 
|
|
              
|
 International math survey offers roadmap to improvements for U.S. By Jane Blotzer, Associate Editor, Post-Gazette The Third International Math and Science Study was the largest and most sophisticated international assessment of student achievement ever undertaken. It involved more than half a million students in 45 countries, tested at fourth-, eighth- and 12th-grade levels. The survey was conducted in 1995 and the results were released in 1997 and 1998. American fourth-graders performed above the international average, but that's the end of the good news. By the eighth grade, the results were grim. While students in the rest of the world were studying sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grade math that included algebra and geometry and more sophisticated problem solving, Americans were still working on arithmetic, and it showed. Their scores placed them very near the bottom in the international standings. And the 12th-grade scores were equally dismal. Both in general math and in the advanced math taken by the highest-achieving students, U.S. student performance ranked at or near the bottom. TIMSS is hardly worth the expense or the energy expended if it serves only as a ranking mechanism. As a comprehensive and sophisticated study, however, it provides a wealth of information that can help schools design math programs that do a better job of teaching all students. Here are some of the lessons proponents of reform have taken from TIMSS: America's middle school curriculum is largely a repetition of elementary arithmetic. It is not as rigorous or challenging as the approaches in the higher-achieving countries, where students are learning algebra, geometry and problem-solving. While schools in the United States are busy dividing children and deciding who should learn what -- some go to pre-algebra, some to algebra, some to algebra II, and some to general math -- other countries teach all their children the same advanced concepts. Even Germany, which tracks students early and sends those bound for college and those bound for trades to separate schools, uses the same curriculum through eighth grade for all. Japan, one of the highest-achieving countries, does not group children according to ability in the middle grades. Because only about one-fourth of students in the United States study higher-level mathematics in the middle years, it should not be surprising that the overall math achievement is low. Math education in America lacks the focus and depth of other countries. The mile-wide and inch-deep phenomenon is largely a function of the nation's textbook-driven, rather than standards-driven, curriculum. Rather than deciding what children need to know and devising a curriculum to teach it, textbook publishers, interested in appealing to the widest possible audience, tend to offer a little bit of something for everyone. The result, according to Nancy Bunt at the Carnegie Science Center Math and Science Collaborative, is that ''we have the thickest, most expensive textbooks in the world with the least mastery of concepts.'' While teachers in Japan and some other high-achieving nations see their goal as helping students grasp underlying concepts, teachers in the United States focus on telling students ''how to'' solve problems. In Japan, a lesson will frequently focus on a single problem. In the high-performing countries, students are forced to grapple with problems without knowing the ''key'' to solving them. The result is they come to realize that there are several ways to get to a right answer, and they also develop an appreciation for the underlying concepts. Plugging in numbers, which is a typical American mode of teaching and learning, results in much more superficial knowledge and can lead to panic when confronted with a problem in which the formula is not known. American teachers are basically left to sink or swim. In-service time is very limited and teachers have little opportunity to talk to each other. There is no structure to discuss what works, how to avoid mistakes or what lesson presentations are most successful. In Japan, teachers have a much more formalized opportunity to share knowledge and ''polish the stone'' -- work on a lesson and constantly improve it and pass that information along to colleagues. TIMSS does not offer any magic bullets. It indicates that different styles and curriculums can work, but the key seems to be high standards, rigorous and focused lessons, universal access, and in-depth understanding of both the abstract concepts and the real-world applications. The report ''Facing the Consequences,'' an analysis of the TIMSS data, concludes that the results of TIMSS are ''an indictment of current U.S. educational practices in math and science. Teachers, textbooks and curricula can and should be improved. The fundamental problems are systemic and thus improvement must be fundamental and systemic.'' Next: Expulsion part of solution
|
