Why is the US Falling Behind in Math & Science Compared to Asian Countries?

Why is the United States falling behind in math and science compared to Asian countries? Numerous cross national statistics and research studies such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study have indicated that Singapore, Korea, China, Japan and Taiwan are among the top scoring nations in the world. As these patterns emerge, many Americans fear for the country’s national economic growth. They suppose that there is a close relationship between education and economic development. Regardless of the degree of truth in this idea, the United States still needs to improve its schools. Understanding why these trends are occurring and determining how best to go about reforming math and science education is critical. Several of the believed contributing factors to America’s decline in these areas include: the nature of the classroom learning tasks, the set standards and curricula, the teacher preparation and continuing development, and the cultural attitudes and beliefs.
The nature of instructional tasks can ultimately make or break learning. Over the years, the United States has made a name for itself by utilizing a drill kill approach towards teaching mathematics. Students were and in many settings still are stuck on the procedures and facts of the subject. They are not being exposed to complex problems and proofs that can lead to greater conceptual understanding. In science, much of the same holds true. Students are memorizing the facts, but are failing to accurately apply the learned concepts into practical situations. Unlike the Unites States, many top scoring Asian societies focus more on promoting concepts of reasoning and critical thinking skills. Students there are exploring problems, observing teacher models, and reflecting on the content. It appears as though, “American students [are] participating skills while Asian students [are] thinking” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, p.114). Reforming mathematics and science teaching practices in the United States must involve a change in the classroom learning tasks. Instruction should aim to encourage math or science talk, develop conceptual knowledge, apply content to the real-world, and connect sets of ideas logically.
Standards and curricula are meant to provide a framework of sequenced topics to be covered at a particular level and subject. They do not necessarily guarantee educational success though. In recent years, the United States standards based education movement has advocated that standards should guide teaching and learning in all schools districts around the country. However, in comparison to their Asian counterparts the quality of the United States curriculum is considered to be “a mile wide inch deep” (Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005, p. 555). In other words, too many topics are covered in each grade and not enough time is dedicated to explore subject matter in depth. In the high achieving Asian countries, students spend much more time on one specific topic. Additionally, the curriculum in these nations seems to flow smoothly. Where as in the United States, the curriculum is not as coherent; the same topics come and go in differing grades. This fragmentation and repetition in standards and curricular does not allow for high quality instruction. United States educators must alter the existing principles and perhaps nationalize them to ensure consistency and rigor.
Teacher preparation and continuing development also greatly impacts learning. Students ought to be taught by the best possible educators in all grade levels and subjects. United States elementary school teachers should not be expected to teach multiple content areas. Newton (2007) proposes that this is a generalist approach towards early education. These years actually lay the foundation for learning and the content should not be viewed as basic and easily understood. Therefore, the United States may benefit by adapting Chinese ways in hiring specialized teachers even in primary school. Further, providing all teachers with the adequate time and support to plan lessons, reflect on their teaching practices, and share their insights with their colleagues is a key ingredient in effective teaching. In many Asian countries teachers spend a much lower percent of their time actually teaching. Instead, they work in professional study groups to research and develop their skills. Modeling these implications in an American school setting and encouraging teachers not to work in isolation may be another solution to our education challenges.
Each culture has different beliefs, values, and attitudes that directly affect education. Comparing and contrasting the educational practices in the Unites States with those of top scoring Asian countries has presented many of these underlying principles. For instance, many of the children here have a different way of life. More students in America watch television, play sports, and hold jobs. Shen (2005) suggests that the position of schooling in their lives is much less central than that of students in societies like Japan or Korea. In addition, other factors such as the increasing diversity of the United States contribute to a greater number of students learning the content in a non-native language. In Asian countries this does not occur nearly as often. Thus, not all policies and practices can be successfully translated to other education systems.
In conclusion, there is no simple explanation as to why America is not performing as well as Asian nations in mathematics and science. Many of the reasons presented do shed light on some possibilities; however, others do exist. By learning from other countries and understanding that Asian schools are not perfect models, the United States can significantly improve its own educational practices. Being a global economic competitor might in fact rely on the quality of math and science education, but nonetheless America should be proud of its technological advancements thus far and should definitely strive to continue this success by making efforts to overcome these new challenges.

References

Hutchison, K.B. (2006). Confronting America’s challenge in math and science education. International Educator, 15(4), 4-7. Retrieved October, 16, 2008, from Proquest.

Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 100-215. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from ERIC.

Miller, D. C., Sen, A., Mally, L. B., & Owen, E. (2007). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Newton, X. (2007). Reflections on math reforms in the U.S.: A cross national perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 681-685. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from Proquest.

Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from ERIC.

Shen, C. (2005). How American middle schools differ from schools of five Asian countries: Based on cross national data from TIMSS 1999. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(2), 179-199. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from ERIC.

Viadero, D. (2008). Researchers gain insight into education’s impact on nation’s productivity: International comparisons help refine understanding. Education Week, 27(34), 17-19. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Proquest.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.