Image: Benjamin Simon
In Brief
- America's economic crisis and China's growing competitiveness have put new focus on math and science education, including how to improve the way programs train math and science teachers.
- Research shows students of teachers who hold degrees in math and science score higher on math and science tests, yet only a minority of science and math teachers hold degrees in their subjects.
- Teachers with math and science degrees are in high demand, but pilot programs and charter schools are learning better ways of recruiting and retaining highly skilled instructors.
- Educators are also beginning to understand which techniques work best in the classroom, such as hands-on lessons, calling on students unexpectedly, and lessening the fear of errors.
In a renovated warehouse in a weary-looking section of troy, n.y., 25-year-old katie bellucci has the rapt attention of 27 fifth graders. They are singing, stamping, clapping and waving their hands in the air—far more excitement than you would expect for ratios and fractions. The class is working together on a word problem involving a fictional basketball team with a win-to-loss ratio of 9:3. What is the ratio of losses to total games played? Bellucci gets everyone involved in breaking down the process (“What do we need to do first?”). Once the class arrives at a fraction—wins plus losses, divided by losses, or (9 + 3)/3—she encourages them to reduce it. “Okay, who's got the GCF?” she says, referring to the greatest common factor. She zips up and down the aisles, cajoling one student and then another for one more piece of the solution. The students track her every move, knowing she may call on them even if their hands are down. “I'm seeing so many lightbulbs and so much diligence,” she says. If an answer comes easily, she will push ahead with that student and ask for the how and why behind it. The bell rings, and as the kids file out for lunch, each one hands Bellucci an “Exit Ticket”—the solution to two problems that exemplify the core lesson of the day, which Bellucci will scrutinize to determine if the class mastered the day's objective.
Troy Prep, where Bellucci teaches, is one of the higher-performing public schools in New York State even though the vast majority of its students come from low-income families. In 2011, the second year the school was open, 74 percent of its fifth graders scored at the “proficient” level on the New York State math exam, as compared with only 66 percent of fifth graders across the state. Even more impressive, after two years in the school, 100 percent of Troy Prep's sixth graders scored in the proficient range. What accounts for the school's success? Doug Lemov, a leader of the Uncommon Schools Charter Network, of which Troy Prep is a part, does not hesitate: outstanding, well-trained teachers like Bellucci.
This article was originally published with the title Building a Better Science Teacher.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentHmm...I'm guessing (hoping) that the example given in the opening paragraph contains an editing error and is not what the teacher actually accepted as the correct mathematical expression. Also, while the illustration of the "science teacher action hero" is eye-catching, it unfortunately reinforces a particular science teacher stereotype. Finally, the article title doesn't adequately reflect the content, as the article focuses more on mathematics than science. Still, I found the article interesting and informative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article! Two questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.) What affect does 40% of Americans not believing in science have on STEM education? Such a large group having an anti-science view would dramatically pull down the US skills.
2.) In the article there appears to be a basic math mistake in the example. It is surprising the editors and the writer didn't catch it. Is this an example of poor STEM education or a simple editing error like many of us have made?
Two additional points that never appear in considerations of American teacher qualifications are (1) pressure from enrollment management at institutions of higher education and (2) discouragement of strong students from considering a teaching career. I have worked in the field of teacher education for 17 years. Whenever we suggest raising the GPA or content major requirements for admission into a teaching certification program, we are consistently told by our administration that we cannot do this because it will affect our overall college enrollment numbers. At the same time, our institution boasts of our highly competitive pre-professional academic tracks leading to medical or law school. Also, I have heard too many bright students tell me they have been told by their content major professors that they are "too smart" to be teachers. One of my colleague's rejoinders to such advice is, "So who do you want teaching your own children?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseffect
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the real issue . . . what portion of American students simply need to be science literate and what does this mean? Pretending that all students are going to become working scientist is futile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*scientists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article points out the need for parents to be engaged in their child's education by nurturing science and math endeavors. The author also encourages better science and math teaching to have kids become excited about science and in turn, go into a STEMM field. But what the author and collaborators are missing is the "T and E" in the STEMM argument. We are not teaching kids 'what to DO with science and math....the "T&E". American education is continually cutting programs that deal with how kids can apply what they learn in science and math. As a teacher of the T&E, I have kids APPLY what they learn to technology and engineering creations. If the science world would latch on to this idea, America may just become the great nation it once was in the technology and manufacturing fields. If not, we are simply missing more than half the students we teach because not all students can simply understand without application. STEM is a great concept but not without the T&E integrated into the Math and Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligous belief / disbelief may be a factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFew teachers begin their careers with a mastery of every aspect of the content standards. The standards for some disciplines (e.g., life science) are so broad that it is impossible to master all of them. Consider that even a tenured professor in cell biology is unlikely to also have mastery of ecology, evolution and the nervous system (though he or she likely has a broad, general knowledge of them). Yet a high school biology teacher is expected to master each of these subjects sufficiently to not only teach the facts, but to identify the prerequisite knowledge necessary for teenagers to understand them and ensure that his or her students have mastered this, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is through experience, not mastery, that teachers learn where their students tend to struggle and where they will need additional support and background knowledge. This forces a reflective teacher to not only learn that material more deeply, but to figure out how to make it more tangible and accessible to her students. Furthermore, an experienced teacher can quickly master new content, as I have had to do on numerous occasions when asked to teach a course I have never taught. An experienced teacher also develops the ability to make that science exciting and fun for children. She learns how to identify their particular academic strengths and weaknesses, manage their behavior, design engaging and meaningful lessons and lab activities, write good exams, and deal with the often conflicting demands of administrators, colleagues and parents. Mastery of science has little to do with these teaching responsibilities.
Wingert, like many who write about education reform, has identified a school (Troy Prep in New York) that has high science and math test scores on standardized exams despite having a predominantly lower income student body, and she uses this anecdotal example to draw the conclusion that Troy Prep has somehow found the magic formula that has eluded other low income schools in the country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a scientific point of view her example might be called intriguing and worth exploring, but certainly nothing close to compelling. Troy Prep is merely one example. In science, we need to have a statistically significant number of examples with similar results before we start getting excited. One reason for this standard is that the result might be coincidental. Her article provides no evidence of why their test scores are high or even if they have the ability to maintain those high scores. Troy Prep could have higher test scores for reasons that have nothing to do with teachers’ skill, experience or “smarts.” For example, it might attract a higher than normal percentage of students who have an interest in science and math or who have families that are more involved in their children’s education. They might receive more funding and support from philanthropists with STEM backgrounds. They might even push out students who tend to score lower on standardized tests.
Even if the school has found a legitimate and reproducible way to boost test scores, this is not evidence that its students are learning more science or learning it better. Most standardized science tests assess students’ knowledge of basic facts, like the role of mitochondria or their ability to translate DNA sequences into amino acid sequences, not mastery of the scientific process. The tests do not assess the ability to design a controlled experiment or critique the merits of an experimental design. Students are not expected to generate original data or draw logical conclusions from that data. Furthermore, most of the things that are tested can be taught through rote memorization and pen and pencil simulations and do not require that students engage in authentic science. The consequence is that even students who do well on standardized exams are not necessarily prepared to think scientifically or to explain why a particular scientific explanation is valid (or not).
Wingert makes another common error by drawing conclusions from a statistic that are not supported by that statistic. In this case, she uses Eric Hanushek’s claim that highly effective teachers make about three times the academic gains of those with less talented teachers, regardless of students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, to support her argument that a “good teacher trumps such factors as socioeconomic status, class size, curriculum design and parents’ educational levels.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it stands to reason that a good teacher will have more success with her students than a mediocre one, it does not necessarily follow that she will be able to overcome the effects of poverty or that she will be effective with all of her students. For example, her classes might get better overall test scores than those of her mediocre peer, yet she could still have a significant number of students who do poorly on the tests because they are reading far below grade level, have too many absences, do not do homework or have trouble focusing for extended periods of time—all problems that are more common among lower income students.
It would behoove Wingert to not only pay closer attention to the logic (or illogic) of her arguments, but to also look more closely at the breadth of work of those she cites. Eric Hanushek (whom she quotes to support her claim that teacher expertise trumps socioeconomic status), also said that less than 10% of students’ academic success is attributable to teacher quality and the rest was due to other factors, including students’ socioeconomic status.
Here's a question...how does the fact that more than 20% of American children live in poverty affect their learning math and science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is actually more than 20% (or maybe it's more than 20% who go hungry on a regular basis).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoverty has a detrimental effect on all learning, not just math and science. As I mentioned in prior posts, it increases the likelihood of malnutrition, environmental toxins, low birth weight and other factors that can impair cognitive development or cause birth defects. Affluent parents read more to their children and, as a result, their children have vocabularies that are substantially larger than lower income children by the time they are 3-4.
There is an achievement gap between boys and girls at all levels of the education system as well as a lack of male role models available in the education system. A proposed White House Council on Boys and Men (http://whitehouseboysmen.org/blog)(a counterpart to the existing council on women), would address the growing gap in high school graduation, college graduation and advanced degree achievement in the US education system where the number of boys obtaining a complete education has steadily declined since 1981. (Wikipedia-Men's Rights).Feminist legislation and dogma, for the past 50 years, has created an educational system which has destroyed the male culture, defamed men in general and in particular, and emasculated the American male
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWomen now receive almost 58 percent of bachelor's degrees.In law, medical, and doctoral programs, women are the majorities;or, if the trend continue, will be.
The educational environment has become very hostile towards men, especially men who exhibit the traditional male virtues.
Women, through other laws, customs, and feminist dogma have the means and motive to discriminate against men in the educational environment and from entering into the same.
The result of the aforementioned has been that the relative and absolute number of male teachers, inclusive of science teachers, has declined dramatically.
Replacing these male teachers are much less qualified female teachers who owe their employment to the aforementioned political norms rather than their educational achievement.
Educational scholarship, inclusive of scientific scholarship,which should be the prime objective of education, deteriorates concomitantly with the aforementioned, especially amongst male students.
The relative decline in American international test scores in the sciences and math since the political and social revolution of the late 1960's and 1970's are the result of the aforementioned.
Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is interesting and informative. Research helps teaching and teaching helps research. There is a symbiotic relation between them.Experience matters in teaching and research both. But own intense interest of teacher and researcher is more important to be a great teacher or researcher. Teaching is fun. Enjoy it.
S. N. Tiwary
Director
This article is extremely useful for both teachers and researchers. Such article should be published frequently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS. N. Tiwary
Director
When government policy making is more influenced by lobby groups and religious bodies than sound science, there is little hope that the best long-term policies can ever be adopted. A case in point is the push for smaller class sizes. There is little evidence to suggest that smaller class sizes improve student proficiency. On the other hand, Asian countries with high rankings in student scores all have large classes and well-paid teachers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is actually quite a large body of evidence that smaller class sizes benefit students. However, it should not be solely about what's good for the kids. Larger class sizes are much more difficult for teachers to manage and require far more work in terms of planning and grading. Working conditions for teachers should be a consideration, too. Even if you don't care about the teachers, their working conditions impact their students in several ways. Burned out teachers have reduced patience and energy for their children, which can increase conflicts and strife and decrease the amount of authentic lab activities, lab reports, readings from original sources and other time consuming activities. Furthermore, when conditions become too onerous, those of us with options (especially those with science and math backgrounds who have the option of working in academia or private business) will simply leave, depriving students of good teachers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this