Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION Evidence of a Decline in Student Performance In 1977, after a 14-year decline, the average scores on the College Entrance Examination Board's (CEEB) verbal and mathematics tests reached a new low. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) verbal score average, which had been 478 in 1963, dropped 49 points to 429; the mathematics average score fell from 502 in 1963 to 470 in 1977. A CEEB panel investigating the decline estimated that about 70 percent of the decline prior to 1970 was due to an expansion in the diversity of the population of students taking the SAT. In 1952, only half of the young people in the United States were staying in school through the twelfth grade; this increased to two-thirds in 1964, and to three-fourths in 1970. The proportion going on to college was about one-fourth in 1952; this increased to one-third in 1964 and to almost half in 1970. The panel indicated that 55 percent of those taking the SAT in 1960 came from the top fifth of their high school classes; in 1972 this was true of only 36 percent (Wirtz et al., 1977, pp. 13-14). However, since 1970 there has been only a limited amount of change in the composition of the test-taking group. The CEEB panel suggested that a number of other factors might have affected the scores, including: (1) a proliferation in the number of elective courses taken by high school students at the expense of more "basic" course offerings, (2) a "dimin- ished seriousness of purpose and attention to mastery of skills and knowledge... in the schools, the home, and the society generally", (3) the competition for time between television and student's school work, (4) a decline in the role of the family in the educational process, (5) the effect of a "decade of distraction" between 1967 and 1975, (6) "an apparent marked diminution in young people's learning motiva- tion" . Ironically, the CEEB panel laid some of the blame for the decline in SAT scores on a deterioration in student writing ability, brought about in part by the increasingly widespread use of easily scored multiple-choice tests (like the SAT) at all educational levels: Our firmest conclusion is that the critical factors in the relationship between curricular change and the SAT scores are (1) that less thoughtful and critical reading is now being demanded and done, and (2) that careful writing has apparently about gone out of style...We can't prove that learning how to write is related to a decline in scores 29
on a test that requires no writing. Yet in our judgment this may be a significant factor. We suspect strongly that expressing something clearly and correctly â especially in writing â is think- ing's sternest discipline. It seems clear that increasing reliance in colleges and high schools on tests requiring only the putting of X's in boxes contributes to juvenile writing delinquency. Students learn what they think they need to know... Our strong conviction is that concern about declining SAT-Verbal scores can profitably be concentrated on seeing to it that young people do more reading that enhances vocab- ulary and enlarges knowledge and experience, and more writing that makes fledgling ideas test and strengthen their wings (Wirtz et al., 1977, p. 27). Although the "return to the basics" has shifted into high gear in school systems throughout the United States it is paradoxical that this activity has been accompanied in many school districts by an increased molecularization of the curriculum into disembodied learning objectives, the achieve- ment of which is usually indicated by student performance on standardized or criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests. Too often, these tests emphasize the most superficial aspects of learning in the content areas, focusing on the recall of facts and information as opposed to an understanding of conceptual schemes. More detailed information about student performance in specific disciplines has been provided by the surveys con- ducted in recent years by the National Assessment of Educa- tional Progress (NAEP). The first NAEP mathematics assessment was conducted during 1972-73, and included six major content areas: numbers and numeration, measurement, geometry, variables and relationships, probability and statistics, and consumer mathematics. Summarizing several interpretive reports on the results of the 1972-73 mathematics assessment, Suydam and Osborne (1977, pp. 201-203) indicate that student performance was reasonably strong in the areas of whole-number computation, knowledge of numeration concepts, analysis of one-step word problems, measurement concepts, and the recognition of basic geometrical figures. Weaknesses were evident in the areas of percent, the use of fractions, tasks involving estimation and measurement, problems involving geometrical concepts, and complex word problems. 30
Three NAEP science assessments have been conducted (in 1969-70, 1972-73, and 1976-77), to assess the science know- ledge of nine-, thirteen-, and seventeen-year-old students. A considerable amount of controversy has been generated con- cerning both the kinds of questions included in the first two surveys and the way in which the results were reported to the public (Tolman, 1976). An attempt was made to revise the NAEP science test items and reporting procedures for the 1976-77 science assessment in order to remedy these problems. A statistically significant decline in achievement on the test exercises was noted between the first and second science assessments for all three age levels. A further decline was noted for seventeen-year-olds in 1976-77; their average scores were lower on both biology and physical sciences exercises, although the decline was greater in the physical sciences. Nine- and thirteen-year-olds did not decline in achievement on biology exercises during the period 1969-1977, but both groups did decline steadily in achievement on physical sci- ence questions (NAEP, 1978b). In 1971-72, the first NAEP social studies assessment was conducted. The following findings were highlighted in the report of this survey: Less than one-half of the seventeen-year-olds and adults in the nation understood how to use all parts of a simple ballot. Relatively few Americans could read or interpret tables, graphs or maps effectively. A large gap existed between the attitudes students professed to hold and the actions they indicated they would take in specific situations. Exercises involving the recall of specific information appeared to be the most difficult to answer for all age groups. Students generally had very little knowledge about the contributions of minority groups to our culture and history. The 1971-72 social studies results also suggested that one's out-of-school learning experiences in social studies are often as important as what one learns in school (Wiley and Race, 1977, p. 212). 31
A second NAEP social studies assessment was conducted in 1975-76. This survey provided data on changes in social studies achievement between 1972 and 1976. The results revealed changes in social studies achievement that were related to age level: nine-year-olds showed no statistically significant change in performance while the achievement of thirteen-year-olds declined only slightly. However, the per- formance of seventeen-year-olds showed a significant decline between 1972 and 1976 (NAEP, 1978a). In this respect the results of the 1976 social studies assessment and the 1977 science assessment were similar, and suggest that special attention needs to be paid to changes in attitudes toward learning that may be occurring when students reach adolescence, and to the methods which teachers are using to deal with this problem. Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom Teacher Qualifications The NSF statistical survey determined that, considering science, mathematics, and social studies teachers as a group, the average number of years of teaching experience is 11.5 years, with only small differences among those responsible for different subjects or grade levels (Weiss, 1978, p. 137). Although many school systems are experiencing declining enrollments, union pressures and the desires of school system administrators to avoid grievances have led to the establish- ment of reduction in force policies based solely on seniority. As a result, it has generally been the younger teachers who have been dropped when personnel cuts became necessary. The more experienced teachers have been retained, sometimes by transferring them to different grade levels or sometimes to entirely new subjects. Most secondary (levels 7-12) school teachers of science, mathematics, and social studies teach all of their courses within a single subject area. However, 13 percent of the secondary science teachers surveyed were teaching one or more courses for which they felt inadequately qualified, as did 12 percent of the social studies teachers and 8 percent of the mathematics teachers. Most such teachers indicated con- cern about their qualifications to teach courses within their general subject area; for example, a science teacher quali- fied to teach biology might have indicated a concern about being unqualified to teach earth science or chemistry (Weiss, 1978, p. 142). At the elementary level, 49 percent of the teachers feel themselves to be "very well qualified" to teach mathematics, as compared to 39 percent in social studies, only 22 percent in science, and a high of 63 percent in reading. Most of the 32
teachers felt at least "adequately qualified" to teach all these subjects, although 16 percent of the elementary teachers felt that they were "not well qualified" to teach science, the only subject in which more than 6 percent of the teachers so indicated (Weiss, 1978, p. 142). However, state science supervisors and elementary school principals considered in- adequate teacher preparation in science, as well as a lack of teacher interest in science, to be a serious problem in their schools. In addition, state mathematics supervisors rated inadequate teacher preparation to be a serious problem in K-6 mathematics (Weiss, 1978, p. 161). In the past, the NSF provided a considerable amount of support for in-service training institutes to help teachers to improve their knowledge of subject matter and teaching skills. Almost half of the grade 10-12 science teachers, and 40 percent of the mathematics teachers at this level, have attended one or more of the institutes, conferences, or work- shops sponsored by NSF. Attendance rates at such NSF activi- ties were substantially lower for junior high school science and mathematics teachers (grades 7-9) and much lower for elementary school teachers, averaging less than 10 percent for science and 5 percent for mathematics. Only a few of the social studies teachers surveyed had attended NSF institutes or workshops; this is not surprising since NSF sponsored a relatively small number of such in-service training activities in the social sciences (Weiss, 1978, p. 69). Although the teacher-training institutes supported by the National Science Foundation were attended by significant numbers of teachers, half of the science, mathematics, and social studies teachers surveyed in 1977 indicated that they needed assistance in the use of manipulatives or hands-on materials in implementing the inquiry approach (Weiss, 1978, p. 148). Undoubtedly, this group included many experienced teachers who have been reassigned to teach subjects outside of their field of expertise, as well as new graduates from colleges of education who are currently receiving very little training in the use of specific inquiry-based course materials. The NSF case studies reported that many teachers and adminis- trators felt that the NSF institutes should be extended to the many teachers who have not had a chance to benefit from them (Helgeson, Stake, and Weiss, 1978, p. 19:25). Unfortunately, there are not as many opportunities as there once were for teachers to improve their knowledge of subject matter and their teaching skills. Local school systems do not have the resources or capabilities to support such activities; the limited staff development funds that are available are usually targeted on efforts to implement com- petency-based accountability schemes. Since in the past 33
such training was most effectively provided in the context of course-specific NSF institutes, the Foundation's current inability to support such activities poses a serious problem. Laboratory Instruction and the Inquiry Approach The research scholars and teachers who worked together in the NSF Course Content Improvement Program were critical of the encyclopedic approach of the textbooks of the time and of the procedures by which facts were presented, facts were learned, and facts were regurgitated in class and on examina- tions. Instead, the developers of the new courses strove to create teaching materials that would foster better understand- ing of ideas and principles. They placed emphasis on what is called the inquiry approach, which provides opportunities for students to "discover" key concepts and relationships through hands-on experiences. Thus laboratory instruction was designed to play an important role in the NSF-supported curricula, especially in the sciences. There are many reasons for such an emphasis. First, laboratory work provides personal experiences for students. Some of the programs were designed so that impor- tant information had to come from the lab. The development of an idea in the textbook would stop at a critical point, requiring the student to search for the answer in the labor- atory. Students were expected to be able to answer some important questions on the basis of their own observations and experiments. Second, laboratory experiences provided information that is almost impossible to convey in a textbook. Printed words and static illustrations cannot capture the complexity of the behavior of microorganisms in a droplet of pond water or of the ways in which waves passing through two narrow apertures interact to produce interference patterns. Third, the laboratory requires activity of students in a time when many young people lead increasingly passive lives. For some young people, the dissection of a frog or the qualitative analysis of an unknown substance will be one of the most challenging things they have ever done in their lives. Fourth, scientific observations and experiments fre- quently show the limitations and uncertainties of scientific procedures. All copies of the same book present the same "correct" data and answers. Observations and experiments may not and, when the results are different, an inquisitive student and a stimulating teacher will search for the causes of the different results. That search will lead to a deeper and more reliable understanding of the phenomenon. 34
Last, most students find that laboratory work is fun. The seemingly endless pattern of classroom recitation or busy work is broken by this opportunity to be independent, to be active, and to discover. However, the use of laboratory instruction and the inquiry approach in the schools appears to be diminishing. Although the use of manipulatives or laboratory materials is much more common in science classes than in mathematics or social studies classes, only 48 percent of the (K-12) science teachers surveyed indicated that they used them once a week or more in their classes, 9 percent of the K-12 science classes never use laboratory materials, and 14 percent do so less than once a month (Weiss, 1978, p. 107). Although the use of laboratory materials is more common at the secondary level, the NSF statistical survey revealed that 26 percent of the level 10- 12 science classes and 38 percent of the level 7-9 science classes do not have laboratory activities as often as once a week (Weiss, 1978, p. B-62). In some schools, this reduction in "hands-on" learning experiences can be attributed to a lack of laboratory facil- ities and equipment, since the diminishing proportion of school district funds allocated to instructional supplies and equipment is causing critical shortages of laboratory appar- atus in many school systems. This problem has been exacer- bated by the termination of categorical National Defense Education Act support for the purchase of science equipment and the improvement of laboratory facilities. The NSF statistical survey revealed that shortages of science supplies and equipment were identified as a major problem by over one- third of the secondary school science teachers and by over half of the elementary teachers of grades 4-6 (Weiss, 1978, p. 135). The situation at the elementary level is encap- sulated in this comment by a science coordinator quoted in the NSF case studies: Even though state law says teach science as a lab science, with so little money you have to teach it from the textbook. At the elementary level many teachers cannot teach science and many do not try (Stake and Easley, 1978, p. 13:61). A second factor which must be considered as a possible cause of the infrequent use of laboratory instruction is the decreased opportunities during recent years for teachers to attend NSF institutes focused on specific laboratory-centered courses. The NSF statistical survey indicated that science teachers who had attended one or more NSF-sponsored institutes were considerably more likely than other teachers to be using manipulative materials once a week or more (Weiss, 1978, 35
p. 107). Because laboratory-centered courses are more dif- ficult to teach, the problems which inevitably arise when an untrained teacher attempts to use inquiry-based materials often lead to the adoption of a textbook-centered approach which makes fewer demands upon the teacher. However, even if teachers have been adequately trained and provided with sufficient laboratory equipment and supplies, forces still remain that tend to discourage placing an emphasis on hands-on learning experiences. The educational climate in the schools, with the current focus on accountability schemes and basic skills, has tended to attach great importance to student performance on standardized achievement tests or criterion-referenced competency tests. Because complex ideas and relationships are difficult to test in a multiple-choice format, a heavy system-wide emphasis on multiple-choice test- ing has the unfortunate result of elevating the importance of simpler and less meaningful instructional objectives and of diminishing the importance attached to the learning of con- cepts and relationships. Teachers and principals are under pressure to allocate more and more instructional time to the kinds of achievement measured by the tests, and to neglect those aspects of student learning that are not so well measured by the tests. Prin- cipals and teachers who advocate learning through experience find little to sustain them in such an environment. The Educational Climate in the Schools The diminished emphasis on laboratory instruction and learning through experience is thus indicative of a more per- vasive problem in the nation's public schools. The whole climate under which teachers are working is less favorable to the pursuit of excellence than it was in the latter part of the 1950's and most of the 1960's. Science and the development of critical thinking skills in social studies and mathematics have assumed a low priority in the thinking of school administrators. An increased emphasis on the "basic" learning skills, such as reading, arithmetic, and spelling, is preempting time previously available for the study of science, social studies, and mathe- matical concepts, especially in elementary schools. The NSF case studies observers found that in most schools natural sciences, mathematics other than basic arithmetic, and social science inquiry were seen as having a rather limited value for the student body at large, and that providing a strong K-12 program in science for those students who will become the nation's future scientists was not a high priority in most school systems (Stake and Easley, 1978, p. 12:1). 36
The NSF case studies observers also found much apathy among students. In some schools, a lack of academic motiva- tion was revealed by low attendance rates and the refusal of many students to attend school on a regular basis. Other students displayed their apathy towards school through passive noninvolvement in classroom activities. After budget prob- lems , the problem most frequently cited by public school teachers was student apathy, lack of motivation, and absen- teeism (Stake and Easley, 1978, p. 18:89). The NSF case studies described many of the schools as not being intellectually stimulating places in which to work. Few school principals have a good academic background in science or mathematics; this makes it difficult for them to help teachers to develop effective science and mathematics instructional programs. School administrators have increas- ingly had to become managers and interpreters of the school bureaucracy, rather than educational leaders. School system superintendents, primarily preoccupied with the details of institutional management, are not acting as educational spokesmen, but instead are responding primarily to perceived community and governmental pressures. This is not the set of conditions one would choose as the environment in which to mount new efforts to improve science and mathematics education. However, many opportun- ities remain to cooperate with that nucleus of teachers who retain the spirit of the course content improvement program and to expand their numbers. Many teachers would take advan- tage of a revived program of NSF institutes and many say that they want access to knowledgeable resource people who can help them with their teaching problems in science and mathe- matics. Scientists and research scholars in all fields need to address this problem, and to find ways in which they can cooperate to provide the educational leadership that is so critically needed. 37
