ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, November 19, 1996 TAG: 9611190058
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: HYMAN BASS AND JANE BUTLER KAHLE
IN A COUPLE of days, a news story will appear that is almost certain to be of widespread interest. The largest and most comprehensive study of K-12 mathematics and science education ever undertaken will begin providing international comparisons of student achievement - a process that will continue over the next year and a half. People will be asking, Which countries ranked high? Which ranked low? And where is the United States on the list?
American education will be poorly served if attention focuses exclusively on the horse race of which countries' children scored highest. A low finish for U.S. students easily can shade into despair that nothing can be done. A high ranking can breed complacency that nothing needs to be done to improve mathematics and science education.
But knowing that our students scored higher or lower than those in other countries tells us very little about what produced that result. The purpose of international comparisons, after all, is not just to dole out grades. It is to produce a deeper understanding of what we are doing well and what we need to improve.
The results of the soon-to-be-released study - known as the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey, or TIMSS - will provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to learn more about mathematics and science education. The study has reviewed nearly half a million children aged 9, 13 and 18 in more than 40 countries. Researchers have analyzed textbooks, surveyed teachers, and videotaped classrooms. Great care has been taken to ensure that the students examined in each country represent the entire student population, so that comparisons among countries are meaningful.
The study has done more than measure student achievement. It has examined what students are taught, who does the teaching, and what each country expects of its students. If a country demonstrates consistently high or low student achievement, we now can examine some important factors that likely contributed to those outcomes.
A preliminary study published last month already has produced some telling insights. It has shown, for example, that some countries, such as Japan and Spain, teach fewer topics each year than do other countries. But they tend to teach those topics in greater depth and then move on to new topics in future years. In U.S. classes, in contrast, teachers cover many of the same topics year after year, adding a little more information each time, giving rise to the characterization that the typical American curriculum is "a mile wide and an inch deep."
Other differences also affect student achievement. In Japan and Germany, 13-year-olds - the age group to be covered in the first release of TIMSS data - study algebra and geometry intensively. In the United States, 13-year-olds take a less challenging curriculum of arithmetic, fractions and a little algebra.
Centralized government agencies frame the curriculum in most other countries. Control of the curriculum in the United States resides much more at the local and state levels. Though voluntary national standards for both mathematics and science education have appeared in this country in the past few years, they are just beginning to influence classroom instruction.
Appreciating such characteristics is essential in interpreting student achievement. Knowing how different countries teach mathematics and science can shed light on such questions as: What should 13-year-olds be studying in this country? Are there more and less effective ways to teach that material? What effect do textbooks and standardized tests have on achievement? How can we learn from what is done in other countries?
International comparisons typically generate more questions than answers. But now we will have the data to answer those questions. Arriving at solid conclusions will take time and careful study, and it is important not to make hasty judgments from the achievement data alone. But careful analysis of the TIMSS data could lead to major improvements in the mathematics and science education our children receive.
The rankings of student achievement will be interesting. But we need to look beyond who is No. 1. We should use this opportunity to learn how to improve student learning in our country.
Hyman Bass, a professor of mathematics at Columbia University, and
Jane Butler Kahle, a professor of science education at Miami (Ohio) University, recently co-chaired a National Research Council committee that examined mathematics and science education around the world.
LENGTH: Medium: 81 linesby CNB