"Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering December 1988
NTIS order #PB89-139182
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering-A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-SET-41 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1988).
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600594
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this technical memorandum)
Foreword
Choice, chance, opportunity, and environment are all factors that determine whether or not a child will grow up to be a scientist or engineer. Though comprising only 4 percent of our work force, scientists and engineers are critical to our Nation’s continued strength and vitality. As a Nation, we are concerned about maintaining an adequate supply of people with the ability to enter these fields, and the desire to do so. In response to a request from the House Committee on Science and Technology, this technical memorandum analyzes recruitment into and retention in the science and engineering pipeline. Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering supplements and extends OTA’s June 1988 report, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School. Students make many choices over a long period, and choose a career through a complicated process. This process includes formal instruction in mathematics and science, and the opportunity for informal education in museums, science centers, and recreational programs. The influence of family, teachers, peers, and the electronic media can make an enormous difference. This memorandum analyzes these influences. Because education is “all one system, ” policymakers interested in nurturing scientists and engineers must address the educational environment as a totality; changing only one part of the system will not yield the desired result. The Federal Government plays a key role in sustaining educational excellence in elementary and secondary education, providing effective research, and encouragin g change. This memorandum identifies pressure points in the system and strengthens the analytical basis for policy.
Director
Ill
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering Advisory Panel
Neal Lane, Chairman Provost, Rice University, Houston, TX Amy Buhrig Specialist Engineer Artificial Intelligence Boeing Aerospace Corp. Seattle, WA David Goodman Deputy Director New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology Trenton, NJ Irma Jarcho Chairman Science Department The New Lincoln School New York, NY Hugh Loweth Consultant Annandale, VA James Powelll President Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster, PA Rustum Roy Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State Materials Research Laboratory Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA Bernard Sagik Vice President for Academic Affairs’ Drexel University Philadelphia, PA William Snyder Dean, College of Engineering University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN Peter Syverson Director of Information Services Council of Graduate Schools in the United States Washington, DC Elizabeth Tidball Professor of Physiology School of Medicine The George Washington University Washington, DC Melvin Webb Biology Department Clark/Atlanta University Atlanta, GA F. Karl Willenbrock Executive Director American Society for Engineering Education Washington, DC Hilliard Williams Director of Central Research Monsanto Company St. Louis, MO Dorothy Zinberg Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard University Cambridge, MA
I Currently President, Reed College. ‘Currently Professor of Bioscience and Biotechnology.
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this technical memorandum. OTA assumes full responsibility for the technical report and the accuracy of its contents.
iv
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering OTA Project Staff
John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division
Nancy Carson
Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager
Daryl E. Chubin, Project Director Richard Davies, Analyst Lisa Heinz, Analyst Marsha Fenn, Technical Editor Madeline Gross, Secretary Robert Garfinkle, Research Analyst
Other Contributors
The following individuals participated in workshops and briefings, and as reviewers of materials produced for this technical memorandum. OTA thanks them for their contributions. Patricia Alexander U.S. Department of Education Rolf Blank Council of Chief State School Officers Joanne Capper Center for Research Into Practice Dennis Carroll U.S. Department of Education Ruth Cossey EQUALS Program University of California, Berkeley William K. Cummings Harvard University Linda DeTure National Association of Research in Science Teaching Marion Epstein Educational Testing Service Alan Fechter National Research Council Michael Feuer Office of Technology Assessment Kathleen Fulton Office of Technology Assessment James Gallagher Michigan State University Samuel Gibbon Bank Street College of Education Dorothy Gilford National Research Council Kenneth C. Green University of California, Los Angeles Michael Haney Montgomery Blair Magnet School Thomas Hilton Educational Testing Service Lisa Hudson The Rand Corp. Paul DeHart Hurd Stanford University Ann Kahn National Parent Teacher Association Daphne Kaplan U.S. Department of Education Mary Budd Rowe University of Florida James Rutherford American Association for the Advancement of Science Vernon Savage Towson State University Anne Scanley National Academy of Sciences Allen Schmieder U.S. Department of Education Susan Snyder National Science Foundation Julian Stanley The Johns Hopkins University
Harriet Tyson-Bernstein Consultant Susan Coady Kemnitzer Task Force on Women, Minorities, Bonnie VanDorn and the Handicapped in Science Association of Science-Technology and Technology Centers Dan Kunz Betty Vetter Junior Engineering Technical Commission on Professionals in Society Science and Technology Cheryl Mason San Diego State University Barbara Scott Nelson The Ford Foundation Gail Nuckols Arlington County School Board Louise Raphael National Science Foundation Leonard Waks Pennsylvania State University Iris R. Weiss Horizon Research, Inc. John W. Wiersma Huston-Tillotson College
Reviewers
Richard Berry Consultant Audrey Champagne American Association for the Advancement of Science Edward Glassman U.S. Department of Education Shirley Malcom American Association for the Advancement of Science Willie Pearson, Jr. Office of Technology Assessment Linda Roberts Office of Technology Assessment George Tressel National Science Foundation
vi
Contents
Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C h a p t e r l . Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter2. Formal Mathematics and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Chapter3. Teachers and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter4. Thinking About Learning Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Chapter5. Learning Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter6. Improving School Mathematics and Science Education. .,... . ......109 Appendix A. Major Nationally Representative Databases on K-12 Mathematics and Science Education and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 Appendix B. Mathematics and Science Education in Japan, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.,. . ...........................138 Appendix C. OTA Survey of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................144 Appendix D. Contractor Reports ......,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....146
vii
Preface
This technical memorandum augments OTA’s report, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, ’ focusing on the factors that prompt students to plan science and engineering careers during elementary and secondary education, and the early stages of higher education. While examining the problems and opportunities for students, OTA offers no comprehensive assessment of the system of American public education. Rather, it takes this system as the context for understanding, and proposes changes in preprofessional education. Most educators and parents regard science and mathematics as basic skills for every high school graduate. By upgrading mathematics and science literacy—making more graduates proficient in these subjects—most believe that the pool of potential scientists and engineers would be larger and more diverse. At the same time, broader application of basic skills in mathematics and science would benefit the entire U.S. work force. Perhaps then concern for the future supply of scientists and engineers, as one professional category of workers among many, would recede as an urgent national issue. As this is not the case, the problem of educating scientists and engineers is unabating; the scrutiny of schools, teaching standards, and student outcomes is intensifying; and calls for improved Federal action grow louder, As Paul Gray, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said: “Americans must come to understand that engineering and science are not esoteric quests by an elite few, but are, instead, humanistic adventures inspired by native human curiosity about the world and desire to make it better. ”2 OTA takes a long view of the science and engineering pipeline and does not dwell solely on those whose scientific talents are manifested at early ages. The science and engineering pipeline includes all students during elementary and much of secIU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating OTA-SET377 (Washington, DC: June 1988). 2Paul E. Gray, “America’s Ignorance of Science and Technology Poses a Threat to the Democratic Process Itself, ” The Chronicie of Higher Education, May 18, 1988, p. B-2.
ondary schooling. But as students move toward undergraduate and graduate school, smaller proportions form the talent pool. Students make choices over long periods and are influenced by many factors; this complicates analysis and makes it difficult to ascertain specific influences or their degree of impact on careers. Although most students’ career intentions are ill-formed, some decide to pursue science and engineering early in life and stick with that decision. This “hard-core group” is joined by many companions later on. Chapter 1, Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool, concerns both the hard core and those whose plans are more malleable. As this latter group is uncertain about what major to choose, it may be more susceptible to parents’ wishes, financial incentives, and the attractiveness of science and engineering careers. Whether students respond to a professional “calling” or hear the call of the marketplace, they are lured to some careers and away from others—and schools are agents of this allure. For many children, the content of mathematics and science classes and the way these subjects are taught critically affect their interest and later participation in science and engineering. Chapter 2, Formal Mathematics and Science Education, reviews concern over the pace and sequence of the American mathematics and science curriculum, the alleged dullness of many science textbooks, and the extent to which greater use of educational technology, such as computers, could improve the teaching of mathematics and science. This responsibility falls primarily on the teaching profession, together with school districts and teacher education institutions. Chapter 3 , Teachers and Teaching, discusses predicted shortages of mathematics and science teachers, and concern about the poor quality of teacher training and inservice programs in all subjects, The quality of teaching, in the long run, depends on the effectiveness of teachers, the adequacy of their numbers, and the extent to which they are supported by principals, curriculum specialists, technology and materials, and the wider community. Teachers of mathematics and science need to be educated to high professional standards and, like 1
Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad Schoof,
2
members of other professions, they also need to update their skills periodically. At the same time, research on teaching of mathematics and science suggests that some techniques, not widely used in American schools, can improve achievement, transmit more realistic pictures of the enterprise of science and mathematics, and broaden participation in science and engineering by women and minorities. Chapter 4, Thinking About Science Learning, asks: How can more students be successful in science and mathematics? Does science and mathematics education search for and select a particular type of student, one with a certain learning style? This chapter describes other efforts to correct misconceptions (held both by students and teachers), spur creativity, develop “higher order thinking skills, ” and to place more students on pathways to learning science and mathematics. The out-of-school environment offers opportunities to raise students’ interest in and awareness of science and mathematics. Chapter 5, Learning Outside of School, highlights “informal education” activities that draw strength from the local community —churches, businesses, voluntary organizations, and their leaders. All are potential agents of change. All are potential filters of the images of science and scientists—often negative, almost always intimidating-transmitted by television and other media. Science centers and museums, for example, can awaken or reinforce interest, without raising the spectre of failure for
those who lack confidence in their abilities. Intervention programs, aimed especially at enriching the mathematics and science preparation of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities, can rebuild confidence and interest, tapping pools of talent that are now underdeveloped. The problems that face mathematics and science education in the schools are complicated and interrelated. Chapter 6, Improving School Mathematics and Science Education, proposes a systemic approach to these problems, requiring a constellation of solutions. Reforms, however, tend to be incremental. Change in any one aspect of mathematics and science teaching, such as coursetaking, tracking, testing, and the use of laboratories and technology, is constrained by other aspects of the system, such as teacher training and remuneration, curriculum decisions, community concerns and opinions, and the influences of higher education. Finally, this report illuminates the gulf between knowing and doing, between recognizing “what works” and replicating it. On many educational issues, experts are groping to specify the boundaries of their ignorance; on others, there are massive data on causes and effects, but little wisdom on how to implement change. It is this latter need that invites Federal initiative, whether “seeding” a program or showing how various partners might collaborate to approach a nagging problem in a novel way. The Federal Government is pivotal for sustaining the policy climate and catalyzing change: If there is a national will, there is a way.
Chapter
Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool
,
CONTENTS
Page
Preparing for Science and Engineering Careers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Pipeline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Influences on the Future Composition of the Talent pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 High School Students’ Interest in Science and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 .
Persistence and Migration in the Pipehne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Academic Preparation of Science and Engineering v. Conscience Students. . . . 12 Interest and Quality of Science- and Engineering-Bound Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Interest in Science and Engineering Among Females and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . 16 Schools as Talent Smuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20
Box
Box Page
l-A. Never Playing the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figures
Figure Page
l-1. Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School Graduates Intending to Major unnatural Science or Engineering, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l-2. Persistence In, Entry Into, and Exit From Natural Science and Engineering by 1982 High School Graduates Planning Natural Science or Engineering Majors, 1980-84.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 l-3. Planned Major in High School of College Students Majoring in Natural Science and Engineering, by Field, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l-4. Interest of 1982 High School Graduates in Natural Science and Engineering, by Sex, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17 l-5. Interest in Natural Science and Engineering by College-Bound 1982 High School Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Tables
Page Table 1-1. Academic Characteristics of High School Graduatues Planning Natural
Science and Engineering Majors and Other Majors,
1-2. Comparison of Students Who Persisted unnatural Science and Engineering
With Those Who Entered These Fields, From High School Sophomore to
1-3. Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Conscience Interest With Those
Who Entered a Natural Science and Engineering Major, From High School Sophomore Through College Senior Years, 1980-84 .. .. . ... +.. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chapter 1
Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool
To the Committee (the President’s Science Advisor-y Committee], enhancing our manpower supply is primarily a matter of quality not quantity, not a matter of diverting more college students to science and engineering, but of providing for more students who have chosen this career route the opportunity to continue their studies.
Jerome Wiesner, 1963
All scientists and engineers were once children: Families, communities, and the ideas and images presented by books, magazines, and television helped form their attitudes, encouraged their interest, and guided them to their careers. Schools refined their talents and interests, prepared them academically, and gave them confidence by recognizing their aptitude and achievement. The importance of families and other out-ofschool influences on this process can hardly be overemphasized. Students form opinions and learn about science and scientists from families and friends, from the media, and from places such as science centers and museums, summer camps, and summer research experience. Equally, families, friends, and the media can dull interest in science. Nevertheless, it is largely schools, through preparatory courses in mathematics and science, testing methods, and teaching practices, that determine how many young people will prepare sufficiently well for science and engineering careers (and for other careers). It is in the Nation’s interest to see that schools provide the widest possible opportunities, and the best possible educational foundations for the’ study of science and engineering.* Some schools meet these goals, but
IUnless otherwise noted, this technical memorandum is..."
|
You need to upgrade your Flash Player , or try to enable javascript in order see this document properly.
|
|
Comments
