STUDENTS LEARNING

SCIENCE

STUDENTS LEARNING

SCIENCE

A REPORT

ON POLICIES

AND PRACTICES

IN U.S. SCHOOLS

A REPORT

ON POLICIES

AND PRACTICES

IN U.S. SCHOOLS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-493

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
Honorable Roy Romer

Governor of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Fannie L. Simmons

Mathematics Coordinator

District 5 of Lexington/Richland County

Ballentine, South Carolina

Adam Urbanski

President

Rochester Teachers Association

Rochester, New York

Deborah Voltz

Assistant Professor

Department of Special Education

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

Marilyn A. Whirry

Twelfth-grade English Teacher

Mira Costa High School

Manhattan Beach, California

Dennie Palmer Wolf

Senior Research Associate

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Cambridge, Massachusetts

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary of Education

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC

Roy Truby

Executive Director, NAGB

Washington, DC

What is The Nation’s Report Card?

THE NATION’S REPORT CARD, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the only nationally representative

and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have

been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history/geography, and other fields. By making objective

information on student performance available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of

our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected

under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families.

NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education

Statistics. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project through competitive

awards to qualified organizations. NAEP reports directly to the commissioner, who is also responsible for providing continuing

reviews, including validation studies and solicitation of public comment, on NAEP’s conduct and usefulness.

In 1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate policy guidelines for

NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting the subject areas to be assessed from among those included in the National

Education Goals; for setting appropriate student performance levels; for developing assessment objectives and test specifications

through a national consensus approach; for designing the assessment methodology; for developing guidelines for reporting and

disseminating NAEP results; for developing standards and procedures for interstate, regional, and national comparisons; for

determining the appropriateness of test items and ensuring that they are free from bias; and for taking actions to improve the form

and use of the National Assessment.

The National Assessment Governing Board

Mark D. Musick, Chair

President

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, Georgia

Mary R. Blanton, Vice Chair

Attorney

Salisbury, North Carolina

Patsy Cavazos

Principal

W.G. Love Accelerated School

Houston, Texas

Catherine A. Davidson

Secondary Education Director

Central Kitsap School District

Silverdale, Washington

Edward Donley

Former Chairman

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Honorable John M. Engler

Member Designate

Governor of Michigan

Lansing, Michigan

James E. Ellingson

Fourth-grade Classroom Teacher

Probstfield Elementary School

Moorhead, Minnesota

Thomas H. Fisher

Director, Student Assessment Services

Florida Department of Education

Tallahassee, Florida

Michael J. Guerra

Executive Director

National Catholic Education Association

Washington, DC

Edward H. Haertel

Professor, School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, California

Lynn Marmer

President

Cincinnati Board of Education

Cincinnati, Ohio

William J. Moloney

Commissioner of Education

State of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Honorable Annette Morgan

Former Member

Missouri House of Representatives

Jefferson City, Missouri

Mitsugi Nakashima

First Vice-Chairperson

Hawaii State Board of Education

Honolulu, Hawaii

Michael T. Nettles

Professor of Education & Public Policy

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

and Director

Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute

United Negro College Fund

Honorable Norma Paulus

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Oregon State Department of Education

Salem, Oregon

Jo Ann Pottorff

Kansas House of Representatives

Wichita, Kansas

Honorable William T. Randall

Former Commissioner of Education

State of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Diane Ravitch

Member Designate

Senior Research Scholar

New York University

New York, New York
Students Learning Science:

A Report on Policies and Practices

in U.S. Schools

Christine Y. O’Sullivan

Andrew R. Weiss

Janice M. Askew

August, 1998

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-493

Prepared by Educational Testing Service under a cooperative

agreement with the National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

Education Assessment Group

Gary W. Phillips

Associate Commissioner

August, 1998

SUGGESTED CITATION

O’Sullivan, C.Y., Weiss, A.R., & Askew, J.M. (1998). Students learning science: A report on policies and practices

in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Contact:

Arnold A. Goldstein

202-219-1741

For ordering information on this report, write:

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20208-5641

or call 1-800-424-1616 (in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area call 202-219-1651).

This report also is available on the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/naep.

The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Education Statistics,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.

Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

Educational Testing Service, ETS, and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.

The modernized ETS logo is a trademark of Educational Testing Service.
Table of Contents

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

What’s New About the Science Assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Who is Teaching Science to the Nation’s Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

What Emphasis Does Science Receive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

What Science Courses Are Our Nation’s Students Taking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Do Schools Have the Resources They Need to Support Science Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Chapter 1: The NAEP 1996 Science Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The NAEP Science Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Student Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 1.1: Jurisdictions Participating in the NAEP 1996

State Assessment Program in Science, Grade 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Background Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reporting NAEP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cautions in Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 1.2: Summary of The 1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Additional NAEP Science Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Overview of Remaining Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2: Who is Teaching Science to the Nation’s Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students? . . . 9

Academic Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 2.1: Teachers’ Reports on Their Highest Degree,

by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Fields of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 2.2: Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or Graduate Fields of Study:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2.3: Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or Graduate Fields of

Study, for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.1: Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or Graduate

Major in Science, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Type and Subject Area of Teaching Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2.4: Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate Held in

Main Assignment Field, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 2.5: Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate

Held in Main Assignment Field, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 2.6: Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered by

Teaching Certificate, Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.7: Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered

by Teaching Certificate, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Years of Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.2: Teachers’ Reports on Number of Years Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Teachers’ Professional Activities in Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 2.8: Teachers’ Reports on Amount of Time Spent in Professional

Development Workshops or Seminars in Science or Science

Education During the Last Year:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Types of Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.3: Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development

Activities Over the Last Five Years:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.4: Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Use of Technology and/or

Telecommunications, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 2.5: Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Portfolio-Based and/or Performance-Based

Assessments, for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . . . . 34

Figure 2.6: Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Teaching Students with Multicultural

Backgrounds and/or Limited English Skills, for the Nation and

Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 3: What Emphasis Does Science Receive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 3.1: Schools’ Reports on Whether They Have a Science Curriculum:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Schools’ Reports on the Frequency of Science Instruction at Grades 4 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3.2: Schools’ Reports on How Often a Typical Student Receives

Instruction in Science: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 3.3: Schools’ Reports on How Often a Typical Student Receives

Instruction in Science, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Grade 12 Graduation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 3.4: Schools’ Reports on Years of Science Required for Graduation:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.5: Students’ Reports on Semester Hours of Science

Taken from Grades 9-12: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . 45

Table 3.6: School’s Reports on Types of Advanced Level Courses Taught:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 3.7: Schools’ Reports on Requirements to Pass a District

or State Test in Science in Order to Graduate:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Chapter 4: What Science Courses Are Our Nation’s Students Taking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Grade 4 Science Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 4.1: Teachers’ Reports on How Much Time is Spent Teaching

Certain Science Domains: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . 50

Grade 8 Science Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 4.2: Teachers’ Report on How Much Time is Spent Teaching

Certain Science Domains: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . 51

Table 4.3: Students’ Reports on Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Grade 12 Science Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Course-Taking Patterns — Biology, Chemistry, and Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 4.4a: Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken from

Grades 9-12, by Gender: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . 54

Course-Taking Patterns — Earth and Space Science, Life Science,

Physical Science, Integrated Science, and Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 4.4b: Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken from

Grades 9-12, by Gender: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . 56

Course-Taking Patterns for Combinations of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 4.5: Students’ Reports on Combinations of Science Courses Taken from

Grades 9-12, by Gender: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . 58

Are Students Studying Science in Grade 12? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 4.6: Students’ Reports on Current Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter 5: Do Schools Have the Resources They Need to Support Science Learning? . . . . 63

Availability of Instructional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 5.1: Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive the Resources

They Need: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Table 5.2: Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive the Resources

They Need, for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 5.1: Teachers’ Report on Whether They Receive All or Most of the

Resources They Need, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Availability of Computers for Use in Science Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 5.2: Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers for Use by Their

Science Students: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 5.3: Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers for Use by Their

Science Students, for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . 73

Figure 5.3: Teachers’ Reports on No Availability of Computers for Use by Their

Science Students, for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . 74

Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Curriculum Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 5.4: Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a Curriculum Specialist in Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 5.5: Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a Curriculum Specialist in Science,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

The Availability of Laboratories or Appropriate Classrooms for Science Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 5.6: Teachers’ Reports on What Space is Available for Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Appendix A: Overview of Procedures Used for the NAEP 1996 Science Assessment . . . . . . 81

Appendix B: Standard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Highlights

Students Learning Science i

The 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in science continues a

27-year mandate to report what students in grades 4, 8, and 12 know and can do in various

subject areas. This report is intended primarily for policy makers, school administrators, and

educators concerned with state or school-level policies. It presents results relating to teachers’

academic preparation and professional development, the amount of emphasis science

instruction receives in schools, student course-taking, and the availability of school resources that

support science learning. The results are presented using the students as the unit of analysis.

Scale scores are reported on a 300-point NAEP scale whereas the achievement level results are

expressed as percentages of students at or above the Proficient level in accordance with

standards developed by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).

What’s New About The Science Assessment?

• The NAEP 1996 science assessment was the first science assessment given using a

framework developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) under

the auspices of the NAGB. The framework provides for an assessment of knowledge

and skills in three major science domains — earth science, physical science, and

life science.

• The assessment included hands-on tasks that probed students’ abilities to use materials

to make observations, perform investigations, evaluate experimental results, and apply

problem-solving skills. Also included were multiple-choice questions that assessed

students’ knowledge of important facts and concepts and probed their analytical

reasoning skills, and constructed-response questions that explored students’ abilities to

explain, integrate, apply, reason about, plan, design, evaluate, and communicate

scientific information.
ii Students Learning Science

Who is Teaching Science to the Nation’s

Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students?

• Approximately three-fifths of students in grades 4 and 8 were taught by teachers

who reported that their highest degree was a bachelor’s degree.

• At the fourth and eighth grades, 16 and 62 percent, respectively, of the nations’

students were taught by teachers who reported holding an undergraduate or graduate

major or minor in science or science education.

• Approximately one-quarter of grade 4 public school students and three-quarters of

grade 8 public school students had teachers who reported that they were certified in the

area of science.

• Teachers of approximately 46 percent of fourth and eighth graders reported having

11 or more years of science teaching experience.

What Emphasis Does Science Receive?

• According to school administrators, 87 percent of fourth-grade students and

99 percent of eighth-grade students received instruction in science three or more

times a week.

• Twenty-six percent of twelfth graders reported taking six or seven semesters of science

and 29 percent reported taking eight or more semesters of science from grades 9

through 12.

What Science Courses Are

Our Nation’s Students Taking?

• Between 40 and 50 percent of grade 8 students were taught by teachers who reported

spending a lot of time teaching earth science and physical science. Nineteen percent

of students had teachers who indicated that they had spent a lot of time teaching

life science.

• At grade 12, 53 percent of students reported having taken earth and space science,

96 percent biology, 74 percent chemistry, and 41 percent physics.

• Male students who reported having taken biology, chemistry, and physics outperformed

female students who reported having taken these same courses.

• In general, students who reported having taken chemistry and physics among their

science courses performed at a higher level than students who reported not having

taken them.

• Fifty-four percent of grade 12 students reported that they were currently taking a

science course, whereas 46 percent reported that they were not currently taking one.
Students Learning Science iii

Do Schools Have the Resources They

Need to Support Science Learning?

• Nationally, teachers of 59 percent of fourth graders and 65 percent of eighth graders

reported receiving all or most of the resources they needed.

• Teachers of approximately 15 percent of students in grades 4 and 8 reported having

no access to computers.

• Teachers of approximately 53 percent of students in grade 4 and 38 percent of

students in grade 8 reported having access to one or more computers in the classroom.

• Forty-five percent of fourth graders and 40 percent of eighth graders had teachers

who reported having a curriculum specialist available in science.

Chapter 1

Students Learning Science 1

The NAEP 1996

Science Assessment

Introduction

The current impetus in educational reform has its roots in a report entitled A Nation at Risk that

was issued in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The report was

critical of education in the United States and raised the concern that national student

achievement across core subject areas was eroding.1 In the 15 years since the publication of A

Nation at Risk, many studies have been conducted that point out deficiencies in the educational

system and suggest how they can be rectified.2 Some evidence for these deficiencies can be

found in reports such as the NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress, which has been tracking

student performance in science since 1969-1970.3 The NAEP trend report revealed declines in

the overall science performance of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds during the late 1970s, followed by

improvements in the 1980s.While the average performance of 9-year-olds was higher in 1996

than in 1970, the performance of 13-year-olds was the same as in 1970 and the performance of

17-year-olds was still below its 1969 level.4

Two recent documents by prestigious science organizations have offered consensus

views on what content is most important to teach. In 1993 the American Association for the

Advancement of Science published Benchmarks for Science Literacy, which consisted of

“statements of what all students should know and be able to do in science, mathematics, and

technology.”5 In 1995 the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences

1 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.

Washington, DC: Author.

2 National Science Board. (1983). Commission on precollege education in mathematics, science, and technology, educating

America for the 21st century: A report to the American people and the National Science Board. Washington, DC: Author.

Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortia. (1995) Promising practices in mathematics and science

education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education Journal 75

(1): 9-12.

3 Campbell, J. R., Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P. L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress: Achievement of U.S.

students in science 1969 to 1996; mathematics, 1973 to 1996; reading, 1971 to 1996; and writing, 1984 to 1996.

(Publication No. NCES 97-985). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

4 Ibid.

5 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
2 Students Learning Science

released National Science Education Standards, which articulated “a vision of science

education that will make scientific literacy for all a reality in the 21st century.”6 The National

Science Education Standards also includes recommendations for teachers and other science

educators on teacher education, assessment, and professional development.

Central to the calls for reform of science education are concerns about how science

education can equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in a

technological world and how the United States can remain competitive in a global economy.

Given these concerns, policymakers have been especially interested in the findings of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS examined the educational systems

in a large number of countries in terms of student achievement, curriculum coverage, and

teaching methodologies.7 At the fourth-grade level, results revealed that students in the U.S.

performed above the international average in science and were outperformed by only students

from Korea.8 At the eighth-grade level, U.S. students performed above the international average

in science; however, students in 11 countries had significantly higher average scores than

students in the U.S.9

 At the twelfth-grade level, U.S. students performed significantly below the

international average in “science literacy,” and in physics, the U.S. had significantly lower

achievement than every participating country except one.10 The TIMSS study will be repeated at

the eighth-grade level in 1999 and will assess the same cohort as was assessed in 1995 at the

fourth-grade level. It will provide a valuable comparison of student scale scores between 1995

and 1999 as well as a new indicator of how well the nations’ eighth graders are doing in science

and mathematics when compared to their counterparts in other countries.

State and school policies and practices regarding how science is taught, how science

teachers are prepared, and the emphasis science receives in school are some of the factors that

determine how well students achieve. While it is too soon to ascertain whether reforms

proposed for science education are achieving their desired goals at state and local levels, the

NAEP 1996 science assessment provides an opportunity to examine current policies and

6 National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

7 Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., & Kelly, D.L. (1997). Science achievement in the

primary school years: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of

Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.

Peak, et al. (1997). Pursuing excellence: a study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning,

curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., & Smith, T. (1998). Mathematics and science

achievement in the final year or secondary school: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS).

Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.

Beaton, A.E. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L. (1996) Science achievement in the

middle years: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International

Study Center, Boston College.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., & Razien, S.A. (1996). Splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics

education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W.H., Raizen S.A., Briton, E.D., Bianchi, L.J., & Wolfe, R.G. (1996). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national

investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

8 Twenty six countries took part in the study at the fourth grade level, 17 of which satisfied study guidelines.

9 At the eighth-grade level, 41 countries participated in TIMSS, 25 of which satisfied study guidelines.

10 At the twelfth-grade level, 21 countries participated in the science literacy component, eight of which satisfied study

guidelines. Sixteen countries participated in the physics component, of which 10 satisfied study guidelines.
Students Learning Science 3

practices. This report was written using data collected from students, teachers, and school

administrators during the NAEP 1996 science assessment. It is intended primarily for

policymakers, school administrators, and educators concerned with state- or school-level

practices. The data provide a “snapshot” of current teacher practices, school policies, and student

achievement that will allow comparisons to be made when the NAEP science assessment is

re-administered in the year 2000 and beyond.

The NAEP Science Framework

The science assessment was designed to measure the content and skills described in the Science

Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

11 The framework was

developed in 1991 through a consensus process involving educators, policymakers, science

teachers, representatives of the business community, assessment and curriculum experts, and

members of the public. The project was managed by the Council of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO) under the auspices of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB).

The NAEP science framework is based on the view that “scientific knowledge should be

organized to provide a structure that connects and creates meaning for factual information, and

this organization is influenced by the context in which the knowledge is presented.” Moreover,

“science proficiency depends upon the ability to know and integrate facts into larger constructs

and to use the tools, procedures, and reasoning processes of science for an increased

understanding of the natural world.”12 Thus, the framework called for the NAEP 1996 science

assessment to include the following:

• multiple-choice questions that assess students’ knowledge of important facts and

concepts and probe their analytical reasoning skills;

• constructed-response questions that explore students’ abilities to explain, integrate,

apply, reason about, plan, design, evaluate, and communicate science information; and

• hands-on tasks that probe students’ abilities to use materials to make observations,

perform investigations, evaluate experimental results, and apply problem-solving skills.

A description of the content coverage and assessment design is presented in Appendix A.

11 National Assessment Governing Board. (1995). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: Author.

12 Ibid.
4 Students Learning Science

Student Samples

The NAEP 1996 science assessment was conducted nationally at grades 4, 8, and 12, and at

the state level at grade 8. For both the national and state-by-state assessments, representative

samples of public and nonpublic school students were assessed.

Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Department of Defense Domestic

Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), and the overseas Department of

Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) participated in the 1996 state-by-state assessment. For

the purposes of this report, these are referred to as “jurisdictions.” Figure 1.1 lists the

jurisdictions that participated in the assessment and notes those jurisdictions that failed to meet

one or more of the established participation-rate guidelines for public schools. For many of the

jurisdictions participating in the assessment, the sample of nonpublic school students was not

large enough to permit the separate reporting of nonpublic school results or the combined

reporting of public and nonpublic school results. Therefore, the figures and tables displaying data for

the jurisdictions refer to public schools only.

A more detailed description of the sample, sampling procedures, and public school and

nonpublic school participation rates can be found in the Procedural Appendix of the NAEP

1996 Science Report Card.13

13 O’Sullivan, C.Y., Reese, C.M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states: Findings

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

b Failed to meet the initial school participation rate of 70 percent for public schools; public school results not reported.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Jurisdictions Participating in the NAEP 1996

State Assessment Program in Science, Grade 8 FIGURE 1.1

Alabama

Alaskaa

Arizona

Arkansasa

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

DDESS

DoDDS

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowaa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Marylanda

Massachusetts

Michigana

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montanaa

Nebraska

Nevadab

New Hampshireb

New Jerseyb

New Mexico

New Yorka

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolinaa

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermonta

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsina

Wyoming
Students Learning Science 5

Background Questionnaires

In order to place student achievement in context, NAEP collects background information from

teachers, school administrators, and students. The teacher questionnaires were administered to

the science teachers of all of the fourth- and eighth-grade students participating in the assessment.

Because twelfth-grade students were not necessarily enrolled in science, no questionnaires were

administered to twelfth-grade science teachers. The teacher questionnaire consisted of three

sections and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. The first section focused on the

teacher’s general background and experience, the second section focused on the teacher’s

science background, and the third section focused on classroom science instruction. Because the

sampling for the teacher questionnaire was based on participating students, the responses to the

science teacher questionnaire do not necessarily represent all fourth- or eighth-grade science

teachers in the nation or in a state. Rather, they represent the teachers of the representative

sample of students assessed.

The school characteristics and policy questionnaire was given to the principal or other

administrator in each participating school and required about 20 minutes to complete. The

questions asked about the principal’s background and experience; school policies, programs, and

facilities; and the demographic characteristics and background of the students and teachers in

that school.

Each student booklet also contained three sets of student background questions. The first

set collected general information about students’ race or ethnicity; parents’ level of education;

number and type of reading materials in the home; amount of time spent on homework; and

student’s academic expectations. The second set was directed specifically at students’ science

background and included questions about science instructional activities, science courses taken,

use of specialized resources such as computers and laboratory equipment, and students’ views on

the utility and value of science. The third set contained five questions about students’ motivation

to do well on the assessment, their perception of the difficulty of the assessment, and their

familiarity with the types of cognitive questions included. Students at grades 8 and 12 were given

five minutes to complete each set of background questions. Fourth graders were given more time

because the general background questions were read aloud to them.

It is important to note that in this report, as in all NAEP reports, the student is the unit of

analysis, even when information from teacher or school questionnaires is reported. This is

because the sampling for the teacher and school questionnaires was based on participating

students and does not represent all teachers or schools in the nation or in a state. For example,

when discussing the educational background of science teachers, NAEP can report that

45 percent of eighth-grade students were taught science by teachers who reported having an

undergraduate or graduate major in science but cannot report that 45 percent of all the nation’s

teachers have an undergraduate or graduate major in science.
6 Students Learning Science

Reporting NAEP Results

The NAEP Science Scale

The NAEP science scale is a composite scale that ranges from 0 to 300 with a mean of 150 and a

standard deviation of 35. While the scale-score ranges are identical, the scale was derived

independently at each of the three grades. Also, scales were weighted differently at different

grades in determining the overall scale. Therefore, average scale scores across grades cannot be

compared. For example, equal scale scores on the grade 4 and grade 8 scales do not imply

equal levels of science achievement. A more detailed account of scaling procedures has been

included in Appendix A.

Achievement Levels for Student Performance

Since 1988, NAGB has been required by law to set performance standards — called

achievement levels — for NAEP.14 Summary descriptions of the definitions of the science

achievement levels, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced, are found in Figure 1.2. It should be noted

that achievement level descriptions are cumulative, that is, students performing at the Proficient

level should have all of the knowledge and skills of students at the Basic level, and students

performing at the Advanced level should have all of the knowledge and skills of students

performing at the Proficient and Basic levels. A more complete description of the achievement

levels is presented in Appendix A. In the current report, the percentages of students performing

at or above the Proficient level are included whenever scale scores are presented in the tables

except when the scale scores are for student performance in any one of the three science

domains. The NAGB did not set achievement levels for performance within single domains.

Cautions in Interpretation

There are several cautions that readers of this report should bear in mind as they look at the data

presented. The first caution relates to the information collected from responses to the background

questionnaires. This information is self-reported and, while the questions are written as

unambiguously as possible, interpretations may vary based on such factors as differing

educational and teaching experiences. The second caution relates to interpreting as causal the

relationships among student, school, and teacher variables and student performance. In

particular, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about the relative effectiveness of school

policies, teaching approaches, or student experiences solely on the basis of the data in this report

because multiple interrelated factors contribute to student outcomes in education. While the data

reported here are cross-sectional, learning is cumulative. The variables examined in this report

such as, for example, the availability of resources, reflect a single year and do not reflect what

students have experienced in three, seven, or eleven years of previous schooling. It should also be

noted that the absence of statistical correlation between variables and student performance should

14 Bourque, M. L., Champagne, A. B., & Crissman, S. (1997). 1996 science performance standards: Achievement results for

the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Students Learning Science 7

BASIC Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required for under138 standing of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 4. For example, they can carry

out simple investigations and read uncomplicated graphs and diagrams. Students at this level also show a

beginning understanding of classification, simple relationships, and energy.

PROFICIENT Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning required for under170 standing of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 4. For example, they understand

concepts relating to the Earth’s features, physical properties, and structure and function. In addition, students

can formulate solutions to familiar problems as well as show a beginning awareness of issues associated with

technology.

ADVANCED Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate a solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life

205 sciences as well as the ability to apply their understanding to practical situations at a level appropriate to Grade 4.

For example, they can perform and critique simple investigations, make connections from one or more of the

sciences to predict or conclude, and apply fundamental concepts to practical applications.

BASIC Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required for under143 standing of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 8. For example, they can carry

out investigations and obtain information from graphs, diagrams, and tables. In addition, they demonstrate

some understanding of concepts relating to the solar system and relative motion. Students at this level also have

a beginning understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

PROFICIENT Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate much of the knowledge and many of the reasoning

170 abilities essential for understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 8.

For example, students can interpret graphic information, design simple investigations, and explain such scientific

concepts as energy transfer. Students at this level also show an awareness of environmental issues, especially

those addressing energy and pollution.

ADVANCED Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate a solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life

208 sciences as well as the abilities required to apply their understanding in practical situations at a level appropriate

to Grade 8. For example, students perform and critique the design of investigations, relate scientific concepts to

each other, explain their reasoning, and discuss the impact of human activities on the environment.

BASIC Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some knowledge and certain reasoning abilities required

146 for understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition, they

demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, patterns of change) required for understanding

the most basic relationships among the earth, physical, and life sciences. They are able to conduct investigations,

critique the design of investigations, and demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of scientific principles.

PROFICIENT Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning abilities required for

178 understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition, they

demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, patterns of change) required for understanding

how these themes illustrate essential relationships among the earth, physical, and life sciences. They are able to

analyze data and apply scientific principles to everyday situations.

ADVANCED Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning abilities required for

210 a solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition,

they demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, pattern of change) required for integrating

knowledge and understanding of scientific principles from the earth, physical, and life sciences. Students can

design investigations that answer questions about real-world situations and use their reasoning abilities to

make predictions.

Grade 4

Cut Score Content Descriptions

Summary of the 1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions FIGURE 1.2

SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 12

Grade 8
8 Students Learning Science

not necessarily be interpreted to mean that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between them

because the effects may in fact be masked by other factors. By the same token, when there are

apparent statistical correlations, it is also impossible to assign cause and effect to a single variable

because a single variable will rarely be the sole determinant of higher achievement.

Additional NAEP Science Reports

A number of reports will be written addressing different aspects of the NAEP 1996 science

assessment. Three reports are already completed: the NAEP 1996 Science Report Card for the

Nation and the States, which examines and compares the science performance of groups of

students defined by demographic characteristics or by responses to background questions (e.g.,

males compared to females); a companion report, 1996 Science Performance Standards:

Achievement Results for the Nation and the States, which presents the NAGB’s achievement levels

within the context of demographic variables; and What Do Students Know?, a summary of the

NAEP 1996 science results.15 Several reports that draw on select portions of NAEP data will

target specific audiences. In addition to the current report for policymakers, a second report,

directed primarily at teachers, is currently in preparation. This second report addresses student

work in science and presents samples of assessment questions, scoring guides, and student

responses. A third report will discuss some of the special features of the NAEP 1996 science

assessment, including hands-on tasks, theme blocks, and constructed-response items. It will also

present results from a special study that assessed students with advanced training in science This

study was conducted in conjunction with the main NAEP 1996 science assessment. The

NAEP 1996 science assessment provided a wealth of information, not all of which will appear

in reports. Summary data tables from the assessment are available on the World Wide Web at

http://nces.ed.gov/naep.

Overview of Remaining Chapters

Chapter 2 of the report presents results related to teachers’ academic preparation and professional

development. Chapter 3 discusses data concerning the amount of emphasis science instruction

receives in schools, including the availability of advanced courses and the amount of science

required for graduation. Student course taking is the focus of Chapter 4. Chapter 5 examines the

availability of school resources that support science learning. Finally, the report contains two

appendices that support or augment the information and results presented in the main text.

15 O’Sullivan, C.Y., Reese, C.M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states: Findings

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.

Bourque, M. L., Champagne, A. B., & Crissman, S. (1997). 1996 science performance standards: Achievement results for

the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

National Assessment Governing Board. (1997). What do students know? Washington, DC: Author.
Chapter 2

Students Learning Science 9

Who is Teaching Science

to the Nation’s Fourth- and

Eighth-Grade Students?

How learning takes place in the classroom, what content is taught, and how assessment is

integrated with teaching and learning are key areas of concern in science education reform.1

Another concern is whether teachers are adequately prepared to teach science.2 It has been

argued that if teachers are to make sense of the changes that are taking place in science

education and impart to students the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve scientific

literacy, it is imperative that they have the prerequisite content and pedagogical knowledge that

documents such as the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science

Literacy advocate.3 Data collected during the NAEP 1996 science assessment provide

information related to various aspects of teacher preparedness such as academic background,

certification, years of teaching experience, and professional development activities. Chapter 2

discusses these data.

Performance data are included in the tables of this chapter. Readers should be aware

that the relationships between teacher variables and student performance are complex. When

apparent statistical correlations are present it is impossible to assign cause and effect to a

single variable. Similarly an absence of correlation between variables and student performance

does not necessarily mean that no cause-and-effect relationships exist; they may, in fact, be

masked by other factors.

1 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy

goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science curriculum

designers (Vol. I.). The content core: A guide for curriculum developers. Washington, DC: Author.

2 Gee, C.J., & Gabel, D.L. (1996). The first year in teaching: Science in the elementary school. A paper presented at the

annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Loucks-Horsly, S., Bybee, R., & Wild, E.L.C. (1996, November). “The role of community colleges in the professional

development of science teachers.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(2) 130-135.

National Science Teachers Association. (1992). NSTA certification requirements. Arlington, VA, Author.

3 National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy

goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
10 Students Learning Science

Academic Training

The academic training of teachers of fourth-and eighth-grade students can be determined from

data collected during the NAEP 1996 science assessment. Table 2.1 summarizes teachers’

reports of their highest academic degree in the following categories: public and nonpublic

schools combined, public schools only, and nonpublic schools only. In public and nonpublic

schools, 59 percent of students in grade 4 and 57 percent of students in grade 8 were taught by

teachers who had earned a bachelor’s degree but not a higher degree. Forty percent of fourth

graders and 42 percent of eighth graders were taught by teachers who had received a master’s

degree or an education specialist’s degree. An additional 1 percent of students at the eighthgrade level were taught science by teachers who had a doctorate or professional degree.4

 Similar

results were obtained in the NAEP 1990 science assessment when teachers of grade 8 students

were asked to report their highest academic degree. At that time, 53 percent of students were

taught by teachers who reported having a bachelor’s degree and 47 percent had teachers with a

master’s or education specialist’s degree. In that year, no students were taught by teachers with a

doctorate or professional degree.5 An analysis of scale scores and achievement level data of fourthand eighth-grade students revealed that student performance did not vary with the highest level of

academic degree their teachers held.

4 Identical information concerning teacher qualifications was requested of mathematics teachers whose students took part

in the NAEP 1996 mathematics assessment. Their level of education was found to be similar to that of science teachers.

National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1997). 1996 Mathematics

assessment summary data tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.shtml.

5 Jones, L. R., Mullis, I. V. S., Raizen, S. A., Weiss, I. R., & Weston, E. A. (1992). The 1990 science report card.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Students Learning Science 11

TABLE 2.1 Teachers’ Reports on Their Highest Degree,

by Type of School

Grade 4 Grade 8

What is the highest academic degree

you hold?

Public and Public Nonpublic Public and Public Nonpublic

Nonpublic Schools Schools Nonpublic Schools Schools

Schools Only Only Schools Only Only

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

— Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

High School, Associates Degree,

or Vocational Certification

Percentage of Students 1 0 8 0 00

Average Scale Score — — — — — —

Percentage At or Above Proficient — — — — ——

Bachelor’s

Percentage of Students 59 57 72 57 55 70

Average Scale Score 150 148 166 150 148 161

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 26 46 29 27 40

Master’s or Specialist’s

Percentage of Students 40 42 20 42 44 28

Average Scale Score 152 151 164 154 153 167

Percentage At or Above Proficient 31 31 42 33 32 49

Doctorate or Professional

Percentage of Students — — — 1 1 2

Average Scale Score — — — 142 134 —

Percentage At or Above Proficient — — — 23 14 —
12 Students Learning Science

A comparison of the qualifications of teachers in public and nonpublic schools reveals

differences. In public schools, students in grades 4 and 8 were more likely to be taught science

by teachers with a master’s or specialist’s degree than were their counterparts in nonpublic schools.

At grade four, 42 percent of public school students were taught by teachers who held a master’s

or specialist’s degree, compared to 20 percent in nonpublic schools. Similarly, in the eighth grade,

44 percent of public school students were taught by teachers who held a master’s or specialist’s

degree, compared to 28 percent in nonpublic schools. Eight percent of nonpublic school fourthgrade students had teachers who held a high school diploma, associate degree, or vocational

certificate.

Although more public school students were taught by teachers who hold advanced

degrees than nonpublic school students, past NAEP results across a variety of subjects, including

science, have consistently shown that students attending nonpublic schools outperformed

students attending public schools.6 Studies have shown, however, that if one adjusts for the

effects as students’ home background and schools’ socioeconomic environment, much of the

difference in performance between students in public schools and students in private schools

disappears.7

Several surveys have been conducted in recent years on the status of the American

public school teacher that provide information related to that collected by NAEP. Data from the

Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-1994, show that the highest degree earned by approximately

40 percent of elementary public school teachers and 44 percent of secondary school teachers

was a master’s degree. Fewer than one percent of elementary school teachers held a doctoral

degree whereas just over one percent of secondary school teachers held one.8 A survey

conducted by the National Education Association (NEA) shows that during the 1995-1996

school year approximately 55 percent of public school teachers held a master’s degree or a 6-

year diploma and approximately 2 percent held doctoral degrees. In 1961 the percentage of

teachers holding postgraduate degrees was approximately 23 percent. While the NEA survey

data show that the educational level of teachers has improved dramatically over the past 35

years, it should be noted that this increase took place during the 1960s and 1970s. NEA data

indicate that the level of teacher education has remained unchanged since 1980.9

6 O’Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states:

Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.

7 Mullis, I. V. S., Jenkins, F., & Johnson, E. G. (1994). Effective schools in mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics.

Raudenbush, S. & Bryk, A. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 52, 1-17.

8 U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997) Digest of education statistics, 1997.

Washington, DC: Author.

9 National Education Association. (1997). Status of the American public school teacher, 1995-1996. West Haven, CT.
Students Learning Science 13

Fields of Study

It is important for teachers to have a solid base in the subjects they teach. Research shows that

if teachers do not feel adequately prepared in a particular subject area, such as science, they

may neglect this subject and focus on other academic areas in which they feel more

comfortable.10 This finding would appear to be of particular concern at the fourth-grade level

where, according to data collected from principals during the NAEP 1996 science assessment,

57 percent of students were taught in self-contained classrooms and remained with the same

teacher for all academic subjects. A further 36 percent were regrouped, that is, students

remained with one teacher for most subjects but may have had a different teacher for one or

two subjects.11

At the eighth-grade level, 82 percent of students attended schools where the eighth

grades were departmentalized.12 Thus students had different teachers for most or all academic

subjects. Given the organization of the nation’s fourth- and eighth-grade classrooms, it might be

expected that more eighth-grade science teachers would hold degrees in science than their

colleagues who taught fourth grade. Information collected during the NAEP 1996 science

assessment bears out this assumption.

Teachers of students in grades 4 and 8 who participated in the NAEP 1996 science

assessment were asked to report on their undergraduate and graduate majors. On the basis of

their responses, teachers were placed into one of five mutually exclusive categories.

• Science, which includes teachers with an undergraduate or graduate degree in science

• Science Education, which includes teachers with an undergraduate or graduate

degree in science education, but not in science

• Education, which includes teachers with an undergraduate or graduate degree in

education, elementary education, or secondary education, but not science or science

education

• Other, which includes teachers with any major at the undergraduate or graduate

levels other than the above

• Missing/None Indicated, which includes missing data at the undergraduate and

graduate level; teachers who had no graduate-level study and who failed to indicate

an undergraduate major; and teacher questionnaires not matched to students

Since teachers also reported on their minor fields of study, a second analysis was conducted

combining major and minor degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The same five

categories were used to sort the responses.

10 Brophy, J. (1991). Advances in research on teaching. (Vol. 2) Teacher’s knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their

teaching practice. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

11 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (1997). 1996 Science assessment

summary data tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.shtml.

12 Ibid.
14 Students Learning Science

National Findings

The results are presented in Table 2.2. Seventy-four percent of grade 4 students were taught by

teachers who held an undergraduate or graduate major in education. Ten percent were taught by

teachers who held a science or a science education degree. This finding is similar to that

obtained from the NAEP 1996 mathematics assessment, in which 83 percent of fourth-grade

students were taught mathematics by teachers who had an undergraduate or graduate major in

education.13 At the eighth grade, 45 percent of students were taught science by teachers who

reported having an undergraduate or graduate major in science. Another 11 percent of students

were taught by teachers who held a science education degree. Again this is similar to results

found in the NAEP 1996 mathematics assessment, where 49 percent of eighth-grade students

were taught mathematics by teachers who held a degree in mathematics at either the

undergraduate or graduate level.14

When minor fields of study were included at the undergraduate and graduate level, the

percentage of grade 4 students taught by teachers with a science or science education degree

increased from 10 to 16 percent. At the eighth-grade level, 52 percent of students were taught

by teachers who had a major or minor in science, compared to 45 percent who were taught by

teachers with a science major. A few associations were found between the performance of

students and their teachers’ undergraduate or graduate field of study. Fourth-grade students

whose teachers held a major in education had higher scale scores than students whose teachers

held a major other than science or science education. In addition, students whose teachers had

a major or minor in science education had higher scale scores than both students whose

teachers indicated holding an “other” major or minor and students whose teachers were in the

missing or none indicated category. Achievement-level data show that the percentage of fourthgrade students performing at or above Proficient was greater for those whose teachers indicated

an education major than for those whose teachers indicated an “other” major or were in the

missing/none indicated category. In addition, the percentage performing at or above Proficient

was higher for students whose teachers had a major or minor in science education than for those

whose teachers indicated an “other” major or minor or were in the missing/none indicated

category. Finally, the percentage performing at or above Proficient was higher for students

whose teachers had a major or minor in education than for those whose teachers were in the

missing/none indicated category.

At the eighth-grade level, students whose teachers majored in science had higher scale

scores than students whose teachers were in the missing/none indicated category. Students

whose teachers majored or minored in science had higher scale scores than their counterparts

whose teachers majored or minored in science education and students whose teachers were in

the missing/none indicated category. The percentage of eighth-grade students who reached the

Proficient level was higher for those students whose teachers reported a major or major/minor in

science than for those whose teachers were in the missing/none indicated category.

In summary, at least 80 percent of the nation’s fourth graders and 28 percent of the

nation’s eighth graders were taught science by teachers who did not have an undergraduate or

graduate degree in science or science education. While fourth-grade teachers might not be

13 Hawkins, E.F., Stancavage, F., & Dossey, J. (in press). School policies affecting instruction in mathematics: Findings from

the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

14 Ibid.
Students Learning Science 15

Teachers’ Reports on Their

Undergraduate or Graduate Fields of Study:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE 2.2

expected to have a science degree, the lack of an academic concentration in science by fourthand eighth-grade teachers may be of some concern since research has shown that without the

essential base of subject matter knowledge, teachers may be unable to instruct effectively.15

Moreover, research has shown that if teachers possess both subject matter expertise and the

ability to present that subject matter to students, they are more likely to engage in activities

that facilitate student learning.16

15 Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S., Teachers of substance, subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M.

Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. pp. 23-36. New York: Pergamon.

Lee, O. (1995). Subject matter knowledge, classroom management, and instructional practices in science middle school

classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 32 (4) 423-440.

16 Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of research in science

teaching, 27 (1), pp. 3-25.

What were your fields of study?

Education Grade 4 Grade 8

Major Major or Minor Major Major or Minor

 Science

Percentage of Students 5 8 45 52

Average Scale Score 144 151 154 154

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 35 33 33

 Science Education but not Science

Percentage of Students 5 8 11 10

Average Scale Score 151 156 148 144

Percentage At or Above Proficient 26 34 27 25

 Education but not Science

 or Science Education

Percentage of Students 74 69 20 18

Average Scale Score 152 151 149 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 31 30 28 28

 Other

Percentage of Students 6 5 8 3

Average Scale Score 140 139 150 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 18 18 27 29

 Missing/None Indicated

Percentage of Students 9 9 17 17

Average Scale Score 142 142 142 142

Percentage At or Above Proficient 20 20 21 21

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in Appendix A for

more details. The missing/none category includes missing data at the undergraduate and graduate levels; teachers who had no

graduate level study and who failed to indicate an undergraduate major; and teacher questionnaires not matched to students.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
16 Students Learning Science

Jurisdiction Findings

Eighth-grade teachers whose students participated in state NAEP were also asked to report

their undergraduate and graduate majors. The public school results for the nation and for the

jurisdictions are shown alphabetically in Table 2.3. The five categories in the table are mutually

exclusive and therefore give some indication of the percentages of students whose teachers had

majors in science or no majors in science. For example, between 4 and 42 percent of students

were taught by teachers who held an education degree but not a science or science education

degree. Similarly, teachers of between 4 and 35 percent of students held a science education

degree but no science degree.

A recent survey of state education departments shows that some states are now

requiring new teachers to have an undergraduate degree with a major in their field of teaching

rather than in general education. This new requirement reflects the desire by states that

teachers have subject matter expertise in the areas in which they teach. According to the survey

data, 10 states have an explicit requirement that all new teachers have a major in a specific

subject field. An additional 22 states confine the requirement to new secondary school teachers.17

Several jurisdictions show a high percentage of students with teachers in the missing/

none category. These percentages largely reflect the relatively low number of students matched

to science teacher questionnaires in those jurisdictions. For example, in Hawaii 59 percent of

students were taught by teachers in the missing/none category and forty-one percent of students

were matched to science teacher questionnaires. By comparison, in Arkansas, where ninety-six

percent of Arkansas students were matched to science teacher questionnaires, five percent of

students had teachers in the missing/none category.18

Figure 2.1 presents the percentages of eighth-grade public school students whose

teachers had an undergraduate or graduate major in science. The jurisdictions are divided into

three groups: states where the percentages were greater than that for the nation; states where the

percentages did not differ significantly from that for the nation; and states where the percentages

were lower than that for the nation. The figure reveals that in 28 jurisdictions the percentage of

eighth-grade public school students whose teachers had undergraduate or graduate science

majors was not significantly different from the percentage for the nation (47 percent). Twelve

jurisdictions had percentages greater than for the nation, ranging from 60 to 74 percent. Four

jurisdictions had percentages below the nation’s: DDESS, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana had

between 25 and 36 percent of eighth-grade public school students in classrooms with teachers

who had majored in science at the undergraduate or graduate level.

17 Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Key state education policies on K-12 education: Content standards,

graduation, teacher licensure, time and attendance. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State

Education Assessment Center.

18 Data on the weighted percentage of students matched to science teacher questionnaires can be found in Allen, N.L.,

Swinton, S.S., Isham, S.P., & Zelenak, C.A. (1997). Technical report of the NAEP 1996 state assessment program in

science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Students Learning Science 17

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or

Graduate Fields of Study, for the Nation and

Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

TABLE 2.3

 Science Education but Missing/ Total %

Education but not Science or None At or Above

Science not Science Science Ed. Other Indicated Proficient

Percentage of Students

What were your fields of study?

Grade 8

Nation 47 12 16 8 17 27

Alabama 57 14 20 2 8 18

Alaska a 53 5 12 5 24 31

Arizona 44 14 29 3 10 23

Arkansas a 48 17 25 6 5 22

California 61 4 20 5 10 20

Colorado 66 7 10 4 14 32

Connecticut 51 15 19 3 12 36

Delaware 60 9 18 3 11 21

DDESS 36 35 16 0 12 27

DoDDS 65 4 17 4 10 31

District of Columbia 40 14 7 4 35 5

Florida 42 17 17 8 16 21

Georgia 28 22 36 5 10 21

Guam 48 26 6 0 19 7

Hawaii 28 4 6 3 59 15

Indiana 51 16 17 4 11 30

Iowa a 58 13 22 0 6 36

Kentucky 43 13 26 1 16 23

Louisiana 25 15 42 6 12 13

Maine 45 17 24 1 13 41

Maryland a 63 9 12 7 10 25

Massachusetts 55 12 17 5 12 37

Michigan a 47 20 18 2 12 32

Minnesota 74 10 6 1 9 37

Mississippi 36 15 33 5 11 12

Missouri 54 13 18 3 12 28

Montanaa 63 6 17 4 10 41

Nebraska 58 23 9 0 11 35

New Mexico 46 11 23 5 15 19

New York a 68 4 6 4 17 27

North Carolina 37 27 22 5 9 24

North Dakota 57 21 13 4 5 41

Oregon 56 14 15 2 13 32

Rhode Island 64 12 15 3 6 26

South Carolina a 38 19 25 7 10 17

Tennessee 37 11 39 5 9 22

Texas 58 15 10 9 9 23

Utah 70 6 7 3 13 32

Vermont a 60 17 12 2 9 34

Virginia 54 13 18 8 7 27

Washington 53 5 16 4 22 27

West Virginia 51 25 13 1 9 21

Wisconsin a 42 5 34 1 18 39

Wyoming 73 8 4 1 14 34
18 Students Learning Science

Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate

or Graduate Major in Science,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

FIGURE 2.1

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate

notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students Total %

At or Above

Proficient

Nation 47 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

California 61 20

Colorado 66 32

Delaware 60 21

DoDDS 65 31

Maryland a 63 25

Minnesota 74 37

Montana a 63 41

New York a 68 27

Rhode Island 64 26

Utah 70 32

Vermont a 60 34

Wyoming 73 34

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alabama 57 18

Alaska a 53 31

Arizona 44 23

Arkansas a 48 22

Connecticut 51 36

District of Columbia 40 5

Florida 42 21

Guam 48 7

Indiana 51 30

Iowa a 58 36

Kentucky 43 23

Maine 45 41

Massachusetts 55 37

Michigan a 47 32

Mississippi 36 12

Missouri 54 28

Nebraska 58 35

New Mexico 46 19

North Carolina 37 24

North Dakota 57 41

Oregon 56 32

South Carolina a 38 17

Tennessee 37 22

Texas 58 23

Virginia 54 27

Washington 53 27

West Virginia 51 21

Wisconsin a 42 39

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

DDESS 36 27

Georgia 28 21

Hawaii 28 15

Louisiana 25 13
Students Learning Science 19

Type and Subject Area of Teaching Certification

The present and future availability of science teachers with the appropriate level and type of

teacher certification is affected by a number of factors. First, according to information released

by the National Center for Education Statistics, is the growing population of school children in

elementary and secondary education, which has increased from approximately 46 million in

1980 to about 50 million in 1995 and is projected to reach almost 54 million in the year 2000.19

Second is the aging population of public school teachers. In 1996 about 46 percent of public

school teachers had more than 20 years teaching experience; thus, many will be retiring over

the next 10 years.20 Third, policies such as class-size reduction have had and may continue to

have an impact on the demand for qualified teachers.21 For example, the California Department

of Education has estimated that, in order to fully implement a class-size reduction program in

grades K-3, an additional 20,000 classrooms — and a proportionate number of new teachers —

will be needed in the next three to five years.22 Since all of these factors will impact the nation’s

schools over the next decade, it is useful to evaluate the current status of teacher certification

and determine whether the increasing school population, coupled with smaller class size and

teacher attrition have already contributed to a shortage of qualified teachers.

19 U.S. Department of Education. (1997). National Center for Education Statistics. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. Digest of education statistics 1997. Washington, DC: Author.

20 National Education Association. (1997). Status of the American public school teacher, 1995-1996. West Haven, CT:

Author.

Data from the NAEP 1996 science assessment showed that nearly one-fifth of students at grades 4 and 8 were taught

science by teachers with 25 or more years of experience.

21 President’s State of the Union Address (January 27, 1998) reproduced in The New York Times, January 28, 1998.

22 Source: California Department of Education (1997).
20 Students Learning Science

Type of Certification

Information concerning the status of teaching certification in America’s public schools is

presented in Table 2.4. Teachers of fourth and eighth graders participating in NAEP were

asked what type of teaching certificate they held in their main assignment field, that is, the area

in which they do most of their teaching.23 The majority of public school students at both grades

4 and 8 (95 percent and 92 percent, respectively) were taught by teachers who were certified in

their main assignment field. The rest of the students were taught by teachers who held

temporary, provisional, or emergency certification, or no certification. There was no correlation

between student scale scores or the percentage of students at or above Proficient and the type of

teaching certificate their teachers held.

Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate

Held in Main Assignment Field:

Public Schools Only

TABLE 2.4

What type of teaching certificate do

you have in this state in your main

assignment field?

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Certified

Percentage of Students 95 92

Average Scale Score 150 151

Percentage At or Above Proficient 28 30

Temporary, Provisional, or

Emergency Certification

Percentage of Students 5 7

Average Scale Score 141 146

Percentage At or Above Proficient 22 26

None

Percentage of Students 0 1

Average Scale Score — —

Percentage At or Above Proficient — —

23 It should be noted that data collected by NAEP do not indicate whether students were taught science by teachers whose

main assignment field was in fact science. It is likely that elementary education was the main assignment field for most

fourth-grade teachers and that science was the main assignment field for most eighth-grade teachers.
Students Learning Science 21

The results regarding type of teacher certification for the nation and for the jurisdictions

are shown in Table 2.5. The percentage of public school eighth-grade students taught by

teachers who were certified ranged from 74 percent in Michigan to 100 percent in Guam.

Twenty-five jurisdictions had percentages greater than 90 and 11 jurisdictions had percentages

between 85 and 90. The percentage of students taught by teachers who were certified ranged

from 74 to 83 percent for the remaining eight jurisdictions.

The percentage of students taught by teachers holding temporary, provisional, or

emergency certification ranged from 0 for Alabama and Guam to 23 for Michigan. In 17

jurisdictions the percentage was between 10 and 23. The percentage of students having

teachers with no certification in their main assignment area ranged from zero to nine.
22 Students Learning Science

Grade 8

Temporary,

Provisional, or Total %

Emergency At or Above

Certified Certification None Proficient

Percentage of Students

Nation 92 7 1 27

Alabama 99 0 1 18

Alaska a 97 2 1 31

Arizona 85 12 3 23

Arkansas a 97 1 2 22

California 82 15 3 20

Colorado 87 12 2 32

Connecticut 86 12 2 36

Delaware 86 12 2 21

DDESS 85 6 9 27

DoDDS 98 1 1 31

District of Columbia 94 6 0 5

Florida 82 17 1 21

Georgia 97 3 0 21

Guam 100 0 0 7

Hawaii 78 18 4 15

Indiana 96 4 1 30

Iowa a 94 5 1 36

Kentucky 91 9 0 23

Louisiana 82 16 3 13

Maine 87 13 0 41

Maryland a 89 11 0 25

Massachusetts 93 2 5 37

Michigan a 74 23 3 32

Minnesota 95 5 0 37

Mississippi 91 8 1 12

Missouri 88 12 0 28

Montana a 91 9 0 41

Nebraska 93 7 0 35

New Mexico 95 4 1 19

New York a 83 15 1 27

North Carolina 86 13 1 24

North Dakota 98 2 1 41

Oregon 90 7 3 32

Rhode Island 81 19 0 26

South Carolina a 92 6 2 17

Tennessee 93 7 0 22

Texas 90 10 1 23

Utah 81 18 1 32

Vermont a 93 7 0 34

Virginia 94 5 1 27

Washington 93 7 0 27

West Virginia 94 5 1 21

Wisconsin a 99 1 0 39

Wyoming 97 3 0 34

Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate

Held in Main Assignment Field, for the Nation and

Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

TABLE 2.5

What type of teaching certificate do

you have in this state in your main

assignment field?

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
Students Learning Science 23

Area of Certification

Teachers were also asked in what areas they held teaching certificates. For the purposes of this

report the areas were classified into three mutually exclusive certification categories.

• Science, which includes teaching certificates in elementary science or in middle/

junior high or secondary science.

• Education, which includes teaching certificates in elementary/middle school

education but not in elementary science or middle/ junior high or secondary science.

• Other, which includes teaching certificates in a field other than those included in the

science or education categories.

These data for public schools only, are presented in Table 2.6. Since the areas of

teaching certification and the prerequisites for teacher certification vary from state to state, the

categories presented to teachers were rather broad and in no way indicate what was required for

a teacher to become certified in a particular area. The NAEP results reveal that 27 percent of

grade 4 public school students were taught by teachers who reported holding teaching

certification in science. But, given that 16 percent of students were taught by teachers who

reported a major or minor in science or science education (Table 2.2), it would appear that some

states do not require a major or minor in science or science education for science certification.

Do you have a teaching certificate

in any of the following areas that

is recognized by the state in which you

teach?

Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered

by Teaching Certificate:

Public Schools Only

TABLE 2.6

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from three derived variables. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Science

Percentage of Students 27 72

Average Scale Score 151 151

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 30

Education, but not Science

Percentage of Students 62 9

Average Scale Score 149 144

Percentage At or Above Proficient 28 24

Other

Percentage of Students 1 1

Average Scale Score — 132

Percentage At or Above Proficient — 13

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level

of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes
24 Students Learning Science

Evidence to support this assertion can be found in outside sources as well. The National

Science Teachers Association (NSTA) standards for teacher certification require candidates for

elementary science certification to complete 12 semester hours in a laboratory or field-oriented

science, including courses in biology, physical science, and earth and space science, and to

complete an elementary science methods course or the equivalent. The NSTA standards have

been adopted by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and by the

Association for the Education of Teachers of Science. Individual state requirements may not

even be as stringent as the NSTA’s, as seen in the National Association of State Directors of

Teacher Education and Certification Manual on the Preparation and Certification of

Educational Personnel. For example, Louisiana requires 15 semester hours of science for

elementary certification, but Arizona requires 8 hours, and Texas requires 3 hours. None of these

requirements would necessitate a science major for fulfillment.24 Scale scores and achievement

level data for grade 4 show no significant differences in performance for students whose

teachers responded “yes” to each category compared to those whose teachers responded “no.”

In eighth grade, 72 percent of public school students were taught by teachers who

reported holding teaching certification in science. Sixty-two percent of students were taught by

teachers who reported having a major or minor in science or science education (Table 2.2). At

the middle school level, NSTA certification in science requires 24 semester hours in a

biological or life science, earth and space science, and physical science (physics and

chemistry) as well as completion of a science methods course or equivalent designed

specifically for middle school teachers.25 As part of the NAEP 1990 science assessment,

teachers were also asked about their area of certification.26 Those data show that teachers of 80

percent of eighth graders indicated that they held teaching certification in the area of science.

Eighth-grade students whose teachers were certified in science had higher scale scores than

students whose teachers were not certified in science. Similar results were found for the

achievement level data. Furthermore, the percentage of students at or above Proficient was

lower for those whose teachers responded “yes” to being certified in an area other than science

or science education.

The results regarding subject area of teacher certification for the nation and for the

jurisdictions are shown in Table 2.7. The percentage of public school eighth-grade students

taught by teachers who were certified in science ranged from 31 percent in Hawaii to 91

percent in Rhode Island. The percentage of students taught by teachers holding certification in

general education ranged from 1 percent for DoDDS and Minnesota to 46 percent for

Georgia. No more than 6 percent of students in any jurisdiction had teachers certified in an

area other than science or education.

24 National Science Teachers Association. (1992). NSTA teacher certification requirements Arlington, VA: Author.

National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. (1998). The NASDTEC manual on the

preparation and certification of educational personnel, 1998-1999. ( 4th Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

25 National Science Teachers Association. (1992). NSTA teacher certification requirements Arlington, VA: Author.

26 Jones, L. R., Mullis, I. V. S., Raizen, S. A., Weiss, I. R., & Weston, E. A. (1992). The 1990 science report card.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Students Learning Science 25

Do you have a teaching certificate

in any of the following areas that

is recognized by the state in which

you teach?

Grade 8

Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered

by Teaching Certificate, for the Nation and

Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

TABLE 2.7

Nation 72 9 1 27

Alabama 79 9 1 18

Alaska a 55 14 5 31

Arizona 53 34 2 23

Arkansas a 88 3 2 22

California 73 12 2 20

Colorado 71 11 3 32

Connecticut 59 27 0 36

Delaware 72 14 1 21

DDESS 72 16 0 27

DoDDS 88 1 1 31

District of Columbia 59 5 0 5

Florida 71 5 4 21

Georgia 43 46 2 21

Guam 69 12 0 7

Hawaii 31 4 1 15

Indiana 80 6 0 30

Iowa a 83 8 2 36

Kentucky 61 21 2 23

Louisiana 43 32 6 13

Maine 59 28 0 41

Maryland a 71 12 2 25

Massachusetts 73 11 2 37

Michigan a 71 12 1 32

Minnesota 88 1 0 37

Mississippi 62 24 1 12

Missouri 79 6 1 28

Montana a 69 18 0 41

Nebraska 78 7 1 35

New Mexico 66 14 2 19

New York a 74 5 1 27

North Carolina 73 11 2 24

North Dakota 84 8 0 41

Oregon 67 17 1 32

Rhode Island 91 2 0 26

South Carolina a 63 22 3 17

Tennessee 70 20 1 22

Texas 81 4 1 23

Utah 79 5 1 32

Vermont a 84 4 1 34

Virginia 79 11 1 27

Washington 63 15 0 27

West Virginia 83 8 0 21

Wisconsin a 61 20 0 39

Wyoming 80 4 1 34

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from three derived variables. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Area of Certification

Total %

Education, At or Above

Science But Not Science Other Proficient

Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes
26 Students Learning Science

Years of Teaching Experience

According to data from a survey conducted by the NEA, the 1995-1996 public school

teaching staff (K-12) was the most experienced since the survey was first administered in

1960.27 Teachers had an average of 16 years full-time experience, with 46 percent having

entered teaching more than 20 years earlier. Similar data were sought in the NAEP 1996

science assessment, in which teachers of fourth and eighth graders were asked to indicate the

number of years they had taught science. While results cannot be directly compared with the

NEA data, some similar patterns do emerge.

The NAEP data presented in Figure 2.2 are consistent with the NEA data in showing an

experienced teaching force. In the fourth and eighth grades, 69 percent and 74 percent of

students, respectively, were taught science by teachers who reported having six or more years of

science teaching experience. The percentages of students whose teachers reported teaching

science for two years or less were 13 and 14 at grades 4 and 8, respectively. Teachers of

48 percent of fourth graders and 45 percent of eighth graders reported having 11 or more years

of teaching experience.

At the fourth-grade level student performance was similar regardless of how long their

teachers had taught. Some differences in scale scores were seen at the eighth-grade level.

Students of teachers who had taught either 6-10 years or 25 or more years had higher scale

scores than students whose teachers had five or fewer years of teaching experience. The

percentage of eighth-grade students reaching the Proficient level did not vary significantly with

the number of years their teachers reported teaching science.

27 National Education Association. (1997). Status of the American public school teacher, 1995-1996 West Haven, CT: Author.
Students Learning Science 27

Teachers’ Professional Activities in Sciences

In 1989 the President and the states’ governors established eight national education goals.28

Goal 4 stated: “By the year 2000, the nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for

the continuing improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the

knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.”

28 National Governors’ Association. (1991). Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national education goals.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1991). AMERICA 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: Author.

Percentage of Students

Grade 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Teachers’ Reports on Number of Years

Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE 2.2

Counting this year, how many years

in total have you taught science?

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

2 Years or Less

3 - 5 Years

6 - 10 Years

11 - 24 Years

25+ Years

Grade 8

13%

18%

21%

31%

17%

14%

13%

29%

26%

19%

2 Years or Less

3 - 5 Years

6 - 10 Years

11 - 24 Years

25+ Years

 % At

or Above

Proficient

Average

Scale

Score

144 23

153 31

151 32

153 32

148 26

144 22

144 23

154 32

151 32

159 37
28 Students Learning Science

A subsequent report, sponsored by the National Governors’ Association, recognized that

systemic reforms placed many demands on teachers, from improving subject matter expertise to

becoming familiar with the latest pedagogical research.29 These systemic reforms have led to an

increased appreciation of professional development activities as a means of keeping abreast of

changes in content knowledge and pedagogical theories and practices.30 Some states, such as

Kentucky, Minnesota, and Missouri, have already recognized the importance of professional

development by increasing investments in such programs.31

Although teachers have long been participating in professional development activities

— workshops, seminars, in-service courses, etc. — a recent report shows that the percentage of

teachers attending such professional development activities has increased in the last 25 years

from approximately 59 percent to 77 percent.32 NAEP gathered data on two aspects of

professional development: the extent to which teachers participated in professional development

and the types of professional development activities in which they were involved. It could be argued

that the quality of these activities is more important than either the types of activities or the

number of hours spent engaged in them. However, no data were collected on quality, and NAEP

data cannot be used to examine the quality issue.

Time Spent in Professional Development

Teachers whose students participated in the NAEP 1996 science assessment were asked how

much time they had spent in professional development during the previous year (1995) at

workshops or seminars in science or science education. Teachers were asked to include

attendance at professional meetings and conferences, district-sponsored workshops, and

external workshops. The results are shown in Table 2.8. The majority of fourth-grade students

(62 percent) were taught by teachers who had less than six hours of professional development in

science or science education. The finding is not surprising because most fourth-grade teachers

must divide their time between several subjects, and when they do participate in professional

development, teachers may be more likely to focus on higher priority subjects like mathematics

and reading or on non-subject specific issues. Data from the 1996 mathematics assessment

support this conjecture. Mathematics teachers of 46 percent of fourth-grade students reported

spending less than six hours in professional development.33 Sixteen percent of fourth-grade

students were taught science by teachers who reported having attended 16 or more hours of

professional development. In contrast, 27 percent of students were taught mathematics by

teachers who reported having had 16 or more hours of professional development in mathematics

in the last year.34

29 Corcoran, T.C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington,

DC: National Governors’ Association.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 National Education Association. (1997). Status of the American public school teacher, 1995-1996 West Haven, CT: Author.

Susan Choy and Xianglei Chen (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional development in 1993-94. (Publication No.

NCES 98-230). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

33 Hawkins, E.F., Stancavage, F., & Dossey, J. (in press). School policies affecting instruction in mathematics: Findings from

the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

34 Ibid.
Students Learning Science 29

Since teachers of eighth-grade science tend to teach only science, it is probably not

unexpected that 76 percent of students were taught by teachers who spent six or more hours in

professional development. This figure is similar to the one collected from mathematics teachers

during the NAEP 1996 mathematics assessment. Teachers of 74 percent of eighth-grade

students reported spending six hours or more in professional development in mathematics or

mathematics education.35 An analysis of scale scores and percentage at or above Proficient of

fourth- and eighth-grade students revealed that student performance in science did not vary

with the amount of time their teachers spent in science-related professional development

workshops or seminars.

35 Hawkins, E.F., Stancavage, F., & Dossey, J. (in press). School policies affecting instruction in mathematics: Findings from

the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

TABLE 2.8

Teachers’ Reports on Amount of Time Spent in

Professional Development Workshops or Seminars

in Science or Science Education During the Last Year:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

None

Percentage of Students 30 9

Average Scale Score 151 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 28 27

Less than 6 Hours

Percentage of Students 32 16

Average Scale Score 151 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 31 33

6 - 15 Hours

Percentage of Students 22 21

Average Scale Score 151 150

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 31

16 - 35 Hours

Percentage of Students 9 26

Average Scale Score 155 154

Percentage At or Above Proficient 36 33

More than 35 Hours

Percentage of Students 7 29

Average Scale Score 146 151

Percentage At or Above Proficient 26 28

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

During the last year, how much time in

total have you spent in professional

development workshops or seminars in

science or science education?
30 Students Learning Science

Types of Professional Development

The types of professional development activities undertaken by teachers may provide an

indication of what teachers, schools, and districts consider important in science education.

Figure 2.3 shows the national data for the percentages of public and nonpublic school students

taught by teachers who had the opportunity to stay abreast of current thinking in three areas of

education. Figures 2.4 to 2.6 show the percentages of eighth-grade public school students for

the nation and jurisdictions whose teachers participated in the same three areas of professional

development activities. The information presented in the figures is discussed in the following

three sections.

Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development

Activities Over the Last Five Years:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE 2.3

During the past five years, have you

taken courses or participated in

professional development activities in

any of the following?

Use of Technology and/or

Telecommunications

Portfolio-Based and/or

Performance-Based Assessment

Teaching Students Who Have

Multicultural Backgrounds and/or

Limited English Skills

Use of Technology and/or

Telecommunications

Portfolio-Based and/or

Performance-Based Assessment

Teaching Students Who Have

Multicultural Backgrounds and/or

Limited English Skills

Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes

Grade 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 8

77%

34%

70%

53%

33%

 % At

or Above

Proficient

Average

Scale

Score

61%

151 29

150 29

145 25

152 31

151 30

147 24
Students Learning Science 31

Use of Technology and

Telecommunications

Goal 1 of President Clinton’s National Technology Literacy Challenge states that “All teachers

in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using

computers and the information highway.”36 About two-thirds of schools are now connected to the

Internet, and students have increasing opportunities to use computers to access, retrieve,

organize, and store data using hardware and software designed for these purposes.37 Yet, a study

of teachers and the effective use of technology in schools conducted by the United States Office

of Technology in 1995 found that teachers have not had suitable training to prepare them to use

technology in their teaching.38 The data collected in NAEP indicate the percentage of students

taught by teachers who have undergone training in the use of telecommunications and/or

technology such as computers. The data do not, however, reveal the extent or the quality of this

training or what facilities were in place in the various school districts to augment and support

the training.

As shown in Figure 2.3, 77 percent of grade 4 students and 70 percent of grade 8

students were taught by teachers who had some professional development activity in the use of

technology and/or telecommunications. These figures are likely to increase, given national and

state policies. An examination of student performance at grade 4 showed no differences in scale

scores or percentage of students at or above Proficient. Eighth-grade students whose teachers

had professional development in the use of technology and/or telecommunications had higher

scale scores than students whose teachers did not have professional development in these areas.

No difference was seen in achievement level results.

As of 1996, 32 states required courses in educational technology for teaching

licensure.39As seen in Figure 2.4, most jurisdictions had student percentages that did not differ

significantly from the national percentage (71 percent) for public school students. They ranged

from 64 percent to 82 percent. Two jurisdictions had a larger percentage than the nation —

DDESS and DoDDS (Department of Defense domestic and overseas schools) — and three

jurisdictions had a smaller percentage than the nation — District of Columbia, Hawaii, and

Louisiana.

36 Executive Office of the President. (1996). National technology literacy goals. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

37 Coley, R.J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P.K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools.

Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Advanced telecommunications in U.S. public elementary and secondary

schools, Fall 1996 (Publication No. NCES 97-944). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement.

38 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-HER-616).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

39 Quality counts: A report card on the condition of public education in the 50 states, (1997, January 22). Education Week.
32 Students Learning Science

Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Use of Technology and/or

Telecommunications, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only

FIGURE 2.4

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate

notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes Total %

At or Above

Proficient

Nation 71 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

DDESS 82 27

DoDDS 83 31

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alabama 70 18

Alaska a 72 31

Arizona 68 23

Arkansas a 67 22

California 76 20

Colorado 74 32

Connecticut 75 36

Delaware 68 21

Florida 74 21

Georgia 78 21

Guam 73 7

Indiana 70 30

Iowa a 81 36

Kentucky 78 23

Maine 70 41

Maryland a 72 25

Massachusetts 77 37

Michigan a 65 32

Minnesota 73 37

Mississippi 64 12

Missouri 73 28

Montana a 75 41

Nebraska 78 35

New Mexico 70 19

New York a 65 27

North Carolina 82 24

North Dakota 81 41

Oregon 68 32

Rhode Island 65 26

South Carolina a 65 17

Tennessee 73 22

Texas 77 23

Utah 74 32

Vermont a 76 34

Virginia 80 27

Washington 70 27

West Virginia 80 21

Wisconsin a 68 39

Wyoming 76 34

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

District of Columbia 59 5

Hawaii 33 15

Louisiana 52 13
Students Learning Science 33

Portfolio-Based and

Performance-Based Assessment

Research over the last decade has suggested that assessments that utilize authentic situations

measure what students know and can do more accurately than traditional assessments.40 A

number of schools and states have developed authentic assessments, such as portfolio-based

assessments and performance-based assessments. Vermont has developed student portfolios in

writing, and other states, including New York, are using hands-on tasks as part of their current

assessments.41 Given the interest in authentic assessment, it is probably not surprising to

discover that 61 percent of students at the fourth-grade level and 53 percent of students at the

eighth-grade level had teachers who reported having undergone some training in these

methodologies (Figure 2.3). An examination of scale scores and achievement level data of

fourth- and eighth-grade students showed that student performance did not vary by whether

their teachers had professional development experience in portfolio-based or performancebased assessment.

Among the jurisdictions, Kentucky alone had a significantly larger percentage than the

national percentage of grade 8 public school students who were taught by teachers who had

training in authentic assessments. In eight jurisdictions the percentage was lower than for the

nation (Figure 2.5).

40 Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at

work. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46 (7), 141-147.

41 Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at

work. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College.
34 Students Learning Science

FIGURE 2.5

Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Portfolio-Based and/or

Performance-Based Assessments, for the Nation and

Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate

notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes Total %

At or Above

Proficient

Nation 55 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

Kentucky 78 23

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alabama 50 18

Alaska a 53 31

Arizona 53 23

Arkansas a 53 22

California 68 20

Colorado 60 32

Connecticut 56 36

Delaware 55 21

DDESS 61 27

District of Columbia 46 5

Florida 44 21

Georgia 39 21

Indiana 45 30

Iowa a 65 36

Louisiana 47 13

Maine 56 41

Maryland a 67 25

Massachusetts 39 37

Michigan a 53 32

Mississippi 64 12

Missouri 54 28

Montana a 42 41

Nebraska 40 35

New Mexico 43 19

North Carolina 48 24

Oregon 60 32

South Carolina a 41 17

Texas 56 23

Utah 45 32

Vermont a 57 34

Virginia 45 27

Washington 47 27

West Virginia 61 21

Wisconsin a 46 39

Wyoming 54 34

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

DoDDS 28 31

Guam 29 7

Hawaii 23 15

Minnesota 36 37

New York a 35 27

North Dakota 20 41

Rhode Island 33 26

Tennessee 37 22
Students Learning Science 35

Teaching Students from Different Cultural Backgrounds

and Students with Limited English Proficiency

Given the culturally diverse population in the United States, it has become increasingly

important that teachers be familiar with the latest research on how to teach students who come

from various cultural backgrounds or who have limited English skills.42 Many school districts,

particularly in urban areas, have student populations that are more than 50 percent ethnic

minorities, and this percentage is increasing.43 It is important to note, therefore, that about onethird of students in both grades 4 and 8 had teachers whose professional development included

activities related to teaching students with multicultural backgrounds or limited English skills

(Figure 2.3). It is also relevant that teachers in some jurisdictions where there are large

immigrant populations were more likely to have undertaken such professional development

activities than were their colleagues in jurisdictions where there are fewer immigrants (Figure

2.6). In California, Florida, Guam, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas, a higher percentage of

public school students had teachers who reported professional development work in

multicultural and/or limited-English-proficiency education than did students in the nation as a

whole. Twenty jurisdictions did not differ significantly from the national percentage. A total of

18 jurisdictions were below the national percentage in this area. Students whose teachers had

professional development in teaching students from different cultural backgrounds and/or

students with limited English proficiency had lower scale scores at both the fourth- and eighthgrade levels than students whose teachers did not have professional development in these areas.

Similar results were seen for the percentage of students at or above Proficient. It should be

noted that teachers who attend such workshops may be more likely to teach students who might

be expected to have lower scale scores because of their limited English skills.

42 Barba, R.H. & Bowers, R. S. (1993). Multicultural infusion: A culturally affirming strategy for science teacher preparation.

Annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching. Atlanta, GA.

Rubba, P. A., Campbell, L. M., & Dana, T. M. (Eds.). (1993). Excellence in educating teachers of science. Columbus, OH:

ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. pp. 89-90.

43 California Department of Education. (1986). Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority

students. Los Angeles, CA: California State University. Bilingual Education Office. Evaluation, Dissemination, and

Assessment Center.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Digest of education statistics, 1997.

Washington, DC: Author.
36 Students Learning Science

FIGURE 2.6

Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities

Over the Last Five Years in Teaching Students with

Multicultural Backgrounds and/or Limited English Skills, for

the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate

notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes Total %

At or Above

Proficient

Nation 34 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

California 60 20

Florida 63 21

Guam 54 7

Nebraska 51 35

New Mexico 43 19

Texas 46 23

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alaska a 40 31

Arizona 37 23

Arkansas a 32 22

Colorado 36 32

Connecticut 27 36

DoDDS 30 31

District of Columbia 29 5

Georgia 34 21

Maryland a 40 25

Massachusetts 23 37

Michigan a 24 32

Minnesota 30 37

Missouri 26 28

North Carolina 38 24

Oregon 29 32

Rhode Island 27 26

Tennessee 23 22

Utah 33 32

Virginia 33 27

Washington 26 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

Alabama 20 18

Delaware 25 21

DDESS 23 27

Hawaii 20 15

Indiana 17 30

Iowa a 20 36

Kentucky 20 23

Louisiana 21 13

Maine 10 41

Mississippi 19 12

Montana a 21 41

New York a 21 27

North Dakota 14 41

South Carolina a 22 17

Vermont a 12 34

West Virginia 15 21

Wisconsin a 19 39

Wyoming 12 34
Students Learning Science 37

Summary

The data collected during the NAEP 1996 science assessment present a picture of who was

teaching science to the nation’s fourth and eighth graders.

Grade 4

Academic Background

• Approximately three-fifths of students were taught by teachers who reported a

bachelor’s degree as their highest degree.

• Students in public schools were more likely to be taught by teachers who reported

holding a master’s or specialist’s degree than their counterparts in nonpublic schools.

• Seventy-four percent of students were taught by teachers who reported that they held

an undergraduate or graduate college major in education.

• Teachers of 16 percent of the nation’s students reported holding an undergraduate or

graduate major or minor in science or science education.

Teacher Certification

• Ninety-five percent of public school students were taught by teachers who reported

that they were certified to teach in their main assignment field and 27 percent of

public school students had teachers who reported that they were certified in the area

of science.

Teaching Experience

• Teachers of 48 percent of students reported 11 or more years of teaching experience.

Professional Development

• Sixteen percent of students were taught by teachers who reported attending 16 or

more hours of professional development in science or science education during the

year prior to the assessment.

• Teachers of 77 percent of students reported that they had some professional

development activity in the use of technology and/or telecommunications during the

five years prior to the assessment.
38 Students Learning Science

Grade 8

Academic Background

• Approximately three-fifths of students were taught by teachers who reported that their

highest degree was a bachelor’s degree.

• Fifty-two percent of students were taught science by teachers who reported having an

undergraduate or graduate major or minor in science.

Teaching Certification

• Teachers of 92 percent of public school students reported being certified to teach in

their main assignment field, and teachers of 72 percent of public school students

reported being certified to teach science.

Grade 8 Teaching Experience

• Teachers of 45 percent of students reported 11 or more years of teaching experience.

Professional Development

• Fifty-five percent of students were taught by teachers who reported spending 16 or

more hours in professional development in science or science education during the

year prior to the assessment.

• Teachers of 70 percent of students reported having some professional development

activity in the use of technology and/or telecommunications during the five years

prior to the assessment.
Chapter 3

Students Learning Science 39

What Emphasis Does

Science Receive?

Does a district or state science curriculum exist? How often is science taught? Are advanced

courses available for students? The background questions to which students, their teachers, and

administrators of their schools responded as part of the NAEP 1996 science assessment provide

answers to these and other questions, allowing some measure of the level of emphasis that

science instruction receives in U.S. schools. Chapter 3 discusses the results. The reader is

reminded that the relationships between school and student variables and student performance are

complex. It is often impossible to assign cause and effect to a single variable when statistical

correlations exist. It is also impossible to interpret an absence of statistical correlation as an

indication of no cause and effect because the effects may be masked by other factors.

A well-crafted curriculum is a central part of a good science program and a critical

ingredient in educational reform. Much of the current thinking expressed in documents such as

the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy calls for the

development and implementation of new curricula — a costly process.1 According to a study

conducted by the CCSSO, as of December 1994, 32 states had a “framework or curriculumrelated document” in science and another 10 states had a combined mathematics and science

curriculum. Moreover, 25 states were in the process of developing new science frameworks, four

more were developing mathematics/science frameworks, and 18 were revising existing

frameworks. One indication of the rapid pace at which change has been occurring is that in all

18 of the states that were revising their frameworks, the existing frameworks were no more than

10 years old and many were fewer than 5 years old.2

NAEP asked school administrators to indicate whether there was a state or district

science curriculum that their school was expected to follow. However, the term curriculum was

not defined in the questionnaire and the resulting data may reflect a wide range of interpretations.

A state or district curriculum may be as simple as a list of science topics that should be

covered in the K-12 science program or the textbooks that will be used in particular courses.

Or a curriculum may be more detailed and include standards defining what students should

1 National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core: Scope, sequence, and coordination guide. Washington, DC: Author.

Raizen, S.A. (1994). Approaches to the science curricula for grades K-12. In Fitzsimmons, S.J., and Kerpelman, L.C.,

(Eds.), Teacher enhancement for elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status, issues, and problems.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

2 Blank, R. K. & Pechman, E.M. (1995). State curriculum frameworks in mathematics and science: How are they changing

across the states? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
40 Students Learning Science

know and be able to do after completing a course of study as well as the teaching strategies

that should be used in introducing the topics to students.3 The administrators indicated that

92 percent, 94 percent, and 83 percent of students in grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively, attended

public schools in districts or states that have a science curriculum, although it is not clear how

many of the science curricula were new or revised (see Table 3.1). An examination of student

performance revealed that public school students in grade 12 whose schools were expected to

follow a district or state curriculum in science had lower scale scores than students whose schools

were not expected to follow one. There were no significant differences in scale scores in grades

4 and 8. A larger percentage of students at the fourth-grade level whose schools were expected

to follow a district or state curriculum were at or above the Proficient level. No differences were

seen at the eighth- and twelfth-grade level for students at or above the Proficient level.

Schools’ Reports on the Frequency of Science

Instruction at Grades 4 and 8

School administrators of students in grades 4 and 8 were asked how often students in their

schools received instruction in science. The national data are reported in Table 3.2. In fourth

grade, 48 percent of students received science instruction every day and a further 39 percent

received science instruction three to four times a week. In eighth grade, 91 percent of students had

daily instruction.4 There were no significant differences in average scale scores or percentages

of students at or above Proficient related to how often students received science instruction.

3 Raizen, S.A. (1997). Standards for science education. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.

4 When interpreting the frequency-of-instruction data, it might be helpful to keep in mind that flexible scheduling options

used in some schools may result in the equivalent daily instruction being offered in a more condensed period of time.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Yes

Percentage of Students 92 94 83

Average Scale Score 149 149 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 28 27 20

No

Percentage of Students 8 6 17

Average Scale Score 140 151 156

Percentage At or Above Proficient 18 31 26

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage of Students

Does your district or state have a

curriculum in science that your school

is expected to follow?

Schools’ Reports on Whether They Have

a Science Curriculum:

Public Schools Only

TABLE 3.1
Students Learning Science 41

Grade 8

Every Day 48 151 29

3 - 4 Times a Week 39 150 30

1 - 2 Times a Week 14 147 25

Less Than Once a Week 0 — —

Not Taught 0 — —

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

Schools’ Reports on How Often a

Typical Student Receives Instruction in Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE 3.2

Every Day 91 151 30

3 - 4 Times a Week 8 151 30

1 - 2 Times a Week 1 — —

Less Than Once a Week 0 — —

Not Taught 0 — —

State data concerning how often a typical public school eighth grader received

instruction in science are presented in Table 3.3. At least 90 percent of public school students

in 32 jurisdictions had daily science instruction. In 11 jurisdictions, 75 to 89 percent of public

school students had daily instruction. In Hawaii, where science instruction is not a state

requirement at the eighth-grade level, 31 percent of public school students attended schools

that reported offering science instruction less than three times a week.5 Twenty-one percent of

these received no science instruction as reported by their schools at that grade.

How often does a typical fourth-grade

student in your school receive instruction in science?

— Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

How often does a typical eighth-grade

student in your school receive instruction in science?

Grade 4

5 Source: Hawaii State Education Department, 1997.
42 Students Learning Science

Grade 8

Total

Average Average Average % At

% of Scale % of Scale % of Scale or Above

Students Score Students Score Students Score Proficient

3 - 4 Less than 3

Every Day Times per Week Times per Week

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

— Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

* Twenty-one percent of students received no science instruction as reported by their schools.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

How often does a typical eighth-grade

student in your school receive

instruction in science?

Nation 92 150 8 147 0 — 27

Alabama 98 139 0 — 2 — 18

Alaska a 75 152 23 150 1 — 31

Arizona 94 146 4 — 2 — 23

Arkansas a 99 145 1 — 0 — 22

California 87 137 8 137 5 — 20

Colorado 97 154 3 — 0 — 32

Connecticut 97 157 1 — 2 — 36

Delaware 100 142 0 — 0 — 21

DDESS 100 152 0 — 0 — 27

DoDDS 94 155 6 — 0 — 31

District of Columbia 79 114 11 106 10 — 5

Florida 89 144 9 126 2 — 21

Georgia 99 142 1 — 0 — 21

Guam 100 119 0 — 0 — 7

Hawaii 34 133 35 136 31* 139 15

Indiana 99 154 0 — 1 — 30

Iowa a 97 158 3 — 0 — 36

Kentucky 96 147 4 — 1 — 23

Louisiana 100 133 0 — 0 — 13

Maine 86 163 14 164 0 — 41

Maryland a 96 146 4 — 0 — 25

Massachusetts 96 157 3 — 1 — 37

Michigan a 100 153 0 — 0 — 32

Minnesota 87 160 9 158 5 — 37

Mississippi 93 134 7 129 0 — 12

Missouri 84 151 15 147 1 — 28

Montana a 98 162 1 — 0 — 41

Nebraska 96 158 2 — 1 — 35

New Mexico 95 142 0 — 5 — 19

New York a 94 147 6 139 0 — 27

North Carolina 94 146 3 — 3 — 24

North Dakota 99 163 1 — 0 — 41

Oregon 83 155 17 154 0 — 32

Rhode Island 98 149 2 — 0 — 26

South Carolina a 95 139 5 — 0 — 17

Tennessee 97 144 0 — 3 — 22

Texas 77 149 22 136 1 — 23

Utah 93 156 5 — 2 — 32

Vermont a 84 157 16 158 0 — 34

Virginia 92 150 8 144 0 — 27

Washington 82 150 9 146 9 148 27

West Virginia 98 147 1 — 1 — 21

Wisconsin a 100 160 0 — 0 — 39

Wyoming 100 158 0 — 0 — 34

TABLE 3.3

Schools’ Reports on How Often a Typical Student

Receives Instruction in Science, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only
Students Learning Science 43

Grade 12 Graduation Requirements

Years of Science Required

There is considerable debate over how most effectively to meet the challenge of educating high

school students to be scientifically literate and able to compete in an increasingly technological

global economy. Although the raising of content and performance standards has in recent years

become the preferred focus of much educational reform, some states have chosen, either in

addition or instead, to require students to take more hours of science as a requirement for

graduation.6

 From 1990 to 1995, the number of states requiring 2.5 to 3.0 Carnegie course units

for graduation increased from 4 to 12. Over the same period, the number of states in which only

one Carnegie unit in science was required for graduation declined from eight to two.7 Individual

school districts often set stricter standards than their states. For example, while states may

mandate a minimum requirement for graduation of two years of science, districts within that

state may require students to take three or more years of science.8

6 Blank, R.K. & Gruebel, D. (1995). State indicators of science and mathematics education, 1995. Washington, DC: Council

of Chief State School Officers.

Layman, J.W. (1996) Inquiry and learning: Realizing science standards in the classroom. New York, NY: College Entrance

Examination Board.

7 A Carnegie unit is the equivalent of a course taught daily for one year. Blank, R.K. & Gruebel, D. (1995). State indicators

of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

8 National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1990-91.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
44 Students Learning Science

As part of the NAEP 1996 science assessment, school administrators were asked to report

how many years (or Carnegie-unit equivalents) of coursework their school or district required

for graduation. The results are shown in Table 3.4. All but five percent of grade 12 students

attended schools where at least two years of science coursework was required for graduation.

Sixty-three percent of students attended schools or districts with a two-year requirement while

32 percent attended schools where the requirement was three or more years. By comparison,

43 percent of twelfth-grade students were required to take two years of mathematics, whereas

54 percent had a three-or-more year requirement.9 An analysis of scale scores of twelfth-grade

students reveals that students who were required to take one year of science for graduation had

higher scale scores than students who were required to take two years or three years of science.

The data relating to 4 years could not be reported, however, due to insufficient sample size. This

counter-intuitive finding should not be confused with how students perform when they study more

Schools’ Reports on Years of Science

Required for Graduation:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE 3.4

Beginning with 9th grade, how many

years of course work does your school or

district require for graduation this year?

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

— Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

1 Year

Percentage of Students 5

Average Scale Score 157

Percentage At or Above Proficient 24

2 Years

Percentage of Students 63

Average Scale Score 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 23

3 Years

Percentage of Students 31

Average Scale Score 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 18

4 Years

Percentage of Students 1

Average Scale Score —

Percentage At or Above Proficient —

Grade 12

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

9 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1997). 1996 Mathematics

assessment summary data tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.shtml.
Students Learning Science 45

science because the data on science requirements do not tell exactly how much coursework in science

students actually had. The percentage of twelfth-grade students reaching the Proficient level did not

vary significantly with the number of years of science their schools said were required for graduation.

Just as individual school districts sometimes establish more stringent graduation

requirements than their states, students can — and often do — choose to take science courses

beyond those required by their district or state. Data from seniors responding to a question about how

many semester hours of science they had taken beginning in ninth grade reveal that 23 percent had

taken four to five semester hours of science, 26 percent had taken six to seven, and 29 percent had

taken eight or more (see Table 3.5). Among college-bound students, the percentages were even

higher according to data collected by the College Board. For 1996, 48 percent of students taking the

SAT reported having four or more years of science coursework and 38 percent reported having three

years of science. Only 15 percent had two or fewer years of science.10

Table 3.5 also depicts average scale scores and percentages of students at or above

Proficient. The results are not surprising. As can be seen from the data, higher numbers of

semester hours of coursework were associated with higher average scale scores and a greater

percentage of students at or above Proficient. For example, twelfth graders who reported taking

eight or more semester hours of coursework in science had a higher average scale score than

students who reported fewer semester hours of course taking. Similarly, 44 percent of students who

took eight or more semesters of science coursework were at or above Proficient. This percentage was

significantly higher than the percentages of students at or above Proficient who had taken fewer

semester hours of coursework. Thus, the more science coursework students took the higher was their

achievement on the NAEP 1996 science assessment.

TABLE 3.5

Students’ Reports on Semester Hours of

Science Taken from Grades 9 - 12:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

None - 1 2 110 1

2 - 3 Semesters 20 128 4

4 - 5 Semesters 23 147 14

6 - 7 Semesters 26 158 23

8 or More Semesters 29 172 44

From the beginning of 9th grade through

the end of the school year, how many

semester hours (or equivalent) of course

work will you have taken in science?

Grade 12

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

10 The College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service. (1996). 1997 college-bound seniors: A profile

of SAT program test takers. New York, NY: Author.
46 Students Learning Science

Advanced Course Offerings

NAEP also sought to determine what types of advanced science courses schools offer. As shown

in Table 3.6, some form of science beyond an introductory course was offered in nearly all

schools. According to school administrators, 83 percent, 65 percent, and 51 percent of twelfth

graders attended schools that offered advanced courses in biology, chemistry, and physics,

respectively.11 However, 10 percent of students attended schools where no advanced courses

were offered. When average scale scores are examined, students in schools that offered no

advanced science courses had lower average scale scores than did their counterparts in schools

that reported offering such courses. This result was also reflected in the achievement levels.

Again, the percentage of students at or above Proficient was significantly lower in schools that

reported not offering advanced courses compared to those that did.

TABLE 3.6

Schools’ Reports on Types of

Advanced Level Courses Taught:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Advanced Biology 83 152 22

Advanced Chemistry 65 154 24

Advanced Physics 51 153 24

None Taught 10 139 11

Are courses of at least one semester in

length taught in your school in each of

the following subjects?

Grade 12

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

11 The terms “advanced biology,” “advanced chemistry,” and “advanced physics” were defined in the school questionnaire

as “beyond an introductory course.” It cannot be determined what percentage of responses include courses in the

Advanced Placement Program among the advanced courses.
Students Learning Science 47

State/District Tests

Education policy makers have also tried to raise the proficiency of students by instituting

mandatory graduation examinations in a variety of subjects. Such assessments, it is hoped, will

help to raise standards by requiring students to achieve a designated level of competency. Since

the assessments are generally designed as part of larger curriculum reform efforts, it is also

hoped that they will serve to drive the curriculum in the direction of the reforms by getting

educators to teach to the tests.12 In 1996, seventeen states reported having assessments in place

in one or more subject areas that were used as a requirement for high school graduation.13

These assessments may or may not have included science. The New York State Regents

Examination, long a benchmark for the assessment of college-bound students, is currently being

transformed so that all students will have to pass examinations in several subjects before

graduating from high school. The science regents examination is expected to be in place in the

year 2001.

As shown in Table 3.7, about one-sixth of grade 12 students attended schools that

reported a requirement to pass a district or state science test in order to graduate. In contrast,

55 percent of students attended schools in which a district or state mathematics test was

required.14 The proportion of students that have to pass a science examination for graduation

will surely increase in the next few years as new state and district tests are brought on line.15

An analysis of scale scores and percentage of students at the Proficient level revealed that average

performance was similar whether or not students were required to pass a district or state test in

science in order to graduate.

12 Mestre, J. P. (1994). Cognitive Aspects of Learning and Teaching Science. In Fitzsimmons, S.J., & Kerpelman, L.C.

(Eds.). Teacher enhancement for elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status, issues, and problems.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

13 Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Annual survey of state student assessment programs. Washington, DC: Author.

14 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (1997). 1996 Mathematics

assessment summary data tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.shtml.

15 Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Annual survey of state student assessment programs. Washington, DC: Author.

TABLE 3.7

Schools’ Reports on Requirements to Pass a District or

State Test in Science in Order to Graduate:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Are students in your school required

to pass a district or state test in

science in order to graduate?

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Yes No

Percentage of Students 17 83

Average Scale Score 148 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 21 22

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students
48 Students Learning Science

Summary

States, districts, and schools differ in the emphasis they give to science instruction in the fourth,

eighth and twelfth grades. The NAEP 1996 science assessment afforded an opportunity to

examine these differences using information collected from school administrators. Students at

grade 12 were also asked a series of questions about the science instruction they received.

Grade 4

• Ninety-two percent of students attended public schools in states or districts with a

science curriculum in place.

• Eighty-seven percent of students received instruction in science three or more times

a week.

Grade 8

• Ninety-four percent of students attended public schools in states or districts with a

science curriculum in place.

• Ninety-nine percent of students received science instruction three or more times a week.

Grade 12

• Eighty-three percent of students attended public schools in states or districts where a

science curriculum was in place.

• Five percent of students were required to take one year of science for graduation,

63 percent were required to take two years of science, and 31 percent were required

to take three years of science.

• Twenty-six percent of students reported taking six or seven semesters of science and

29 percent reported taking eight or more semesters. Higher numbers of semester

hours of science coursework were associated with higher average scale scores and a

greater percentage of students at or above Proficient.

• Eighty-three percent of students attended schools that offered an advanced biology

course, 65 percent had access to advanced chemistry, and 51 percent could take

advanced physics.

• One out of 10 students attended schools in which no advanced science courses were

offered. Students in these schools had lower average scale scores and fewer of them

were at or above Proficient on the achievement level scale than their counterparts in

schools that reported offering advanced courses.
Chapter 4

Students Learning Science 49

What Science Courses Are Our

Nation’s Students Taking?

The goal of the present reform movement is to produce scientifically literate individuals who

will be able to make informed decisions.1 There has been much debate in recent years about

how to organize the science subject matter so that students have the opportunity to understand

and make connections among the key ideas in the domains. There are a number of schools of

thought on how to approach the teaching of a subject that includes several somewhat discrete

but nevertheless interconnected parts. Traditionally, life science, physical science, and earth

science have been taught in grades 7 to 9, followed by biology, chemistry, and physics. More

recently, one movement has been to replace this sequence with a curriculum in which each of the

major disciplines in science is studied every year from grades 7 through 12. In this curriculum

the content is sequenced in a manner deemed consistent with cognitive development, from the

concrete to the abstract.2

 Other curricula have also been proposed. For example, the National

Center for Improving Science Education recommended that students take an integrated science

course up to grade 11, at which point they would specialize.3 The content standards prescribed

in the National Science Education Standards have been divided into eight categories, seven of

which are clustered for grade levels K-4, 5-8, and 9-12.4 There has been no attempt to order the

material within the clusters or to separate the domains into different grade levels.

As part of the NAEP 1996 science assessment, students in grade 8 but not in grade 4

were asked about the science courses they were taking and teachers of students who participated

in the assessment at grades 4 and 8 were asked about the sciences they were teaching. At

grades 4 and 8 course-taking information was collected only for the assessment year. Twelfth-grade

students were asked to report on the science courses they had taken from grades 9 through 12.

There was no teacher questionnaire at the twelfth-grade level.5

 Chapter 4 describes these results.

It should be noted that science learning is cumulative and thus performance data reflect not only

exposure to current courses but also past learning experiences. The reader is also cautioned about

ascribing cause-and-effect relationships between the teacher and student variables and student

performance because multiple interrelated factors contribute to student outcomes in education.

1 National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

2 Aldridge, B.G. (1989). Essential changes in secondary school science: Scope, sequence, and coordination. Washington, DC:

National Science Teachers Association.

3 National Center for Improving Science Education. (1991). The high stakes of high school science. Washington, DC: Author.

4 National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

5 No questionnaires were administered to twelfth-grade teachers because students were not necessarily enrolled in science.
50 Students Learning Science

Grade 4 Science Courses

Students in grade 4 were not asked to describe the science course they were currently taking;

however, their teachers were asked to specify how much time they spent teaching life science,

earth science, and physical science. Teachers were presented with response options of “a lot,”

“some,” “little,” and “none.” The results are shown in Table 4.1.

The results indicate that teachers of approximately 28 percent, 19 percent, and

16 percent of grade 4 students reported spending a lot of time covering life science, earth

science, and physical science, respectively. The amount of exposure to the different science

domains did not have an impact on the average scale scores of students or on the percentage

of students that attained the Proficient level. No statistical differences were found. The

amount of exposure to the different science domains also had no impact on the scale scores

of students in the different domains. For example, students who received little instruction in

life science performed as well on life science questions as students who received a lot of life

science instruction.

TABLE 4.1

Teachers’ Reports on How Much Time is Spent

Teaching Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

—Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

Life Science

A Lot 28 150 151 150 150 29

Some 65 151 151 151 152 31

Little 6 150 151 151 150 26

None 1 — — — — —

Earth Science

A Lot 19 151 152 151 151 31

Some 76 151 151 150 151 29

Little 5 151 148 153 153 29

None 0 — — — — —

Physical Science

A Lot 16 154 155 154 154 34

Some 73 151 151 151 151 30

Little 9 145 145 146 146 25

None 2 137 136 139 134 16

In this class, about how much time do

you spend on each of the following

areas in science?

Grade 4
Students Learning Science 51

Grade 8 Science Courses

Teachers of eighth-grade students were asked how much time they spent teaching life science,

earth science, and physical science. Teachers were given response options of “a lot,” “some,”

“little,” and “none.” The results are shown in Table 4.2.

Forty-one percent and 49 percent of eighth-grade students were taught by teachers who

reported spending a lot of time teaching earth science and physical science, respectively. Nine

percent and four percent of students were taught by teachers who indicated that they had not

taught earth science or physical science. About the same percentage of students had teachers

who indicated that they spent either a lot of time teaching life science or teaching no life

science, 19 and 18 percent, respectively. The amount of exposure to the different science

domains did not influence the composite, life science, earth science, or physical science

average scale score of students or the percentage of students at or above Proficient.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Life Science

A Lot 19 149 148 149 150 28

Some 40 150 151 150 150 29

Little 23 156 155 157 155 34

None 18 157 159 156 155 35

Earth Science

A Lot 41 151 151 152 150 30

Some 39 151 151 152 152 30

Little 11 155 157 152 155 36

None 9 157 161 155 155 34

Physical Science

A Lot 49 153 153 152 153 32

Some 35 153 153 153 152 32

Little 12 154 153 156 152 32

None 4 144 149 143 139 21

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

TABLE 4.2

Teachers’ Reports on How Much Time is Spent

Teaching Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

In this class, about how much time do

you spend on each of the following

areas in science?

Grade 8
52 Students Learning Science

As part of the grade 8 questionnaire, students were asked what science course they

were currently taking. The categories given were as follows:

• I am not taking a science course this year;

• Life science (for example, biology);

• Physical science (for example, physics or chemistry);

• Earth science (for example, geology or astronomy);

• General science (several content areas of science taught separately); and

• Integrated science (several content areas of science combined and taught together

throughout the year).

Table 4.3 shows that almost all students (97 percent) reported that they were taking a

science course. Of these, approximately 25 percent of the nation’s eighth graders were taking an

earth science course and a similar percentage were taking a physical science course. Sixteen

percent and 18 percent were taking integrated science and general science, respectively,

while 13 percent reported taking life science and 3 percent reported taking no science. For the

nation, students who were taking no science courses had a significantly lower scale score than

those students who were taking a science course. The percentage of students who scored at or

above the Proficient level was lower among students not taking science than among those taking

physical, earth, general, or integrated science. Among students who reported taking science,

TABLE 4.3

Students’ Reports on Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Life Science 13 137 136 137 137 18

Physical Science 26 156 156 155 156 34

Earth Science 24 150 150 150 149 29

General Science 18 157 156 157 157 34

Integrated Science 16 157 157 156 157 34

No Science 3 121 123 119 123 6

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

Grade 8

Which best describes the science

course you are taking?
Students Learning Science 53

those taking life science had a significantly lower scale score than students taking physical,

earth, general, or integrated science. Achievement level data also show that the percentage of

students at or above the Proficient level was significantly lower for students taking life science

than for students taking physical, general, or integrated science.

An examination of student performance on the life, earth, and physical science portions

of the assessment shows that students who took no science courses had lower life, earth, and

physical science scale scores than students who took physical, earth, general, or integrated

science courses. In addition, students who took no science courses had lower earth science

scale scores than students who took a life science course. Students who took a life science

course had lower scale scores in the three domains than students who took any other science

course, with one exception: there was no difference in student performance in physical science

between those taking a life science course and those taking an earth science course.

There is no obvious explanation for the relatively lower scale scores of students who

reported taking life science in grade 8. One possibility is that students taking physical, earth,

general, or integrated science were exposed to more of the material being surveyed by the

NAEP 1996 science assessment. For example, students taking physical science were also likely

to be exposed to some earth science material whereas students taking life science were less

likely to be exposed to material from earth or physical science.

Grade 12 Science Courses

As part of the NAEP 1996 assessment, grade 12 students were presented with a list of science

courses and asked how much science coursework they had completed in each of them. The

courses specified were earth and space science, life science, biology, physical science,

chemistry, physics, general science, integrated science, and science and technology. An

additional category called “other science courses” was also included. Students were asked

whether they had taken more than one year, one year, less than one year, or none of each

particular course. The response options more than one year, one year, and less than one year

were collapsed because courses may be set up in semester units or some students may take

longer than one year to complete the course requirements. Since course-taking patterns

traditionally vary between males and females, data from the NAEP 1996 science assessment

are also reported by gender.6

 The student data were analyzed in two different ways. Tables 4.4a

and 4.4b present data for the individual subject areas and Table 4.5 presents data for

combinations of these same subject areas.

6 Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress: Achievement of U.S.

students in science 1969 to 1996; mathematics, 1973 to 1996; reading, 1971 to 1996; and writing, 1984 to 1996 (NCES

Publication No. 97-985). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
54 Students Learning Science

Course-Taking Patterns —

Biology, Chemistry, and Physics

Many schools offer a traditional sequence of science courses in high school. While ninth

graders may still take physical science or earth science, many schools now teach these courses

in the middle school and offer biology in the ninth grade, followed by chemistry and physics.

NAEP data collected from eighth graders in 1996 indicated that approximately half of students

had taken either earth science or physical science (Table 4.2). As indicated in Table 4.4a,

almost all grade 12 students reported having taken a course in biology (95 percent of males and

97 percent of females). Seventy-two percent of males and 76 percent of females reported having

taken chemistry, and 46 percent of males and 37 percent of females reported having taken physics.

While the percentage of students who took biology was similar to that reported in the NAEP

1996 Trends in Academic Progress, the percentages of students who reported taking chemistry

and physics were somewhat higher.7 This outcome reflects the fact that whereas the NAEP 1996

science assessment was administered to students in grade 12, the students participating in the

long-term trend assessment were 17-year-olds (eleventh graders) who may not yet have taken

chemistry or physics. The average scale scores and percentages of grade 12 students reaching the

Proficient level were significantly higher for those students who reported having taken biology,

chemistry, and/or physics than those of their counterparts who reported not taking biology, chemistry,

and/or physics. Male students who reported having taken biology outperformed female students

who reported having taken biology. Similar results were found for both chemistry and physics.

7 Campbell, J.R., Voelkl, K. E., & Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress: Achievement of U.S.

students in science 1969 to 1996; mathematics, 1973 to 1996; reading, 1971 to 1996; and writing, 1984 to 1996 (NCES

Publication No. 97-985). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken

from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE 4.4a

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

Biology

Percentage of Students 96 4 95 5 97 3

Average Scale Score 152 123 155 125 149 121

Percentage At or Above Proficient 23 5 27 6 18 3

Chemistry

Percentage of Students 74 26 72 28 76 24

Average Scale Score 159 131 163 134 157 127

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 5 35 8 23 3

Physics

Percentage of Students 41 59 46 54 37 63

Average Scale Score 166 142 168 143 163 142

Percentage At or Above Proficient 39 12 44 14 34 10

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?
Students Learning Science 55

Course-Taking Patterns — Earth and Space Science,

Life Science, Physical Science, Integrated Science,

and Science and Technology

Twelfth-grade students were also asked to report how many semesters (or the equivalent) of

coursework they had taken from the beginning of ninth grade in six additional areas of science:

earth and space science, life science, physical science, general science, integrated science, and

science and technology. In addition students were asked to respond to a category entitled “other

science courses.” The results are shown in Table 4.4b.

Fifty-three percent of twelfth graders reported having taken earth and space science, 39

percent life science. 50 percent physical science, and 59 percent general science. Twenty-five

percent of students reported having taken science courses not listed in Tables 4.4a and 4.4b.

The average scale scores and percentages of grade 12 students reaching the Proficient

level were significantly higher for those students who reported not having taken earth and space

science, life science, physical science, general science, and/or integrated science in grades 9

through 12. A possible explanation for the results is that students who take these courses in

grades 9 through 12 tend not to be in the academic track and may have less opportunity to take

courses such as chemistry and/or physics. Also in states and localities requiring two science

course for graduation, earth science is often the course of choice for students in non-academic

tracks because earth science is assumed to be less demanding than physics and chemistry.

As is shown in Table 4.4b, several differences were observed between the performance

of grade 12 males and females who reported having taken the various science courses. Males

who reported having taken earth and space science, physical science, and general science had

higher average scale scores than females who reported having taken the same courses. The

percentages of male students who reached the Proficient level was higher than the percentage of

female students who reached the Proficient level for those students who reported having taken

earth and space science, physical science, general science, science and technology, or other

sciences. Female students who reported having taken any of the courses listed did not

outperform males who reported having taken these same courses.
56 Students Learning Science

Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken

from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE 4.4b

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

Earth & Space Science

Percentage of Students 53 47 57 43 49 51

Average Scale Score 146 155 149 158 143 153

Percentage At or Above Proficient 17 26 21 32 13 21

Life Science

Percentage of Students 39 61 41 59 37 63

Average Scale Score 143 155 143 159 143 151

Percentage At or Above Proficient 15 25 17 32 14 20

Physical Science

Percentage of Students 50 50 50 50 49 51

Average Scale Score 147 154 150 156 144 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 17 27 21 32 13 22

General Science

Percentage of Students 59 41 64 36 56 44

Average Scale Score 142 162 144 166 139 158

Percentage At or Above Proficient 13 33 16 41 9 27

Integrated Science

Percentage of Students 7 93 9 91 5 95

Average Scale Score 139 151 139 154 140 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 15 22 15 27 16 18

Science & Technology

Percentage of Students 14 86 20 80 9 91

Average Scale Score 150 151 152 154 144 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 23 22 26 27 18 18

Other Science

Percentage of Students 25 75 26 74 24 76

Average Scale Score 150 151 153 153 147 149

Percentage At or Above Proficient 20 22 25 27 15 18

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 12
Students Learning Science 57

Course-Taking Patterns for Combinations of Subjects

In order to examine course taking further, the data were analyzed to ascertain how many

students took courses in more than one of the four domains tested by the Framework for the

1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress, namely, earth science, chemistry, physics,

and biology.8 Table 4.5. shows the percentages of students taking various combinations of these

courses, their average scale scores, and percentages of students at or above Proficient. The data

are presented for all students and by gender. It should be noted that none of these combinations

of courses are mutually exclusive. For example, if students were in the biology/chemistry/

physics category they would also appear in three other categories: biology/chemistry, biology/

physics, and chemistry/physics. The percentages of twelfth-grade students who reported having

taken two or more courses ranged from 68 for those having taken biology/chemistry to 13 for

those having taken earth science/biology/chemistry/physics.

For all twelfth graders, the average scale scores for those who reported taking any

combination of courses were higher than for those students who reported not taking those

courses, with the exception of earth science/biology, where the reverse was true.

The percentage of grade 12 students who reached the Proficient level varied depending

on which combination of subjects they reported taking. The percentages were higher for

students taking any combination of courses compared with students who did not take them with

three exceptions. The percentage of twelfth-grade students who attained the Proficient level was

lower for those who reported taking earth science/biology than those who did not. The

percentages did not differ significantly for earth science/chemistry and earth science/biology/

chemistry.

The relative performance of students who reported having taken different combinations

of courses can also be compared. In general, students who reported having taken chemistry and

physics among their science courses performed at a higher level than students who reported not

having taken them.

8 National Assessment Governing Board. (1995). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: Author. The framework combines chemistry and physics under the heading “physical

science.” At grade 12, the life science domain is most equivalent to biology, even though it is called “life science”

throughout the document.
58 Students Learning Science

This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

TABLE 4.5

Students’ Reports on Combinations of Science Courses

Taken from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender: Public and

Nonpublic Schools Combined

Earth & Biology

Percentage of Students 45 55 48 52 42 58

Average Scale Score 147 154 150 156 144 152

Percentage At or Above Proficient 18 25 22 30 14 21

Earth & Chemistry

Percentage of Students 32 68 34 66 30 70

Average Scale Score 155 149 157 152 152 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 24 21 29 25 19 18

Earth & Physics

Percentage of Students 17 83 20 80 14 86

Average Scale Score 160 149 162 152 157 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 33 20 37 24 29 16

Biology & Chemistry

Percentage of Students 68 32 66 34 71 29

Average Scale Score 160 132 163 135 157 129

Percentage At or Above Proficient 29 6 35 8 24 4

Biology & Physics

Percentage of Students 35 65 39 61 32 68

Average Scale Score 167 142 170 143 164 142

Percentage At or Above Proficient 40 12 45 14 35 10

Chemistry & Physics

Percentage of Students 34 66 37 63 31 69

Average Scale Score 169 143 172 144 166 142

Percentage At or Above Proficient 43 12 48 15 36 10

Earth, Biology & Chemistry

Percentage of Students 30 70 31 69 29 71

Average Scale Score 155 149 158 151 153 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 24 21 30 24 19 17

Earth, Biology & Physics

Percentage of Students 15 85 18 82 12 88

Average Scale Score 161 149 164 151 158 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 35 19 39 23 29 16

Earth, Chemistry & Physics

Percentage of Students 14 86 16 84 11 89

Average Scale Score 164 149 166 151 161 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 38 20 42 23 31 16

Biology, Chemistry & Physics

Percentage of Students 32 68 34 66 29 71

Average Scale Score 170 142 173 143 166 141

Percentage At or Above Proficient 43 12 49 14 36 10

Earth, Biology, Chemistry & Physics

Percentage of Students 13 87 16 84 11 89

Average Scale Score 165 149 168 151 161 147

Percentage At or Above Proficient 39 19 44 23 31 16

Grade 12

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?
Students Learning Science 59

Are Students Studying Science in Grade 12?

In addition to being asked about their course-taking patterns, grade 12 students were asked

whether or not they were currently taking a science course. The results are shown in Table 4.6.

Fifty-four percent of students reported currently taking a science course, whereas 46 percent

reported not taking one. Students who reported taking a science course had a significantly

higher average scale score than did their counterparts who reported not taking any science at

the time of the assessment. Similarly, the percentage of students at or above Proficient was

significantly higher for those students taking science than for those not taking science. Data

from the NAEP 1996 mathematics assessment show that 64 percent of grade 12 students were

currently taking a mathematics course.9 The students who chose to take mathematics in grade

12, like those who took science, had significantly higher scale scores than students who

reported they were not currently taking a mathematics course.

Given the reforms currently taking place in science education and the emphasis on

increased scientific literacy, it is interesting to note that almost half of all twelfth-grade students

were not taking a science course and that two-thirds of them had not taken a course in one of

the major domains, namely physics. Data from the Third International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) show that 53 percent of U.S. students in their final year of secondary school

reported that they were taking a science course. This is very similar to the results obtained by

NAEP. In approximately two-thirds of the 20 countries that participated in the TIMSS

assessment, the percentage of students who reported taking one or more science courses was

higher than in the U.S.10

9 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1997). 1996 Mathematics

Assessment Summary Data Tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.html.

10 Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., and Smith, T.A. (1998). Mathematics and science

achievement in the final year of secondary school. Boston College, MA: TIMMS International Study Center.

TABLE 4.6 Students’ Reports on Current Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Yes 54 160 32

No 46 140 11

Percentage Average Percentage

of Students Scale Score At or Above Proficient

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Are you currently taking a science

course this year?
60 Students Learning Science

Summary

In grade 4 students are most likely to be taking general science. As they progress to grade 8 the

sciences tend to become domain specific and courses are offered under titles such as life

science or physical science. At the high school level many different science courses may be

offered. These can range from more traditional courses such as biology, chemistry, or physics to

more specialized courses such as science and technology. The NAEP 1996 assessment asked

teachers of students in grades 4 and 8 questions about the courses they were teaching. Students

in grades 8 and 12 were asked what science courses they had taken.

Grade 4 Course-Taking

• Teachers of 28 percent, 19 percent, and 16 percent of students reported having spent

a lot of time covering life science, earth science, and physical science, respectively.

The amount of exposure to these science domains was not related to the average scale

scores of students or the percentages of students who reached the Proficient level.

Grade 8 Course-Taking

• Ninety-seven percent of students reported taking a science course in the assessment year.

• Students who were taking life science had significantly lower scale scores than their

counterparts who were taking physical science, earth science, general science, and/or

integrated science.

• Forty-one percent and 49 percent of students were taught by teachers who reported

spending a lot of time teaching earth science and physical science, respectively.

Nineteen percent of students had teachers who indicated that they had spent a lot of

time teaching life science.
Students Learning Science 61

Grade 12 Course-Taking

• At the secondary level, 57 percent of males and 49 percent of females reported

taking earth and space science.

• Almost all students reported taking biology (95 percent of males and 97 percent of

females).

• Seventy-two percent of males and 76 percent of females reported taking chemistry.

• Forty-six percent of males and 37 percent of females reported taking physics.

• Students who reported taking biology, chemistry, and/or physics in grades 9-12

outperformed their counterparts who reported not taking these subjects.

• Students who did not take courses in earth and space science, life science, general

science, physical science, and/or integrated science in grades 9 through 12

outperformed students who reported taking these subjects.

• Male students who reported taking biology outperformed female students who

reported taking biology. Similar results were found for both chemistry and physics.

• Fifty-four percent of students reported that they were currently taking a science

course, whereas 46 percent reported that they were not currently taking one. The

performance of students who reported taking a science course was significantly

higher than the performance of those students who reported not taking a science

course.

Chapter 5

Students Learning Science 63

Do Schools Have the Resources

They Need to Support

Science Learning?

Teachers often see the lack of resources and materials as a key roadblock to successful science

instruction. In 1993, a national survey of elementary and secondary school educators found

that deficiencies related to instructional resources were the most serious problems for science

instruction in their schools.1 Schools reported spending a total of $0.51 per elementary student

per year and $0.88 per middle grade student per year on science supplies. They also reported

spending $50 per year on science software at a time when the average price for a single software

title was $100. This chapter examines data from teachers’ responses to questions about the

resources they have available to teach science, including curriculum specialists, computers, and

laboratory space. The chapter also discusses student performance and indicates when statistically

significant correlations exist. The reader is cautioned against overinterpreting the results. If no

statistically significant correlations exist, there may still be cause-and-effect relationships,

however, these may be masked by other factors. Similarly when statistically significant

correlations do exist, it is also impossible to assign cause and effect to a single variable since

many factors impact student performance.

1 Weiss, I.R. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United States, 1993. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon

Research.
64 Students Learning Science

Availability of Instructional Resources

Teachers of students in grade 4 who participated in the NAEP 1996 science assessment were

asked how well their school systems provided them with instructional materials and other

resources needed for classroom instruction. The results are shown in Table 5.1. Fifty-nine percent

of fourth graders had teachers who reported receiving all or most of the resources they needed to

teach their classes, whereas 40 percent reported receiving some of the resources. There was no

significant difference in performance between the two groups.

At grade 8, approximately two-thirds of students had teachers who reported receiving

all or most of the resources they needed. Nearly all the remaining students (34 percent) were

taught by teachers who indicated that they received some resources. Very few students

(approximately one percent) were taught by teachers who reported receiving no resources.

Eighth-grade students whose teachers reported receiving all or most of the resources they

needed had average scale scores that were significantly higher than their counterparts whose

teachers indicated receiving some or none of their resources. The pattern was identical for

achievement-level data.

Public school teachers whose eighth-grade students participated in state NAEP were also

asked how well their school system provided them with instructional materials and other

resources. The public school results for the nation and the jurisdictions are shown alphabetically

in Table 5.2. The response categories are the same as those depicted in Table 5.1. Figure 5.1

presents the percentages of eighth-grade public school students whose teachers reported having

all or most of the resources they needed. The jurisdictions are divided into three groups: states

where the percentages were greater than that for the nation; states where the percentages did not

differ significantly from that for the nation; and states where the percentages were lower than

that for the nation.
Students Learning Science 65

All or Most 59 152 30

Some 40 149 29

None — — —

All or Most 65 155 34

Some 34 145 24

None 1 135 15

TABLE 5.1

Teachers’ Reports on Whether They

Receive the Resources They Need:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Grade 8

Grade 4

Which of the following statements is

true about how well your school

system provides you with instructional

materials and other resources you need?

Average Percentage

Percentage of Students Scale Score At or Above Proficient

— Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
66 Students Learning Science

The data in Table 5.2 show that between 8 and 80 percent of students had teachers who

reported receiving all or most of the instructional materials and other resources they needed. In

the District of Columbia, 13 percent of students had teachers who reported that they received

none of the resources they needed, and 10 percent of Louisiana students had teachers who

reported the same lack of resources. The average scale score of students whose teachers reported

receiving all or most of the resources they needed or some of the resources they needed ranged

from 115 to 164 and 111 to 161, respectively.
Students Learning Science 67

— Sample size is insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Nation 63 153 36 145 1 129 27

Alabama 40 142 57 136 3 — 18

Alaska a 56 154 44 147 0 — 31

Arizona 51 147 47 144 2 — 23

Arkansas a 59 146 40 142 1 — 22

California 54 143 44 136 1 — 20

Colorado 70 156 30 153 1 — 32

Connecticut 62 162 34 148 4 133 36

Delaware 39 142 57 143 4 129 21

DDESS 56 151 44 — 0 — 27

DoDDS 76 156 22 — 2 — 31

District of Columbia 8 115 80 111 13 105 5

Florida 55 142 42 142 3 130 21

Georgia 59 146 39 137 2 — 21

Guam 19 124 81 118 0 — 7

Hawaii 37 131 56 139 7 — 15

Indiana 65 157 35 149 0 — 30

Iowa a 78 160 20 155 1 — 36

Kentucky 76 148 24 150 0 — 23

Louisiana 40 138 51 131 10 132 13

Maine 53 165 45 161 2 157 41

Maryland a 53 149 47 143 0 — 25

Massachusetts 51 161 47 153 2 — 37

Michigan a 66 159 34 151 0 — 32

Minnesota 63 161 34 154 3 — 37

Mississippi 53 135 44 134 3 133 12

Missouri 64 154 35 151 1 — 28

Montana a 69 163 30 161 1 — 41

Nebraska 80 159 20 155 0 — 35

New Mexico 46 146 50 142 4 147 19

New York a 61 155 37 138 2 — 27

North Carolina 45 149 53 145 2 — 24

North Dakota 68 164 32 160 1 — 41

Oregon 52 157 48 155 0 — 32

Rhode Island 46 152 54 148 0 — 26

South Carolina a 52 141 47 136 1 — 17

Tennessee 48 149 51 141 1 — 22

Texas 71 150 27 139 2 — 23

Utah 57 159 42 152 1 — 32

Vermont a 57 158 43 156 0 — 34

Virginia 65 153 35 144 0 — 27

Washington 62 152 38 148 0 — 27

West Virginia 45 145 53 148 2 — 21

Wisconsin a 59 161 41 161 0 — 39

Wyoming 71 160 28 156 2 — 34

Total %

% of Average % of Average % of Average At or Above

Students Scale Score Students Scale Score Student Scale Score Proficient

Which of the following statements is true

about how well your school system

provides you with instructional materials

and other resources you need?

All or Most Some None

Grade 8

TABLE 5.2

Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive the

Resources They Need, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only
68 Students Learning Science

Figure 5.1 shows that in 31 jurisdictions, the percentage of students whose teachers

indicated that they received all or most of the instructional materials and other resources they

needed was not significantly different than for the nation as a whole (63 percent). However, 10

jurisdictions were lower and three jurisdictions were higher than the national percentage.

Among resource-poor jurisdictions, eight percent of students in the District of Columbia and 19

percent of students in Guam had teachers who reported receiving all or most of the resources they

needed. Among jurisdictions with greater-than-average resources, the teachers of 80 percent of

Nebraska students believed they were getting all or most of the resources they needed and the teachers

of the remaining Nebraska students reported receiving some of the resources that they needed.
Students Learning Science 69

Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive

All or Most of the Resources They Need,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

FIGURE 5.1

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students Total %

At or Above

Proficient

Nation 63 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

DoDDS 76 31

Iowa a 78 36

Nebraska 80 35

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alaska a 56 31

Arizona 51 23

Arkansas a 59 22

California 54 20

Colorado 70 32

Connecticut 62 36

DDESS 56 27

Florida 55 21

Georgia 59 21

Indiana 65 30

Kentucky 76 23

Maine 53 41

Maryland a 53 25

Massachusetts 51 37

Michigan a 66 32

Minnesota 63 37

Mississippi 53 12

Missouri 64 28

Montana a 69 41

New York a 61 27

North Dakota 68 41

Oregon 52 32

South Carolina a 52 17

Tennessee 48 22

Texas 71 23

Utah 57 32

Vermont a 57 34

Virginia 65 27

Washington 62 27

Wisconsin a 59 39

Wyoming 71 34

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

Alabama 40 18

Delaware 39 21

District of Columbia 8 5

Guam 19 7

Hawaii 37 15

Louisiana 40 13

New Mexico 46 19

North Carolina 45 24

Rhode Island 46 26

West Virginia 45 21
70 Students Learning Science

Availability of Computers for Use in Science Classes

The use of computers in teaching and learning is well documented.2 In science, computers can

be used in numerous ways, such as analyzing experimental results and accessing information.

Their use is strongly supported in Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science

Education Standards.3 However, while progress has been made in recent years to bring

computers into the classroom, the cost of hardware, software, and training teachers to use

computers as a tool for teaching and learning science remains a major burden for many

districts.

Today, the many calls for U.S. schools to become “technology rich” may be closer to

being realized due to new legislation that promises to provide $2.25 billion dollars over the next

five years to build the infrastructure. America’s Technology Literacy Challenge grew out of

President Clinton’s vision to connect every classroom in America to the information

superhighway “with computers and good software and well-trained teachers.” 4 The White

House technology initiatives include four educational technology goals and proposals to help

states achieve the goals. Information relating to the second of the goals, that “All teachers and

students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms,” was gathered by NAEP

in 1996. It might be noted, however, that as of 1993 one teacher in five did not believe that

computers should be used in science instruction.5 Although that number is likely to decline

as computers become increasingly integrated into all phases of life, at present it highlights an

important disjuncture between the vision of universal computer access and the practice of

science teachers.

Teachers of students in grades 4 and 8 were asked which best described the availability

of computers for use by their science students (Figure 5.2). The response options presented

were:

• None available;

• One within a classroom;

• Two or three within a classroom;

• Four or more within a classroom;

• Available in a computer laboratory but difficult to access or schedule; and

• Available in a computer laboratory and easy to access or schedule.

For the purposes of this report the categories one, two or three, and four or more within a

classroom were collapsed to one or more computers in a classroom.

2 Smith, T.M., Young, B.A., Bae, Y., Choy, S.P., & Alsalam, N. (1997). The condition of education, 1997. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

3 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

4 Executive Office of the President. (1996). National technology literacy goals. Washington, DC: US Government

Printing Office.

5 Weiss, I. R. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United States: 1993. Chapel Hill, NC:

Horizon Research.
Students Learning Science 71

National Results

About 15 percent of students at grades 4 and 8 were taught by teachers who indicated that there

were no computers available for use by their science students. However, among fourth graders, 53

percent had teachers who reported the availability of at least one classroom computer. For eighth

graders, 38 percent had one or more computers in the classroom. Fifteen percent of fourth-grade

students had teachers who indicated that it was difficult to access or schedule the use of

computers in a computer laboratory, and slightly more (17 percent) were taught by teachers who

indicated that it was easy to access or schedule computer use in a computer laboratory. According

to their teachers, 32 percent of grade 8 students had difficulty accessing computers in a computer

laboratory, and 14 percent had easy access to computers in a computer laboratory. These data tell

Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers

for Use by Their Science Students:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE 5.2

Which best describes the availability

of computers for use by your science

students? Percentage of Students

Grade 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

15%

53%

15%

17%

 % At

or Above

Proficient

Average

Scale

Score

None Available

One or More in Classrooms

Computer Laboratory

(Difficult Access)

Computer Laboratory

(Easy Access)

Grade 8

16%

38%

32%

14%

None Available

One or More in Classrooms

Computer Laboratory

(Difficult Access)

Computer Laboratory

(Easy Access)

143 22

150 29

161 42

148 26

149 30

154 32

150 29

151 30
72 Students Learning Science

only part of the story, however. Even when computers are available, teachers have to be able to

use them effectively for instruction. 6 Fourth-grade students whose teachers reported that

computers were available for use by their science students but were difficult to access had higher

scale scores and percentages of students who reached the Proficient level than students for whom

no computers were available, for whom one or more computers were available in classrooms, or

for whom computers were easily accessible in computer laboratories. No differences in

performance were seen at the eighth-grade level.

Jurisdiction Results

Public school teachers whose eighth-grade students participated in state NAEP were also asked

to describe the availability of computers for use by their science students. The public school

results for the nation and the jurisdictions are shown alphabetically in Table 5.3. The response

categories are the same as those depicted in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.3 presents the percentages of

eighth-grade public school students whose teachers reported having no computers available for

use by their students. The jurisdictions are divided into three groups: states where the percentages

were greater than that of the nation; states where the percentages did not differ significantly from

that of the nation; and states where the percentages were lower than that of the nation.

The data in Table 5.3 show that the percentage of students in public schools across the

nation and in most jurisdictions whose teachers reported having one or more computers in their

classroom for use by their eighth grade-science students ranged from 18 percent in Maryland and

Michigan to 67 percent in Hawaii. Between 8 and 51 percent of eighth graders had teachers who

reported that computers were available in a computer lab but were difficult to access, whereas

between 0 and 24 percent had easy access to computers in a computer laboratory.

The data in Figure 5.3 indicate that the percentage of students whose teachers reported

having no computers available for use by their students was above the national average in

six jurisdictions. In these jurisdictions (Arkansas, Delaware, Guam, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Utah), the range was 32 to 50 percent. In the nation the percentage was 17. In only one

jurisdiction: DDESS, was the percentage of students below the national average. There,

zero percent of students had teachers who reported having no access to computers.

6 Information concerning how computers are used in science education was presented in O’Sullivan, C. Y., Jerry, L., Ballator,

N., & Herr, F. (1997). NAEP 1996 science state reports. (Publication No. NCES 97-499IA). Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (in press). Student Work and Classroom Practices in

Science. Washington, DC: Author.
Students Learning Science 73

TABLE 5.3

Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers

for Use by Their Science Students, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

Which best describes the availability

of computers for use by your science

students?

Grade 8

Computer Computer Total %

None One or More Laboratory Laboratory At or Above

Available in Classrooms (Difficult Access) (Easy Access) Proficient

Percentage of Students

Nation 17 38 32 13 27

Alabama 29 39 27 5 18

Alaska a 7 49 37 7 31

Arizona 21 36 28 15 23

Arkansas a 44 28 22 6 22

California 18 48 23 11 20

Colorado 13 26 47 14 32

Connecticut 17 30 38 15 36

Delaware 38 24 29 9 21

DDESS 0 60 37 3 27

DoDDS 18 60 8 13 31

District of Columbia 14 49 23 14 5

Florida 19 50 23 9 21

Georgia 13 43 32 12 21

Guam 44 19 37 0 7

Hawaii 9 67 17 8 15

Indiana 15 24 38 23 30

Iowa a 9 42 39 11 36

Kentucky 7 40 36 17 23

Louisiana 47 22 19 12 13

Maine 9 35 44 11 41

Maryland 7 18 51 24 25

Massachusetts 16 37 34 14 37

Michigan a 24 18 39 19 32

Minnesota 10 26 47 17 37

Mississippi 50 20 20 9 12

Missouri 15 34 39 12 28

Montana a 8 38 40 14 41

Nebraska 7 44 33 16 35

New Mexico 23 33 33 10 19

New York a 26 20 35 19 27

North Carolina 13 26 43 19 24

North Dakota 12 36 36 16 41

Oregon 10 41 39 11 32

Rhode Island 13 21 47 19 26

South Carolina a 31 27 30 12 17

Tennessee 24 49 18 9 22

Texas 21 42 27 10 23

Utah 32 26 30 12 32

Vermont a 9 49 35 8 34

Virginia 10 30 42 18 27

Washington 11 46 28 15 27

West Virginia 23 34 35 9 21

Wisconsin a 9 36 40 15 39

Wyoming 9 55 25 11 34

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
74 Students Learning Science

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students

Teachers’ Reports on No Availability

of Computers for Use by Their Science Students,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

FIGURE 5.3

Nation 17 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

Arkansas a 44 22

Delaware 38 21

Guam 44 7

Louisiana 47 13

Mississippi 50 12

Utah 32 32

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alabama 29 18

Alaska a 7 31

Arizona 21 23

California 18 20

Colorado 13 32

Connecticut 17 36

DoDDS 18 31

District of Columbia 14 5

DoDDS 18 31

Florida 19 21

Georgia 13 21

Hawaii 9 15

Indiana 15 30

Iowa a 9 36

Kentucky 7 23

Maine 9 41

Maryland a 7 25

Massachusetts 16 37

Michigan a 24 32

Minnesota 10 37

Missouri 15 28

Montana a 8 41

Nebraska 7 35

New Mexico 23 19

New York a 26 27

North Carolina 13 24

North Dakota 12 41

Oregon 10 32

Rhode Island 13 26

South Carolina a 31 17

Tennessee 24 22

Texas 21 23

Vermont a 9 34

Virginia 10 27

Washington 11 27

West Virginia 23 21

Wisconsin a 9 39

Wyoming 9 34

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

DDESS 0 27

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

 Total %

At or Above

Proficient
Students Learning Science 75

Teachers’ Reports on the Availability of

Curriculum Specialists

In many schools across the nation, curriculum specialists are available to help and advise

teachers. The role of curriculum specialists differs among schools and districts but can vary from

developing curricula to conducting workshops to working individually with teachers. Thus,

curriculum specialists can be an important resource for teachers trying to stay abreast of rapid

changes in science instruction. As part of the NAEP 1996 science assessment, teachers of

students in grades 4 and 8 were asked whether a curriculum specialist was available to help or

advise them in science. The results are shown in Figure 5.4. Teachers of 45 percent of fourth

graders and 40 percent of eighth graders reported the availability of a curriculum specialist to

help or advise them. By comparison, teachers of 43 percent of fourth graders and 49 percent of

eighth graders reported that mathematics curriculum specialists were available.7 Students in grade

4 whose teachers reported the presence of a curriculum specialist in science had lower scale

scores than students whose teachers reported not having a specialist available. Achievement level

data showed similar results. No differences in performance were seen at the eighth-grade level.

7 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (1997). 1996 Mathematics

Assessment Summary Data Tables [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/naep/tables96/index.shtml.

Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a

Curriculum Specialist in Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE 5.4

Is there a curriculum specialist available

to help or advise you in science? Percentage of Students

Grade 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 8

45%

40%

60%

 % At

or Above

Proficient

Average

Scale

Score

148 27

153 32

149 27

154 33

55%

Yes

No

Yes

No
76 Students Learning Science

Figure 5.5 summarizes the jurisdiction data for public schools only. Nationally, 43 percent

of eighth-grade public school students had teachers who affirmed that there was a curriculum

specialist available to help or advise them in science instruction. Twenty-four jurisdictions had

percentages that did not differ significantly from the nation’s. Ten jurisdictions had percentages

that were significantly lower than the national average. Ten jurisdictions were significantly higher

than the national average.
Students Learning Science 77

FIGURE 5.5

Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a

Curriculum Specialist in Science,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 8 Percentage of Students

Nation 43 27

Jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average

District of Columbia 57 5

Florida 65 21

Georgia 69 21

Louisiana 64 13

Maryland a 73 25

North Carolina 62 24

Texas 57 23

Utah 67 32

Virginia 63 27

West Virginia 61 21

Jurisdictions where the percentage does not differ from the national average

Alabama 44 18

Alaska a 46 31

Arizona 50 23

California 43 20

Colorado 46 32

Connecticut 46 36

Delaware 44 21

DDESS 42 27

DoDDS 41 31

Guam 44 7

Hawaii 49 15

Iowa a 57 36

Kentucky 48 23

Massachusetts 45 37

Michigan a 47 32

Minnesota 31 37

Mississippi 43 12

Missouri 33 28

Nebraska 40 35

New York a 35 27

South Carolina a 56 17

Tennessee 37 22

Washington 32 27

Wisconsin a 39 39

Jurisdictions where the percentage is below the national average

Arkansas a 30 22

Indiana 27 30

Maine 23 41

Montana a 27 41

New Mexico 27 19

North Dakota 20 41

Oregon 23 32

Rhode Island 27 26

Vermont a 14 34

Wyoming 28 34

 Total %

At or Above

Proficient
78 Students Learning Science

The Availability of Laboratories or Appropriate

Classrooms for Science Instruction

Hands-on experiences are an integral part of science education.8 While such activities can take

place in a regular classroom, the presence of dedicated laboratory space may allow students to

conduct more sophisticated and long-term investigations. Teachers of assessed students at

grades 4 and 8 were asked to describe the space available to them for teaching science. The

results presented in Figure 5.6 reveal that nearly all fourth graders were taught science in

classrooms; only 6 percent had access to a laboratory. Two-thirds had access to a water source in

their classrooms, but 29 percent did not. Among eighth graders, 45 percent were taught science

in laboratories and an additional 15 percent were taught in classrooms with access to a laboratory.

Still, 26 percent were taught in classrooms with access to water only and 14 percent were taught

in classrooms with no access to a laboratory or a water source. The access of eighth graders to

laboratories may be due to the presence of laboratories within middle/junior high schools. It may

also be attributed to the fact that many eighth graders attend schools that also include high school

students. In such schools, laboratories are often part of the core facilities. Several associations

were found between the performance of eighth-grade students and their teachers’ reports of what

space was available for teaching science. Students who were taught science in classrooms with no

access to either a laboratory or water source had lower scale scores than students who did have

access to these facilities. In addition students who had access to a laboratory had higher scale

scores than students who were taught in a classroom with access to water only. Furthermore, the

percentage of eighth-grade students at or above Proficient was significantly higher for those

students whose teachers indicated that they taught science in a classroom with access to a

laboratory only or a laboratory with a water source than for those students whose teachers reported

teaching science in a classroom with no access to a laboratory or water source. No associations

were apparent at the fourth-grade level.

8 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

Author.
Students Learning Science 79

Which of the following best

describes the space where this

class is taught? Percentage of Students

Grade 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 8

29%

66%

14%

26%

15%

45%

 % At

or Above

Proficient

Average

Scale

Score

3%

3%

Classroom with no access to

laboratory or water source 149 29

Classroom with access

to water source only 151 29

Classroom with access

to laboratory only 153 35

A laboratory with

water source 161 38

Classroom with no access to

laboratory or water source 139 19

Classroom with access

to water source only 149 28

Classroom with access

to laboratory only 164 43

A laboratory with

water source 154 33

Teachers’ Reports on What Space is

Available for Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE 5.6
80 Students Learning Science

Summary

Grade 4

• Teachers of 59 percent of students reported receiving all or most of the resources

they needed.

• Fifteen percent of students had no access to computers, 53 percent had one or more

computers in their classrooms, and 32 percent had computer laboratories available,

although for about half of the latter students the laboratories were difficult to access.

• Teachers of 45 percent of students reported having a curriculum specialist available.

• Three percent of students had access to a laboratory with a water source and two-thirds

were taught science in classrooms with access to a water source.

Grade 8

• Teachers of 65 percent of students reported receiving all or most of the resources

they needed.

• Among individual jurisdictions, the availability of resources varied from a low of 8

percent of students having teachers who reported receiving all or most of the

resources they needed (District of Columbia) to a high of 80 percent (Nebraska).

• In the District of Columbia and Louisiana, 13 percent and 10 percent of students,

respectively, had teachers who reported receiving none of the resources and

instructional materials they needed.

• Sixteen percent of students had no access to computers, 38 percent had one or

more computers in classrooms, and 46 percent had computer laboratories available,

although for about two-thirds of the latter students the laboratories were difficult

to access.

• Teachers of 40 percent of students reported having a curriculum specialist available.

• Forty-five percent of students had access to a laboratory with a water source.

• The performance of students who were taught science in a classroom with access to a

laboratory or in a laboratory was higher than the performance of their counterparts who

were taught science in a classroom with no access to water.
Appendix A

81

Overview of Procedures

Used for the NAEP 1996

Science Assessment

Conducting a large-scale assessment such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) entails the successful coordination of numerous projects, committees, procedures, and

tasks. This appendix provides an overview of the NAEP 1996 science assessment’s primary

components: framework, instrument development, administration, scoring, and analysis. A more

extensive review of the procedures and methods used in the science assessment is included in

two technical reports: the Technical Report of the NAEP 1996 State Assessment Program in

Science and the NAEP 1996 Technical Report.

1

The Science Framework

The science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress was

produced under the auspices of the National Assessment Governing Board through a consensus

process managed by the Council of Chief State School Officers, which worked with the National

Center for Improving Science Education and the American Institutes for Research.2 The

framework was developed over a 10-month period between October 1990 and August 1991. The

following factors guided the process for developing consensus on the science framework:

• The active participation of individuals such as curriculum specialists, science

teachers, science supervisors, state assessment developers, administrators,

individuals from business and industry, government officials, and parents;

• The representation of what is considered essential learning in science, and the

recommendation of innovative assessment techniques to probe the critical abilities

and content areas; and

1 Allen, N. L., Swinton, S. S., Isham, S. P., & Zelenak, C. A. (1997). Technical report of the NAEP 1996 state assessment

program in science (Publication No. NCES 98-480). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Allen, N.L., Carlson, J., & Zelenak, C. A. (1998). NAEP 1996 technical report (Publication No. NCES 98-479).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report in preparation.

2 National Assessment Governing Board. (1995). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
82

• The recognition of the lack of agreement on a common scope of instruction and

sequence, components of scientific literacy, important outcomes of learning, and the

nature of overarching themes in science.

While maintaining some conceptual continuity with the NAEP 1990 science assessment

framework, the 1996 framework acknowledges some of the reforms currently taking place in

science education as well as documents such as the science framework used for the 1991

International Assessment of Educational Progress. In addition, the Framework Steering

Committee recommended that a variety of strategies be used for assessing students’

performance. These included:

• Multiple-choice questions that assess students’ knowledge of important facts and

concepts and that probe their analytical reasoning skills;

• Constructed-response questions that explore students’ abilities to explain, integrate,

apply, reason about, plan, design, evaluate, and communicate science information,

and

• Hands-on tasks that probe students’ abilities to use materials to make observations,

perform investigations, evaluate experimental results, and apply problem-solving

skills.

The framework for the 1996 science assessment is represented as a matrix with two

dimensions represented by three fields of science (earth, physical, and life) and three elements

of knowing and doing science (conceptual understanding, scientific investigation, and practical

reasoning). In addition, there are two overarching domains that describe science, the nature of

science, and themes. Figures A.1a, A.1b, and A.1c describe, respectively, the fields of science,

the elements of knowing and doing, and the overarching domains that guided the development

of the 1996 science assessment.
83

Descriptions of the

Three Fields of Science

Earth Science

The earth science content assessment centers on objects and events that are relatively

accessible or visible. The concepts and topics covered are solid Earth (lithosphere),

water (hydrosphere), air (atmosphere), and Earth in space. The solid Earth consists of

composition; forces that alter its surface; the formation, characteristics and uses of

rocks; the changes and uses of soil; natural resources used by humankind; and

natural forces within Earth (not at grade 4). Concepts and topics related to water

consist of the water cycle; the nature of oceans and their effects; and the location of

water, its distribution, characteristics, and effect of and influence on human activity.

Air is broken down into composition and structure of the atmosphere (including

energy transfer); the nature of weather; climate (not at grade 4) and interactions of

human society with atmosphere. Earth in space consists of the setting of Earth in the

solar system; the setting and evolution of the solar system in the universe (not at

grade 4); tools and technology that are used to gather information about space;

apparent daily motions of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the stars; rotation of

Earth about its axis, and Earth’s revolution around the Sun; the tilt of Earth’s axis that

produces seasonal variations in the climate; and Earth history.

Physical Science

The physical science component relates to basic knowledge and understanding

concerning the structure of the universe as well as the physical principles that operate

within it. The major sub-topics probed are matter and its transformations, energy and

its transformations, and motion. Matter and its transformations are described by

diversity of materials (classification and types and the particulate nature of matter);

temperature and states of matter; properties and uses of material (modifying

properties, synthesis of materials with new properties); and resource management

(not at grades 4 and 8). Energy and its transformations involve different forms of

energy; energy transformations in living systems, natural physical systems, and

artificial systems constructed by humans; and energy sources and use, including

distribution, energy conversion, and energy costs and depletion. Motion is broken

down into an understanding of frames of reference; force and changes in position

and motion; action and reaction (not at grade 4); vibrations and waves as motion;

general wave behavior (not at grades 4 and 8); electromagnetic radiation; and the

interactions of electromagnetic radiation with matter.

Life Science

The fundamental goal of life science is to attempt to understand and explain the

nature and function of living things. The major concepts assessed in life science are

change and evolution, cells and their functions (not at grade 4), organisms, and

ecology. Change and evolution includes diversity of life on Earth; genetic variation

within a species; theories of adaptation and natural selection; and changes in diversity

over time (not at grades 4 and 8). Cells and their functions consists of information

transfer; energy transfer for the construction of proteins; and communication among

cells. Organisms are described by reproduction, growth and development; life cycles;

and functions and interactions of systems within organisms.The topic of ecology

centers on the interdependence of life—populations, communities, and ecosystems.

FIGURE A.1a

SOURCE: Science Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

(Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1995).
84

Conceptual Understanding

Conceptual understanding includes the body of scientific knowledge that students

draw upon when conducting a scientific investigation or engaging in practical

reasoning. Essential scientific concepts involve a variety of information including

facts and events the student learns from science instruction and experiences with the

natural environment and scientific concepts, principles, laws, and theories that

scientists use to explain and predict observations of the natural world.

Scientific Investigation

Scientific investigation probes students’ abilities to use the tools of science, including

both cognitive and laboratory tools. Students should be able to acquire new

information, plan appropriate investigations, use a variety of scientific tools, and

communicate the results of their investigations.

Practical Reasoning

Practical reasoning probes students’ ability to use and apply science understanding

in new, real-world applications.

SOURCE: Science Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

(Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1995).

Descriptions of Knowing

and Doing Science FIGURE A.1b
85

Description of Overarching Domains

The Nature of Science

The nature of science incorporates the historical development of science and

technology, the habits of mind that characterize these fields, and methods of inquiry

and problem-solving. It also encompasses the nature of technology that includes

issues of design, application of science to real-world problems, and trade-offs or

compromises that need to be made.

Themes

Themes are the “big ideas” of science that transcend the various scientific disciplines

and enable students to consider problems with global implications. The NAEP science

assessment focuses on three themes: systems, models, and patterns of change.

• Systems are complete, predictable cycles, structures or processes occurring in

natural phenomena. Students should understand that a system is an artificial

construction created to represent, or explain a natural occurrence. Students should

be able to identify and define the system boundaries, identify the components and

their interrelationships and note the inputs and outputs to the system.

• Models of objects and events in nature are ways to understand complex or

abstract phenomena. As such they have limits and involve simplifying assumptions

but also possess generalizability and often predictive power. Students need to be

able to distinguish the idealized model from the phenomenon itself and to

understand the limitations and simplified assumptions that underlie scientific

models.

• Patterns of change involve students’ recognition of patterns of similarity and

differences, and recognize how these patterns change over time. In addition,

students should have a store of common types of patterns and transfer their

understanding of a familiar pattern of change to a new and unfamiliar one.

SOURCE: Science Framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

(Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1995).

FIGURE A.1c
86

The Assessment Design

Each student in the assessment received a booklet comprised of six sections. Three of these

sections were blocks of cognitive questions that assessed the knowledge and skills outlined in

the framework.3 The other three sections were sets of background questions. Two of the three

cognitive sections contained only paper-and-pencil questions, and the third section consisted of

a hands-on task with related paper-and-pencil questions. Students at grades 8 and 12 were

allowed 30 minutes to complete each cognitive section, while students at grade 4 were given

cognitive blocks that required only 20 minutes to complete.

At each grade level there were 15 different sections, or blocks, of cognitive questions,

usually consisting of both multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. Short

constructed-response questions required a few words or a sentence or two for an answer (e.g.,

briefly stating how nutrients move from the digestive system to the tissues) while extended

constructed-response questions generally required a paragraph or more (e.g., outlining an

experiment to test the effect of increasing the amount of available food on the rate of increase of

the Hydra population). Some extended constructed-response questions also required diagrams,

graphs, or calculations. It was expected that students could adequately answer the short

constructed-response questions in about two to three minutes and the extended constructedresponse questions in about five minutes.

Other features were built into the blocks of questions. Four of the blocks at each grade

level presented hands-on tasks in which students were given a set of equipment and asked to

conduct an investigation and answer questions related to the investigation. Every student

conducted a hands-on task, which was always presented in the third cognitive section. A second

feature was the inclusion of theme blocks at each grade level — one assessing systems, one

assessing models, and one assessing patterns of change. For example, students were shown a

simplified model of part of the solar system, with a brief description, and then asked a number

of questions based on that information. Theme blocks were placed randomly in the student

booklets. Not every booklet contained one and no booklet contained more than one.

The data in Table A.1 reflect the number of cognitive questions by type and by grade

level for the 1996 assessment. The assessment pool contained 443 unique questions: 165

multiple-choice (MC), 219 short constructed-response (SCR), and 59 extended constructedresponse (ECR). Some of these questions were used at more than one grade level; as a result,

the sum of the questions that appear at each grade level is greater than the total number of

unique questions.

3 “Blocks” are collections of questions grouped, in part, according to the amount of time required to answer them.
87

On the basis of information gathered from the field test, the booklets were carefully

constructed to balance time requirements for the question types in each block. More information

on the design of the assessment is presented in the forthcoming NAEP 1996 Technical Report.4

The Background Questionnaires

As part of the national NAEP 1996 science assessment, approximately 2,500 teachers

responsible for teaching science to students who participated in the fourth- and eighth-grade

assessments responded to a questionnaire, as did approximately 9,000 teachers of eighth-grade

students who participated in state NAEP. The questionnaires were composed of three sections.

One section contained questions about teachers’ general background and experience. The

second asked about teachers’ science preparation, and the third focused on science

instructional practices. Teacher sampling for the teacher questionnaires was based on

participating students, hence the responses do not necessarily represent all fourth- and eighthgrade teachers in the nation. Rather, they represent teachers of a representative sample of

students in the assessment. Consequently, the findings portray the nature of students’

instructional experiences and the backgrounds of their teachers. There was no background

teacher questionnaire at grade 12 because approximately half of the students that participated

in the NAEP science assessment were not enrolled in a science course and thus could not be

linked to any teacher.

4 Allen, N.L., Carlson, J., & Zelenak, C. A. (1998). NAEP 1996 technical report (Publication No. NCES 98-479).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report in preparation.

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

MC1 SCR2 ECR3 MC1 SCR2 ECR3 MC1 SCR2 ECR3

Grade 4 Only 42 57 12

Grades 4 & 8 Overlap 9 16 4 9 16 4

Grade 8 Only 44 58 13

Grades 8 & 12 Overlap 21 26 3 21 26 3

Grade 12 Only 49 62 27

TOTAL by Grade 51 73 16 74 100 20 70 88 30

TABLE A.1 Distribution of Questions by Type

1 Multiple-choice questions

2 Short constructed-response questions

3 Extended constructed-response questions

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996

Science Assessment.
88

Approximately 1,800 principals or other administrators of sampled schools at grades 4,

8, and 12 completed a school questionnaire for the main NAEP study. In addition, 4,300

principals or other public school administrators completed questionnaires for state NAEP. Each

of the grade-specific questionnaires focused on five areas: instructional content, instructional

practices and experiences, teacher characteristics, school conditions and contexts, and

conditions outside the school (i.e., home support, out-of-school activities, and attitudes).

Approximately 35,000 students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in main NAEP and 113,000

students in state NAEP responded to three sets of background questions in addition to science

cognitive exercises. The background questions probed students’ general backgrounds, their

science experiences, and their motivations.

It is important to note that in this report, as in all NAEP reports, the student is the unit

of analysis, even when information from teacher or school questionnaires is reported. This is

because the sampling for the teacher and school questionnaires was based on participating

students and does not represent all teachers or schools in the nation or in a state. For example,

when discussing the educational background of science teachers, NAEP can report that

45 percent of eighth-grade students were taught science by teachers who reported having an

undergraduate or graduate major in science but cannot report that 45 percent of all the nation’s

teachers have an undergraduate or graduate major in science.
89

National and State Samples

Results presented in this report are based on nationally representative probability samples of

fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students. The samples were selected using a complex

multistage sampling design that involved sampling students from selected schools within

selected geographic areas across the country. The sample design had the following stages:

1. Selection of geographic areas (a county, group of counties, or metropolitan

statistical area)

2. Selection of schools (public and nonpublic) within the selected areas

3. Selection of students within the selected schools

Each selected school that participated in the assessment and each student assessed

represents a portion of the population of interest. Sampling weights are needed to make valid

inferences between the student samples and the respective populations from which they were

drawn. In addition, NAEP oversamples nonpublic schools and schools in which more than 15

percent of the student population is non-White. Sampling weights adjust for disproportionate

representation due to such oversampling.

Table A.2 provides a summary of the weighted and unweighted student sample sizes for

the national NAEP 1996 science assessment. The numbers reported include public and

nonpublic school students.

Unweighted Student Weighted Student

Number of Schools Sample Size Sample Size

National School and Student Sample

Sizes for the NAEP 1996 Science Assessment

Grade 4 237 7,305 3,621,677

Grade 8 202 7,774 3,568,034

Grade 12 232 7,537 2,907,065

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996

Science Assessment.

Table A.2
90

The results of the 1996 state assessment program in science provided in this report are

based on state-level samples of eighth-grade students. The samples of both public and

nonpublic school eighth-grade students were selected based on a two-stage sample design that

entailed selecting schools within participating jurisdictions and selecting students within

schools. The first-stage samples of schools were selected with a probability proportional to the

eighth-grade enrollment in those schools. Special procedures were used both for jurisdictions

that had many small schools and for jurisdictions that had a small number of schools. In

addition, each jurisdiction was provided with a list of substitute schools. For each sampled

school, a substitute school was designated that matched as closely as possible the

characteristics of the sampled school. States were permitted to replace a sampled school that

declined participation with its designated substitute school.

As with the national samples, the jurisdiction samples were weighted to allow for valid

inferences about the populations of interest. Tables A.3a and A.3b contain, for public and

nonpublic schools respectively, the unweighted numbers of participating schools and students

as well as weighted school and student participation rates. Two weighted school participation

rates are provided for each jurisdiction. The first rate is the weighted percentage of schools

participating in the assessment before substitution. This rate is based only on the number of

schools that were initially selected for the assessment. The numerator of this rate is the sum of

the number of students represented by each initially selected school that participated in the

assessment. The denominator is the sum of the number of students represented by each of the

initially selected schools that had eligible students enrolled. This rate included both

participating and nonparticipating schools.

The second school participation rate is the weighted participation rate after substitution.

The numerator of this rate is the sum of the number of students represented by each of the

participating schools, whether originally selected or substituted. The denominator is the same

as that for the weighted participation rate for the initial sample. This statement means that for a

given jurisdiction, the weighted participation rate after substitution is at least as great as the

weighted participation rate before substitution.

Also presented in Tables A.3a and A.3b are the weighted percentages of students who

participated after makeup sessions were completed. This rate reflects the percentage of the

eligible student population from participating schools within the jurisdiction, and this

percentage represents the students who participated in the assessment in either an initial

session or a makeup session. The numerator of this rate is the sum, across all assessed

students, of the number of students represented by each selected student who was eligible to

participate, including those students who did not participate.
91

Table A.3a

NAEP 1996 School and Student Participation Rates,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only

National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment program samples.

‡ Indicates that the jurisdiction did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for public school participation rates, see

O’Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states: Findings from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas)

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Nation 80 80 128 93 6,376

 Alabama 84 90 96 93 2,186

 Alaska ‡ 93 93 55 82 1,517

 Arizona 87 87 94 90 2,151

 Arkansas ‡ 70 71 76 92 1,858

 California 83 94 101 92 2,292

 Colorado 100 100 108 91 2,514

 Connecticut 100 100 102 93 2,489

 Delaware 100 100 30 89 1,903

 District of Columbia 100 100 33 85 1,700

DDESS 100 100 11 95 602

DoDDS 100 100 58 93 2,223

Florida 100 100 105 90 2,353

 Georgia 99 99 100 92 2,470

 Guam 100 100 6 90 930

Hawaii 100 100 51 90 2,153

 Indiana 87 90 96 92 2,313

 Iowa ‡ 73 83 91 94 2,172

 Kentucky 87 92 100 94 2,459

 Louisiana 100 100 111 90 2,615

 Maine 91 91 95 92 2,254

 Maryland ‡ 86 86 89 89 2,092

 Massachusetts 92 92 98 91 2,287

 Michigan ‡ 70 87 92 90 2,186

 Minnesota 86 88 95 92 2,383

 Mississippi 89 95 103 92 2,469

 Missouri 93 96 105 92 2,389

 Montana ‡ 70 76 79 92 2,029

 Nebraska 99 100 120 92 2,724

 Nevada ‡ 37 38 28 92 964

New Hampshire ‡ 66 68 64 90 1,710

 New Jersey ‡ 63 64 67 93 1,573

 New Mexico 100 100 90 90 2,377

 New York ‡ 70 78 82 90 1,876

 North Carolina 100 100 107 91 2,616

 North Dakota 80 93 108 94 2,489

 Oregon 86 92 100 89 2,275

Rhode Island 90 90 43 89 2,087

 South Carolina ‡ 86 87 91 90 2,162

 Tennessee 92 92 99 91 2,287

 Texas 91 96 102 92 2,300

 Utah 100 100 94 90 2,715

 Vermont ‡ 74 75 78 93 1,914

 Virginia 100 100 106 90 2,552

 Washington 94 95 105 90 2,501

 West Virginia 100 100 105 93 2,602

 Wisconsin ‡ 78 78 90 90 2,148

 Wyoming 100 100 67 93 2,619

Weighted School Participation Rate Total Weighted Total

Number of Student Number of

Before After Schools Participation Students

Grade 8 Substitutes Substitutes Participating Rate Assessed
92

National results are based on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment program samples.

‡ Indicates that the jurisdiction did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for nonpublic school participation rates, see

O’Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states: Findings from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science

Assessment.

Table A.3b

Nation 77 77 81 97 1,398

 Alabama ‡ 60 60 10 95 144

 Arkansas ‡ 74 74 6 99 89

 California ‡ 80 80 14 96 206

 Connecticut ‡ 63 65 20 96 263

 Delaware ‡ 42 44 13 96 313

 District of Columbia ‡ 52 52 19 95 259

 Georgia 88 88 9 96 232

 Guam ‡ 79 79 8 94 198

 Iowa 94 94 14 96 246

 Kentucky ‡ 82 82 13 97 260

 Louisiana ‡ 75 75 21 96 424

 Maryland ‡ 61 64 19 94 322

 Massachusetts ‡ 75 77 21 94 335

 Michigan ‡ 80 87 21 97 332

 Minnesota ‡ 84 84 19 94 247

 Missouri 94 100 24 95 365

 Montana 93 97 13 93 154

 Nebraska ‡ 78 84 20 96 333

 Nevada 90 90 8 91 133

 New Hampshire ‡ 83 83 12 95 179

 New Jersey ‡ 62 64 20 96 287

 New Mexico 95 95 13 95 230

 New York ‡ 84 87 28 97 514

 North Dakota ‡ 70 78 10 93 160

 Oregon ‡ 26 26 4 86 54

 Rhode Island ‡ 68 68 22 96 340

 South Carolina ‡ 69 69 8 95 138

 Texas ‡ 79 79 7 98 130

 Utah ‡ 64 64 4 93 93

 Vermont ‡ 72 80 10 91 115

 Washington 86 86 11 95 215

 Wisconsin ‡ 65 69 27 96 380

 Wyoming ‡ 92 92 6 94 47

NAEP 1996 School and Student Participation Rates,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Nonpublic Schools Only

Grade 8

Weighted School Participation Rate Total Weighted Total

Number of Student Number of

Before After Schools Participation Students

Substitutes Substitutes Participating Rate Assessed
93

Data Collection and Scoring

Data collection for the main NAEP assessment was conducted by trained field staff at Westat,

the NAEP grantee for data collection. For the state component of the assessment, data were

collected by local school personnel trained by Westat representatives. Materials from the

assessment were shipped to National Computer Systems, where trained staff evaluated the

responses to the constructed-response questions using scoring rubrics or guides prepared by

Educational Testing Service (ETS). Each constructed-response question had a unique scoring

guide that defined the criteria used to evaluate students’ responses. The extended constructedresponse questions were evaluated with four- or five-level guides, while the short constructedresponse questions were rated according to two- or three-level guides. For the national and state

science assessments, more than 4.1 million constructed responses were scored. This number

includes rescoring to monitor interrater reliability. The overall percentages of agreement for the

1996 national reliability samples were 94 percent at grade 4, 94 percent at grade 8, and 93

percent at grade 12.

Data Analysis and IRT Scaling of Student Responses

Subsequent to the professional scoring, all information was transcribed to the NAEP database

at ETS. Each processing activity was conducted with rigorous quality control. After the

assessment information had been compiled in the database, the data were weighted according to

the population structure. The weighting for the national and state samples reflected the

probability of selection for each student as a result of the sampling design, adjusted for

nonresponse. Through stratification, the weighting assured that the representation of certain

subpopulations corresponded to figures from the U.S. Census and the Current Population

Survey.5

Analyses were then conducted to determine the percentages of students that gave

various responses to each cognitive and background question.

Item Response Theory (IRT) was used to estimate average science scale scores for the

nation, for various subgroups of interest within the nation, and for the jurisdictions. IRT models

the probability of answering a question in a certain way as a mathematical function of

proficiency or skill. The main purpose of IRT analysis is to provide a common scale on which

performance can be compared across groups, for example, those defined by characteristics such

as gender and race/ethnicity.

Because of the balanced incomplete block (BIB) spiraling design used by NAEP,

students do not receive enough questions about a specific topic to provide reliable information

about individual performance. Traditional test scores for individual students, even those based

on IRT, would lead to misleading estimates of population characteristics, such as subgroup

means and percentages of students at or above a certain scale score level. Consequently, NAEP

constructs sets of plausible values designed to represent the distribution of performance in the

5 For additional information about the use of weighting procedures in NAEP, see Johnson, E. G. (1989). Considerations and

techniques for the analysis of NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 303-334.
94

population. A plausible value for an individual is not a scale score for that individual but may

be regarded as a representative value from the distribution of potential scale scores for all

students in the population with similar characteristics and identical patterns of item response.

Statistics describing performance on the NAEP science scale are based on the plausible values.

They estimate values that would have been obtained had individual scale scores been observed,

that is, had each student responded to a sufficient number of cognitive questions so that his or

her individual scores could be precisely estimated.6

At each grade, three distinct 0-to-300 scales were created to summarize students’

abilities in the three defined fields of science: earth, physical, and life. The scales summarize

student performance across all three question types in the assessment (multiple-choice, short

constructed-response, and extended constructed-response). For each grade, the mean for each

field of science was set at 150 and the standard deviation at 35. Constraining the mean and

standard deviation of the scales to 150 and 35 also constrained, to some degree, the locations of

the percentiles for the total group of students at each grade. However, within-grade comparisons

of percentiles across subgroups still provide valuable comparative information. The reporting

metric was developed using data from the national assessment program, and the results for the

state assessment program were linked to these scales. Because the assessment was developed

using a new framework it was not appropriate to compare or link the results from the 1996

assessments to previous NAEP science assessments.

In addition to the plausible values for each scale, a composite of the three fields of

science scales was created as a measure of overall science performance. This composite was a

weighted average of the plausible values for the three science scales, in which the weights were

proportional to the relative importance assigned to each field of science in the assessment

framework. More detailed information about data analysis and items are presented in the 1996

NAEP Technical Report.7

6 For theoretical and empirical justification of the procedures employed, see Mislevy, R. J (1991). Randomization-based

inferences about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56(2), pp. 177-196.

For computational details, see E. G. Johnson & R. Zwick (Eds.), Focusing the new design: The NAEP 1988 technical

report (pp. 267-296). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, and Johnson, E. G., & Allen, N. L.

(1992). The NAEP 1990 technical report (No. 21-TR-20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, National

Assessment of Educational Progress.

7 Allen, N. L., Carlson, J. E., & Zelenak, C. A. (1998). The NAEP 1996 technical report (Publication No. NCES 98-479).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report in preparation.
95

NAEP Reporting Groups

In this report, some of the results for students in grades 4, 8, and 12 are also provided for

separate subpopulations of students who participated in the state component of the science

assessment. The national sample is independent of the state samples and not an aggregation of

them. In any given analysis, results are reported only for subpopulations represented by

sufficient numbers of students and adequate school distributions. For public school students,

the minimum requirement is at least 62 students in a particular subgroup from at least five

Primary Sampling Units (PSUs).8 For nonpublic school students, the minimum requirement is

62 students from at least six schools for the state assessment program or from at least five PSUs

for the national assessment.

In the case of all state results presented in this report, many of the samples of nonpublic

school students were not large enough to permit the separate reporting of nonpublic school

results or the combined reporting of public and nonpublic school results. Thus, only public

school results are shown. However, the national data presented includes both public and

nonpublic students combined.

Achievement Level Results

NAEP results are reported for student performance according to the newly defined achievement

levels set by the NAGB. The results are expressed as percentages of students or percentages of

selected subgroups who have reached Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. The three levels

are at each grade and are cumulative in nature, that is, it is assumed that students at the

Proficient level are likely to be successful at the Basic and Proficient levels, and that students

at the Advanced level are likely to be successful at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels.

Results in this report are presented as percentages of students at or above the Proficient level. A

full description of the achievement levels for each grade follows in Table A.4.

8 For the national assessment, a PSU is a selected geographic region (a county, a group of counties, or metropolitan

statistical areas). For the state assessment program, a PSU is most often a single school.
96

Cut Score Content Descriptions*

* Shaded areas indicate summary of content descriptions.

1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions:

Grade 4

Table A.4

Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required for

understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 4. For example, they

can carry out simple investigations and read uncomplicated graphs and diagrams. Students at this level also

show a beginning understanding of classification, simple relationships, and energy.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level are able to follow simple procedures, manipulate simple

materials, make observations, and record data. They are able to read simple graphs and diagrams and draw

reasonable but limited conclusions based on data provided to them. These students can recognize appropriate

experimental designs, although they are unable to justify their decisions.

When presented with diagrams, students at this level can identify seasons; distinguish between day and night;

and place the position of the Earth, sun, and planets. They are able to recognize major energy sources and

simple energy changes. In addition, they show an understanding of the relationship between sound and

vibrations. These students are able to identify organisms by physical characteristics and group organisms with

similar physical features. They can also describe simple relationships among structure, function, habitat, life

cycles, and different organisms.

Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning required for

understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 4. For example, they

understand concepts relating to the Earth’s features, physical properties, and structure and function. In

addition, students can formulate solutions to familiar problems as well as show a beginning awareness of

issues associated with technology.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level are able to provide an explanation of day and night

when given a diagram. They can recognize major features of the Earth’s surface and the impact of natural

forces. They are also able to recognize water in its various forms in the water cycle and can suggest ways to

conserve it. These students recognize that various materials possess different properties that make them

useful. Students at this level are able to explain how structure and function help living things survive. They

have a beginning awareness of the benefits and challenges associated with technology and recognize some

human effects on the environment. They can also make straightforward predictions and justify their position.

Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate a solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life

sciences as well as the ability to apply their understanding to practical situations at a level appropriate to

Grade 4. For example, they can perform and critique simple investigations, make connections from one or

more of the sciences to predict or conclude, and apply fundamental concepts to practical applications.

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level are able to combine information, data, and

knowledge from one or more of the sciences to reach a conclusion or to make a valid prediction. They can also

recognize, design, and explain simple experimental procedures.

Students at this level recognize nonrenewable sources of energy. They also recognize that light and sound

travel at different speeds. These students understand some principles of ecology and are able to compare and

contrast life cycles of various common organisms. In addition, they have a developmental awareness of the

benefits and challenges associated with technology.

BASIC

138

PROFICIENT

170

ADVANCED

205
97

Cut Score Content Descriptions*

* Shaded areas indicate summary of content descriptions.

1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions:

Grade 8

Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some of the knowledge and reasoning required for

understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 8. For example, they

can carry out investigations and obtain information from graphs, diagrams, and tables. In addition, they

demonstrate some understanding of concepts relating to the solar system and relative motion. Students at this

level also have a beginning understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level are able to observe, measure, collect, record, and compute

data from investigations. They can read simple graphs and tables and are able to make simple data

comparisons. These students are able to follow directions and use basic science equipment to perform simple

experiments. In addition, they have an emerging ability to design experiments.

Students at this level have some awareness of causal relationships. They recognize the position of planets and

their movement around the sun and know basic weather-related phenomena. These students can explain

changes in position and motion such as the movement of a truck in relation to that of a car. They also have an

emerging understanding of the interrelationships among plants, animals, and the environment.

Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate much of the knowledge and many of the reasoning

abilities essential for understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 8.

For example, students can interpret graphic information, design simple investigations, and explain such

scientific concepts as energy transfer. Students at this level also show an awareness of environmental issues,

especially those addressing energy and pollution.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level are able to create, interpret, and make predictions

from charts, diagrams, and graphs based on information provided to them or from their own investigations.

They have the ability to design an experiment and have an emerging understanding of variables and controls.

These students are able to read and interpret geographic and topographic maps. In addition, they have an

emerging ability to use and understand models, can partially formulate explanations of their understanding of

scientific phenomena, and can design plans to solve problems.

Students at this level can begin to identify forms of energy and describe the role of energy transformations in

living and nonliving systems. They have knowledge of organization, gravity, and motions within the solar

system and can identify some factors that shape the surface of the Earth. These students have some

understanding of properties of materials and have an emerging understanding of the particulate nature of

matter, especially the effect of temperature on states of matter. They also know that light and sound travel at

different speeds and can apply their knowledge of force, speed, and motion. These students demonstrate a

developmental understanding of the flow of energy from the sun through living systems, especially plants.

They know that organisms reproduce and that characteristics are inherited from previous generations. These

students also understand that organisms are made up of cells and that cells have subcomponents with different

functions. In addition, they are able to develop their own classification system based on physical

characteristics. These students can list some effects of air and water pollution as well as demonstrate

knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of different energy sources in terms of how they affect the

environment and the economy.

Table A.4

continued

BASIC

143

PROFICIENT

170
98

Cut Score Content Descriptions*

* Shaded areas indicate summary of content descriptions.

1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions:

Grade 8

Table A.4

continued

Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate a solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life

sciences as well as the abilities required to apply their understanding in practical situations at a level

appropriate to Grade 8. For example, students perform and critique the design of investigations, relate

scientific concepts to each other, explain their reasoning, and discuss the impact of human activities on the

environment.

Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level are able to provide an explanation for scientific

results. They have a modest understanding of scale and are able to design a controlled experiment. These

students have an understanding of models as representations of natural systems and can describe energy

transfer in living and nonliving systems.

Students at this level are able to understand that present physical clues, including fossils and geological

formations, are indications that the Earth has not always been the same and that the present is a key to

understanding the past. They have a solid knowledge of forces and motions within the solar system and an

emerging understanding of atmospheric pressure. These students can recognize a wide range of physical and

chemical properties of matter and some of their interactions and understand some of the properties of light

and sound. Also, they can infer relationship between structure and function. These students know the

differences between plant and animal cells and can apply their knowledge of food as a source of energy to a

practical situation. In addition, they are able to explain the impact of human activities on the environment and

the economy.

ADVANCED

208
99

Cut Score Content Descriptions*

* Shaded areas indicate summary of content descriptions.

1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions:

Grade 12

Table A.4

continued

Students performing at the Basic level demonstrate some knowledge and certain reasoning abilities required

for understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition, they

demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, patterns of change) required for

understanding the most basic relationships among the earth, physical, and life sciences. They are able to

conduct investigations, critique the design of investigations, and demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of

scientific principles.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level are able to select and use appropriate simple laboratory

equipment and write down simple procedures that others can follow. They also have a developmental ability to

design complex experiments. These students are able to make classifications based on definitions such as

physical properties and characteristics.

Students at this level demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of basic models and can identify some parts

of physical and biological systems. They are also able to identify some patterns in nature and rates of change

over time. These students have the ability to identify basic scientific facts and terminology and have a

rudimentary understanding of the scientific principles underlying such phenomena as volcanic activity, disease

transmission, and energy transformation. In addition, they have familiarity with the application of technology.

Students performing at the Proficient level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning abilities required for

understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition, they

demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, patterns of change) required for

understanding how these themes illustrate essential relationships among the earth, physical, and life sciences.

They are able to analyze data and apply scientific principles to everyday situations.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level are able to demonstrate a working ability to design

and conduct scientific investigations. They are able to analyze data in various forms and utilize information to

provide explanations and to draw reasonable conclusions.

Students at this level have a developmental understanding of both physical and conceptual models and are

able to compare various models. They recognize some inputs and outputs, causes and effects, and

interactions of a system. In addition, they can correlate structure to function for the parts of a system that they

can identify. These students also recognize that rate of change depends on initial conditions and other factors.

They are able to apply scientific concepts and principles to practical applications and solutions for

problems in the real world and show a developmental understanding of technology, its uses, and its

applications.

PROFICIENT

178

BASIC

146
100

Cut Score Content Descriptions*

* Shaded areas indicate summary of content descriptions.

Students performing at the Advanced level demonstrate the knowledge and reasoning abilities required for a

solid understanding of the earth, physical, and life sciences at a level appropriate to Grade 12. In addition,

they demonstrate knowledge of the themes of science (models, systems, pattern of change) required for

integrating knowledge and understanding of scientific principles from the earth, physical, and life sciences.

Students can design investigations that answer questions about real-world situations and use their reasoning

abilities to make predications.

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level are able to design scientific investigations to solve

complex, real-world situations. They can integrate, interpolate, and extrapolate information embedded in

data to draw well-formulated explanations and conclusions. They are also able to use complex reasoning

skills to apply scientific knowledge to make predictions based on conditions, variables, and interactions.

Students at this level recognize the inherent strengths and limitations of models and can revise models based

on additional information. They are able to recognize cause-and-effect relationships within systems and can

utilize this knowledge to make reasonable predictions of future events. These students are able to recognize

that patterns can be constant, exponential, or irregular and can apply this recognition to make predictions.

They can also design a technological solution for a given problem.

1996 NAEP Science

Achievement Level Descriptions:

Grade 12

Table A.4

continued

ADVANCED

210
101

Estimating Variability

Because the statistics presented in this report are estimates of group and subgroup performance

based on samples of students rather than the values that could be calculated if every student in

the nation had answered every question, the degree of uncertainty associated with the estimates

should be taken into account. Two components of uncertainty are accounted for in the

variability of statistics based on student ability: (1) the uncertainty due to sampling only a

relatively small number of students and (2) the uncertainty due to sampling only a relatively

small number of cognitive questions. The first component accounts for the variability associated

with the estimated percentages of students who had certain background characteristics or who

answered a certain cognitive question correctly.

Because NAEP uses complex sampling procedures, conventional formulas for

estimating sampling variability that assume simple random sampling are inappropriate. NAEP

uses a jackknife replication procedure to estimate standard errors. The jackknife standard error

provides a reasonable measure of uncertainty for any student information that can be observed

without error. However, because each student typically responds to only a few questions within

any content area, the scale score for any single student would be imprecise. In this case,

plausible values technology can be used to describe the performance of groups and subgroups

of students, but the underlying imprecision involved in this step adds another component of

variability to statistics based on NAEP scale scores.9 Appendix B provides the standard errors

for the results presented in this report.

When the standard error is based on a small number of students or when the group of

students is enrolled in a small number of schools, the amount of uncertainty associated with the

standard error may be quite large.

The reader is reminded that, like findings from all surveys, NAEP results are subject to

other kinds of error, including the effects of imperfect adjustment for student and school

nonresponse and unknowable effects associated with the particular instrumentation and data

collection methods. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources; inability to

obtain complete information about all selected schools in the sample (some students or schools

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain questions); ambiguous

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct

information; mistakes in recording, coding, or scoring data; and other errors in data collecting,

data processing, and sampling, and in estimating missing data. The extent of nonsampling error

is difficult to estimate, and because of their nature, the impact of such errors cannot be

reflected in the data-based estimates of uncertainty provided in NAEP reports.

9 For further details, see Johnson, E. G., & Rust, K. F. (1992). Population inferences and variance estimation for NAEP

data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 175-190.
102

Drawing Inferences from the Results

The results from the sample, taking into account the uncertainty associated with all

 samples, are used to make inferences about the population. Using confidence intervals based

on the standard errors provides a way to make inferences about the population averages and

percentages in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with the sample estimates. An

estimated sample average scale score + 2 standard errors approximates a 95 percent confidence

interval for the corresponding population quantity. This statement means that one can conclude

at the 95 percent confidence level that the average performance of the entire population of

interest (e.g., all fourth-grade students in public schools in a jurisdiction) is within + 2 standard

errors of the sample average.

As an example, suppose that the average science scale score of the students in a

particular group was 156 with a standard error of 1.2. A 95 percent confidence interval for the

population quantity would be as follows:

Average + 2 standard errors

156 + 2 x 1.2

156 + 2.4

153.6, 158.4

Thus, one can conclude at the 95 percent level of confidence that the average scale score for

the entire population of students in that group is between 153.6 and 158.4.

Similar confidence intervals can be constructed for percentages, if the percentages are

not extremely large or extremely small. For extreme percentages, confidence intervals

constructed in the manner above may not be appropriate, and accurate confidence intervals can

be constructed only by using procedures that are quite complicated.

Extreme percentages, defined by both the magnitude of the percentage and the size of

the sample from which it was derived, should be interpreted with caution. (The forthcoming

NAEP 1996 Technical Report contains a more complete discussion of extreme percentages.)10

Statistical Tests for Determining

Group Differences in Performance

Statistical tests are used to determine whether the evidence, based on the data from the groups

in the sample, is strong enough to indicate that the averages or percentages are actually

different for those groups in the population. If the evidence is strong (i.e., the difference is

statistically significant), the report describes the group averages or percentages as being

different (e.g., one group performed higher or lower than another group), regardless of whether

the sample averages or percentages appear to be approximately the same. If the evidence is not

sufficiently strong (i.e., the difference is not statistically significant), the averages or

percentages are described as being not significantly different, regardless of whether the sample

averages or percentages appear to be approximately the same or widely discrepant.

10 Allen, N.L., Carlson, J., & Zelenak, C. A. (1998). NAEP 1996 technical report (Publication No. NCES 98-479).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report in preparation.
103

The reader is cautioned to rely on the results of the statistical tests rather than on the

apparent magnitude of the difference between sample averages or percentages when

determining whether the sample differences are likely to represent actual differences among the

groups in the population.

To determine whether a real difference exists between the average scale scores (or

percentages of a certain attribute) for two independently sampled groups in the population, one

needs to obtain an estimate of the degree of uncertainty associated with the difference between

the averages (or percentages) of these groups for the sample. This estimate of the degree of

uncertainty, called the standard error of the difference between the groups, is obtained by

taking the square of each group’s standard error, summing the squared standard errors, and taking

the square root of that sum.

Standard Error of the Difference for Independent Groups = SEA-B = √(SEA

2

 + SEB

2

)

In a manner similar to that in which the standard error for an individual group average

or percentage is used, the standard error of the difference can be used to help determine

whether differences among groups in the population are real. The difference between the

averages or percentages of the two groups plus or minus two standard errors of the difference

represents an approximate 95 percent confidence interval. If the resulting interval includes

zero, there is insufficient evidence to claim a real difference between the groups in the

population. If the interval does not contain zero, the difference between the groups is

statistically significant (different) at the .05 level. In this report, differences among groups that

involve poorly defined variability estimates and extreme percentages are not discussed.

As an example, to determine whether the average science scale score of Group A is

higher than that of Group B, suppose that the sample estimates of the average scale scores and

standard errors were as follows:

The difference between the estimates of the average scale scores of Groups A and B is two

points (118 - 116). The standard error of this difference is

√0.92

 + 1.12 = 1.4

Thus, an approximate 95 percent confidence interval for this difference is

Difference + 2 standard errors of the difference

2 + 2 x 1.4

2 + 2.8

− 0.8, 4.8

The value zero is within the confidence interval; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to

claim that Group A outperformed Group B.

Average Scale

Group Score Standard Error

A 118 0.9

B 116 1.1
104

The procedures described in this section and the certainty ascribed to intervals

(e.g., a 95 percent confidence interval) are based on statistical theory that assumes that only

one confidence interval or test of statistical significance is being performed. However, in

Chapters 2 to 5 of this report, many different groups are being compared (i.e., multiple sets of

confidence intervals are being analyzed). In sets of confidence intervals, statistical theory

indicates that the certainty associated with the entire set of intervals is less than that

attributable to each individual comparison from the set. To hold the significance level for the

set of comparisons at a particular level (e.g., 0.05), adjustments called multiple comparison

procedures must be made to the methods described in the previous section. One such procedure,

the Bonferroni method, was used in the analyses described in this report to adjust the

confidence intervals for the differences among groups when sets of comparisons were

considered.11 Many of the confidence intervals discussed in the main body of this report were

components of a set of multiple comparisons, and so included Bonferroni adjustments. Thus the

confidence intervals for these comparisons are more conservative than the confidence interval

(described above) for what a single comparison would be.

Most of the multiple comparisons in this report pertain to relatively small sets or

families of comparisons. For example, for discussions concerning comparisons of student

performance with a particular science course taken, six comparisons were conducted, that is,

all pairs of the four science courses were compared. In these situations, Bonferroni procedures

were appropriate. However, for the cross-state comparisons with a large family of comparisons,

the False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure was used to control the certainty level.12

Unlike the Bonferroni procedure, which controls the familywise error rate (i.e., the

probability of making even one false rejection in the set of comparisons), the FDR procedure

controls the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses. Furthermore, Bonferroni

procedures are considered conservative for large families of comparisons.13 Therefore, the FDR

procedure is more suitable for cross-state comparisons. A detailed description of the Bonferroni

and FDR procedures appears in the Technical Report: NAEP 1996 State Assessment Program in

Science and the NAEP 1996 Technical Report.

14

11 Miller, R. G. (1966). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

12 Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1994). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple

testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57(1), 289-300.

13 Williams, V. S. L., Jones, L. V., & Tukey, J. W. (1994, December). Controlling error in multiple comparisons with special

attention to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Statistical

Sciences.

14 Allen, N. L., Swinton, S. S., Isham, S. P., & Zelenak, C. A. (1997). Technical report of the NAEP 1996 state assessment

program in science (Publication No. NCES 98-480). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Allen, N. L., Carlson, J. E., & Zelenak, C. A. (1998). The NAEP 1996 technical report (Publication No. NCES 98-479).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report in preparation.
105

Jurisdiction Rankings

Some of the results for jurisdictions that participated in the assessment are reported in three

categories: jurisdictions where the percentage is above the national average; jurisdictions where

the percentage does not differ significantly from the national average; and jurisdictions where

the percentage is below the national average. Each jurisdiction was classified into one of the

categories based on whether its results were statistically significant from the national average.

Derived Variables

Several of the tables in this report contain data from derived variables. A derived variable is a

variable that is created by combining responses from two or more variables into one set of

responses. The following variables and their corresponding tables contain data from variables

that were derived.

Table 2.2, Table 2.3, and Figure 2.1, along with the corresponding standard error tables

in Appendix B, contain data involving teachers’ major field of study. For grades 4 and 8,

teachers’ major field of study was derived by combining 27 questions from the teacher

questionnaire. First, it was determined if a teacher had a science major, which was true if their

undergraduate or graduate major was life, physical, or earth science. If they did not have a

science major, it was then determined if their major was science education. Then, it was

determined if a teacher’s major was education, which was true if their major was education,

elementary education or secondary education. Of the remaining teachers, it was determined if

they had a major field of study other than science, science education, or education. If a teacher

did not indicate any major field of study, they were categorized as ‘none.’

Table 2.2 and Table B2.2 contain data for teachers’ major or minor field of study. For

grades 4 and 8 teachers’ major or minor field of study was derived by combining 42 questions

from the teacher questionnaire. It was derived the same as major field of study except that

teacher’s minors were included. For example, if a teacher had a science major or minor in their

undergraduate or graduate studies, they were categorized as “science.” Again, the order in

which a teacher’s major/minor was determined was science, science education, education, other,

and none.

Tables 2.6, 2.7, B2.6, and B2.7 contain information regarding teachers’ area of

certification. A fourth- or eighth-grade teacher was determined to have a science teaching

certificate if they were certified in elementary or secondary science. They could be certified in

other areas as well. A teacher was determined to have an education certificate if they were

certified in elementary or secondary education and not certified in science. However, they could

be certified in subjects other than science. A teacher was determined to be certified in an

‘other’ subject if they were certified in a subject other than science or education and did not

have a certificate in science.

Figures 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, along with their corresponding standard error tables in

Appendix B, contain information on whether or not a teacher has taken a course or participated

in professional development activities in technology and/or telecommunications, portfolios and/

or performance-based assessment, or teaching students from different cultural backgrounds

and/or students who had limited English skills. If a fourth- or eighth-grade teacher indicated
106

that they had taken a course or participated in professional development activities in

telecommunications or technology, they were included in the “technology and/or

telecommunications” variable. If they had taken a course or participated in professional

development activities involving portfolio-based or performance-based assessment, they were

included in the “portfolio-based and/or performance-based assessment” variable. If they

had taken a course or participated in professional development activities that involved

teaching students from different cultural backgrounds or students with limited English skills,

they were included in the “teaching students who have multicultural backgrounds and/or

limited English skills” variable.

Tables 4.4a, 4.4b, and 4.5, along with their corresponding standard error tables in

Appendix B, contain information about the type of coursework that twelfth graders have taken

since ninth grade. Subject areas and combinations of subject areas include: Earth and Space

Science, Life Science, Biology, Physical Science, Chemistry, Physics, General Science,

Integrated Science, Science and Technology, Other Science, Earth Science and Biology, Earth

Science and Chemistry, Earth Science and Physics, Biology and Chemistry, Biology and

Physics, Chemistry and Physics, Earth Science and Biology and Chemistry, Earth Science and

Biology and Physics, Earth Science and Chemistry and Physics, Biology and Chemistry and

Physics, and Earth Science and Biology and Chemistry and Physics. A grade 12 student was

determined to have taken a science subject if they had any course work in that subject since the

9th grade (more than one year, one year, or less than one year were combined). A student who

had taken more than one subject could be included in more than one of the derived variables.
Appendix B

107

Standard Errors

The comparisons presented in this report are based on statistical tests that consider the magnitude

of the difference between group averages or percentages and the standard errors of those statistics.

The following appendix contains the standard errors for the averages and percentages discussed

in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5.

TABLE B2.1 Teachers’ Reports on Their Highest Degree, by Type of School . . . . . . . 110

TABLE B2.2 Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or Graduate

Fields of Study: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . 111

TABLE B2.3 & FIGURE B2.1 Teachers’ Reports on Their Undergraduate or Graduate

Fields of Study, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

TABLE B2.4 Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate Held

in Main Assignment Field, by Type of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

TABLE B2.5 Teachers’ Reports on Type of Teaching Certificate Held

in Main Assignment Field, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

TABLE B2.6 Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered by Teaching

Certificate, by Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

TABLE B2.7 Teachers’ Reports on the Subject Area Covered by

Teaching Certificate, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

FIGURE B2.2 Teachers’ Reports on Number of Years Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

TABLE B2.8 Teachers’ Reports on Amount of Time Spent in Professional

Development Workshops or Seminars in Science or Science

Education During the Last Year:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

FIGURE B2.3 Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities Over

the Last Five Years: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . 119

FIGURE B2.4-2.6 Teachers’ Reports on Professional Development Activities Over

the Last Five Years, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
108

TABLE B3.1 Schools’ Reports on Whether They Have a Science Curriculum:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

TABLE B3.2 Schools’ Reports on How Often a Typical Student Receives

Instruction in Science: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . 122

TABLE B3.3 Schools’ Reports on How Often a Typical Student Receives

Instruction in Science, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

TABLE B3.4 Schools’ Reports on Years of Science Required for Graduation:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

TABLE B3.5 Students’ Reports on Semester Hours of Science Taken from

Grades 9 - 12: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . 124

TABLE B3.6 Schools’ Reports on Types of Advanced Level Courses Taught:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

TABLE B3.7 Schools’ Reports on Requirements to Pass a District or State Test in

Science in Order to Graduate:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

TABLE B4.1 Teachers’ Reports on How Much Time is Spent Teaching

Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

TABLE B4.2 Teachers’ Reports on How Much Time is Spent Teaching

Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

TABLE B4.3 Students’ Reports on Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

TABLE B4.4a Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken from Grades 9-12,

by Gender: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

TABLE B4.4b Students’ Reports on Science Courses Taken from Grades 9-12,

by Gender: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

TABLE B4.5 Students’ Reports on Combinations of Science Courses

Taken from Grades 9-12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

TABLE B4.6 Students’ Reports on Current Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
109

TABLE B5.1 Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive the Resources They

Need: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

TABLE B5.2 FIGURE B5.1 Teachers’ Reports on Whether They Receive the Resources

They Need, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

FIGURE B5.2 Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers for Use by

Their Science Students:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

TABLE B5.3 FIGURE B5.3 Teachers’ Reports on Availability of Computers for Use by Their

Science Students, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

FIGURE B5.4 Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a Curriculum Specialist

in Science: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

FIGURE B5.5 Teachers’ Reports on Availability of a Curriculum Specialist in

Science, for the Nation and Jurisdictions:

Public Schools Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

FIGURE B5.6 Teachers’ Reports on What Space is Available for

Teaching Science: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined . . . . . . . 138
110

TABLE B2.1 Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on

Their Highest Degree, by Type of School

Grade 4 Grade 8

What is the highest academic degree

you hold?

Public and Public Nonpublic Public and Public Nonpublic

Nonpublic Schools Schools Nonpublic Schools Schools

Schools Only Only Schools Only Only

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

High School, Associates Degree,

or Vocational Certification

Percentage of Students 0.5 *** 4.2 *** *** ***

Average Scale Score *** *** *** *** *** ***

Percentage At or Above Proficient *** *** *** *** *** ***

Bachelor’s

Percentage of Students 2.7 3.0 6.1 3.8 4.2 6.9

Average Scale Score 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 3.1

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.6 1.8 3.3 1.7 1.8 4.4

Master’s or Specialist’s

Percentage of Students 2.7 3.0 5.2 3.9 4.2 6.8

Average Scale Score 1.5 1.6 3.1 1.6 1.7 4.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.8 2.0 5.3 2.4 2.5 6.6

Doctorate or Professional

Percentage of Students *** *** *** 0.4 0.5 ***

Average Scale Score *** *** *** 10.8 7.7 ***

Percentage At or Above Proficient *** *** *** 11.0 6.1 ***
111

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Their

Undergraduate or Graduate Fields of Study:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE B2.2

What were your fields of study?

Education Grade 4 Grade 8

Major Major or Minor Major Major or Minor

 Science

Percentage of Students 1.2 1.4 3.7 3.6

Average Scale Score 8.1 5.7 1.4 1.3

Percentage At or Above Proficient 7.2 5.3 1.7 1.8

 Science Education but not Science

Percentage of Students 0.9 1.0 2.1 1.8

Average Scale Score 3.8 3.1 2.5 2.6

Percentage At or Above Proficient 4.3 4.0 3.2 3.0

Education but not Science

or Science Education

Percentage of Students 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.8

Average Scale Score 1.1 1.2 2.8 2.9

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.5 3.1 3.2

 Other

Percentage of Students 1.8 1.9 2.4 0.8

Average Scale Score 3.4 3.5 3.6 8.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.1 3.6 4.2 9.0

 Missing/None Indicated

Percentage of Students 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.3

Average Scale Score 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.1

NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.The missing/none category includes missing data at the undergraduate and graduate

levels; teachers who had no graduate level study and who failed to indicate an undergraduate major; and teacher

questionnaires not matched to students.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
112

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Their

Undergraduate or Graduate Fields of Study, for the

Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

TABLE B2.3

and

FIGURE B2.1

Nation 4.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.5 1.3

Alabama 4.6 3.2 2.6 1.3 2.3 1.5

Alaska a 2.1 0.6 1.2 1.0 1.8 1.6

Arizona 4.6 3.1 4.4 1.3 2.1 1.7

Arkansas a 4.3 3.5 4.2 1.8 1.8 1.5

California 3.6 1.6 3.1 1.2 2.6 1.7

Colorado 3.5 1.6 1.9 1.2 2.7 1.2

Connecticut 3.9 2.7 2.4 0.9 2.5 1.7

Delaware 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.0

DDESS 1.2 1.0 1.1 *** 0.6 2.2

DoDDS 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.3

District of Columbia 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.9

Florida 3.4 2.5 2.4 1.6 3.6 1.6

Georgia 2.5 2.0 2.7 1.5 2.5 1.7

Guam 0.8 0.9 0.6 *** 0.9 1.0

Hawaii 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.0

Indiana 4.5 3.5 2.9 1.5 3.1 1.9

Iowa a 5.1 2.7 4.6 0.1 2.3 1.6

Kentucky 3.8 3.1 3.9 0.5 3.8 1.3

Louisiana 3.5 2.9 3.2 1.8 2.8 1.2

Maine 3.0 3.1 3.3 0.9 1.8 1.8

Maryland a 3.8 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.5 1.8

Massachusetts 3.2 2.5 2.7 1.1 2.8 1.7

Michigan a 4.5 3.6 3.0 1.0 3.7 2.0

Minnesota 4.2 3.1 2.0 *** 2.2 1.7

Mississippi 3.2 2.6 3.5 1.8 2.6 1.0

Missouri 4.1 2.5 2.9 1.0 3.2 1.3

Montana a 2.7 1.2 3.4 1.5 2.3 2.1

Nebraska 3.1 2.5 1.8 0.1 2.6 1.5

New Mexico 2.5 1.4 1.8 1.3 2.0 0.7

New York a 3.5 1.2 1.3 1.6 3.5 1.7

North Carolina 3.1 2.9 2.6 1.1 2.8 1.4

North Dakota 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.5

Oregon 3.9 3.0 2.6 0.9 2.5 1.8

Rhode Island 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.5

South Carolina a 4.3 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.4 1.4

Tennessee 4.3 3.1 4.7 1.6 2.4 1.7

Texas 3.7 2.7 1.7 2.2 2.8 1.5

Utah 2.2 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.2

Vermont a 3.0 2.7 1.6 1.1 2.5 1.6

Virginia 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.2 2.1

Washington 3.9 1.4 3.0 1.6 3.8 1.6

West Virginia 4.1 3.3 2.3 0.8 2.1 1.1

Wisconsin a 4.6 1.4 4.5 *** 3.7 1.9

Wyoming 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.3

 Science Education but Missing/ Total %

Education but not Science or None At or Above

Science not Science Science Ed. Other Indicated Proficient

Percentage of Students

What were your fields of study?

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 8
113

What type of teaching certificate do

you have in this state in your main

assignment field?

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

 SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Certified

Percentage of Students 1.3 1.7

Average Scale Score 1.0 1.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.2 1.6

Temporary, Provisional, or

Emergency Certification

Percentage of Students 1.3 1.7

Average Scale Score 6.9 3.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 6.3 4.6

None

Percentage of Students *** 0.5

Average Scale Score *** ***

Percentage At or Above Proficient *** ***

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on

Type of Teaching Certificate Held in Main

Assignment Field: Public Schools Only

TABLE B2.4
114

Nation 1.7 1.7 0.5 1.3

Alabama 0.8 *** 0.6 1.5

Alaska a 0.4 1.0 *** 1.6

Arizona 3.3 2.6 2.1 1.7

Arkansas a 1.4 0.8 1.1 1.5

California 3.2 2.6 1.6 1.7

Colorado 2.8 2.6 1.0 1.2

Connecticut 2.7 2.3 1.5 1.7

Delaware 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.0

DDESS 1.1 0.8 0.8 2.2

DoDDS 0.8 *** 0.1 1.3

District of Columbia 1.5 1.5 *** 0.9

Florida 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.6

Georgia 1.0 1.0 *** 1.7

Guam *** *** *** 1.0

Hawaii 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0

Indiana 1.7 1.6 *** 1.9

Iowa a 1.7 1.7 *** 1.6

Kentucky 2.6 2.6 *** 1.3

Louisiana 3.3 3.1 1.1 1.2

Maine 2.8 2.8 *** 1.8

Maryland a 2.8 2.7 *** 1.8

Massachusetts 1.5 0.8 1.3 1.7

Michigan a 3.7 3.2 1.3 2.0

Minnesota 1.5 1.5 *** 1.7

Mississippi 2.6 2.5 0.8 1.0

Missouri 2.8 2.8 *** 1.3

Montana a 1.8 1.8 *** 2.1

Nebraska 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5

New Mexico 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.7

New York a 2.5 2.4 0.7 1.7

North Carolina 2.5 2.3 0.7 1.4

North Dakota 0.6 0.3 *** 1.5

Oregon 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.8

Rhode Island 0.8 0.8 *** 1.5

South Carolina a 2.2 2.1 1.0 1.4

Tennessee 2.1 2.1 *** 1.7

Texas 2.6 2.4 0.5 1.5

Utah 2.3 2.3 0.1 1.2

Vermont a 0.7 0.7 *** 1.6

Virginia 1.7 1.6 0.5 2.1

Washington 1.8 1.8 *** 1.6

West Virginia 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.1

Wisconsin a *** *** *** 1.9

Wyoming 0.1 0.1 *** 1.3

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Type of

Teaching Certificate Held in Main Assignment Field,

for the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

Grade 8

Temporary,

Provisional or Total %

Emergency At or Above

Certified Certification None Proficient

Percentage of Students

TABLE B2.5

What type of teaching certificate do

you have in this state in your main

assignment field?

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
115

Do you have a teaching certificate

in any of the following areas that

is recognized by the state in which you

teach?

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from three derived variables. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Science

Percentage of Students 2.9 3.1

Average Scale Score 2.3 1.1

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.5 1.5

Education, but not Science

Percentage of Students 3.0 1.9

Average Scale Score 1.2 5.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.6 5.4

Other

Percentage of Students 0.4 0.4

Average Scale Score — 7.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient — 4.8

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level

of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on the

Subject Area Covered by Teaching Certificate,

Public Schools Only

TABLE B2.6
116

Nation 3.1 1.9 0.4 1.3

Alabama 3.9 2.6 *** 1.5

Alaska a 2.6 1.8 0.4 1.6

Arizona 4.2 4.0 0.7 1.7

Arkansas a 2.5 1.6 *** 1.5

California 2.9 2.2 0.8 1.7

Colorado 3.2 1.9 1.1 1.2

Connecticut 3.4 3.1 *** 1.7

Delaware 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.0

DDESS 1.2 1.1 *** 2.2

DoDDS 0.5 *** 0.1 1.3

District of Columbia 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.9

Florida 3.3 1.2 1.3 1.6

Georgia 3.2 3.2 0.7 1.7

Guam 1.0 0.9 *** 1.0

Hawaii 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.0

Indiana 3.9 2.4 0.1 1.9

Iowa a 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.6

Kentucky 4.0 3.6 1.0 1.3

Louisiana 4.3 3.9 1.9 1.2

Maine 3.1 3.1 *** 1.8

Maryland a 2.8 2.1 1.1 1.8

Massachusetts 2.6 2.2 1.0 1.7

Michigan a 4.1 3.0 0.7 2.0

Minnesota 2.6 *** *** 1.7

Mississippi 4.1 3.9 0.8 1.0

Missouri 3.7 2.0 *** 1.3

Montana a 3.6 3.9 *** 2.1

Nebraska 2.8 1.9 0.0 1.5

New Mexico 2.4 1.8 0.6 0.7

New York a 3.5 1.5 0.4 1.7

North Carolina 3.1 2.0 0.8 1.4

North Dakota 1.8 1.5 *** 1.5

Oregon 3.2 2.5 0.7 1.8

Rhode Island 0.6 0.3 0.1 1.5

South Carolina a 3.6 2.7 1.5 1.4

Tennessee 4.3 3.8 0.3 1.7

Texas 3.5 0.9 0.6 1.5

Utah 1.8 1.1 0.2 1.2

Vermont a 2.7 0.6 *** 1.6

Virginia 2.6 2.1 0.7 2.1

Washington 4.4 3.0 *** 1.6

West Virginia 2.7 1.9 *** 1.1

Wisconsin a 4.4 3.5 *** 1.9

Wyoming 0.7 0.5 0.1 1.3

Do you have a teaching certificate

in any of the following areas that

is recognized by the state in which

you teach?

Grade 8

Area of Certification

Total %

Education, At or Above

Science But Not Science Other Proficient

Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on the Subject

Area Covered by Teaching Certificate, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

TABLE B2.7
117

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on

Number of Years Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE B2.2

Counting this year, how many years in

total have you taught science?

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

2 Years or Less

Percentage of Students 1.4 2.2

Average Scale Score 2.5 2.6

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.2 2.7

3 - 5 Years

Percentage of Students 1.6 2.1

Average Scale Score 2.3 2.9

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.6 3.6

6 - 10 Years

Percentage of Students 1.9 2.8

Average Scale Score 2.6 1.7

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.4 2.1

11 - 24 Years

Percentage of Students 2.1 3.1

Average Scale Score 2.0 2.7

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.5 3.8

25 + Years

Percentage of Students 2.1 2.7

Average Scale Score 2.6 2.8

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.3 4.1

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students
118

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

None

Percentage of Students 2.7 2.2

Average Scale Score 1.7 3.5

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.5 4.0

Less than 6 Hours

Percentage of Students 2.4 3.8

Average Scale Score 1.5 3.7

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.0 4.7

6 - 15 Hours

Percentage of Students 2.7 2.5

Average Scale Score 2.8 3.7

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.2 4.3

16 - 35 Hours

Percentage of Students 1.4 3.6

Average Scale Score 4.4 2.4

Percentage At or Above Proficient 4.8 3.7

More than 35 Hours

Percentage of Students 1.9 3.1

Average Scale Score 5.6 1.6

Percentage At or Above Proficient 4.5 2.6

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

During the last year, how much time in

total have you spent in professional

development workshops or seminars in

science or science education?

TABLE B2.8

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Amount of

Time Spent in Professional Development Workshops or

Seminars in Science or Science Education During the

Last Year: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined
119

FIGURE B2.3

During the past five years, have you

taken courses or participated in

professional development activities in

any of the following?

Grade 4

Teaching Students who

Use of Portfolio-Based and/or have Multicultural

Technology and/or Performance-Based Backgrounds and/or

Telecommunications Assessments Limited English Skills

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level

of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes

Grade 8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Professional

Development Activities Over the Last Five Years:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Percentage of Students 2.3 2.9 2.7

Average Scale Score 1.0 1.1 1.5

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.3 1.7

Percentage of Students 2.9 4.1 3.0

Average Scale Score 0.9 1.7 1.4

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.4 2.4 1.4
120

During the past five years, have you

taken courses or participated in

professional development activities in

any of the following?

Grade 8

Teaching Students

Portfolio-Based who have

Use of and/or Multicultural Total %

Technology and/or Performance-Based Backgrounds and/or At or Above

Telecommunications Assessments Limited English Skills Proficient

Percentage of Students Whose Teachers Responded Yes

Nation 3.2 4.7 3.3 1.3

Alabama 3.3 3.7 2.8 1.5

Alaska a 2.1 2.1 2.8 1.6

Arizona 4.2 4.6 4.0 1.7

Arkansas a 4.9 4.8 3.7 1.5

California 3.1 3.8 3.4 1.7

Colorado 3.2 4.0 4.0 1.2

Connecticut 3.1 3.5 3.4 1.7

Delaware 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0

DDESS 0.9 1.5 1.2 2.2

DoDDS 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3

District of Columbia 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9

Florida 3.2 4.0 3.7 1.6

Georgia 3.1 3.6 2.7 1.7

Guam 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.0

Hawaii 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.0

Indiana 4.2 4.2 2.9 1.9

Iowa a 3.8 4.7 3.6 1.6

Kentucky 4.1 3.9 3.3 1.3

Louisiana 4.3 4.1 3.5 1.2

Maine 3.4 3.3 1.7 1.8

Maryland a 3.4 4.3 4.0 1.8

Massachusetts 3.4 3.8 3.6 1.7

Michigan a 4.0 4.4 4.0 2.0

Minnesota 3.9 3.4 3.9 1.7

Mississippi 3.4 3.6 2.8 1.0

Missouri 4.0 4.3 3.6 1.3

Montana a 3.3 4.0 3.3 2.1

Nebraska 3.0 3.1 3.9 1.5

New Mexico 2.0 2.3 2.5 0.7

New York a 4.1 3.8 3.1 1.7

North Carolina 3.5 3.6 3.9 1.4

North Dakota 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.5

Oregon 3.7 3.3 3.5 1.8

Rhode Island 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.5

South Carolina a 4.1 3.9 2.9 1.4

Tennessee 3.3 4.5 3.6 1.7

Texas 3.7 3.8 3.7 1.5

Utah 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.2

Vermont a 3.2 3.1 1.2 1.6

Virginia 2.6 3.4 3.5 2.1

Washington 3.6 4.6 3.6 1.6

West Virginia 2.5 4.1 2.3 1.1

Wisconsin a 4.0 4.3 3.0 1.9

Wyoming 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.3

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Professional

Development Activities Over the Last Five Years, for the

Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

FIGURES

B2.4, B2.5,

and B2.6
121

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Yes

Percentage of Students 2.3 2.0 3.1

Average Scale Score 0.9 1.0 1.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.1 1.4 1.5

No

Percentage of Students 2.3 2.0 3.1

Average Scale Score 6.0 5.7 2.3

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.5 7.1 2.6

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Does your district or state have a

curriculum in science that your school

is expected to follow?

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on Whether

They Have a Science Curriculum:

Public Schools Only

TABLE B3.1
122

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Every Day 3.8 2.0 2.1

3 - 4 Times a Week 4.0 2.2 2.2

1 - 2 Times a Week 3.0 3.0 3.2

Less Than Once a Week *** *** ***

Not Taught *** *** ***

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on How Often

a Typical Student Receives Instruction in Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Every Day 2.4 1.1 1.4

3 - 4 Times a Week 2.5 4.1 5.1

1 - 2 Times a Week 0.4 *** ***

Less Than Once a Week *** *** ***

Not Taught *** *** ***

Grade 8

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

Grade 4

How often does a typical fourth-grade

student in your school receive instruction in science?

How often does a typical eighth-grade

student in your school receive instruction in science?

TABLE B3.2
123

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on How Often

a Typical Student Receives Instruction in Science, for

the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

Nation 2.7 1.2 2.7 4.8 *** *** 1.3

Alabama 1.6 1.8 *** *** 1.6 *** 1.5

Alaska a 2.8 1.9 2.7 3.9 *** *** 1.6

Arizona 2.6 1.9 2.3 *** 1.2 *** 1.7

Arkansas a *** 1.7 *** *** *** *** 1.5

California 3.9 2.0 3.1 6.0 2.5 *** 1.7

Colorado 1.2 1.1 1.2 *** *** *** 1.2

Connecticut *** 1.4 *** *** *** *** 1.7

Delaware *** 0.8 *** *** *** *** 1.0

DDESS *** 1.3 *** *** *** *** 2.2

DoDDS 0.4 0.8 0.4 *** *** *** 1.3

District of Columbia 1.1 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.7 *** 0.9

Florida 4.0 1.9 3.5 2.4 *** *** 1.6

Georgia *** 1.6 *** *** *** *** 1.7

Guam *** 1.3 *** *** *** *** 1.0

Hawaii 0.5 1.4 0.5 1.6 0.4* 1.3 1.0

Indiana *** 1.5 *** *** *** *** 1.9

Iowa a 1.7 1.2 1.7 *** *** *** 1.6

Kentucky 2.2 1.5 2.1 *** *** *** 1.3

Louisiana *** 1.6 *** *** *** *** 1.2

Maine 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.3 *** *** 1.8

Maryland a 2.3 1.7 2.3 *** *** *** 1.8

Massachusetts 1.9 1.7 1.7 *** *** *** 1.7

Michigan a *** 1.7 *** *** *** *** 2.0

Minnesota 4.0 1.5 3.1 4.2 2.6 *** 1.7

Mississippi 3.2 1.6 3.2 4.9 *** *** 1.0

Missouri 3.9 1.4 4.0 4.5 *** *** 1.3

Montana a *** 1.3 *** *** *** *** 2.1

Nebraska 1.3 1.1 1.3 *** 0.2 *** 1.5

New Mexico 0.2 1.1 *** *** 0.2 *** 0.7

New York a 3.1 2.3 3.1 14.3 *** *** 1.7

North Carolina 2.5 1.4 1.8 *** 1.7 *** 1.4

North Dakota 0.7 0.8 *** *** *** *** 1.5

Oregon 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.8 *** *** 1.8

Rhode Island 0.1 0.8 0.1 *** *** *** 1.5

South Carolina a 2.2 1.6 2.2 *** *** *** 1.4

Tennessee 2.3 2.0 *** *** 2.3 *** 1.7

Texas 4.5 1.6 4.3 6.6 *** *** 1.5

Utah 1.1 1.0 1.1 *** 0.1 *** 1.2

Vermont a 2.4 1.0 2.4 1.7 *** *** 1.6

Virginia 2.7 1.6 2.7 3.2 *** *** 2.1

Washington 4.2 1.5 3.2 5.2 3.0 4.2 1.6

West Virginia 1.0 0.9 *** *** 0.1 *** 1.1

Wisconsin a *** 1.7 *** *** *** *** 1.9

Wyoming *** 0.7 *** *** *** *** 1.3

Grade 8

Total

Average Average Average % At

% of Scale % of Scale % of Scale or Above

Students Score Students Score Students Score Proficient

3 - 4 Less than 3

Every Day Times per Week Times per Week How often does a typical eighth-grade

student in your school receive

instruction in science?

TABLE B3.3

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

* Twenty-one percent of students received no science instruction as reported by their schools.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
124

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on Years

of Science Required for Graduation:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE B3.4

TABLE B3.5

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on

Semester Hours of Science Taken from Grades 9 - 12:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Grade 12

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

From the beginning of 9th grade through

the end of the school year, how many

semester hours (or equivalent) of course

work will you have taken in science?

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

None - 1 0.3 3.6 0.9

2 - 3 Semesters 0.7 1.3 0.8

4 - 5 Semesters 1.0 1.6 1.8

6 - 7 Semesters 0.9 0.9 2.1

8 or More Semesters 1.2 1.1 1.9

Beginning with 9th grade, how many

years of course work does your school or

district require for graduation this year?

NOTE: This table contains information obtained from a derived variable. Please refer to the derived variable section in

Appendix A for more details.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

1 Year

Percentage of Students 2.2

Average Scale Score 1.5

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.1

2 Years

Percentage of Students 4.3

Average Scale Score 1.4

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.7

3 Years

Percentage of Students 3.9

Average Scale Score 2.0

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.0

4 Years

Percentage of Students 0.8

Average Scale Score ***

Percentage At or Above Proficient ***

Grade 12

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students
125

Advanced Biology 2.9 1.0 1.3

Advanced Chemistry 3.9 1.3 1.6

Advanced Physics 3.8 1.4 1.4

None Taught 2.0 2.8 1.9

TABLE B3.6

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on Types of

Advanced Level Courses Taught:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Are courses of at least one semester in

length taught in your school in each of

the following subjects?

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Percentage

Percentage Average At or Above

of Students Scale Score Proficient

TABLE B3.7

Standard Errors for Schools’ Reports on Requirements

to Pass a District or State Test in Science in Order to

Graduate: Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Are students in your school required

to pass a district or state test in

science in order to graduate?

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Yes No

Percentage of Students 3.4 3.4

Average Scale Score 3.6 1.3

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.5 1.5

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students
126

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on How Much

Time is Spent Teaching Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE B4.1

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

In this class, about how much time do

you spend on each of the following

areas in science?

Grade 4

Life Science

A Lot 2.7 1.5 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.7

Some 2.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.3

Little 1.4 3.8 4.0 3.5 5.2 5.1

None 0.4 *** *** *** *** ***

Earth Science

A Lot 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.6

Some 2.4 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.2

Little 1.0 4.1 4.1 4.5 5.3 4.4

None 0.3 *** *** *** *** ***

Physical Science

A Lot 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.3

Some 2.5 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.4

Little 1.5 3.5 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.5

None 0.5 7.4 7.5 8.6 7.4 5.9
127

In this class, about how much time do

you spend on each of the following

areas in science?

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

TABLE B4.2

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on How Much

Time is Spent Teaching Certain Science Domains:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Grade 8

Life Science

A Lot 4.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.4

Some 5.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Little 3.6 2.7 2.5 3.1 2.8 3.5

None 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.4 3.2 5.9

Earth Science

A Lot 5.0 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.5 3.0

Some 4.5 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3

Little 2.7 4.7 4.7 5.5 4.2 6.7

None 1.9 3.5 4.4 3.8 3.2 5.2

Physical Science

A Lot 4.3 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.4

Some 4.4 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2

Little 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.4 2.9 3.5

None 1.2 6.4 6.9 7.0 6.2 5.3

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Life Science 1.4 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.4 2.9

Physical Science 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.4 2.6

Earth Science 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.7 3.4

General Science 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2

Integrated Science 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0

No Science 0.8 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.1 2.7

TABLE B4.3

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on

Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Which best describes the science course

you are taking?

Average Scale Score Percentage

Percentage Life Earth Physical At or Above

of Students Composite Science Science Science Proficient

Grade 8
128

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on Science

Courses Taken from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE B4.4a

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 12

Biology

Percentages of Students 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5

Average Scale Score 0.8 3.1 1.2 3.9 0.9 4.1

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.6 1.3 2.3

Chemistry

Percentages of Students 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3

Average Scale Score 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.6

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.7 1.8 2.5 1.5 1.2

Physics

Percentages of Students 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

Average Scale Score 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.9 1.1 1.9 2.1 2.6 0.9
129

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on Science

Courses Taken from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

TABLE B4.4b

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 12

Earth & Space

Percentages of Students 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.1

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.2

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.8 1.9 1.4

Life Science

Percentages of Students 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3

Average Scale Score 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.8 1.5 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.6

Physical Science

Percentages of Students 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9

Average Scale Score 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.2 1.9

General Science

Percentages of Students 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5

Average Scale Score 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.5

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.2 2.1

Integrated Science

Percentages of Students 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Average Scale Score 2.6 0.9 3.5 1.3 4.7 1.0

Percentages At or Above Proficient 2.4 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 1.3

Science & Technology

Percentages of Students 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7

Average Scale Score 1.9 0.9 2.2 1.2 2.8 1.0

Percentages At or Above Proficient 2.7 1.3 3.0 1.9 4.0 1.3

Other Science

Percentages of Students 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3

Average Scale Score 1.3 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.1

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.3 1.4
130

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

From the beginning of 9th grade to the

present, how much science coursework

have you completed in the following

subjects?

All Students Males Females

More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year, More than 1 Year,

1 Year, 1 Year, 1 Year,

Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None Less than 1 Year None

TABLE B4.5

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on Combinations

of Science Courses Taken from Grades 9 - 12, by Gender:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Grade 12

Earth & Biology

Percentages of Students 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Average Scale Score 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.1

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.5 1.9 1.5

Earth & Chemistry

Percentages of Students 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.1

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.8 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.3

Earth & Physics

Percentages of Students 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

Average Scale Score 1.9 0.9 2.3 1.3 2.2 0.9

Percentages At or Above Proficient 2.7 1.2 2.7 2.0 3.9 1.1

Biology & Chemistry

Percentages of Students 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Average Scale Score 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.4

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.3

Biology & Physics

Percentages of Students 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5

Average Scale Score 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.8 2.6 0.9

Chemistry & Physics

Percentages of Students 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

Average Scale Score 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.9 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.7 1.0

Earth, Biology & Chemistry

Percentages of Students 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.1

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.9 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.4 1.3

Earth, Biology & Physics

Percentages of Students 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average Scale Score 1.8 0.9 2.2 1.3 2.1 0.9

Percentages At or Above Proficient 2.8 1.2 2.9 2.0 3.8 1.1

Earth, Chemistry & Physics

Percentages of Students 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average Scale Score 1.8 0.9 2.3 1.3 2.1 0.9

Percentages At or Above Proficient 2.9 1.2 3.1 2.0 3.9 1.1

Biology, Chemistry & Physics

Percentages of Students 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4

Average Scale Score 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.9

Percentages At or Above Proficient 1.8 1.1 2.1 1.8 2.6 1.0

Earth, Biology, Chemistry & Physics

Percentages of Students 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Average Scale Score 1.8 0.9 2.3 1.3 2.1 0.9

Percentages At or Above Proficient 3.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 3.9 1.1
131

TABLE B4.6

Standard Errors for Students’ Reports on

Current Science Course-Taking:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Are you currently taking a science

course this year?

Yes 1.2 1.1 1.6

No 1.2 0.9 0.9

Percentage Average Percentage At

of Students Scale Score or Above Proficient

Grade 12

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
132

TABLE B5.1

All or Most 2.7 1.1 1.4

Some 2.7 1.4 1.6

None *** *** ***

All or Most 3.7 1.6 2.1

Some 3.8 1.9 2.2

None 0.4 6.4 5.6

Grade 8

Grade 4

Which of the following statements is

true about how well your school

system provides you with instructional

materials and other resources you need?

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Whether

They Receive the Resources They Need:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

Average Percentage

Percentage of Students Scale Score At or Above Proficient
133

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Which of the following statements is true

about how well your school system

provides you with instructional materials

and other resources you need?

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Whether

They Receive the Resources They Need, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

Grade 8

TABLE B5.2

and

FIGURE B5.1

Total %

% of Average % of Average % of Average At or Above

Students Scale Score Students Scale Score Student Scale Score Proficient

All or Most Some None

Nation 4.1 1.8 4.1 2.0 0.4 6.5 1.3

Alabama 4.9 3.4 4.6 2.7 2.0 *** 1.5

Alaska a 2.9 1.7 2.9 3.2 *** *** 1.6

Arizona 5.1 2.4 4.9 2.6 0.8 *** 1.7

Arkansas a 4.9 1.8 4.9 3.1 *** *** 1.5

California 4.1 2.5 4.2 2.7 0.8 *** 1.7

Colorado 3.6 1.5 3.5 2.0 0.3 *** 1.2

Connecticut 3.7 1.4 4.2 3.9 1.5 3.8 1.7

Delaware 1.0 1.7 1.1 1.3 0.5 7.3 1.0

DDESS 1.6 1.7 1.6 *** *** *** 2.2

DoDDS 1.0 0.9 1.0 *** 0.2 *** 1.3

District of Columbia 0.7 3.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 2.6 0.9

Florida 4.5 2.5 4.2 2.3 1.3 6.6 1.6

Georgia 3.2 1.9 3.0 2.5 0.8 *** 1.7

Guam 1.0 3.6 1.0 1.4 *** *** 1.0

Hawaii 1.2 2.3 1.2 1.6 0.2 *** 1.0

Indiana 4.5 1.7 4.5 2.4 *** *** 1.9

Iowa a 3.4 1.2 3.2 2.6 *** *** 1.6

Kentucky 4.3 1.9 4.3 2.4 *** *** 1.3

Louisiana 3.9 2.6 4.4 2.4 3.3 4.4 1.2

Maine 3.8 1.3 3.7 1.6 1.0 4.5 1.8

Maryland a 4.8 2.2 4.8 2.6 *** *** 1.8

Massachusetts 3.8 2.1 3.9 2.1 1.3 *** 1.7

Michigan a 4.6 1.8 4.5 3.0 *** *** 2.0

Minnesota 5.1 1.4 4.7 2.0 *** *** 1.7

Mississippi 4.7 2.1 4.8 2.5 1.4 4.3 1.0

Missouri 4.1 1.6 4.1 2.1 0.1 *** 1.3

Montana a 4.0 1.4 4.0 1.9 0.1 *** 2.1

Nebraska 2.6 1.2 2.6 1.3 *** *** 1.5

New Mexico 2.3 1.3 2.3 1.4 0.5 3.0 0.7

New York a 4.4 2.3 4.4 3.4 0.6 *** 1.7

North Carolina 4.4 1.4 4.5 1.8 1.2 *** 1.4

North Dakota 2.8 0.9 2.8 1.5 *** *** 1.5

Oregon 4.7 2.0 4.7 2.2 0.2 *** 1.8

Rhode Island 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 *** *** 1.5

South Carolina a 4.8 2.1 4.8 2.3 *** *** 1.4

Tennessee 5.3 2.6 5.1 2.4 0.8 *** 1.7

Texas 3.4 1.5 3.3 2.5 1.0 *** 1.5

Utah 2.8 1.2 2.8 1.3 0.3 *** 1.2

Vermont a 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.4 *** *** 1.6

Virginia 3.2 2.2 3.2 2.9 *** *** 2.1

Washington 4.1 1.8 4.1 2.7 *** *** 1.6

West Virginia 4.1 1.5 4.0 1.4 0.4 *** 1.1

Wisconsin a 5.2 2.4 5.2 2.5 *** *** 1.9

Wyoming 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.2 *** 1.3
134

Which best describes the availability

of computers for use by your science

students?

None

Percentage of Students 1.9 3.1

Average Scale Score 3.3 5.0

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.1 6.5

One or More in Classrooms

Percentage of Students 4.0 4.4

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.3

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.7 2.5

Computer Laboratories (Difficult Access)

Percentage of Students 2.7 4.5

Average Scale Score 2.6 1.9

Percentage At or Above Proficient 3.5 2.4

Computer Laboratories (Easy Access)

Percentage of Students 2.8 2.4

Average Scale Score 2.6 2.2

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.6 2.4

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Availability of

Computers for Use by Their Science Students:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE B5.2

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.
135

Which best describes the availability

of computers for use by your science

students?

Grade 8

Nation 3.4 5.0 4.9 2.6 1.3

Alabama 3.6 4.1 4.5 1.7 1.5

Alaska a 1.4 3.5 3.6 2.4 1.6

Arizona 4.2 4.6 3.5 3.5 1.7

Arkansas a 5.1 4.4 5.9 1.9 1.5

California 3.2 4.0 3.2 2.9 1.7

Colorado 2.4 3.8 3.5 2.4 1.2

Connecticut 3.0 3.9 3.6 2.6 1.7

Delaware 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.0

DDESS *** 1.2 1.2 0.7 2.2

DoDDS 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.3

District of Columbia 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.9

Florida 3.5 4.7 3.1 1.9 1.6

Georgia 2.6 3.9 3.5 2.5 1.7

Guam 1.1 1.0 1.4 *** 1.0

Hawaii 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0

Indiana 3.8 4.0 5.2 3.3 1.9

Iowa a 2.7 5.4 5.2 2.8 1.6

Kentucky 2.1 4.6 4.5 3.3 1.3

Louisiana 4.5 3.2 3.1 3.0 1.2

Maine 2.2 3.9 4.3 1.8 1.8

Maryland a 1.9 3.8 4.6 4.3 1.8

Massachusetts 3.0 4.2 4.1 3.1 1.7

Michigan a 4.2 3.7 4.7 4.2 2.0

Minnesota 3.0 4.1 4.0 3.3 1.7

Mississippi 4.3 3.4 3.5 2.8 1.0

Missouri 3.0 4.3 4.2 2.9 1.3

Montana a 2.6 4.5 4.6 1.7 2.1

Nebraska 1.3 3.5 3.2 2.4 1.5

New Mexico 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.3 0.7

New York a 4.6 4.0 4.8 3.5 1.7

North Carolina 2.7 3.8 3.9 3.2 1.4

North Dakota 1.5 2.7 2.6 1.9 1.5

Oregon 2.8 4.9 4.5 2.7 1.8

Rhode Island 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.5

South Carolina a 3.9 4.0 4.3 2.3 1.4

Tennessee 4.0 4.6 3.2 2.4 1.7

Texas 3.4 5.0 3.5 2.1 1.5

Utah 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.2 1.2

Vermont a 2.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 1.6

Virginia 2.2 3.8 4.0 3.0 2.1

Washington 2.4 4.4 4.1 3.6 1.6

West Virginia 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.0 1.1

Wisconsin a 2.6 5.1 4.9 3.6 1.9

Wyoming 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.5 1.3

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

***Standard error cannot be accurately determined.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Computer Computer Total %

One or More Laboratory Laboratory At or Above

None in Classrooms (Difficult Access) (Easy Access) Proficient

Percentage of Students

TABLE B5.3

and

FIGURE B5.3

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Availability

of Computers for Use by Their Science Students, for

the Nation and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only
136

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Yes

Percentage of Students 3.3 3.4

Average Scale Score 1.4 2.5

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.7 2.8

No

Percentage of Students 3.3 3.4

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.4

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.8 2.3

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Availability

of a Curriculum Specialist in Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE B5.4

Is there a curriculum specialist

available to help or advise you in

science?
137

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on Availability

of a Curriculum Specialist in Science, for the Nation

and Jurisdictions: Public Schools Only

FIGURE B5.5

Jurisdictions where Total Jurisdictions where Total Jurisdictions where Total

the percentage is % At the percentage does not % At the percentage is % At

above the or Above differ from or Above below the or Above

national average Proficient national average Proficient national average Proficient

Nation 3.9 1.3

a Failed to meet one or more of the participation-rate guidelines for public schools; public school results reported with

appropriate notation.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996 Science Assessment.

Grade 8

District of Columbia 1.7 0.9

Florida 3.3 1.6

Georgia 3.3 1.7

Louisiana 4.7 1.2

Marylanda 4.1 1.8

North Carolina 3.6 1.4

Texas 4.0 1.5

Utah 2.8 1.2

Virginia 4.0 2.1

West Virginia 3.9 1.1

Alabama 4.8 1.5

Alaska a 2.9 1.6

Arizona 4.8 1.7

California 4.4 1.7

Colorado 3.8 1.2

Connecticut 3.9 1.7

Delaware 0.9 1.0

DDESS 1.8 2.2

DoDDS 1.3 1.3

Guam 1.3 1.0

Hawaii 1.0 1.0

Iowa a 5.1 1.6

Kentucky 3.9 1.3

Massachusetts 4.9 1.7

Michigan a 4.2 2.0

Minnesota 4.3 1.7

Mississippi 4.5 1.0

Missouri 4.3 1.3

Nebraska 3.0 1.5

New York a 4.4 1.7

South Carolina a 4.5 1.4

Tennessee 4.2 1.7

Washington 4.7 1.6

Wisconsin a 4.2 1.9

Arkansas a 3.8 1.5

Indiana 4.0 1.9

Maine 3.6 1.8

Montana a 3.8 2.1

New Mexico 2.1 0.7

North Dakota 1.9 1.5

Oregon 3.7 1.8

Rhode Island 1.0 1.5

Vermont a 2.0 1.6

Wyoming 1.0 1.3
138

Standard Errors for Teachers’ Reports on What

Space is Available for Teaching Science:

Public and Nonpublic Schools Combined

FIGURE B5.6

Which of the following best describes

the space where this class is taught?

Grade 4 Grade 8

Percentage, Average Scale Score, and Achievement Level of Students

Classroom with no access to

laboratory or water source

Percentage of Students 3.1 2.0

Average Scale Score 1.9 3.1

Percentage At or Above Proficient 2.5 3.6

Classroom with access

to water source only

Percentage of Students 3.2 3.6

Average Scale Score 1.4 1.8

Percentage At or Above Proficient 1.6 2.3

Classroom with access

to laboratory only

Percentage of Students 0.6 3.2

Average Scale Score 6.4 3.8

Percentage At or Above Proficient 6.2 5.8

A laboratory with water source

Percentage of Students 0.8 4.3

Average Scale Score 4.5 1.7

Percentage At or Above Proficient 7.5 2.6
This report is the culmination of the efforts of many individuals who contributed their considerable

knowledge, experience, and creativity to the NAEP 1996 science assessment. The NAEP 1996 science

assessment was a collaborative effort among staff from the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES), the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat,

and National Computer Systems (NCS). In addition, the program benefited from the contributions of

hundreds of individuals at the state and local levels — governors, chief state school officers, state and

district test directors, state coordinators, and district administrators — who tirelessly provided their

wisdom, experience, and hard work. Most importantly, NAEP is grateful to the thousands of students

and hundreds of teachers and administrators who made the assessment possible.

The NAEP 1996 science assessment was funded through NCES, in the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education

Statistics, Pascal D. Forgione, and the NCES staff — Peggy Carr, Arnold Goldstein, Steven Gorman,

Gary W. Phillips, and Larry Ogle — worked closely and collegially with the authors to produce this

report. The authors were also provided invaluable advice and guidance by the members of the National

Assessment Governing Board, NAGB staff, and the Science Standing Committee. In particular, the

authors are indebted to Arnold Goldstein of NCES for his daily efforts to coordinate the activities of the

many people who contributed to this report.

The NAEP project at ETS is housed in the Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress

under the direction of Paul Williams. The NAEP 1996 assessments were directed by Stephen Lazer and

John Mazzeo. Tom Corley, Lee Jones, Tim Ligget, Beth Nichols, Christine O’Sullivan, Amy Pearlmutter,

Will Pfeiffenberger, Mario Yepes-Baraya, and Ann Marie Zolandz worked with the Science Instrument

Development Committee to develop the assessment instrument. Sampling and data collection activities

were conducted by Westat under the direction of Rene Slobasky, Nancy Caldwell, Keith Rust, and

Dianne Walsh. Printing, distribution, scoring, and processing activities were conducted by NCS under

the direction of Brad Thayer, Patrick Bourgeacq, Charles Brungardt, Mathilde Kennel, Linda Reynolds,

and Brent Studer.

The statistical and psychometric activities for NAEP at ETS are directed by Nancy Allen, John

Barone, James Carlson, and Juliet Shaffer. The analyses presented in this report were led by John

Donoghue and Steven Isham with assistance from Jinming Zhang, Spencer Swinton, Lois Worthington,

Inge Novatkoski, Bruce Kaplan, Dave Freund, and Kate Pashley.

The design and production of the report was overseen by Jan Askew, Carol Errickson, and

Kellie Keiser. The considerable production efforts were completed by Loretta Casalaina, Sharon DavisJohnson, and Barbette Tardugno. The production of the World Wide Web version of this report was led

by Patricia O’Reilly with assistance from Jim Rura, Phillip Leung, and Debbie Kline.

Many thanks are due to the numerous reviewers, both internal and external to NCES and ETS.

The comments and critical feedback of the following reviewers are reflected in this report: Mary Lyn

Bourque, Audrey Champagne, Lawrence Feinberg, Henry Heikkinen, Andrew Kolstad, Michelle Leon,

Laura Lippman, Marilyn McMillen, Wayne Martin, Senta Raizen, Thomas Sachse, Sylvia Ware, Arthur

Williams, David Williams, and Shi-Chang Wu.

Acknowledgments
United States

Department of Education

Washington, DC 20208-5653

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (B)