Few
international research projects have had the impact of the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Indeed, it
is the largest- and considered by many the most important- international
study of educational achievement ever undertaken.
The
scale of the study is extraordinary, involving some 45 countries,
targeting 9- and 13-year-olds, students in their last year of
secondary school and their teachers and administrators.
"I
think TIMSS is the best opportunity for us in the educational
research community to have a positive affect on education in this
country" said William Schmidt, professor in the Department
of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education and
national research coordinator for TIMSS. "This is the biggest
and one of the most complicated studies ever done and may be the
only study of its kind. But I think we have the right sort of
data to inform the debate regarding our educational policy."
The
study, sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (lEA), goes beyond identifying which
countries have the smartest math and science students. Instead,
researchers have analyzed textbooks and curriculum guides in an
effort to understand what works well in teaching math and science
and why.
Amid
a packed audience of news media at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., Schmidt released the much-awaited results in
October, 1996. The report, entitled A Splintered Vision: An
Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education, characterizes
American math and science education as a "mile wide and an
inch deep." More specifically, Schmidt said that analysis
of the thousands of textbooks and curriculum guides from the 45
countries reveals that America's math and science education is
unfocused and includes many more lessons than are used in other
nations. The result is that "there is no focus," Schmidt
said of mathematics and science curriculum.
In
November, 1996, TIMSS officials released the result of seventh
and eighth grade achievement tests. In math, U.S. students ranked
24th and 28th, respectively. In science, the U.S. students ranked
13th and 17th, respectively. In addition to the unfocused curriculum,
TIMSS found that American math and science education is too inclusive
and not as thorough as in other nations. U.S. math and science
teachers not only cover more subjects, but add many more topics
throughout the early grades. TIMSS found that U.S. math and science
teachers commonly planned to drop no topics until grade 7. The
result is that American science and math teachers devote small
amounts of instructional time to many more topics than in other
countries.
Another
troubling finding was that the instruction was geared to "the
lowest common denominator." Schmidt said that advanced math,
often reserved for the highest achievers in the U.S., is considered
basic knowledge in other countries. The splintered vision, the
report states, is pervasive and "is seen in planning, textbooks,
and actual teaching." Schmidt said textbooks feed the unfocused
approach by including more topics than comparable books from other
countries. For example, from U.S. fourth grade science textbooks
investigated, the five topics receiving most textbook space accounted
for about 25 percent of the textbook. Internationally, however,
the five most emphasized topics accounted for 70 to 75 percent
of the text books.
These
findings have resonated within the educational community and have
been noted at the highest levels of government. President Clinton
referred to the study in a February speech, when calling for national
standards. "In Germany and Singapore, students learn 15 to
20 math subjects in depth every year," the president said
in a speech in March that also drew on TIMSS data. "Typically,
in the United States, we learn more than 35 subjects every year
in a superficial way. Then we have those comparative tests, and
they normally win."
For
Schmidt, the image of an American math teacher moving quickly
from one lesson to the next in order to cover the material is
in stark contrast to the curricula structure used in countries
where students outperform U.S. students on achievement tests.
In the end, the report summarizes its finding simply. As a nation,
we are not achieving at the level we should be in math and science
education. Changes are needed.
"'What
of the nation's students? Will they be able to effectively compete
with international peers in mathematics and the sciences? With
the 'playing floor' we have given them, successful competition
would be extraordinary," the report concludes. "Our
students at times are extraordinary, as are our teachers, but
that cannot be an assumption when setting educational policy.
Our 'basics' content and goals are not as demanding or well organized
as those in other countries. Our textbooks do not present material
designed to produce high student achievement. We must make changes
in order to compete and produce a quantitative, scientifically
literate, proficient workforce and citizenry."
Other
findings:
- U.S.
mathematics and science text books analyzed included far more
topics than were typical internationally at all grade levels
analyzed.
- The
composite U.S. curricula in mathematics and science shows that
we add as many new topics as other countries, but failed to
drop topics until secondary school.
- U.S.
eighth grade math and science teachers teach far more topic
areas than their counterparts in Germany and Japan. This also
is true for science teachers, even when using a single area
textbook (physical science, life science).
- U.S.
science and mathematics teachers teach more class periods per
week than their counterparts in Germany and Japan.
- State
mathematics and science curriculum guides, plans, and statements
of intentions still require coverage of more topics than most
other countries. This is more topics than would be indicated
by current reform agendas in math and science education.
- The
U.S. composite math curricula contained all of the international
composite and more. Unfortunately, that "and more"
reflects the typical unfocused, inclusive approach of may U.S.
curricula, textbooks, and teachers.
