Program Announcement: Mathematics and Science Education CFDA 84.305A

Program Officer:
Dr. Christina Chhin
Christina.Chhin@ed.gov
(202) 219-2280

Purpose

The Institute intends for the research program on Mathematics and Science Education (Math/Science) to fulfill five goals: (1) exploring malleable factors¹ (e.g., children's skills, instructional practices, curricula) that are associated with better mathematics or science outcomes, as well as mediators and moderators of the relations between these factors and student outcomes, for the purpose of identifying potential targets of intervention; (2) developing innovative curricula and instructional approaches to mathematics and science education that will eventually result in improving mathematics and science achievement; (3) evaluating the efficacy of fully developed curricula and instructional approaches to mathematics and science education with efficacy or replication trials; (4) evaluating the impact of mathematics and science curricula and instructional approaches that are implemented at scale; and (5) developing and/or validating assessments of mathematics and science learning intended for use by practitioners.

The long-term outcome of this program will be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., curricula, programs, assessments) that have been demonstrated to be effective for improving or assessing mathematics and science learning and achievement.

Background

Current levels of mathematics and science achievement at the elementary and secondary levels suggest that the United States is neither preparing the general population with the levels of mathematics and science knowledge necessary for the 21st century workplace, nor producing an adequate pipeline to meet national needs for domestic scientists and mathematicians. In the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only two percent of U.S. students attained advanced levels of mathematics or science achievement by twelfth grade. In mathematics, large numbers of U.S. students continue to score below the basic level. In the 2007 NAEP, 18 percent of fourth-graders and 29 percent of eighth-graders scored below the basic level in mathematics. On the 2005 NAEP, the most recent assessment of twelfth-graders, 39 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level. At fourth grade, scoring below the basic level means that the student is likely to miss problems such as using a ruler to find the total length of three line segments. At twelfth grade, scoring below the basic level means that the student is unlikely to be able to solve problems such as finding the perimeter of a figure. Despite the fact that levels of mathematics achievement have improved over the past decade, achievement gaps remain wide with low levels of achievement being more likely among minority groups and students from low-income backgrounds.

As in mathematics, many U.S. students are not attaining mastery of rudimentary science knowledge and skills. In the 2005 NAEP, 32 percent of fourth-graders, 41 percent of eighth-graders, and 46 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level in science. At fourth grade, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such as using a data table to determine which day has the most daylight. At twelfth grade, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such as graphing the populations of two species. As in mathematics, low levels of achievement are more likely among minority groups and students from low-income backgrounds.

Very little rigorous research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of mathematics or science curricula and instructional practices for improving student learning and achievement. The Institute's What Works Clearinghouse conducted reviews of elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. For elementary school mathematics curricula, 237 studies were identified that: (a) were curriculum evaluations; (b) included relevant math outcome measures; and (c) covered at least one semester. Out of these studies, two studies met the Clearinghouse's evidence standards for drawing causal conclusions, seven studies met the evidence standards with reservations, and 227 studies did not meet the evidence screens.² For the middle school mathematics curricula, 158 studies were identified as curriculum evaluations with relevant math outcomes that covered at least one semester. Out of these 158 studies, four studies met the Clearinghouse's evidence standards, 17 met the evidence standards with reservations, and 137 did not meet the evidence screens³. Out of the 395 evaluations of elementary and middle school mathematics curricula, the What Works Clearinghouse has found that 92 percent of the studies either employed research methods that were inappropriate for supporting causal conclusions, or insufficient information was reported for the Clearinghouse to calculate effect sizes. To address the need to improve mathematics and science education in the United States, the Institute seeks to fund applications that address the need to develop and evaluate mathematics or science curricula and instructional approaches.

The Institute intends for the Mathematics and Science Education program to support research to develop innovative curricula and instructional approaches intended to improve mathematics and science proficiency from kindergarten through high school, and basic mathematics skills at the postsecondary and adult education levels. The Institute is primarily interested in interventions that address core mathematics and science content (e.g., Math: addition/subtraction, fractions, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus; Science: physical science, earth science, life science). The Institute also supports the evaluation of the impact of curricula and instructional approaches on student outcomes.

The Institute encourages researchers to explore malleable factors (e.g., children's abilities and skills, instructional practices) that are associated with better mathematics or science outcomes, as well as mediators and moderators of the relations between these factors and student outcomes, for the purpose of identifying potential targets of intervention. This is translational research intended to inform the development of innovative programs, practices, or products to improve mathematics or science achievement. One approach to the exploration of malleable factors is for researchers to conduct detailed, quantifiable observations of mathematics or science instruction (types of instruction, frequency, duration, under what circumstances), and then use the instructional data in conjunction with child characteristics to predict subsequent math or science performance. The goal here is to identify what type or combination of instructional activities is associated with better student outcomes and for which students. Researchers who can successfully identify strong correlates of student performance could use this information as the basis for developing an intervention. Another approach is to conduct multivariate analyses of district or state databases in order to identify existing programs and practices that may be associated with better mathematics or science outcomes and to examine factors and conditions that may mediate or moderate the relations between the student outcomes and these programs and practices.

Finally, to improve mathematics and science skills, instruction may need to be tailored to the sources of difficulty that individual students experience. An ideal learning environment might involve regular and frequent assessment of skills and the possibility of individualized instruction for students based on the particular source of their difficulties. Under the Math/Science research program, the Institute invites proposals to develop and validate new assessments of, as well as proposals to validate existing measures of, mathematics or science learning to be used for instructional purposes (e.g., progress monitoring measures, diagnostic assessments).