A Comparison of Math and Science Education Here and Abroad
S. Asli Özgün-Koca and Wendy Sherman McCann

Educators have always been interested in comparing their own policies and practices with those of others. In this age of global connectedness, international studies of educational routines and outcomes are becoming more common. For those particularly concerned with mathematics and science education, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study provides the most comprehensive look at international similarities and differences to date.

What Is TIMSS?

TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) is a comprehensive investigation consisting of five parts: assessments of student knowledge in math and science; analyses of curriculum guides and textbooks from participating countries; surveys of student and teacher practices and beliefs about math and science; videotape reviews of math classrooms in the United States, Germany, and Japan; and indepth investigations of classrooms and policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan.

More than half a million children from more than 15,000 schools worldwide took part in TIMSS. For comparison purposes, all of the 41 participating countries tested 13-year-old students' achievement in and attitudes toward math and science. In addition, each country could elect to test nine-year-olds and children in the last year of secondary school. Parts of the study were designed and field tested from 1991 to 1994. Materials for the curriculum study were collected in 1992 and 1993, and the assessments of student knowledge and classroom cultures took place during the 1995-96 school year.

TIMSS was designed to be as fair and accurate as possible. Each country randomly selected its students to prevent comparisons of all of one country's students with the best of another's. The tests were designed in English, then rigorously translated into 30 languages. The persons responsible for data collection and scoring were trained thoroughly.

Nonetheless, international studies such as TIMSS are often criticized on the grounds that comparisons of countries are inherently unfair. However, scholars of education policy note that, in reality, schooling practices are quite similar on a basic level around the world. Therefore, when international studies uncover great differences in student achievement, the subtle aspects of education organization and culture in various countries can be studied to explain these differences.

How Can TIMSS Results Be Interpreted?

In evaluations such as this, rankings based on raw scores (the actual percentage of correct answers) aren't particularly meaningful. As the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) warns, TIMSS results should not be read like the outcome of a sporting event. Instead, it is more helpful to think of the results in terms of groups of countries that have similarly performing students. Therefore, TIMSS scores for each country are usually reported as being statistically (significantly) higher than, lower than, or equivalent to another's.

How Do U.S. Students Compare With Others?

In the United States, the TIMSS tests of student knowledge have received the most attention from the media. U.S. students were tested at grades 4, 8, and 12. Among the 26 countries participating at the fourth-grade level, the United States performed above the international average in both science and math. In science, the United States scored significantly higher than 19 countries and equivalent to 5 others. Only Korea scored higher. In math, the United States scored significantly higher than 12 countries and equivalent to 6 countries but scored lower than 7 others.

Among the 41 countries participating at the eighth-grade level, the United States scored above the international average in science, but below the average in math. In science, the United States scored significantly higher than 16 countries and equivalent to 15 countries but scored lower than 9 others. In math, however, 20 countries outranked the United States; only 7 countries scored lower.

The U.S. results at the 12th-grade level were the most disappointing. Among 21 participating countries, the United States scored below the international average in both general science and general math knowledge. The United States was outperformed by 11 countries in science and by 14 countries in math. Only two countries scored significantly lower than the United States in both subjects. Some 12th-grade students also took tests of advanced mathematics and physics achievement; in both cases, the U.S. performance was dismal. The United States scored in the lowest performing group in both physics and advanced math achievement. For a summary of U.S. strengths and weaknesses in science and math at grades 4 and 8, see the table below.

U.S. Students' Strengths and Weaknesses in Science and Math
Fourth Grade
Strengths	Weaknesses
Earth Science
Environmental Issues and the Nature of Science
Life Science
Physical Science
Data Representation, Analysis, and Probability	Measurement, Estimation, and Number Sense
Fractions and Proportionality
Geometry
Patterns, Relations, and Functions
Whole Numbers
Eighth Grade
Strengths	Weaknesses
Earth Science	Chemistry
Environmental Issues and the Nature of Science	Physics
Life Science
Algebra	Geometry
Data Representation, Analysis, and Probability	Measurement
Fractions and Number Sense	Proportionality
--U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Introduction to TIMSS: The Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS)

How Do U.S. Textbooks and Teaching Materials Stack Up?

It has been argued that math and science curricula, textbooks, and teaching in the United States are "a mile wide and an inch deep." U.S. schools do tend to teach a little bit about many topics, rather than a great deal about relatively few topics. In both math and science, textbooks compound the problem by including many topics to cater to the broadest possible audience, and often teachers feel pressured to cover most or all of the textbook material. Nonetheless, the results from TIMSS show that, except for physical science, the U.S. science curriculum is more focused, or deeper, than the U.S. math curriculum. As a result, science topics presented at various grade levels vary widely from state to state.

Some education scholars believe that having national curriculum standards in math and science will help negate some of the emphasis on breadth rather than depth in U.S. schools. Because the mathematics standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics had been in existence for only a few years and the national science standards had not yet been introduced at the time of the TIMSS curriculum study, professional teachers organizations are still hopeful that the standards' effects have yet to be measured. Still, they caution that standards cannot provide a "quick fix" to all the math and science education woes in the United States.

Other scholars dispute the idea that a broad, or "splintered," U.S. curriculum is the main cause of poor achievement scores. Instead, they suggest that differences in school funding and levels of child poverty across districts have a greater impact on achievement than do differences in math and science curricula. Other researchers cite parent involvement as an important variable in student success.

Still others point out that although 8 of the countries with the top 10 TIMSS scores have nationally centralized curricula, so do 8 of the 10 lowest scoring countries. They claim it would be more useful to study what other countries are doing to reform their math and science schooling practices, because achievement scores are but one aspect of the overall education picture. One such study of 13 countries (all participants in TIMSS) found that each was engaged in serious reform efforts and that virtually all were moving toward a curriculum geared to practical application and integration of disciplinary content (Atkin and Black, 1997).

Certainly, the lack of coherence in math and science educational materials across the country concerns educators, but poor student achievement is a complex problem. The most fruitful path to reform will undoubtedly be one that takes into account many different aspects of the education system.

How Do U.S. Teachers Compare With Their International Counterparts?

Findings from the study of teacher beliefs and practices indicate that teacher preparation in the United States differs from that in most other countries: on a national level, U.S. teachers are not required to pass an examination to become certified to teach. Close comparison of the United States, Japan, and Germany reveals some interesting differences. Unlike U.S. teachers, teachers practicing in those countries must complete lengthy apprenticeships with mentor teachers before certification. Also, in Japan, practicing teachers have more formal and informal opportunities to interact with their colleagues than do teachers in Germany or the United States.

The TIMSS study also highlights some interesting similarities among teachers in the same countries. Teachers in the United States, Japan, and Germany all report that daily challenges include uninterested students, mixed-ability students, and overcrowded classrooms. Science teachers in all three countries report a lack of demonstration and instructional equipment.

What Does the TIMSS Videotape Study Reveal?

The TIMSS videotape study of eighth-grade math classes in the United States, Japan, and Germany indicates that U.S. and German teachers emphasize skills, whereas Japanese instructors emphasize student understanding. The results of the survey of teachers reinforce this observation. Participating teachers were asked, "What was the main thing you wanted students to learn from today's lesson?" Responses are shown in the figure to the right.

The differences in teacher aims are quite apparent. While the majority of Japanese teachers mention that their main educational goal is the development of correct mathematical thinking in students, approximately half of the German teachers and 60 percent of the U.S. teachers report that skill development is their most important educational aim. Perhaps because of this, U.S. teachers do not develop concepts to the same extent that their German and Japanese counterparts do.

The Japanese emphasis on teaching children to think is reflected in the U.S. national standards for both math and science education, which emphasize teaching practices similar to those of the Japanese as part of the professional development of new teachers. Unfortunately, however, there is no systematic way in the United States to reach practicing teachers in hopes of improving their instructional effectiveness. For some time, professional education organizations have been calling for school communities to recognize the importance of providing ongoing professional development opportunities for their teachers. Again, although addressing one aspect of education policy and practice in isolation will not produce widespread change, it is another step along the path to better math and science education for all.

What Else Does TIMSS Reveal About Education in Other Countries?

TIMSS also indicates that some of the aspects of education debated in the United States today do not seem to be problematic in relation to math or science achievement. For example, U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade children are assigned approximately the same amount of homework as are children in Japan and Germany. Moreover, fourth-grade children in the United States spend more time on math and science in school than their counterparts in Japan and Germany, and eighth graders experience more hours of math instruction. Japanese children also watch as much television as U.S. children do.

Although the TIMSS results do not provide any magical ways to decide which aspects of math or science education should be changed or replaced, they do offer a detailed picture of international educational practices from which further studies can proceed.

How Can I Get More Information?

Information on TIMSS is readily available, and more reports are scheduled for future distribution. The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (http://www.ericse.org) provides links to TIMSS information on the Internet.

The TIMSS Resource Kit includes several publications. The textual publications of the kit, including an order form, are available for downloading at http://timss.enc.org/TIMSS/timss/index.htm. For additional information, call the TIMSS Customer Service Line at 202-219-1333 or send an e-mail message to timss@ed.gov. Information can also be obtained by writing TIMSS Project, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208-5574.

References

Atkin, J. M., and P. Black. 1997. "Policy Perils of International Comparisons: The TIMSS Case." Phi Delta Kappan 79 (1): 22-28.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Introduction to TIMSS: The Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS)

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. 1999. The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings From an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-Grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. National Center for Education Statistics Report No. NCES 99-074. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/timssvid/index.html)

S. Asli Özgün-Koca is the Mathematics Education Analyst and an AskERIC Specialist at the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. She is also a doctoral student in mathematics education at the university. Wendy Sherman McCann is the Science Education Analyst and an AskERIC Specialist at the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. She is also a doctoral student in science education at the university.

National Math and Science Standards
Table of Contents
Best Practices in Science Education

Search ERIC Database | AskERIC | ERIC Digests | Publications | Resources | About ERIC

Search Site | Feedback Form | Site Map | FAQ
EDRS | Facility | Adjuncts/Affiliates | ERIC System Directory