Table Of ContentE T
DUCATING EACHERS
of Science, Mathematics, and Technology
New Practices for the New Millennium
Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation
Center for Education
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, DC
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DUE 9614007 between the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology : new
practices for the new millennium / Committee on Science and Mathematics
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-07033-3
1. Science teachers—Training of—United States. 2. Mathematics
teachers—Training of—United States. 3. Engineering teachers—Training
of—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on
Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. II. Title.
Q183.3.A1 E39 2000
507'.1'073—dc21
00-011135
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the
Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recog-
nizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy
of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of
the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS
TEACHER PREPARATION
HERBERT K. BRUNKHORST, California State University, San Bernardino, Co-Chair
W. J. (JIM) LEWIS, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Co-Chair
TOBY CAPLIN, Cambridge, MA, Public Schools
RODNEY L. CUSTER, Illinois State University
PENNY J. GILMER, Florida State University
MARTIN L. JOHNSON, University of Maryland
HARVEY B. KEYNES, University of Minnesota
R. HEATHER MACDONALD, College of William and Mary
MARK SAUL, Bronxville, NY, Public Schools
M. GAIL SHROYER, Kansas State University
LARRY SOWDER, San Diego State University
DAN B. WALKER, San Jose State University
VIVIANLEE WARD, Genentech, Inc.
LUCY WEST, Community School District 2, New York City
SUSAN S. WOOD, J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College
v
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF
JAY B. LABOV, Study Director (since October 1998)
JANE O. SWAFFORD, Senior Program Officer (January – October 1999)
NANCY L. DEVINO, Senior Program Officer (through October 1998)
TERRY K. HOLMER, Senior Project Assistant
Consultants
PAUL J. KUERBIS, Special Consultant, Colorado College
KATHLEEN (KIT) S. JOHNSTON, Consulting Editor
vi
Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the
National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde-
pendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institu-
tion in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to
the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to
protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following
individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
DAVID C. BERLINER, Arizona State University
FRANK CARDULLA, Lake Forest High School, Lake Forest, IL
JERE CONFREY, University of Texas at Austin
SARAH C. ELGIN, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
HENRY HEIKKINEN, University of Northern Colorado
TOBY M. HORN, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
WILLIAM G. HOWARD, JR.*, Independent Consultant, Scottsdale, AZ
RONALD L. LATANISION*, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CHRISTINE WEST PATERACKI, Cario Middle School, Mt. Pleasant, SC
JUDITH ROITMAN, University of Kansas
THOMAS ROMBERG, University of Wisconsin, Madison
JAMES STITH, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD
While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments
and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with
the authoring committee and the National Research Council.
*Member of the National Academy of Engineering
vii
Foreword
The United States is finally getting commissions and professional organiza-
serious about the quality of our children’s tions; the increasing use of high-stakes
education, and it is rare to pick up a standardized testing to measure the
newspaper today without finding some academic performance of students,
discussion of education issues. In the teachers, and schools; and the reality of
current maelstrom of the education the many challenges that teachers and
debate, the need to improve the quality students actually face in today’s class-
of our teachers’ preparation and profes- rooms.
sional development deserves a central The entire nation must recognize that
place. Teachers stand at the center of teaching is a very difficult and demand-
any education system, since everything ing profession. Teachers must of course
rests on their skills and energy. have a deep understanding of their
Questions regarding teaching quality, subject areas, but this is not enough.
teaching effectiveness, and teacher They must also be skilled at motivating
recruitment and retention have become their students to want to learn in a society
particularly important in science and in which young people are exposed to
mathematics, as we enter a century that so many outside distractions. Most
will be ever more dependent on science importantly, improvements in teacher
and technology. education need to be aligned with
Many interacting and often-conflicting recommendations about what students
variables have influenced attempts to should know and be able to do at vari-
improve teaching in science and math- ous grade levels, which means that
ematics. These include a multitude of teachers need to become expert at what
reports and recommendations from is called content-oriented pedagogy.
ix
The National Academies recently current data and issues. Importantly, it
called for a decade of research to be also offers a series of recommendations,
devoted to improving education (National based on extensive evidence from
Research Council, 1999c). A primary research, about how various stakehold-
focus of that effort will be devoted to ers might contribute individually and
resolving issues about the most effec- collectively—even systemically—to the
tive ways to improve teaching. It is in improvement of teaching in these
this context that the Academies also subject areas. A number of critical
established the Committee on Science points are emphasized:
and Mathematics Teacher Preparation.
If the nation is to make the continuous 1. Teacher education must no longer
improvements needed in teaching, we be viewed as a set of disconnected
need to make a science out of teacher phases for which different communi-
education—using evidence and analysis ties assume the primary responsibil-
to build an effective system of teacher ity. As this study progressed, com-
preparation and professional develop- mittee members realized that the
ment. What do we know about what committee’s name (Committee on
works based on experience and research? Science and Mathematics Teacher
After two years of studying and synthe- Preparation) was too limiting,
sizing the immense body of research because “preparation” is only one
data—as well as recommendations from phase of “teacher education.”
professional organizations and the diver- Teacher education should instead be
sity of current practices—the committee a seamless continuum that begins
has issued this report. Educating Teachers well before prospective teachers
of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: enter college and that supports
New Practices for the New Millennium will them throughout their professional
help readers understand areas of emerg- careers. Accordingly, this report
ing consensus about what constitutes calls for school districts, institutions
effective structure and practice for of higher education (both two- and
teacher education in these subject areas. four-year colleges and universities),
The extensive list of cited references, business, industry, research facili-
many from peer-reviewed journals, reflect ties, and individual scientists and
the committee’s efforts to produce a other members of the community to
report that will advance the scholarship of work closely together in integrated,
teacher education. collaborative partnerships to sup-
The report does more than review port teachers and teacher education.
x
FOREWORD
