To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Back to Graphic Version

Q&A

Kit Peixotto
Northwest Eisenhower Regional Consortium Director

Kit Peixotto is the director of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Center for Classroom Teaching and Learning, which includes the Northwest Eisenhower Regional Consortium, part of the national network of eleven federally-funded regional consortia that provide technical assistance and high-quality, research-based publications to improve mathematics and science education. Northwest Education assistant editor, Bracken Reed, spoke with Peixotto at her office in downtown Portland, Oregon.

Yes, right. Absolutely. We've been hearing that for a number of years. I think that is definitely the case. But science is one area where I think the pendulum has been swinging. There was very little science being taught in elementary schools, and then there was the recognition that that was a problem. Students were not getting the foundation they needed. So there was a huge push to bring science back into elementary schools. A lot of work has been done by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and others to develop really good science programs that are focused on having students do science, not just read about science. There's been recognition of the importance of the inquiry approach.

Is that new?

If you look at state standards in science, I think across the board, certainly in our region, inquiry is something that is already included in state standards. Over time there was this recognition, but when NCLB came along the emphasis was put on reading and math and assessment, and science did kind of take a backseat. Part of that, unfortunately, is because inquiry science is time consuming. Teachers don't have a lot of extra time when they are spending 90 minutes a day on reading and at least 60 minutes a day on math. In some cases they're spending 90 minutes a day on math as well, so that doesn't leave a lot of time. What we've heard then, is that schools were going back to an approach that's more about reading about science, and not really about doing science.

What effect do you think the federally-mandated science testing that begins in 2007 will have on inquiry-based instruction? Will teachers feel the need to do more direct instruction, to teach to the test?

It depends on how those tests are produced and developed and brought together, and what emphasis the states choose to put on the inquiry aspect. For example, you can look across the region and see differences in mathematics, as far as the emphasis they put on problem-solving versus computation. There are a lot of variations from state to state. So I expect the same will happen with science. Oregon and Washington have already developed science tests, and they do include a lot of inquiry, because their standards have a strong emphasis on inquiry. Oregon has the inquiry work sample that they require. There are two parts to their test. Students take the paper and pencil test and then there is also the work sample that they submit.

Why do you feel it's important to keep an inquiry-based approach in the sciences?

One of the advantages of inquiry-based science is the engagement of students in their own learning. Reports from National Research Council and others have shown that students learn best when they are an active participant in their own learning process, and that's what inquiry does. It actively engages students in learning, and that's a lot different than just reading about a subject and listening to lectures. It's much more engaging. That's why so many states have included inquiry in their standards, and that's why the National Research Council and the National Science Foundation have emphasized that approach.

As a country, if we want to be productive and innovative and economically viable then we have to have scientists that are on the cutting edge. And to develop those scientists we need to give students opportunities to engage in work in the way they would as a professional. That's important. We need to help students think like scientists, and inquiry is how scientists think. It's how they do their work.

Are international assessments such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) discouraging inquiry-based instruction?

I don't think so. If you delve deeply into TIMSS there is a huge wealth of data that it provides. You have to look beyond just the ranking of the countries. If you look at the nature of the assessments, and then look at the instruction in those countries that are supporting either good achievement or not so good achievement, the results are definitely not saying that inquiry is bad and that we shouldn't do it. I know more about what TIMSS has told us about math. For instance, the higher scoring countries, like Japan, have an approach to teaching mathematics that is very much about student engagement. It's not a direct instruction-type approach where teachers stand up and lecture. Students are engaged.

I'm sure you're familiar with the quote from Bill Schmidt [national research director for TIMSS in the U.S. and a professor at Michigan State University] about science instruction in the U.S. being "a mile wide and an inch deep."

I think he said that about math and science both, yes.

What is your take on that? Do you think we're going to narrow that down and try to go deeper?

I think that's a fair assessment of math and science curriculum in this country. If you look at textbooks, or even if you look at standards in some cases, they are very much about breadth instead of depth. I think one thing that TIMSS has told us, at least in math, is that those countries that are more successful do take a more focused approach. They do focus on depth and on providing opportunities for students to really learn the topics and the concepts so that they can apply them. Then they can continually call upon their knowledge. There's not that situation where you have to review fractions every year for three of four years straight. Yes, I think that's definitely a fair assessment. Whether we will see a change in that, I don't know.

Nothing is really driving that change?

No, I don't think so. I think it's a recurring comment, but I don't see a groundswell to do anything about it. If you talk to school- or state-level people the idea of focusing on fewer concepts just makes sense intuitively, if you really want to go in depth. But then you have all the other factors. You have the standards and you have the assessments that are aligned to the standards. It would require a major system overhaul, really, across the country, to make that shift. Because then you also have the textbook industry. Textbooks are the way they are because publishers are trying to sell them nationally. They're trying to market to as many schools and districts as they can. It's good business. Of course they would do that.

But it isn't working very well for individual states or districts?

Well, some teachers are approaching instruction by looking at a textbook and saying, "I have to cover everything in this book." They feel compelled to cover what's in the book as opposed to taking a more standards-based approach. But states are trying to address that. For example, in Washington they've developed GLE's: grade-level learning expectations. They're doing what they call "deep alignment." They're aligning their instructional materials very closely with the Washington GLE's, so that even if a teacher is using a textbook they're matching it to those standards. They're going through and taking out the lessons and chapters that are pertinent, instead of opening the book and going through chapter by chapter.

Does that process also give the teacher a little more freedom as to how they address those standards?

Yes, it does. And yet it gives them some direction and guidance as to what are the important topics that they should focus on. So I guess that is actually an example of how we might move towards a curriculum that's more about depth than breadth. It's being driven by the recognition that we have these broad standards and we need to give teachers more direction about how to navigate them.

Talking about teachers: does the issue of highly qualified teachers continue to be a problem, especially in science?

Middle school is where I think it is really having an impact in the sciences. As a former middle school science teacher, I'm biased. I believe that to teach a content area you have to have knowledge in that content area. So from that perspective I support the move towards requiring highly qualified teachers. We need to have individuals who know the content well. A highly qualified teacher is someone who has some experience, some background, some educational training in the content area, and that is a good thing. But I also understand the reality of trying to fulfill that requirement, especially in small rural areas where those individuals are just not there. It's a complicated issue.

What about teachers who have a minor, but not a major, in the subject they are teaching?

Well, I think that's a state decision, and each state is working on defining "highly qualified." Those definitions are being reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education and either accepted or not, but the states are making that decision. Is a minor enough? Do you have to have a major? It's difficult to say. Knowing what we know about teaching, and how one plans instruction and delivers instruction—that is definitely enhanced with content knowledge.

In our work with elementary teachers the past few years we've found that a lot of emphasis has to be put on improving elementary teachers' content knowledge of mathematics. Because in many cases their preparation didn't require them to really take any mathematics. But now we're asking them to teach mathematics in a different way—a way that requires them to have a conceptual understanding of math. Not just a procedural understanding. And I think the same is true of science. Teachers need more than a procedural understanding of science, more than just the definitions of terms and the vocabulary. They need to understand the important concepts and ideas. And you only get that when you've experienced those and studied them yourself.

What does the future hold for the Eisenhower Consortia?

The Eisenhower Consortia were not funded in Congress's last authorization, and neither were the regional technology consortia, nor the existing comprehensive centers. What was authorized is a new system of comprehensive centers. There will be 20. The vision is that those new comprehensive centers will provide assistance to schools in content areas. The language says "academic core content areas," and then in parentheses it says "reading, mathematics, and science." Technology is seen as an instructional tool to improve student achievement in those content areas, rather than a separate area of focus.

Is it significant that science is included with reading and math? Is that a change in the message coming from the federal government?

I think there is recognition in Congress that mathematics and science are areas of importance for the country, that they are areas that our students—our citizenry—needs to be knowledgeable in. Businesses are saying, "We need individuals who are not necessarily mathematicians or scientists, but who have the skills that are developed through math and science education—people who are problem solvers, can work collaboratively, and can do the kinds of things that we believe are needed for the 21st century." I do think there is that recognition at the national level.

Tell me a little about what the Consortium offers to the region.

Sure. We provide a lot of information, both in print-based and Web-based publications. Northwest Teacher is one of our publications, for instance. Lately we've been working a lot on lesson study. [http://www.nwrel.org/msec/lessonstudy/index.html] We've been collaborating with another consortium very closely, the North Central Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortium, which is based in Chicago. We're currently developing a book with them.

Besides those resources, we also work closely with partner schools in each of the states in our region, providing technical assistance. The consortium is only one piece of the larger Math and Science Center, which offers all kinds of services to districts—science adoption, the mathematics option process, specialized technical assistance training, and things like that. We have summer workshops coming up for primary teachers, which we did last summer as well.

How will you be able to build on the work you've already done and the relationships you've created, under the new guidelines?

That's a tough one, because those entities are going away, and yet the consortium program started in 1990. So, there's a national network that has been developed—relationships have definitely been built, and there is a commitment among all of the consortia to continue to tap into that network. We know the strengths and expertise that others have, and we want to continue to tap into that. That will continue, I think, just because of the relationships that have been built.

Of course we are hoping to have success in the new comprehensive center system, which will include work in math and science. But we're also continuing to look for other opportunities for work. We do a fair number of contracts for services. There's definitely a need out there for work in math and science, and fortunately the good work that we have been doing is recognized. We are fortunate for that. When districts have needs and they have funds to be able to seek assistance, then they often look to us. We have a lot of contract work with them, and I think that will continue. That's the good news.