THIRD INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE STUDY
PRESS CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS FINDINGS FROM TIMSS CURRICULUM ANALYSIS STUDY
Results from the curriculum analysis for the Third International Mathematics and Science study were released at a National Science Foundation press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. at 9:30 AM on Tuesday, October 15. William Schmidt, U.S. National Research Coordinator and Director of the U.S. National Research Center located at Michigan State University reported on findings with Luther Williams from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Marshall Smith, Department of Education, and Tjeerd Plomp from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in Amsterdam. Four publications were released to the public related to the study. Summaries of the books are found in this newsletter. This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation in conjunction with the National Center for Education Statistics.
TIMSS achievement results for population 2 (13 year olds) will be released at a second press conference on November 20, 1996 in Washington, D.C. by the National Center for Education Statistics. Achievement results for populations 1 and 3 (9 year olds and end of secondary schooling) will be released in 1997.
Background Information
The Curriculum Analysis has been a significant aspect
of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study since its inception.
It represents one of the most momentous innovations introduced in the area
of large-scale international comparative educational research. The TIMSS
Curriculum analysis is designed to provide a characterization of the intended
curriculum in each of the countries participating in the study. The intended
curriculum is understood to be what a nation expects to be taught or has
as learning goals for the pupils in its educational system. For different
countries, the level of detail in the specification of the learning goals
varies substantially in official documents such as curriculum
guides. On the other hand, textbooks usually are exceptionally detailed and can be regarded as statements of curricular intent in most countries. Thus, the TIMSS Curriculum Analysis defines the intended curriculum to include learning goals stated in curriculum guides and inferred from the contents of textbooks.
The TIMSS Curriculum Analysis represents an innovative effort at characterizing international educational opportunities. Each country, through a set of document analysis procedures, has submitted data from page-by-page inventories of the science and mathematics textbooks most widely used for students in selected grades and of key national and regional curriculum guides, characterizing document segments using the various aspects of TIMSS mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. The within-country coded characterizations of aspects of textbooks and curriculum guides are being analyzed separately and in combination as are other important features of textbooks and curriculum guides.
These activities compose the first large-scale attempt at international characterization of the intended curriculum to include in-depth content analysis of documents as well as surveys of curriculum experts. To many educational researchers and policy makers across the world, the TIMSS Curriculum Analysis is regarded as being of equal importance to the TIMSS achievement test results.
U.S. CURRICULUM ANALYSIS REPORT
The U. S. report on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Curriculum Analysis is entitled A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. The report is authored by William H. Schmidt (Michigan State University), Curtis C. McKnight (University of Oklahoma), and Senta A. Raizen (The NETWORK, Inc.). A Splintered Vision integrates data from the curriculum analysis component of TIMSS with data from teacher questionnaires on topic coverage and instructional practices. The report discusses and provides evidence of the unfocused nature of U.S. math and science curricular intentions, textbooks, and teacher practices. It also presents potential explanations for this lack of focus. U.S. data are compared to data from Japan and Germany throughout the report. Some of the major findings are summarized below.
Official Curricula. Official curriculum statements in the U.S. have no central focus on what students should learn in mathematics and science. Compared to other countries (i.e., nearly 50 countries that took part in the TIMSS curriculum analysis) the U.S. intends to present more mathematics and science topics than most other countries at nearly every grade. In fact, at most grades, the number of topics the U.S. includes in mathematics and science curricula is greater than the 75th percentile of all countries. Only at the upper grades of high school, when mathematics and science courses begin to focus on specialized topics, do the numbers of topics intended drop. Additionally, in comparison to other countries, the U.S. adds many topics to its mathematics and science curriculum at early grades and tends to keep them in the curriculum longer than other countries do. The result is a curriculum that superficially covers the same topics year after year - a breadth rather than depth approach. When focus finally occurs at the upper high school grades, many students are no longer taking mathematics and science courses. The study also found much commonality across states in the mathematics content of curriculum guides but less commonality across states in the science content of curriculum guides.
Textbooks. The data also show splintering in the content of U.S. mathematics and science textbooks. As was the case with curriculum guides, U.S. textbooks included far more topics that was typical internationally. U.S. textbooks, especially 4th grade science and 8th grade non-algebra textbooks, were considerably less focused that the comparable textbooks in other countries. Where internationally the five topics receiving most attention in textbooks accounted for nearly 75 percent of textbook space, the five topics receiving most attention in U.S. textbooks accounted for about 50 percent or less of textbook space in most cases. The exceptions were 8th grade algebra textbooks and specialized science textbooks (e.g., life science, physical science). U.S. mathematics and science textbooks also tended to emphasize simple knowledge, understanding, and routine procedures rather than more complex problem solving and reasoning. This was also the case internationally; however, this focus is inconsistent with the focus being called for in major U.S. mathematics and science education reform documents.
Instruction. U.S. teachers also tend to take an inclusive and unfocused approach to mathematics and science instruction. Most U.S. eighth grade mathematics and science teachers indicate that they teach at least a few periods a year of nearly every topic included in the teacher questionnaires. U.S. teachers of eighth grade algebra classes tend to teach all topics and teachers of eighth grade regular and pre-algebra classes exclude only topics related to trigonometry and linear interpolation and extrapolation. Eighth grade regular and pre-algebra teachers spend 20 or more class periods only on fractions and decimals; eighth grade mathematics teachers in Japan and Germany, however, spend 20 or more class periods on more advanced topics of geometric congruence and similarity (Japan) and equations and formulas (both). U.S. eighth grade general science teachers generally spend about one to two weeks on all topics. Only U.S. earth science and life science teachers spend more time on any topics; although, they also tend to include most topics in their instruction.
Our Splintered Vision. U.S. teacher practices tend to echo U.S. curriculum guides and textbooks. Indeed, most teachers surveyed indicated familiarity with the content of their state and district curriculum guides. Few teachers indicated familiarity with the more focused content of the AAAS science reform document. However, nearly 100 percent of the mathematics teachers indicated familiarity with the NCTM mathematics standards, and both mathematics and science teachers indicate that they do not tend to favor textbook dominated approaches to instruction. So why the lack of focus?
Other data from the teacher questionnaires suggest that U.S. teachers are attempting to do all that is expected of them. They tend to splinter their lessons into many small activity components; they spend more class time on homework; they use more isolated seatwork activities; they attempt to cover the topics included in reform documents, curriculum guides, and textbooks; they work more hours than teachers in Japan and Germany. U.S. teachers are part of a system that tends to favor many visions and a piecemeal approach to education rather than one coherent guiding vision. This reflects the ìincrementalî assembly line philosophy in American society - a philosophy that encourages breaking complex learning down into simpler learning tasks assuming that, if students master all the small pieces, they will be able to put them together on their own.
Thus, U.S. teachers are inundated with a myriad of competing visions. Some of these visions, like the current mathematics and science reform documents, are focused and coherent. However, U.S. teachers are not encouraged, and certainly do not have the time or resources, to pick and choose from among these visions and create a coherent, focused vision of their own. What teachers end up doing is ìsatisficing,î that is, they make choices that satisfy the system but are not necessarily the
best choices. They also tend to choose the quickest and easiest alternatives, which tend to be the alternatives they see every day and with which they are most familiar - those presented in curriculum guides and textbooks.
So what can we expect of the achievement of students who are educated in such a splintered system? ìCertainly, in view of these findings it seems wishful optimism to expect our students to achieve highly in science and mathematics compared to students in other countries. Whatever other benefits our fragmented system may have, it seems likely to limit our studentsí successî (p. 11).
Written by: Pamela Jakwerth, Michigan State University
Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education will be published in the near future by Kluwer Academic Press. Requests to be placed on the mailing list for ordering information may be directed to: U.S. TIMSS National Research Center, 455 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034. Telephone: 517-353-7755; Fax: 517-432-1727; email: jbabcock@pilot.msu.edu.
TWO INTERNATIONAL REPORTS TO BE PUBLISHED
Schmidt, William H., Curtis C. McKnight, Gilbert A.
Valverde, Richard T. Houang and David E. Wiley. Many
Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of
Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics. Boston /
Dordrecht / London, Kluwer Academic Press, 1996
Schmidt, William H., Senta A. Raizen, Edward D.
Britton, Leonard J. Bianchi and Richard G. Wolfe. Many
Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of
Curricular Intentions in School Science. Boston /
Dordrecht/ London, Kluwer Academic Press, 1996
These two books constitute the first international reports on the TIMSS Curriculum Analysis, a large-scale investigation of the mathematics and science curricula of almost 50 countries. For the first time ever in a study of this scope, national curricular documents ó specifically, official curriculum guides and textbooks ó were the primary data source; these were supplemented with expert opinion. The analyses reported in these companion volumes are the first attempts to compare and contrast similarities and differences in curricular intentions across the TIMSS countries.
Given the scope of this investigation, the findings reported in each volume are organized to be of most use to the various readers ó educational policy makers, mathematics or science education policy makers, curriculum developers, teachers, other professionals interested in effective mathematics or science curricula ó of these books. The books are organized into five major sections.
Written by: Gilbert Valverde, Michigan State University
Many Visions, Many Aims - Mathematics and Science volumes will be published in the near future by Kluwer Academic Press. Requests to be placed on the mailing list for ordering information may be directed to: U.S. TIMSS National Research Center, 455 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034. Telephone: 517-353-7755; Fax: 517-432-1727; email: jbabcock@pilot.msu.edu.
SMSO PUBLICATION NOW AVAILABLE
Characterizing Pedagogical Flow presents conclusions from the Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunities (SMSO), a multi-disciplinary, multi-national research project that blended quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The purpose of SMSO was to develop a comprehensive battery of instruments addressing the student, teacher, school, and curriculum factors for use in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) recently conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). In order to develop instruments that appropriately and meaningfully assessed key factors in classroom pedagogy that influence nine-year old and thirteen-year old studentsí mathematics and science achievement, SMSO focused on what occurs in these studentsí mathematics and science classrooms.
Over 120 observations were conducted by the SMSO team in nine-year old and thirteen-year old studentsí mathematics and science classrooms. Both types of classrooms were observed in each of the six SMSO countries: France, Japan, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. Part I of Characterizing Pedagogical Flow chronicles what SMSO learned about mathematics and science curriculum and pedagogy. The work produced portraits of mathematics and science education that were dramatically different for each of the countries involved. Part II presents generalized case studies for each countryís mathematics and science classrooms. These provide the invaluable contextual insight essential for understanding the cross-national differences discovered among countriesí mathematics and science curriculum and pedagogy.
The book proposes that cross-national differences may be explained by the interaction of curriculum and pedagogy in a culturally unique manner. The school subjects of mathematics and science are highly influenced by cultural perspectives. In a manner comparable to what might be expected in the teaching of history and language, culture influences the teaching of mathematics and science to yield qualitatively different classroom learning experiences from one country to another. Classroom lessons exhibited a ìcharacteristic pedagogical flowî ñ a particular way in which subject matter and pedagogy interacted. It is further proposed that these observable characteristics that lessons exhibited are a function of the ideas, beliefs, theories, and pedagogical repertoires that teachers possess. Each SMSO country demonstrated a distinctive ìcharacteristic pedagogical flowî in their mathematics and science classrooms yielding the portraits mentioned above. Presumably, these were based on commonalities teachers within a country shared ñ certain national beliefs and ideologies about education, teachersí training, and other key experiences.
These ideas have profound implications for how international education research is conducted and interpreted. To begin with, substantive discourse among multi-national representatives is essential in any cross-national investigation of education. Such discourse challenges implicit assumptions and enables the identification of important differences that are most likely to have explanatory significance. Members of the SMSO team concluded that survey instruments may more profitably be designed to look for differences in qualitative distinctions rather than mere quantitative distributional differences in, presumably, common practices such as the amount of homework students do or the amount of time a teacher lectures during lessons. A further recommendation is that serious international surveys also need to include a qualitative component in order to contextual and understand the meaning of a surveyís results.
Written by: Leland Cogan, Michigan State University
Characterizing Pedagogical Flow will be of interest to educational researchers, curriculum developers, as well as to policy makers who make use of and fund international education research. Copies may be obtained by contacting Kluwer or the U.S. TIMSS National Research Center at Michigan State University.
This book may be ordered now:
1996, 240 pp., Hardbound, ISBN 0-7923-4272-0
1996, 240 pp., Paperback, ISBN 0-7923-4273-9
Kluwer Academic Publishers Group
Order Department, PO Box 358
Accord Station, Hingham, MA 02018-0358
Tel: 617-871-6600
Fax: 617-871-6528
email: kluwer@wkap.com
FUTURE TIMSS PRESENTATIONS
William Schmidt, director of the U.S. National Research Center and other TIMSS researchers will present findings from the curriculum analysis and other phases of the study, as they are released, at several national meetings in the near future. If you will be attending any of the these meetings, please plan to stop by to hear more about the study results.
October 17 - University of Maryland; October 18 - National Association of Biology Teachers conference, Charlotte, NC; October 25 - Education Record Bureaus conference at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in NYC; October 28 - American Geological Institute, Denver; November 4 - Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory conference, Portland; November 10-11 - National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, D.C.; November 12 - Texas Business and Education Coalitions, Austin; November 13 - Task Force meeting of CEOs Business Roundtable. Business Education Task Force, Washington, D.C.; November 19 - Utility Business, Arlington, VA; December 11 - National Academy of Sciences; January 8/9 - Joint Mathematics Conference, San Diego; January 30 - Concordia University; January 31 - American Book Publishers Conference, Orlando; February 14 - American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle; March 21-23 - National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Oak Brook; March 24-28 - American Educational Research Association, Chicago; April 17 - National Council Teachers of Mathematics, Minneapolis; May 1 - Education Writers Association, Washington, D.C.; May 8 - Math and Science conference, Kellogg Center at MSU, East Lansing.
In addition, Gilbert Valverde, Associate Director of the
U.S. National Research Center will speak about the TIMSS curriculum analysis
findings at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Secondary
Conference November 9/10.
National Research Coordinating Committee
Dr. Eugene Owen, National Center for Education Statistics; Dr. Lois Peak, National Center for Education Statistics; Dr. Larry Suter, Office of Studies and Program Assessment, National Science Foundation. The committee is chaired by Dr. William Schmidt, Michigan State University.
U.S. National Steering Committee Members
Dr. Gordon Ambach, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers; Dr. Deborah Ball, Associate Professor, Michigan State University; Dr. Audrey Champagne, University at Albany-SUNY; Dr. Jewel Plummer Cobb, California State, Los Angeles; Dr. David Cohen, Professor, The University of Michigan; Dr. John Dossey, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics, Illinois State University; Dr. Emerson Elliott, National Center Education Statistics; Dr. Sheldon Glashow, Higgings Professor of Physics and Mellon Professor of the Sciences, Harvard University; Dr. Larry Hedges, Professor, Department of Education, University of Chicago; Professor Henry Heikkinen, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Colorado; Dr. Jeremy Kilpatrick, Regents Professor of Mathematics Education, University of Georgia; Dr. Mary Lindquist, Fuller E. Callaway Professor of Mathematics Education, Columbus College, and President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Dr. Marcia C. Linn, Professor and Director, Instructional Technology Program, University of California-Berkeley; Dr. Robert L. Linn, Professor and Co-director of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of Colorado; Dr. Paul Sally, Professor of Mathematics, University of Chicago; Dr. Richard Shavelson, Professor, School of Education, Stanford University; Dr. Bruce Spencer, Professor, Department of Statistics and School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University; Dr. Elizabeth Stage, New Standards Project, Co-Director for Science, University of California, Office of the President; Dr. James Taylor, Hill and Knowlton, NYC; Dr. Kenneth Travers, University of Illinois, and Dr. Paul H. Williams, Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin. The committee is chaired by Dr. William Schmidt, Professor, National Project Coordinator for U.S. TIMSS and Executive Director of the U.S. National Research Center for TIMSS located at Michigan State University.
We want to hear from our readers, so if you have questions, want additional information about a topic addressed in the newsletter or the study in general, please feel free to contact us. You can write or call Gilbert Valverde, Associate Director - TIMSS, 457 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034, telephone 517-353-7755, fax 517-432-1727, or E-Mail, valverde@pilot.msu.edu.
We also are available to make presentations to professional groups or associations who might be interested in being introduced to TIMSS or receiving updates on the project. If your organization is interested in hearing more about TIMSS and would like a representative from our office to present to your group, please contact the National Research Center at Michigan State University.
If you or someone you know did not receive this
newsletter directly, but would like to be on our mailing list, please send
your name and address along with your request to Jacqueline Babcock, 464
Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034,
telephone 517-353-7755, fax 517-432-1727, or E-Mail: jbabcock@pilot.msu.edu.
Visit our new web site:
URL: http://ustimss.msu.edu/
This newsletter is published by the TIMSS U.S. National
Research Center located at Michigan State University. The newsletter is
edited by Jacqueline E. Babcock.
This study was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation
in conjunction with the National Center for Education Statistics.