science

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results: four reasons why East Asia continues to top the leaderboard

This article was writteb by Mark Boylan

The results speak for themselves. The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have been released – and, once again, East Asian countries have ranked the highest in both tests.

Over recent years, other countries’ positions have gone up and down in the tables but East Asian education – which includes China, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan – continues to dominate. And the gap between these countries and the rest of the world is getting wider.

The reasons why East Asian countries are way ahead of the pack as far as education is concerned has long been debated – but it essentially seems to come down to the following four factors.

1. Culture and mindset

There is a high value placed on education and a belief that effort rather than innate ability is the key to success. East Asian researchers usually point to this as the most important factor for this regions high test results.

The positive aspect of this approach to education is that there is an expectation that the vast majority of pupils will succeed. Learners are not labelled and put into “ability” groups – as they are in England, where this is the norm even in many primary schools. So, in East Asian countries, everyone has the same access to the curriculum – which means many more pupils are able to get those high grades.

Formal schooling is also supplemented by intensive after-school tuition – at the extreme this can see children studying well into the night – and sometimes for up to three hours of extra school in the evening on top of two hours of homework a day.

But while this intensive after school study can get results, it’s important to recognise that in many East Asian countries, educators worry about the quality and influence these “crammers” have on the mental health and well-being of children. And many studies looking at pupils’ experiences in these schools have reported high levels of adolescent stress and a sense of pressure to achieve – for both the students and their parents.

The crème de la cram.

2. The quality of teachers

Teaching is a respected profession in East Asia, where there is stiff competition for jobs, good conditions of service, longer training periods and support for continuing and extensive professional development.

In Shanghai, teachers have much lower teaching workloads than in England – despite the bigger classes. And they use specialist primary mathematics teachers, who teach two 35-40 minute lessons a day. This gives the teachers time for planning – or the chance to give extra support to pupils that need it – along with time for professional development in teacher research groups.

In Japan, “lesson study” is embedded in primary schools. This involves teachers planning carefully designed lessons, observing each other’s teaching, and then drawing out the learning points from these observations. And lesson study also gives teachers time to research and professionally develop together.

3. Using the evidence

Ironic though it may be, much of the theoretical basis for East Asian education has been heavily influenced by research and developments in the West. For example, Jerome Bruner’s theory of stages of representation which says that learners need hands-on experiences of a concept – then visual representations – as a basis for learning symbolic or linguistic formulations.

This has been translated in Singapore as a focus on concrete, pictorial and abstract models in mathematical learning. For example, this might mean arranging counters in rows of five to learn the five times table, then using pictures of hands that each have five digits, before writing multiplication facts in words, and then adding in numerals and the multiplication and equals signs.

Teaching is a highly respected job in East Asia.

4. A collective push

In the 1970s, Singapore’s educational outcomes lagged behind the rest of the world – the transformation of Singaporean education was achieved through systemic change at national level that encompassed curriculum development, national textbooks and pre-service and in-service teacher education.

Similarly in Shanghai and South Korea educational change and improvement is planned and directed at a national level. This means that all schools use government approved curriculum materials, there is more consistency about entry qualifications to become a teacher and there is much less diversity of types of schools than in the UK.

The success of East Asian education has turned these countries into “reference societies” – ones by which policymakers in the UK and elsewhere measure their own education systems and seek to emulate. Interest in East Asian education in the UK has informed the current “mastery approach” which is used in primary mathematics. Teaching for mastery uses methods found in Shanghai and Singapore and has been the basis of many recent research projects – some sponsored by government funding and others promoted by educational charities or commercial organisations.

But of course, only time will tell if some of the success of these two education systems can be reproduced in the UK, while avoiding some of the negative experiences – such as stress and burnout – associated with the East Asian approach to education.

The Conversation

Mark Boylan, Reader in Education, Sheffield Hallam University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Australia is very average when it comes to maths and science performance – here’s what needs to change

This article was written by Alan Finkel

As a school student, I awaited the arrival of the end-of-year report with a bracing mix of hope and fear.

Now, as Australia’s Chief Scientist, I’m worried once again about school reports.

Our proudly first-class country, with a prosperous economy and an egalitarian spirit, must not be fair-to-middling when it comes to science and maths in schools. On the evidence before me, we are.

Do I believe that international testing can capture everything of importance in Australian education? No.

But do I take these findings seriously? Yes, I do.

Be it the international studies Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), or the national scheme National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the message is clear.

Our performance in absolute terms is stalling, or in decline, and our position in global rankings continues to fall.

International comparisons

Canada now scores significantly higher across all PISA and Year 8 TIMSS domains. England has improved its TIMSS performance, while also decreasing the proportion of low-performing students.

Australia, by contrast, is one of only three countries with significantly decreased maths and science scores in this round of PISA. And the difference between children in Australia’s highest and lowest socioeconomic quartiles recorded by PISA is the equivalent of three full years of school.

While we demand to be top ten in sport, we are barely scraping top 20 in schools.

In PISA maths, we have fallen as low as 25. How much lower are we prepared to go?

My concern is not the temporary wound to national pride. It is the enduring harm we do when students leave school with malnourished potential – or worse, no interest at all – in disciplines that they require to navigate their world. We need to improve.

Let’s start by defining the aim: the best possible education in maths and science (and literacy) for every child, irrespective of gender, region, income or incoming ability.

In the 21st century, we can no more write off a child because “he’s not into numbers” any more than we would accept that “she’s not keen on the alphabet”.

Maths is not just the language of science and technology, but the foundation of commerce, the core of engineering, and the bread and butter of every trade from cooking to construction.

How can we hold governments to account if journalists can’t interpret data and citizens can’t make sense of charts?

How can we resist the prophets of the post-truth world? When everything we value is at stake, surely nothing less than our utmost will do.

So with that aim in mind, let’s agree to share the task: yes, we do bear individual responsibility; but, no, we cannot lay the blame solely on individuals, be they principals, teachers, parents or students.

There is no point in exhorting individuals to aim high unless we help them to make the leap. If we want excellence, we have to provide a system with the incentives, enablers and rewards for improvement built in.

Policy responses

For me, that comes down to a new three Rs for education.

Restore maths prerequisites for courses

Restore meaningful maths prerequisites for all university courses that, no-one could argue, need numbers.

This would reverse the exodus from advanced maths courses and set students up for success – in commerce and accounting, as well as science and engineering. Just as importantly, it would give principals a reason to make the quality of their maths programs a priority all the way from kindergarten to Year 12.

Respect teaching

The single most important factor in the classroom is the human up the front. The education system must be engineered around that fundamental premise, so that high-achieving students become highly qualified teachers with well-targeted professional development.

Crucially, teacher training and development need a strong discipline-specific focus. It should be expected that our science and maths teachers are experts in their fields, with both the technical and pedagogical knowledge to teach them well.

The Commonwealth Science Council strongly endorsed this principle at its last meeting in September, and requested the Department of Education to investigate options to bring it about.

Recognise the influence of school leaders

Principals set the tone in their schools and, with the right strategic focus, they can drive a culture of constant improvement. Without that senior leadership, it is simply too hard for individual teachers to keep the bar consistently high – another reality the Commonwealth Science Council has acknowledged.

Of course, ambitious aims have investment pathways attached. But money spent is not a proxy for effort invested, and it is certainly not a reliable predictor of success.

As a businessman, I learned that no project delivers what you want unless the how comes before the how much.

Face the hard truths, aim high, be strategic – and we might just receive a school report we can be proud to display.

The Conversation

Alan Finkel, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief Scientist

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results don’t look good, but before we panic let’s look at what we can learn from the latest test

This article was written by Stewart Riddle and Bob Lingard

The 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been released – and on first glance, it does not look good for Australia.

On global comparisons, Australia performed equal 10th in science (down from 8th in 2012), 20th in maths (down from 17th) and 12th in reading (down from 10th).

There is a steady decline in the results since 2000, both in terms of overly simple international comparisons and absolute mean scores.

No doubt, similar to the response to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results last week, the media, politicians and education commentators will go into a panic over Australia sliding down the international rankings, falling standards in classrooms, and poor quality teachers.

Beyond the panicked headlines, what can we actually learn from the results of an international test that compares 15 year olds’ science, maths and reading skills in 72 countries and economies?

We need to have a more considered discussion about these test results rather than leaping to quick conclusions about a failing education system.

Scientific literacy

The main domain of the 2015 test was scientific literacy – the application of scientific knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Australia’s average score was 510, significantly above the OECD average of 493.

However, there has been an overall decline of 17 points since 2006. With the exception of the Northern Territory and Tasmania, most states performed well above the OECD average.

Singapore achieved the highest score of 556, which equates to roughly one and a half years more schooling than Australia.

While 61% of Australian students achieved the National Proficient Standard, only 11% were high performers (OECD average was 8%) and 18% were low performers (OECD average was 21%). This suggests that the majority of students might be doing okay, but few are excelling.

Mathematical literacy

The OECD average for mathematical literacy was 490, with Australia achieving 494. This is significantly below 19 other countries, including Singapore at 564 points. This is the equivalent of two and a half years more schooling.

The number of students reaching the National Proficient Standard in mathematical literacy was 61% in the Australian Capital Territory, but only 44% in Tasmania.

Reading literacy

Singapore achieved the highest result of 535 in reading literacy, equating to about one year more of schooling than Australia’s score of 503. The OECD average was 493.

Once again, the Northern Territory and Tasmania performed significantly below the OECD average, while all other states gained much higher results. Also, the spread between the lowest and highest Australian performers was significantly wider than the OECD average.

What the results mean

It is unhelpful to use the single country ranking to determine how we are going as there are significant variances between states/territories and school sectors (government, independent, Catholic).

Instead, we need to carefully disaggregate the data and consider the social and economic factors that influence performance across states, between schools, as well as the correlations between gender, Indigeneity, class, race, geographical location, and so on.

Australia has one of the widest ranges of student achievement, with what can be described as a long tail of underachievement.

For example, the difference in performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory and those in Tasmania and the Northern Territory is worth considering.

These differences are similar to those evident in performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

Furthermore, there is a difference of nearly three years of schooling between students in the highest socioeconomic quartile and the lowest, with similar differences when comparing Indigenous with non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, boys only marginally outperformed girls on scientific literacy, with girls significantly outperforming boys on reading literacy, with no real difference on mathematical literacy.

It is also interesting to note that since the PISA tests began in 2000, the major federal education policy levers have included:

  • Significantly increased federal funding to private schools under John Howard, followed by a commitment by Julia Gillard that no school would lose a dollar.
  • Failure to implement Gonski’s needs-based funding of all schools.
  • The introduction of NAPLAN, MySchool, the Australian Curriculum and the AITSL national teaching standards by the Rudd-Gillard governments.
  • Increased emphasis on market measures for school provision, such as Independent Public Schools and school autonomy.

Yet over this time, the narrative of steady decline on PISA and TIMSS results continues, while educational inequality is on the rise.

Australia has one of the most segregated schooling systems in the world, and the OECD data provide a strong correlation between high-performing systems such as Singapore and factors of social cohesion and equity.

Further evidenced in secondary analysis of all PISA data over time is the strength of the correlation between equitable funding of schools and systemic performance on PISA.

If we want to address these sliding results then we must address the issue of educational inequality in Australia.

Social efficiency and social equity

There are competing tensions in the agenda of social efficiency and social equity, which is evident in how PISA results inform global and local education policy-making. This includes the emphasis on competing within a global knowledge economy.

It is worth noting how the economic rationalisation for greater educational equity plays out in the global policy field, particularly through testing regimes such as NAPLAN and PISA.

The challenge for policymakers, schools and teachers is how to respond to increasing pressure to lift test results on PISA, TIMSS and NAPLAN, while also addressing systemic inequality in order to ensure that every Australian student is given access to a meaningful
education.

Equitable funding of schools, including redistribution to schools serving disadvantaged communities, remains a pressing policy issue in Australia.

However, it is unlikely that we will see much more than panic and moral crusading in the media commentary over the coming days.

Once the hyperventilating dies down, we need to take a long, careful look at these results and what they mean for a more equitable and high-performing Australian schooling system.

The Conversation

Stewart Riddle, Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Bob Lingard, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Education, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Secondary Education, Teachers

High school Dropout Rates Up; Are Math and Science the Cause?

More rigorous math and science requirements for high school graduation are in place, and simultaneously dropout rates in the country are up.

Research back to 1990 showed that the US dropout rate rose to a high of 11.4 percent when students were required to take six math and science courses, compared with 8.6 percent for students who needed less math and science courses in order to graduate.

The dropout rate is up to 5 percentage points higher when gender, race and ethnicity are considered.

William F. Tate, vice provost for graduate education and dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences says that part of the problem with adding math and science courses to requirements was that a significant number of students weren’t prepared to meet the revised requirements.

Andrew Plunk, a postdoctoral research fellow in the psychiatry department at Washington University School of Medicine, says the study highlights that the one-size-fits all approach to education requirements is not ideal due to various demographic groups, states and school districts that are all different.

When educational policies cause an unintentional consequence like an increase in students dropping out, the effects reverberate far beyond the classroom walls.

“Communities with higher dropout rates tend to have increased crime,” says Plunk. “Murders are more common. A previous study estimated that a 1 percent reduction in the country’s high school dropout rate could result in 400 fewer murders per year.”

While I do feel that the high drop out rate could be blamed on math and science courses, I don’t feel that the US should ease up on those requirements. I think the key is to better prepare the students. We need to make sure the students are ready for the requirements and aim to help all students graduate high school.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement

Hands-on chemistry comes home

Science is one of those topics that just has to be experienced to be understood. When I was a public elementary school teacher, I truly saw the importance of hands-on activities where science was concerned. For kids to be able to connect to what is truly magical about the world around us, they have to feel it, touch it, and experiment with it.

Finding ways to come up with experiments to perform, and the money to do it, is harder to do than it sounds. Even if you have both the money and supplies, giving kids the one-on-one time in class to really understand and perform the experiments is challenging. That leaves a lot of the responsibility to parents to help instill a love and comprehension for science to their kids. Finding that time, energy, money and expertise (not every parent completely understands scientific concepts, like chemistry, themselves) can feel futile. Kids needs extra help with science, though, more than ever. Consider these statistics:

All of these factors add up to a need for convenient, expert science tools that parents can implement at home and kids can have fun doing.

Convenient Chemistry at Home

I recently got a behind-the-scenes look at MEL Science, a company that offers an interactive chemistry experiment subscription service that pairs the best of hands-on learning with mobile technology. These standalone education packages include:

  • 38 (!!) interactive chemistry sets
  • Free mobile app for tablets or smartphones
  • Website access to other science facts and stories to complement the experiments

The MEL Science subscription is designed to last for the course of a year, with 3 monthly packages with 1 to 3 experiments each (so each customer gets a total of 4 to 7 experiments per month). The experiments are strengthened by a complementary mobile app that essentially works as a virtual 3D microscope and a website with in-depth information on the projects and science behind them.

The company was founded by a small group of self-proclaimed “science geeks” who saw the need for better at-home science options when they had children of their own. The combined expertise and personal passion are what makes MEL Science so unique in the Ed-Tech field, I think.

I got a chance to look at the app, site and some of the experiments being performed and I actually walked away with a greater understanding of chemistry than I had before. It certainly made me want to get my hands on more of the experiments that MEL Science offers. It was fun, and fascinating, all at once.

According to MEL Science, this subscription service “actually teaches you chemistry instead of showing tricks with a scientific slant.” In other words, young learners aren’t just supposed to be impressed with the flash of science, but they should walk away with a real understanding of the underlying concepts of the experiments. What’s more – parents don’t need to worry that the experiments are unsafe for their kids. There are no explosions. No harmful chemicals. Just safe, but fun, experiments that can be done at home.

A Better Approach to Science Learning

The service that MEL Science offers in its subscription chemistry sets fills a gap that this generation of students desperately needs: hands-on science experiments connected to internet and mobile technology. There is a lot of political rhetoric out there pushing STEM education but our actions have not yet caught up to those lofty words. Science learning starts in our P-12 classrooms and should be supported at home whenever possible. Giving parents easy-to-use tools helps the push for higher science achievement and also serves as a family bonding experience. The student-teacher-parent combination is truly what is needed for the strongest science outcomes, we just have to make it a priority.

To learn more about MEL Science and its chemistry experiment subscription series, visit MelScience.com.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share