TEAMS Evaluation 1992-1993 Executive Summary
by Carla Lane, Ed.D.
[This article has been divided into a number of separate web pages for browser-loading ease. You may view (and select) the contents by section title from the Contents, or click on the "Next" button at the bottom of each page.]
TEAMS Dissemination and Adoption
One-hundred thirty-three respondents learned about TEAMS through their school principal and 22 learned about it from another teacher. Brochures and conferences accounted for 13 responses, and "other" accounted for 59 responses. The school or district chose 139 to be a TEAMS teacher, but 60 reported that choosing TEAMS was self-initiated. TEAMS was chosen for a variety of reasons including the fact that it was based on the mathematics and science standards/recommendations, hands on procedures, and distance delivery, which would enhance teaching and learning.
Of the respondents, 103 had used TEAMS for a full year, 41 had used it for two years, and 16 had used it for three years. Eleven had used TEAMS for under one year.
TEAMS is received by schools in a variety of ways including satellite, cable, tape, television broadcast and microwave. Because of the time the program is received in their time zone, some schools tape the program and view it when it is convenient. Most classes viewed the programs live in their own classroom which was equipped with a telephone.
Teachers and principals reported a number of ways that they had helped with the successful adoption of TEAMS at their school. One hundred and sixty-six reported that they had attended the TEAMS staff development programming. Others mentioned extensive planning, rescheduling, creating time to use TEAMS effectively, taping and previewing tapes, conducting pre and post activities, using TEAMS assessments and talking with parents. Principals reported that they had provided additional funding, purchased equipment, provided staff development time, and worked with TEAMS teachers to meet the needs they expressed.
The survey asked to what extent TEAMS had been incorporated into Chapter 1 plans, school improvement plans, school curriculum objectives, district/school technology use plans, district/school restructuring process or school planning to improve science and mathematics. Five of the six scores went up between the first and second year use of TEAMS.
Factors that facilitated the use of TEAMS (see Table 3) included planning and preparation time, kits that provided all necessary materials including all hands-on materials, telephones, VCR, cabled classrooms, printed materials that provided information for teachers and work materials for students, good lesson plans, district and administrative support, the ability to tape and show programs when it was convenient, and professional development programs.
Factors that impeded the use of TEAMS included a lack of equipment (telephone, VCR, cabled classroom), sharing equipment and kits, moving to resource classrooms, viewing programs with other classes, broadcast times, remembering to tape the program, lack of planning and preparation time, low staff morale, low photocopy budgets, and low district or administrative support. Teachers in bilingual classrooms asked for materials provided in several languages.
Table 3.
Factors that Facilitated or Impeded the use of TEAMS Factors that Facilitated
Factors that Impeded
Planning and preparation
timeLack of planning and
preparation timeKits that provided all
necessary materialsSharing equipmentand kits
including all hands-on materialsEquipment:
telephone, VCR, telephone,
VCR, cabled classroomLack of equipment Moving to resource
classroomsViewing programs with
other classesPrinted materials that
provided information for
teachers and work
materials for studentsLow photocopy budgets Good lesson plans District and administrative
supportLow district or
administrative supportLow staff morale Ability to tape/show
programs when convenientRemembering to tape
the programsProfessional development
programsBroadcast times Lack of bilingual materials
Continued Use of TEAMS
Schools and teachers continued to use TEAMS in the second, and third years because it fulfilled its original promise. Principals, teachers, and students reported that they liked it and were highly enthusiastic about its use. Students learned from the program and retained what they learned. It developed critical thinking skills for students and encouraged students to construct their own knowledge.
Teachers also reported that students who had difficulty learning about mathematics and science through other methods, were now learning from the TEAMS hands-on methods and manipulatives.
Students revealed in student focus groups that it was fun to learn with TEAMS as opposed to the "other" way which seemed to be the "hard" way.
Teachers reported a number of unexpected effects for their students which they directly attributed to TEAMS. These included high student interest where students said that math/science was now their favorite subject, as well as increased enthusiasm and motivation for math/science. Teachers reported a positive change in student behavior even with normally disruptive students.
Teachers reported increased self-esteem, increased attendance, and an increased interest by girls in math/science.
Specifically for science programs, teachers reported that students became comfortable in using scientific inquiry, increased participation in science fairs, and many selected a TEAMS topics for their science fair projects.
Specifically for math programs, teachers reported that students are more interested and motivated to do math, including students who were lower achievers in math. They felt that there was more retention of math skills.
One survey question asked if the TEAMS teacher wanted to continue using TEAMS. The teachers reported that they did want to continue using TEAMS. The mean for third year TEAMS teachers was 3.8; second year teachers' mean was 3.6; and first year teachers' mean was 3.4. Interaction
The evaluation survey and focus groups sessions sought to determine any differences between students in classes which received the programming live and in classes which used taped programs.
Teachers who used only live programming, felt that being part of a live national program was a strong motivator for students. Teachers who used only taped programming wanted to be able to receive the program live because they felt that their students felt isolated from the interaction created through the live components of the programming. Teachers who used the programs on tape reported two methods of using the tapes. Some played the tapes straight through while another group paused the tapes to explain content or instructions more thoroughly. Pausing the tape was useful for LEP (limited English proficient) students according to teachers. Some teachers felt that the programs provided too much content too fast for their students and used the pause to separate elements of the program. Some teachers let the class listen to a few of the student call-ins on the tape and then paused the tape when they perceived that students were losing focus.
At this time, there seems to be no detrimental effects on the learning achieved by students where the programming was viewed on tape. There was also no discernible increase in learning by students who viewed the program live.
Given the choice, teachers preferred to receive the live programming and wanted a phone in the room so that students could participate in the interactive portions.
Teachers with phones in the room reported that their students could not always get their phone calls in to share data or ask questions. While students and teachers realized that all classrooms could not get phone calls in, they were disappointed because of that.
Some teachers have provided interaction with TEAMS through the use of fax machines (usually in the principal's office). Because the TEAMS television teachers respond to the faxed messages, these students feel that they are interacting.
