A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Designing Effective Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program - December 1999

Chapter 7

Current Teaching Practices in Mathematics and Science

The first analyses presented in this report focus on what we have learned from the baseline wave of our longitudinal survey about teachers? classroom practices in mathematics and science at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The data for these baseline analyses, which are presented in Chapter 2, are from teachers in 30 schools, across 10 districts in five states. Teachers reported on the content they taught and their pedagogical practices for the 1996-97 school year. In addition, as part of our case studies, we conducted classroom observations of two teachers in each of the 30 schools.

These data allow us to identify weaknesses in classroom practices that might appropriately be addressed by Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. One standard we used to judge the quality of teacher classroom practices is the degree of alignment with the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The content tested on the NAEP is one appropriate standard against which to judge the quality of content offered in our nation's classrooms because the NAEP is considered to be the nation's report card. The National Education Goals Panel uses the NAEP to monitor progress against our national education goals. The NAEP is, of course, not without its critics. Some would like the NAEP to be more aligned with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) mathematics standards and National Research Council (NRC) science content standards. Others would like the NAEP to place a heavier emphasis upon what they see as more basic skills.

To allow comparisons to the NAEP, we obtained all mathematics and science items for NAEP assessments in grades 4, 8, and 12. We then conducted content analyses of these items using the same descriptors of content that were used in the questionnaires completed by teachers. A useful byproduct of this work is the description of the content tested on the NAEP mathematics and science assessments. The two-dimensional content maps we prepared, focusing on the topics and student performance goals tapped by the NAEP items, provide an easily-interpreted picture of the content emphasized on the NAEP, as well as the content not tested.

Our findings on current teaching practice are consistent with other research, especially the Third International Mathematics and Sciences Study (TIMSS). We find that teachers in our 30 case study schools cover a broader range of content, in less depth than is reflected in the NAEP. Teachers might be characterized as teaching for exposure rather than mastery. We find a disturbingly slow-moving curriculum. Much of the content taught at one grade is repeated in the next. Like TIMSS, we find teachers not covering key content areas on which student achievement has been shown to be weak. For example, we find little teacher emphasis on geometry and measurement in mathematics. In contrast, we find teachers emphasizing basic topics, such as number sense and calculation, to a greater extent than is found on NAEP. The emphasis on basic topics is especially true in high-poverty schools.

One positive finding is that teaching practices appear to be moving toward a better balance across performance goals for students. In earlier surveys of teachers' practices, a greater emphasis was found to be given to student memorization of facts and mastery of low-level algorithmic skills, while less emphasis was given to students' ability to apply their knowledge and to communicate with others (Porter et al., 1993). Our longitudinal study baseline data show a much more balanced emphasis in instruction across these varying performance goals.

While our survey findings concerning content are supported in part by our observations of teachers, they also occasionally are challenged. When our observations reveal differences between what we saw and what teachers report, the differences tend to be in the direction of teachers? over-reporting solving novel problems and applying mathematics and science to real-world situations. Still, our observations are largely supportive of the descriptions of classroom practices provided by teachers in response to the survey questions. As reported by Cohen (1990), teachers appear to be getting the message from national professional content standards that better balance needs to occur across performance goals, and they are trying to move in that direction. In at least some cases, however, their practice is not yet there.

Our findings about teacher classroom practices are important in two respects. First, the inadequacies identified in current instruction suggest important targets for Eisenhower and other professional development. Second, the weaknesses in instruction we have identified represent areas in which we hope to track improvement over time, using our longitudinal study, and to relate whatever improvement is observed to characteristics of professional development experienced by the teachers.

[Strengths of the Data]

[Teachers' Experiences in Eisenhower-Assisted Activities]