The State of Science Education
May 25, 2006
Guests:
Kevin Bushweller (Moderator):
Welcome to today's chat about the release of the NAEP science results and what they tell us about the state of science education in the United States. The results have generated concern among educators and policymakers and raised a number of questions about how the nation's schools can improve science education. Many of those questions will be addressed in this chat, so let's get the discussion started ...
Sean Cavanagh:
In sum, the scores show 4th grade students making progress in science achievement, while scores among 8th grade students were relatively flat. Gains among 4th graders were strongest among the lowest-performing students, and the increases among minority students -- particularly Latinos -- were especially strong.
The most discouraging results for many school officials are shown among 12th graders, whose scores rose by a point from 2000 to 2005 -- but whose overall performance has fallen since 1996. Since 1996, the percentage of 12th grade students who could deemed "proficient" in science has fallen; the portion of high schoolers whose skills meet even the "basic" level also fell. Keep in mind that to meet the basic threshold, a student need only to be able to demonstrate "some knowledge and certain reasoning abilities" for understanding Earth, life, and physical science.
The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) show U.S. 4th graders ranking 9th out of 25 countries in science knowledge, with a score of 518, while Japanese students ranked third, with a 565. Japanese students also outperformed U.S. students at the 8th grade level, too, though the gap was narrower. That trend on TIMMS dates as far back as 1995, and while U.S. students have made greater gains in scores than Japanese students in the eight years since then, the gap persists. (Singapore, by the way, tops all participating nations at 4th and 8th grade.)
Question from Nancy Vawter, Education Specialist, Montgomery Public Schools:
Is there anything in the research that states that students do not receive their first science class until 6th grade? Science and Social studies are the classes that are exempted in Elementary School when students are having trouble with math or reading.
Michael Padilla:
NSTA and most science educators believe that the elementary grades are critical to the scientific development of children. So no—I know of no research or competent educators who believe that science should be ignored until 6th grade. One reason that both reading and mathematics have taken precedence in elementary grades is that these are the subjects that have been tested and counted for AYP. The stakes are high and principals and teachers have focused time and attention on these two subjects. BUT, this is about to change. Beginning next year, science will also be tested, and, while it is unclear whether science results will count for AYP, just the very act of testing it and making the scores public should change the attention and time science will get in the curriculum.
"NAEP conducted several small-scale special studies of computer based testing in the early 2000's in mathematics, writing, and science/technology. The purpose of these studies was to examine the feasibility of moving NAEP to computer-based assessments. Overall results of the studies indicated that such assessments were feasible for NAEP.
For 2009, the Governing Board's new Science Framework includes a section on interactive computer tasks (ICTs). A sample of students in the main assessment will take a 30-minute ICT in addition to the 50-minute paper and pencil portion of the exam. Examples of science ICTs include simulated experiments and information search/analysis tasks. Students will respond on the computer and their responses will be scored electronically. ICTs will be given to subsamples of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. This will be the first time that a main NAEP assessment will contain a computer-based component.
For the new 2011 NAEP in Writing, the Governing Board is considering a completely computer-based assessment. The current recommendation from the Board's contractor, ACT, and the Writing Project Committees is to administer the 2011 writing assessment via computer at grades 4, 8, and 12. Student responses would be scored electronically as well. The Board is currently gathering feedback on this and other 2011 Writing Framework recommendations (see www.nagb.org).
Additional computer-based NAEP assessments are being planned for the future."
From Sean Cavanagh: For more information on the various issues to consider with regard computer-based testing on NAEP, look at a study published in 2003 by the National Center for Education Statistics. It is titled, "NAEP Validity Studies: Implications of Electronic Technology for the NAEP Assessment."
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/200316.pdf
Michael Padilla:
That’s an excellent question. It doesn’t take an acute observer to see that student textbooks are getting larger and heavier each year. But there is an insidious cycle that causes this. Most states and districts create their frameworks based upon the National Education Standards and the AAAS Benchmark. What I have observed is that nothing is ever left out and oftentimes topics are added to this list. Textbook companies, in response to the marketplace, create books that match the frameworks. The consequences of leaving anything out of your text is not getting it adopted, so they make sure that does not happen. So, the books get bigger and bigger. The textbook companies blame the schools and the schools blame the companies.
At some point we are going to have to figure out what needs to be eliminated. As the amount of scientific knowledge increases, we cannot continue simply to add more to the curriculum.
(I teach in these ways, and have never had a problem with lack of interest. Kids eat it up.)
John Shacter Kingston, TN jsplg@comcast.net
Michael Padilla:
I wouldn't call them problems, but rather issues or challenges. Trying to keep young children and adolescents interested is a challenge to all science teachers. I agree that treating science as a dry and somewhat boring topic is a recipe for boredom. I also like your notion of looking at the practical applications of science as a way to grab interest. There are numerous other ways including getting students actively involved, making sure students have an opportunity to voice their own opinions, teaching in a manner that gets students intellectually engaged (inquiry) and using the outdoors whenever possible. The list could go on and on. I am delighted you are so positive and are having such success.
Is NSTA doing anything to chronicle the impact this phenomenon is having on teacher preparation, textbook content, pedagogy and/or student readiness?
What does NSTA recommend that those of us 'in the trenches' do to stand up to those who bully local school boards regarding these issues?
Sean Cavanagh:
Mike may want to weigh in on this one, too. But I know that NSTA has taken a strong position, reiterated over the past year, about the basic ground rules of science, with respect to the entire debate over evolution. In general, NSTA said public school science classes were not appropriate venues for ideas such as intelligent design and creationism, concepts that the teachers' association -- and the vast majority of scientists -- consider unscientific.
In terms of chronicling the problem, as you see it, NSTA conducted a survey in 2005 on the experiences of teachers in covering the topic of evolution, specifically. We cited it in a recent story:
The National Science Teachers Association conducted an informal poll of its members on the pressure they face to teach alternatives to evolution in their classes. The survey of 1,050 respondents found:
• 31 percent said they felt pressured to teach creationism, intelligent design, or other alternatives to evolution that the NSTA deems “nonscientific.”
• 22 percent of those teachers indicated that the pressure came from students, and 20 percent said it came from parents.
• Only 5 percent said pressure to omit evolution came from administrators or principals.
• 85 percent said they felt prepared to explain to students the importance of understanding evolution.
• 62 percent said they believed they were successful at helping parents and others understand why teaching evolution is important.
SOURCE: National Science Teachers Association, March 2005
Michael Padilla:
Personally, I think technology can be a great asset, but not the total answer in the science classroom. There is not space here to list all the ways that technology can help, but just considering the advantages for collecting, organizing and displaying data gets me excited as a science teacher. To me the combination of science and technology is a natural. Let's be careful though. Nothing will replace a thoughtful and skillful science teacher who can motivate and challenge students.
Sean Cavanagh:
I have written a bit about this in the past. By the 2007-2008 school year, schools will be required to test students in science at three different grade spans in science. Some science educators fear that in order to improve test scores, teachers may be forced to strip lab works and investigations from their courses, and focus more on "direct instruction," in general, more straightforward presentation of scientific facts -- which in turn, will result in lecture-type teaching and rote memorization of facts.
Those advocates also note that creating tests that measure students' abilities to conduct sound investigations, through lab work, isn't easy. If that sort of investigative work is not tested, they say, it won't be taught. Whether these worries play out remain to be seen.
One note: Under No Child Left Behind, states' science tests do not currently factor into schools' adequate yearly progress results, as is the case with reading and math scores. Member of the Congress, and the Bush Administration, have voiced support for including science in that "yearly progress" mix, reasoning that it will encourage schools to take that subject seriously.
Sean Cavanagh:
In general, state science standards have a big influence on what gets taught in classes these days, because the content of state tests is supposed to be based on them. Some state officials that didn't score well on the science NAEP would no doubt argue that the content of their standards, and what gets taught at various grade levels -- is different that what is tested on the 4th, 8th, and 12th grade levels.
That aside, if you're interested in investigating this further, you might look at some of the work on the topic of state science standards conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, in Washington. In December of 2005, Fordham published an analysis of various state standards, and found that two-thirds of science standards earned a "C" grade or worse. In general Fordham has found that too many of science standards are unorganized and incoherent; and that they wrongly emphasize that students acquire knowledge through in-class experimentation, rather than through building understanding of core scientific facts and content.
In that Fordham review, just seven states scores an "A" grade: California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia.
In the NAEP results, a few of those states -- CA, VA, and SC -- saw significant score increases at 4th and 8th grade levels. Not all of those states saw jumps on their scores, though, so it might be unwise to draw too many hard-and-fast conclusions.
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/index.cfm release
The teachers involved in the experiment were pleased with the results and the calendar. It allowed time for shorter, more frequent breaks during the year and helped teachers stay refreshed. An increase in salary was not one of the options because teachers and students were in class for about the same number of days.
I would be concerned if we extended the school year without addressing other workplace issues like number of preps or increased planning time.
Sean Cavanagh:
Ms. Hitri,
You're in luck, there is data that looks at this issue, which is available online. I got there with some help from some folks at the National Assessment Governing Board, and I'll try to get you started. There is information on the correlation between teacher experience and student performance, teacher demographics, and so so.
Go to the home page for the results:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
Then go to "analyze data." Then the "data explorer," function, then click on "go to advanced." After that, you will be asked to specify info on what grade level you're interested in, what subject, what testing year, and the teacher information you want. It takes a while to sort through it, but I believe the info is there if you search it out.
Michael Padilla:
Good pre-service programs are critical to the development of new teachers. I have spent my life working to improve education at this level. So, for what its worth, here’s my opinion on the few things (couldn’t keep it at just one!) we need to do.
1. Make sure prospective teachers major in a discipline. Having content expertise is critical for becoming a good teacher. At secondary, this would be a science discipline. For elementary and middle grades, it might be any of a handful of fields. 2. Make sure prospective teachers know how to teach. They need to have knowledge of students, the curriculum, teaching strategies, and most importantly, subject matter pedagogy. This latter area of knowledge is critical in science. Teachers must know what problems students will have with certain concepts—genetics, for example—and what teaching strategies can be utilized to remediate the problems. 3. Follow new teachers into the workplace. We know that the dropout rate for new teachers is high (30-35%) in the first 5 years. We also know that almost any help and support we can give to these teachers helps them stay in the profession. Universities must step up to the plate in providing some of this support.
There’s probably a lot more, but those ore the top ideas for now.
Having teachers with strong content knowledge in science is a key, as many experts have said. It's hard for a teacher at any grade level to cover scientific material with the sort of flair that will engage students, if that teacher's content knowledge is shaky to begin with. This is especially true in middle and high school, where the scientific material becomes more demanding. Many effective teachers have said they were able to keep students interested in potentially daunting scientific material by drawing connections to applications in the world outside the classroom -- through ongoing activities and projects, discussions of scientific topics in the news, that are directly linked to specific content.
Sean Cavanagh:
While a lot of attention at the state and district level has been paid to reading and math in recent years (partly because of testing demands in that area), there's been considerable work in science, too.
I worked on a project last fall that examined how the topic of evolution is treated in state's science standards (answer: very unevenly). One thing that become obvious in my review was that state science standards are in in constant flux -- and that many have become much more detailed in their expectations for what students know in all scientific disciplines. In the last five years or so, many states have also published far more detailed secondary materials for teachers, aimed at providing more minute detail on what should be taught in particular areas of science -- and what types of questions students will face on state assessments. (Some of this is detailed in a story published on Nov. 9, 2005.)
Sean Cavanagh:
While this doesn't address the language "descent with modification..." specifically, I can answer your question this way:
I wrote a story in December of last year about how often different states test students about the theory of evolution on their assessments. (It varied, with some states asking up to a dozen question about the concept, and others asking none.) By comparison, I looked at how often NAEP covers the question.
NCES officials told me that on the 2005 version of the test, 12th graders were quizzed about four items that referred specifically to evolution and five others that covered related concepts, making up 4 percent of the 209 total questions. (At that time, they would not release the specific language of the 2005 questions. You might look online at the items NAEP released this week, though I didn't see an evolution-related item on there.)
On the 2000 NAEP science test, 51 percent of 12th graders picked the correct answer on a multiple-choice question from about different aspects of evolution. (I believe the language of this items is available on NAEP's web site.)
Here's a sample evolution-related question from the 2000 NAEP, which was released:
Which of the following is NOT a part of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection?
A) Individuals in a population vary in many ways.
B) Some individuals possess features that enable them to survive better than individuals lacking those features.
C) More offspring are produced than can generally survive.
D) Changes in an individual's genetic material are usually harmful. (correct answer.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether to emphasize "inquiry-based" science, as opposed to critical thinking, as you describe it, has been a source of debate when it comes to the NAEP test, as is among the scientific and education community at large.
Officials on the policy-making board for the NAEP have said in the past that they've tried to strike a balance between these two approaches on the science test. Last year, the board approved a new "framework," or basic outline for the next science test, in 2009, that places a greater emphasis on science content. As we reported last fall: "The revamped framework, or outline for science content on NAEP, will increase the proportion of questions focused on factual scientific knowledge and application to 60 percent, up from 45 percent now. The National Assessment Governing Board, the federal panel that sets NAEP policy, approved the framework Nov. 18."
It should be noted that others, including the Fordham Foundation, have been critical of the NAEP science test for what it saw as the exam's overemphasis on "discovery learning," as opposed to basic science facts and content.
Michael Padilla:
I am not an expert on alternative education. We have a very successful local program that fulfills the needs of students who, for whatever reasons, cannot seem to make it in regular classes. I think these important programs help students finish high school when in the past they might have dropped out. I do get concerned about the quality of science offered to these students. We have to ensure that they get opportunities to experience real science, not just read about it in books.
Michael Padilla:
You ask a tough question! If we weren’t human, of course, we could just make all new teachers, science and math teachers. That would certainly solve our shortage. But the reality is that not everyone has the interest or ability to teach science. Somehow we have to find a way to convince those with these abilities to do so. The only way I know to do this is to improve both the work conditions and salary and then go out and sell our profession to those with talent. Finally, don't forget that we still need great elementary teachers, too, and that all elementary teachers are teachers of science. Our challenge at this level is to give elementary teachers the knowledge and confidence to become good at it so that when students enter middle school, they are ready for the challenge.
Should specific science benchmarks be assigned to certain grade levels for ALL students in our country?
How can the United States become more competitive with other countries in the fields of science and engineering? Have we lost our competitive edge?
Sean Cavanagh:
LaMoine,
You're asking about one of the longest-running debates in education -- one that tends to emerge in force with the release of international comparisons of student skill in math and science. We're a nation of state and local control over education curriculum, of course, but hen international tests like PISA or TIMSS show U.S. students getting trounced by foreign nations, particularly Asian ones, a lot of math and science researchers are quick to point out that many foreign countries have national standards, and, in general, a stronger alignment between what gets taught in math and science classes, what gets tested, and what's in textbooks -- compared to the United States, where what gets taught changes from state to state, and sometimes, from school to school.
There are arguments others make against national standards, of course. One that I've heard -- especially during recent discussions of ways to improve U.S. students' math and science skills, and the country's long-term competitiveness -- is that the entrepreneurship and innovation of the U.S. economy somehow derives in part from the freedom and flexibility given to local schools to shape curricula as they see fit.
Diane Ravitch, a former assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush, has written about the need for national standards in education. Here's an excerpt from an online chat she did with Ed Week on Jan. 18 of this year:
Q: "How would national standards take into consideration geographical and demographic differences and needs? How would it be unlike a "one size fits all" education and still meet the needs of a widely diverse society?"
Diane Ravitch: "Let's take math and science as starting points. We should have national standards in both subjects because there are already implicit international standards and our students fall way behind. If we had strong clear explicit national standards in those subjects, then teachers would know what they are expected to teach, textbooks would align their content to match the standards, tests would reflect the standards, and teacher education would embed those standards when preparing future teachers. Would this produce one-size-fits-all? I don't think so. For one thing, teachers could use whatever teaching style they like best. Instruction could be tailored to meet the needs of students. But the fundamental knowledge and skills that our children need to know in math and science would be laid out clearly for all to see and teach and learn. There is not a different kind of math or science in different parts of the city or state or nation."
And more from Ms. Ravitch:
"What we have now is a highly decentralized system in which the education children get depends on what district they live in, what school they enroll in, what teacher they happen to get assigned to. How to change it? If we really had national standards, whether privately managed or set by a government entity, I believe that states would feel compelled to teach to those standards, if they are truly the best in the nation. I suppose that states could say, "we don't want to participate," but how embarrassing that would be vis a vis the public and teachers!"
A couple points --
This is obviously a major focus on what's going on at the federal level, where the Bush administration has proposed expanding an existing competitive-grant program that allows states, school districts, and nonprofits to receive federal money for training teachers to lead AP courses. Several congressional proposals are aimed at the recruitment/ retention issue.
Often lost in this discussion is the fact that there's already a ton of activity occuring at the state level in this area. At least 31 states have financial incentives in place to address subject-area shortages in different topics of K-12 education—including math and science—according to the study, produced by the Denver-based Education Commission of the States.
That report -- published in April -- also notes that 17 states currently offer monetary incentives to lure teachers to “hard-to-staff” schools.
Thank you for joining us for this informative chat about the NAEP science results and what lessons might be learned from them about how to improve science education in the United States. And a special thanks to our guests, who took the time to answer your questions. This chat is now over. A transcript of the discussion will be posted shortly on www.edweek.org.
All questions are screened by an edweek.org editor and the guest speaker prior to posting. A question is not displayed until it is answered by the guest speaker. Due to the volume of questions received, we cannot guarantee that all questions will be answered, or answered in the order of submission. Guests and hosts may decline to answer any questions. Concise questions are strongly encouraged.
Please be sure to include your name and affiliation when posting your question.
Edweek.org's Online Chat is an open forum where readers can participate in a give- and-take discussion with a variety of guests. Edweek.org reserves the right to condense or edit questions for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. Transcripts may also be reproduced in some form in our print edition. We do not correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone.
Please read our privacy policy and user agreement if you have questions.
—Chat Editors
Advertisement
Advertisement
K-12 Industry Solutions
The Tennessee Vocabulary ProjectASCD
Building 21st Century Skills with Project LearningOracle Education Foundation
Transform Learning with Interactive Video CommunicationTandberg
Blended Learning: The Intersection of Online and Face-to-Face InstructionBlackboard K-12
The Achilles Heel of Education and How to Fix ItAPQC Education
Performance Measurement: Measuring What Matters MostBaldrige National Quality Program
The Research Foundation for Successful ReaderRenaissance Learning
View a complete list of archived and upcoming webinars at our event calendar page. Past events include "Making Algebra Easier" and "Quality Counts 2009: Portrait of a Population."
Browse our exclusive directory of more than 200 K-12 professional development products and services.
Advertisement
Advertisement