National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix: Background Papers Prepared for May 2011 Workshop
Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×

NOTES

1 The workshop agenda is available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_SchoolsWorkshop_Agenda.pdf.

2 Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J.Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

3 National Research Council. (2009a). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

4 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011a). Rising above the gathering storm revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Condensed version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. The quote was taken from page 4.

5 Lacey, T.A., and Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf.

6 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf.

7 Schmidt, W.H. (2011). STEM reform: Which way to go? Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_Schools_Workshop_Paper_Schmidt.pdf.

8 Hill, C.J., Bloom, H.S., Black, A.R., and Lipsey, M.W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172-177.

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., and Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth and eighth-grade students in an international context. (NCES 2009-001 Revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

9 Gonzales et al. (2008). See note 8.

10 National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: A final report. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0707innovationfinal.pdf.

11 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). See note 6. Quote taken from page 163.

12 Burrelli, J. (2010). Foreign science and engineering students in the United States. NSF Info Brief 10-324. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10324/nsf10324.pdf.

13 See the joint G8 plus science academies’ statement Education for a Science-Based Global Development at http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/Final_Education.pdf and http://www.stemedcaucus.org for a summary of the types of intellectual capital needed in today’s economy.

14 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009b). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

15 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). See note 6.

Goldin, C.D., and Katz, L.F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

16 See note 6.

17 Wilson Wyner, J.S., Bridgeland, J.M., and Diiulio, J.J. (2007). The achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower income families. A report by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises. Available at: http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf.

18 Plucker, J.A., Burroughs, N., and Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Indiana University Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP). Available at: https://www.iub.edu/~ceep/Gap/excellence/ExcellenceGapBrief.pdf. Quote taken from page 34.

19 National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistic/seind10/pdfstart.htm.

Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011b). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Policy and Global Affairs, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

20 U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf.

21 Lacey and Wright. (2009). See note 5.

22 Ibid.

23 National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

24 Hansen. M., and Choi, K. (2011). Chronically low-performing schools and turnaround: Evidence from three states. CALDER Working Paper #60. Washington, DC: Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

25 Subotnik, R.F., and Tai, R.H. (2011, May). Successful education in the STEM disciplines: An examination of selective specialized science mathematics and technology-focused high schools. [Presentation slides]. Presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_Schools_Workshop_Presentation_Tai_Subotnik.pdf.

26 Ibid.

27 The study, being prepared by Rena Subotnik and Robert Tai, is using a quasi-experimental design to determine whether graduates of selective STEM secondary schools are more likely to remain in the STEM pipeline than students with similar achievement and interests who attended more comprehensive public secondary schools.

28 Subotnik, R.F., and Tai, R.H. (2011, May). See note 25.

29 Young, V.M., House, A., Wang, H., Singleton, C., and Klopfenstein, K. (2011). Inclusive STEM schools: Early promise in Texas and unanswered questions. Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEMSchools_Workshop_Paper_Young.pdf. This quote was taken from page 2.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Young et al. (2011) (see note 29) used propensity score matching to identify comparison schools (this method is described in their report). Student and school characteristics also were entered as statistical controls to further disentangle school effects from differences among student populations.

33 Stone, J.R., III. (2011). Delivering STEM education through career and technical education schools and programs. Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_Schools_Workshop_Paper_Stone.pdf.

34 Stone, J.R., III, Alfeld, C., and Pearson, D. (2008). Rigor and relevance: Testing a model of enhanced math learning in career and technical education. American Education Research Journal, 45, 767-795.

35 Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Key state education policies on PK-12 education: 2008. Washington, DC: Author.

36 Lee, J.M., Jr., and Rawls, A. (2010). The College Board completion agenda: 2010 progress report. New York: The College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Available at: http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/reports_pdf/Progress_Report_2010.pdf.

37 Pellegrino, J. (2010, January). Redesign for Advanced Placement science curriculum. [Presentation slides]. Presented at a meeting of the National Research Council’s Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards Committee. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Pellegrino_Framework_Presentation.pdf.

38 Ibid.

39 National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Quote taken from page 5.

40 Many other issues are also important to STEM learning for which we lacked the time and available research syntheses to address. These issues include but are not limited

Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×

to STEM teacher retention; enabling factors outside the school, such as parents, business, and community; information about the relative cost of implementation; the role of science fairs; and practices such as mentorships, research experiences, and internships.

41 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/finalreport.pdf.

National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009a). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009b). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

42 National Research Council. (forthcoming). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. The committee had access to a draft of the conceptual framework that was released to the public in July 2010 for comment. The final version of the document is expected July 2011.

43 Young et al. (2011). See note 29.

44 Elder, J. (2011, May). Christa McAuliffe School: PS #28. [Presentation slides]. Presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_Schools_Workshop_Presentation_Elder.pdf.

45 Stone, J.R., III. (2011). See note 33.

46 Schmidt, W.H. (2011). See note 7.

47 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). See note 41.

48 Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Available at: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSIMath%20Standards.pdf.

49 National Research Council. (forthcoming). See note 42.

50 Schmidt, W.H. (2011). See note 7.

51 Ibid. Quote taken from pp. 13-14.

52 Boyd, D.J., Grossman, P.L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416-440.

53 National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Schmidt, W.A. (2011). See note 7.

57 Wilson, S. (2011). Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/STEM_Schools_Workshop_Paper_Wilson.pdf.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid.

60 Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.

Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Garet, M., Yoon, K.S., and Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.

Hill, H.C. (2011). The nature and effects of middle school mathematics teacher learning experiences. Teachers’ College Record, 113, 205-234.

Wilson, S. (2011). See note 57.

Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×

61 Wilson, S. (2011). See note 57.

62 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education’s review process could improve state academic assessments. GAO 09-911. Washington, DC: Author. Quote taken from page 20.

63 Ibid. Quote taken from page 23.

64 National Research Council. (2006a). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Quote taken from page 4.

65 Ibid. Quote taken from page 5.

66 Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author.

67 Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author.

68 Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., and Venkatesan, S. (2007). The status of science education in the Bay Area: Research brief. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley. Quote taken from page 1.

69 Ibid. Quote taken from page 4.

70 Maltese, A.V., and Tai, R.H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.

71 Hill et al. (2008). See note 8.

72 National Research Council. (2006b). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

73 Schmidt, W.H. (2011). See note 7.

74 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). See note 41.

75 Gamoran, A. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In M. Apple, S.J. Ball, and L.A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education, (pp. 213-228). London: Routledge.

76 Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P., and Levin, H.M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136.

Burris, C.C., Wiley, E., Welner, K., and Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110, 571-607.

77 McLaughlin, M.W., and Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building school based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

78 Newmann, F.M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P.L., and McCarthey, S.J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gamoran, A., Anderson, C.W., Quiroz, P.A., Secada, W.G., Williams, T., and Ashman, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press.

79 Bryk et al. (2010). See note 2.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 National Research Council. (2010). See note 53. Quote taken from page 73.

Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×
Page31
Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×
Page32
Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×
Page33
Suggested Citation:"Notes." National Research Council. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13158.
×
Page34
Next: Acknowledgments »
Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $17.95 Buy Ebook | $14.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are cultural achievements that reflect our humanity, power our economy, and constitute fundamental aspects of our lives as citizens, consumers, parents, and members of the workforce. Providing all students with access to quality education in the STEM disciplines is important to our nation's competitiveness. However, it is challenging to identify the most successful schools and approaches in the STEM disciplines because success is defined in many ways and can occur in many different types of schools and settings. In addition, it is difficult to determine whether the success of a school's students is caused by actions the school takes or simply related to the population of students in the school.

Successful K-12 STEM Education defines a framework for understanding "success" in K-12 STEM education. The book focuses its analysis on the science and mathematics parts of STEM and outlines criteria for identifying effective STEM schools and programs. Because a school's success should be defined by and measured relative to its goals, the book identifies three important goals that share certain elements, including learning STEM content and practices, developing positive dispositions toward STEM, and preparing students to be lifelong learners. A successful STEM program would increase the number of students who ultimately pursue advanced degrees and careers in STEM fields, enhance the STEM-capable workforce, and boost STEM literacy for all students. It is also critical to broaden the participation of women and minorities in STEM fields.

Successful K-12 STEM Education examines the vast landscape of K-12 STEM education by considering different school models, highlighting research on effective STEM education practices, and identifying some conditions that promote and limit school- and student-level success in STEM. The book also looks at where further work is needed to develop appropriate data sources. The book will serve as a guide to policy makers; decision makers at the school and district levels; local, state, and federal government agencies; curriculum developers; educators; and parent and education advocacy groups.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!