ASCD Poll: Science

In the ASCD poll, we asked you whether international comparisons of science teaching help improve science education. If you haven't taken the poll yet, please vote now.

According to Kathleen Roth and Helen Garnier, "international comparisons are important because they challenge us to step outside our cultural assumptions." You can read their article, "What Science Teaching Looks Like: An International Perspective," in the December 2006/January 2007 issue of Educational Leadership.

Do you agree or disagree? Tell us and your peers what you think by posting a comment.

Comments

[James Aulisio]

I say no because a comparison that tells me I am an inferior teacher only helps to lower my confidence.Public school teachers have been beaten down ever since President Reagan convinced the American people that public service unions are the enemy of "The American Dream".
Why don't the critics change the text books and make changes to our curriculum guides.Teachers,even those not beaten down,can not go to other nations and incorporate their systems.
My Department Head was not impressed with a visit to Japan.If we adopt that system,are we ready to accept the student suicide rate?
Let's really invest in education with more than comparisons:improve teacher training,incorporate mentor programs,hire executive assistants for teachers,pay professional salaries,take educational decisions away from pandering politicians,have alternative programs for disruptive students,and feature success when it occures.
Imagine if all the money invested in Iraq went to education these past four years.If we do not see results in one year,I say "stay the course". Do not tell me we have been throwing money at the problem when states pay less for one year of education than parents pay for one year of baby sitting.

[James Linzel]

Although I do not teach in the US, I do teach at an American School in Asia. I agree that education in the states was originally intended to train workers for industry not educate to think. A agree with Mr. Aulisio that education should be in the hands of educators with proper support - financially and politically. However, I disagree that comparisons should not be made between pedagogies. It is how we learn to improve our practice. It can be threatening to open ourselves to criticism and reflection but it is necessary. Much of how we 'teach' is due to how we were taught. To break the cycle proper teacher education and professional development must be an ongoing process. Finally, to equate Japanese pedagogy with suicide rates is disingenuous and faulty logic. Correlation does not prove causation. I could equate American children drug usage to American pedagogy - but I would be wrong.

Thanks

[Jason Waskiewicz]

The best way to become excellent (or at least better) is by studying excellence. This means studying what other countries are doing well.

TIMSS has been quite good at highlighting faults. It provides the raw numbers that show there is a problem. By itself, this is not enough. TIMSS took the next step. They studied teaching methods.

American education is not up to the level it should be. Study of other countries has revealed what we should do differently. It has also eliminated many of the myths that persist about foreign education.

I love to learn about excellence because that is the only way I can learn how to be an excellent teacher.

[Scott Hays]

There is nothing wrong with making comparisons between test scores amongst differing nations. But the test scores don't tell us much, and too many people use them as a stick rather than a carrot. The best thing that came from the TIMSS experience was not what the talking heads had to say about our woeful performance, and certainly not what the politicians began to discuss as possible remedies to that woeful interpretation (especially those who instantly jumped on inquiry-based approaches and attempted ... as in California ... to force a much more teacher-directed approach to instruction on the schools). It came in the simple phrase that our curricula was a mile wide and an inch deep.

So ... I voted "no" on this particular question. Not because we do not have things to learn from other nations (just as we have much to learn from fellow teachers within our own country), but rather because of the way the comparisons are made, and what gets done with those faulty conclusions.

And I really like the response from James Aulisio, above

[S. Fairley]

Yes, it is always good to examine effective practices and adapt what is useful for our particular situations. However, we should take care when deciding whether or not the practices would transfer effectively to our classrooms. The learning is influenced by the culture of the society. Differing attitues towards the role of the teacher, the degree of responsibilty students have for their own learning plus societal expectations for student learning are all variables that affect the test results. We should keep this in mind when we draw conclusions and remember that test results are only one of many indicators that tell how well students are being educated.

[S.Slater]

I agree that science teachers can learn from the sucesses of other teachers, both here and abroad. However, although the classroom teachers have some control over methods, they have no control over the amount of material to be covered or sequence of topics from year to year. Good intentions and good methods are often the first thing to go when the need to cover a massive amount of material before the exam tightens the screws.
When we compare our results to other countries, we need to look at the 20 topics they cover in depth in one year as compared to the 150-200 topics we cover superficially. Students who fail to understand a difficult topic that is taught "on the run" do learn something. They learn that they "can't do it". The next time that topic comes up they already know that that topic is "too hard". The new teacher not only has to teach the "too hard" topic, they also have to change the students mind set, "on the run". Wouldn't it make more sense to teach a few topics well so that students develop a secure foundation to build on the next year?

[roseli weiss]

International comparisons are helpful to a point. It is certainly interesting to learn of other methods and focal points. The part that is not helpful stems from comparisons from more homogeneous societies to a heterogeneous society such as the USA. We have many different cultures, learning styles, and backgrounds to copy any one style. Japan is still very homogeneous. We need to find our own improvement path. It is certain that we need to make major changes, but not by copying another's approach. We need to think through the direction we wish to pursue and not jump (as we often do) onto some "fix-it" bandwagon.

[tammie rich]

As the little slip in the cookie said,
"education is not learning what to think but, how to think." As stated we have many different types of students to work with. It is the problem of engaging them to think. In other countries your life is based on your education. That is not the case in the U.S. How many drop-outs are heads of very sucessful companies. Education is not valued but, looked on as a piece of paper to show where you have been. It does not mean you learned anything while you were there. Maybe listening to the teachers that have to provide the information to the students would bring a change in education. Rather than a group of people that have not been in classrooms telling teachers how to teach and reach the students they have. One size does not fit all.

[California Educator]

So, Mr. Aulisio, which is more important to students, your confidence, or the fact that you are an "inferior teacher"? I personally don't care about your confidence. What I do care about is that you are using research based strategies to address your students' needs. Teachers rarely hold themselves to the same standards to which they hold their students. If a student was second from last in your school, would you just allow them to keep on doing the same things that they've been doing all along? No way! So why should a country that is second from last in the world in science just keep rolling along as it is with its confident teachers? We probe and test and examine and compare our students to every standard possible. Why should we not also do that to our national education system?

Can we solve all of our ills by looking at other countries? No. Can we learn anything at all? Absolutely yes, and anything less should be considered criminal.

Ms. Rich, Doug Reeves has written many times about the fact that teachers ignore educational research to the detriment of their students. Most teachers know not what their students need, only what the teacher wants (Richard DuFour would consider this difference to be a "Focus on Teaching" versus a "Focus on Learning.") Most teachers know how to teach, but they do not know to get students to learn. There is a huge difference. That's where educational researchers ("a group of people who have not been in classrooms") come in. In science, this is called independent analysis, unbiased testing, or impartial validation. In education it is used as an excuse to ignore the research.

This blog is filled with excuses by teachers of why their students are failing except for self-reflection and self-criticism. Until teachers accept the mission of "All students will learn", education will not improve in this country.

As Dr. Reeves so eloquently states in the March edition, "The challenge before us is not a shortage of evidence or a lack of goals, but a collective failure to implement strategies to reach those goals."

Am I anti-teacher? No way, I just believe that teachers teach the way they were taught and that vicious cycle has a lot of momentum.

Have I been in the classroom? Absolutely. I spent 12 years in a low SES, highly diverse high school before moving into educational administration.

As defeatist as this post may sound, it is filled with hope that someday, teachers and educational researchers will be on the same team and our students will be the winners.