Two out of three fourth graders cannot read proficiently and seven out of ten inner-city and rural fourth graders cannot read at the most basic level (Paige, 2002). Data such as these create considerable pressure on K-8 teachers to elevate reading proficiency. As well, one of the further challenges of tests such as the MontCas (Science and Math) and NAEP (Science and Math) is that the assessment questions often require strong reading comprehension skill levels as well as sufficient science and math conceptual understanding.
Added to this now is the growing pressure to incorporate STEM into the K-12 classroom. How do you envision a math/science education curriculum that aligns with the expectations of NCLB while still providing a STEM-rich environment for science inquiry and problem-based math learning?
To explore this question, it will be helpful to examine some of the government policies behind these education agendas. Education Week just published an excellent summary of current STEM policy that integrates our discussion of NAEP and STEM. Check out the main article and click on the online reports of each state to see how Montana is doing.
1.Education Week: The push to improve STEM education.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/27/30intro.h27.html
After reading the article, let's start with the basics. What exactly is STEM? What does NAEP have to do with STEM? What do NAEP and STEM have to do with K-8 elementary teachers? How is Montana doing in STEM? How does Montana compare to other states. How do you put all this together for your science and math curriculum program? Finally, where do you stand in all of this? Do you agree with the policies being put forth by the federal government regarding work force development? Does it fit with your personal understanding of the purpose of schooling? Can you see benefits? What parts of this discussion worry you most?
8 comments:
From my understanding based on class and the article, STEM is basically the subjects: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, but has come to mean the movement to improve how these subjects are approached and taught in the classroom. The reason NAEP is concerned with STEM is because those are the areas in the national tests where U.S. students struggle and receive lower scores than other countries taking similar tests. Even though studies show that U.S. students are performing better on the tests there is a growing concern about the STEM curriculum and what we need to be teaching our students. Scores received on these national tests are motivating a change in the curriculum that we teach our students. These changes do not impact just the “tested” grades but all the way down to first grade and how we approach math, and the sciences.
As far as how Montana is doing, well the first thing I happened to come across in my search was the technology report card for Montana and I was extremely surprised with the final grades. While I would have thought the biggest problem in Montana with technology would be access, this was not the case. We actually scored the best in the availability of technology, scoring a B when the national average is a C. Here’s the kicker: we scored a D+ in actually using this technology, when the nation’s average is a B-. So my question is why if we have better than average access to this technology are we SO far behind in actually allowing our kids to use it and learn about it? I found the technology section of the report to be really interesting, you can find what I am talking about here: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/tc/2008/30MT_STR2008.h27.pdf (maybe everyone automatically went here and if they did- I apologize…)
As for the other STEM subjects, I could only find the math results, I am not sure/cannot remember where to look for the others. For the math, I was surprised that Montana was ranked second in the nation for eighth grade math scores, although they are still low scores, compared to the nation we are not too bad. In light of that, the study also showed that we when we compare to our states performance in the past we have actually gone down in our scores.
To be quite honest I am not sure how to put it all together for my curriculum. I will just say that I will use the standards as guidelines and make sure I give ample opportunity for inquiry and problem solving or a more conceptual approach versus a procedural approach and in doing so will hopefully prepare my students better for the tests at the same time as learning the curriculum material. The only policies I read about were in that article, and I am not sure I agree with the one method that jumped out at me that stated some states are offering monetary incentives for students to take additional math or science. I feel the money could be better used elsewhere, and that we shouldn’t be paying kids to take classes, there has to be a better way, but I am not sure what it is. Although I can see that the risk our economy could suffer if we don’t stay as a leader in the development of new technologies, I just don’t think paying students to take classes is the way to “motivate” students to learn the STEM subjects. Perhaps they could use that funding in the younger grades for supplies and teacher training so that students develop an appreciation and fondness of science, instead of believing it is just reading from a book and memorizing the structure of a cell.
My understanding is that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is a federal push to improve student competency of the listed areas of study. NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) seems to be a product of NCLB and has been dubbed “The Nation’s Report Card” by the U.S. Department of Education. My understanding is that NAEP is an assessment tool to gauge how well students are doing nation-wide in science, technology, engineering and math.
NAEP is already a very important issue among K-8 teachers as these assessments are driving instruction a little more each year. STEM is becoming more and more a concern for K-8 teachers with each passing year. According to the article The Push to Improve STEM Education, “business leaders, governors, and others are urging a redoubled commitment to strengthening U.S. students’ preparation to succeed in the subjects known by the increasingly familiar shorthand of STEM.” The article goes on to reveal some shocking statistics regarding student performance in science, technology, engineering and math and as a result, more states are passing legislation that will mandate more frequent enrollment of each student in these subject areas.
Montana is not doing very well when it comes to incorporating the use of technology in the classroom. Although we rank among the U.S. average for students with access to computers, Montana received a C- for it’s “Overall technology” grade, a B for it’s “Access to technology”, a D+ for “Use of technology” and an F for it’s “Capacity to use technology” grade. Surprisingly, Montana 4th and 8th graders are (and have been) quite a bit above the national average in the categories of math and science (though 8th grade science achievement has dropped a little).
For technology (overall), Montana ranks among the lowest in the country, compared to other states. For all other areas in STEM, Montana ranks somewhere in between. I looked at some states that have great reputations for their educational systems (e.g. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Vermont) and Montana is typically just behind them, though not down at the very bottom either.
This (science and math curriculum) can all be put together in a variety of ways. I imagine many school districts are or soon will be adopting a math/science curriculum that may be the STEM equivalent of a basal reading program. If I could, I would put this together in a way that would allow for inquiry and problem based methods, as opposed to one strictly based upon procedure. Evidence has shown that if students are given the opportunity to make their own observations and explore science, technology, engineering and math, student interest and performance tends to rise. In an attempt to please all, I would use programs like GEMS, AIM and the Boston Museum of Science as much as possible, while always using the standards as my foundation.
Although I think that exposure to a better science curriculum is a great idea, I disagree with the federal government’s policies regarding work force development. I think that education works best when learners are intrinsically motivated, which tends to happen in a more organic learning atmosphere. I think that if our intention to educate is driven by the fear that our work force is inferior, our goals to provide an authentic, worthwhile educational experience, while fostering creativity and innovation will be diminished. The policy of monetary incentives is one that I find to be a display of desperation to entice students to take more science and math classes. Maybe that money could be used to find a more interesting curriculum to spark the students’ interest in these subjects instead!
We have seen the devastating effects that, for example, basal reading programs have had on students and their ability to explore, imagine and create within classroom learning community. The sciences and arts have served as the remaining creative outlets for students. Assuming that many of these new programs will be comparable to the factory-produced reading materials we see in all classrooms, what worries me most is that students may eventually be left with little time to create, explore, imagine and invent.
After reading the article my understanding of STEM is that it represents science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and a push to improve these subjects in the schools. It seems to be an attempt to increase student understanding/scores, and improve the teaching of the above subject areas. The National Assesment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has also come to be known as the Nation’s Report Card. I believe NAEP is the only nationally continuing assessment of America's students in various subject areas. NAEP conducts periodic assessments in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history. STEM and NAEP are related because NAEP assess how students in the U.S. are doing in comparison to many other nations in the some of the subject areas of STEM. These two programs have begun to affect the curriculum of most elementary teachers. The scores form these national tests are stimulating changes in the way we teach Math and Science in the U.S. Teachers have also began to target and work even harder with groups of students who have underachieved in these subjects. Teacher are also working to increase progress by using the supply of STEM-related competitions. These two programs have become a major part of the driving force in creating math and science curriculums for elementary teachers.
Before reviewing our states test results I wanted to look at a few other states. When I looked at Montana’s State Technology Report I was shocked to find that we were above average in our access to technology. Montana scored an 83.5% in this category while the national average was only 75.3%. When I saw this I thought Montana was looking fairly good, until I saw the next category. We scored a 69.3% in our use of technology compared to the national average of 80.1%. We also truly lacked in our capacity to use technology scoring only a 59%, while the average score was a 75.5%. It looks to me like Montana really needs to incorporate the use of technology much more in the classrooms. Montana fourth graders and eighth graders have shown steady improvements in their Math proficiency since 1990. On the other hand the science scores for both grades have remained steady, and the science scores for Montana twelfth graders has declined.
I agree with Julia in the fact that I am not entirely sure how to put this all together for my curriculum. I also would use the standards as a guideline and a starting point to help better prepare my students for our ever-changing world. As the scores show we really need to work on using technology in the classroom, so I would try incorporate technology into my curriculum in many different ways. It also looks like we need to increase our science scores here in Montana, so I would work hard to create meaningful and engaging science explorations into my curriculum.
As far as the policies put forth I feel like I would need a little more background to fully understand them. However the ones I did see I had mixed feelings about. I do like that the federal government is trying to provide stronger research on what works in the classroom, and attempting to improve best practice in STEM education. I think this could offer benefits to our teachers and students. I did not agree with the idea of monetary incentives for students to enter STEM fields. I do not think we will improve STEM fields by offering incentives. I think it may increase the number of students entering math and science, but they will be students who are uninterested in the subject area and only interested in the incentive. I think that by engaging in more inquiry and problem solving exploration in the younger grades, we may be able to increase interest in these subject areas in the older grades.
There are a few things that worry me with this discussion. As Kevin said I do not want to see the creativity of inquiry and science taken out of the classroom, and a set program implemented. It also really concerns me that here in Montana we have such a high score on our access to technology, yet such a low score on our use of technology. Why is that?
STEM consists of the education fields of, science, technology, engineering and math in which the U.S. is slowly falling behind compared to many other countries across the world. The government is attempting to push the advancement of STEM in order to better educate our students in these fields so they can better compete in the world.
NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress. STEM has become a promoted topic because of the results NAEP is producing. Through NAEP assessment we are learning that many students are scoring below proficient in science and math. Teachers are affected by NAEP and STEM because what we teach is and how students respond is recorded by the assessments, while STEM is going to push teachers to become more educated in the science, technology, engineering and math subjects requiring them to go through more schooling at the college levels as well as special training in technologies.
Montana is doing quite poorly in STEM in technology. We have an overall grade of a C- however, compared with the average score of a C+, we as a state are not doing so badly but as a nation we are doing considerably bad!
First to accomplish this whole project, we need to look at our scores in NAEP and see where each state should be and what we need to do to get all of our students more interested in STEM subjects as well as getting them a proficient levels. Then, we as teachers need to get together in our schools and districts and at the state level and figure out how we can use STEM as well as getting the appropriate funding. Technology can be fairly easy to incorporate and use in Science and Math and in fact would be so incredibly benefical to students. It gets excited to do math and science, the get to experiement using new technologies. This is not a hard connection but my biggest concern is funding, none of this can happen if we don’t have the appropriate amount of funding.
This is very intimating coming in to education as a new teacher and having all of this pressure to help everyone of our students succeed in STEM is very overwhelming. As a teacher we all know that we can do this but it’s very difficult to accomplish when public education funding so low and we as teachers are so poorly paid. Technology is expensive and if the U.S. wants to succeed in becoming a more prominent technologically advanced country within our education system, we have a lot of work to do.
I agree with this idea very much, I think in order to compete in the world today STEM would be the ideal way to go. I find it interesting however, that the Federal Government is so in tune now to education after teachers and students have been financially neglected for so many years. This is more than an educational issue it is a political issue and I’m not sure where we would get funding for all of this technological advancements in the classroom!
There are so many purposes of schooling and education and they simply can not be the priority. It seems to me that if we use STEM than other subjects that also have proven to be important, like music and art are again put on the back burner. It’s all very overwhelming and the teachers have so much responsibility, we simply cannot do it all on our own.
After reading the article I have found that STEM stands for: science, technology, engineering, and math. The article makes me think that when we, as students/teachers, hear about STEM it has to do with how America needs to work towards the improvement in knowledge in these areas on testing. It appears that there is concern in how these areas are being taught, and how as a country we can improve students' test scores in order to compete, and improve with the rest of the world.
NAEP is concerned with STEM because it has been seen as the areas where students in America are scoring lower on when compared to other countries. NAEP is concerned with how to improve test scores.
When comparing recent test scores to past it shows that as a nation the scores are improving, but not as high as the government would like. Regarding why STEM and NAEP have anything to do with K-8 teachers, I believe it has a fair amoung to do with them. Statistics are showing how important it is for teachers to be well educated in the STEM areas in order to properly implement education in these areas. It also shows the importance of introducing these areas at grades lower than high school in order to excite students into studying these areas in order to improve their knowledge.
As far as Montana is doing in STEM, I have observed a lot of room for improvement, mostly in technology. The lowest grade given to MT was in technology with a grade of C-. After reviewing the technology report card, I think a C- is a fairly nice grade. I was shocked to see that when comparing MT to other states we scored a D+ in the use of technology, and a F in the capacity to use technology. I was left with the question of why schools in MT have not implemented the use of technology when it shows they have the resources to implement it. I found that in the areas of math and science MT 4th and 8th graders have scored above average compared to the rest of the nation. That is good to hear!
When asked how to incorporate all of this into the curriculum while still being ablet to incorporate NCLB guidelines, all I can think of is to incorporate STEM topics into reading, and other NCLB areas. I agree with Julia that following standards and guidelines would be beneficial. I also believe it is important to allow students to ask questions and be given a chance to explore these areas as much as possible.
As far a the governments belief in the importance of workforce development, I do not believe this is the most important thing to teach towards. I feel that at many times students get turned away froma areas when they are preached about the importance of education in order to succeed. I think it would be a terrible idea to offer incentives such as money for students who take a larger number of required classes. I am positive the money could be implemented else where with a more positive outcome. I do not believe that by offering money to students it will motivate them anymore.
It worries me that the nation is heavely relying on what teachers, and teachers only, are doing to improve test scores. Doesn't some of it have to fall back on the other teachers, such as: parents, guardians, siblings, any other person involved in the child's life?
STEM is a curriculum which is sweeping across the nation, set out to foster creative students who are problem solvers, innovators, inventors, logical thinkers. This program is deep rooted in an active inquiry and design process; it pushes students to make sense of the world around them through use of STEM as well as other disciplines such as Reading and Social Studies. The main focus of STEM is to raise today’s students in a way that will keep us competitive in today's global economy, which is a department we’ve been lacking in lately.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a standardized test that can be used to measure students progress and proficiency in the specified areas of STEM within states and schools.
This relates to teachers and future educators because they are expected to be a apart of this program through modeling and intertwining technology into their classroom and its varied instruction. Also with NAEP their progress within this program can be compared and even monitored.
Specifically speaking about Montana, I found it interesting that Montana is rated high in access but rated low in actual use. I find this fact very disappointing and worrisome, though from my experiences, I find it true. The teachers I have observed have a great amount of technology resources within their own classrooms but seem very reluctant to use them. Especially smartBoards—both teachers had them but very rarely use them, impart because they feel that they aren’t very reliable.
When compared to other states, it seems as though Montana as a whole is right in the middle with an about average rating.
I think its very important to incorporate all these elements into the classroom. It may seem like a challenge to some degree but by being exposed to things like the google earth tours, the engineering lesson planning books we’ve used in class, and various other things should give us the tools we need to set us in the right direction.
STEM represents the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is very concerned, especially with 12th grade students because STEM has not been an integral part of their learning experience. Things are evolving though, and STEM is making its way more and more into the classroom. Although, the improvements are modest, younger students (4th and 8th graders) are raising their math scores, but on average are still falling short of the proficiency line. However, in science the change has been even less among 4th and 8th graders overall.
In all actuality, NAEP and STEM have almost everything to do with K-8 teachers. Since all of us University students are going to be teachers of that age group, the significance between the two is great. Teachers need to not only know STEM material, but need to know it well enough to teach their students efficiently. In hand, the teachers who can teach it accurately will have students that earn higher scores through NAEP. Likewise (and what seems to partially be the case), teachers who do not have the education, have difficulty teaching, or choose not to fully incorporate the program will more often than not have students that do not meet proficiency levels in science and math (when looked at by the NAEP). However, after looking at Montana scores, I am not entirely sure that I agree/understand the depth of this subject.
When I looked at Montana’s scores for STEM, I was first shocked by how low the scores were, especially when the scores for “access to technology” were higher than the overall score. I agree with Julia when she said that she expected the “access” scores to be the lowest. When I read further, Montana does not have any policies (except one) to follow in terms of technology. We scored an “F” in “capacity to use technology”, which means we CAN do it, but we aren’t. In terms of comparison to other states, Montana is somewhere in the middle with 27 other States. 22 States, however, are in the top half of embedding technology expectations within the standards of other subjects.
Working with STEM and NAEP, it seems overwhelming to put together a science and math curriculum that effectively covers the material, but embeds technology along the way. Technology itself takes time to learn and with the constant changing of technology, wouldn’t it at times just waste time in the classroom? I can understand that other approaches (not just technological) should be made to better help students understand, but I also think that it is unfair and unwise to put so much stock into using technology to make vast improvements on achievement level. One reason I think this is due to Montana’s level of achievement in spite of the “F” in capacity to use technology. In 2005, Montana was ranked #2 in science achievement, and our math scores were not bad either.
What has been puzzling me…How can Montana’s STEM scores be so low, but achievement scores be high? Does that mean that we don’t have to use technology to improve grades, but should use it because we are supposed to? I am confused.
From what I read, STEM relates to the teaching of Science, technology, engineering, and math. Over time, when students like myself or teachers hear the term STEM, the meaning has changed to how the subjects are taught and ways that they can improved in the classroom because of less than desirable test scores.
NAEP tests are the tests in which students seem to be struggling the most and scoring lower than other countires. Although scores are up in the NAEP, there is still a need for improvement in the STEM subjects. This is causing an outcry for change in the way students are taught.
Educating students in the STEM subjects is very important for the NAEP test scores. It is important that students have a base knowledge at the younger ages so then teachers in the upper grades can expand upon the subjects when they get older and hopefully allow for higher test scores.
In some areas, Montana seems to be doing decent in STEM... In others, not so much. As others have stated, Montana has a lot of technology available to them, but are not implementing. I don't really understand exactly how this can be graded, but if it means that schools have purchased technological item and schools are not using them, that just seems like a waste of money to me. We seem to have some good scores in achievement levels in math and science though so that is something to be proud of!
Honestly, I don't really know where I put this all together for my science and math curriculum. I think it is really important to try and integrate subjects as much as possible so you can get a little double dip action going on in lessons and get as much out of lessons as possible. This will help to be able to teach all the lessons that need to be taught in our short days.
I don't really know where I stand with all of this. I think it is pretty similar to "teaching for the test" and I don't think that is what school is about. I think it is good to work on work force development, but at the same time, I believe that is what college is for. There probably are some benefits, but also some drawbacks. I do agree with Kylie that it all shouldn't come down on students. Parents should be taking some responsibility and helping their children out at home. I know that this last paragraph isn't really informative at all, but I just really don't think I can say where I stand with all of this. I don't feel like I know enough about any of it to make a choice as to whether or not it is a good thing... Sorry for the uselessness of me!
Post a Comment