliklerinin türkçe başarısı üzerinde etkisi. Egitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 1-13. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/626/96
• Gevrek, Z. E., & Seiberlich, R. R. (2014). Semiparametric decomposition of the gender achievement gap: An application for Turkey. Labour Economics, 31, 27-44. Retrievd from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.08.002
• Gill, J. (2003). Hierarchical linear models. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement. New York, NY: Academic.
• Glewwe, P., Kremer, M., Moulin, S., & Zitzewitz, E. (2004). Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: The case of flip charts in Kenya. J. Dev. Econ., 74(1), 251-268. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2003.12.010
• Güvendir, M. A. (2014). Öğrenci başarılarının belirlenmesi sınavında öğrenci ve okul özelliklerinin Türkçe başarısı ile ilişkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172), 163-180.
• Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164. doi: 10.3102/01623737019002141
• Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 481-502. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v22y2003i5p481-502.html
• Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1983). The effect of primary school quality on academic achievement across 29 high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology 88(6), 1162-1194.
• Hox J. J. (1995). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT-Publicaties.
• Hox, J. J. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why. In I. Balderjahn, R. Mathar, & M. Schader (Eds.), Classification, data analysis, and data highways (pp. 147–154). Berlin: Springer.
• Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analyses: Techniques and applications (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociol. Educ. 74(4), 318-340. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2673138
• Kalaycıoglu, D. B. (2015). The influence of socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and anxiety on mathematics achievement in England, Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the USA. Educ Sci: Theory Pract., 15(5), 1-11. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.5.2731
• Kalender, I., & Berberoglu, G. (2009). An assessment of factors related to science achievement of Turkish students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1379-1394. doi: 10.1080/09500690801992888
• Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17, 137-152. doi: 10.1037/a0028086
• Kreft, I. G. G. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies (Unpublished manuscript). California State University, Los Angeles.
• Krueger, A.B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F34-F63. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00098
• Leon, G., & Valdivia, M. (2015). Inequality in school resources and academic achievement: Evidence from Peru. International Journal of Educational Development 40, 71–84. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.015
• Ma, X., (2001). Stability of socioeconomic gaps in mathematics and science achievement among Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of Education 26 (1), 97-118. doi: 10.2307/1602147
• Ma, X., & Klinger, D. A. (2000). Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(1), 41-55. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86-92. doi: 10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86
• McNeish, D. M., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295-314. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x
• National Ministry of Education (MoNE), (2007). Report on student assessment program (SAP) 2005: Mathematics. Ankara: MoNE Directorate of Education and Instruction.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 Results: Excellence and Equity in Education (Vol. I). Paris: OECD.
• Osborne, J. W. (2000). Advantages of hierarchical linear modeling. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(1), 1-3.
• Özberk, E. H., Atalay- Kabasakal, K., & Boztunç-Öztürk, N. (2017). Investigating the factors affecting Turkish students’ PISA 2012 mathematics achievement using hierarchical linear modeling. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(3), 544-559. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017026950
• Özdemir, C. (2016). Equity in the Turkish education system: A multilevel analysis of social background influences on the mathematics performance of 15-year-old students. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 193-217. doi: 10.1177/1474904115627159
• Parcel, T.L., & Dufur, J.M., (2001). Capital at home and at school: effects on student achievement. Social Forces 79 (3), 881-911. doi: 10.1353/sof.2001.0021
• Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.
• Petrill, S. A., & Wilkerson, B. (2000). Intelligence and achievement: A behavioral genetic perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 185-199. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009023415516
• Phan, H. T. (2008). Correlates of mathematics achievement in developed and developing countries: an hlm analysis of timss 2003 eighth-grade mathematics scores (Doctoral dissertation).University of South Florida.
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
• Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta‐ analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. doi: 10.3102/00346543075003417
• Smits, J., & Gündüz-Hoşgör, A. (2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Research, 26(5), 545-560. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.02.002
• Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
• Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729. doi: 10.1177/00131610021969173
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed). New York, NY: Pearson Education
• Tavşancıl, E., & Yalçın, S. (2015). A determination of Turkish student’s achievement using hierarchical linear models in trends in ınternational mathematics-science study (TIMSS) 2011. Anthropologist, 22(2), 390-396. doi: 10.1080/09720073.2015.11891891
• The United Nations Children's Fund, (2016). Gender equality in secondary education. a literature review for UNICEF, NATCOM and Aydın Doğan Foundation.
• Van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’ and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159-173. doi: 10.1080/0305569032000159804
• Veenstra, R., & Kuyper, H. (2004). Effective students and families: The importance of individual characteristics for achievement in high school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 41-70. doi: 10.1076/edre.10.1.41.26302
• Willms, J.D., (1996). Indicators of mathematics achievement in Canadian elementary schools. In: HRDC (Eds.), Growing up in Canada: National longitudinal study of children and youth (pp. 69-82). Ottawa, Ontario: Human Resources Development Canada and Statistics.
• Willms, D. J., Somers, M. A. (2001). Family, classroom, and school effects on children’s educational outcomes in Latin America. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 12(4), 409-445.
• Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 52-69. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p052
• Wößmann, L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(2), 117-170. doi: 10.1111/1468-0084.00045
• Yalçın, S., Demirtaşlı, R. N., İlgün-Dibek, M., & Yavuz, H. Ç. (2017). The effect of teacher and student characteristics on TIMSS 2011 mathematics achievement of fourth-and eighth-grade students in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(3), 79-94.
• Yavuz, H. Ç., Demirtaşlı, R. N., Yalçın, S., & İlgün-Dibek, M. (2017). The effects of student and teacher level variables on TIMSS 2007 and 2011 mathematics achievement of Turkish students. Education and Science, 42(189), 27-47. doi: 10.15390/EB.2017.6885
• Yavuz, E., Tan, Ş., & Atar, H., Y. (2019). Effects of students and school variables on SBS achievements and growth in mathematic. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 10(1), 96-116. doi: 10.21031/epod.493297