THE IMPACT OF INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION ON MATHEMATICS TEACHERS SUBJECT-MATTER CONFIDENCE, AND COMPETENCY

BARBARA
The Weizmann Institute

FRESKO
and Beit Berl College, Israel

DAVID
The Weizmann Institute

BEN-CHAIM
and Haifa University-Oranim, Israel

Abstract-Two inservice courses designed to strengthen teachers subject-matter competencies while introducing them to mathematics curricula for Grades 7 and 8 were investigated. In a pretestposttest quasi-experimental design, participants were given a confidence measure and knowledge test. After the inservice training, teachers manifested greater self-confidence in knowledge of curricular material, a corresponding increase in mathematics skills, and high levels of confidence in ability to teach the curriculum. Results suggest that when knowledge tests are not feasible, measurement of confidence in solving problems may be sufficient to evaluate the cognitive impact of an inservice program

The rapid growth of scientific knowledge and technological complexity in the past 20 years has produced a rising demand from industry for workers at all levels who are well versed in the pure and applied scientific fields. The school system, in turn, has attempted to keep abreast of technological and scientific discoveries by updating curricula and increasing emphasis on the instruction of mathematics and science. The expansion of scientific instruction and the incorporation of new scientific ideas into school curricula take time; textbooks must be rewritten, new materials developed, modern laboratory equipment purchased, and teachers trained and retrained. Paradoxically, as the need for mathematics and science teachers in the schools has increased, the number of persons entering the teaching profession with specialization in these fields has declined (Howe & Gerlovitch, 1981; Williams, 1983). The competition in hiring from
All correspondence Weizmann Institute should be sent to Barbara Fresko of Science, Rehovot, Israel.

business and industry, where salaries are substantially higher, is a principal cause of this decline. To fill the gap between the growing needs of the school system and the diminishing cadre of qualified mathematics and science teachers, persons from other fields have been hired. Sometimes they have been recruited from other teaching specialities. Often they have been drawn from entirely different professional backgrounds, and lack any formal training in teaching (Havighurst & Neugarten, 1967). The results in the area of mathematics are alarming. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1980) predicts a widespread shortage of qualified mathematics teachers in American schools during the next decade. The Cockroft report (1982) depicts a similar future for Britains middle schools, claiming that 62% of the mathematics teachers in the British system today have no formal qualat the Department of Science Teaching. The

or David Ben-Chaim

31x

BARBARA

FRESKO

and DAVID

BEN-CHAIM

ifications for teaching mathematics. The situation in Israel is equally serious: 75% of the mathematics teachers in Grades 7 and 8 in the Syear elementary schools, and 34% of those teaching Grades 7-9 in the junior high school system have no formal specialized preparation in mathematics (Hershkowitz & Israeli, 1981). The educational system must learn to cope with this very real handicap, that is, insufficient qualified personnel, in order to provide mathematics and science education at the level required in a highly industrialized society. One way to attack this problem is to provide effective inservice training for those teachers who, by chance, find themselves in the classroom. Although teachers of all kinds can undoubtedly benefit from inservice activities, this type of training may be absolutely essential for those who have never had formal preparation for their role or whose preparation has been inadequate. The potential of inservice training for these teachers is vast. On a cognitive level it can offer them opportunities to: 1. Learn, and reinforce their knowledge of, subject-matter content and essential skills 2. Acquire familiarity with the approved curricula in an organized and systematic manner 3. Be introduced to the instructional strategies applicable to the subject matter for teaching students at different levels. On the sociopsychological plane, in-service training can: 1. Reduce anxiety by building up teachers selfconfidence with respect to both their subjectmatter competency and their ability to teach the curriculum 2. Integrate teachers more fully into the educational system by placing them in contact with other teachers, acquainting them with new developments in mathematics and science teaching 3. Reinforce positive attitudes towards the subject matter in general. In the past, evaluators of inservice programs have displayed a marked tendency to shy away from directly measuring changes in teachers in regard to these different outcomes. Instead, they have favored subjective reports, from the participating teachers or from observers, as evidence for the impact of an inservice activity (Henderson, 1978; Smith & Haley, 1981). Direct measurement of change has been done

most frequently in the area of attitudinal change (Henderson, 1976; Rothman, 1968; Rothman, Walberg, & Welch, 1968; Spooner, Szabo, & Simpson, 1982; Zurhellen & Johnson, 1972). Few studies have investigated either cognitive growth (Friederwirtzer & Berman, 1983; Welch & Walberg, 1968) or change in levels of confidence in solving problems (Sheldon & Halverson, 1981).

The Present

Study

This paper reports the impact on knowledge acquisition and confidence in solving problems of two teacher inservice activities, using direct measures of change. Content areas covered in the activities were classified as either familiar or new on the assumption that a differential effect might be observed, depending upon whether initial learning or relearning of material was required. The inservice activities were two summer courses held in July 1983 by the Mathematics Group of the Department of Science Teaching at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Both courses were designed primarily for mathematics teachers who lacked an adequate mathematics education. Course A focused on the subject matter of and instructional approach for teaching the Grade 7 curriculum, while Course B concentrated on the same for the Grade 8 curriculum. The two courses were held simultaneously over a two-week period; each lasted 60 hours. The rationale guiding the organization of these courses was that teachers tend to teach how and what they themselves are taught. Therefore, subject matter, familiarization with instuctional materials, and innovative teaching strategies were presented in an active hands-on manner. Course leaders employed a combination of approaches including lectures, discussions, mathematical games, worksheets, transand various group and individual parencies, activities. Course participants were teachers who had come to learn the mathematics curriculum for either Grade 7 or Grade 8, in order to teach it during the coming school year. Registration was open to all. Teachers who signed up did so of their own choice and at their own expense.

Inservice

Teacher

Education

319

Course A had 49 participants, 48.

and Course B had

Data Collection
Procedure. A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was used in which all participants in Courses A and B were tested for their knowledge of curricular topics and questioned about their feelings of confidence that they could solve problem exercises. Administration of measures lasted approximately 45 minutes. The first testing was carried out during the opening session of the courses, and the second took place during the next to final session on the last day. Research measures. The questionnaires developed for Courses A and B were identical in format. The pretest measure contained three sections: (a) questions pertaining to the educational and professional background of participants, (b) a scale for rating own confidence in solving subject-matter exercises, and (c) a test of ability to solve such exercises. The posttest contained both the confidence and ability measures plus a scale for rating own confidence that they could teach the topics contained in the different exercises. On the pretest, subjects were encouraged to express their reactions to being tested; on the posttest they were given space to comment on the inservice course. Information concerning subjects expectations (pretest) and satisfaction (posttest) was gathered concurrently with the data presented. These findings are reported elsewhere (Fresko & Ben-Chaim, 1984). Items for the confidence and ability sections were selected to represent the subject-matter areas contained in the specific curriculum. Topics that were to be treated intensively during the courses received greater emphasis in the measures than those that were to receive only peripheral attention, regardless of the relative emphasis on the topics in the curriculum itself. Items required only a pupils knowledge of the subject matter, which meant that the stress was on basic mathematical skills and comprehension. Confidence scales. The Course

bases, positive and negative numbers, algebraic expressions, and statistics. The 7 items used on the measure for Course B covered set algebra concepts, algebraic inequalities, simultaneous equations, and word problems. On both the pretest and posttest measures, participants were asked to indicate to what extent they felt confident that they could solve each problem. They could choose from four responses: (a) that they were not at all familiar with the topic; (b) that they did not think they could solve it because the topic was not very familiar; (c) that they were fairly certain they could solve it; and (d) that they were positive that they could solve it. On the posttest questionnaire, participants were asked to provide additional information regarding each item: to what extent did they feel confident that they could teach the material represented by the item. They could indicate (a) that they did not feel confident teaching the subject; (b) that they were fairly certain they could teach it; and (c) that they were certain they could teach it.
Knowledge test. These tests contained a number of mathematical exercises that were similar to the items on the confidence scales. Respondents were requested to solve the problems and write their solutions in full. When this section was scored, half-credit was given for partial solutions. Items were not always identical on the pretest and posttest measures; often values were altered in the exercises so that the impact of taking the pretest on posttest results was reduced. The Course A test contained 7 items, and the Course B test contained 6. Reliability coefficients (alphas) for the confidence and knowledge measures are presented in Table 1. Sample items can be found in Table 2.

The Inservice

Participants

The following description of participants is based on all teachers who were present at the start of the courses; for Course A, n = 47; for Course B, n = 38.
Educational background.

measure

contained

7 items

A confidence covering number

ticipants

in the two inservice

As expected, parcourses tended not

320

BARBARA

FRESKO

and DAVID

BEN-CHAIM

Reliability Measure

Coefficients

Table (alphas)

1
for Evaluation Measures Course B 0.890 0.586 0.937 0.802 0.826 Course A -

I. Confidence Confidence Confidence II. Knowledge Knowledge

in solving-Pretest in solving-Posttest in teaching-Posttest test-Pretest test-Posttest

0.806 0.811 0.887 0.785 0.854

Sample Course A Number Algebraic Topic bases

Table 2 Items from Confidence Scales and Knowledge Item What number numbers -5+3.0=

Tests

follows 44 in base 5? -26

Positive and negative expressions

The lengths of the sides of a triangle are 3 consecutive numbers. Let x represent the shortest side. Write the formula for the perimeter. Find the mode of the following 65,72,70,79,85,79,83. Given sets A and E: A = {all positive even numbers} B = {all numbers Complete: divisible by 4) Set Cis the union of A and B. C = A U B = ( set for ~ x-5 3 12 1 test scores:

Statistics

Set algebra

Algebraic

inequalities equations

Find the solution

Simultaneous

Solve the following system of equations graphically: 2X+3y=7 3x - 5y = 9 Danny left home for school, walking at a rate of 4 km/hr. He arrived 5 minutes late. The next day he left home at the same time and walked at a rate of 5 km/hr, arriving at school exactlyon time. What is the distance between his home and school?

Word problem

to have specialized education in mathematics. In Course A only 15% had majored in mathematics; in Course B, 24% had. In both groups, most teachers did not have college degrees, but were graduates of teacher seminars. However, Course B had a relatively high proportion of participants who were university graduates from areas other than mathematics (40%).
Teaching experience.

in both

courses

Nearly all participants indicated having some prior

teaching experience (not necessarily in mathematics). Only 2 in Course A and 1 in Course B had never taught before. Participants varied greatly in both groups with respect to experience: some had only a few years, while other had more than 15 years experience in the field. In addition, most of the teachers claimed to have had some previous experience teaching mathematics; only 13% (n = 6) in Course A and 5% (n = 2) in Course B reported never having taught mathematics. About 40% in both groups

Inservice

Teacher

Education

321

had had experience teaching mathematics in Grades 4-6, and about 18% had taught Grades 7-8. Attendance. The attendance rate was very high. Approximately 87% of participants in both groups attended at least 8 of the 10 daily sessions, and nearly half of those in Course A attended every single day.

sures of knowledge and of confidence in solving problems. Results are depicted in the bar charts in Figure 1, which also includes posttest scores on the confidence-in-teaching scale. Knowledge Participating teachers in both courses improved their mathematical competencies on all topics, as witnessed by statistically significant changes between pretests and posttests (Table 3). As expected, initial abilities were lower in areas assumed to be relatively unfamiliar. However, at the end of the courses, no differences were detected between teachers knowledge of old material and new material. Confidence in Solving Problems A somewhat similar pattern was observed regarding teachers confidence in being able to exercises. parallel mathematical solve Increased confidence was reported at the end of inservice on the average for all topics. Although initial confidence levels were lower for unfamiliar material than for familiar material, confidence was approximately equal on both types of items after inservice. When the direction and magnitude of the changes on the confidence and knowledge measures are compared, it appears that the observed movement in confidence levels directly corresponded to actual cognitive growth.

Findings Results on the confidence and knowledge measures are reported below only for participants who were present at both testing administrations. In all, 36 complete sets of data were collected for Course A and 26 for Course B. Confidence and knowledge items were classified into two categories, as topics assumed to be (a) familiar to teachers before the inservice course, or (b) relatively new to them. In Course A, items dealing with number bases and statistics were categorized as new material, and set algebra items were similarly labelled for Course B. There were 3 items of new material and 4 of familiar material per measure (confidence and knowledge) for Course A, and 2 items of new material and 4 of familiar material for Course B. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations on pretests and posttests for mea-

Mean and Standard

Deviations

for New and Familiar Course Knowledge

Table 3 Topics on Knowledge A Confidence in solving problems (Range l-4)

and Confidence-in-Solving-Problems Course Knowledge (Range tl-100%) B

Measures

(Range New topics Pretest X S.D. Posttest X S.D. Familiar topics Pretest X S.D. Posttest x S.D.

(l-lOO%)

Confidence in solving problems (Range 1-t)

31.48 31.80 73.15*.* F 27.97 52.7X i-1.09 72.W -* 2X.69

2.71 0.81 3.94. -+ 0.21 3.37 0.68

JY.03 39.05 X3.65. 29.95 59.1-l 3.5.80 83.17 l-l. IO

2.X8 1.7X 3.87~ 0.30 3.27 0.72 3.61 0.3x

3.84k~i
0.29

. p < 0.05for pre-post comparisons, t test. * p < 0.01 for pre-post comparisons. f test. p < 0.001for pre-post comparisons, t test.

322

BARBARA

FRESKO

and DAVID

BEN-CHAIM

Course A
Confidence
100 90 80 2 2 0 x 6 2 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 1 2 23 4

in solving
3-

Confidence

in teaching

New

Familiar

New

Familiar

New

Familiar

Course B
Knowledge
4

Confidence in solving proDlems

Confidence

in teaching

g m b g 2 g

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

ii
New Familiar New Famil New Familiar

0
0

Pretest Posttest test and confidence-in-solving-problems scale and posttest mean scores for confidence-in-teaching scale.

Fig. 1, Pretest and posttest mean scores for new and familiar topics on the knowledge

Confidence in Teaching Although confidence in teaching was not measured on the pretest, some information can be gleaned from the average responses on the posttest. First, although it is difficult to compare scores because of different scale lengths, it seems that the teachers confidence in teaching was relatively lower than their confidence in their ability to solve exercises. Average scores per item on measures of confidence in solving exercises tended to be extremely high, approaching their maximum value of 4. Scores on confidence in teaching, however, did not approach the

maximum on this scale of 3. Perhaps one can interpret these results to mean that, in terms of teachers confidence, a thorough understanding of the material is felt to be a prerequisite for good instruction. Second, although knowledge and confidence in solving problems were equal for new and familiar material in both Course A and Course B on the posttest, this pattern was not repeated with respect to confidence in teaching. In Course A, confidence in teaching familiar material was slightly higher than confidence in teaching new material, but the opposite occurred in Course 8. Thus, although knowledge and confi-

Inservice

Teacher

Education

323

dence in subject-matter competency may have a direct bearing on teachers confidence concerning teaching, other variables apparently exert their influence as well.

lems measures in the present study cannot be disregarded, further use of the confidence-insolving-problems scale is recommended to determine its validity when used alone.

Conclusions Overall, the two inservice courses yielded positive results. Participating teachers improved their mathematical skills; they increased their confidence in their ability to solve relevant exercises; and they exhibited a relatively high level of confidence in being able to teach the curricular content. Changes were noted on all topics. Moreover, teachers knowledge of relatively unfamiliar curricular material was brought up to par with their knowledge of familiar topics. The low mathematical level at which the teachers began the courses definitely justifies the emphasis placed on subject matter. The need for such an emphasis in teacher training in general has been cited by others (Buchman, 1982; Ben-Peretz & Tamir, 1981; Connelly, 1979), and the results here reinforce this contention. The fact that teachers who completed these courses had an average score of only about 7580% on items that were basic to the curricular material means that more reinforcement and acquisition of mathematical skills are needed for many in followup inservice activities. The findings of this study also suggest that teachers must build up their confidence about their subject-matter competency to develop confidence in their ability to teach their subject. Inservice programs can be designed along this principle, offering the teacher the proper reinforcement at each stage. Finally, the strong correspondence between the results on the knowledge measure and those on the confidence-in-solving-problems measure suggests the possibility of using only the latter in future evaluations. Given a situation in which testing of knowledge is not feasible, either because little time can be allotted to data collection or for fear that participants may be intimidated by testing, a confidence-in-solving-problems scale may be more appropriate. Because the possibility of an interaction effect between the knowledge and confidence-in-solving-prob-

References
Ben-Peretz. M.. & Tamir, P. (1981). What teachers want to know about curriculum materials. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13,45-53. Buchman, M. (1982). The flight away from content in teacher education and teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 61-68. Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office. Connellv. F. M. (1970). Curriculum implementation and teacher re-education. In P. Tami; et al. (Eds.). Curriculum implementation and its rrlatronship to curriculum development in science (pp. 71-76). Jerusalem: Science Teaching Center. Hebrew University. Fresko, B., & Ben-Chaim. D. (1984). An el,aluation oftwo inservice courses for mathematics teachers (Technical report M8413). Rehovot: Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science. Friederwirtzer, F. J., & Berman. B. (1983). Mathematics inservice that works: A research-based model. In R. Hershkowitz (Ed.), Proceedings of the SeLenth International Conference for the Psychology qf Mathematics Education (pp. 408315). Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Science Teaching. Havinghurst, R. J., & Ncugarten, B. L. (1967). Sociq and education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Henderson. E. S. (1976). Attitude change in inservice training. British Journal of In-Serrjicr Education, 2. 113-l 16. Henderson, E. S. (lY78). The evaluation of rn-.scwiw teacher training. London: Croom Helm. Hershkowitz, R.. & Israeli. R. (1081). Who ic the mathematics teacher in grades 7. N and O? (Technical Report M81/4.) Rehovot: Department of Science Teaching. Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew,) Howe, T. G.. & Gerlovitch, J. A. (19X1). Critical ahortagch of mathematics and science teachers in Iowa. School Science and Mathemattcs, 81. 25-33. National Council of Teachers cif Mathematics. (19X0). A/r ugenda for action. Reston, VA: Author. Rothman, A. I. (1968). The effects of teaching a ntx physics course on teacher attitudes. Sciowr Erlttcatro~/. 52,46&46Y Rothman. A. I., Walberg. H. J.. & Welch, W. W. (196X). Effects of a summer institute on attltudcs of physics teachers. Science Education, 52, 4hYGl73. Sheldon. D. S.. & Halverson. D. (IYXI). Effect\ ot it televised science inservice program on clemcntarl teachers confidence levels concerning xiencc concepts and teaching strategies. School Science and Mrrthemaric~s.
81.305311.

Smith. L. T.. & Halcy. J. M. (1081). Inservice education: Teacher responses and student achievement. Sclrool Scirt~cr crt?d Mathematics, 8 1, I XY- I Y-1.

324

BARBARA

FRESKO

and DAVID

BEN-CHAIM

Spooner, W. E., Szabo, S. E., & Simpson. R. D. (1982). The influence of a five-day teacher workshop on attitudes of elementary school teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 82,629-636. Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1967-1968). An evaluation of summer institute programs for physics teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 105-109.

Williams, R. T. (1983). The science teacher shortage in North Carolina: Facts and myths. Science Educarion, 67,479-488. Zurhellen, J. H., & Johnson, C. H. (1972). Attitude changes among science teachers during a statewide institute program. Science Education, 56, 169-178. Received 12 September 1985 0