Media contact: Jacqie Babcock, 517/353-7755/jbabcock@pilot.msu.edu  

Program contact: Gilbert Valverde, 517/353-7755/valverde@pilot.msu.edu

Today the TIMSS achievement results for the population including US 4th graders have been released. We can now compare our 4th graders knowledge of science and mathematics to their counterparts in other countries. More importantly, the results can give us insights that may help improve US mathematics and science education.

What can we learn from the mathematics results?

Today we have both good news and bad news about mathematics achievement. The good news is that US 4th graders did better. The bad news is that they did better when compared to our 8th graders.

For mathematics our 4th graders got the US a B- or C+ and our 8th graders a C- at best. Our 4th grade achievement places us in the middle tier of countries for this level. We were also in the middle tier in 8th grade mathematics. At 4th grade we are at the top of the middle. At 8th grade we were towards the bottom of the middle. Fewer countries took part in 4th grade testing. Many of the missing were countries that did well at the 8th grade. However, even adjusting for this, our 4th grade performance gave us a higher ranking compared to the countries that did take part than our ranking for 8th grade.

What can we learn from this? Why would our 4th graders do better than our 8th graders? For one thing, our 4th grade mathematics curricula, textbooks and teachers emphases were more like those of other countries (see Figure 1). Our 8th grade mathematics curriculum showed far more difference (see Figure 2). The TIMSS mathematics tests were designed largely to test common denominator topics among countries. As a result, the 4th grade mathematics test reflected our 4th grade mathematics curriculum better than the 8th grade test reflected our 8th grade curriculum. Most would claim that since school matters, students do better on things they are taught than those they learn more indirectly. Our better 4th grade mathematics performance is evidence that supports this claim.

US public discussion about education contains much about the importance of the "basics". For 4th grade mathematics, the basics for both the US and more than 70 percent of the TIMSS countries are about whole number arithmetic, fractions, and units of measurement. They also include simple geometry - mainly naming different kinds of figures (triangles, squares, and so on). Since what was basic was widely shared, the 4th grade test focused on that basic content. Our mathematics education focused on those same basics and our students earned the US a B- or C+ among TIMSS nations.

In the US, being part of the "basics" often means being "so important that it bears repeating" - and repeating and repeating. Our educational hammer drives home arithmetic grade after grade. Even at 8th grade, our classrooms still make arithmetic a major part of mathematics instruction.

Other countries act as if far more mathematical topics are basic. For them basic content is so important that it must receive heavy attention and mostly be mastered when introduced so that attention can turn to other basic content the next year. Instruction's focus is sharper than in the US. In most other countries that focus changes year by year. In other countries, a nail from the basics is hammered hard and fast then moves on. In some of the highest achieving countries, each year sees new topics

receiving intense attention to prepare for and build towards mastering of more complicated topics yet to come.

TIMSS' studies of curricula, textbooks and teacher's practices show the US clearly has a different view of what is basic and how to handle it. As a result, US 8th graders are studying a very different mathematics curriculum than other countries' 8th graders. In the US, the same topics appear repeatedly. Instructional attention at any grade level is rarely intense or focused. This is true both at 4th and 8th grades. We introduce only one new topic with focused attention between 4th and 8th grade, while most other countries introduce six or seven (see Figure 5 - Math). Further, the other countries typically introduce these new topics with intense attention given to each in turn. Each new topic receives a "jump start" of focused attention. In the US curricula and textbooks, about 25 percent of the topics studied at 8th grade are new since 4th grade. For most other countries about 75 percent are new.

The result of these different views of the "basics" and how to handle them seems reflected in our achievement results. We do quite well in the simple algebra and geometry topics covered at 4th grade (see Figures 6 and 7). Only two countries did better in the 4th grade geometry tested (about 10 percent of the countries testing 4th grades). By 8th grade, about 60 percent of the countries did better than the US on the more advanced geometry tested. We do well in both grades in data representation and statistics (see Figure 8). In arithmetic we held our own but we paid a price for doing so - perhaps too great a price. There are costs for continuing to hammer at more limited arithmetic basics and failing to move attention to other important topics such as algebra and geometry. In short, the US does not start behind other countries but, rather, falls behind them (see Figure 10). Can we afford to build US mathematics education around a static set of basic contents gradually mastered if that puts us further and further behind other countries? We cannot afford to go back unnecessarily to arithmetic basics in a world going forward by making basic more advanced, powerful topics.
What can we learn from the science results?

Today we have very good news about 4th grade science achievement. We have our first A. US 4th graders placed us in the top tier of countries. We were outperformed by only one country (Korea). Unfortunately, as we already know, US 8th graders earned us another C+, placing us towards the top of the middle group. Our younger students' high science achievement is good news. The decline by 8th grade is troubling.

Again the important question is "Why?" "Why did our 4th graders do so well? Why did our 8th graders not do comparably well?" These are the most important questions raised by today's science results. What lessons can we learn?

Why is a promising start not sustained through 8th grade? US 4th grade science curricula and textbooks are more focused than for 8th grade. Our lack of "staying power" accompanies a lack of focus as more is added to science education between 4th and 8th grades.

US 4th grade science curricula, textbooks, and teacher emphases are very similar to those of other countries (see Figure 3). This is not true at 8th grade (see Figure 4). This 4th grade similarity results in our science education being more like what is tested in the 4th grade science test. Again this is not true at 8th grade. By 8th grade our view of what is basic in science education changes. It is more inclusive, adding new topics without dropping attention to material already covered repeatedly. We are less focused on more advanced subject matter. We give less intense attention to advanced content regarded as fundamental by many countries. This is partly because we must divide our attention among more topics than they.

The change is science curricula from 4th to 8th grades is more pronounced than in mathematics. We add new topics. We do not shift attention from older topics. No new topics are introduced with a "jump start" of intense attention. Other countries introduce many new topics between 4th and 8th grades. Typically they introduce eight to eleven advanced topics (see Figure 5 - Science). However, they report providing "jump starts" for these new topics through intense attention when they are introduced.

We do comparatively poorly at both grades in some areas (see Figure 9). Our lowest performance is in physics (called "physical science" at 4th grade and "physics" at 8th). This is the only 4th grade area in which we do not at least match what most other countries achieve. This is at least a warning: some of our students' accomplishments are in more peripheral, less fundamental areas of science.

In summary, US science education begins on a promising note. Our students do comparatively very well when younger students are tested. However, our conception of what is basic is still repetitive, inclusive, and not marked by intense attention on any one topic at any grade. Most other TIMSS countries introduce new ideas with focused attention that makes this content basic by working towards its mastery intensively on introduction. What is basic for these countries moves from the simple to the more advanced by a dynamic approach to fundamental content. Can the US afford to continue treating what is fundamental mainly by introducing it early and leaving it longer? Our C+ in 8th grade science says, "No."