Math Science Report China

8/14/2019 Math Science Report China

1/35

Math and Science

EducationIn a Global Age:

What the U.S. Can Learn from China


2/35

Asia Society

Asia Society is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening relationships anddeepening understanding among the peoples of Asia and the United States. The Society operatescultural, policy, business, social issues, and education programs. Through its Asia and InternationalStudies in the Schools initiative, Asia Societys education division is promoting teaching and learningabout world regions, cultures, and languages in K-12 schools by raising awareness and advancing

policy, developing practical models of international education in the schools, and strengthening rela-tionships between U.S. and Asian education leaders. Headquartered in New York City, the organiza-tion has centers in Hong Kong, Houston, Los Angeles, Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, San Francisco,Shanghai, and Washington, D.C.

...

Published by Asia Society, May 2006.

To order copies of this report, please contact the Asia Societys Education Division:

Asia SocietyAttn: Education Division725 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10021Telephone: 212.327.9307; facsimile: 212.717.1234

Asia Societys K12 Web sites: www.askasia.org; www.internationaled.org.Other Asia Society Web sites: www.asiasociety.org; www.asiasource.org


3/35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgements.........................................................................................5

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................6

Introduction...........................................................................................................................9United States and China: Contrasting Systems.............................................................. 11

Population Size........................................................................................................... 11

Years of Schooling....................................................................................................... 11

Standards and Alignment........................................................................................... 12

Teaching Materials and Computer Access.................................................................... 13

Mathematics and Science Curricula............................................................................. 13

Preparation of Science and Mathematics Teachers....................................................... 14

Teaching Methods........................................................................................................ 15

Testing and Examination Systems............................................................................... 17

Time on Task and Academic Focus............................................................................. 17

Student Achievement................................................................................................... 18

Issues of Common Interest ............................................................................................. 20

Degrees of Flexibility.................................................................................................. 20

Curriculum Content and Instructional Methods........................................................... 20

Examination and Assessment Practices....................................................................... 22

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development...................................................... 22

Use of Information and Communication Technology.................................................... 23Possible Areas of Collaboration...................................................................................... 24

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 29

References ........................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: List of Participants..................................................................................... 33

Appendix B: Agenda ......................................................................................................... 35


4/35

.


5/35

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the past few years, Asia Society hasled delegations of American education leadersto China and hosted Chinese leaders in the

United States in an effort to deepen knowledgeof each others successes and challenges, and tostrengthen educational cooperation between thetwo countries.

Two delegations, in 2003 and 2005, vis-ited a wide range of schools and universities inChina at the invitation of the Chinese Ministryof Education. In 2004, a Chinese delegation ofdirectors of education from seven provinces, ledby Chinese Vice Minister of Education ZhangXinsheng, visited the United States and partici-

pated in meetings of the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, Education Commission of theStates, The College Board, and Asia Society.Several important initiatives have resulted fromthese exchanges, including the creation of a newAdvanced Placement Course and Examinationin Chinese (Mandarin) Language and Cultureby The College Board, partnerships betweenAmerican states and Chinese provinces to linkschools and teachers, and joint initiatives toincrease the number of American schools that

teach Chinese.In the spirit of greater collaboration andgiven the need for qualified American gradu-ates in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics, in 2005 Asia Society convened ameeting of top American and Chinese math andscience education experts in Denver, Colorado.This report examines the meetings main areas

of discussion and lays out areas for ongoingcooperation.

On behalf of Asia Society, I would like tothank the Ministry of Education of the PeoplesRepublic of China for co-organizing the Forum.

Chen Xiaoya, Vice Minister for Education inChina and Piedad Robertson, President of theEducation Commission of the States (whichhosted the delegation in Denver), both tooktime to make informative opening remarks. TheForum co-chairs were Dr. Yang Jin, DeputyDirector-General at the Chinese Department ofBasic Education, and Dr. Susan Sclafani, thenAssistant Secretary for the Office of Vocationaland Adult Education at the U.S. Departmentof Education. We are deeply grateful to Senta

Raizen, Director of the National Center forImproving Science Education, for preparingthe draft report and lending to this endeavorher expertise in science education in the UnitedStates and internationally. Fruitful discussionand groundwork for future collaboration wouldnot have been possible without the Forums par-ticipants who came to Denver with open mindsand a willingness to forge important new tieswith their peers domestically and abroad. Theyalso made valuable comments on the draft re-

port. Marta Castaing and Weiwei Wang on AsiaSocietys staff researched background materialsand provided logistical support for the Forum.

Finally, Asia Society is grateful to theFreeman, Ford, Starr, Bill & Melinda Gates, andGoldman Sachs foundations for their generoussupport of Asia Societys education work.

Vivien StewartVice President, Education

Asia Society

May 2006

5


6/35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In an era when technology and the rapidflow of information dominate every major areaof economic growth, innovation and excellence

in mathematics and science are integral to anations long-term success. While Americanscientific research is admired around the world, there are grave concerns in the UnitedStates about the quality of math and scienceeducation in American schools. Internationalcomparisons of student achievement show thatU.S. K12 students performance in scienceand mathematics is mediocre compared withstudents in other countries, especially those inEast Asia. And while such comparisons used to

be matters for mainly academic discussion, ina global economy it is no longer enough for astate or school district to compare itself with thestate or district next door; they need to comparethemselves against world standards.

U.S. policymakers and business leaders aresounding the call for greatly increased invest-ment in K12 math and science education, butincreased funding in K12 education over thepast two decades has not yielded significantgains in student achievement. There is therefore

growing interest in learning from educationsystems in other countries that produce higherstudent achievement in math and science.

Given the common challenges posed byglobalization, many nations also face capac-ity-building issues in workforce developmentand education. In 2005, Asia Society and theMinistry of Education of the Peoples Republicof China convened the U.S.-China EducationLeaders Forum on Math and Science Educationin Denver, Colorado. The purpose of the Forum

was to deepen knowledge of the two educationsystems and to develop a set of ideas as to howthe two countries could learn from each othersstrengths and challenges in mathematics and sci-ence education. This report summarizes the dis-cussion at the Forum as well as related researchon Asian achievement in math and science tomake these ideas available to a wider audience.

Learning from China

With 367 million people below the age of18, China runs the worlds largest educationalsystem, serving 20 percent of the worlds stu-

dents with only 2 percent of the worlds edu-cational resources. China has made significantprogress over the past two decades in makingnine years of basic education nearly universaland has set a goal of extending that to twelveyears by 2015. Although it still faces enormouschallenges in extending education to under-served populations in rural areas, math andscience education in Chinas cities, like that inother East Asian nations, is of high quality andhas lessons for the U.S. Among these are:

National Standards and AlignedInstruction. In both science and mathematics,China has national standards for what is to betaught. Textbooks, materials, teacher prepara-tion, and professional development are allclearly aligned to these standards. By contrast,in the U.S., there is a great deal of variationin the rigor and quality of standards betweenstates and between school districts, and becausetextbooks have to meet the standards of manystates, they are voluminous and tend to cover

many concepts superfi

cially. Furthermore, mathand science courses for prospective teachers inuniversities are often not related to what theywill teach in schools.

Curriculum Design. The curriculumin China focuses on building strong founda-tional knowledge and mastery of core concepts.Biology, chemistry, and physics as well as algebraand geometry are mandatory for completionof high school. This strong core curriculumcontrasts with the approach of U.S. secondary

schools where students are allowed to chooseamong different levels of courses and, ultimately,to opt out of more advanced learning. (In 2000,nearly 40 percent of high schools students hadnot taken any coursework in science more chal-lenging than general biology.)

Rigorous and Ongoing Preparation of

Science and Math Teachers. Far higher pro-

6


7/35

7

portions of science and math teachers in EastAsia have degrees in their discipline than theirU.S. counterparts. Fewer than 60 percent of U.S.eighth-grade science teachers have majors in ascience discipline and only 48 percent of eighth-

grade math teachers have a math major. Inaddition, Chinese schools do not expect a singleelementary school teacher to teach all subjects;specialist science teachers are employed asearly as third grade. A tradition of mentoring bymaster teachers and weekly professional devel-opment in schools continually improves teacherperformance.

Examinations. Chinese education isexamination-driven. Math and science scoresattained in the university entrance examination

system count highly in differentiating amongstudents seeking college admission. Thereforethese subjects command major emphasis inthe curriculum and in student effort. This sys-temic emphasis on math and science has manyadvantages; for example, girls as well as boys dowell in science. But as the United States movestoward high-stakes testing, there are lessons,both positive and negative, to be learned fromthe Chinese experience.

Time and Academic Focus. Reflecting

the strong cultural value placed on education,Chinese schools are more academically focusedthan most American schools, which serve a vari-ety of functions in the community. The Chineseschool year is also a full month longer at thesecondary level than the American school year.Overall, Chinese students spend twice as manyhours studying as their U.S. peersin schooland outside of school in homework, extra tutor-ing, and studying for examinations. Studentsare highly motivated to succeed in order to

participate in the expanding opportunities thatare open to those with a good education.

Common Challenges and Areas of

Potential Collaboration

In many respects, the U.S. and Chineseeducational systems are mirror images of eachother. And while the U.S. has much to learn

from China about how to get large numbersof students to truly excel in math and science,Chinese educators admire and seek to learnfrom the greater choice, second-chance oppor-tunities, and inquiry-oriented teaching methods

that characterize American schools. Bothcountries identified some common challengesin producing scientifically literate populations where international exchange can broaden theconception of educational solutions. Theseinclude:

Curriculum Design and Assessment.

A comparison of each countrys curriculumstandards and textbooks with respect to keyconcepts, level, focus, and alignment would pro-vide valuable insights into whether the compe-

tencies students are expected to acquire are trulyworld-class and relevant to twenty-firstcenturyscience. In addition, since examinations and as-sessment have great influence on what scienceand math is studied, and are increasingly beingused by policymakers to drive educational sys-tems change, understanding the advantages anddisadvantages of each countrys examinationand assessment systems was assigned a highpriority.

Teacher Preparation and Professional

Development. Expertise in mathematics andscience entails a firm grasp of concepts andthe ability to apply these in new situations.While there is a great deal of research on whatconstitutes effective teaching methods for op-timum student achievement, neither countryseducation system fully reflects these practices.Thus both countries have enormous needs fortraining teachers already in the classroom. Inthe U.S., systems need to be found to improveteacher content knowledge and instructional

strategies on a large scale, going beyond theteachers who typically volunteer for such train-ing. Chinas system of new teacher inductionand ongoing professional development throughmaster teachers provides interesting examplesof both classroom-based and distance educa-tion forms. Chinas teachers, in turn, need helpin transforming their instructional strategies


8/35

8

from the didactic rote memorization traditiontoward greater stress on active participation andinquiry by students and development of criticalthinking skills. The U.S. has significant strengthin these areas that could be shared.

Using Information Technology

Effectively. In the wake of the worldwide tech-nology revolution, a great deal is being investedin infrastructurewiring schools and improv-ing access to computers. Research shows thatthis investment has typically had little impact onstudent achievement. Yet, there is enormous po-tential for using technology for more effectivescience learning if the capacities of the mediumare truly utilized. For example, virtual coursescan bring advanced science to underserved

students and teachers; simulations can teachcomplex phenomena; and international jointscience projects between students can enhancescientific and technological skills while alsoteaching critical global competencies.

Reaching Gifted and Underserved

Populations. Both countries have sizablestudent populations that are not benefiting suf-ficiently from the current system of mathemat-ics and science education. Sharing experienceswith effective ways to reach rural and minority

populations was seen as a key area of joint com-parative work. In addition, in an age that puts apremium on the most talented scientists, there isconcern in the United States that gifted studentsare being neglected. In this respect, Chinas

key high schools and residential schools would be interesting for the United States toexamine.

All these issues, which are spelled out ingreater detail in this report, could be pursuedthrough comparative research, through mutualobservation of practice, through linkages ofteacher training institutions, and through jointdevelopment projects.

Educational innovations are taking holdaround the world. Educational ideas from one

setting may not be totally applicable in others,but they provide useful ideas about potentialsolutions. Such international benchmarking ofbest practices is no longer just a pursuit fora small group of interested researchers. In aglobal age, benchmarking to world standardsis becoming a competitive necessity. And theprocess of helping to improve education aroundthe world is also an increasingly important partof U.S. international engagement.


9/35

9

INTRODUCTION

In an era where technology and the rapidflow of information dominate every major areaof economic growth worldwide, innovation

and excellence in mathematics and science areintegral to any nations long-term success. WhileAmerican scientific research is widely admired,there are grave concerns about the quality ofmath and science education in the United States.International comparisons of student achieve-ment show that the performance of K12students is mediocre compared with that of stu-dents in other countries, especially those in EastAsia. In a global economy, it is no longer enoughfor a state or school district to compare itself

with the state or district next door. They need tocompare themselves against world standards.Business leaders and policymakers are

increasingly sounding the call for greater investment in math and science education, butincreased funding in K12 education over thepast two decades has not yielded great gains inachievement. There is therefore increased inter-est in learning from education systems in othercountries that have higher achievement in mathand science.

Given the common challenges posedby globalization, many nations face similaror complementary capacity-building issues in workforce development and education. TheU.S.-China Education Leaders Forum on Mathand Science Education, held in 2005 at the ECSAnnual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, presentedan opportunity to share challenges and strate-gies for educational success within two differentnational contexts, and to draw lessons fromeach systems strengths for future reforms.

The Forum was organized by the Asia Societyand the Ministry of Education of the PeoplesRepublic of China, in conjunction with theEducation Commission of the States.

The purpose of the Forum was to deepenknowledge of the two education systems amongChinese and American education leaders, and todevelop a set of ideas for how the two countries

could learn from each countrys strengths andchallenges in mathematics and science educationat the primary and secondary levels. Participantsconsidered the following questions:

What are the strengths and weakness-

es in current science and mathemat-

ics standards, curriculum design, and

assessments in China and the United

States?

What forms of instruction lead to a

firm grasp of central math and science

concepts and the ability to apply them

in new situations? What are the best

practices in teacher preparation and

professional development that producethis level of understanding?

What are the most promising ways in

which information and communica-

tion technologies can facilitate math

and science education?

What are the most promising areas

and possible mechanisms for collabo-

ration between China and the United

States?

Senior education officials from both coun-tries opened the meeting by presenting whatthey saw to be the most important challengesin primary and secondary education, particularly with respect to teaching of mathematics andscience.

Susan Sclafani, then U.S. Assistant Secretaryof Education for the Office of Vocational andAdult Education, discussed some of the major

challenges facing the American education sys-tem. While spending in education has grownconsiderably, overall achievement levels are notincreasing. The U.S. school system took shapeat a time when there were many opportunitiesfor unskilled workers; today only 10 percent of American jobs will be available for unskilledworkers, leaving American schools struggling to


10/35

educate students for a new, fast-changing knowl-edge economy. Many students do not have thebasic math or science skills now required forcollege and the workplace, eventually requiringremedial education or al-

ternative paths to earningtheir high school diploma.Teachers are largely unpre-pared to teach for this neweconomy; they themselveslack the education ortraining to teach higherconcepts. Most top mathand science students incolleges or universities gointo the private sector or

are discouraged outrightfrom going into education.Nationwide, the curriculum is very uneven, of-ten circling back through topics over a studentscourse of study, without teaching basic conceptsto mastery. The federal No Child Left Behind Act, which calls for renewed accountabil-ity standards, an emphasis on evidence-basedpractice, greater local control, and increasedopportunities for school choice, is one responseto these challenges. However, although all these

problems are widely discussed, the United Statesis not taking action fast enough to keep up withthe rapid changes in the global economy.

Chen Xiaoya, Vice Minister for BasicEducation at the Chinese Ministry of Education,introduced the meeting participants to Chinaseducational successes and challenges by paint-ing a picture of scale and vision. Her addressdescribed the major accomplishments of Chinaover the past two decades in extending nineyears of basic education to most of the country

and virtually eliminating illiteracy among youngand middle-aged adults. With 367 million peoplebelow the age of 18, China runs the worldslargest educational system, serving 20 percent

of the worlds students

with only 2 percent ofthe worlds educationalresources. China is nowfocused on addressing thelarge gap between urbanand rural areas by makingbasic education universalthrough boarding schools,student subsidies, and theuse of distance educationtechnologies to reach

students in rural areas.Saying that the worldtoday demanded a global vision with globalcommunication skills to live and work together,she welcomed the opportunity for education tobe a bridge of cooperation and communicationbetween the United States and China.

Participants went on to discuss specificstrategies and challenges in mathematics andscience education in each country, assessing thesimilarities and differences among the issues in

education approaches and policy. Participantsthen identified a number of areas of mutualinterest where cooperation by educators andresearchers from both countries would holdpromise of improving students understandingof science.

This report, which is based on the back-ground materials prepared for the Forum andthe presentations and discussion at the meeting,is intended to make the ideas available for dis-cussion by a wider audience.

China is running the worldslargest education system,serving 20 percent of theworlds young people, but

accounting for only 2 percentof the total world expenditure

on primary and secondaryeducation.

10


11/35

UNITED STATES AND CHINA:

CONTRASTING SYSTEMS

Forum participants reviewed some ofthe major areas of difference between the two

countries education systems. These include:

population size

years of schooling

standards and alignment

teaching materials and computer ac-

cess

mathematics and science curricula

preparation of science and mathemat-

ics teachers

teaching methods

testing and examination systems time on task and academic focus

student achievement

Population Size

Perhaps the most startling contrast be-tween the two countries education systems issize. A few numbers tell the tale (Chen 2005).The population of China is 1.3 billion, one-fifthof the worlds population. Of this total, 367million are below the age of 18roughlyfive

times as many as the 73 million youth aged 18and under in the United States. This populationof Chinese young people includes 214 millionprimary and secondary students, compared to

48 million such American students. Chineseministry officials put this another way: Chinais running the worlds largest education system,serving 20 percent of the worlds young people,but accounting for only 2 percent of the total

world expenditure on primary and secondaryeducation (see Figure 1).

Years of Schooling

In 1986, China legislated nine years ofcompulsory schooling for all: six years of pri-mary school and three years of lower secondaryschool. In addition, three years of high schoolare widely available in large cities, but notcompulsory. In the United States, twelve yearsof elementary and secondary school (from ages

618) generally are compulsory, although somepercentage of students in grades 912 dropout before high school graduation. In bothcountries, completion rates of twelve years ofschooling vary by population group: in China,high school attendance rates are much lower inthe largely rural western provinces (see Figure2). In fact, even the compulsory nine years ofschooling has not yet become a reality in thoseregions.

In China nationwide, total enrollment in

high school is about 50 percent of the eligiblepopulation. On the other hand, in the UnitedStates, the high school graduation rate variesby ethnic group: it is considerably higher for

Figure 1: Data on Chinese Education System (2004)

Number of

Schools

Number of

Teaching Staff

Number of

Students

Gross Rate of

Enrollment

Higher Education 3,423 970,506 18,352,821 19%

High School 31,493 1,920,894 36,076,284 47.6%

Middle 63,757 3,500,464 65,762,936 94.1%

Primary 394,183 5,628,860 112,462,256 106.6%

Preschool 117,899 656,083 20,894,002 40.8%

Source: Yang, 2005

11


12/35

white students (72 percent) than for Hispanicand African-American students (52 percent and51 percent, respectively) (Sclafani 2005). Butthe American system of education is relativelyfluid. For example, a number of young adultsin the United States obtain a GED (GeneralEducational Development) diploma some years

after dropping out of school, or they enrollin any number of com-munity colleges (two-yearpost-secondary institu-tions) without first obtain-ing high school graduationcertificatestwo of theseveral alternative educa-tional pathways availablein the United States.

Standards andAlignment

In both science andmathematics, China hasnational standards forwhat is to be taught at eachof the three levels of schooling. While thesestandards are revised from time to time, they

spell out in some detailthe topics that studentsare expected to master(Wang 2005). Forexample, the current

standards in mathemat-ics call for ten topics tobe learned during thefirst stage (grades 13):fi ve concerning num-bers and operations,fi ve concerning geom-etry. Approximatelythe same number oftopics in each area areto be mastered in the

succeeding two stagesof compulsory school-ing (grades 46, grades79) at increasinglycomplex and sophisti-

cated levels, though the number of geometrytopics increases for grades 79, and reasoningand proof are added.

By contrast, at the national level, the UnitedStates has voluntary standards in both scienceand mathematics. Even though these standards

have been prepared by prestigious bodies(American Associationfor the Advancement ofScience, 1993; NationalResearch Council, 1996;National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,2000) and have served asthe basis for most statecurriculum standards,there is a great deal of

variation in rigor andquality among these statestandards, and even moreso from district to district(Porter 2005). Ginsburget al. (2005) contrasted

the average number of topics per grade in themathematics frameworks of Singapore with

China has national standardsfor what is to be taught ateach of the three levels of

schooling....

In the United States, there

is a great deal of variationin the rigor and quality ofstandards among states.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1982 1990 2000

7.93

8.82

10.2

6.04

5.01

7.33

Urban

Rural

Source: Yang 2005

Figure 2: Average Schooling Years in China ofUrban and Rural Inhabitants

YearsofSchooling

12


13/35

frameworks from several states and found thatsome states included twice as many topics asSingapore.

Many policy analysts in the United Stateshave concluded that the lack of national stan-

dards is one of the reasons that students in Asian and some European countries tend tooutperform their American peers in science andmathematics. For example, a well-known scholarand former U.S. government official recentlyurged the adoption of national standards, na-tional tests, and a national curriculum (Ravitch2005), as have a former governor and a formercorporate officer (Olson 2005). However, othersquestion this conclusion in view of the fact thatthere are counter examples

of countries that have acentralized curriculum but whose students do notexhibit high performancein international compara-tive tests (Wang and Lin2005).

Teaching Materials

and Computer Access

Recently, the Chinese

Education Ministry autho-rized the development ofseveral alternative (ratherthan just one) sets of text materials for therequired mathematics syllabus to allow for moreflexibility in teaching approaches. However, inChina all textbooks and other teaching materialsmust meet the national standards set forth bythe government. In the United States, the de-velopment of curriculum materials is left to theprivate sector, and textbook adoption is left to

local committees of teachers, sometimes basedon a state-approved list of materials (dependingon legislative requirements of individual states). Textbook publishers generally claim that theirmaterials are based on the national voluntarystandards, but as it is in their interest to maxi-mize sales, the materials tend to be inclusive, thatis, addressing the standards of as many states as

possible. The standards of the most populousstates however, such as Texas, California, andFlorida, tend to be highly influential. The result-ing textbooks, particularly those for secondaryscience courses, often lack coherence and are so

voluminous that teachers generally select whichchapters to teach, often covering no more than athird of the topics included in the textbook theyare using. This leads to further fracturing of thecurriculum across the more than 15,000 schooldistricts responsible for providing elementaryand secondary education in the United States.

Students access to computers varies buthas grown in most countries. For example,nearly 70 percent of U.S. fourth-graders have

access to computers for

their classes (Ginsburget al. 2005) compared tofourth-graders in Chinese Taipei, where only some15 percent have access.In Hong Kong nearly 65percent have access andin Japan access is nearlyuniversalalmost 90percent. In China, ac-cess to computers varies

widely between rural andurban areas. In 2003, thestudent-to-computer ratio

in Beijing was 15:1, while in the underdevelopedprovince of Yunnan it was 186:1this com-pared to an approximate 5:1 ratio in the UnitedStates (Zhang 2004). In China, access is deemedparticularly important to serve the widely dis-persed total student population of the westernprovinces. However, access to computers, whilea necessary condition, is not sufficient. How

computers are used in science and mathematicsinstruction is what matters in the education ofstudents.

Mathematics and Science Curricula

In science, all Chinese students in grades79 are expected to take foundational two-yearsequences in biology, chemistry, and physics. In

In China all textbooks andother teaching materialsmust meet the national

standards....

U.S. textbooks arevoluminous because they

must meet the standards ofmany states.

13


14/35

14

grades 1011, students must take six credits (108hours) in each of these three subjects; additionalscience modules (gener-ally two credits or some 40hours) are optional. As an

example, the recently re-formed secondary biologycurriculum sequence is asfollows: in grades 7 and 8,the two-year sequence (3hours per week in year 7,2 hours per week in year 8)covers biology as inquiry,basic structures of livingthings, organisms andtheir environment, green

plants in the biosphere,humans in the biosphere,animals movement andbehavior, reproduction,development and genetics,biodiversity, biotechnology, and healthy dailylife. An alternative is a three-year (grades 79)integrated sequence covering the same topics.The required three high school (grades 1012)core modules cover homeostasis and the envi-ronment, heredity and evolution, and molecular

and cell biology. Three optional modules covermodern biological science, biology and society,biotechnology and practice (Liu 2005).

Traditionally, the Chinese high school(grades 1012) curriculum in mathematics,building on the elementary and lower secondarycurriculum, consisted of two distinct, mandato-ry series, each consisting of several courses: oneseries in algebra (including elementary calculusand probability) and one series in geometry. This curriculum has recently been reformed

to remove some of the most difficult topicsand allow for some choice. Five modules, eachrepresenting 3436 teaching hours, are compul-sory. They cover sets and elementary functions,elementary solid and plane analytic geometry,elementary statistics and probability, a secondmodule on functions (including trigonometry)

and plane vectors, and number sequences andinequalities.

Both the Chinesescience and the mathemat-ics curriculum sequences

contrast sharply with thelayer-cake approach ofU.S. secondary educationthat allows students tochoose among differentlevels of courses, andultimately opt out of moreadvanced learning. Sincethe 1980s, states haveincreased the number ofmathematics and science

courses required for ahigh school diploma, andthis trend inevitably hasled to increases in studentcourse-taking in these

fields. Nevertheless, in 2000, nearly 40 percentof U.S. high school students had not takenany course work in science more challengingthan general biology, and only 18 percent hadtaken advanced biology, chemistry, or physics.In mathematics, some 55 percent of students

had not taken any courses beyond two years ofalgebra and one year of geometry, and only 18percent had taken advanced-level courses suchas pre-calculus or an introduction to analysis(National Center for Education Statistics 2004).

Preparation of Science and Mathematics

Teachers

As Figure 3 shows, the preparation of sci-ence teachers in East Asia is considerably morerigorous with respect to their science knowledge

than the preparation of science teachers isin the United States. With the exception ofHong Kong, about 90 percent of eighth-gradeteachers in these countries (approaching 100percent in Chinese Taipei) have majors in afield of science, in addition to their scienceeducation preparation. This kind of preparationalso characterizes Chinese science teachers and

Chinese math and sciencecurriculum sequences

contrast sharply with U.S.high schools where students

can opt out of moreadvanced courses.

...In 2000, nearly 40 percent ofU.S. high school students had

not taken any course work

in science more challengingthan general biology.


15/35

15

contrasts with the United States, where fewerthan 60 percent of the eighth-grade scienceteachers have majors in one of the science dis-

ciplines. The pattern is similar for mathematics:80 to 86 percent of eighth-grade mathematicsteachers in Chinese Taipei,Japan, and Singapore havemath majors comparedto 48 percent in the U.S.(Ginsburg et al. 2005).In addition, even at theelementary level, Chinaprovides science specialistteachers as early as third

grade.In addition to strongsubject matter prepara-tion, prospective teachersin China spend a greatdeal of time observingthe classrooms of experienced teachers, oftenin schools attached to their universities. Once

teachers are employed ina school, there is a systemof induction and continu-ous professional develop-ment in which groups of

teachers work together with master teachers onlesson plans and improve-ment. There is also a clearcareer ladder in teaching,with demanding standardsand salary incentives foreach step.Teaching Methods

While there is a greatdeal of research on what

constitutes effective teach-ing methods for optimalstudent achievement, nei-ther the United States northe Chinese educationsystem fully reflects thesebest practices.

Expertise in math-ematics and science entails

a firm grasp of concepts and the ability to applythese in new situations (Wieman 2005). Research

indicates that instructional methods need toaddress students prior knowledge (includingmisconceptions) andexplicitly focus on how toorganize and use facts andalgorithms in differentcontexts. There also needsto be ongoing evaluationand suitable feedback tostudents to guide theirdeveloping competence

(Wieman 2005).U.S. national as well

as state standards advo-cate the use of problem-solving in mathematicsand hands-on inquiry in

science to give students the relevant experiencesto understand and apply concepts. For example,

Ninety percent of eighth-grade science teachers inEast Asia have majors in

science compared with 60percent in the United States.

...

China provides sciencespecialist teachers as early

as third grade.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Australia

Chinese

Taipei

Hong

Kong

Japan

Korea

Singapore

UnitedStates

65

80

39

97

47

71

42

89

20

92

42

92

43

58

Percentage

Figure 3: TIMSS 2003, Percentage of 8th Grade ScienceTeachers with Education-Science or Science Major

(Biology, Physics, Chemistry, or Earth Science)

Education-Science

Science, Non-Education

Source: Ginsburg et al. 2005


16/35

16

in the National Science Education Standards(NRC 1996), the Inquiry Standard is first in alist of grade K12 curriculum standards forthe physical, life, and earth sciences for gradesK12. Students at grade 8 are expected to be

able to identify questions that can be answeredthrough scientific inquiry, design and conducta scientific investigation, use appropriate toolsand techniques to gather, analyze, and interpretdata, and think critically and logically to relateevidence and explanation. At grade 12, expecta-tions are increased to include recognizing andanalyzing alternative explanations. The nationalmathematics standardscall for problem-solvingat every grade level for

Pre-K12 (NCTM 2000),defined as building newmathematical knowledgethrough solving problemsthat arise in mathematicsand in other contexts,applying and adaptinga variety of appropriatestrategies to solve prob-lems, and monitoring andreflecting on the process

of mathematical problem-solving. The reality of

American classrooms,however, may be quite dif-ferent from these expectations. At the elementarylevel, observers have noted the frequent use ofhands-on activities for their own sake, withoutdrawing out the science concept(s) the unit wasdesigned to teach. A recent study of U.S. middleschool classrooms considered lesson design,

lesson implementation, mathematics/sciencecontent, and classroom culture in its ratings.The observers rated only 15 percent of the 440classes they observed as exhibiting high-qualityinstruction, 27 percent were of medium quality,and 59 percent were of low quality (Weiss etal. 2003). As teachers often use the textbookto construct their lessons, the quality of text-

books also deserves attention. In mathematics,U.S. textbooks are full of problems that aremerely repetitive applications of algorithms, whereas the textbooks of other countries,such as Singapore, build deep understanding

of mathematical concepts through multi-stepproblems that illustrate the application ofabstract conceptsmuch closer to what theU.S. national standards advocate. As furtherevidence, studies of teaching methods in severalcountries contrast the extensive use of complexproblem-solving by students in Japanese andHong Kong mathematics classrooms to the

rote worksheet problemsoccupying students in U.S.classrooms (Stigler and

Hiebert 1999; Hiebert etal. 2003). While U.S. leaders

are concerned about lowstandards and quality ofinstruction in science,Chinese education lead-ers express great concernabout teacher-dominatedclassrooms and studentslack of independent think-

ing. This instructional ap-proach is based on deepdifferences in culturalattitudes between China(and other Asian societ-

ies influenced by Confucian philosophy) andWestern societies such as the United States. Thelatter stress individualism and competition, valu-ing personal achievement and independence.Eastern culture emphasizes the social roles ofindividuals and classes, valuing collectivism in

which individuals work toward the well-beingof the whole. This results in a group-based,teacher-dominated, highly structured pedagogi-cal culture in classrooms in East Asia (Zhang2004). Indeed, the Japanese and Hong Kongmathematics classrooms studied by Stigler andHiebert (1999) are characterized by a consider-ably greater ratio of teacher-to-student lectur-

U.S. national and state

standards advocate theuse of problem-solving andhands-on inquiry in science,but the reality of classrooms

may be different....

Chinese education leadersare concerned about teacher-dominated classrooms and

students lack of independent

thinking.


17/35

17

ing than in Western countries, particularly theUnited States.

Testing and Examination Systems

Chinese education is largely examina-

tion-driven. In both primary and secondaryeducation, those subjects are emphasized thatare required for the national university entranceexaminations. Scores attained in the entranceexams for mathematics and for science counthighly in differentiating among students seekingcollege admission. Thus, these subjects receivemajor attention in the curriculum as well as instudent effort.

Such direct linkage between college en-trance exams and the K12 curriculum does

not exist in the United States. Although some 20states currently require high school exit examsfor a graduation diploma, and several moreare planning to institute such requirements inthe next few years, the level of these examina-tions varies widely, sometimes merely testingminimum competency. There is also often alack of alignment between state standards andassessments (Porter 2005). Moreover, whilemathematics is part of the exam in all 20 states,only 10 require testing in science as well (NCES

2005). As for college entrance examinations inthe United States, the most widely used tests as-sess very little content knowledge in either field.Only if students desire advanced credit or areapplying to the most pres-tigious institutions are theylikely to take rigorous ex-aminations in mathematicsor in any of the sciences,often through AdvancedPlacement courses. The

American system allowsfor multiple secondchances, such as community college and con-tinuing education, with no single examinationcutting students off from further educationalopportunities. This is an advantage, but weakmath and science preparation in schools mayeffectively shut out many careers.

Time on Task and Academic Focus

In considering issues of math and scienceachievement, deeply rooted cultural factors thatunderlie each system must be kept in mind.Foremost among these is the different roles

played by school in the two societies. In China,schools are educational institutions rooted in acontinuous cultural history dating back 5,000years. Chinese students have a strong work ethic,partly due to this deep cultural commitment toeducation and because pure academic achieve-ment is a lauded pursuit.

By contrast, schools in the United Stateshave adopted a variety of social functions inaddition to their educational role: for example,sports, drivers education, and health education.

These additional functions lead to varied alloca-tions of school time and resources during thecourse of a school year, and different schoolseven in the same jurisdiction make differentchoices in this regard. Some schools servingpopulations striving to enter prestigious collegesemphasize academic achievement; other schoolsconcentrate on fielding outstanding sportsteams, and so on. However, even across thisvariety, cultural attitudes toward education leadto a diffuse valuation of academic achievement

and signifi

cant amount of wasted class time inU.S. schools. Time on task is far greater in Chinese

classrooms, where education is highly valuedby students and society ingeneral. And the schoolyear in China at the highschool level is a full monthlonger than the Americanschool year: 200 teachingdays as compared to 180.

In both countriesthere are opportunities for

out-of-school learning, though academically agreat deal is expected of Chinese students. Whilethe convention of studying at home to follow upon school work is common to both countries,the level of intensity and study hours is generallygreater in China, particularly as students prepare

Students in China worktwice as many hours as their

American peers.


18/35

18

for high-stakes exams. Students in China worktwice as many hours as their American peers.Effortnot abilityis presumed to determinesuccess in school (Stewart 2006). Students whosefamilies can afford the tuition arrange additional

instruction, either by an individual tutor or byattending tutoring schoolsa common practicein East Asian countries. Furthermore, manystudents in China attend residential or board-ing schools, which also extends their hours ofstudy. One advantage in the United States is thatthere are many more opportunities for informalscience learning through television programs,special science magazines for children, sciencemuseums and nature centers, projects carriedout within special associations such as Boy

Scouts and Girl Scouts groups, and others.

Student Achievement

All of these factors contribute to differencesin student achievement between East Asianeducation systems and the United States. Twosuch comparisons for student achievement in

eighth grade are summarized in Figures 4 and5. Figure 4 displays the average scale scores for

mathematics attained in the 2003 TIMSS test in APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)countries; Figure 5 displays the percentage of

eighth-grade students in each of these countriesattaining an advanced-level score. The patternfor science achievement in eighth grade is quitesimilar, with the differences in attainment of theadvanced-level score being equally stark.

Interestingly, student attitudes show littlerelation to student achievement in either scienceor mathematics. As Figure 6 shows, a large per-centage of eighth-grade students in the UnitedStates exhibit a high level of confidence in theirability to learn science, yet only 11 percent

achieved an advanced score in TIMSS 2003. Incontrast, the level of confidence of students inChinese Taipei is half that exhibited by U.S. stu-dents, yet 26 percent attained the advanced score.On the other hand, a considerable percentage ofSingapore students exhibit high self-confidence;these students are also the highest-performing

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Australia Hong Kong Japan Korea Singapore United

States

Chinese

Taipei

Score


Figure 4: TIMSS 2003, Average Math Scores 8th Grade

505

585 586

570

589

605

504


19/35

19


States

Chinese

Taipei

Percentage


Figure 5: TIMSS 2003, Percentage Achieving Advanced Math Score (625)8th Grade

7

38

31

24

35

44

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


States

Chinese

Taipei

Percentage


Figure 6: TIMSS 2003, Percentage of 8th Grade Science Students with HighStudent Self-Confidence (SSC) in Learning Science

7

49

28

20 20

45

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

32

56


20/35

20

(33 percent attained the advanced score) amongthe participating APEC countries. The patternin mathematics is quite similar.

ISSUES OF COMMON INTEREST

In many respects, the two systems are mir-ror images of each other: China has a nationallydriven system with strong national curriculumstandards and regulation of textbooks, a coher-ent, knowledge-focused curriculum that empha-sizes mastery of basic concepts, clear alignmentbetween curriculum and instruction, and strongstudent work ethic.

The United States, by contrast, is a de-centralized system where states and localities

make many of the decisions. In the UnitedStates there is flexibility, innovation, and morechoices, opportunities, and second chances forstudents throughout their life span so that anyassessment of math and science performanceshould encompass K16. There is also more useof inquiry and laboratory methods and a greateremphasis on biological and earth sciences thanin China. However, major weaknesses include abroad, diffuse, and voluntary set of curriculumstandards, with a good deal of redundancy

in the spiral curriculum design and lack ofaligned instruction and accountability, and lackof challenge for many students.

Despite these differences, there are manycommon areas of interest where educators fromeach system could learn from the other. Theseinclude:

degrees offlexibility

curriculum content and instructional

methods

examination and assessment practices teacher preparation and professional

development

use of information and communica-

tion technology

Degrees of Flexibility

The two systems of education are almostmirror images of each other, one being char-acterized by standardization and the other bya great deal of flexibility. Each, however, is

moving somewhat toward the middle. Chinascurriculum is centralized with coherent andconsistent standards. Traditionally, this has ledto a strong basic education for many students,but little choice. As noted, current reforms haveencouraged the development of more than onetextbook version and the introduction of somechoice of course modules in the upper second-ary system.

In the United States, because educationis the responsibility of individual states rather

than the federal government, learning standardsand curricula vary widely, even though voluntarynational standards exist. Moreover, studentshave a wide array of choices among curricularofferings. While there are loose checks on thesechoices (e.g., state requirements for obtaining ahigh school diploma, entrance requirements andtest scores set by the more prestigious collegesand universities), it is quite possible for a U.S.student to graduate from high school withoutany credits in either physics or chemistry.

However, even when students choices leadto a poor preparation for tertiary education,students in the United States have numeroussecond chances, such as redundant curricula,attending community colleges that have few en-trance requirement, remedial courses in college,or alternative training opportunities includingdistance learning through online courses. In thetwenty-first century, what is the best balance be-tween a rigorous standardized core curriculum,and choice and innovation?

Curriculum Content and Instructional

Methods

As U.S. states are moving toward morerigorous curricula, there is great interest in theK12 mathematics and science standards ofcountries whose students perform well in inter-national assessments. There also is concern with


21/35

21

the word-rich and math-poor U.S. textbooksand their low level as contrasted with the morestructured and coherent textbooks and curricu-lum materials used in well-performing countries.For example, the Singapore mathematics mate-

rials are two grade levels more advanced thanU.S. texts. The situation is similar for science, asexemplified by the contrast in U.S. and Japanesetext materials intended for students in theelementary grades (Ginsburg et al 2005). The Video Study of eighth-grade mathematics les-sons in five countries associated with the 1999 TIMSS assessment dem-onstrated the repetitive-ness of the mathematicscurriculum in the United

States. In the 50 to 100lessons observed in eachcountry over the courseof a school year, old mate-rial taught in a previouslesson was reviewed 53 percent of the time ascontrasted to only 24 percent of the time inHong Kong and Japan (Park 2004). Moreover,as Figure 7 indicates, more complex problems

requiring lengthier student work were encoun-tered more frequently in the classrooms of thesetwo countries than in the United States.

Another area of interest to Americaneducators is the sequencing of courses that lead

to more advanced learning on the part of East Asian students. Through the lower and uppersecondary grades, these students are exposedto rigorous mathematics courses as well as toseveral years of courses in each science. In bothcases, the courses deal with more advanced con-tent than in the United States. While American

science and mathematicscurricula at the secondarylevel offer a variety ofchoices, in many schools

they lack a strong core.China, on the otherhand, is interested in add-ing some choices to theexisting strong core. As

the recent curriculum revisions noted aboveindicate, course sequences for biology, chemis-try, and physics continue to be mandatory at thelower secondary level. At the upper secondary

level, a certain number ofmodules in each discipline

are required as well, butthe curriculum providesopportunities for choices ofadditional science modulesbeyond the requirements.

Reformers in Chinaalso want to introduce agreater variety of instruc-tional methods. Chinesestudents striving for univer-sity entrance are highly com-

petent in their knowledgeof factual information andability to perform complexalgorithmic operations.However, Chinese research-ers and ministry officialshave criticized the currentsystem for failing to en-

Singapore math materials are

two grade levels above U.S.texts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Source: Park 2004

Australia Hong Kong Japan United

States

Per

centofProblems

Figure 7: TIMSS 1999 Video Study, Average Percentage ofProblems per Lesson Worked on Longer Than 45 Seconds

55

78

98

61


22/35

22

courage creativity and the ability to carry outscientific inquiry. In their instruction, teachersneed to give more consideration to individualstudents, encourage students in their own activelearning, foster their hands-on skills by involv-

ing students in project work, and teach themto fish instead of giving them the fish (Wang2005)that is, teach students how to learn ontheir own and become lifelong learners.

Examination and

Assessment Practices

At the national levelin China, there are twotypes of examinations:graduation exams from

high school and theall-important (and moredifficult) college entranceexaminations. At thesecondary level, Chinesetextbooks are orientedtoward the national examinations. The collegeentrance examinations are governed by univer-sity professors and designed to select studentsfor entry into top universities. Therefore,students try to follow the national standards as

closely as possible in order to get high markson the examinations. Students are drilled forquick responses based on memorization of agreat deal of material. China is in the processof reforming the college entrance examinations while trying to preserve their emphasis oncontent knowledge and rigor. However, there ismuch resistance to this reform by both teachersand university professors who view any attemptat revision as a watering down of standards.In addition to reforming the college entrance

examination, China is trying to decentralize itsexamination system in general. Thus, as of 2004,about one-third of the 31 regions have authorityfor instituting their own examination systems,based on the new science and mathematics cur-riculum being introduced, with more emphasison critical and analytical thinking.

Traditionally, in the United States, a great variety of tests have been administered. Someare created and determined by the classroomteacher, others by the local school authority,still others by the state. The latter have been

increasing in frequency, due to the No ChildLeft Behind (NCLB) Act. In contrast to China, which has no national examination system atthe elementary or middle school level, this law

emphasizes testing in thelower grades, though statesdecide on which tests touse and what benchmarksto set. In order to spurreformparticularly toreduce the achievement

gap between certainminority groups and whitestudentsthe NCLB Actprescribes consequencesfor schools and adminis-trators if they fail to meet

annual milestones for improving student perfor-mance. The only direct consequence of any testfor students is to have to repeat a grade if theydo poorly on a number of measures. Also, stu-dents who aspire to enter one of the prestigious

colleges or universities need to perform well ona variety of college entrance exams, such as theSAT, ACT, and/or AP course exams.

Teacher Preparation and Professional

Development

Both countries have needs in continuingprofessional development for teachers of sci-ence and mathematics, though the specifics vary. For example, as discussed above, manyU.S. teachers, particularly at the elementary and

lower secondary levels, lack adequate prepara-tion in the subject matter content they are ex-pected to teach. While there are several effectivemethods for remedying these deficiencies (see,for example, Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003), theproblem for the United States is one of scalingup, that is, reaching the thousands of teachers with intensive enough professional develop-

China is in the processof reforming the collegeentrance examinationswhile trying to preserve

their emphasis on contentknowledge and rigor.


23/35

23

ment methods to bring their science and/ormathematics knowledge to the required level ofcompetence so that they can become effective inthe classroom.

For China, whose teachers are well pre-

pared in subject matter content, at least in themajor metropolitan areas, the need is for chang-ing teachers instructional methods to match thecurricular reforms being instituted, with greaterstress on involving students in active participa-tion through questioning and giving them scopefor critical thinking anddevelopment of creativity.This is not an easy task, asteachers are ingrained intheir traditional methods.

Hence, they do not havethe teaching skills to work with students using someof the reform pedagogicstrategies or to design les-sons that incorporate themeffectively. Moreover,teachers are concernedthat their students will notdo well in the examina-tions if they deviate from

traditional teaching meth-ods. In training the manyrural teachers as part of the effort to instituteuniversal education through grade nine, Chineseeducation authorities realized that reforms areneeded in teacher preparation. They have foundit useful to analyze teacher training methods inuse in other countries.

Use of Information and Communication

Technology

In the wake of a technological revolutionaround the world, schools in both China andthe United States are exploring the applicationof new information and communication tech-nologies to extend opportunities for learning tounderserved groups and to provide effective in-struction for their teachers. While a great deal isbeing invested in infrastructurewiring schools

and improving access to computersresearchnow shows that this hardware investment istypically not accompanied by effective class-room application. Student-to-computer ratiosgenerally are poor indicators of how technology

in the classroom is impacting student learning.There is no concrete evidence that links technol-ogy in the classroom to improved test scores.With minimal technology training, most teach-ers continue to teach the same curriculum in thesame manner (Zhao 2005).

However, the poten-tial is great. Most currentuses of technology donot take advantage of thecapacities of the medium.

For both countries, thereis potential in integrat-ing technology into thescience and mathematicscurriculum in three areas: Technology as a teach-ing tool; Technology as a studentlearning tool; and Technology as a basefor new teaching and

learning models.

For instance:1. Virtual or e-learning for students can pro-

vide access to courses and subject matterexpertise where local resources are scarce.This is particularly salient in addressingthe needs of underserved groups: ruralpopulations in western China or minorityand rural groups in the United States.

2. Similarly, teachers can gain access to pro-

fessional development via virtual or e-learning opportunities.

3. Simulation and gaming offer another im-portant opportunity for learning. Throughsimulations, educators can more directlyrepresent an experts model of a physicalphenomenon, demonstrate what cannotbe seen in real time (i.e., speed up or slow

To achieve the widespreadintegration of information

and communicationtechnology in education,schools need to adopt

a holistic strategythat addresses not

only technological andpedagogical issues, but alsothe transformation of school

cultures.


24/35

24

down phenomena), and de-emphasize theunnecessary errors that occur in hands-onexperiments.

4. Technology also provides a platform forcollaboration, either teacher-student and

student-student communication, andmakes data recording and analysis moreefficient.

5. Through international school-to-schooljoint projects, students can improve theirtechnological literacy while also learn-ing critical global competencies (Roberts2004). Finally, there are many inexpensiveways of using technology in the classroomthat make learning mobile and dynamic.

While technology offers a range of op-portunities to improve mathematics and scienceeducation in both countries, there are alsosignificant challenges that go beyond buildingadequate infrastructure (both hardware andsoftware). These include:

Evaluation of the effectiveness of tech-nology for student learning;

Reforming examination and assessmentsystems so that they reflect student learn-ing through technology, rather than inhibit

it (this also includes using technologymore effectively for assessment itself); Ensuring that students are not distracted

from their learning by games and othernon-instructional uses of technology; and

Providing professional development toteachers to allow them to take advantageof technology-based curriculum contentand instructional strategies.

Thus the overall challenge is to move be-

yond a focus on access to information technol-ogy to actual integration of technology-basedcurricula.

POSSIBLE AREAS OF COLLABORATION

Given the contrasting challenges and oftencomplementary strengths of both education

systems, the U.S. and Chinese Forum partici-pants saw greater collaboration and sharing ofresources as mutually beneficial. They agreed ona set of principles to guide the most promisingcollaborative projects. They also prioritized

areas of interest to both countries that may warrant collaborative research, developmentprojects, educational partnerships, and exchangeprojects.

Guiding Principles

The following considerations should guidethe selection of future collaborative efforts:

1. The activity under consideration shouldaddress an issue of significant importanceto both countries.

2. Each project or collaborative effortshould have a well-defined set of expectedoutcomes, achievable in incremental steps.

3. Timelines should be established that relateto the defined outcomes.

4. Partnerships should be clearly defined,e.g., government-to-government, universi-ty-to-university, state-to-province, city-to-city. At present, requisite mechanisms aremissing to develop and maintain some ofthese partnerships on a systematic basis.

5. Methods of support and, specifi

cally, whowill fund what part of any proposed activ-ity, should be established ahead of time,and the necessary funding clearly commit-ted.

Potential Areas of Collaborative Work

The Forum participants identified a va-riety of areas of common interest that couldbe fruitfully addressed through collaborativeefforts. A number of the areas of potential

collaboration identified by participants areinterrelated. Nevertheless, they are discussedseparately below, with connections indicated,so as to encourage development of well-definedprojects in accord with the Guiding Principles.


25/35

25

1. Comparative Study of Curriculum

Standards and Examination Systems

National and provincial/state studenttesting and examination systems have greatinfluence on and, in some cases, determine what

science and mathematics students study andwhat competencies they are expected to acquire. Therefore, understanding the advantages anddisadvantages of assessment systems, togetherwith tracking and evaluating the efforts in eachcountry to reform its national and state systems,was assigned a high priority by participants. Animportant element in such studies will be com-parisons of the curricular standards on whichthe examinations are based, as well as analysesof the textbooks of the two countries to better

understand what kind of learning is valued andtherefore embedded in the examinations andassessment systems of each. An important is-sue is the extent to which curricular standards,textbooks, and examinations are well focused (asin most East Asian countries) or lack focus (as inthe United States), and how well these determi-nants of what students are expected to learn arealigned with each other.

2. Comparative Study of Classroom Testing

PracticesOf interest to both countries is the extentto which classroom testing practices are conso-nant with the national (state/provincial) goals; what role the tests play in assigning grades tostudents, how they determine what teachers em-phasize in their instruction, and what studentsconcentrate on in their study. Studies show thatU.S. teachers generally are unskilled at develop-ing good tests and often either use the testquestions or problems suggested at the end of

a textbook chapter, or fashion simple multiple-choice quizzes. Chinese teachers, as well, use ahundred marks to grade students instead ofmore holistic assessments that encourage stu-dents in all aspects of their learning rather thanjust rote memorization (Wang, D., 2005).

3. Implementation of Best Practices in

Professional Development

Both countries have enormous need fortraining teachers already in the classroom,although these needs are quite different. For

China, there are two distinct types of needs: Oneis getting experienced teachers in lower and up-per secondary schools to expand their repertoireof instructional strategies so that the currentreform in the science and mathematics curriculawill be successfully carried out in the classroom.A second is to train teachers in the more ruralwestern provinces so that they possess adequatescience and mathematics knowledge and can useeffective instructional strategies to carry out themandate for universal education.

For the United States, the primary needis going to scale, that is, implementing whatis known to be effective with small groups ofteachers to reach the thousands of teachers inboth elementary and secondary schools whoare in need of a stronger foundation in mathand science. A key issue is how to reach weakerteachersthose who are least likely to volunteerfor professional development and most likelyto need it. A second important need is to equipteachers to provide effective instruction for

students from minority groups and childrenin poverty who now lag behind in science andmathematics achievement.

4. Teacher Preparation

In addition to the great in-service needs inthis area, there is need to reform the pre-servicepreparation of prospective science and math-ematics teachers in both countries. True studentunderstanding at all levels, K16, involves a firmgrasp of facts and concepts and the ability to ap-

ply these in new situations. To teach for this kindof understanding, teachers need both contentmasteryfacts and structureand pedagogicalknowledgehow students learn mathematicsand science and how to deal with the speciallearning challenges posed by various topics andat various levels (Wieman 2005). U.S. studentsarrive at college with much weaker foundations


26/35

26

in math and science than their Chinese counter-parts. Thus the content preparation of prospec-tive U.S. teachers must spend a great deal moretime developing basic conceptual understandingthan would be necessary in China. In both coun-

tries, there are diffi

cult institutional barriers thatinhibit reforming the current undergraduatescience and mathematics courses for prospec-tive teachers. In particular, introductory coursesfocus mainly on facts andvery little on organizationand uses of facts. Mostpre-service teachers learnscience and mathematicscontent through memo-rization and this is the

teaching style they thencarry into their own class-rooms, particularly since itwas successful for them inpassing exams and is likelyto be so for their students.There would be great ben-efit in mutual exchanges tosites that provide exempla-ry teacher education, e.g., Chinese teacher train-ing universities that prepare teachers with deep

subject matter knowledge, and U.S. institutionsthat prepare teachers to engage their studentsin authentic science inquiry and mathematicalproblem-solving.

5. Information and Communication

Technology

There is much scope for collaborativedevelopment of interactive software to teachscience. As was demonstrated in one of theForum sessions, excellent models exist, such as

CHENGO, the program for teaching Chinesedeveloped collaboratively by the U.S.-ChinaE-Language Learning System, a joint projectof the U.S. Department of Education and theChinese Ministry of Education, and the phys-ics modules developed by Professor Wieman.For the United States, such interactive modelsmight ease the burden of having unqualified

teachers teaching science, either by increasingtheir competence through distance learning orthrough reaching the students directly. Similarly,such courseware could help in Chinas initiativeto implement a ninth-grade education through-

out the rural areas of the western provinces.Participants stipulated a number of conditionsfor successfully carrying out such collaborativedevelopment projects. On the U.S. side, it would

be advantageous to engagethe nonprofit sector, per-haps the National Science Teacher Association, insuch a venture. Technical workgroups should bringtogether scientists, science

educators, instructionaldesign experts, and software engineers. Thesegroups might undertakeextended technical recip-rocal visitations, as wellas use videoconferences,intensive workshops, andface-to-face sessions to

help refine prototypes for effective use in bothcountries. Thorough evaluation of prototypes

must be undertaken to guide continuous modi-fication and improvement.

Linked to the development and use ofinformation and communication technology ininstruction is a better understanding of how stu-dents learn in such environments. In the UnitedStates, much of the current generation of stu-dents is immersed in this technology, spendingmany more hours per week with some form ofit than in school. This is also becoming true ofsome students in Chinas metropolitan centers.

Research is needed as to the most effectiveformats and designs for instructional moduleson science and mathematics topics intendedfor students at different levels. For example,might some modules be couched in the form ofinteractive computer games? How can modulesbe internationalized yet be adaptable to suit dif-ferent locales and levels of technology use?

CHENGO, an onlinegame-based program forbeginning Chinese in the

United States and beginning

English in China, is beingdeveloped jointly by the U.S.Department of Education

and the Ministry of Educationof the Peoples Republic of

China.


27/35

27

6. Serving Rural and Minority Students

As noted earlier, both countries have siz-able student populations that are not benefitingsufficiently from the current system of math-ematics and science education. In the case of

China, these are students dispersed over widegeographic, mostly rural, areas. This conditionexists in the United States as well, though not tothe same extent. In the United States, studentsliving in poverty and/or belonging to certainminority groups (African-Americans, Hispanics)do not profit by the science and mathematicseducation proffered them. Professional develop-ment and teacher preparation must be designedto help teachers be more effective instructorsfor these students. Courses developed for de-

livery through information and communicationtechnology may also address, at least in part, theneed for serving rural and minority students andtheir teachers.

7. Serving Gifted Students

Some concern was expressed that, at leastin the United States, the stress on closing thelearning gap that persists for minority stu-dents may lead to neglecting the nurture of thestudents most gifted and talented in science and

mathematics. Because of budget strictures andmandated expenditures in other areas, programsfor such students have been eliminated in manyschools. Especially with todays concerns aboutensuring an adequate supply of profession-als in science, mathematics, engineering, andtechnologyincluding teachers at the K16levelsthe United States may have much tolearn from studying Chinese residential andkey high schools as to how to encourage andprovide appropriate learning opportunities for

gifted and talented students.

8. Elementary School Science

What science is it important for elementaryschool teachers to know? Since China providesspecialist science teachers in upper elementaryschool, this becomes in part a question as tohow much formal science should be taught in

the lower elementary grades in that country. Inthat regard, it is instructive to note that someof the highest-scoring countries in TIMSS(Japan, Singapore) do not introduce formal sci-ence until upper elementary school. American

standards, however, recommend the teaching ofscience at the earliest grades, yet the use of sci-ence specialist teachers in elementary school hasvirtually disappeared from most school systems.Should specialist science teachers be introducedinto American elementary schools? When gen-eralist teachers are responsible for instructingall subjects through Grade 5 or even beyond,then what science courses should be requiredin their pre-service education? What should bethe content of these courses so that prospective

teachers will be competent to handle the sci-ence to be taught in elementary school? Whatprofessional development should be designedand made available to them, once they are inthe schools, to maintain or even increase theirscience teaching competence?

9. Advanced (Graduate) Education

for Teachers and Other Education

Professionals

One of the ways in which both systems

can scale up effective teaching strategies is toreevaluate pre-service teacher education andadvanced education for other education profes-sionals. More collaborative research is neededon graduate education for specialist teachersand teacher leaders, education administrators,teacher training faculty, researchers, and otherprofessionals in mathematics and science edu-cation. For example, the U.S. National ScienceFoundation is supporting several Centers forLearning and Teaching that in part are ad-

dressing what constitutes appropriate graduateeducation in these fields. One of these Centershas developed two course sequences for gradu-ate students planning to enter careers focusingon school mathematics: One is a series ofalternative advanced mathematics courses thatdeal with K12 mathematics in great depthrather than offering graduate students only the


28/35

28

traditional advanced courses that have nothingto do with the mathematics taught in school; thesecond is a sequence of mathematics methodscourses that deal with issues in mathematicseducation and instructional strategies effective

for teaching various topics at the elementaryand secondary levels. In addition, these graduatestudents are involved in research and develop-ment directly related to K12 mathematics andthe preparation of school teachers.

10. Leadership for Reform in Science

Education

Participants agreed that, to ensure success-ful science and mathematics education in theschools, principals, provincial and state educa-

tion authorities, university faculty, and nationaleducation leaders in both countries need tounderstand and support current reform effortsand the rationale behind them. Therefore, ap-proaches to professional development for theseadministrators and leaders must be designed tosuit their roles and responsibilities so that theycan and will support classroom teachers charged with implementing each countrys reform ef-forts. While any given activity may have to bedesigned to suit each countrys specific condi-

tions, there may be enough similarities in rolesand responsibilities to make some collaborativeexploratory work worthwhile.

Methods of Collaboration

The Forum participants made recommen-dations about specific methods of exchange andmechanisms of collaboration. For example:

1. Some areas of interest lend themselves tojoint comparative research; these includecomparisons of curriculum standards,

textbooks, and assessment systems, mod-els for teacher preparation and profession-al development, and programs for giftedand talented students.

2. For some of these same areas, mutualobservation of practices in each countrythrough shadowing of principals andteachers to observe curriculum and in-

struction might be of great value, includ-ing observations of pre-service educationof teachers. A supplement to shadow-ing is the use of videotapes of scienceand mathematics classrooms, as well-es-

tablished methods of analysis of suchtapes are readily available.3. Work addressing a third set of areas, par-

ticularly the use of information technol-ogy for science and mathematics instruc-tion, will need to rely heavily on long-termdevelopment efforts, modeled on the ex-pertise acquired in developing CHENGOand other successful interactive technol-ogy programs.

A variety of education partnerships willbe necessary to carry out these different typesof work. For example, partnership agreementsbetween American states and Chinese provinceswith linkages to schools and teacher preparationinstitutions could further teacher and principalshadowing projects, as well as joint scienceprojects by students working together throughthe Internet. The Chinese government hasexpressed a willingness to offer scholarships forscholars and teachers interested in participat-

ing in shadowing projects. On Chinas side,the development of information technologyprojects could be funded through the new ruraldistance education initiative, whereas fundingwould have to be sought on the U.S. side from various sources, such as the National ScienceFoundation, private nonprofit foundations, andpossibly the for-profit commercial sector (con-sidering the potentially vast audience of morethan 100 million Chinese students).

The Ministry of Education of the Peoples

Republic of China would likely take the lead forappropriate follow-up activities for China. Onthe part of the United States, responsibility isnot that clearly delineated. Some activities mightfall in the bailiwick of the U.S. Departmentof Education, as specified in a renewedMemorandum of Understanding between theMinistry of Education and the U.S. Department


29/35

29

of Education. Others might be supportedthrough the National Science Foundation andthe National Institutes of Health; still othersthrough private corporations and foundations.Nonprofit and professional organizations as

well as universities would manage such projects.Consideration should be given to establishing abi-national Advisory Committee to oversee thevarious projects as they are initiated, to monitorprogress toward their intermediate and long-term outcomes, to keep them in communication with each other, and to ensure their ties tonational, state/provincial, and local needs.

CONCLUSION

As globalization becomes an increas-ingly prominent feature of our time, the inter-national exchange of ideas fuels new thinking.Educational innovations are taking hold aroundthe world. Educational ideas from one settingmay not be totally applicable in other settings.Yet they can yield useful adaptations as nationsstrive to prepare their children for a worldin which shared science and technology, andincreased communications across boundaries

of language and cultures become the norm.The United States can no more afford to isolateitself educationally than it can economically orin terms of national security. Currently mosteducators know little about education in othercountries. As countries around the world areinstituting fundamental reforms, we need aglobally oriented world-standard education toprepare our young people for leadership. Whilethe United States has much to learn from othercountries, it simultaneously has an important

role to play in improving education around theworlda role that is an increasingly importantpart of its international engagement.


30/35

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for ScienceLiteracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Asia Society (2005). Education in China: Lessons for U.S. Educators. New York.

Chen, Xiaoya (2005). Chinas Rural Education and Educational Equity Policies. Keynote Speechdelivered at U.S.-China Education Leaders Forum on Math and Science Education. Denver,Colorado.

Ginsburg, Alan, et al. (2005). A Chart Book on Math and Science. Prepared for the U.S.-ChinaEducation Leaders Forum on Math and Science Education. Denver, Colorado.

Ginsburg, Alan; Leinwand, Steven; Anstrom, Terry; Pollock, Elizabeth (2005). What the UnitedStates Can Learn from Singapores World-Class Mathematics System: An Exploratory Study.

American Institutes for Research.Hiebert, J. et al (2003). Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries. Results From the TIMSS 1999

Video Study. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Liu, Enshan (2005). Secondary Biology Education Reform in China. Presentation at the U.S.-China

Education Leaders Forum on Math and Science Education. Denver, Colorado.Loucks-Horsley, S., et al. (2003). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and

Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.Mi, Qi (2005). Integrating Technology into Physics Curriculum. Presentation at the U.S.-China

Education Leaders Forum on Math and Science Education. Denver, Colorado.

Ministry of Education, Peoples Republic of China (2001). Compulsory Education: MathematicsCurriculum Standards (Experimental version). Beijing Normal University Press, China.

Ministry of Education, Peoples Republic of China (2001). Chinese Science Curriculum Standards(Grade 3-6). Beijing Normal University Press, China.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004). The Condition of Education 2004. U.S.Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2005). The Condition of Education 2005. U.S.

Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and Standards for SchoolMathematics. Reston, Virginia.

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. NationalCommittee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Coordinating Council forEducation. Washing

Documents

Math Science Report China