A telecommunications project to empower Kansas elementary/middle level teachers as change agents for integrated science and mathematics education

School Science and Mathematics, Feb 1998 by Slater, Timothy F, Coltharp, Hazel, Scott, Steven A

Evaluation

The overarching goal of this project was to make a long-term impact on the quality and quantity of elementary/middle level integrated science and mathematics education in the region. Evaluation of this project was conducted by analysis of Likert-style surveys, open-ended questionnaires, formal and informal interviews with participants, and the leadership team's self-reflections. The primary evaluation questions and results described below are reported in terms of the three principle phases of the project. An exhaustive evaluation report is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Developing Lead Teachers

Modeled after Carpenter (1996), Rischbieter, Ryan, & Carpenter (1993), and Slater (1994), the workshop presented to the lead teachers modeled effective constructivist pedagogy and used portfolio-style assessment strategies (Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Zeidler, 1993). The primary evaluation question was, "Did lead teachers report an increase in their knowledge of unifying science concepts and processes, mathematical concepts, and authentic assessment strategies called for in national reform movements?" Pre- and postworkshop, 15-item, Likert-style surveys demonstrated a significant increase in the mean lead teachers' self-reported knowledge of science and mathematics national curricular and assessment reforms (x^sub pre^= 2.0; x^sub post^ = 3.9; scale 1 to 5). A t-test of significance indicates the increase was statistically significant, insofar as the survey could measure (p

Through open-ended questionnaires, nine of the lead teachers reported that they knew of "hands-on" instruction and portfolios but did not know how to implement these strategies in their classrooms. Five lead teachers specifically noted that peers, administrators, and local newspapers recognized their appointment as project lead teachers and made them feel distinguished.

The authors observed that the lead teachers were reluctant to integrate science and mathematics concepts. The teachers initially found the mathematics activities and manipulatives to be far more attractive than the science manipulatives. This might be an artifact of an often-noted higher emphasis on arithmetic than science found in many elementary schools. Possibly, the integrative activities cannot be used in a routine or superficial manner. It is also possible that the workshops did not enable the lead teachers to develop an indepth understanding of integrated activities. Regardless, the workshop leaders had to make a concerted effort to continually demonstrate that many manipulative-based activities have elements of both science and mathematics. The teacher leaders reported that they felt most successful at integration by asking participants to identify which portions of activities were science-based and which portions were mathematics- based; such discussions highlighted the connections between disciplines.

The authors further observed that during the subsequent workshops conducted by the lead teachers, presenters chose to model instructional approaches instead of lecturing; lead teachers emphasized using the manipulatives during the workshop. This is consistent with the "truism" in education that teachers teach as they have been taught (cf. Wagner, 1993).