LECTURE EXTENSION A Closer Look at Japanese Science Education (pp. 474-475)
Recent studies have found that American and Japanese students perform similarly in science up to the fourth grade, but by seventh grade, American students begin to fall behind while Japanese students continue to excel. In order to further explore this trend, Linn and associates (2000) investigated current research on Japanese instructional content, curriculum, and educational policy. In addition, the authors observed and analyzed science lessons in 10 Japanese classrooms. The authors found that most Japanese teachers begin each lesson with an activity designed to integrate student interests with a particular topic. For instance, one teacher began class by wondering out loud what a fish in an aquarium might eat. This type of approach provides students with the opportunity to brainstorm ideas and connect them to what they already know or to develop hypotheses about what might likely occur. They also discovered that Japanese teachers incorporate whole-class discussion, small-group work, and individual reflection into the daily lesson plans. In addition, unlike American teachers, Japanese teachers rarely assign homework. Another interesting finding was that there seems to be a widely shared lesson structure among Japanese science teachers. That is, when the observations were analyzed, there was a great deal of consistency in the teaching methods. One reason for this consistency in Japanese schools is the "national curriculum" which sets standards for education, textbooks, and policy. There are currently only six nationally approved textbooks for elementary science. As compared with the curriculum in the United States, the Japanese curriculum is highly focused on only a few topics, but a great deal of class time is devoted to the exploration of each of these topics. For instance, the average American science textbook contains approximately 65 topics whereas the average Japanese textbook contains only eight. Another major difference between U.S. and Japanese curriculum is that Japanese teachers rarely use rewards, threats, or punishment for behavior. Instead, Japanese students are encouraged to express their agreement or disagreement with their classmates. Japanese educators believe that this type of expression helps students become comfortable with sharing and critiquing their ideas in a constructive manner. The researchers also found that Japanese teachers place a great deal of emphasis on student's social and ethical development. In order to enhance this type of development, children are allowed a considerable amount of classroom authority (for example, routinely selecting class leaders), and they are praised for being friendly, responsible, and persistent. In addition, Japanese teachers welcome other teachers to observe and critique their instruction, believing that such collaborative efforts promote both student and teacher learning. This study not only highlights the unique features of the Japanese educational system, it also presents some refreshing possibilities for enhancing science education in the United States. While the goal of this study was not to criticize U.S. science instruction, there are some clear differences between Japanese and U.S. curriculum. And, recent data clearly indicates a significant drop in science performance in U.S. students beyond the fourth grade. Perhaps implementing some of the Japanese strategies into U.S. classrooms would be a starting point for reversing this unsettling trend. Linn, M. C., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. and Japanese student diverge? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14. LEARNING ACTIVITY Reviewing Intelligence Tests (pp. 453-454)
Ask students to visit the library and locate the most recent edition of The Mental Measurement Yearbook or Tests in Print, which contains information on psychological tests. Instruct them to read reviews of at least two intelligence tests for children. In a short paper, students can indicate the aspects of intelligence each test measures and the age ranges for which it is appropriate. Then they can summarize information on the reliability and validity of each test, the population used to standardize it, how well it predicts later intelligence, and how test bias has been minimized. Finally, students can rate the overall quality of each test as good, average, or poor on the basis of their findings.
©2001 Allyn & Bacon