Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 55
5
Looking Ahead
T
he character of existing schools, the effectiveness of current prac-
tices in science and mathematics education, and findings from cur-
rent research were among the main topics of the workshop, but the
committee was eager to build on those discussions and consider possibili-
ties for the future. Near the close of the workshop, they asked the present-
ers and participants to discuss the implications of the presentations and
discussions for implementing the next generation of standards and assess-
ments in the STEM disciplines. The closing discussion also covered policy
implications, coming developments in STEM education, and promising
areas for future research.
IMPLICATIONS FOR STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
Forty-four states have now adopted the “Common Core” standards1
and many expect their implementation, and the adoption of new assess-
ments aligned with them, to have a powerful influence on K-12 education.
But, Steve Schneider pointed out, that idea has been a long time coming.
He cited the Smith and O’Day paper (1992) that described the principles
of systemic reform, which was a catalyst for a reform effort that engaged
states, districts, and schools around the country. The key components of
systemic reform were high-quality standards; alignment of curriculum
1 For a list of the states and information about the initiative, see http://www.core
standards.org/ [July 2011].
55
OCR for page 56
56 SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION
with instruction, assessments, and teacher support (both preservice and
inservice); and encouraging all school stakeholders to play their part—all
issues that are still very current today.
In Schneider’s view, a significant challenge to the success of the earlier
reform movement was resistance to any kind of federal mandates regard-
ing standards, even though many of the United States’ international com -
petitors have had national standards for many years. Now, in part because
of federal incentives offered through the Race to the Top initiative,2 states
which together educate 80 percent of the students in the country are
adopting new, common standards. It is possible that this change might
actually “move the system,” he suggested.
Jere Confrey stressed that the new standards will only be successful to
the degree that teachers are well prepared to teach to them at each grade
level. If this really happens, she believes, the result would be a meaning -
ful improvement in educational equity and outcomes. She also noted that
although the standards were written with explicit attention to learning
trajectories, the existing research to support that approach is still uneven,
so that in practice, for example, in mathematics, the standards reflect
“mathematicians’ best logical guesses combined with empirically based
learning trajectories.” It will be very important to increase the empirical
base for these going forward, she noted.
She also cautioned that while formative assessment is a powerful and
critical tool, the consortia of states that have formed to work on the next
generation of assessments have focused almost exclusively on statewide
summative assessments. She expects some to incorporate computer-based
testing and possibly performance assessment and most to work to assess
higher-level thinking skills, but she expressed doubt that there will be the
sort of change in psychometric approaches that was highlighted during
the workshop discussion of BOLT, for example. The new standards and
assessments hold the promise of significant economies of scale that could
allow states to explore formative and diagnostic testing and other inno -
vations. “But,” she added, “there is nobody really in charge, and nobody
at the federal level can take charge because it would start to not look like
state standards.”
OTHER STEM-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards
The National Research Council, in collaboration with Achieve, Inc., the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National
2 For more information, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
[July 2011].
OCR for page 57
57
LOOKING AHEAD
Science Teachers Association has developed a conceptual framework for
new science education standards (National Research Council, in press),
as Tom Keller explained. A draft of the conceptual framework, which
was released in July 2010 for public comment, put forth a vision for sci -
ence education that makes student engagement the highest priority. It
articulates cross-cutting concepts (the “big ideas” of science, such as that
matter is made up of units called atoms), core disciplinary ideas in the
four major domains of science, and scientific and engineering practices.
Jennifer Childress explained that Achieve is going to use the frameworks
document to develop specific science standards, and she noted that the
implementation of the standards across the participating states will pres -
ent a significant challenge.
Martin Storksdieck shared a few relevant points from a prior National
Research Council workshop.3 States now generally consider several goals
that may previously have seemed radical as part of the job. Three such
goals are striving for meaningful equity in educational opportunities,
focusing on academic rigor for all, and incorporating data into decision
making at all levels. However, Storksdieck said, many of the obstacles that
have impeded reform in the past remain: lack of capacity and political
will to make significant changes and the inherent limitations of some gov-
ernmental structures are perhaps two of the most prominent ones. Many
tradeoffs are necessary in the pursuit of complex changes, he added, so
it is important to focus on the incentives that may influence those one
wishes to change. These points from the prior workshop are relevant to
K-12 STEM education, he said.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
With regard to the broad question of what makes STEM education
effective, Adam Gamoran observed that definitive answers are simply not
on the horizon in the short term. There is promising research in progress
that can provide some help to policy makers and school leaders, and other
studies will eventually yield findings about the efficacy of different school
models and the different approaches taken under each of the different
models. Yet neither the research findings that are available now nor even
the findings that will be available when the research now under way is
complete will support general conclusions about the efficacy of different
school models. There will still be gaps in the knowledge base.
One possible reason for that is the significant diversity in STEM educa-
tion, even within each of the basic school types. Effective schools appear to
share fundamental goals—such as seeking ways to “transcend the tedium”
3 Formore information about the workshop, see http://www7.nationalacademies.org/
bose/Large_Scale_Reform_Homepage.html [July 2011]
OCR for page 58
58 SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION
that is all too often a part of STEM education—but there are many differ-
ences among them. It does seem clear, he suggested, that the context in
which schools are operating matters. In a practical sense, that context deter-
mines the resources that are available to support the school, such as univer-
sities, research organizations, or businesses, that can provide direct support
and experience for STEM students. And the context influences the policies
that shape the school, such as district rules that do or do not allow school
leaders and teachers the flexibility they believe they need to be effective.
Teachers matter greatly to schools’ outcomes, Gamoran added, par-
ticularly their content knowledge.4 Other discussions highlighted the
vital importance of curriculum—particularly curricular focus—as well
as a variety of ways of thinking about curriculum and instruction. He
mentioned two views: some argue for tight coherence and consistency
of the curriculum, while others emphasize the importance of monitoring
students’ learning as they develop understanding in a particular domain.
The workshop also revealed several areas where more work is needed,
Gamoran observed. Much of the discussion of school types focused on
high schools, for example, although grades K-8 are also very important.
There was more attention to mathematics and science than to engineering
and technology education. These are imbalances that reflect the literature,
and they may also reflect the emphasis of current accountability poli -
cies. The T in STEM has always been easy to overlook, one participant
observed, because it is difficult to define. Is it educational technology?
Is it technology as a result of engineering? Technology has not been well
incorporated into science standards, and although there are separate stan-
dards for it, its place has not been clearly established.
Each of these points suggests fruitful areas for further research and
analysis, but committee members ended the workshop with an appre-
ciation for the many creative schools, educators, and others who are
already hard at work preparing the next generation of STEM students
and workers.
4 Researchers have identified the importance of pedagogical content knowledge, specific
knowledge of how to teach the material in a particular field, as very important to teacher
effectiveness. See National Research Council (2010) for more on this point.
