National Science Board Research Articles

• U.S. National Science Board releases Science and Engineering Indicators 2012

• U.S. National Science Board releases Science and Engineering Indicators 2012

• U.S. National Science Board releases “Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation's Human Capital”

• U.S. National Science Board releases “Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation's Human Capital”

• U.S. National Science Board releases “STEM Education Data and Trends Tool“

• U.S. National Science Board releases “STEM Education Data and Trends Tool“

Totally radical: From transformative research to transformative innovation

The National Science Board and the US Congress want more federal research to be transformative research. Until now, discussion of what this really means has mostly focused on research, per se, and has not addressed innovation as a complex system. ‘Transformation’ describes changes in society and the economy, not merely changes in science and technology. It entails connections among individuals, institutions, and between research, development, and nascent applications. Serious efforts to transform are totally radical: they span the totality of the innovative process to produce actually radical outcomes, rather than maintain potentially radical activities. Transformative innovation is specifically organized to realize concrete visions of change beyond the research community. Programs that seek to do this cannot rely upon faith in serendipity, but must be strategic. They cannot avoid politics, but must embrace it. Being totally radical about innovation means creating the social conditions within which new technologies can thrive.

Field‐normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD‐Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between‐group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

Developing Effective Mathematics Teaching: Assessing Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Student-Centered Teaching, and Student Engagement

Abstract: The Mathematics Teacher Transformation Institutes (MTTI] program attempts to develop math teacher leaders in part by providing content, inquiry and leadership courses aimed at making them more effective teachers. We assessed progress by observing teacher leaders' teaching practices, and encouraging them to introduce or extend studentcentered pedagogy in their classrooms. We found there was little relationship between our measures of mathematics content knowledge and student-centered pedagogy. But teachers who employed student-centered pedagogy tended to have more highly-engaged math students in their classrooms.Keywords: effective mathematics teaching; math content knowledge; student-centered teaching; student engagement.Improving student achievement in mathematics and science has been a concern in the United States of America since the early 1980s when international tests began showing U. S. students falling behind most developed countries in mathematics and science skills. Many U. S. students do not obtain the knowledge and skills, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which are required for success in the global marketplace of the 21st century (National Academy of Sciences, 2006}.Educators, educational researchers, and policy makers have not always agreed about the reasons for the failure of U. S. students to perform. Some argue many mathematics teachers have inadequate mathematical content knowledge themselves, and thus are unable to teach their students to the highest level (Ahuja, 2006; Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell & Pollock, 2005]. Others (Darling-Hammond, 2007; National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics [NCSM], 2008; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2004; National Science Board, 2006), in part, relate such an educational failure not only to the lack of qualified teachers with solid content knowledge in STEM, but also to a profound lack of understanding of teaching and learning in grades K-12, which may lead to the use of ineffective teaching practices. For Brown and Borko (1992), and Ball and Bass (2000), understanding content knowledge and methods of inquiry in mathematics are at the core of effective teaching and learning. The use of inquiry-based approaches to instruction, in which students have opportunities to construct their own understanding of basic concepts, is thought by many educational theorists to be most appropriate in developing students' understanding of mathematics and science concepts. Such approaches call for teachers to be able to engage students in critical, in-depth, higher-order thinking through use of manipulatives, technology, cooperative learning and other pedagogical approaches that enable students to construct mathematics concepts on their own through reasoning, verifying, comparing, synthesizing, interpreting, investigating or solving problems, making connections, communicating ideas and constructing arguments (Grouws & Shultz, 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). These approaches are characteristic of what is often called student-centered teaching as opposed to the so-called approaches in which the predominant view is that mathematics teaching is a show-and-tell as well as a supervision of drills and practice (Davis, 1988). In this view, it is assumed that learning occurs passively when students absorb received knowledge from an all-knowing teacher or expert. This approach is often referred to as teacher-centered. The Mathematics Association of America (MAA, 2008) argues that in order to prepare students for the increasingly complex mathematics of this century, a student-centered approach to teaching is more appropriate than the traditional teacher-centered approach. The MAA (2008) asserts the need to develop pedagogies that could be used effectively to facilitate students' mathematical abilities. …

Pilot Program for Teaching Earth Science in New York

During the 2009–2010 school year, 40% of New York City (NYC) Earth science teachers were not certified to teach Earth science [New York State Education Department (NYSED), 2011]. This highlights a longstanding shortage of certified teachers, which persists today and prevents many schools from offering courses on the subject, thus diminishing student opportunities to study or embark on careers in Earth science. More generally, the paucity of qualified, effective science teachers hinders student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and research has consistently shown that improving the quality of teaching substantially increases achievement in STEM‐related fields [National Science Board, 2007]. With only 36% of NYC 8th graders scoring at or above the basic level of proficiency in science and with even lower scores for African‐American and Hispanic students [Livingston and Wirt, 2005], the need for more qualified science teachers is clear.

An Empirical Assessment of the Effects of Trade in Innovative Tasks on Innovation Output

Multinational firms are increasingly sending their innovative tasks abroad. The R&D performed by American affiliates of European multinational firms, which accounts for 75% of the R&D off-shored to the US, reached 30 billion dollars in 2008, twice as much as the amount in 1998 (National Science Board, 2012). This paper examines whether trade in innovative tasks provides any gains in terms of firm-level innovation. The causal effects of trade in innovative tasks (i.e. off-shoring R&D or design and engineering activities) on the probability of firms being innovative and the share of innovative product sales in total turnover of firms are examined using an IV approach to address the potential for reverse causality. The data in use comes from the European Firms in a Global Economy survey, which provides cross-section observations for more than 14,750 firms in 7 European countries. The results suggest that those who off-shore their innovative activities are 60% more likely to successfully innovate as measured by disclosed innovation. Also, off-shoring innovative activities increases the share of innovative product sales in the total turnover of a firm up to 35%. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that multinational firms in this sample tend to gain from trade in innovative tasks when such trade is in product innovation, but not when such trade is in process innovation.

The world of science according to performance indicators based on percentile ranking normalization

The academic research performance of the world over the decade from 2000 to 2010 is assessed using indicators of various orders based on quality values assigned to percentile ranking classes. Quality proxies are derived from citation data and quantity proxies from publication data from the Web of Science. Percentile ranking classification is based on the protocol adopted by the National Science Board of the United States for their Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. The percentile ranking normalization scheme is combined with the understanding in terms of higher order performance indicators like quasity and exergy to assess the progress of academic research performance of the world. Both first-order and second-order indicators show a decline of the US and Japan and an increase in impact of China and Asia-8. The EU can be considered as marginally increasing its impact at the aggregated level of all fields.

Around the World

In science news around the world this week, the European Commission wants to tighten its oversight of deep-sea habitat in the Northeast Atlantic, Europe is poised to approve its first gene therapy, the U.S. National Science Board has given the go-ahead to construct the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, U.K. police have ended the Climategate investigation, and a new estimate of deaths likely to result from the Fukushima nuclear disaster has been challenged by radiation experts.

An Integrated Impact Indicator: A new definition of 'Impact' with policy relevance

Allocation of research funding, as well as promotion and tenure decisions, are increasingly made using indicators and impact factors drawn from citations to published work. A debate among scientometricians about proper normalization of citation counts has resolved with the creation of an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) that solves a number of problems found among previously used indicators. The I3 applies non-parametric statistics using percentiles, allowing highly cited papers to be weighted more than less-cited ones. It further allows unbundling of venues (i.e. journals or databases) at the article level. Measures at the article level can be re-aggregated in terms of units of evaluation. At the venue level, the I3 creates a properly weighted alternative to the journal impact factor. I3 has the added advantage of enabling and quantifying classifications such as the six percentile rank classes used by the National Science Board’s Science & Engineering Indicators.

Changing and Evolving Relationships between Two- and Four-Year Colleges and Universities: They're Not Your Parents' Community Colleges Anymore

This paper describes a summit on Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape organized by a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and held at the Carnegie Institution for Science on December 15, 2011. This summit followed a similar event organized by Dr. Jill Biden, spouse of the Vice President, and held at the White House in October 2010, which sought to bring national attention to the changing missions and purposes of community colleges in contemporary American society.1 The NRC/NAE event built on the White House summit, while focusing on the changing roles of community colleges in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. An in-depth summary of the summit was prepared by the NRC and NAE for publication in late Spring 2012 by the National Academies Press (NRC and National Academy of Engineering, 2012 ). This paper provides a synopsis of that report, which is available at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13399, and emphasizes how we can use the report to improve STEM education for our students, but also how much progress still needs to be made to realize this ideal.

The National Science Board Announces Recipient of the 2012 Public Service Award

The National Science Board Announces Recipient of the 2012 Public Service Award

Imagination and reason: rival perspectives on science

Much of the flavor of this book can be drawn from its dedication to a short list of ‘‘Scientists of Dedication and Integrity’’, which includes some of the leading climate scientists of recent years. Writing for a general readership, Powell sets out to uncover ‘‘why only half the public accept[s the] ... evidence’’ for global warming, focusing upon ‘‘deniers [who] submit climate scientists to a modern inquisition conducted not in a courtroom but on the front pages of newspapers, on right-wing radio and television, on the blogosphere, and on denier websites’’ (3). Powell, a geochemistry Ph.D. and former member of the US National Science Board, generally does a good job of explaining the fundamentals of climate science and in illuminating the institutional and ideological character of climate denialism. Although not as detailed as Oreskes and Conway’s recent Merchants of Doubt, which focused on the ‘‘template’’ for contemporary denialism provided by the Marshall Institute, Powell’s coverage of denialism is broader and more up to date. While focused upon climate science denial, Powell is also fundamentally concerned, as were Oreskes and Conway, with the broader implications of the attack on established science that climate denialism involves and its intimate association with campaigns such as that of ‘‘Creation Science’’, those against AIDs treatments, and also the effects of tobacco smoke on health. I share these concerns but am inclined to believe that the naive positivist perspective that Powell shares with much of the science community tends to nourish denialism rather than challenge it. This review elaborates this argument in light of those made by Powell. In his introduction, Powell (4) clarifies his use of the term ‘‘deniers’’.

Clarifying Review Criteria

Revisions to the two criteria the National Science Foundation uses to evaluate every grant proposal it receives were issued last week by the National Science Board (NSB), the agency’s oversight body. The clarifications are intended to better guide grant applicants in addressing the “intellectual merit” and “broader impacts” criteria as well as to assuage members of Congress about the value to society of NSF’s basic research funding. The revisions are part of a report issued by the NSB Task Force on Merit Review, after a nearly two-year study of the grant review process. NSB approved the report—which also includes principles and guidance on how the agency should use the criteria—at its December 2011 meeting. “NSF is now charged to implement the enhanced Merit Review Criteria, which affects every aspect of NSF’s business,” NSB Chairman Ray M. Bowen writes in a memorandum to the report. According to the report, the intellectual ...

Justifiable Changes to Indicators Survey

The News & Analysis story “New NSF survey tries to separate knowledge and belief” (Y. Bhattacharjee, 22 July, p. [394][1]) discussed the National Science Board (NSB) and the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) call for a reevaluation of the conceptual framework for public knowledge of science

New NSF Survey Tries to Separate Knowledge and Belief

The National Science Board's attempt to distinguish between knowledge and belief in how people respond to a science literacy survey has drawn fire from critics who view the changes as surrendering scientific ground to religion.

NSF's Struggle to Articulate Relevance

Public science today finds itself caught between competing demands: Researchers need autonomy to pursue questions wherever they lead, whereas funders demand that research meet societal needs. The National Science Foundation (NSF) offers a case study of the balancing of scientific autonomy and societal accountability. NSF is charged with funding basic (i.e., nonmission) research. Yet Congress funds basic science in the hope that societal benefits will result. In 1997, NSF added a “broader impacts” review criterion to address concerns about relevance: Justify research in terms of societal outcomes. Over the past decade our nation's concern with accountability has increased, and in response, the NSF recently issued new draft criteria for the review of submitted proposals ([ 1 ][1]). The new plan will require researchers to identify the broader good of their research by selecting from a list of national priorities. No doubt, scientists who complained about the vagueness of the “benefits to society” clause in the former criterion will welcome the proposed changes as providing much-needed clarity and direction to the idea of “broader impacts.” But specifying impacts raises three potential problems. First, the list focuses on economics and national security, but excludes protecting the environment and addressing other social problems. Aside from the consequences of neglecting these areas, this new focus may undermine the attractiveness of STEM disciplines to more idealistic students who are interested in meeting human needs rather than fostering economic competitiveness. Second, under the proposed new criteria, applicants and reviewers are restricted to the provided list of national needs, which will complicate efforts to respond to new challenges as they develop. Third, addressing these national needs is now supposed to happen “collectively.” This reopens the question of whether each individual proposal must address broader impacts. The new criterion thus replaces vagueness regarding what counts as a broader impact with vagueness regarding who is responsible for addressing broader impacts. The new criteria are not without merit. For example, the guidelines on how to implement proposed broader impacts are improved. Once one identifies the national goal to be pursued, the new broader impacts criterion focuses on logistical questions that should be asked in peer review. The proposed changes in the merit review criteria move too far in the direction of accountability, at the cost of scientific creativity and autonomy. The set of principles (in terms of national goals) also suffers from excessive detail at the cost of flexibility. Of course, revising the criteria is a perennial process of renegotiation as cultural values change, and these are only draft criteria and principles. NSF invites comments until 14 July. Both the scientific community and the science policy community need to make their voices heard. 1. [↵][2]National Science Board, NSB/NSF seeks input on proposed merit review criteria revision and principles ([http://nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/06_mrtf.jsp][3]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [3]: http://http://nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/06_mrtf.jsp

Engineering Design: A Foundation for a 21st Century Renaissance

Engineering Design: A Foundation for a 21st Century Renaissance

Design and the National Agenda

On May 19–20, 2011, the Design Frontiers Symposium: Crossing Boundaries, Creating Disciplines was hosted at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, with participants from industry and academia, as an informal forum to discuss and develop ideas and strategies to support design. An organizing theme was the question of whether design is recognized on the national agenda (in the United States but also in other countries) as a vehicle for economic and social progress. Most of the deliberations took place in small group discussions, motivated by some quick idea-generation remarks by a few participants.The guest editorial in this issue is a summary of such remarks that President James J. Duderstadt shared with the other participants. James Duderstadt is President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan. His teaching and research interests have spanned a wide range of subjects in science, mathematics, and engineering, including nuclear fission reactors, thermonuclear fusion, high-powered lasers, computer simulation, information technology, and policy development in areas such as energy, education, and science. He has served on and chaired numerous National Academy and federal commissions including the National Science Board; the National Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee; and the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee on Cyberinfrastructure, and Intelligence Science Board. He currently serves as director of the Millennium Project, a research center exploring the impact of over-the-horizon technologies on society; codirects the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the University of Michigan; and chairs the Division of Policy and Global Affairs of the National Research Council of the National Academies.I am very pleased to host this guest editorial as a view from someone who does not “profess” design but shares the enthusiasm that our community has in the role of design as a discipline that generates knowledge, innovation, and wealth.