| File: | J:\pubs\1996\nsf9652\chapter5.pdf |
|---|
| Pages: | 1 to 6 of 6 |
|---|
| Document Body | Page Navigation Panel | Document Outline |
Future
directions....................................................................................109
Concluding
remarks
................................................................................109
References
...............................................................................................110
makers
about
the
state
of
current
science
and
mathematics
education
and
recommend
areas
for
future
investigation.
The
chapter
reviews
the
frameworks
for
choosing
the
statistical
indicators
in
this
report.
It
also
reflects
on
the
status
of
data
sources
for
the
chosen
indicators
and
suggests
areas
that
require
greater
attention
in
future
volumes
as
well
as
additional
research.
The
selection
of
topics
for
this
report
reflects
the
major
issues
that
are
important
to
the
Directorate
for
Education
and
Human
Resources
(EHR)
of
the
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF).
EHR
is
actively
involved
with
conducting
research
and
supporting
projects
that
lead
to
improvements
in
student
achievement
in
science
and
mathematics
for
all
students
in
the
United
States.
Thus,
the
indicators
in
this
volume
reflect
the
concerns
about
how
the
current
efforts
to
establish
standards
for
science
and
mathematics
education
are
understood
and
implemented.
They
also
reflect
the
changes
that
are
occurring
to
establish
greater
equity
among
male
and
female
students
and
students
of
all
races
and
ethnic
groups.
Indicators
in
the
Current
Volume
The
indicators
presented
in
this
volume
are
a
synthesis
of
available
statistics
about
science
and
mathematics
education.
Authors
selected
them
from
existing
national
surveys.
The
authors
of
this
report
attempted
to
select
indicators
of
evidence
of
change
in
the
Nation’s
mathematics
and
science
education
system.
They
examined
sources
of
data
on
trends
in
student
achievement,
teacher
knowledge
and
practices,
content
of
curriculum,
high
school
coursetaking,
and
changes
in
characteristics
of
postsecondary
students,
graduates,
and
faculty.
The
authors
of
this
volume
selected
indicators
of
shifts
toward
the
standards
of
excellence
and
equity
of
the
education
system
during
the
past
2
decades.
Moreover,
they
selected
indicators
to
monitor
U.S.
efforts
to
reform
the
entire
education
system
by
setting
high
expectations
for
all
students’
performance
and
obtaining
a
greater
alignment
among
components
of
the
education
system.
For
elementary
and
secondary
education,
the
selection
of
indicators
monitors
curriculum
coverage,
teacher
practices,
and
student
achievement.
This
selection
was
influenced
by
national
standards,
which
were
developed
by
profes-
sional
education
associations.
For
postsecondary
education,
the
selection
of
indicators
monitors
the
extent
of
access
to
science
and
engineering
postsecondary
education
by
underrepresented
minorities
and
females.
Many
of
these
indicators
were
informed
by
three
commissioned
reports
about
science
and
mathematics
education.
These
reports
followed
the
Commission
on
Excellence
report
of
1983
that
brought
renewed
national
attention
to
the
need
to
reform
the
elementary
and
secondary
school
system.
The
following
section
reviews
the
recommendations
of
three
of
those
reports
in
light
of
the
topics
addressed
by
this
volume.
Indicators
for
Elementary
and
Secondary
Education
Three
major
reports
were
prepared
during
the
1980s
to
define
issues
of
concern
to
NSF—
u
Educating
Americans
for
the
21st
Century:
A
Plan
of
Action
for
Improving
Mathematics,
Science
and
Technology
Education
for
All
American
Elementary
and
Secondary
Students
so
that
Their
Achievement
Is
the
Best
in
the
World
by
1995,
u
Indicator
Systems
for
Monitoring
Mathematics
and
Science
Education,
and
u
Improving
Indicators
of
the
Quality
of
Science
and
Mathematics Education in Grades K– 12.
These
reports
suggested
means
for
developing
indicators
of
science
and
mathematics
education.
Educating
Americans
for
the
21st
Century
The
Commission
on
Precollege
Education
in
Mathematics,
Science
and
Technology
prepared
a
plan
to
improve
science,
mathematics,
and
technology
education
and
presented
it
to
the
National
Science
Board
in
September
1984.
This
report
said
that
objective
measurement
of
achievement
and
participation
in
mathematics
and
science
was
necessary
and
should
be
performed.
It
recommended
that
the
National
Assessment
of
Educational
Progress
(NAEP),
which
began
in
1968,
be
modified
to
include
assessment
of
states
and
the
Nation
in
order
to
monitor
progress
using
the
most
up-to-date
testing
techniques.
The
report
writers’
assumption
was
that
the
Nation’s
best
students
ranked
equally
with
those
of
any
other
nation,
but
that
the
average
American
stu-
Postscript
Indicator
Systems
In
1987,
the
RAND
Corporation
released
Indicator
Systems
for
Monitoring
Mathematics
and
Science
Education.
This
report
sought
to
identify
for
NSF
a
set
of
indicator
systems
that
would
allow
monitoring
of
precollege
science
and
mathematics
education.
The
report
focused
on
science
and
mathematics
indicators
since
other
agencies,
such
as
the
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
have
major
responsibility
for
collecting
information
on
all
aspects
of
education.
RAND’s
report
suggested
that
a
“patchwork”
of
existing
indicators
be
constructed
from
existing
data
sources
(such
as
NAEP)
and
that
developmental
research
be
undertaken
to
create
better
indicators
that
could
be
used
constructively
by
policy
makers
and
educators.
Specific
recommendations
were
that
u
an
indicator
system
be
developed
both
to
describe
and
to
relate
essential
elements
of
the
mathematics
and
science
education
system;
u
key
indicators
be
developed
for
both
the
national
and
state levels;
u
critical
gaps
in
existing
indicators
and
analytical
methods
be
identified;
u
the
amount
and
quality
of
data
available
on
mathematics
and
science
education
be
expanded;
u
studies
be
conducted
to
analyze
the
causes
of
observed
changes
and
suggest
alternative
policy
implications;
u
new
measures
on
student
achievement
be
developed
to
measure
knowledge
such
as
the
ability
to
think
critically
and
apply
knowledge
in
solving
problems;
u
new
measures
be
developed
on
teacher
quality,
depth
of
coverage,
and
scientific
accuracy
of
the
curriculum;
and
u
procedures
be
developed
to
analyze
and
report
indicators
that
ensure
that
results
are
well
reviewed
and
disseminated
appropriately.
The
report
suggested
a
general
model
for
the
specific
elements
of
an
indicator
system.
This
model
was
organized
around
inputs,
processes,
and
outputs
of
school
systems.
The
system
identified
student
achievement,
attitudes,
and
aspirations
as
the
main
outcomes
of
schooling.
Process
indicators
were
divided
into
curriculum,
instruction,
teaching,
and
school
quality.
Inputs
included
fiscal
resources,
student
background,
and
teacher
quality.
For
each
of
these
areas,
the
report
recommended
99
specific
indicators
that
should
be
monitored,
and
it
linked
them
to
existing
data
sources.
Additionally,
RAND
recommended
that
NSF
develop
state-level
information
and
create
comparisons
of
different
natures
(across
time,
with
normative
standards,
with
other
countries,
and
with
different
populations).
The
report
recommended
that
NSF
not
develop
its
own
expensive
surveys,
but
that
it
develop
new
measures
for
existing
data
collection
efforts
and
develop
new
measures
from
them.
Since
the
report’s
publication,
many
of
the
recommendations
have
been
implemented.
For
instance,
NSF
adopted
this
biennial
indicators
report
with
a
defined
review
process.
Also,
cooperation
between
the
Department
of
Education
and
NSF
has
continued.
This
has
increased
the
amount
of
information
available
about
science
and
mathematics.
In
addition,
the
number
of
state-level
indicators
has
increased.
However,
these
indicators
are
not
yet
as
well
developed
as
the
national
indicators
because
the
sample
sizes
are
too
small
to
permit
comparison
of
change
over
time
for
each
state.
Therefore,
they
cannot
be
reported
regularly
as
evidence
for
change
within
particular
states.
Finally,
as
the
RAND
report
recommended,
researchers
have
performed
some
studies
that
explore
the
causes
of
student
achievement
(DeAngelis
&
Talbert,
1995,
April;
Miller,
1992,
April;
Schiller,
1995,
May
30;
Schneider,
Plank,
&
Wang,
1994,
August;
SuiChu
&
Willms,
1995,
April).
These
studies
provide
alternative
strategies
for
education
policies.
They
are
written
for
the
purpose
of
describing
correlations
between
schooling
experiences
and
student
achievement.
Improving
Indicators
Recommendations
in
Improving
Indicators
of
the
Quality
of
Science
and
Mathematics
Education
in
Grades
K–
12
were
based
on
the
premises
that
u
all
students
need
to
leave
school
with
adequate
knowledge
and
reasoning
skills
to
be
able
to
renew
their
knowledge
of
science
and
mathematics
throughout
their
lives;
and
u
student
learning
is
determined
by
what
teachers
and
students
do
in
schools.
The
report,
written
by
the
Committee
on
Indicators
of
Precollege
Mathematics
and
Science
for
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
reviewed
the
needs
of
the
education
system
and
recommended
a
series
of
topics
that
required
further
development
and
monitoring.
It
recommended
seven
key
indicators
and
a
set
of
supplementary
indicators
to
expand
the
issues.
The
key
indicators
involved
u
learning
among
students,
u
literacy
among
adults,
u
enrollment
in
science
and
mathematics
courses,
u
nature
of
classroom
instruction,
u
teachers’
knowledge,
u
salaries
of
college
graduates,
and
u
quality
of
curriculum
content
in
state
guidelines
and
materials.
The
supplementary
indicators
involved
u
amount
of
time
spent
on
science
and
mathematics
homework,
u
college
courses
completed
by
teachers,
u
teachers’
use
of
time
outside
the
classroom
for
activities
related
to
teaching,
u
materials
used
for
instruction,
u
Federal
financial
support,
and
u
resources
committed
by
scientific
bodies
for
school
improvement.
The
report
recommended
that
these
13
indicators
cover
five
areas:
student
learning,
student
behavior,
teaching
quality,
curriculum
quality,
and
financial
support.
It
recommended
that
u
an
accelerated
program
of
research
and
development
be
carried
out
to
construct
free-response
materials
and
techniques
that
measure
skills
not
measured
with
multiple-
choice
tests—
these
materials
would
help
in
the
development
of
indicators
of
learning
in
science
and
mathematics;
u
information
be
gathered
on
the
number
of
minutes
per
week
that
elementary
students
devote
to
science
and
mathematics,
as
well
as
the
number
of
semesters
of
science
and
mathematics
that
secondary
students
take,
to
develop
indicators
of
student
behavior;
u
teachers
be
tested
on
the
same
content
and
skills
that
their
students
are
expected
to
master
and
that
information
be
gathered
on
teacher
preparation,
such
as
undergraduate
and
graduate
college
coursework,
in
order
to
develop
indicators
of
teaching
quality;
u
exemplary
frameworks
of
science
and
mathematics
content
coverage
be
constructed
for
elementary
and
secondary
grades,
with
the
highest
priority
given
to
early
elementary
and
middle
schools,
in
order
to
develop
indicators
of
curriculum
quality—
the
frameworks
would
be
used
to
match
textbooks,
state
guidelines,
and
materials,
such
as
tests
and
exercises,
to
analyze
the
content
of
the
implemented
curriculum
for
indicators
of
content
coverage;
and
u
a
set
of
accounts
be
developed
on
the
expenditures
of
science
and
mathematics
education
from
departments
and
agencies
of
the
Federal
Government
for
indicators
of
financial
and
leadership
support.
This
volume
incorporated
many
of
the
recommendations
in
Improving
Indicators
of
the
Quality
of
Science
and
Mathematics
Education
in
Grades
K–
12,
including
using
indicators
on
learning
among
students,
coursetaking,
nature
of
instruction,
amount
of
time
spent
on
science
and
mathematics,
courses
completed
by
teachers,
teachers’
use
of
time
outside
the
classroom,
materials
used
for
instruction,
and
Federal
financial
support.
However,
some
recommendations
have
not
yet
been
developed
into
indicators.
The
areas
involve
adult
literacy,
teachers’
knowledge,
and
the
number
of
resources
committed
by
scientific
bodies.
Some
work
is
being
done
to
remedy
this
situation.
For
instance,
measures
of
adult
literacy
currently
are
being
developed
by
NSF.
However,
attempts
to
develop
measures
of
teachers’
knowledge
have
been
difficult
because
of
objections
by
the
teaching
community
that
teacher
assessment
should
not
be
a
concern
of
policy
makers.
Studies
of
resources
committed
to
science
and
mathematics
education
by
government
and
nongovernment
sources
have
not
yet
been
conducted.
This
is
an
important
area
for
future
study.
Other
areas
for
future
study
are
discussed
below.
u
changes
in
governance;
u
number
of
community,
business,
and
school
partnerships;
and
u
integration
of
elementary
and
secondary
school
systems
with
postsecondary
education.
In
addition,
new
indicators
will
be
required
to
u
measure
changes
in
student
achievement,
coursetaking,
and
teaching
practices
for
states;
u
show
the
relationship
between
planned
and
implemented
changes
to
elementary
and
secondary
science
and
mathematics
curriculum,
including
adoption
of
technology,
as
reform
efforts
continue;
u
measure
coursetaking
and
course
content
within
postsecondary
institutions;
u
monitor
the
science
and
mathematics
literacy
of
college
graduates;
and
u
monitor
the
transition
of
graduates
into
the
workforce.
Indicators
will
need
to
be
developed
specifically
for
postsecondary
education,
because
the
sources
of
data
concerning
students
and
faculty
in
undergraduate
institutions
are
limited.
The
issues
of
the
quality
of
teaching
and
learning
in
colleges
and
universities
have
been
infrequently
addressed
in
national
reports
that
review
the
condition
of
science
and
mathematics
education.
Few
data
sources
inquire
about
teaching
practices
or
the
content
covered
by
students.
Also,
the
quality
of
teaching
is
infrequently
covered
in
national
surveys
of
higher
education
or
faculty.
NSF
has
asked
the
Grants
Board
of
the
American
Educational
Research
Association
(AERA)
to
map
out
a
strategy
for
developing
indicators
of
undergraduate
mathematics
education.
The
project
is
developing
a
conceptual
framework
for
indicators
that
will
be
useful
in
monitoring
the
status
of
undergraduate
mathematics
education,
especially
with
respect
to
assessing
effects
of
the
various
reform
initiatives
of
NSF.
The
project
targets
lower
division
programs
for
the
entire
population
of
students,
not
just
those
majoring
in
mathematics.
Concern
is
for
the
broad
spectrum
of
public
and
private
institutions
including
community
colleges,
liberal
arts
colleges,
comprehensive
universities,
and
research
universities.
A
national
panel
of
experts
in
undergraduate
mathematics
education
and
assessment
is
expected
to
release
a
report
in
early
1996.
Undergraduate
indicators
are
proposed
for
u
curriculum
and
instruction—
the
content
and
pedagogy
of
educational
programs;
u
student
outcomes
and
assessment—
what
students
know
about
mathematics
and
how
that
knowledge
is
assessed;
u
student
participation—
the
characteristics
of
students
served
by
mathematics
programs;
and
u
educational
institutions
and
systems—
the
context
within
which
the
teaching
and
learning
of
mathematics
takes
place.
The
recommendations
of
the
AERA
committee
will
form
a
useful
basis
for
restructuring
the
current
data
collection
educational systems of the United States. Yet, as efforts
Miller,
J.D.
(1992,
April).
Persistence
and
success
in
mathematics:
What
we
are
learning
in
the
longitudinal
study
of
American
youth.
Paper
presented
to
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Educational
Research
Association,
San
Francisco,
CA.
Schiller,
K.S.
(1995,
May
30).
So,
you
want
to
go
to
college?
The
SAT
as
an
incentive
system
for
mathematics
achievement
in
high
school.
In
Improving
mathematics
and
science
learning:
A
school
and
classroom
approach.
Second
year
progress
report,
NSF
Grant
RED-9255880.
Schneider,
B.,
Plank,
S.,
&
Wang
H.
(1994,
August).
Output-driven
systems:
Reconsidering
roles
and
incentives
in
schools.
Paper
presented
to
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Sociological
Association,
Los
Angeles,
CA.
Sui-Chu,
E.H.,
&
Willms,
J.D.
(1995,
April).
The
effects
of
parental
involvement
on
eighth
grade
achievement.
Paper
presented
to
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Educational
Research
Association,
San
Francisco,
CA.
Weiss,
I.R.
(1987).
Report
of
the
1985-86
national
survey
of
science
and
mathematics
education.
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC:
Research
Triangle
Institute.
Weiss,
I.R.,
Matti,
M.C.,
&
Smith,
P.S.
(1994).
Report
of
the
1993
national
survey
of
science
and
mathematics
education.
Chapel
Hill,
NC:
Horizon
Research,
Inc.
Chapter 5 References