• Introduction
• Major Findings for the Nation
• Results for Participating States and Jurisdictions
• National Results for Student Subgroups
• The Role of Teacher and Student Factors in Science Performance
• Sample Science Questions and Student Responses

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education and is overseen by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). Since 1969, NAEP has been the sole, ongoing national indicator of what American students know and can do in major academic subjects.

Over the years, NAEP has measured students’ achievement in many subjects, including reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, civics, geography, and the arts. In 2000, NAEP conducted assessments in reading at grade 4 and in mathematics and science at grades 4, 8, and 12. In addition, NAEP conducted state-by-state assessments in mathematics and science at grades 4 and 8.

This publication presents highlights of national and state-level results from the NAEP 2000 Science Assessment. Results in 2000 are compared to results in 1996. Students’ performance is described in terms of average scores on a 0-to-300 scale and in terms of the percentages of students attaining three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

Achievement levels provide a context for interpreting students’ performance on NAEP. These performance standards, set by NAGB and based on recommendations from broadly representative panels of educators and members of the public, determine what students should know and be able to do in each subject area and at each grade assessed:

• The Basic level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.
• The Proficient level—identified by NAGB as the standard all students should reach—represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.
• The Advanced level signifies superior performance.

Framework. The NAEP Science Framework used to develop the 2000 assessment (as well as the 1996 assessment) is organized according to two dimensions: Fields of Science, and Ways of Knowing and Doing Science. Three fields of science are addressed in the framework: earth, physical, and life sciences. The ways of knowing and doing science are conceptual understanding, scientific investigation, and practical reasoning.

Accommodations. The design of the 2000 science assessment allowed for the reporting of results that included performance data for special-needs students (i.e., students identified by their school as being either students with disabilities or limited-English-proficient students) who were assessed by NAEP using accommodations as well as for those students who took NAEP without accommodations.

Samples. The 2000 science assessment was conducted nationally at grades 4, 8, and 12 and state by state at grades 4 and 8. National results are based on the national sample and not on a combination of the state samples. The national assessment included representative samples of both public and nonpublic schools, while the state-by-state assessments included public schools only. In total, 47,000 students from 2,100 schools were assessed in the national sample and 180,000 students from 7,500 schools in the state samples.

The Nation’s Report Card: Science Highlights 2000 briefly describes the NAEP 2000 Science Assessment, presents results of the assessment, and provides several sample questions and student responses from the assessment. Results presented in Science Highlights 2000 include average scores and achievement-level performance at the national and state levels, national results for selected subgroups of students, and national results in relation to students’ and teachers’ responses to background questionnaires.

The results presented here include only those students who were assessed without accommodations—whether or not they were identified as special-needs students. Results that include the performance of special-needs students assessed with accommodations are available on the NAEP Web Site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard) .

National results are for students attending both public and nonpublic schools.

This science assessment was first administered to nationally representative samples of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students in 1996. Figure A shows national average scores in 1996 and 2000 based on the 0-to-300 NAEP science scale at each grade. In 2000, the average scores of fourth- and eighth-graders were essentially unchanged from 1996. The only significant change in average score results occurred at grade 12, where there was a three-point decline in students’ average score.

The 2000 science assessment results show few changes since 1996 in the percentages of students at or above any of the NAEP achievement levels (figure B). At grade 4, there was no change between 1996 and 2000 in the percentage of students attaining any of the achievement levels. At grade 8, however, between 1996 and 2000 there was an increase in the percentage of students reaching the Proficient level or above. At grade 12, the percentage of students at or above Basic declined between 1996 and 2000.

An examination of scores at different percentiles on the 0-to-300 scale at each grade indicates whether or not the few changes seen in the national average science score results are reflected in the performance of lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students.

Few changes occurred between 1996 and 2000 in scores across the performance distribution. At grade 4, the percentile scores remained relatively unchanged—indicating little or no shift in the performance distribution since 1996. At grade 8, although the national average score did not change between 1996 and 2000, there was an increase in the 90th percentile score. This finding indicates that some improvement occurred among the highest-performing eighth-graders. At grade 12, consistent with the national average score results, the 50th percentile score declined between 1996 and 2000.

Figure A.—Average science scores, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1996-2000

In addition to national results on students’ science performance, the 2000 assessment collected performance data for fourth- and eighth-graders who attended public schools in states and other jurisdictions that volunteered to participate. The results of the state assessment are for students attending public schools only.

In 2000, 40 states and 5 other jurisdictions participated at grade 4, and 39 states and 5 other jurisdictions participated at grade 8. Not all jurisdictions met minimum school participation guidelines for reporting their results in 2000. Data are presented for each jurisdiction that met minimum participation guidelines at grade 4 in 2000 and at grade 8 in 1996 and/or 2000. The science state-by-state assessment was not conducted at grade 4 in 1996.

Figure C shows states’ and other jurisdictions’ 2000 average score performance at grade 4 in comparison to the national average score for public schools. Of the 44 states and other jurisdictions that met minimum participation guidelines at grade 4 in 2000, 20 had scores that were higher than the national average score, 11 had scores that were not different from the national average, and 13 had scores that were lower than the national average.

Figure D shows that of the 42 states and other jurisdictions that met minimum participation guidelines at grade 8 in 2000, 18 had scores that were higher than the national average score, 11 had scores that did not differ from the national average, and 13 had scores that were lower than the national average.

A total of 36 jurisdictions met minimum participation guidelines at grade 8 in both 1996 and 2000. Of these, 1 state and 2 other jurisdictions showed significant score gains since 1996: Missouri and the Department of Defense Schools (domestic and overseas).

At grade 4, 12 states and other jurisdictions had higher percentages of students at or above Proficient than did the nation, 17 had percentages that were not different from the percentage for the nation, and 15 had percentages that were lower than that for the nation. At grade 8, 17 states and other jurisdictions had higher percentages of students at or above Proficient than did the nation, 8 had percentages that were not different from the percentage for the nation, and 17 had percentages that were lower than that for the nation.

Figure B.—Percentage of students within and at or above achievement levels, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1996-2000

• The italicized percentages to the right of the shaded bars represent the percentages of students at or above Basic and Proficient.

• The percentages in the shaded bars represent the percentages of students within each achievement level.

Figure C.—State versus national average score, grade 4 public schools: 2000

Figure D.—State versus national average score, grade 8 public schools: 2000

In addition to reporting information on all students’ performance on its assessments, NAEP also studies the performance of various subgroups of students. Studying the science achievement of subgroups of students in 2000 reveals whether they have progressed since 1996 as well as how they performed in comparison to one another in 2000.

When reading these subgroup results, it is important to keep in mind that there is no simple, causal relationship between membership in a subgroup and science achievement. A complex mix of educational and socioeconomic factors may interact to affect student performance.

Average scores on the NAEP science assessment are examined for five major racial/ethnic subgroups: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian. For most of these subgroups, average scores in 2000 were not significantly different than in 1996 across the three grades tested. However, scores for two subgroups of students have declined. American Indian students at grade 8 and White students at grade 12 both had lower scores in 2000 than in 1996 (figure E).

Comparing students’ 2000 performance across subgroups indicates that some subgroups had higher average scores than others. At grade 4, White students scored higher than Black, Hispanic, or American Indian students. American Indian students also scored higher than Black students and Hispanic students.

At grade 8, White students had a higher average score than any of the other subgroups. Asian/Pacific Islander eighth-graders scored higher than Black, Hispanic, or American Indian eighth-graders. Both Hispanic and American Indian eighth-graders scored higher than Black eighth-graders.

At grade 12, White students and Asian/Pacific Islander students both scored higher than Black, Hispanic, or American Indian students. American Indian twelfth-graders had a higher average score than that of either Black or Hispanic twelfth-graders.

The large gaps in average scores between White and Black students and between White and Hispanic students have remained relatively unchanged since 1996. None of the apparent differences in these gaps between 1996 and 2000 were statistically significant.

There was little change in the science achievement of racial/ethnic subgroups of students between 1996 and 2000. White twelfth-graders showed a decline in the percentage of students at or above Basic. None of the other apparent differences between 1996 and 2000 in the percentages of students at or above Basic or Proficient were statistically significant.

Comparing the performance of students in different racial/ethnic subgroups in 2000 shows that a higher percentage of White and Asian/Pacific Islander students were at or above Basic and Proficient, compared to the other subgroups. This finding was consistent across the three grades. Data for Asian/Pacific Islander students were not available at grade 4 in 2000 because special analyses raised concerns about the accuracy of the results.

Figure F presents average science scores for males and females in 1996 and 2000. At grade 8, males’ average score was higher in 2000 than in 1996, while at grade 12, males’ average score declined in 2000 compared to 1996.

Comparing scores of males and females shows that males outscored females in 2000 at grades 4 and 8. The apparent difference between the scores of males and females at grade 12 was not statistically significant.

Figure E.—Average science scores by race/ethnicity, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1996-2000

Figure F.—Average science scores by gender, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1996-2000

Between 1996 and 2000, the score gaps favoring males over females widened by three points at grade 4 and by five points at grade 8. At grade 12, the apparent narrowing of the gap in 2000 compared to 1996 was not statistically significant.

Between 1996 and 2000, few changes occurred in the percentages of males and females at or above the Proficient level and at or above the Basic level. The only changes that occurred were among male students. At grade 8, the percentage of male students at or above Proficient increased between 1996 and 2000. At grade 12, however, the percentage of male students at or above Basic declined during the same time period.

Comparing the performance of males and females on the 2000 assessment reveals that there were higher percentages of males at or above the Proficient achievement level at all three grades and higher percentages of males at or above the Basic level at grades 4 and 8.

As part of the NAEP 2000 Science Assessment, students and teachers were asked various questions related to their background and classroom practices. Relationships were investigated between student performance on the assessment and responses to questions about teachers’ undergraduate major, how computers were used in the classroom, and student coursetaking. While these findings may suggest a positive or negative relationship between performance on the science assessment and certain practices, it is important to remember that the relationships are not necessarily causal—there are many factors that play a role in science performance.

Results of the 2000 assessment show that while teachers’ undergraduate major was not related to performance at grade 4, eighth-graders whose teachers majored in science education had higher average scores than eighth-graders whose teachers did not. While these results might suggest that teachers’ undergraduate major has an impact on student performance at grade 8, it is also possible that teachers’ educational background could influence the classes they are assigned to teach, so that teachers with specialized degrees teach classes with high-performing students.

Finding the best ways to use computers to enhance learning has been a challenge to many educators. Results of the 2000 assessment show that fourth-graders whose teachers reported using computers for playing learning games had higher scores than fourth-graders whose teachers did not. At grade 8, students whose teachers used computers for simulations and models or for data analysis scored higher than students whose teachers did not indicate doing so.

Twelfth-grade students were asked how frequently they used computers to collect data using probes, download data, analyze data, or exchange information via the Internet. Of the two-thirds of the twelfth-grade sample taking a science course in their senior year, those who reported using computers to collect data, download data, or analyze data had higher scores than those students who reported never doing so. More frequent use (1-2 times per month) of computers to collect data or to analyze data was also associated with higher scores than less frequent use (less than once a month).

Science achievement has been shown to vary depending on the type of science courses students take. Results from the 2000 assessment show that eighth-grade students who were not taking science performed the lowest (figure G). Eighth-grade students enrolled in a life science course had lower scores than their peers enrolled in earth science, integrated science, physical science, or general science.

Twelfth-graders who had taken first-year biology, first-year chemistry, or first-year physics at some point since eighth grade had higher scores than students who had not (figure H). The performance of twelfth-grade students did not differ by whether or not they had taken general science at any time in high school.

An understanding of students’ performance on the NAEP 2000 Science Assessment can be gained by examining individual test questions and how students responded. The types of questions shown here—one multiple-choice and one constructed-response for each grade—are typical of those used in the science assessment. The tables that accompany these sample questions show two types of percentages: the overall percentage of students who answered successfully and the percentage of students at each achievement level who answered successfully.* The oval corresponding to the correct multiple-choice response is darkened, and sample student constructed responses scored “Complete” or “Essential” are provided. Additional sample questions can be viewed on the NAEP Web Site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard).

Figure G.—Average scores by current science course, grade 8: 2000

Figure H.—Average scores by enrollment since the eighth grade in science courses, grade 12: 2000

Fourth-grade students are expected to be familiar with internal parts of the human body. The following multiple-choice question, which probed conceptual understanding in the field of life science, required students to demonstrate an understanding of the function of the esophagus.

The following short constructed-response question, which probed fourth-graders’ conceptual understanding in the field of earth science, required students to recognize the interaction between the Earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere as it relates to the water cycle. Responses to the question were scored on a three-level scale: “Unsatisfactory,” “Partial,” or “Complete.” A “Complete” response needed to recognize that the Earth does not run out of rain because there is a repeating cycle in which rain leads to evaporation and a recurrence of rain.

Eighth-grade students are expected to be able to perform an activity separating mixtures into their components. The following multiple-choice question, which probed practical reasoning abilities in the field of physical science, asked students to recognize the appropriate laboratory equipment needed to separate a mixture of given composition into its components.

The following short constructed-response question, which probed eighth-graders’ practical reasoning abilities in the field of earth science, asked students to apply the concepts of weathering and erosion to a practical situation involving the deterioration of a stone monument placed in New York City. Responses to the question were scored on a three-level scale: “Unsatisfactory,” “Partial,” or “Complete.”

The following multiple-choice question, which probed twelfth-graders’ conceptual understanding in the field of earth science, required students to understand the model of the solar system as well as to recognize the concept that an object appears larger when it is closer than when it is far away. Knowledge of both these areas was necessary for students to apply the concept of the apparent size of an object depending on its proximity to the model of the solar system.

The following extended constructed-response question asked twelfth-graders to design a step-by-step procedure to determine the density of a metal ring and to specify the necessary laboratory equipment. Responses were scored on a four-level scale: “Unsatisfactory,” “Partial,” “Essential,” or “Complete.” The most common “Complete” procedure is to measure the mass and volume of the ring, and divide mass by volume to obtain the density. The question asked students to demonstrate their ability to design scientific investigations in the field of physical science.

*

IES   

NCES

National Center for
Education Statistics

Join Newsflash

NCES Blog

EdNCES X

EdNCES Facebook

EdNCES LinkedIn

EdNCES YouTube

Explore the Institute of Education Sciences

• IES
• Home
• About
• Publications
• Data
• Funding
• News

• IES Centers
• NCEE
• NCER
• NCES
  • Home
  • About
  • Programs
  • Publications
  • Data
  • Data Training
  • School Search
  • News
  • Kids' Zone
• NCSER

• IES Policies and Standards
• ED Data Inventory
• IES Diversity Statement
• NCES Statistical Standards
• Peer Review Process
• Privacy and Security Policies
• Public Access Policy

•  
• Contact Us
•  
• U.S. Department of Education

• Additional Resources
• ERIC
• Sitemap
• Organizational Chart