TEAMS Evaluation 1993-1994 Conclusions & Recommendations Summary [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 Distance Learning Staff Development Model TEAMS focuses on a Three-Tier Distance Learning Staff Development Model for teachers (Cassidy, 1990). The approach includes: Theoretical Training: information, theory, demonstration and two-way communication about the theoretical basis of the TEAMS instruction and training. Implementation Training: theory, demonstration, practice and peer discussion of curriculum and instructional methods involved in the student programming, providing training to implement the student programs. Simultaneous Teacher Training and Student Instruction: teacher training through in-class experience, practice and support from the studio team-teacher, through live, interactive student instructional programs. For TEAMS, this three-tiered approach has provided answers for many problems associated with traditional staff development design. It is long term, sequential training It fosters immediate transfer of learning, with new skills becoming a part of the teacher's repertoire of instructional methods It is primarily conducted in the teacher's classroom during the regular school day It creates immediate changes in the roles of the teacher and student It provides opportunities for teachers to see students being successful with a rich and challenging curriculum. This allows them to change their attitudes and behaviors related to instruction and expectations of their students. It provides motivation for teachers to participate in other staff development after the regular school day because it is directly related to their classroom program Levels of Use There are seven Levels of Use identified in the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), and staff who are adopting an innovation will move up these levels in seven different areas During the two years of this evaluation, TEAMS teachers were surveyed and interviewed to determine at what level of use they were working. By determining their level of use and the time each takes to move through the levels, it may be possible to plan an implementation strategy that will reduce the time to adopt the innovation of distance learning, and specifically TEAMS programming. The levels and areas are as follows. 0: Non-use: State in which the user has little or no knowledge of the innovation, no involvement with the innovation, and is doing nothing toward becoming involved. I: Orientation: State in which the user has recently acquired or is acquiring information about the innovation and/or has recently explored or is exploring its value orientation and its demand upon user and user system. II: Preparation: State in which the user is preparing for first use of the innovation. III: Mechanical Use: State in which the user focuses most effort on the short- term, day-to-day use of the innovation with little time for reflection. Changes in use are made more to meet user needs than client needs. IV: A: Routine: Use of the innovations stabilized. Few if any changes are being made in ongoing use. Little preparation or thought is being given to improving innovation use or its consequences. B: Refinement: State in which the user varies the use of the innovation to increase the impact on clients within immediate sphere of influence. Variations are based on knowledge of both short and long term consequences for clients. V: Integration: State in which the user is combining own efforts to use the innovation with related activities of colleagues to achieve a collective impact on clients within their common sphere of influence. VI: Renewal: State in which the user re-evaluates the quality of use of the innovation, seeks major modifications of or alternatives to present innovation to achieve increased impact on clients, examines new developments in the field, and explores new goals for self and the system. A New Model of Teacher Training The pattern that emerged during the evaluation has created a new model for teacher preservice and in-service. TEAMS teachers reported that they viewed the TEAMS television teacher as a role model. As a result, they were able to move easily through the levels of adoption. Fourth year TEAMS teachers reported that they have fully adopted the instructional methods embodied in the TEAMS programming. They continue to use the TEAMS programs because students enjoy it and learn from it. They continue to use their new methods across the curriculum. These instructors have also become mentor to new TEAMS instructors at their schools. Fourth year TEAMS teachers are in the V level of use - integration. Some have moved to the VI level of use - renewal. Third year TEAMS teachers continued to report that they were very comfortable with TEAMS programming and instructional methods. They spent a small amount of time gathering the class materials for TEAMS programs. This group also reported that the instructional methods had become natural extension of their teaching style. They use the new instructional methods across the curriculum and appear to have full adopted the methods. Third year TEAMS teachers are in the IV B level of use - refinement. Second year TEAMS teachers reported that because they now had an understanding of the instructional methods as well as the TEAMS, they spent significantly less time preparing for TEAMS programs. Their higher level of comfort with the methods gave them the confidence to use the methods in other math or science classes with their students. These methods included hands on, discovery, and collaborative group learning. Many teachers described the television instructor as a role model. They gained confidence in their skills because the TEAMS television teacher 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. Second year TEAMS teachers are in the IV A level of use - routine. First year TEAMS teachers continued to report 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 extensive study by them to learn the new instructional methods. However, they felt the time was profitable because their students were learning so much more and enjoyed the new instructional methods. First year TEAMS teachers move through the third level of use. Using TEAMS has effectively provided teachers with new methods which they use because they have watched the TEAMS television teacher demonstrate 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. (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 scored the question at a mean of 2.7. TEAMS teachers continued to report an increase in the ability to teach heterogeneous groups, teach math/science in an active learning environment, manage a class of students 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. The model that has evolved from TEAMS is many faceted. A comparison of the existing professional development model and the new TEAMS distance learning professional development model is shown in Table 8. Table 8. Distance Learning Professional Development Model Existing Professional Development Model New Distance Learning Professional Development Model Face -to-face Distance learning delivered Inservice day (2-4 per year): 8-24 per year Weekly 1-1/2-2 hours per week: 64 hours per year Travel to inservice site Delivered to teacher's classroom/site In-service instructor has a limited ability to develop as a role model for the teacher Role model provided to teacher by distance learning instructor Large inservice group One-to-one Short demonstration Full step-by-step and frequent demonstration Limited examples Variety of examples Very limited hands-on Twice weekly hands-on Support: Limited access to follow-up with inservice provider Support: Direct and frequent access to distance learning instructor via television, telephone, fax, computer Limited opportunity to process information and apply it Provides opportunity to process information and apply it Limited application of new information Immediate application of new information Students are seldom included in in-service Provides opportunities for teachers to see students being successful; allows attitude and behavior changes related to instruction and expectations of their students. Print materials limited to handouts Full print materials which provide theory, information, methods, and implementation for student programs Instructional materials are not provided All instructional materials are provided Use text as the primary instructional tool Use the text only as a resource General instructions Content specific instructions No opportunity to review Tape review Costs: non-teaching days or substitute Costs: nothing additional Two for one - students and teachers Instruction only for the teacher Simultaneous teacher training and student instruction Results: Limited Results: Significant change Little change in teaching methods Significant change in teaching methods Limited increase in content teaching time Increase in content teaching time Limited gain in non-specialty content area Significant gain in non-specialty content area knowledge and comfort level Limited gain in confidence to teach in non-specialty areas Significant gain in confidence to teach in non-specialty areas Limited increase in use of instructional methods across the curriculum Uses new instructional methods across the curriculum Limited increase in mentoring Become mentors to new instructors Limited movement to higher levels of use Moves teachers to higher levels of use   TEAMS Distance Learning Program Implementation Model Based upon the results of the 1992-1994 TEAMS evaluation, an Implementation Model for TEAMS was validated. There are a variety of elements to the model which include components for the site implementation and components for the instructional program series to be fulfilled by the TEAMS staff. For a large distance learning project such as TEAMS, an implementation model is necessary so that the adoption of the innovation of distance learning is successful at each site that uses TEAMS. As more districts subscribe to the program, it is important that they have a plan to follow which clearly defines the steps to follow to ensure a successful adoption. In the early days of the TEAMS program TEAMS LACOE staff members could spend more time working with districts and sites. As the number of sites and partners increased, it has become impossible for LACOE TEAMS staff to spend the same amount of time with new receive sites. It has also become a problem for TEAMS regional coordinators to spend as much times with sites because the program use has expanded significantly in the areas of each city or state partner. Because of this, an implementation model is necessary. It provides a best practices model for all adopters of the TEAMS program. The implementation model will be helpful for TEAMS LACOE staff, TEAMS regional coordinators and for TEAMS regional and site coordinators as a procedure to follow in helping new users successfully adopt TEAMS. As a recommended set of procedures to follow at a site, it provides the impetus for the site coordinator to follow the suggestions, or to emphasize the necessity of following the recommendations to administrators and teachers to ensure a successful adoption. The implementation model is also useful to analyze a TEAMS site that has not had a successful adoption of TEAMS. By using the guidelines as a checklist, it could be determined how many of the recommended procedures were not followed. If very few guidelines had been followed, the site would be provided with a reason for an unsuccessful implementation and adoption of TEAMS. Then, the guidelines could be followed and those steps taken if it thought that the low adoption could be reversed. The model is useful as an implementation guideline for all distance learning programs with modifications for certain program components which may or may not be a component of TEAMS. The component of the model include how the program is introduced, institutionalization of the program, technical dimensions, and overall program design. As more schools begin to use TEAMS, it is impossible for TEAMS staff to visit every school and assist firsthand with the implementation of TEAMS. As a result, it becomes important to have a clearly defined statement of the implementation plan that has been most successful at TEAMS sites throughout the United States. The validated implementation plan can be used by LACOE TEAMS staff to determine if the current implementation recommendations have been useful and to adjust and add new implementation methods that have been validated. This will ensure that the TEAMS program is effectively implemented at state departments of education, state regions, districts, schools and in the classroom. The validated implementation model will also ensure a cost efficient implementation and a productive start-up for new TEAMS users. Problems Very few problems were mentioned by teachers. Program times seldom meshed with schools in any time zones. Problems in receiving printed materials which were reported in the first year of the evaluation, diminished in the second. Few technical problems were reported, but more interest in the use of educational technologies resulted in requests for more funding to purchase computers, program kits, telephone lines, and additional television sets. Lack of funding was consistently mentioned by respondents as a concern as it prevented access for all students. Several districts have moved to a full year model for classes. In the case of one large district (Los Angeles Unified School District), students are released for up to two months during the traditional school year. For those students who are out of school during TEAMS broadcasts, the use of video tapes is the only option. During the summer, these students do not have access to other students, to the distance learning instructor, or other means of interaction. If more schools adopt the full year model, TEAMS should consider programming for the summer months.   Next