In Which Content Areas Are Countries Relatively Strong or Weak?
For purposes of comparison, Exhibit 3.2 profiles the relative performance
in science content areas within the comparison countries, while Exhibit
3.3 provides the corresponding information for the Benchmarking states
and Exhibit 3.4 for the districts and consortia. These exhibits display
the difference between average performance in each content area and
average science performance overall, highlighting any variation. The
profiles reveal that as in the participating countries, students in
many of the Benchmarking jurisdictions performed relatively better
or worse in several content areas than they did overall. For example,
the Benchmarking entities generally approximated the US pattern of
performing better in life science and in scientific inquiry and the
nature of science than they did overall.
In particular, a number of jurisdictions had relatively high performance
in scientific inquiry and the nature of science, including Maryland,
Massachusetts, Chicago, Jersey City, Montgomery County, and Naperville.
Although the difference was not large, physics was the content area
in which the performance of students in the United States was weakest
relative to overall science performance. Several of the Benchmarking
participants also had relatively low physics performance, although
only in South Carolina and the Fremont/Lincoln/Westside Public Schools
was the difference statistically significant.
Differences in relative performance may be related to one or more
of a number of factors, such as emphases in intended curricula or
widely used textbooks, strengths or weaknesses in curriculum implementation,
and the grade level at which topics are introduced. For the Benchmarking
entities, the patterns of relative strengths and weaknesses profiled
in Exhibit 3.3 and Exhibit 3.4 are sometimes reflected in strengths and weaknesses
relative to other countries and the United States (shown in Exhibit 3.1).
