text:
A Report Prepared for the
Arizona Board of Regents
The Delta Group, Inc.
137 East San Miguel
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 263-0073
February 13, 1985
Eight projects designed to improve the effectiveness of
mathematics and science teachers in elementary and secondary
schools in Arizona were implemented during 1984 and will be
completed by August 1985. Approximately 550 teachers
representing communities throughout the state attended programs
and specially designed institutes that were held at the three
state universities.
The projects addressed the problems of mathematics and
science teaching from several viewpoints: improving the content
knowledge of teachers, improving methods of teaching, and
improving student attitudes and interest.
interviews with
major goals and
of project part
from the evaluation of these projects, a
project directors, participants, and
demonstrated that the projects achieved
that the content knowledge and teaching
icipants have been enriched.
.nd from
Most participants would not have been able to enroll in the
projects without the financial support that was provided by
these eight grants.
Method ........................................................1
Evaluation by Project .........................................2 Mathematics and Diagnostic Teaching Program ...............2 Purpose ..............................................2 Implementation. ......................................3
Evaluation ........................................... 4
Survey of Participants ................................ 5
Survey of Administrators ............................... 7
Conclusions and Comments .............................. 7
Problem Solving for Secondary School Teachers ............. 8 Implementation .......................................8
Evaluation ....................................ma..9. e.
Survey of Participants .............................. 10
Survey of Administrators ............................ 12
Conclusions and Comments ............................. 12
Pilot Program for Increasing the Number of Proficient
Teachers (INPT) .......................................... 12 Purpose .............................................1 3 Implementation ......................................1 3
Evaluation ........................................ *.14 Survey of Participants ..............................1 4
Survey of Administrators ............................ 15
Conclusions and Comments ............................ 16
Improving the Effectiveness of High School Chemistry
and physics Teachers ................................... *.16
Purpose ............................................. 17
Implementation ...................................... 17
Evaluation ........................................ ..18
Survey of Participants .............................. 19
Survey of Administrators ............................ 20
Conelusions and Comments .........................
Teaching Methods in Secondary School Science ............. 20
Purpose ............................................. 21
Implementation ...................................... 21
Evaluation ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . 22
Survey of Participants .............................. 23
Survey of Administrators ........ .................... 23
Conclusions and Comments ............................ 23
Making Math Count ........................................2 4 Purpose .............................................2 4 Implementation. .....................................2 5 Evaluation ..........................................2 6 Survey of Participants ..............................2 7 Survey of Administrators ............................2 7 Conclusions and Comments ............................2 8 Teacher Improvement in ath he ma tics ducat ion (TIME). .....2 8
Purpose ............................................. 29
Implementation ...................................... 29
Evaluation .......................................... 30
Survey of Participants .............................. 30
Survey of Administrators ............................ 31
Conclusions and Comments ............................ 3 1
Science Inservice Training ............................... 32
Purpose ............................................. 33 Implementation ......................................3 3 Evaluation ..........................................3 5
Survey of Participants in Summer Institutes ......... 35
Survey of Participants in Local Science Inservice
Classes ..................................*........... 37
Survey of Administrators ............................ 37
Conclusions and Comments ............................ 38 General Conclusions ..........................................3 8
Success of the Projects .................................. 38
Reactions of Participants to the Projects ................ 39
Reactions of Administrators to the Projects .............. 40
Recommendations for Future Projects ...................... 40
General Comments ................................*...... . . 4 1
One Final Observation ............................... 4 1
Appendix A .............................................*.....4 3
Appendix B ...................................................4 5
Appendix C ...................................................5 0
Appendix D ................................................. * * 5 3
Evaluation of the eight mathematics and science projects
comprised six steps: a review of the files, on-site interviews
of the project directors, site visits to two project
participants in their classrooms, telephone interviews of a
sample of the project participants, compilation of the results
of an evaluation questionnaire administered to teachers
participating in local inservice classes, and telephone
interviews with school administrators. Evaluation activities
were conducted during the period of late November 1984 through
mid-February 1985.
The review of the files covered the original proposals, any
publicity material prepared for the projects, and quarterly
reports submitted by the project directors. The quarterly
reports varied in content but generally contained one or more of
the following: progress reports, project evaluations by both
directors and participants, and various pre-project and
post-project questionnaires designed to assess changes in
content knowledge and attitudes.
An interview schedule was used to guide the on-site
discussions with the project directors (see Appendix A). The
schedule was intentionally open-ended to allow for discussion of
factors unique to each project and review of the materials used.
One psoject,the Mathematics Diagnostic Teaching Project at
the University of Arizona, featured in-classroom observation and
consultation for the participants in addition to the coursework
conducted at the university. For this project the reviewers
made classroom visits to two of the participants to observe both
their teaching and the supporting consultation provided by the
project staff .
The views of participants in each of the eight projects were
obtained in two different ways. In-depth telephone interviews
were conducted with a sample of the participants of all eight
projects except the 333 teachers attending the local inservice
courses as part of the Science Inservice Training project
conducted by Drs. Lawrenz, Gordon, and Horak. Of the 201
telephone calls that were initiated, 61 interviews were
completed, a sample of 26 percent of the 235 participants
involved. The interviews each lasted from 25 to 35 minutes and
were conducted using the questionnaire in Appendix B.
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
The views of the 333 teachers attending the local inservice
courses as part of the Science Inservice Training Project were
surveyed by compiling their responses to an anonymous
questionnaire administered by the project directors at the close
of the fall 1985 classes. These questionnaires were delivered
straight to The Delta Group for review before being returned to
the project directors to be tallied for their own evaluation.
The items seleced from the questionnaire for this review are
shown in Appendix C, along with tallies of responses to each
Finally, telephone interviews were conducted with
administrators of the schools in which project participants are
teaching. The interviews, each lasting 15 to 20 minutes, were
conducted using the schedule in Appendix D. Of the 163
telephone calls initiated, 51 interviews were completed, a
sample of 22 percent of the 231 schools involved.
Mathematics and Diasnostic Teachinq Proqram
Dr. Carol Larson
University of Arizona
Thirty elementary teachers took two graduate courses during
the fall of 1984: Mathematics Diagnosis and Remediation
(ELEM 632) and the Mathematics Practicum (ELEM 694). For the
practicum two teaching assistants, under the direction of
Dr. Larson, helped the teachers implement the diagnostic
teaching methods in their own classroom during the fall of 1984
and continuing on a bi-weekly schedule through the spring of
1985. Also during the spring of 1985 the teachers will
participate in three one-day follow-up workshops to exchange
ideas and to polish their skills in diagnosing, sequencing, and
organizing for mathematics instruction. A sum of $28,500 was
granted to support the project.
Students in any heterogeneous classroom differ greatly in
their abilities and achievement in mathematics and in their
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
attitudes toward mathematics. Teachers must be able to assess
these differences and to design effective instructional programs
for students at all levels. Grouping for specific needs is a
useful strategy for differentiating instruction, but most
elementary teachers have had little or no training in grouping
or in classroom management for grouped and individualized
instruction in mathematics. Teachers need not only new ideas
and techniques but also on-going support for trying the new
techniques in their classrooms.
Information on implementation for all the projects was
obtained from quarterly reports and from interviews with project
directors and participants. Participant teachers were recruited
during March and April 1984 through program descriptions
circulated to teachers and school department heads by graduate
students and professors in elementary education. Sixty-two
teachers applied, an unprecedented number for a graduate course
in mathematics education. Dr. Larson attributed the high number
of applicants to the fact that tuition was to be waived under
terms of the grant. This impression was confirmed by the
participants interviewed.
A panel of three educators selected the 30 participants
based on an effort to obtain a broad geographic distribution
within the Tucson area and a range of backgrounds in
mathematics. This range indeed was achieved. Some participants
have masters degrees and many years of teaching, while others
have been teaching for only one or two years. A broad
geographic distribution was also achieved, thus ensuring a
spread in the socioeconomic status of the students taught by the
project participants.
Instruction began in August 1984. Shortly thereafter the
two teaching assistants began regular on-site observation and
consultation with each participant to help implement the new
techniques in their classrooms. Although not originally
planned, these on-site visits are continuing during the spring
of 1985 because both the project staff and the participants have
found them to be critical to the success of the project. The
three one-day workshops are scheduled for February 6, March 4,
and April 29, 1985.
Three graduate credits were granted for the diagnostic
methods course and one credit for the practicum. Course
requirements included a final examination and a final report on
implementation of the program by each participant in his or her
classroom. Course requirements and instructions for preparing
page 3
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
the final report were outlined clearly and thoroughly in advance
by the project director.
So far, the project has been implemented exactly as proposed
and as advertised to the participants, except that even more
on-site assistance is being provided. The only change from the
proposal is in scheduling: the project began in the fall of
1984 instead of the spring due to a delay in approval of the
Information on evaluation of all the projects was obtained
from the project directors through quarterly progress rep rts
and personal interviews. During the last week in August 1984,
participants in this project completed a preliminary
questionnaire describing their current curriculum, methods of
diagnosis, teaching activities, and ways of differentiating
instruction. A similar questionnaire was to be administered in
December 1984 and again in May 1985. Final program evaluation
will be based on a comparison of responses to all three
questionnaires plus the information recorded during on-site
visits by the teaching assistants. Dr. Larson also has planned
a further comprehensive evaluation of the continuing effects of
the project after one year has elapsed and will include personal
interviews with all participants.
Results of the December questionnaire have not yet been
tabulated, and evaluation has therefore only begun.
Nevertheless, the project staff had several observations to
share :
1. The participants are now using commercial
textbooks more as a resource than as the backbone
of their mathematics instruction.
2. The participants have become more active in the
planning of instruction, in the assessment of
student skills, and in the use of a wide variety
of materials and activities.
3. The participants have begun to group students by
skill needs, employing at least two groups and
sometimes three.
4. The participants are beginning to use manipulative
materials effectively. In fact $60,000 was spent
in 1977 to supply local schools with geoboards and
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Base-10 materials, but the materials are only now being brought
out of their wrappings and put to use.
5. The participants have developed a strong support
network among themselves for the sharing of ideas
and activities.
On-site visits and telephone interviews with participants fully
confirmed these observations by the project staff. On-site
visits also confirmed that the course techniques appear to be
equally effective with students of both high and low
socioeconomic status.
Interviews included on-site clasroom observations of two
participants and extended telephone discussions with others
using the questionnaire in Appendix B as a basis. Information
from the discussions and reported in earlier sections above will
not be repeated here.
All participants expressed very strong enthusiasm for the
project and the project staff, in spite of what was perceived as
a heavy workload imposed during the school year. Without
exception the participants felt that the contribution of the
project to their teaching and to their students1 achievement far
exceeded their expectations. All reported that their students
are expressing increasing enjoyment of mathematics and that many
have experienced a complete reversal of previously negative
attitudes toward mathematics. All participants interviewed plan
to urge their colleagues to enroll if the project is offered
The two third-grade teachers observed on-site were using
successfully several key techniques of the project, including
grouping for instruction and the use of manipulative materials
to explain place value. Instruction was orderly and lively at
the same time, and the students in both classes participated
with vigor. Neither teacher had yet developed a satisfactory
system for recording and responding to student errors occurring
in those student groups working independently, but one teacher
and both project staff members were aware of the problem and had
made plans to deal with it.
Recruitment. participants enrolled because of a clear sense
of inadequacy or stagnation in the teaching of mathematics.
Only one enrolled solely on the advice of her school principal.
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Participation. All interviewed mentioned that such an
intensive course was a heavy burden to carry during the school
year, but without exception they felt the benefits of immediate
application in their classrooms, with sustained support and
assistance from the project staff, far outweighed the
None felt they would have been able to participate without
the tuition waivers provided by the project grant. Two,
however, said that had they known beforehand how exceptionally
valuable the project would be, they would have raised the money
for the tuition themselves.
District support. All participants received support from
their local schools or districts in the form of letters of
recommendation, professional credit, credit toward salary
increases, and released time for the three spring workshops.
Some also received financial help from their schools to stock
their classrooms with resource and manipulative materials, while
others had to provide these out of their own pockets.
None of the those interviewed were expected to train fellow
teachers this year, although most planned to do so next year
after the project is over. All have been sharing ideas with
their fellow teachers.
Quality of the Droqram. As classroom teachers of elementary
mathematics, all the participants felt that the program not only
met their perceived needs but far exceeded them. specifically
mentioned were help in grouping, classroom management of
individualized instruction, strengthening of their own
understanding of concepts in mathematics, help in teaching
problem-solving skills, help in using manipulatives, and new
ideas and resources for mathematics activities.
All considered the project to be very well-organized and the
staff to be exceptionally well-prepared and skilled in all areas
being taught. Most felt the time allotted for the workload
could have been extended but realized that that might have been
impractical during the school year. All were impressed with the
abundance, variety, and creativity of the materials and
activities presented.
The participants expressed particular gratitude for the
ready and useful help provided by the project staff. All felt
that one of the most beneficial aspects of the project was this
classroom follow-up, which provided both support and incentive
to use the techniques taught in the course.
Course follow-up. Participants urged the continuation of
page 6
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
personal consultations and workshops beyond the duration of the
project, and two said that any activity involving Dr. Larson and
her staff would be helpful--anytime and anywhere.
Utility of the prosram to present classroom teachins. All
participants reported using all techniques presented in the
project, although some were using only two skill groups as yet,
not the three groups advocated by Dr. Larson. All found the
course content to be directly useable in the form in which it
was presented even though the participants taught a range of
grade levels from one to six.
Survey of Administrators
Telephone interviews were conducted with administrators of
schools in which the project participants are presently
teaching. The administrators were unanimous in their praise of
the project. All but one had urged their teachers to enroll
because the project was to be directed by Dr. Larson, for whom
they had a very high regard. Apparently Dr. Larson has been
especially helpful to school districts in the Tucson vicinity in
updating and improving their mathematics curricula.
All administrators reported that their teachers were using
the project ideas and techniques in their own classrooms and
were sharing ideas with their fellow teachers. Several
administraors reported that enthusiasm for the techniques had
generated a new excitement about mathematics in both teachers
and students. The administrators cited the classroom follow-up
as being one of the most helpful aspects of the project.
All administrators said they would welcome similar projects
and would urge their faculties to apply. It is just this kind
of program, they felt, that infuses a new spirit of interest and
confidence into the teaching of mathematics.
Conclusions and Comments
From every perspective this project has succeeded both in
achieving its purpose and in meeting the needs of its
participants. Key factors in its success include:
1. skill and dedication of the project staff,
2. careful planning by the project staff,
3. high level of utility of the course content,
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
4. appropriate mix of theory and practical
5. project format.
The last factor, project format, needs elaboration. The
distinguishing characteristic of this particular project is the
on-site follow-up and support of each teacher by the project
staff. Paradoxically, this in-classroom follow-up both ensured
the project's success and limited its scope. Unless a project
director can tap several skilled teaching assistants, the number
of participants in such a project must be limited to enable the
project staff to carry out the on-site activities. Furthermore,
and for similar reasons, the location of any comparable project
would be restrictd to university environs or to a well-staffed
outreach location of a university. These limitations could be
overcome, however, if university budgets or project funding were
generous enough to permit hiring qualified staff and locating
them temporarily in more isolated regions of Arizona.
This project clearly merits replication in other areas of
Arizona. But farsighted action by funding agencies will have to
be taken if benefits are to extend beyond its present location.
Problem Solvins for Secondary School Teachers
Dr. Elias Toubassi
University of Arizona
Twenty secondary mathematics teachers participated in a
five-week summer institute that focused on three areas:
1) problem solving with microcomputers, 2) exploratory problem
solving as a classroom teaching method, and 3) the application
of mathematics in real-world situations. Participants attended
three courses to earn a total of seven graduate credits. The
courses taken were: Computers in Senior High Mathematics (3
units), Exploring Problem Solving (3 units), and the Mathematics
Practicum (1 unit).
Participants represented twelve state-wide communities, and
the non-Tucson residents were housed on the university campus.
The amount funded for this project was $24,078.
Brochures were mailed to all high schools and district
offices in Arizona to announce the Institute course offerings
and to elicit applications from teachers. Each application ha'd
.Page 8
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
to include a vita, letter of interest, letter of recommendation,
and a letter from the principal or supervisor stating his or her
willingness to provide post-institute opportunities for the
teachers to share ideas and materials with their colleagues.
The rigor of the application process was intended to attract
participants who were committed to the use of mathematics as a
problem-solving tool. Twenty participants were selected in
April; 16 of the 20 were certified in mathematics.
Institute classes were held daily from 8:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. from June 11 to July 13, 1984. Participants were
required to submit a final paper for each of the three courses.
This requirement for Itthree papers in five weekstt was not stated
in the brochure and thus was not well-received by the
participants as reported in their telephone interviews. With
this one exception, all course work was implemented as proposed
and advertised to the participants.
Participants in the Institute nave been invited to attend a
one-day conference for an exchange of ideas and to assess the
impact of the program. The conference will be held in June of
1985 on the Univerity of Arizona campus. A grant from the
University of Arizona Foundation will provide room, board, and
travel expenses for the participants.
In on-site interviews with Dr. Toubassi and Dr. Stevenson
during December 1984, they described the Institute as #lone of
the most successful in their entire teaching experience.It
According to both directors, special interactive dynamics were
built up due to the fact that most of the participants lived
together on one floor of a university dormitory. The
participants supported this conclusion in telephone interviews
by stating that they worked and socialized together Igjust like a
family unit.I1 One participant wrote, nPeople in town should
have option [sic] of staying in dorm.It Clearly, group cohesion
was enhanced by the close daily proximity of most participants
living together in a dormitory. These group dynamics
contributed significantly to the overall success of the
An evaluation questionnaire was completed by the
participants at the conclusion of the Institute in July 1984.
The questionnaire included 42 items of information ranging from
educational and employment background to course evaluation.
Generalized comments from the questionnaire indicate results
such as:
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
1. courses lived up to participant expectations;
instructors presented the material clearly;
3. material was well organized;
4. assigned projects were helpful;
5. most participants would recommend the courses to
6. all participants would like to see the Institute
continued next summer.
The proposed Institute Evaluation by Staff (Davidson,
Goodman, Stevenson, and Toubassi) was accomplished by informal
dialogue between Dr. Toubassi and Dr. Stevenson. There was no
written report.
A Phase Two Evaluation questionnaire was sent to
participants in January 1985. The purpose of this evaluation
was to ascertain the extent to which participants have actually
implemented Institute course ideas and used Institute materials
in their own school settings. Results from this questionnaire
will be included in the final report to be submitted to the
Board of Regents on May 1, 1985.
Survey of Participants
In-depth interviews were conducted by telephone using the
questionnaire in Appendix B. A summary of the responses of all
participants interviewed follows.
Recruitment. The program was well advertised by sending
brochures to the high schools and district offices throughout
Arizona. This method was seen as effective by the participants.
Participation. As previously described, the out-of-town
participants voiced no objections to living in Tucson for five
weeks. Twelve of the participants indicated that they would not
have been able to attend the Institute unless financial support
had been provided.
District support. Applicants to the program were required
to include some statement about their willingness to share ideas
and materials with their colleagues when returning to school in
page 10
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
the fall of 1984. Project participants agreed that sharing of
this sort among teachers is very helpful as well as effective.
Quality of the prosram. Participants were very enthusiastic
about the fact that the Institute had been worthwhile. They
stated that the program was well organized and the instructors
were prepared. The course in Exploratory Problem Solving was
valued highly by all participants. The computer course was
criticized due to the wide range of student background and
ability in the class. Participants strongly recommended
grouping the class into several ability levels to enable more
advanced students to work at their own pace. The Mathematics
Practicum was considered useful; however, participants felt it
required too much work for only one credit. Participants were
given help when needed, and the level of difficulty of the
classes and assignments was considered to be appropriate both to
student abilities and to the purposes of the Institute.
Course location and facilities. Living away from home or
commuting was not a problem for any participant. Dormitory life
was viewed as enormously helpful to the learning process.
Utility of the Prosram to present classroom teachinq. Many
of the participants are applying concepts that they acquired
from the class in exploratory problem solving. As teachers they
feel more enthusiastic about mathematics and are using more
high-interest approaches in their classrooms. One participant
stated, nThe concept of how to attack math was grasped!" Also,
teachers gained a great deal of useful information for computer
applications in their classrooms. One teacher reported using
the microcomputer as an extended blackboard.
Recommendations for future prosrams. Most participants
wanted to see the same format used again. The team of
instructors was seen as providing a balanced approach.
Suggested new topics included courses such as number theory, a
review of calculus, using computer programs with graphics,
geometry, and beginning programming. A redistribution of the
Institute's seven credits was proposed as follows:
computer programming ................. 2 credits
computer software....................2 credits
exploratory problem solving .......... 2 credits
practicum ............... e.O.e........l credit
participants expressed the need for such an institute to
page 11
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
continue, and many of them had already told colleagues and
less-experienced faculty to be sure to inquire about the
potential for such an Institute in the summer of 1985.
Survey of Administrators
In January 1985, letters were sent by the project directors
to inform school principals that participants had successfully
completed the Institute. As part of each participant's
application, administrators had written letters to express their
willingness to provide teachers with opportunities for sharing
the knowledge acquired at the Institute. The project director's
January letter reminded administrators of this commitment.
During telephone interviews, several principals indicated
that the commitment had not been upheld. While all principals
reported initially supporting participant applications,
approximately 40 percent of the administrators had neither
observed in the participants' classrooms nor discussed the value
of the Institute.
Administrators expressed positive attitudes toward the
program in general because teachers had the opportunity to grow
and learn about how to teach mathematics. Many administrators
noted that the participants were demonstrating more
self-confidence as a result of the Institute courses. The
principals were unanimous in concluding that one teacher's new
ideas and enthusiasm can stimulate other faculty members or even
an entire mathematics department.
Conclusions and Comments
Instructors and participants alike felt the project was a
success and provided positive growth experiences for all.
Furthermore, the skills learned have since filtered back to 20
different school districts throughout the state. Students in
high-school mathematics classes have benefited from the
increased knowledge and skills of their teachers. Continuation
of the program would extend its benefits to many more teachers
of high-school mathematics in Arizona.
Pilot Proqram for Increasins the Number of
Proficient Teachers (INPT)
Dr. Lehi Smith
Arizona State University
Twenty teachers from the Phoenix area were selected by their
district administrators to participate in a two-year program to
page 12
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
become certified in mathematics. Prior to enrolling in the INPT
program, these teachers were certified and taught in other
subject areas such as history, remedial reading, home economics,
and elementary education. Since the fall of 1983, classes have
been held at night in a Scottsdale high school during the school
year and will continue on the campus of Arizona State University
through the summer of 1985. When completing this program,
participants will have earned 30 undergraduate credits in
mathematics and computer science. Although INPT began in 1983,
funding of $17,500 from the Arizona Board of Regents provided
tuition and textbooks for participants during the summer and
fall of 1984 and will continue to do so through the spring and
summer of 1985.
There is a continuing shortage of adequately prepared
mathematics teachers. In close cooperation with the Mesa
Unified District, the Scottsdale Unified District, the Paradise
Valley Unified District, the Phoenix Union High School District,
the Glendale Union High School District, the Tempe Union High
School District, and the Tempe Elementary District, the
Department of Mathematics at Arizona State University has
devised a program for increasing the number of well prepared
mathematics teachers.
Dr. Smith contacted the district superintendents to discuss
the program features. Each district then identified experienced
teachers who had distinguished themselves as accomplished
teachers in areas other than mathematics. These teachers had
limited backgrounds in mathematics but showed potential for
In the fall of 1983 these teachers registered at Arizona
State University at their own expense with the intention of
becoming certified to teach mathematics in junior or senior high
school. They have attended classes for two hours, two nights a
week, during the academic years of 1983-84 and 1984-85, and they
have also attended classes full time over a period of seven
weeks during the 1984 summer session. They will complete the
program in a final 1985 summer session.
The majority of participants have been assigned to special
sections for program course work; however, they have met the
same course standards as students enrolled in regular classes of
the mathematics department. Dr. Smith reported that the
page 13
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
participants are doing very well in their course work. He
credits the districts for having selected such qualified
It is important to note that this project was conceived and
implemented with the full support of the cooperating school
districts. Dr. Smith stated that such a broad-based cooperative
effort between the university and the neighboring school
districts significantly affects the implementation of such a
Initially, participants were screened using a two-hour
mathematics aptitude test in order to determine their
qualifications for undertaking the lengthy and arduous course of
study that was proposed. Other evaluation is based on
examinations in each course the participants take. Dr. Smith
reported that course grades for the participants have ranged
from A's to C's and added that such grades are quite high when
considering the context of a mathematics department. He
expressed the opinion that school district administrators should
also evaluate teachers with measures such as attitudes toward
teaching new content in mathematics or improved self-concept.
Dr. Smith's opinion was supported strongly by the
participants interviewed. One participant reported that the
program I1course work had been a tremendous strain but worth it."
Others explained that the struggle with calculus had not only
helped with teaching algebra but also built up self confidence.
Districts will continue to monitor the success of their
teachers for two years. This information will be compiled and a
final report will be issued to include such information and its
Suwev of Participants
Interviews with the participants revealed a rich and broad
range of teaching experience. Many of the participants had
taught in elementary schools for 10 years or more and were very
enthusiastic about moving into an entirely new content area in
junior high or high school mathematics. One remedial-reading
teacher stated that she was ready for a change and added that
she had never studied mathematics before starting in this
program. Another teacher taught home economics for 18 years
before deciding to seek certification in mathematics. A summary
of responses of all participants interviewed follows.
page 14
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Participation. All teachers felt the course scheduling at
night during the school year and for summer sessions at Arizona
State University was convenient.
District support. District administrators are committed to
participating actively in the recruitment and placement of
teachers who enroll in this program. In fact, if a teacher does
not complete the entire 30-hour program, that teacher receives
no district credit for partial fulfillment with less than the
ten required courses.
gualitv of the program. All participants said the program
was meeting their objective to attain certification in
mathematics. Plenty of help has been provided. In fact, one
participant stated that, "We were a small class and so we got a
lot of extra help."
In general, participants felt that the program was well
organized and that course instruction as well as assignments
have been appropriate for them. Several students would like to
have seen geometry and/or trigonometry taught before calculus.
A refresher course in algebra was requested also.
Utility of the prosram to present classroom teachins.
Participants will not have secondary mathematics certification
until they complete the program in August; however, several of
them are using program concepts in teaching junior-high
algebra. All of the participants are eager to apply for
mathematics teaching positions and are looking forward to
working in new content areas.
Survey of Administrators
In the telephone interviews, administrators expressed
concern about the lack of qualified mathematics teachers in the
Phoenix area. All principals said that this project's
cooperation between the school districts and the university
mathematics department had resulted in attracting and selecting
qualified participants. Many administrators attributed the high
caliber of this program to Dr. Smith's efforts.
The administrators were unanimous and enthusiastic in
recommending that other teachers in their school participate in
the program. One district administrator recommended a needs
assessment in the schools so that program participation could be
expanded to include not only highly experienced teachers but
also teachers who could develop into good mathematics teachers
when given such training as the INPT program provides.
page 15
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Conclusions and Comments
The long-range design of this program and the course content
have proven both rewarding and difficult for the participants.
The program has provided a guided, focused method for the
participants to achieve certification in mathematics while
continuing in their present teaching assignments. Furthermore,
the course of study has not been just "another university
program1'; rather, it has been structured to take into account
district needs as well.
According to Dr. Smith's projections, this program will
"supply state schools with at least 15 fully certified
mathematics teachers at a cost of less than $1150 per teacher--a
rate probably more cost effective than in any other existing
At this time, as the number of mathematics teachers
continues to decline, a program such as INPT demonstrates that
cooperative efforts between the universities and local school
districts can supply part of the need for adequately trained
mathematics teachers. Further, such programs can be
economically feasible.
Improving the Effectiveness of Hish School
Chemistry and Physics Teachers
Dr. Joseph Harris
Arizona State University
This project was designed primarily to provide basic content
knowledge of chemistry, physics, and associated mathematics for
underqualified science teachers or for those qualified in
another discipline, allowing them to be certified to teach
chemistry or physics or both. The project was designed
secondarily to allow qualified chemistry and physics teachers to
upgrade their knowledge, to modernize existing skills, and to
develop lines of communication among themselves and with
university faculty. - Four mechanisms were proposed to achieve these goals: basic
chemistry and physics courses offered during the two university
summer sessions in 1984 and in 1985; a special, non-laboratory
chemistry course for teachers at the university's Alhambra
facility during the fall of 1984 and spring of 1985; a series of
full-day workshops, lectures, and symposia devoted to
special-interest topics in chemistry, to take place during the
academic year 1984-85; and a regular newsletter to build and
maintain communication among science teachers. An amount of
page 16
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
$31,100 was granted in support of the project, largely to
provide tuition waivers for the participants.
The purpose of the project was twofold: to increase the
pool of qualified high-school teachers in the physical sciences
and to upgrade and invigorate the knowledge of currently
qualified high-school teachers. Teaching the same material
again and again, with the same methods and demonstrations, cbn
cause any teacher to lose enthusiasm and consequently to lose
effectiveness. Moreover, in fields that are changing as rapidly
as chemistry and physics are, content knowledge quickly becomes
outdated. All teachers of the physical sciences, therefore,
need a mechanism for continuing education and for acquiring new
laboratory techniques. Furthermore, they need to be able to
exchange insights and ideas, and they need to have ready access
to the university faculty who eventually will be teaching their
own students in order to prepare those students for their
college careers.
The project directors circulated project descriptions to 74
junior-high and high schools in the Phoenix area. From the 48
responses they received, they selected selected 26 to
participate in the two summer-session sequences in 1984. Of the
26 who started, 23 completed the first summer session and 17
completed the second summer session. The project directors
reported that they had expected a heavier enrollment. They
attributed the low participation to the fact that no stipends
were offered along with the tuition waivers. For poorly-paid
teachers who have to supplement their salaries during the
summer, stipends would compensate for the loss of those
supplemental salaries due to enrollment in the course.
All participants interviewed said they enrolled in order to
refresh their knowledge and to get to know other science
teachers in the region. Two enrolled because they also wanted
to meet university faculty and find out what would be required
of their students when they entered the university.
Six credits were offered for each of the summer-school
courses. In addition to the lecture and laboratory requirements
of the courses, which together accounted for five of the six
credits, the participants had an opportunity to conduct special
projects individually designed to address their own teaching
page 17
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
situations. These projects provided the sixth credit for each
The special chemistry course offered at the Alhambra
facility did not include a laboratory section because Alhambra
has no laboratory facilities. Enrollment in this course has
been light. Participants feel they are too tired and have too
much preparation to do in the evening to take difficult evening
courses during the school year. They feel that the best time
for such courses is in the summer.
The workshops, however, have been well attended and
enthusiastically received. Participants accounted for this by
the fact that no homework is required and the topics covered are
timely and very useful for their own classroom teaching.
Several issues of the planned newsletter have been
circulated to project participants. The newsletter is edited by
Dr. Birk but contains articles by several of the project
participants. The newsletter focuses entirely on aspects of
teaching chemistry, rather than on theoretical knowledge, and it
contains instructions for setting up and carrying out
interesting laboratory demonstrations, for obtaining hard-to-get
supplies, and for enlivening chemistry classes in a variety of
ways. All participants interviewed find the newsletter useful.
In response to requests by participants, the project staff
recently has planned a course in teaching methods for the
physical sciences, to be offered in the spring of 1985. It was
not clear whether tuition waivers for that course will be
provided out of grant funds for this project.
No pre-project baseline information was collected on the
knowledge and skills of the participants. The acquisition of
basic knowledge in the summer courses and the Alhambra course
was or will be measured by examinations. The project staff
reported that the same academic standards have been imposed on
the participants as on regularly enrolled undergraduate students
in analogous courses. Under these standards, participants in
the summer courses did very well, with mean scores in the 90s.
Workshops were to be evaluated by means of questionnaires
and by a survey of participants one year after the project is
completed, in order to see how participants are applying their
new knowledge and techniques to their teaching. No results are
yet available to report in this review.
page 18
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Survey of Participants
Participants were unanimous in their judgment that the
project was worthwhile. Some said they were pleasantly
surprised: they had expected to find university faculty cold
and uninterested in the teaching problems of high-school science
teachers. Apparently the reverse was true, and all participants
reported continuing contacts with the faculty by telephone,
letter, and personal visits.
Participation. All participants mentioned that
participation would not have been possible financially if
tuition waivers had not been provided.
District support. Districts generally provided professional
credit toward salary increases. No participants interviewed had
been asked to conduct inservice training for colleagues,
although all said they have shared new ideas.
Quality of the prosram. The participants judged the project
to be carefully planned and to provide even more useful
knowledge, techniques, and ideas than they had expected. The
instructors were always well prepared and, more importantly and
unexpectedly, they were very good teachers themselves who
served as excellent models for teaching and for demonstrating
laboratory techniques.
Abundant help was offered during the summer and has
continued to be available to the participants throughout the
academic year. Both help and assignments were carefully geared
to the backgrounds of the participants.
Course follow-up. All participants have valued the
workshops and newsletters. Some expressed a desire for
in-classroom observation, as well. In-classrooni observation
originally was planned by the project directors, but it has not
been possible due to tight schedules.
Utility of the prosram to present classroom teachins. All
but one participant said they have been able to use the
demonstrations, laboratory experiments, computations, and
formulas directly in their classroom teaching. Little or no
adaptation has been required. The one participant who is not
using much of the material has been teaching life sciences and
not physical sciences this year.
page 19
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Survey of Administrators
All high-school principals interviewed expressed
enthusiastic support of the project. Although one principal had
not visited his teacher's classroom, the others had and all had
discussed the project with their teachers. Those who had
visited the classrooms had noted more emphasis on laboratory
experiments, more efficiency in lesson presentations, and more
self-confidence in the teachers.
All principals expressed a desire for further opportunities
of this kind for their teachers. All would send more teachers
if similar projects were available. One also suggested a
similar project concentrated more heavily on physics.
Conclusions and Comments
This project has been well received by both participants and
school administrators and appears to be achieving its major
goals. The factors that raise it above the level of an ordinary
summer-school offering include:
1. the interest, concern, and dedication of the
project staff;
2. the fact that the project staff are judged to be
both good scientists and good teachers;
3. the continuing workshops and newsletters.
For a relatively modest sum the project is providing a good
service to high-school teachers of chemistry and physics.
Enrollment for the summer of 1985 may be expected to increase as
a result of the favorable reports of present participants to
their colleagues in the teaching field.
Teachins Methods in Secondary School Science
Dr. Anton E. Lawson
Arizona State University
Fifteen high-school science teachers from the Phoenix area
participated in a two-week workshop course, PSE 594: The
Psychology of Science Teaching Strategies (two credits). The
workshop focus was directed toward familiarizing teachers with
the Illearning cycle approach1# used by Dr. Lawson in the course
Methods of Teaching Biology (BIO 480). Presently this course is
page 20
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
the only methods course taught at the university for prospective
high-school science teachers.
As potential supervising teachers for student teachers,
workshop participants learned about the ideas and methods taught
to BIO 480 students and designed a learning cycle. The amount
granted for this project was $5,200, of which $4,272 was paid to
Dr. Larson as one month's salary.
In the proposal for this project, a twofold purpose was
stated: 1) to train practicing secondary science teachers in
methods of teaching science that would encourage scientific
understanding and general thinking skills in students; and 2) to
arrange for these teachers to supervise future student teachers
who have been enrolled in a university methods course
emphasizing the same method of teaching science. This process
thus would provide continuity between what students learn in the
methods course at the university and what they see being
practiced by supervising teachers in classrooms.
Application materials were sent to 39 teachers who requested
them. Twenty-two applications were received and letters of
acceptance were sent to 15 teachers. Dr. Lawson sent out an
extensive six-page application in order to assess teachers1
philosophy and teaching methods. He wanted winquiry-orientedll
and nhands-onw workshop participants since this teaching style
would be most compatible with methods taught in the course.
During the two-week workshop, teachers read selected
articles and used workbooks that emphasized a learning-cycle
approach to science teaching and to the development of
reasoning. Workbook materials had been assembled at a worksh~p
in which Dr. Lawson participated. When asked about the actual
format of the present workshop, Dr. Lawson could not recall the
daily schedule. A participant reported that teachers worked in
groups to explore the workbook materials and design their
learning cycles.
As listed in the proposed timetable, initial assignments of
student teachers for fall 1984 were not implemented. Dr. Lawson
stated that no workshop participant had been assigned a student
teacher for the 1984 fall semester. Furthermore, no plan was
indicated for implementation of participation of supervising
teachers in methods classes as listed for spring 1985 in the
page 21
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Dr. Lawson administered a 12-item pre-instruction and
post-instruction questionnaire to workshop participants.
Results indicated that teacher attitudes were affected somewhat
by their knowledge of methods acquired in the course. They
agreed strongly that high-school science should be taught using
the learning-cycle method and indicated that they planned to use
the ideas and materials developed in the course.
A follow-up eight-item evaluation questionnaire was sent to
participants to assess whether or not they had incorporated the
learning-cycle methods into their science classes. Responses
were received from 11 of the 15 participants. While teachers
felt that learning cycles are a good idea, many of them had not
used them in the classroom due to time constraints. All
participants responded that they were more sensitive to
differences in student reasoning ability. Many participants
suggested that the course was too short to allow them to
complete the writing of a learning cycle. All said they needed
more time to learn about cycles as well as to write them.
Survev of participants
Telephone interviews with teachers elicited information that
was quite similar to the information given to Dr. Lawson in the
follow-up questionnaire. Generally, the participants were very
interested in learning more about methods of the discovery
approach. Again, participants talked about how time-consuming
it was to design and use learning cycles. A summary of
responses of all participants interviewed follows.
Recruitment. The participants learned about the program
from information sent to their schools.
Participation. Participants said that they would rather
have had a four-week program.
District support. Some participants received professional
credit and others received nothing at all. Teachers were not
expected to share ideas with peers; however, several had given
learning-cycle ideas to colleagues who had tried the method and
liked it.
page 22
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Oualitv of the prosram. The program was organized and the
instructor was prepared. The allotted time for the course
definitely was not realistic. As one participant said, I1You
canlt take one method and change it in a few weeks!I1
Recommendations for future prosrams. One participant
observed that the learnins- -c-y cle format is sood for teachers
with experience. He explained that this method requires more
thinking on the part of the student and therefore can create
student frustration, which is a potential problem for
inexperienced teachers. Thus he recommended that only
experienced teachers take part in the program.
Survey of Administrators
During telephone interviews, the majority of administrators
reported that they were not aware of their teachers1
participation in the project. In general, principals explained
that most of the teachers are highly qualified in their fields
of biology, chemistry, or physics. Further, many of the
teachers are tenured department heads and, therefore, are not
observed regularly by the principals.
One administrator who had observed in a participantls
classroom supported the method of teaching science inductively
in stating: tlStudents remember methodology, not facts. The
hands-on approach helps them think for thern~elves.~~
Conclusions and Comments
Use of learning cycles in secondary-school science classes
requires more time because students have not been educated using
a discovery-process approach. In addition to secondary
teachers, elementary teachers need to be trained in such methods
so that young students can learn through an interactive process
across the curriculum. This method must be introduced to
students at an earlier age, preferably in kindergarten, so that
they have some experience with it before they encounter it cold
in a demanding high-school science class.
On the whole, Renner learning cycles represent one part of
the farsighted discovery approach to teaching. Because of their
proven value in developing reasoning skills, they should be part
of any good teacher's repertoire. In that respect, the purpose
of this project was commendable. However, it is clear that the
project director did not consider the difficulty of mastering
this quite demanding method in such a short space of time,
page 23
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
especially in view of the fact that very few teachers were
taught this way themselves and many have no experience whatever
with discovery learning.
Makins Math Count:
A Trainins Institute for Junior Hish Mathematics Teachers
Dr. David Gay
Ms. Deborah Rocker
(Dr. Myra Dinnerstein)
University of Arizona
Making Math Count was a three-week institute for training
twenty-nine junior-high mathematics teachers held in the summer
of 1984 at the university of ~rizona. The summer institute was
followed by a full-day workshop on November 17, 1984, where
participants reported on their classroom use of new techniques.
Four courses were offered at the summer institute: 1)
Mathematics in the Real World; 2) Microcomputers in Junior High
Math Instruction; 3) Encouraging Junior high Students in Math,
emphasizing the encouragement of girls and minorities; and 4)
Revising the ~urriculum, focusing on increasing teachersf
effectiveness in implementing their new techniques. Three
graduate credits were awarded for the summer institute and one
graduate credit for the November workshop. Participants came
from all over the state. An amount of $35,200 was granted to
cover planning costs and salaries for the project instructors
and also to cover expenses for room, board, and textbooks for
the institute participants.
Students have their first real encounter with higher
mathematics during junior high school. It is during this period
that they develop strong likes and dislikes toward the subject,
and it is also during this period that they begin to make
important academic choices that affect their future education in
mathematics. Moreover, junior high is the stage when sex and
ethnic differences in achievement and in academic and career
choices begin to emerge.
The project's objective was to help junior-high teachers
encourage continuing interest and achievement in mathematics and
encourage girls and minorities, who are often Ifmath avoider~,~~
to understand the importance of mathematics to real-life
situations and future job opportunities. To achieve this
objective, the project directors planned to introduce teachers
page 24
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
to the use of computers for problem solving, to new approaches
and methods in mathematics education, and to materials and
activities that can be used to supplement the new approaches.
Participants were recruited by means of a flyer circulated
to schools throughout the state. Junior-high mathematics
teachers with at least three years of teaching experience were
given preference. Participants enrolled for several reasons:
1. this was the first summer program designed
specifically for junior-high teachers of
2. new ideas were needed to enliven mathematics
teaching ;
3. the present junior-high mathematics curriculum
needs revising;
4. Virginia Horak was to be one of the instructors.
Very few of the participants were aware beforehand of the heavy
emphasis on encouraging girls in mathematics. Indeed the
brochure made very little of this aspect of the project.
Nevertheless, all interviewed felt it was a valuable feature of
the program. Both project directors and participants
acknowledged that the major focus of this feature was on
encouraging girls and not on encouraging minorities.
The courses originally were intended to provide six graduate
credits. The university subsequently reduced the credit
offerings to three for the summer--because the institute was
only three weeks in length--and one for the November workshop.
Though the credits were graduate credits, they cannot be applied
toward a graduate degree at the university. While the courses
were modified and refocused significantly for the project, all
had been offered previously either at the University of Arizona
or at the University of California at Berkeley.
The courses were presented substantially as described in the
proposal, except that the computer course was hampered by the
lack of sufficient computers and by the wide range of
participantst backgrounds in using computers. The course
concentrated mainly on the use of LOGO for problen solving and
reduced the original emphasis on software review. Since LOGO is
an excellent educational tool, this narrowed focus was probably
page 25
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
wise considering the short time-span of the institute. The
course was taught by Dr. Davidson rather than by
Dr. Willis Horak, as originally planned (see the review of the
Science Inservice Training Program below).
The November workshop was attended by all participants, and
each one presented his or her plans and procedures for
implementing the institute techniques. All participants
interviewed found the workshop a valuable feature of the project.
Dr. Gay designed the extensive evaluation component of the
project. Several pre-institute and post-institute questionnaires
were administered to determine attitudes toward mathematics,
attitdes toward the roles of women in society and in the
marketplace, and attitudes toward the institute itself.
Evaluations of each corse were also solicited, as well as daily
written comments and suggestions. Participants interviewed found
this last practice very helpful.
Participants were also asked to survey the attitudes of their
own students prior to attending the summer institute and again
prior to attending the November workshop. Most expressed
surprise at the negative results of the first survey and some
satisfaction at the more positive results of the second. In
telephone interviews the participants stated that the results of
those two surveys convinced them of the need for such an
institute as nothing else had.
Finally, all participants were evaluated by assessing the
quality of their work on projects and in examinations. While the
project directors originally stated that graduate standards would
apply to these assessments, they conceded in personal interviews
that the standards were geared more individually to the needs of
the institute participants.
Results of the formative and summative evaluations have not
yet been tabulated. However, an I1eyeballvs1u rvey of the
questionnaires indicates that positive attitudinal changes
definitely occurred and that the institute was effective in
stimulating new ideas and classroom practices. Participants
interviewed by telephone confirmed these conclusions
wholeheartedly. Several stated that the institute was the most
useful and stimulating experience they had had in all their
educational careers.
page 26
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Survev of Participants
Although the project directors reported that one participant
did not respond favorably to the institute, all who were
interviewed by telephone were warmly enthusiastic. In general,
they found that interaction with the other participants,
deliberately fostered by the program format, was as useful and
invigorating a feature as all other aspects of the course. All
reported that their own students relish the new activities and
formats, with some of their students expressing for the first
time an appreciation and enjoyment of mathematics.
Participation. None found it a hardship to live away from
home for three weeks. In fact most felt that this enabled them
to concentrate better on the institute activities.
District support. All received professional credit and
letters of support. Since returning to their classrooms, all
have served as inservice resources for their colleagues and some
have provided inservice workshops for their entire districts.
Quality of the prosram. Except for the computer course, all
phases of the institute were considered to be very well planned
and well taught. Participants specifically pointed to the
outstanding teaching of Virginia Horak and Joyce House. Plenty
of help was provided for all activities and courses were
pertinent to actual classroom teaching.
Course follow-up. All participants felt that the November
workshop cemented the strategies learned in the institute and
provided a valuable forum for exchanging ideas. Some also
characterized the workshop as a reunion, confirming the strong
fellow-feeling that was fostered during the summer institute.
Utility of the prosram to present classroom teachins. All
participants reported using the new ideas and techniques in
other subject areas as well as in mathematics. All felt that
their sensitivity to student needs and differences had been
greatly expanded. Most felt that similar courses should be
required in every undergraduate teaching program.
Survev of Administrators
Administrators interviewed uniformly declared themselves
very impressed with the results. One administrator had not
recommended his teacher for the program since he had only moved
page 27
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
to that school this last fall. However, he has observed her
regularly, and it was clear from his comments that he has seen
her use many specific elements of the project's techniques and
strategies. He was so intrigued by her success with the
strategies that he asked her to conduct several inservice
classes and demonstrations for the rest of the mathematics
faculty. He also ordered many of the materials used in the
project for other faculty to use.
The other administrators, who had originally recommended
their teachers for the project, were equally happy with the
results. The students clearly were thriving under the new
approaches and expressing far more enthusiasm for mathematics
than before.
The administrators said they would send all their teachers
to such a program if that were possible. They were unanimous in
concluding that the project has had a significant effect on both
their teachers and their students.
Conclusions and Comments
In spite of some changes in format and some difficulty with
the computer component, the project appears to have achieved its
original objectives. Participants did indeed learn new and
effective techniques for stimulating their students1 interest in
and appreciation of mathematics. Furthermore, all evidence
indicates that the participants are applying their new knowledge
and strategies with noticeable results.
The project directors would like to repeat the institute for
three more summers, using present participants as panelists and
resource personnel. Such a plan might represent an effective
way of capitalizing on a strong start and of reaching a wider
audience of junior-high teachers of mathematics.
Teacher Improvement in Mathematics Education (TIME)
Wesley J. Rozema
Northern Arizona University
As an extension of the Mathematics certification Program
developed in 1982, the TfME project again provided mathematics
courses and tuition stipends to 58 Arizona certified teachers
during the summer of 1984. The ath he ma tics certification
Program was initiated to respond to the shortage of adequately
prepared mathematics teachers in the elementary and secondary
schools of Arizona. The program consists of 21 credit hours of
mathematics courses, some of which are standard undergraduate
page 28
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
courses at Northern Arizona University while others were
designed specifically for the program with designated graduate
credit. The entire program can be completed in two summers of
ten-week sessions. (It may be worth noting that in order to
meet certification standards of the North Central Association, a
teacher is required to have completed at least 20 hours of
course work in mathematics. Yet to be fully certified by the
state of Arizona to teach mathematics, a teacher is required to
have completed 30 hours of course work. Therefore, while the
program at Northern Arizona University meets the requirements of
the North Central Association, it does not meet the
certification requirements of the state of Arizona.)
Elementary and secondary teachers already certified in areas
other than mathematics worked toward retraining for
certification in mathematics in order to increase the pool of
certified mathematics teachers in Arizona.
In mid-December 1983, a description of the Mathematics
Certification Program, information regarding the financial aid
available through the TIME project, and application forms were
sent to every high-school, junior-high-school, and middle-school
principal in Arizona. Applications for admission to the program
were accepted until March 15, and during that time a total of 92
applications was received. During the week of March 26, 89
letters of admission were sent out, and tuition stipends from
TIME funds were awarded to 60 applicants.
Students attended two five-week summer sessions as
scheduled. Students were assigned to tracks A, B, and C based
on the results of a placement test which is used for all
students entering the Mathematics Department at the university.
Students were enrolled in the following classes:
Introductory Algebra
Intermediate Algebra
College Algebra and Trigonometry
Precalculus Mathematics
Analytic Geometry and Calculus I
Sets and Logic
Statistics and Probability
page 29
DELTA : Math and Science Projects (continued)
MAT 599-4 Mathematical Applications Using Computers
MAT 599-5 Teaching Methods: Algebra and Trigonometry
MAT 599-6 Number Theory
A typical participantfs program was four to five hours of
undergraduate course work and six hours (two courses) of
graduate course work.
During the summer sessions of 1982 and 1983, course
guidelines had been established. The TIME project followed
through with a third summer-school program to provide
mathematics certification for teachers.
Mr. Rozema said that teachers do not expect to work as hard
as they need to in the summer mathematics classes. Teachers who
were the most poorly prepared felt that the program was too
difficult. Mr. Rozema suggested that a more thorough screening
of the applicants would reduce the number of students who were
at Ifground leveln in mathematics. He reported, however, that
teachers in the program did better on final course examinations
than undergraduates taking comparable summer courses.
In October program participants were asked to fill out an
evaluation questionnaire. A summary of the 46 questionnaires
returned was prepared by Mr. Rozema to indicate strengths and
weaknesses of the program and whether or not program
participation has been helpful to teachersf classroom
application of mathematics. Teachers reported that the program
had increased and strengthened their backgrounds in mathematics.
Teachers concurred that knowledgeable and effective instructors
were a real strength of the program. On the other hand, many
felt that course content was too difficult and that too much
material was covered during the ten-week sessions.
Survey of Participants
Teachers agreed with Mr. Rozema that more thorough screening
and placement of students would permit more meaningful
experiences in the course work. A summary of responses of all
participants interviewed follows.
~articipation. Teachers were delighted to leave the heat of
most areas in Arizona to spend five to ten weeks in Flagstaff.
Many said, however, that without funding they probably could not
return next summer.
page 30
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
District support. In general, teachers received salary
increases and yet were not expected to serve as inservice
Quality of the prosram. Teachers reported that although the
program had been difficult, it had given them a better
understanding of mathematics. The program was well organized
and instructors were prepared. Teachers who had stronger
backgrounds in mathematics did not find the courses to be too
Utility of the prosram to present classroom teachins.
Teachers gained enthusiasm and confidence for teaching
mathematics. One participant who teaches sixth and seventh
grade mathematics and had taken only one algebra course
commented, "1 have direction. I can see more of the problems
and how to solve the problems." The participants reported that
they have acquired a better understanding of the concepts
involved in mathematics.
Survey of Administrators
As reported in telephone interviews, administrators were
primarily elementary and junior-high principals. The majority
of these administrators stressed the need for qualified
mathematics teachers at the junior-high level. One principal
indicated that recent recertification of junior-high teachers
has been scrutinized critically by the North Central Association
and therefore has created a lot of pressure on administrators to
be sure that teachers are qualified.
In general, administrators were not familiar with the
content of the project. Further, most of them could not tell
how teachers were using their new mathematical knowledge in the
classroom. All of the administrators, however, were aware that
more teachers need to be qualified to teach mathematics at the
elementary and junior-high level.
Conclusions and Comments
While this program is making a start at training qualified
mathematics teachers, some features of the project and interview
information raise the following concerns:
1. teachers will be considered qualified when they
have completed only 21 hours of courses in
mathematics. While this may be sufficient for
page 31
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
teachers of elementary-school mathematics, it may not be
sufficient for teachers of high-school mathematics. Yet
teachers at all grade levels were lumped together in this
proj ect .
2. there appears to be somewhat more concern for pushing the
greatest possible number of teachers through the training than
for focusing on the differential requirements for teachers
teaching at different grade levels.
As both the interview and evaluation results indicate,
elementary teachers may not need the same course of study as
high-school calculus teachers do. Thus a certification program
should be considered to take account of these differing
requirements, and institutes for teacher preparation should be
designed to meet the certification requirements.
The program at Northern Arizona University appears to have
attempted but not succeeded in accomplishing such a design.
Science Inservice Training
Dr. Frances Lawrenz
Arizona State University
Dr. Gordon Johnson
Northern Arizona University
Dr. Willis Horak
University of Arizona
This complex project was designed to improve the qualifications
and skills of science teachers who are teaching at all levels
from elementary school through high school and who are located
in areas of ~rizona not usually served by the three state
universities. The project has four major components: 1) a
conference for 60 school-district administrators held at Arizona
State university to identify science needs, serve as science
liaisons, and select master teachers to help plan the summer
institutes and local inservice courses; 2) three one-day
conferences of ten master teachers each to plan and develop the
inservice courses; 3) two summer institutes, one for
underprepared science teachers held at Northern Arizona
University and one to train master teachers to conduct the local
insemice courses; and 4) science inservice courses to be
conducted during the winter in scattered locations around the
state. The summer sessions and local inservice courses provided
training in methods of science, science content, computer
page 32
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
applications, and special technological topics. More than 350
teachers have been served by one or more components of this
project. A grant of $75,700 was provided to cover salaries of
instructors, travel expenses, tuition, and other costs arising
from the project.
Arizona, like other states, has too few qualified teachers
of science. Consequently, teachers with limited backgrounds in
science are being asked to teach science classes at every
educational level through high school. The three state
universities have been addressing this problem recently (see
reviews of other projects above), but teachers in remoter areas
of the state have not always been able to take advantage of the
courses provided. This project was designed to meet the need in
two ways: offering an intensive summer institute at Northern
Arizona University for 20 underprepared teachers and developing
a network of 19 insewice courses offered during the school year
in widely scattered regions of Arizona.
The project directors took account of two key considerations
when designing the program: 1) district administrators must be
involved from the start to ensure local support of the inservice
courses, and 2) teachers are the best teachers of other teachers
and therefore must play a major role in planning and
implementing the summer institutes and the local inservice
Because lack of preparation is most acute in the physical
sciences, both summer institutes concentrated on chemistry and
physics. For the same reason, local inservice courses stress
the physical sciences, too, as well as computer applications in
Both summer institutespwere advertised by letters to the
superintendents of all school districts in Arizona. Seventy
districts responded favorably, and 70 teachers applied for the
summer institute for the underprepared while 41 applied to the
leadership-training institute. Teachers who had little or no
science background and nevertheless would be teaching science in
the fall were selected for the institute for underprepared
teachers. Teachers who were identified by their districts as
master teachers of science and who provided a wide geographical
distribution were selected for the leadership-training
institute. When the institutes were conducted in the summer, '
page 33
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
however, it was found that many of the master teachers had very
poor backgrounds in science, a factor that limited the
effectiveness of that institute.
The four components of the project were implemented in
stages after funding was received early in 1984. The first
component, the planning conference for district administrators,
was held at Arizona State university on March 2, 1984. sixty
districts sent representatives.
The second component, the planning conferences for master
teachers, was divided into three regional conferences with 10 to
20 teachers attending each. The first was held at Arizona State
University on March 23, 1984; the second was held at Northern
Arizona University on March 29, 1984; and the third was held at
the university of ~rizona on ~pril 10, 1984.
The third component was the two summer institutes. The
five-week institute for underprepared teachers was held at
Northern Arizona University from June 11 to July 12, 1984, under
the leadership of Dr. Johnson. Classes were conducted in
physics, chemistry, and computer science, and included several
field trips to local science resources such as the Lowell
Observatory. All classes took place in a laboratory/classroom
setting that allowed participants to conduct experiments and
keep laboratory notebooks while developing theory through an
inductive, discovery approach. When interviewed, participants
and project directors alike felt that this laboratory/classroom
orientation contributed to the success of this institute.
The three-week leadership-training institute was held at
Arizona State University from June 11 to June 29, 1984, under
the direction of Dr. Lawrenz. Dr. Horak was to have directed
that institute but he withdrew due to another commitment. His
withdrawal caused a last-minute rearrangement of staff and
course content that may have contributed to the fact that this
institute was less well received by the participants.
The planning for this institute was based on suggestions
generated at the administrator conference and the master-teacher
conferences. The institute provided content instruction in the
physical sciences and supervision of planning for the local
inservice courses to be held during the academic year 1984-85.
The fourth component of the program, the local inservice
courses, began in the fall of 1984 and will be continued through
the spring of 1985. Nineteen courses are serving 333 teachers
throughout the state. These courses were designed and are being
conducted by the 19 master teachers who took part in the
leadership-training institute. It is interesting to note that
these master teachers felt overwhelmed by the content of the
summer institute but are regaining confidence now that they are
page 34
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
in turn teaching the material to their colleagues.
The project directors have undertaken a complex and rigorous
plan for evaluating the program. A qualitative component
comprises participant interviews, questionnaires, and
descriptive portrayals. A quantitative component comprises
pretesting and posttesting on both content and attitudes of the
project participants and of students of fourth-grade and
seventh-grade teachers taking the local inservice courses. A
detailed evaluation report was submitted with the third
quarterly report presenting an analysis of the data collected
for the summer institutes. Other analyses have not yet been
Evaluation of the summer institutes revealed that
participants responded very positively to the underprepared
institute and less positively to the leadership-training
institute. The time allotment of three weeks for the latter
institute was clearly too short to cover the amount of material
planned. The problem caused by the shorter time frame was
exacerbated by the fact that many of the so-called master
teachers were in fact quite underprepared.
Telephone interviews with the participants confirmed all the
findings reported in the project's third quarterly report except
that participants in the leadership-training institute now view
that experience more favorably than they did right after it was
The project directors have visited all inservice classes at
least twice and have found them proceding according to plan.
They also report that informal responses to the local insewice
training courses have been very positive.
Survev of Participants in Summer Institutes
In spite of feeling overloaded at both summer institutes,
the participants all agreed that the project has been a lifeline
to them in teaching science. Now that they are back in their
classrooms, and some are also teaching the local inservice
courses, they increasingly see the value of the heavy
assignments of their summer programs.
page 35
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Participation. Teachers enrolled in the various components
primarily because they were acutely conscious of their lack of
background in the physical sciences. Even those who had
comparatively extensive backgrounds in science knew that they
needed to update their knowledge and acquire new laboratory
techniques. One participant also stated that the project
sounded fun ! It
None found participation inconvenient. In fact those who
had to live in Flagstaff for five weeks felt that that was one
of the best features of the institute because it fostered a
constant interchange of ideas and the development of a
continuing support network.
District suport. All participants were given support,
primarily because the project directors had involved district
administrators in the planning from the start. All participants
have shared ideas and resources with their colleagues, even if
they did not attend the leadership-training institute.
Quality of the Drosram. participants in the underprepared
institute unanimously considered that the program enriched their
science teaching. They returned to their classrooms in the fall
with greater knowledge, stimulating new laboratory techniques,
and over 100 new activities to try with their students.
These participants felt the instructors were very
well-prepared and that all but one were excellent models of good
teaching. Several participants, however, expressed
disappointment with the computer component, which suffered from
lack of equipment and from too great a diversity of computer
backgrounds among the participants.
As discussed above, participants in the leadership-training
institute expressed more reservations about the value of the
program. The wide range of backgrounds reduced the
effectiveness of the classes, and the instructor in science
methods from the Department of Elementary Education did not
provide much theory or guidance in methods. Nevertheless, on a
scale of one to ten, the average rating for program quality was
Course follow-UD. Participants in the leadership-training
institute have had a good deal of follow-up contact with
Dr. Eawrenz as they have been planning and teaching the local
inservice courses. All felt that continuing contact with her
has been one of the most valuable features of the program.
Participants in the underprepared institute have had less
follow-up, but some have been corresponding with Dr. Johnson and
page 36
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
all had a most enjoyable reunion at the Arizona Science Teachers
Conference in the fall.
Utility of the proaram to wesent classroom teachinq. As
noted earlier, participants in both summer institutes found that
the program has greatly enriched their present teaching.
Survey of Participants in Local Science Inservice Classes
This survey was conducted by compiling the results of a
questionnaire administered by the project direcors as classes
ended in the fall of 1984. Items 13 through 23 were selected as
being most relevant to the purposes of this review (see
Appendix C for the items and tallies of the responses).
Most respondents agreed that the course was useful and not
too hard. Most felt that the course provided new methods of
incorporating science into the classroom and that it stimulated
them to spend more time teaching science. Most felt that their
students now enjoy science more and that their teaching has
Laboratory activities were viewed as particularly valuable,
especially in helping to understand the concepts covered. A
narrow majority felt that there had not been too much emphasis
on science concepts.
Finally, most participants found that the material was
presented clearly and understandably. Overall, they concluded
that they would recommend the inservice classes to others.
Survey of Administrators
All administrators interviewed agreed that this project is
outstanding. They had all observed their teachers since the
summer institutes and had noticed several improvements in their
teaching of science, particularly improved efficiency of lesson
organization and presentation and increased self-confidence.
Administrators in those schools with teachers who had
participated in the leadership institute were especially
enthusiastic. They see the multiplier effect of the local
inservice classes now being conducted by those participants as
an extremely valuable contribution of the project. One
administrator noted that his teacher had had to conduct two
separate inservice classes because the local demand had been so
great. The two administrators who had observed sessions of the
local inservice classes felt that the quality of the content
being taught was high, although they did not feel they were in a
page 37
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
position to compare the quality to that of regularly scheduled
science courses at the university.
On the whole, the administrators felt that this project was
a very helpful way to bring better science teaching to outlying
areas of the state. Several said that before this project their
teachers had found it difficult to get to the university centers
to update their content knowledge. Both the fee-paid summer
institutes and the local inservice classes had addressed this
problem very well.
Conclusions and Comments
This project has the potential of making a truly significant
contribution to the improvement of science teaching in Arizona.
Ambitious in scope, it has targeted one of the greatest needs in
this area right now: bringing current theory and methods to
regions remote from the university centers.
The project directors clearly have worked hard to design and
orchestrate a program involving many different groups of people
in widely scattered locations. Furthermore, they have planned
carefully to document the effort at all stages in order to
fine-tune the present project and inform future efforts.
Additional support to expand the project staff--perhaps
through the hiring of qualified graduate teaching
assistants--might help in the monitoring of the locab inservice
courses, which indeed are the heart of this project.
Success of the Projects
While the eight funded projects met their program objectives
with varying degrees of success, six of the projects clearly
were of high quality. One program, the TIME project at Northern
Arizona University, could be considered satisfactory, if not
exceptional, and one program, Teaching Methods of Secondary
School Science at Arizona State University, was not implemented
as proposed.
Projects tackled the problem of improving the teaching of
mathematics and science from several viewpoints: improving
student attitudes and interest (Making Math Count); improving
the content knowledge of teachers (Science Inservice Training,
Improving the Effectiveness of High School Chemistry and Physics
Teachers, INPT, and TIME); improving teaching methods (Problem
Solving for Secondary School Teachers and Teaching Methods in
Secondary School Science); and improving both instruction and
page 38
DELTA: Math and Science Proj ects (continued)
content knowledge (Science Inservice Training). Teachers
throughout the state responded positively to this wide range of
course offerings. Indeed, participants in all projects
reported that their classroom teaching had been enriched and
invigorated by their experiences in the projects.
Participants did not object to living away from home to
attend three-week or even ten-week programs. In fact, dormitory
living enhanced learning because students spent more time
together discussing ideas and course work. They became tutors
for one another and thoroughly enjoyed the temporary relief from
household chores. The opportunity to exchange ideas and to
solve problems together was seen as one of the most successful
aspects in all projects. In this way, summer institutes provide
a forum where ideas and frustrations can be shared, a process
that some participants felt may help to counteract burnout.
Reaction of the Participants to the Projects
All project directors and most participants expressed
enthusiasm for the increased content knowledge and exchange of
ideas that resulted from the project activities. Evaluation
comments were generally positive, and suggestions for change
were insightful and constructive.
Pn general, teachers were excited about their recently
acquired skills. Many of them piloted methods in their
classrooms during the fall semester and also worked with peers
in order to share new approaches with those who had not been
able to enroll in the projects. This sharing of ideas has
extended the impact of the projects far beyond the targeted
Project timelines ranged from two weeks to a year and a
half. Participants thought that shorter institutes should be
extended, and participants in long-range programs felt that
class scheduling was convenient even when it extended throughout
an entire year.
Again and again participants explained that the programs had
been useful for two important reasons:
1. their content knowledge and teaching strategies
had been updated, expanded, and carefully
monitored by university instructors;
2. their own feelings of self-confidence as teachers
had been strengthened by the positive reactions of
their students to their new teaching skills.
page 39
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Many teachers had been aware of their inadequate content
knowledge and were now beginning to feel better about teaching
because they knew they were better prepared.
Reactions of Administrators to the Projects
With few exceptions, administrators expressed overwhelming
approval of the projects. They saw improved teaching in
classrooms and greater enthusiasm among students. They
acknowledged that it was probably too soon to note changes in
the academic achievement of the students affected by the
projects .
Most felt the projects made significant contributions to the
teaching of mathematics and science in their schools. They
would like to see more of these projects in the future, and they
would send as many teachers as they could to attend.
Recommendations for Future Proicts
Project directors conducted ohe or more course evaluations.
Information gathered from these evaluations was used by the
directors for planning ways of improving the programs.
In all projects that offered computer courses, the planning
was surprisingly poor. Both at the University of Arizona and at
Northern ~rizona University, equipment and computer laboratories
were inadequate. Moreover, classes had been scheduled without
taking into account the wide variation in participants1
background knowledge. Directors agreed that in future they
would have to group within ability levels in computer classes.
Seven of the project directors stated quite frankly that
content as well as methods courses in mathematics and science
should be taken in colleges of liberal arts rather than in
colleges of education. Many of the teachers interviewed
supported this view, stating that most education courses in the
area of science and mathematics were of little substance or use.
The notable exception was the course in mathematics methods
directed by Dr. Carol Larson at the University of Arizona.
One project director pointed out the need for working
closely with school districts to create a more cooperative
relationship between university programs and the teachers who
participate in them. Teachers can be more effective if their
university course work is compatible with district goals and
page 40
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
General Comments
Project directors and participants expressed some commonly
shared concerns about inservice training in mathematics and
science :
1. Colleges of liberal arts offer few mathematics and
science courses in the evenings or during summer
sessions, thereby making it difficult for teachers
to upgrade their content knowledge. Several
participants recommended that the state consider
certifying specalists in mathematics just as they
certify specialists in reading. Courses might
then be developed by the universities and offered
at times convenient for teachers seeking the
specialist certification.
2. Inexpensive instructional materials (for
mathematics and science), as well as supplies (for
science), are not readily available to teachers.
In cooperation with university staff, districts
might develop resource centers for developing and
maintaining a circulating supply of materials and
3. Science and mathematics teachers feel limited in
using creative teaching ideas and strategies by
the pressure to prepare students for standardized
tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and
by the pressure to use district-adopted commercial
textbooks. Yet the creative teaching ideas would
probably develop the kinds of reasoning skills and
higher thinking strategies that most educators
consider the true goal of schooling.
One Final Observation...
To improve the quality of mathematics and science teaching
in Arizona, universities will have to continue to attract
teachers to courses and to special projects such as the eight
reviewed here. Yet many teachers cannot participate because
summer is a time when they must supplement their salaries by
taking temporary jobs. In fact, the majority of teachers who
participated in these eight programs stated that they would not
have been able or willing to enrol
page 41
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
State funds supporting these costs therefore appear to have
been well spent. considering the wide impact of these projects,
financial support of this kind may in fact turn out to be an
economical way to improve the teaching of science and
page 42
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Interview Schedule for Project Directors
page 43
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Items from Questionnaire for Participants in
Local Science Inservice Classes
page 50
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Selected Items from Questionnaire for Participants
in Local Insewice Classes
14. The course was useful.
Strongly Strongly Not
Aqree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
102 133 27 5 0
15. The course was too hard.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
40 64 116 47 0
16. The course showed me new ways to incorporate science into
the classroom.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
110 117 31 8 0
17. ~articipation in the course has caused me to spend more time
teaching science in my classroom.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
82 115 44 11 19
18. Participation in the course has caused my students to enjoy
science more.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
73 123 50 6 17
page 51
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
19. Participation in the course has caused improvement in my
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Aqree Disasree Disasree Applicable
67 141 47 6 9
20. The science laboratory activities used in the course helped
me to better understand the science concepts that were
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disagree Disasree Applicable
116 130 21 3 0
21. There was too much emphasis on science content in the
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disagree ~isaaree Applicable
43 54 114 55 2
22. The course material was presented in a clear and
understandable manner.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
80 138 42 8 0
23. I would recommend this course to others.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
95 106 41 15 0
page 52
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Interview Schedule for School Administrators
page 53
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Interview Schedule for Project Directors
1. Philosophy behind the proposal (purpose).
2. Program Format
course work
credit system
new design?
3. Participant Selection
4. Evaluartion
5. Impression of Results
how course met or did not meet needs
how course work was evaluated
(university standards?)
recommendations from participants
staff evaluations
Regents funding--an essential element?
proposed or definite future plans
general recommendations for improving the teaching of
page 44
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Questionnaire for Participants
page 45
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Mathematics and Science Projects
Name Pro j ect
Grade Level Project Director
Sub j ect
Years Teaching
1. How did you find out about the program?
2. What was it that attracted you to the program?
Participation (Costs, location, timing, etc.)
3. Was participation in the program convenient, or a hardship
for you? Explain.
4. Mow could the program have been designed to make it easier
or convenient for you to participate in it?
District Support
5. What support to participate in the program did you receive
from your local school or district?
Letters of recommendatioh? Financial support?
Professional credit? Salary credit?
Released time? With substitutes provided?
Travel allowance? Other support?
6. Werelare you expected to train your fellow teachers on
completion of the program?
7. Werelare you expected to serve as an insewice resource on
completion of the program?
page 46
DELTA : Math and Science Pro j ects (continued)
Quality of the Prosram
8. Did the program meet you needs?
If so, how?
If not, how not?
9. Was the program well organized?
Were the instructors prepared?
Was the allotted time realistic for the content presented?
Were appropriate equipment and materials on hand when
10. Were you given help when needed?
Was help given at the appropriate levels of understanding or
appropriate to your background?
11. Was the format of the program appropriate to the purpose of
the institute?
$2. Was the level of difficulty of the classes and assignments
appropriate to the students enrolled?
Course Location and ~acilities
13. How did you find living in a dormitory?
Was it helpful to the learning process?
Was it distracting?
Were the accommodations adequate?
page 47
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Course Follow-up
14. Did your project provide any post-institute follow-up?
If so, in what form?
Classroom observation?
Personal consultation?
Workshop (s) ?
15. In what form would a follow-up have been of most use to you?
Classroom observation?
Personal consultation?
Workshop (s) ?
Other (specify)
tilitv of the Prosram to Present Classroom Teachinq
16. How are you presently using the content of the program in
your present classroom teaching? Be specific.
17. Was the course content useful to your classroom teaching in
the form in which it was presented?
If not, how could it have been improved?
~ecommendations for Future Prosrams
18. If future programs/institutes were offered, would you
consider participating?
19. What would you most like to have covered in a future
20. What would be the most useful format for such an institute?
page 48
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
21. Let's dream for a minute: given the necessary personnel and
resources, how would you design (or what would you include
in) a comprehensive program for improving the content
knowledge and teaching skills of math or science teachers?
22. What should undergraduate students include in their programs
of study to insure their competence as math or science
23. What other comments would you like to make about the
page 49
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Items from Questionnaire for Participants in
Local Science Inservice Classes
page 5Q
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Selected Items from Questionnaire for Participants
in Local Inservice Classes
14. The course was useful.
Strongly Strongly Not
Aqree Aqree Disaqree Disaqree Applicable
102 133 27 5 0
15. The course was too hard.
Strongly Strongly Not
Aqree Asree Disaqree Disaqree Applicable
40 64 116 47 0
16. The course showed me new ways to incorporate science into
the classroom.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Aqree Disasree Disasree Applicable
110 117 31 8 0
17. Participation in the course has caused me to spend more time
teaching science in my classroom.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disaqree ~isaqree Applicable
82 115 44 11 19
18. ~articipation in the course has caused my students to enjoy
science more.
Strongly Stronslv Not
Aqree Asree Disaqree ~isasree Applicable
73 123 50 6 17
page 51
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
19. Participation in the course has caused improvement in my
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disaqree Disasree Applicable
67 141 47 6 9
20. The science laboratory activities used in the course helped
me to better understand the science concepts that were
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
116 130 21 3 0
21. There was too much emphasis on science content in the
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
43 54 114 55 2
22. The course material was presented in a clear and
understandable manner.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Aqree Disasree Disasree Applicable
80 138 42 8 0
23. I would recommend this course to others.
Strongly Strongly Not
Asree Asree Disasree Disasree Applicable
95 106 41 15 0
page 52
DELTA: Math and Science Projects (continued)
Interview Schedule for School Administrators
page 53
Mathematics and Science Projects
Name School
Teacher District
1. Did you support the participation of this teacher in the
If so, in what ways?
letter of recommendation
released time?
travel allowance?
school funds for classroom materials and equipment?
2. Have you observed the teacher's classroom since
participation in this program?
If so, what were your impressions of the teacher's use of
new techniques acquired in the program?
If not, have you discussed with the teacher his or her
impressions of the value of the program and his or her use
of program techniques in teaching.
3 . Do you feel programs of this type make a significant
contribution to the teaching of mathematics and/or science
in your school?
4. Would you recommend the participation of other teachers in
your school in similar programs?
5 . Do programs of this type meet district goals and objectives?
If not, what changes would you suggest?
page 54
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.