This document has been archived.

File: learning.pdf
Pages:1 to 34 of 34
Document Body Page Navigation Panel Document Outline

Document Outline


Document Body

The
Learning
C u r v e
What We Are Discovering

About U.S. Science and
Mathematics Education

The
Learning
C u r v e

N A T I O N A L S C I E N C E F O U N D A T I O N


The National Science Foundation Act of 1950
The National Science Foundation was established by Congress in 1950 “to initiate
and support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific
research potential and science education programs at all levels in the mathematical,
physical, medical, biological, social, and other sciences and to initiate and support
research fundamental to the engineering process and programs to strengthen engineering
research potential and engineering education programs at all levels…”
The Learning Curve:
What We Are Discovering about
U.S. Science and Mathematics Education
A Prefatory Report on the National Science Foundation’s
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995

January 1996

National Science
Foundation
REC Indicators Series


Recommended Citation
Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, Directorate for Education
and Human Resources. The Learning Curve: What We Are Discovering about U.S.
Science and Mathematics Education.
Edited by Lar ry E. Suter. Washington, DC:
National Science Foundation, 1996 (NSF 96-53).

The Learning Curve: What We Are Discovering about U.S. Science and Mathematics
Education
was planned and prepared in the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources (EHR),
Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director. Daryl E. Chubin, Division
Director of the Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, provided general
direction and oversight. Larry E. Suter, Deputy Director of the division, was
responsible for directing the writing and production of the report. Tom Ewing and
Laure Sharp, Westat, wrote this volume as a prefatory report on the National
Science Foundation’s Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995.They used
highlights from the Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995, which was
written by Larry E. Suter, National Science Foundation; Joy Frechtling, Westat;
Daniel C. Humphrey, Amy L. Lewis, Marjorie E. Wechsler, and Judith Powell of SRI
International; Iris Weiss, Horizon Research, Inc.; Frances Lawrenz, University of
Minnesota; Mary L. Queitzsch, former AERA fellow, Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory; and James S. Dietz, National Science Foundation.

Acknowledgments


Under contract to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Friday
Systems Services provided the following services in the production of this document:
research, statistical analysis, editing, design, data entry, graphics creation, quality
control, and desktop publishing. Kaarin Engelmann was Managing Editor.
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Presenting the Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Standards and the Quest for Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Teachers and the Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Demographic Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Postsecondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Toward the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table of Contents


Figure 1. Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above anchor point 250, by age: 1977 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Figure 2. Mathematics proficiency scores for 13-year-olds in

countries and public school eighth-grade students
in selected U.S. states: 1991 or 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Figure 3. Mean scores of 13-year-old public school students on
NAEP mathematics test, by race: 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Figure 4. Average number of minutes per day spent teaching
each subject to self-contained classes,
by grade range: 1977 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 5. Percent of states imposing graduation requirements
in mathematics: 1974 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 6. Mean number of credits earned by high school graduates
in each subject field: 1982 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 7. Percent of science and mathematics teachers

with undergraduate or graduate majors in science
or mathematics fields, by grade range: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 8. Percent of science and mathematics teachers

with various amounts of in-service education
in these fields during the past 3 years: 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 9. Percent of classes using hands-on activities
in most recent lesson, by subject and grade range: 1977 to 1993 . . . . .13

Figure 10. Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above selected anchor points, by age and sex: 1977 to 1992 . . . .14

Figure 11. Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above selected anchor points, by age, and race
or ethnic origin: 1977 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 12. Percent of high school graduates earning credits in science
and mathematics courses, by subject and sex: 1982 to 1992 . . . . . . . . .16

Figure 13. Percent of high school graduates earning credits
in science and mathematics courses,
by race or ethnic origin: 1982 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Figure 14. Ability composition of high school science and
mathematics classes: 1986 and 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figure 15. Percent of high school sophomores aspiring
to various levels of postsecondary education,
by race or ethnic origin: 1980 and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Figure 16. Percent of 1987 first-year undergraduate students

in 4-year institutions who stayed in or switched to other
(declared or intended) majors by 1991, by field of major: 1991 . . . . . .18
Figure 17. Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded, by sex

and major field group: 1977 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Figure 18. Science and engineering degrees awarded, by degree level:

1971 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

List of Figures


Figure 19. Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded,
by selected racial and ethnic groups: 1977 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Figure 20. Percent of full-time instructional faculty who are female,

by field: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Figure 21. Percent of full-time faculty who are black, by field:

Fall 1987 and Fall 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

V I L I S T O F F I G U R E S


Presenting the Indicators
A ccording to data recently compiled by the
National Science Foundation (NSF), elementary schools in the United States today are devoting more classroom time than ever before to science and mathematics instruction.
More high school students are undertaking advanced courses in these crucially

important areas of study. And U.S. colleges and universities are awarding more bachelor’s,
master’s, and doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and engineering.

Moreover, members of all racial and ethnic groups are sharing in a number of the
notable gains made by the Nation’s science and mathematics students; for example,
a greater proportion of U.S. high school students, regardless of race or ethnic background,
are now satisfactorily completing courses in science and mathematics.
Achievement scores in these fields are on the rise for students of all races. And there
is a discernible increase in the number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans
earning bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering.

These and an array of other encouraging findings are offered in an NSF presentation
of statistical data— or “indicators”— concerning the students, teachers, systems, curricula,
learning environments, teaching methods, and other components of the
Nation’s science and mathematics education community. Titled Indicators of Science
and Mathematics Education 1995,
the report was created in compliance with a 1991
mandate from the U.S. Congress. Like its 1992 predecessor, for which it serves as an
update, the latest volume is intended for use by anyone seeking qualitative and
quantitative information on trends in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.
NSF expects the report’s readership to be broad in scope, including educators,
elected officials, government policy makers, social commentators, professional
scientists and mathematicians, and the general public— all citizens, that is, who support
the notion that significant improvement in U.S. science and mathematics education
should rank among the Nation’s highest priorities.

For those who share in the hope that U.S. science and mathematics education is
effectively preparing our young people to live, work, and prosper in a technologyintensive,
increasingly competitive global society, the report offers grounds for cautious
optimism. Indeed, based on hundreds of statistical findings gathered by NSF
from a wide variety of authoritative national surveys, Indicators of Science and

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1
What is an “Indicator”?
An indicator is a statistic that describes the health
of a system or the status of an important policy issue.


Mathematics Education 1995 suggests that considerable progress in science and mathematics
education is being made at all grade levels.

u Particularly encouraging is the growing awareness among elementary school
teachers and curriculum designers that a familiarity with basic concepts in science
and mathematics should be introduced to students at an early age.
Measured in blocks of time ranging from approximately 20 minutes to 100
minutes, the average amount of classroom time per day dedicated to science
and mathematics for grades 1 through 6 rose substantially between 1977 and
1993, according to a 1993 National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education (NSSME), one of several sources for the Indicators of Science and
Mathematics Education 1995.

u Furthermore, students’ early exposure to science and mathematics is now being
parlayed beneficially through their high school years far more effectively than
it has been in the past, thanks largely to an increase in the number of states
that are imposing stricter graduation requirements in these areas of study. In
1974, about 15 percent of states required 2 or more years of mathematics for
graduation; in 1992, the figure was approaching 90 percent. Consistent with
elevated graduation requirements, the increased availability of advanced science
and mathematics courses at the secondary level is evident nationwide.
Currently, nearly 100 percent of all U.S. high schools offer courses not only in
introductory algebra, geometry, and biology, but also in chemistry, physics,
algebra II, and trigonometry.

u Along with more stringent high school graduation requirements and the availability
of advanced science and mathematics courses, the level of preparation
of postsecondary science and engineering students and the number of college
degrees being awarded in these areas are rising. Much of this progress has been
made within the very recent past. High school students who in 1993 planned
an undergraduate major in the natural sciences or engineering were, for the
most part, better prepared than were their counterparts just 3 years earlier.
Between 1990 and 1993, for example, the proportion of intended natural science
or engineering majors who took calculus in high school rose from about
one-quarter to one-third, while the proportion of those taking physics
increased from about one-half to almost two-thirds.

u Among the most encouraging trends noted in the report is the increase in the
number of women with degrees in science fields. Between 1971 and 1991, the
percent of bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering fields awarded to
women increased from 29 to 44 percent and the percent of doctoral degrees
awarded to women increased from 10 to 28 percent. Steady increases occurred
over the past 20 years in the number of women receiving bachelor’s and doctoral
degrees in science fields while the number of men receiving degrees did
not increase. While the number of women receiving doctorates in science
fields has increased by more than threefold since 1971, the number of men
receiving doctoral degrees is about the same in 1991 as in 1971.

2 P R E S E N T I N G T H E I N D I C AT O R S


The Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995 presents some less-encouraging
indicators as well:

u While more high school students of all races are enrolling in and successfully
completing science and mathematics courses, and although test scores of all
students have improved during the past decade, scores for white students
remain significantly higher than those for black and Hispanic students. And
although more blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are earning bachelor’s
degrees in science and engineering today than ever before, all three minority
groups remain underrepresented in relation to their presence in the overall
U.S. college-age population.

u Despite some modest gains since 1988, women and minorities continue to be
underrepresented on U.S. higher education science and engineering faculties.

u While today’s students have parents with higher levels of education— a factor
that many experts consider a positive influence on academic proficiency—
these students are more likely to be members of one-parent families and to be
living in poverty— factors that many experts consider a negative influence on
performance.

u Eighth-grade mathematics achievement in some states (Iowa, North Dakota,
and Minnesota) was the same as in top-performing countries (Taiwan, Korea,
and former Soviet Union), while achievement in the lowest performing states
(Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) was about the same as in the
lowest performing country (Jordan).

u Despite increases in the time and attention being devoted to science and
mathematics, the high school graduation requirements for these subjects in
many states still fall short of the 4 years of each that has been recommended
by education reform advocates.

These and a wealth of other significant revelations emerge from the array of indicators
presented in the report, a sampling of which appears in Highlights (page 8 of
this summary report). In creating Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education
1995, NSF has focused on collecting, synthesizing, analyzing, evaluating, and presenting
relevant data.

Standards and the Quest for Reform
Over the past decade, science and mathematics education standards have been articulated
by a number of prestigious organizations, such as the National Council for
Teachers of Mathematics, the National Research Council, the National Science
Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. While differing in details, the standards are consistent in providing guidelines
for instruction, calling for improvement in teacher qualifications and the learning
environment, and setting levels of expectation for student achievement. The
standards reinforce the notion that the pursuit of excellence must be open to all students,
regardless of their sex, race, or the community in which they live.

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 3


The standards have, in turn, yielded a widely endorsed set of specific goals, such as
the following:

u All students should be expected to attain a high level of scientific and mathematical
competency.

u Students should learn science and mathematics as active processes focused on
a limited number of concepts.

u Curricula should stress understanding, reasoning, and problem solving rather
than memorization of facts, terminology, and algorithms.

u Teachers should engage students in meaningful activities that regularly and
effectively employ calculators, computers, and other tools in the course of
instruction.

u Teachers need both a deep understanding of subject matter and the opportunity
to learn to teach in a manner that reflects research on how students learn.

One way the standards and goals of excellence and equity in science and mathematics
education have been implemented is through efforts to reform many aspects of
the school system at once— an approach entailing a coordinated national initiative,
as opposed to piecemeal remedial efforts, to address all critical components of the
prevailing educational system. Dr. Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director of NSF’s
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, says that systemic reform “… is a
revolutionary vehicle to ameliorate the performance gap— which demographics dictate
we must do in order to achieve Goals 2000 for all of our students.”

4 P R E S E N T I N G T H E I N D I C AT O R S
What are the “Standards”?
National standards provide an explicit set of expectations for teaching
and learning. Stressing the importance of mathematics and science
for all students, they provide a vision that is based on our best
understanding of teaching and learning. Standards provide the basis
for guiding educational programs and for measuring the
accomplishments of our educational institutions.


Systemic science and mathematics education reform is built on the following
elements:

u Curricular reform for all students at all grade levels, including the establishment
of achievement standards based on the ability to master scientific
processes rather than memorization of facts or formulas.

u Changes in the learning environment, including pedagogic reform, with teachers
emphasizing active student involvement through discussion, problem solving,
hands-on activities, and small-group work.

u More opportunities for all students to use calculators and computers in the
classroom and for homework.

u More exposure of low-achieving students to the full range of educational
opportunities and demands.

u Assessment reform that replaces tests based on factual knowledge with tests
that measure the ability to reason, solve problems, and use scientific principles.

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 5

What is “Systemic Reform?”
“Systemic reform” is a process of educational reform based on the
premise that achieving excellence and equity requires alignment of
critical activities and components. It is as much a change in infrastructure
as in outcomes. Central elements include—
u High standards for learning expected from all students;
u Alignment among all the parts of the system— policies,
practices, and accountability mechanisms;
u A change in governance that includes greater school site

flexibility;
u Greater involvement of the public and the community;
u A closer link between formal and informal learning experiences;
u Enhanced attention to professional development; and
u Increased articulation between the precollege and postsecondary
education institutions.


In light of prevailing concerns about U.S. students’ comparatively low academic
achievement in science and math, and considering the commitment of the Federal
Government and state governments to reverse the situation by the year 2000, it follows
that policy makers, congressional leaders, parents, and others are looking for
answers to a number of questions, including the following:

u Are current reform efforts succeeding in improving science and mathematics
education?

u Has overall achievement improved?

u Do students in each state and region of the country perform equally?
u Are achievement levels among ethnic groups converging?
u Have differences in the achievement levels of the United States and other
countries narrowed?

u Is a reduction occurring in the practice of grouping students by ability level?

u Is there an increase in the number of teacher-development programs that
emphasize new methods of science and mathematics instruction?

u Is there an increase in the number of teachers with undergraduate-level
coursework in science and mathematics?

u Is there an increase in the number of teachers who belong to racial and ethnic
minorities, especially in schools with large minority student populations?

Data Sources
Since its establishment in 1950, one of NSF’s missions has been to provide research,
guidance, and support for U.S. science and mathematics education. NSF’s role
extends into the compilation of statistical data about science and mathematics programs
gathered by Federal agencies, such as the National Center for Education
Statistics. NSF analyzes statistical information from outside sources as well and
develops appropriate methods for evaluating the effectiveness of programs and initiatives.
Creation of the biennial indicators report, therefore, builds on the agency’s
leadership as compiler, reviewer, and interpreter of complex data.

While the 1992 Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education report primarily
described science- and mathematics-related trends from 1970 to 1990, the latest document
focuses wherever possible on information regarding student proficiency, curricula,
learning environments, demographics, and so forth, that has been gathered
through 1993. Therefore, the 1995 report serves as an update on the ways in which
the important issues in science and mathematics education that were analyzed in the
1992 edition continue to change.

6 P R E S E N T I N G T H E I N D I C AT O R S


Major sources of the latest data included such existing national surveys as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988, the National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education, and the High School and Beyond study. The main source for international
comparisons was the International Assessment of Educational Progress. In some
cases, the authors have conducted secondary analyses of the existing data, but no
new data were collected by NSF.

The 1995 report is presented in three main chapters, covering student achievement,
characteristics of elementary and secondary education, and progress in postsecondary
education. The indicators were chosen by the authors of each chapter, who were
guided by members of an advisory committee and by publications on the status of
relevant indicators. In the selection of the indicators, a special effort was made to
address salient issues and trends of specific concern to school administrators and
decision makers in the congressional and executive branches of government. The
data cover, for example, the policy environment of educational reform, the demographic
context of education, student achievement in science and math, reforms in
science and mathematics education on the elementary and secondary levels, and
trends in postsecondary science and engineering education. The report also discusses
the overall state of educational reform and highlights the types of indicators required
to assess future progress.

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 7


Highlights
T o reflect the content of the full Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1995, the following sampling of the report highlights significant findings regarding student achievement, curriculum, teachers and the learning
environment, equity, demographic changes, and postsecondary education.

Student Achievement
Science and mathematics proficiency among high school students, regardless of race,
gained between 1977 and 1992
(see figure 1)— a change that may be attributed in
part to the fact that many more students are taking advanced science and mathematics
courses in high school as a result of changes in requirement policies within each
state.

However, while a higher percentage of 13-year-old students scored 250 or higher on
the NAEP science and mathematics proficiency test in 1992 than in 1977, recent
comparisons of achievement show 13-year-old U.S. students scoring below students
of other countries. (See figure 2.) These latter data, based on a 1991 study, substantiated
results from earlier studies that provided the impetus for efforts to improve science
and mathematics education in the United States.

Notwithstanding, a recent reanalysis of data shows that there are sharp differences
in student mathematics performance among states in the United States that match
differences among countries. (See figures 2 and 3.) A comparison of international
and state proficiencies shows, for example, that eighth- grade performance in the
highest ranking states (Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota) was the same as in the

8 H I G H L I G H T S

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

at

or

above

250

Science
Age 17

Age 13
Age 9

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

at

or

above

250

Mathematics
Age 17

Age 13

Age 9
SOURCE: Mullis, I.V.S., et al. (1994). NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] 1992 trends in academic progress (Report No. 23-TR01).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

F I G U R E 1
Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above anchor point 250, by age: 1977 to 1992


T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 9
F I G U R E 2
Mathematics proficiency scores for 13-year-olds in countries and
public school eighth-grade students in selected U.S. states: 1991 or 1992

NOTES: International data are 1991. All U.S. data are 1992. Only 41 states and
the District of Columbia volunteered to participate in the study.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1993). Education in states
and nations: Indicators comparing U.S. states with the OECD countries
in 1988
(NCES 93-237). Washington, DC: NCES.

Mean (average) District of Columbia

Mississippi

JORDAN

Louisiana

Alabama

Arkansas
Hawaii

West Virginia

Tennessee

North Carolina

New Mexico

Georgia

Florida

South Carolina

California

Kentucky

UNITED STATES

Delaware

SPAIN

Texas

Maryland

Rhode Island

Arizona

SLOVENIA

New York

Virginia

Oklahoma

Ohio

Michigan

SCOTLAND

IRELAND

Indiana

Missouri

CANADA

Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Massachusetts

ITALY

ISRAEL

Colorado

FRANCE

Connecticut

Wyoming

Utah

Idaho

Wisconsin

Nebraska

HUNGARY

New Hampshire

Maine

SWITZERLAND

SOVIET UNION

Minnesota

North Dakota

KOREA

Iowa

TAIWAN

170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Score

Mean score

Range of scores (between 5th and 95th
percentile) within U.S. states

Range of scores (between 5th and 95th
percentile) within countries


281 or higher
274 to 280
267 to 273

Nonparticipant*

260 to 266

273

277
277

276
275 272

276
278

279

272

281

284
284

284
275
265
263

282
274 273

262
264

266

264

260 275

266

270

273

276
276

279

279

278

272

283 283

278
271

277

F I G U R E 3
Mean scores of 13-year-old public school students
on NAEP mathematics test, by race: 1992

265

251 or higher
244 to 250
237 to 243

Nonparticipant*

220-236

245

240
238

247

253
261
254

257
253

253

248
248

252

254 251

228

228

246
249 245

223
220

227

231 230 254
238

233

233

248
246

243

240

239

247 241

232

Hispanic
240

258

DC=225

251 or higher
244 to 250
237 to 243

Nonparticipant*

230-236

236

233
251

241

243

238

236
241
230

232

246
234 243

230
231

234

241 243 244
238

241

241

232
237

232

239

241

242

242

240

Black
243

DC=233

*This category also includes states where there were too few sample cases for a reliable estimate.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Data almanac: NAEP's 1992 assessment in
mathematics
[CD-ROM]. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service [Producer]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education [Distributor].

1 0 H I G H L I G H T S


T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1 1
top-performing countries (Taiwan,
Korea, and the former Soviet Union),
and achievement in the lowest performing
states (Arkansas, Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi) was about
the same as in the lowest performing
country (Jordan).

Within the United States, differences
in student mathematics achievement
are not simply a reflection of the concentration
of racial or ethnic groups in
some regions. For example, large differences
in state mathematics scores exist
for white and Hispanic students across
regions and small differences exist for
black students across regions. Overall,
students in the Midwest had the highest
NAEP mathematics scores, and students
in the Southeast had the lowest
scores.
(See figure 3.)

Curriculum
Elementary schools are placing more emphasis on science and mathematics education
by devoting more classroom time to it. (See figure 4.) Since 1977, the time
devoted to science and mathematics has been more in line with recommendations
incorporated in the standards delineated by various organizations.

1977* 1986 1993 0

20

40

60

80

100

Number

of

minutes

per

day

Grades 1– 3

Reading
Mathematics
Science

1977 1986 1993 0

20

40

60

80

100

Number

of

minutes

per

day

Grades 4– 6

Reading
Mathematics

Science

F I G U R E 4
Average number of minutes per day spent teaching each subject
to self-contained classes, by grade range: 1977 to 1993

* 1977 data include kindergarten.
SOURCES: Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985– 86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute; Weiss, I.R., Matti, M.C., & Smith, P.S. (1994). Report of the 1993 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill,
NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

74 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

of

states

No state requirements

2 or more years of math

80 83 85 87 89 92 90
SOURCES: Stecher, B. (1991). Describing secondary curriculum in
mathematics and science: Current conditions and future indicators
(N-3406-NSF).
A RAND note presented to the National Science
Foundation, Arlington, VA; Blank, R.K. & Gruebel, D. (1993). State
Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 1993.
Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

F I G U R E 5
Percent of states imposing
graduation requirements
in mathematics: 1974 to 1992


High schools also appear to be placing more emphasis on science and mathematics
education. Whereas 20 percent of states required high school students to complete 2
or more years of mathematics in 1974, 86 percent of states had that requirement in
1992.
(See figure 5.) The indicators are similar for science.

Despite elevated graduation requirements by states, the requirements still fall short
of the standards recommended by reform advocates— 4 years each of science and
math. By 1992, high school graduates earned about 3 years each in science and
mathematics. (See figure 6.)

Teachers and the Learning Environment
Overall, high school teachers are likely to be academically well prepared to teach
science and mathematics, but elementary teachers are likely to be unprepared. (See
figure 7.) This is an important matter, since teachers’ ability to implement science
and mathematics reform, such as early introduction of challenging concepts and
ideas, often depends on their own levels of competence and professionalism.

Only about two-thirds of teachers of grades 1 through 8 have completed at least one
college course in the biological, physical, or earth sciences. Indeed, less than 30 percent
of elementary school teachers say they feel well qualified to teach life science,
while 60 percent feel well qualified to teach mathematics and close to 80 percent
feel well qualified to teach reading.

1 2 H I G H L I G H T S
1982 1987 1990 1992 1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5
English

Mathematics
Science

History or social studies

F I G U R E 6
Mean number of credits
earned by high school graduates
in each subject field: 1982 to 1992

NOTE: Credits are measured as Carnegie Units.
SOURCES: Legum, S., et al. (1993). The 1990 high school transcript
study tabulations: Comparative data on credits earned and
demographics for 1990, 1987, and 1982 high school graduates
(NCES 93-423). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics; National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National
education longitudinal study of 1988: Second teacher follow-up study.
Unpublished tabulations.

Mean

number

of

credits

earned

1– 4 5– 8 9– 12 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

of

teachers

Grade range

1 3

11

21

63

72

Science teachers

Mathematics teachers

F I G U R E 7
Percent of science and mathematics
teachers with undergraduate or graduate
majors in science or mathematics
fields, by grade range: 1993

NOTE: "Field" includes any science
or science education major for
science teachers and any mathematics
or mathematics education major for
mathematics teachers.
SOURCE: Weiss, I.R., Matti, M.C.,
& Smith, P.S. (1994). Report of the 1993
national survey of science and mathematics
education.
Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon
Research, Inc.

90

100


Academic preparation is only one element of teacher competence. Other elements
include continuing professional education, in-service training, and formal and informal
contacts with colleagues and experts. In 1993, about one-third of all science and
mathematics teachers had taken college courses within the past 3 years, and most
had had at least some in-service education in their field.
(See figure 8.) Elementary
science and mathematics teachers had the least amount of in-service training.

Overall, teachers are not yet following recommendations for reforming classroom
practice; for example, teachers have not implemented early introduction of algebraic
concepts or alternative assessments. Additionally, despite strong recommendations
for hands-on approaches in science and mathematics education, teachers still rely
heavily on lectures. Fewer than 40 percent of junior high or high school classes used
hands-on activities in their most recent lesson. (See figure 9.) Teachers may not be
following recommendations for reforming classroom practice because science and
mathematics classrooms tend to lack adequate facilities or supplies, such as up-todate
textbooks or modern computers.

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1 3
1– 4 5– 8 9– 12 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

of

teachers

Grade range
More than 35 hours 6– 35 hours Less than 6 hours None

1– 4 5– 8 9– 12 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

of

teachers

Grade range

Science Mathematics

SOURCE: Weiss, I.R., Matti, M.C., & Smith, P.S. (1994). Report of the 1993 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC:
Horizon Research, Inc.

F I G U R E 8
Percent of science and mathematics teachers with various amounts
of in-service education in these fields during the past 3 years: 1993

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

of

classes

Grades 1– 3
Science
Mathematics

1977* 1986 1993 1977 1986 1993 1977 1986 1993 1977 1986 1993
Grades 4– 6 Grades 7– 9 Grades 10– 12

* 1977 data include kindergarten.
SOURCES: Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985– 86 national survey of science and mathematics education.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; Weiss, I.R. (1994). 1993 National survey of science
and mathematics education.
Unpublished tabulations.

F I G U R E 9
Percent of classes using hands-on activities
in most recent lesson, by subject and grade range: 1977 to 1993
100


Equity
Although proficiency gains are evident across both sexes and all racial and ethnic
groups, these gains have not eliminated the gaps among different population groups
or between males and females. For example, in 1977, the largest gap between the
percentage of males and the percentage of females scoring at selected NAEP anchor
points was in science at age 17. The gap between the achievement of males and
females remained in 1992, although it had decreased from 14 percentage points in
1977 to 9 percentage points in 1992.
(See figure 10.)

1 4 H I G H L I G H T S

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 17 at or above 300
Male
Female

Science

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 17 at or above 300

Mathematics

Female

Male

F I G U R E 1 0
Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above selected anchor points, by age and sex: 1977 to 1992

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 13 at or above 250
Male
Female

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 13 at or above 250
Female
Male

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 9 at or above 200
Male
Female

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Female
Male

SOURCE: Mullis, I.V.S., et al. (1994). NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress} 1992 trends in academic progress (Report No. 23-TR01).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Age 9 at or above 200


Furthermore, the amount of change in achievement for students in all racial and
ethnic groups has been somewhat mixed, depending on test subject matter and age
of students. NAEP science and mathematics tests, which were first administered in
1977, suggest that the gap between the percentage of white, black, and Hispanic students
scoring at selected anchor points decreased for mathematics and, to a lesser
degree, for science until 1990. Since 1990, however, science score differences have
increased.
(See figure 11.)

Between 1982 and 1992, female and male high school graduates earned credit in all
science and mathematics courses at about the same rate, except in physics, where
males significantly exceeded females. (See figure 12.) However, substantial differences
in course taking existed among students in various racial and ethnic groups. (See figure
13.) For example, while about the same proportion of white, black, and Hispanic
high school graduates had earned credits in biology and introductory algebra in 1992,
a significantly higher proportion of white graduates had completed courses in chemistry,
physics, geometry, advanced algebra, and trigonometry.

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1 5
1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 17 at or above 300

White
Black

Hispanic

Science

1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 13 at or above 250
White
Black

Hispanic

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 17 at or above 300

Mathematics

Black

Hispanic

White

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Age 13 at or above 250

Black

Hispanic

White

SOURCE: Mullis, I.V.S., et al. (1994). NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] 1992 trends in academic progress (Report No. 23-TR01).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

F I G U R E 1 1
Science and mathematics proficiency— percent of students
at or above selected anchor points, by age, and race or
ethnic origin: 1977 to 1992


1 6 H I G H L I G H T S
NOTE: Credits are measured in Carnegie Units
SOURCES: Legum, S., et al. (1993). The 1990 high school transcript study tabulations: Comparative data on credits earned and demographics
for 1990, 1987, and 1982 high school graduates
(NCES 93-423). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; National Center for
Education Statistics. (1992). National education longitudinal study transcripts. Washington, DC: Author.

1982 1987 1990 1992 0

20

40

60

80

100
Male
Female

Geometry

Algebra II
Trigonometry
Calculus

Percent

Mathematics

F I G U R E 1 2
Percent of high school graduates earning credits in science
and mathematics courses, by subject and sex: 1982 to 1992

1982 1987 1990 1992

Male
Female

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Science

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

of

graduates

F I G U R E 1 3
Percent of high school graduates earning credits in science
and mathematics courses, by race or ethnic origin: 1982 to 1992

Any science Biology

Chemistry
Physics

82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

of

graduates Algebra I Geometry
Algebra II

Trigonometry

White
Black
Hispanic

NOTE: Credits are measured in Carnegie Units.
SOURCES: Legum, S., et al. (1993). The 1990 high school transcript study tabulations: Comparative data on credits earned and
demographics for 1990, 1987, and 1982 high school graduates
(NCES 93-423). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics; Smith, T.M., et al. (1994). The condition of education, 1994 (NCES 94-149). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92 82 87 90 92


F I G U R E 1 4
Ability composition of high school science and mathematics classes:
1986 and 1993

NOTE: High school includes grades 10– 12.
Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985– 1986 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute; Weiss, I.R. (1994). 1993 National survey of science and mathematics education. Unpublished tabulations.

Science

Mathematics

Science
Mathematics

Science Science Mathematics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Low ability

86
High ability Average ability

Heterogeneous classes
Percent

of

classes

Homogeneous classes

93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93

Mathematics
During this same period, ability grouping— assigning students to specific classes such
as honors or remedial courses— in secondary science and mathematics classrooms
declined, creating a more heterogeneous environment.
(See figure 14.) Whatever
may have stimulated this change, it is a move toward greater classroom equity, since
homogeneous classrooms may deprive low-achieving students of exposure to
demanding coursework and the stimulation and encouragement to achieve.

Demographic Changes
During the past two decades, the demographic context of the U.S. educational sysSOURCES:
tem has evolved in ways that directly influence averages of student performance. For
example, students were more likely to be living below the poverty level in 1993 than
in 1970; the proportion of students between 6 and 17 years old living in poverty rose
from 14 percent to 20 percent during that period.

At the same time, the proportion of all parents who had received at least some college
education increased from 25 percent in 1970 to 49 percent in 1993. The trend
held for white, black, and Hispanic parents, although in 1993, parents of Hispanic
students still had less education than parents of white or black students.
Additionally, the proportion of families with children younger than age 18 living
with only one parent increased from only 13 percent in 1970 to 30 percent by 1993.

Postsecondary Education
In the past, the primary purpose of secondary science and engineering education was
seen as to provide credentials to students seeking to enter the workforce in science and
engineering. Recently, this task has been augmented by the need to prepare users—

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1 7
F I G U R E 1 4
Ability composition of high school science and mathematics classes:
1986 and 1993

NOTE: High school includes grades 10– 12.
SOURCES: Weiss, I.R. (1987). Report of the 1985– 1986 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute; Weiss, I.R. (1994). 1993 National survey of science and mathematics education. Unpublished tabulations.

Science

Mathematics

Science
Mathematics

Science Science Mathematics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Low ability

86
High ability Average ability

Heterogeneous classes
Percent

of

classes

Homogeneous classes

93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93 86 93

Mathematics


future professionals and managers— for a
workplace transformed by scientific and
technological innovations.

As the value of postsecondary education
has increased across all sectors of
the economy, the percentage of high
school students aspiring to obtain a
bachelor’s, or higher, degree has
increased
dramatically, regardless of sex,
race, or ethnic origin. (See figure 15.)

During the 1980s, despite decreases in
the population of college-age youth,
the number of bachelor’s degree recipients
increased markedly. The number
of science and engineering bachelor’s
degree recipients also increased,
although not as notably. However,
compared with nations such as Japan,
South Korea, and Germany, the United

1 8 H I G H L I G H T S

Mathematical sciences

Computer sciences

Physical sciences

Biological sciences

NATURAL SCIENCES
AND ENGINEERING

Business

ENGINEERING

History or political science

Education

Fine arts

SOCIAL AND
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

English

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Percent of students

63

54

51

51

44

41

38

35

32

30

28

15

37

46

49

49

56

60

62

65

68

70

72

85

Moved to other group of majors Remained in same or like major

F I G U R E 1 6
Percent of 1987 first-year undergraduate students in 4-year institutions
who stayed in or switched to other (declared or intended) majors by 1991,
by field of major: 1991

NOTE: Totals may not add to 100 percent as a result of rounding.
SOURCE: Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N.M. (1994). Talking about leaving: Factors contributing to high attrition rates among science, mathematics & engineering
undergraduate majors. Final report to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation on an ethnographic inquiry at seven institutions. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

1980 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

of

students

Graduate degree College graduate Two years or less of college
or vocational

High school diploma or less

1990 1980 1990 1980 1990
White Black Hispanic

F I G U R E 1 5
Percent of high school sophomores
aspiring to various levels of
postsecondary education, by race
or ethnic origin: 1980 and 1990

SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). High
school and beyond, 1980 to 1992.Washington,
DC: Author;
National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National educational
longitudinal study of 1988: Second teacher follow-up study.
Washington, DC: Author.


States graduates significantly fewer persons with first degrees in natural sciences and
engineering.

The slow growth in science and engineering degrees conferred in the United States
may be partially attributed to “major switching,”
which is more prevalent for science
and engineering majors than for any other major. (See figure 16.) While 28 percent
of male and 10 percent of female high school seniors planned to major in one of the
science or engineering fields, by the time they were college seniors, only 11 percent of
males and 4 percent of females actually completed the major.

Another explanation for the slow rate of growth in science and engineering fields
may be the lack of female and minority participation. Females constituted 54 percent
of all bachelor’s degree recipients in 1991, yet they earned only 44 percent of
all bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering. (See figure 17.)

Between 1971 and 1991, graduate degrees in science and engineering increased at a
faster rate than at the bachelor’s level. By 1991, doctorates in science and engineering
constituted almost two-thirds of all doctorates granted in the United States.
Universities awarded about 22,000, or 39 percent, more science and engineering
master’s degrees in 1991 than in 1971 and about 4,500, or 23 percent, more science
and engineering doctoral degrees. (See figure 18.)

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 1 9
77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Number

of

bachelor's

degrees

All bachelor's degrees
Male

Female

Male
Female

Science and engineering
bachelor's degrees

SOURCE: National Science Foundation. (1994). Science and
engineering degrees: 1966-91 (NSF 94-305). Arlington, VA: Author.

F I G U R E 1 7
Number of bachelor's degrees
awarded, by sex and major field
group: 1977 to 1991

1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Associate

Bachelor's
Master's
Doctoral

F I G U R E 1 8
Science and engineering degrees
awarded, by degree level: 1971 to 1991

NOTE: Associate degree data available beginning in 1983.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation. (1994). Science and
engineering degrees: 1966-91
(NSF 94-305). Arlington, VA: Author.

Number

of

degrees


Recent data reveal that equity problems prevail in the postsecondary environment as
they do in elementary and secondary education. While there has been an increase in
the number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans earning bachelor’s degrees
in science and engineering, all three ethnic groups remained significantly underrepresented
when compared with their presence in the total U.S. college-age population.
(See figure 19.)

2 0 H I G H L I G H T S
Black

Hispanic

Native American

1977 1979 1981 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Number

of

bachelor's

degrees

NOTE: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation. (1994). Science and engineering degrees,
by race/ethnicity of recipients: 1977-91
(NSF 94-306). Arlington, VA: Author.

F I G U R E 1 9
Science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded,
by selected racial and ethnic groups: 1977 to 1991

Engineering Science and
engineering Natural sciences, total

Social and
behavioral sciences Non-science and -engineering, total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percent
2.5

5.9

16.6 17.0 16.7
15.4

22.8 24.8

29.1

36.5

1987 1992

F I G U R E 2 0
Percent of full-time instructional faculty who are female,
by field: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (1994b). [Special tabulations from
the 1993 national study of postsecondary faculty]. Unpublished data.


T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 2 1
Between 1977 and 1991, Hispanics earned 55 percent more science and engineering
bachelor’s degrees and Native Americans earned 17 percent more science and engineering
bachelor’s degrees. Still, in 1991, Hispanics, who made up 11 percent of the
college-age population, earned less than 5 percent of all science and engineering
bachelor’s degrees awarded to U.S. citizens, and Native Americans, who made up 1
percent of the population, earned less than 1 percent of these degrees. Blacks, who
made up 14 percent of the college-age population, earned about 6 percent of the science
and engineering bachelor’s
degrees awarded to U.S. citizens.

Underrepresentation is also evident in
the number of females and minorities
who serve as science and engineering
faculty members. Between 1987 and
1992, the number of females teaching
in U.S. postsecondary institutions
increased markedly. Still, females
account for only about 15 percent of
faculty in the natural sciences and
only about 6 percent of engineering
faculty
(see figure 20); they make up
about one-third of all higher education
faculty. Black faculty members
within science and engineering fields
are similarly underrepresented. (See
figure 21.) In 1992, blacks made up
about 5 percent of all higher education
faculty, but they made up only 3
percent of natural sciences faculty and
less than 3 percent in engineering.

1987 1992
Engineering

Natural sciences

Non-science and -engineering

Social and behavioral sciences

F I G U R E 2 1
Percent of full-time faculty who are black,
by field: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (1994). [Special
tabulations from the 1993 national study of postsecondary faculty].
Unpublished data.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Percent
0.5

1.2

3.6

4.8

2.8

3.3

5.2 5.3


Toward The Future
A lthough the syntheses of available statistics presented above, along with the abundance of additional data published in the full report, provide significant insights into the evolution of U.S. science and mathematics education
over the past two decades, many elusive questions remain. It is becoming increasingly

clear that both additional data and new types of data are needed to describe reform
and its impact. For example:

u While available indicators reveal encouraging trends toward greater participation
in science and mathematics by elementary school students and increased
course completion and achievement by high school students, many states have
yet to match their requirements to recommended standards. What are the
obstacles, and what incentives might be needed?

u Since 1978, advances in performance have been observable for students of all
ages and races; yet the pace is slow and uneven. Why is this so? What practices
toward achieving full equity are proving most effective? Where are they
being implemented? Why do they succeed or fail?

u Why do science and mathematics students in some regions of the United
States consistently perform better than students in other areas? Is there solid
empirical support for the notion that demographic factors such as family
income and level of parental education have a profound impact on student
motivation and performance?

Review of available data also shows that critical gaps in information exist with
regard to

u state-level indicators measuring trends in student achievement, course taking,
and teaching methods;

u data on science and mathematics course taking and content in higher education
institutions; and

u the relationship between the planned and implemented classroom curricula.

Finally, comprehensive reports from bodies such as the National Academy of
Sciences and the RAND Corporation suggest additional areas that indicator systems
need to address, including adult literacy, resources committed by governmental and
nongovernmental bodies, and teachers’ knowledge.

NSF is taking steps to address these concerns and fill these gaps by supporting the
development of measures of adult literacy and by considering studies to collect
information on resources committed to science and mathematics education.
However, few measures of teachers’ knowledge exist in surveys of teachers.

2 2 T O WA R D T H E F U T U R E


Long term, the Foundation must take a broader look at ways to characterize the state
of U.S. science and mathematics education. Challenges will include specifying the
indicators for modification and future investigation; reviewing the frameworks that
have, thus far, provided the basis for selecting indicators; and reevaluating the
sources of data that will be available for the next biennial indicators report.

Measuring systemic reform and the progress of this evolving practice will require
new efforts with survey techniques— techniques that measure the relationship
among more parts of the educational system, the sharing of resources, and the public’s
understanding of science and mathematics education in the United States. n

T H E L E A R N I N G C U RV E 2 3


The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The
awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results
for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research
findings or their interpretation.
The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers and
strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any
of the research and related programs described here.
In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds
of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide
funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators
and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF projects. See the
program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636.
Privacy Act. The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority
of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection
with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff
assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or
obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration
of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers, and researchers as necessary to
complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs.
See Systems of
Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigators/Proposal File and Associated
Records, and NSF-51,
60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995). Reviewer/Proposal
File and Associated
Records, 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission
of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however,
may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award.
The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability,
which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about
NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090.

BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
National Science Foundation
Permit No. G-69

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
ARLINGTON, VA 22230
______________
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

NSB 96-53


Page Navigation Panel

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10
 11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20
 21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30
 31  32  33  34