Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 Engineer- ing supplements and extends OTA’s June 1988 report, Educating Scientists and Engi- neers: 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 sci- ence, and the opportunity for informal education in museums, science centers, and recrea- tional 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 engi- neers 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 encouraging 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 William Snyder Specialist Engineer Dean, College of Engineering Artificial Intelligence University of Tennessee Boeing Aerospace Corp. Knoxville, TN Seattle, WA Peter Syverson David Goodman Director of Information Services Deputy Director Council of Graduate Schools in the New Jersey Commission on Science United States and Technology Washington, DC Trenton, NJ Elizabeth Tidball Irma Jarcho Professor of Physiology Chairman School of Medicine Science Department The George Washington University The New Lincoln School Washington, DC New York, NY Melvin Webb Hugh Loweth Biology Department Consultant Clark/Atlanta University Annandale, VA Atlanta, GA James Powelll F. Karl Willenbrock President Executive Director Franklin and Marshall College American Society for Engineering Education Lancaster, PA Washington, DC Rustum Roy Hilliard Williams Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State Director of Central Research Materials Research Laboratory Monsanto Company Pennsylvania State University St. Louis, MO University Park, PA Dorothy Zinberg Bernard Sagik Center for Science and International Affairs Vice President for Academic Affairs’ Harvard University Drexel University Cambridge, MA Philadelphia, PA 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 Kenneth C. Green Mary Budd Rowe U.S. Department of Education University of California, University of Florida Los Angeles Rolf Blank James Rutherford Council of Chief State School Michael Haney American Association for the Officers Montgomery Blair Magnet School Advancement of Science Joanne Capper Thomas Hilton Vernon Savage Center for Research Into Practice Educational Testing Service Towson State University Dennis Carroll Lisa Hudson Anne Scanley U.S. Department of Education The Rand Corp. National Academy of Sciences Ruth Cossey Paul DeHart Hurd Allen Schmieder EQUALS Program Stanford University U.S. Department of Education University of California, Berkeley Ann Kahn Susan Snyder William K. Cummings National Parent Teacher National Science Foundation Association Harvard University Julian Stanley Linda DeTure Daphne Kaplan The Johns Hopkins University National Association of Research U.S. Department of Education Harriet Tyson-Bernstein in Science Teaching Susan Coady Kemnitzer Consultant Task Force on Women, Minorities, Marion Epstein Bonnie VanDorn and the Handicapped in Science Educational Testing Service Association of Science-Technology and Technology Alan Fechter Centers Dan Kunz National Research Council Betty Vetter Junior Engineering Technical Commission on Professionals in Michael Feuer Society Office of Technology Assessment Science and Technology Cheryl Mason Leonard Waks Kathleen Fulton San Diego State University Office of Technology Assessment Pennsylvania State University Barbara Scott Nelson Iris R. Weiss James Gallagher The Ford Foundation Michigan State University Horizon Research, Inc. Gail Nuckols John W. Wiersma Samuel Gibbon Arlington County School Board Bank Street College of Education Huston-Tillotson College Louise Raphael Dorothy Gilford National Science Foundation National Research Council Reviewers Richard Berry Shirley Malcom Linda Roberts Consultant American Association for the Office of Technology Assessment Advancement of Science Audrey Champagne George Tressel American Association for the Willie Pearson, Jr. National Science Foundation Advancement of Science Office of Technology Assessment Edward Glassman U.S. Department of Education vi Contents Page Preface . 1 Chapterl. 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 ondary schooling. But as students move toward report, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade undergraduate and graduate school, smaller pro- School to Grad School, ’ focusing on the factors portions form the talent pool. Students make that prompt students to plan science and engineer- choices over long periods and are influenced by ing careers during elementary and secondary edu- many factors; this complicates analysis and makes cation, and the early stages of higher education. it difficult to ascertain specific influences or their While examining the problems and opportunities degree of impact on careers. for students, OTA offers no comprehensive as- sessment of the system of American public edu- Although most students’ career intentions are cation. Rather, it takes this system as the context ill-formed, some decide to pursue science and for understanding, and proposes changes in pre- engineering early in life and stick with that deci- professional education. sion. This “hard-core group” is joined by many companions later on. Chapter 1, Shaping the Sci- Most educators and parents regard science and ence and Engineering Talent Pool, concerns both mathematics as basic skills for every high school the hard core and those whose plans are more graduate. By upgrading mathematics and science malleable. As this latter group is uncertain about literacy—making more graduates proficient in what major to choose, it may be more suscepti- these subjects—most believe that the pool of po- ble to parents’ wishes, financial incentives, and tential scientists and engineers would be larger and the attractiveness of science and engineering more diverse. At the same time, broader appli- careers. Whether students respond to a profes- cation of basic skills in mathematics and science sional “calling” or hear the call of the marketplace, would benefit the entire U.S. work force. Perhaps they are