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.] Students are Learning From TEAMS One survey question asked what changes teachers, principals, and TEAMS coordinators saw in students which they could directly attribute to TEAMS. On a scale of one to four, where four is high, the mean for first second and third years users increased. (See Table 4) Table 4. Skill Changes Attributable to TEAMS Skill Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Attitude about learning mathematics/science 3.3 3.5 3.5 Self-direction, independence & initiation of learning 3.1 3.4 3.2 Cooperative learning skills 3.3 3.5 3.6 Critical thinking skills 3.2 3.4 3.3 Confidence in mathematics/ science ability 3.3 3.5 3.5 Mathematics/science skills 3.3 3.5 3.4 Reading skills in TEAMS content 2.9 3.2 3.2 Abilities to ask more complex mathematics/science questions 3.0 3.3 3.2 Verbal skills in TEAMS content 3.0 3.2 3.4 Involvement in mathematics/science 2.9 3.1 2.9 Interest in careers requiring mathematics/science 2.9 3.1 2.9 Achievement that can be attributed only to TEAMS 2.7 2.7 2.8 Writing skills in TEAMS content 2.9 3.1 3.1 Attendance on TEAMS days 2.8 3.2 3.1 Discussions abut mathematics/ science projects at home 2.8 3.0 3.3 Discipline referrals on TEAMS days 2.7 3.0 2.8 Another question asked if achievement in math/science had increased due to TEAMS. On a scale of one to four, where four is high, the mean scores for first second and third years users increased. (See Table 5.) Table 5. Achievement Attributable to TEAMS Math/Science Year 1st 2nd 3rd Boys 2.9 3.2 3.1 Girls 3.0 3.1 3.1 Students' Test Scores 2.7 3.2 3.1 Lower quartile students (Chapter 1 Students) 2.8 3.1 3.2 LEP Students 2.7 2.9 2.5   Teachers Are Learning from TEAMS Teachers said that they are using collaborative learning, hands-on work, and more manipulatives in science/math than they previously had (see table 6). Teachers who did not specialize in math/science courses during pre-service or in-service, report that they are now teaching more math/science than they did before TEAMS programming was received. Teachers reported that prior to using TEAMS, they taught math or science content for an average of 6.4 hours. First year TEAMS teachers reported an increase in time teaching math or science to nine hours; second year users reported 9.8 hours; and third year users reported 10.9 hours. The longer teachers use TEAMS, the more comfortable they become in teaching math/science and the more time they spend in class on math/science. Table 6. Increase in Hours of Science or Math Taught TEAMS Year Science/Math Hours Taught Per Week Prior to TEAMS  6.4 First Year  9.8 Second Year  9.0 Third Year 10.9   A New Model of Teacher Training The pattern that emerged during the evaluation has the potential to create a new model for teacher preservice and in-service. TEAMS teachers reported in the survey that they viewed the TEAMS television teacher as a role model (on a scale of one to four where four was high, first year mean 3.9; second year mean 3.6; third year mean 3.7). First year TEAMS teachers reported that there was a great deal of preparation for TEAMS. They read the printed materials provided by TEAMS, set out the materials for the students, and then watched the TEAMS programs with their students. First year TEAMS teachers who used the program on videotape usually previewed the tape. First year TEAMS teachers reported that they felt that the TEAMS programs required a lot of work on their part to learn the new instructional methods, but they felt it was worthwhile because their students were learning so much more. Second year TEAMS teachers reported that they had to prepare less for TEAMS programs as they now knew what the programming contained and understood the instructional methods. During this year, they reported a higher comfort level with the instructional methods, so much so that they used the same methods - collaborative learning, hands-on, and discovery methods - in the other content that they presented to students for math or science. Many teachers reported that the TEAMS television teacher was a role model who provided step by step guidance in presenting material to students. Teachers reported that they received more usable information on new instructional methods through TEAMS programming than through in-service seminars. Third year TEAMS teachers reported that they were very comfortable with TEAMS programming and instructional methods. They spent very little time gathering the materials for the class for TEAMS programs, and felt that the instructional methods had become natural components of their teaching style. They had become so immersed in the new methods that they used the methods in all content areas that they taught. Using TEAMS has effectively provided teachers with new methods which they use because they have watched the TEAMS television teacher demonstrating the methods. Immediately after viewing the program, TEAMS teachers apply the methods with their students. These results were reported across the United States at all evaluation sites as well as in the surveys. Principals also noted these changes in TEAMS teachers saying that TEAMS teachers showed more enthusiasm for math/science, a higher use of interactive and hands-on methods, and that teachers were more confident of their ability to teach math and science. The survey question that dealt with planning and preparation for TEAMS also showed that teachers were increasingly comfortable with TEAMS; first year TEAMS teachers reported (on a scale of one to four where four is high) a mean of 2.8; second year users' mean was 3.3; and third year users' mean was 3.5. The survey question on planning time allocated to TEAMS also confirmed the discussions in focus groups that after the first year, they felt they needed less time to plan for TEAMS programming. First year TEAMS teachers mean score (on a scale of one to four where four is high) was 2.4; second year TEAMS teachers' mean was 2.5; and third year teachers cored the question at a mean of 2.7. The survey included one question which asked how well prepared teaches felt to use a variety of methods due to their TEAMS experiences and prior to their TEAMS use. Teachers reported an increase in the ability to teach heterogeneous groups, teach math/science in an active learning environment, manage a class of students who are using manipulatives, use cooperative learning in math/science instruction, involve parents in their child's math/science education, use the textbook as a resource rather than as the primary instructional tool, use a variety of alternative assessment strategies, and follow national mathematics standards/science recommendations Problems Very few problems were mentioned by teachers. They did mention getting printed materials as early as they would like and periodically receiving programs because of satellite receive dish problems. Program times were problematical in all time zones; many schools rescheduled recess and lunch period to accommodate live programs. Summary TEAMS was chosen by districts, principals, and teachers 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. Schools and teachers continued to use TEAMS in the second, and third years because it fulfilled its original promise. Students are learning from TEAMS. There are increases in skills in math and science content that TEAMS teachers can directly attribute to students viewing TEAMS programming and using TEAMS materials. Teachers 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 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. 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. 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. TEAMS has effectively provided teachers with new instructional methods by viewing the TEAMS television teacher during the student programming. The TEAMS model has changed the teaching styles and the instructional methods of TEAMS teachers by the time teachers have used TEAMS three years. The most significant changes in TEAMS teachers were achieved by those who used TEAMS on regular basis. Based on the information emerging from the TEAMS evaluation, it is possible to identify how the TEAMS program can be most successfully adopted by a district and its school. Teachers' ability increased in a variety of ways. Because of the TEAMS teaching model they reported increased skills in teaching heterogeneous groups, teaching math/science in an active learning environment, managing the student use of manipulatives, using cooperative learning in math/science instruction, involving parents in their child's math/science education, using the textbook as a resource rather than as the primary instructional tool, using a variety of alternative assessment strategies, and following national mathematics standards/science recommendations Teachers, students, principals, and TEAMS site coordinators reported that they liked TEAMS programming and that it was increasing the time allocated to math and science in the classroom. Teachers increased their class time in math and science by an average of four hours per week. TEAMS motivates students to learn math and science because they enjoy it and because it maintains their enthusiasm through interaction with the TEAMS television teachers and the use of hands-on manipulatives for learning. TEAMS is also used as a taped program and the student learning in these classes is equivalent to that of the students who view the program live. There were minor problems with receiving programming and paperwork, but the problems are intermittent and are easily solved. References Berman, Paul and McLaughlin, M. (1978) The Rand Corporation Cassidy, Sheila (1985) Unpublished manuscript. Cassidy, Sheila and Taira, Susan. (1988) "Study of Bilingual Teacher Training Programs in California." Rancho Palos Verdes, CA; Educational Development Network. Cassidy, Sheila and Taira, Susan. (1989) "Follow-Up to the 1988 Study," Rancho Palos Verdes, CA; Educational Development Network. Cassidy, Sheila. (1990) "Three-Tier Distance Learning Staff Development Model for Teachers." TEAMS Handbook 1993-94 Jones, John E. and Woodcock, Michael. (1984) "A Manual of Management Development"; Aldershot, Hampshire, England. Gower Publ. Ltd. Joyce, Bruce & Showers, Beverly. (1988) "Student Achievement through Staff Development." New York: Longman, Inc.