IT Research Colloquium

When considering potential obstacles to a successful implementation of MTP science and mathematics curricula, the first thing I thought of was the teachers’ reactions to the new content. My experience working with early childhood and primary grade educators has shown me that many of these teachers are drawn to the early grades due to the fact that the curriculum is so centered on language development. My sister-in-law began her career as a first grade teacher and initially dreaded planning her math lessons (despite the basic level of complexity). This improved over time, but she remained more confident in the area of language development throughout her years in the classroom.

I know there are early childhood educators who are more comfortable with math and science instruction than my sister-in-law. However, I would anticipate that many existing and potential teachers at this level will share some of her anxieties - especially if confronted with standards and assessment. To compound this, my experience has shown that many of these teachers are also less comfortable with technology.

Although I’m not sure exactly how MTP will be implemented in these areas, I can see that the consultancy service would be very beneficial for many of the teachers who might share my sister-in-law’s anxiety. Although it is now becoming more common for early childhood teacher education programs to include courses covering math and science instruction, I know of many that still focus primarily on language development. Also, existing teachers are less likely to have completed courses focusing on math and science. MTP offers a unique opportunity to provide the scaffolding necessary to include more instruction in these areas. But, I wonder how receptive some clients will be to this new focus.

Dennis raises an interesting point–teachers who go in to early childhood education frequently are drawn by their interest in encouraging children’s literacy, language development, and social development, and their love for kids.

I had been advised by those more experienced in Pre-K math curriculum development to expect teacher resistance. When we conducted focus groups last spring in three different school districts, we specifically asked about their level of interest in having a math and science curriculum and their willingness to use it in their classrooms. I was surprised by the response. While this was was not a random sample (teachers who agreed to participate in the focus groups knew we were going to develop such a curriculum and so those uninterested might not have shown up, despite the modest honorarium), teachers were overwhelmingly positive–they recognized the need and wanted better instructional strategies and materials.

Nonetheless, we are trying to find ways to make math and science appealing to both students and teachers.
- Embedding *brief* descriptions of the most important teaching/learning strategy for the inquiry taking place in each activity.
- Embedding *brief* summaries of relevant content knowledge, to help build up teachers’ understandings.
- Extending themes throughout the teaching day, making math and science experiences more multi-dimensional, through related storybooks, art activities, center-based activities like the “water table” (no it’s not an instrument of torture, it’s a sensory exploration table with high sides creating an enclosed, waterproof area for exploring with water, sand, soil, etc.), rhymes, songs, and transitions between activities.

Will teachers expressed interest and our instructional design approach pay off?… We will see! In year three, we will endeavor to enroll all the teachers (about 50) in a single large district, and we’ll find out whether teachers’ interest persists and translates into practice.

I feel there would be two main obstacles. The first is as Dennis said: teacher’s attitude and confidence to Math and Science pre-K education. Maybe the concern of attitude is more server than the concern of confidence, because if teachers see Math and Science really necessary to the kids, they will find a way to make up. The problem is, in their minds, Math and Science are not so necessary. If their attitude change, their confidence will be more easy to build, as long as there are successful models, mentors, peer-learning environment.

The second thing would be the COST. Since MTP research results has shown that, MTP with consultants are far more efficient than the other one, however, labor-concentration services are always coming with the problem of high price. Could pre-K institutions afford that? Or they may compromise and select the packages without consultancy, thus influence the outcome–teachers will feel less confident when facing only materials and websites, apparently sometimes personal encouragement and inspiration are more important than instruction its self.

Dennis brings up the point about teachers’ reluctance to teach math and science in pre-k. This is a point that early childhood mathematics researchers such as Herb Ginsburg often mention. Other issues that increase teachers’ reluctance to teach math and science include their lack of confidence (as Jie mentioned) and their own limitations in mathematical knowledge. Ginsburg has repeatedly mentioned that teachers need to have a deep understanding of mathematical ideas in order to recognize when children are actually using logical mathematical thinking (albeit in unconventional/wrong ways) to produce incorrect answers, as opposed to merely producing wrong answers. Teachers also need to recognize that math is more than just numerics and counting, and also includes such things as logic, geometry, and spatial sense (related to geometry). In order to develop such “deep understanding,” teachers require specialized training in math (especially early childhood math) as well as experience. These additional requirements make the task for teachers all that much more unappealing and/or intimidating (especially if their own confidence in doing math is shaky).

Aside from the challenges facing teachers in their math abilities (understanding, doing, and teaching), MTP Math & Science also faces problems related to the fact that we won’t have consultants (unlike the MTP Language & Literacy project). Mable has mentioned how we will have to embed descriptions of summaries in order to make the material more appealing. I have often referred to this problem as “marketing.” We face a problem of trying to “sell” the material, as well as the web site, to our target users. As Mable mentioned in her talk, experience from MTP Language & Lit (a.k.a. “MTP 1″) has shown that teachers often simply would not access features of the site unless the consultant directed them to do so. Without consultants, we face a serious problem in getting teachers to use the site the way we intended (which has implications for any conclusions we draw about the effectiveness of using such a technology). Lack of consultants may also affect teachers confidence (a point that Jie mentioned), as the consultants acted in an expert mentor role for the teachers. Without corrective feedback from consultants, teachers will have to rely on self-evaluation (which, as we all know, is highly subject to our own bias). We have discussed the possibility of creating a “user community” whereby teachers may engage in peer-review, but the idea is still on the drawing board.

In addition to the issues related to instructional content, Dennis’s point about teachers in ECE being “less comfortable with technology” is well taken. I recall from the MTP Language & Literacy project that tech support was a significant, albeit secondary, aspect of the work the consultants (and tech team) carried out. It seemed, to me, that by providing warm, ever-ready tech support we were not only fostering general professional development in terms of teaching tools & technology, but that in so doing we were also creating an environment in which teachers would be more receptive to what MTP had to offer–if the technology gets in the way, or if there is a lack of appropriate support, nobody has time for even the greatest of systems, strategies, and materials.

I make this point only because tech support is so often a mere afterthought, or “band-aid” response, rather than the well-planned, well-supported component it needs to be in any tech-based solution.

Michael makes a great point about tech support. Ultimately, we’d like the site to be able to provide the tools so that people can be “self-supporting” (I can’t think of a better way to say it) by using things such as FAQs, search, and maybe an tech support infobase. Although having these things may seem like a less costly solution than having dedicated tech support personnel, they are not easy to create. Organizing the information in FAQs and infobases so that users can find the relevant information quickly, and then presenting it in such a way so that it is easily understood, is no trivial task. It’s a challenge that is already beginning to give me a headache just thinking about it…

Hi everyone. Great discussion so far! I’d like to elaborate and reinforce Dennis’ point about early childhood education teachers gravitating to that profession due to the fact that most Pre-K curriculums are centered on language and literacy development. As Dr. Kinzie stated in her presentation, a bar graph was shown at a recent ECE conference highlighting the breakdown of instructional activities throughout the normal school day. The bar graph very clearly demonstrated the vast disparity between the amount of time spent by instructors in language related activities vs. math and science. In fact, Dr. Kinzie said that the math and science activities were almost “non-visible” on the graph.

As someone with mathematics teaching experience and a genuine interest in the field of mathematics, I find this to be a scary anecdote. Consequently, I feel that it is imperative that something is done to establish more equilibrium in early childhood education curriculums. I wanted to be clear that by no means am I trying to ridicule the decisions made by early childhood teachers. It’s not their fault. Quite naturally, everyone is going to want to teach what they feel comfortable and confident with. Also, I can only begin to imaging how challenging, and at times overwhelming, teaching 4-6 years old could be. I feel that an external entity, however, must intervene with increased funding and other initiatives to help ameliorate the current lopsidedness that is apparent in ECE curriculums. Furthermore, large-scale projects like MTP must continue to provide innovative ways to support and encourage teachers that mathematics, science, and technology-based activities can be informative, while at the same time fun for children. Awareness of the importance of developing math and science skills at the early childhood level must continue to be addressed, otherwise, this curriculum imbalance will continue to proliferate.

Eddie– developing an effective, self-contained support mechanism is headache inducing, to be sure…I’m glad you on it, today!

Pat– Hear! Hear!

My work with teachers on other projects corroborates with much of what you all have stated already. I worked with some teachers in Norfolk last year to help them complete a unit where students created a short digital documentary with Primary Access. Though the nature of the project was quite different from MTP 2, some of the implementation obstacles were very similar. Though we had worked very hard to provide technical support to the teachers, there was not very much pedagogical support. Trying to introduce an unfamiliar curriculum or teaching strategy, whether it’s teaching math and science to preschoolers or helping students make a movie, is a challenge for even an experienced teacher. Add to that the complexity of using unfamiliar technology, and you can very quickly have a group of frustrated teachers. So much of what we do as educational researchers depends on buy-in from those in the classroom implementing our ideas, and if the teachers perceive they are not receiving support then it will affect the fidelity of implementation and their willingness to stay with the project. There has to be two layers of support: information on the Web that can be accessed at any time, and a real person who can guide them toward the resources they may be missing. After re-reading everyone else’s comments, I know much of this has been said already, but I want to give my stamp of affirmation, as well as remind myself of things I can do better in the future.

Hi, gang,

While i agree with just about everything folks have been pointing out, two things struck me as being particularly tough when joined. First, I think Dr. Kinzie hit on a great “selling point” when she explained that one way to get teacher buy-in was to “extend themes throughout the teaching day, making math and science experiences more multi-dimensional, through related storybooks, art activities, etc.” I think this would go a long way toward widening adoption.

However, it exacerbates a problem Eddie brought up: assessment. If ECE teachers may already have a tough time assessing math/sci knowledge as a result of their level of mastery, embedding the students’ math/sci ability within a multi-dimensional/cross-discipline project may make assessment even more difficult! I haven’t thought of a way to split these two up, but i look forward to hearing others’ ideas… j

I think an obstacle to this program is definitely teacher incentive and cost. In my experience, teachers are so busy that they often do not take advantage of resources available to them even if those resources would ultimately be helpful. Providing participating teachers with an honorarium does not seem like a long-term solution. I was involved in a program similar to MTP (in that it is a web-delivered support system for teachers) aimed at teachers new to the profession (called New Teacher Academy developed by Teacher’s College at Columbia). This course was delivered primarily through the web, but also had weekly face-to-face meetings taking place between about 15 participants and one trained facilitator. The facilitator was a “master teacher” and provided some consultancy. Although she never actually saw us teach, we did discuss individual lessons in the face-to-face meetings and through email. In addition, the teacher participants were not financially compensated for participation, but received “professional learning units” (sometimes called “continuing education credits”)
For those who have not been involved in education in the U.S., most states require teachers to earn a certain number of continuing education credits through course work each year. Thus, this provided incentive for teachers to participate in the program.

The idea of using standards in pre-K is appealing, as it would provide teachers with goals and direction, but I worry that students who do not meet the standards will become labeled in a negative way. I feel that young children develop at such differing rates that it would unfortunate for a child to think of herself as underachieving at such a young age and, when in fact, she may not be underachieving, but just maturing more slowing than others. Perhaps process-based standards may be useful. I’m not sure what these would look like for pre-K, but standards related to analyzing, comparing or describing may be more useful than a standard stating that a child should be able to count to 30, for example.

As many of you pointed, the success of MTP seems to depend on the teacher’s competency and devotion of time and enthusiasm. The fact induces the emphasis on supporting teachers technically and pedagogically. I share similar views and thoughts with my classmates.

If I add another, I would mention the contents and delivery forms of Math/Science teaching. How do we make math/science knowledge interesting and understandable to children? Jean Piaget classified four stages of cognitive development. According to the classification, children enter Preoperational period between 2 – 7 years. “During this period, children develop symbolic function that makes them use letters, pictures, or symbols to express abstract meaning. Inability of Conserve is another characteristic, which indicates children’s lack of perception of conservation of mass, volume, and number after the change of the original form.” (Wikipedia, Theory of cognitive development).

I think this model provides some clues on why early childhood is so centered on language development. Kindergartener may not be prepared to math/science knowledge, which is deeply related with the perception on mass, volume, and number. However, it does not implement that educators have to wait for next developmental stage, but they (or us) need to carefully select and deliver math/science instruction, making it developmentally appropriate. I have few ideas how to plan and conduct lessons in real classrooms. I think some teachers may have similar ambiguity and anxiety toward math/science teaching. I hope MTP will provide the applicable ideas and practices (e.g. the teaching day of Dr. Kinzie, above) for math/science classes.

I agree with some points folks have already made about the obstacles we can think of; teacher’s’ reluctance, lack of teacher’s confidence and knowledge, and cost.

One way to overcome the obstacles is to convince Pre-K teachers of the importance of teaching Math and Science to children. Making them feel math and science are essential as much as language and literacy for children’s development by addressing proper rational of MTP research. Language is basis for studying knowledge in other domains. If the foundation is shaky, the tower will began to crumble. That’s why most Pre-K curriculums are centered on language and literacy development. What are the disadvantages we can expect if math and science are not appropriately taught in Pre-K schools?

For my master’s degree, I invested children’s conceptual development regarding the shape of the earth. My study focused on how children’s misconceptions about the earth’s shape changed when they were asked to think about a more knowledgeable child’s reasoning.
Children had a variety of misconceptions about the shape of the earth. For example, some children conceived of the earth as a flat plane or as a disc. They assumed that the earth has an end or an edge from which one can fall off and is covered by sky and solar objects above its flat top. Other children believed that there are two earths, a round one up in the sky and a flat one upon which they live. Yet others considered the earth to be a hollow sphere, with people living on flat ground deep inside it. Still others thought of the earth as a thick pancake – with people living on the flattened positions.
Although the results of my study showed that through the process of trying to explain another’s reasoning, children came to understand that other possibilities might exist, I realized that children’s misconceptions in science are so resistant to change. Fewer misconceptions might persist if children have opportunities to learn science properly in their Pre-K schools. Pre-K teachers need to be aware of it in order to get motivated to teach in effective ways.

I totally agree with the most of opinions you talked about. Attitude and professional ability are two mainly obstacles. As we all say, attitude determines everything. For the Pre-K teachers, it is vital to let them know why Science and Math are important in early child education. Sometimes, people’s attitude towards an issue is subject to economic, social and political needs. Thus, I think the orientation of the whole society towards the Science and Math in Pre-K greatly influences the attitude of the teachers. In China, as the fast development of economy, and more and more open market to the world, learning English is growing emphasized. Lots of kindergartens begin to teach English, and they pay much attention on the English language study instead of Math and Science.

As for the professional development, I think the Consultancy Design of the MTP provides a great channel to teachers to improve their professional development. The videoconferencing builds a real world communication for teachers and consultants. I am just wondering whether the teacher would care about others to observe or know how she/ he is teaching in class.

Great point about the attitude of the teacher, Maggie. Teacher attitudes toward a subject(s) can make such a difference in their ability to develop, implement, and teach quality lesson plans. Unfortunately, many teachers possess math and science anxiety. In fact, I recall a parent talking to me at an open house night last year informing me that,

“I am really bad at math. I can’t even do middle school math, let alone high school math. So there is no way that I am going to be able to help my son this year in algebra.”

I later found out that this parent was an elementary school teacher, and that was kind of a scary thought to me. It is weird because I have never heard a parent (or any adult for that matter) admit that they were “really bad” at reading. It is quite unfortunate that our society has adopted the standard that it is okay to openly admit being bad at math. Consequently, many children think poor performance in math is acceptable, based on the viewpoints of many adults.

I’m not trying to make generalizations about early childhood teachers. Clearly, some have better math backgrounds and attitudes. However, MTP will hopefully provide the necessary support to help all teachers improve their attitudes and skills in math and science, regardless of their previous dispositions. If the MTP team can develop quality materials, and demonstrate to the teachers that these activities are meaningful and relevant, then hopefully more teachers will begin to naturally gravitate more towards math and science activities. Even the smallest attitude adjustment could result in increased teacher-confidence, which should correlate to a higher quality teaching and learning process. Indeed, this will be a challenge, but one that the MTP team is ready to try and tackle.