ERIC ED036441: Madison Project Summative Evaluation Report

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 036 441 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPCNS AGENCY PUB DATE NOTE EDES PRICE DESCEIPTOES IDENTIFIERS SE 007 853 MACHTINGER, DCEI S ...

0 Downloads 12 Views
DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 036 441 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION

SPCNS AGENCY

PUB DATE NOTE EDES PRICE DESCEIPTOES

IDENTIFIERS

SE 007 853

MACHTINGER, DCEI S D. MADISON PROJECT SUMMATIVE EVALUATION REPORT. ELK GRCVE TRAIN ING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, III, OFFICE CI EDOC ATION (DHEW), WASHINGTON, D. C., BUREAU OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. 69

85P,

EDES PRICE ME-$0.50 HC-$4.35 *CURRICUIUM DEVELOPMENT, *ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS, *ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS, *INSFRVICE TEACHER EDUCATICN, *INSTRUCTION1L MATERIALS, PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS, PROGRAM EVALUATION ESEA TITLE III, MADISCt PROJECT MATHEMATICS

ABSTRACT THE PRO JECT HAD TWO ASPECTS: (1) DEMONSTRATION CLASSES WHICH WERE LEST GNED TO INFORM PARTICIPANTS ABOUT MADISON PROJECT MATH, AND (2) I RAINING WCRKSHOPS THAT PROVIDED FOR DIFFUSION OF MATERIALS INTO SCHC CLS. ALTOGETHER 214 LOCAL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS TCCK PART IN THE WORKSHOPS RELATED TO MADISON PROJECT MATHEMATICS. EVAIUATI CN CF THE PRCGRAMIS EFFECT ON TEACHERS WAS DONE BY ADMINISTERING A Q ESTIONNAIRE. PARTICIPANTS GAVE A VERY FAVOPLBIE RESPONSE IC THE FROG RAM. NC EVALUATION WAS DONE ON THE EFFECT OF THE FECGRAM CN CHILDREN . THIS WORK WAS PREPARED UNDER AN ESEA TITLE III CONTRACT. (BR)

Oe://ge-ser 07/7-4e-,

IMINIIM -maw

SUMMAT I VE

U,S, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

EVALUATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

REPORT

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT,

POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY,

(It (r)1

41.00 q.,1k Grout Traiiiitiq avid

UtutiopoiaCttifcx. E.S.E.A. TITLE III

17011 West Algomphi

id,, ArIutitin ONighis, II. 40005

Prepared by:

DoTAJL_A.Machtinger, Model Program Coordinator Madison Project Mathematics

Elk Grove Training & Development Center 1706 West Algonquin Road 60005 Arlington Heights, Iii. Gloria Kinney, Director

This report is dedicated to Wes Many, my evaluator. Without his support and help this report probably would not have been written. I would like to acknowledge Mrs. Catherine Ekkebus, my secretary. It was certainly her diligent help in careful planning and meticulous execution of all phases of the program that kept the program viable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM

1

RATIONALE

.,e1

PURPOSE

18

ACTIVITIES

22

EVALUATION

27

REFERENCES

39

ABSTRACT

40

APPENDICES

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM -----------MADISON PROJECT MATH

The Madison Project Math model program offered the following services:

Demonstration, Training, Consulting.

Demonstration During the first spring semester of the T & D's operation, the demonstration was manned by Doris Machtinger and Phyllis Ferrell at Juliette Low School, District #59.

It consisted of a brief orienta-

tion progr,am followed by a demonstration of Doris Machtinger working

with Kindergarten and 2nd Grade, then Phyllis Ferrell working with 4th Grade, then either Doris Machtinger or Phyllis Ferrell working with 5th Grade.

This marathon of math classes was followed by a

brief queption and answer period.

Demonstrations were held, by

appointment, Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

During the following school year demonstrations were manned by Doris Machtinger and Judy Lowe at Juliette Low School, District #59. The orientation period was extended to include a description of the program followed by the opportunity to experience the independent exploration materials. Judy Lowe.

The visitors then observed a class taught by

This class lasted 20 to 30 minutes.

by a question and answer period.

This was followed

Demonstrations were held every

Tuesday and Thursday morning by appointment.

During the third operational year demonstrations were held by Mickey Palac at Fairview School, Schaumburg, District #54.

Miss Palac

was provided with a half-day substitute once a week to allow her to be with visitors.

She held an orientation session with the visitors

describing the program and allowed them to experience the independent exploration materials, then demonstrated with her own class fOr 20 to 40 minutes.

This class presentation was followed by a question and

answer period.

Visitors were given a booklet describing the Madison

Project, a list of sources for materials and a sample of one of the more popular pieces of equipment, the geoboard.

Demonstrations were

held every Thursday morning by appointment. Many different variations of workshops were offered.

(Asterisks

indicate that leaders were trained in T & D Madison Project Math Workshops lead by Doris Machtinger.

The Evolution of the Training Program Workshop I

The first Madison Project workshop was held in the spring of 1967.

It was conducted by Doris Machtinger and Phyllis Ferrell. on

10 consecutive Tuesday afternoons. the teachers involved.

Released time was provided for

This first group of teachers were all from

Juliette Low School, District #59, and served as a pilot group.

The workshop leaders presented Madison Project lessons to the teachers.

One teacher out of the group then taught a lesson, not

necessarily a Madison. Project lesson to a small group of students.

Using the Flanders interaction analysis and video tape, the group then attempted to critique, this lesson.

Workshop II

The second Madison Project workshop overlapped the first, but met on Thursday, afternoons.

Most of its participants were from

District #59 and District #25. first in format.

This second workshop followed the

This workshop was also held at Juliette Low School.

*Workshop III

The third workshop was conducted for four weeks during the summer of 1967 at Robert Frost School, District #59.

This workshop was con-

ducted mainly by Doris Machtinger and Judy Low with some assistance from Phyllis Ferrell.

This workshop followed a new format.

Project materials were presented to the teachers. 4 groups of 4.

The Madison

They then broke into

One member of each group taught a half-hour lesson to

about 5 to 7 children.

The groups of 4 then combined with another group.

of 4 and the 8 discussed and compared the lessons. Additional information, beyond observation, was provided by the

Flanders interaction analysis and a tool designed by the group to analyze questions.

This workshop served 16 people from Districts #59, #25, and the parochial schools.

The afternoon, sessions of this workshop were divided

between work on a special project and an attempt at some small group interaction conducted by Beecham Robinson.

Workshop IV The fourth workshop was conducted in the fall and winter of 196768 by Doris Machtinger on released time on 10 consecutive Monday mornings at John Jay School, District #59.

In this workshop a similar format to

the above was followed with an exception being that teachers were grouped for teaching sessions with others who taught the same grade level.

The

workshop had 22 participants from Districts #59, #25, #15, DeKaib and Evanston.

Workshop V The fifth Madison Project workshop was conducted during the spring of 1968.

It was held at John Jay School in District #59 by Doris

Machtinger. on released time for 2 weeks (10 full days).

The 16

participants were from Districts #25, #57, #54, and #21. The format was changed.

The materials were presented to the

teachers, who, in groups of 4, as in the summer workshop, presented the materials to small groups of students. its own lesson.

Each group of 4 critiqued

Two teaching sessions were provided so that 2 teachers

in each, group of 4 were able to teach each day.

Openness in these

groups was facilitated by the inclusion of 1-1/2 hours of group dynamics materials designed to encourage an awareness in each individual of the process in his group and his own unique contribution and pattern of behavior.

These materials included:

1.

Xerox listening course

2.

SRA Teaching Lab

3.

Process observation trio

4.

Morton's article on leveling

5.

NASA Moon game

6.

Tinker toy motivation game

7.

Especially designed tapes illustrative of adult workshop problems

*Workshop VI

This workshop was conducted for 10 half-days in DeKalb during the spring of 1968.

The leader was Miriam Gulesarian.

Group dynamics and

video taping were included along with the Madison Project Math lessons and practice teaching.

There were 10 participants.

*Workshop VII

This workshop was conducted for 5 full days by Bernice Gliege in District #25'.

There were 8 participants.

This workshop also employed

the format of present-,tion of material followed by practice teaching

sessions.

IISTIgh2RKgI The eighth workshop was,conducted during the summer of 1968. This workshop had two phases:

Phase A - Phase A was conducted by Doris Machtinger for 3 weeks at Rupley School, District #59 for 16 people and followed the same format as Workshop V.

*Phase B - Phase B consisted of 3 auxilliary workshops held for 2 weeks each concurrently with Phase A by personnel trained during Workshop V.

Section (a) was held at Keller Jr. High School

in Schaumburg, District #54 by Mickey Palac, John Kropp, Jessie Valerio, and Rosalyn Heftner for 40 people. Section (b) was conducted by Mrs. Jerry Garr at Miner Jr. High School in District #25 for 15 people.

Section (c) was

conducted by Mrs. Arlyle Ferguson and Miss Joy Lutsch at Lions School in District #57 for 16 people.

In all three

sections of Phase B the workshops were held in the afternoons.

Materials were presented to the teachers and the

format of teaching and critiquing was followed.

When time

permitted, a few of the group dynamics games were introduced. Worksh

The ninth Madison Project workshop was held October 2 - 11 for 16 people at Clearmong School, District #59. Districts #54, #59, #25, #65, and #21. each day on released time. during the summer.

The participants were from

The workshop met from 9 to 4

The format was similar to the one followed

Materials were presented to the teachers.

They

broke into teaching groups of 4 and taught the lessons to a small group of children.

They divided each of 2 half-hour teaching sessions per

day into 15 minute sessions so that one teacher could concentrate on one lesson and so that each teacher taught every day.

Time was allowed

for group dynamics materials and for independent exploration materials. *Workshop X

The tenth Madison Project workshop was held by Mrs. Jerry Garr in District #25 at North School.

The 12 participants in this workshop

came from Districts #25, 115, #65, and #23.

This workshop followed much

the same format as WorksLop IX. *Workshop XI

Workshop eleven was conducted by Mrs. Peg Aiman at Sandburg School in Wheeling for 10 teachers from Wheeling School District #21.

It met

November 18, 19, 20, 25, and 26 for 1-1/2 hours after school for the teachers involved but during class hours (because of split shifts) at the school housing the workshop. teaching sessions.

Thus children were available for the

The last session of the workshop was conducted for

1/2 day on released time to permit time to consider independent exploration materials and view a film besides the usual agenda.

The workshop

was followed by a visit to each of the teacher's classrooms by Peg Aiman to facilitate implementation of the materials.

Mrs. Aiman was supplied

released time for this.

*Workshop XII

The twelfth workshop was conducted December 2 - 6 by Carl Seltzer from District #54.

The meetings were held on released time from 9 to 4

each day at Dooley School in Schaumburg School District #54. participants came from Districts #54, #65, #39, and #57.

The 16

The workshop

also followed the format of Workshop IX.

*Workshop XIII

This workshop was conducted on Monday afternoons in the form of

an. in-service course in Mount Prospect.

It lasted 10 weeks, of 1-hour

sessions, and was conducted by Arlyle Ferguson and Joy Lutsch for 10 teachers from Mount Prospect.

*Workshop XIV This workshop of 8 sessions was conducted in Evanston, half on released time, half after school, 'by Pat Kean and Sara Weinstein.

The

workshop had 15 participants and consisted of materials presentation, demonstration classes, and discussion.

ConsultingServices The consulting services were customized to the individual needs of the consumer,

They varied from making a presentation at a teachers

meeting to helping a teacher get the materials started in her class, to helping a math consultant set up a workshop.

The Program Coordinator

talked to workshop participants on the phone to try to diagnose problems in the lessons and made "house calls" if a phone diagnosis didn't work. The Coordinator was also available to do one-day workshops. Released Time Released time has been used for 3 purposes: 1.

To release teachers to participate in the workshops.

The

bulk of the released time money was used for this purpose. 2.

To release the demonstration assistant so that she can spend time with visitors.

3.

To release workshop participants who were going to conduct their own workshops, first for nlanning, then to actually conduct the workshop.

Staffing The following people have staffed this program: Model Program Coordinator:

Doris Machtinger

Secretary:

Others:

Catherine Ekkebus

During the first semester of the program Phyllis Ferrell served as co-coordinator.

Demonstration Assistants:

Fall 1967

Spring 1968 - Judy Lowe

Fall 1968 - Spring 1969 - Michaelene Palac Participants

The participants in the workshops were mainly elementary school teachers, but at least 4 districts sent their Math Consultants (Districts #54, #21, #25, and #65).

One principal participated.

the following Districts:

#15, #21, #23, #25, #39, #54, #57, #59, #65,

Teachers came from

#428, Round Lake and both the Lutheran and Catholic Parochial Schools. (List of participants in Appendix) Visitors

Visitors to the program were mainly principals, superintendents and math consultants, though often these were accompanied by a few classroom teachers.

Visitors were mainly from the northern Illinois area, though

some were from as far away as Equador.

Most visitors were from elemen-

tary school districts, though a few were from colleges.

The College of

Education from Northern Illinois University sent students to see the demonstration.

A list of visitors is on file.

Demonstration.

The Model Program was demonstrated at Juliette Low School, Elk Grove School District #59 and Fairview School, Schaumburg School Dist.#54. Facilities

The Coordinator and Secretary were housed at the Elk Grove Training and Development Center, 1706 W. Algonquin Road, Arlington Heights, Ill. Workshops were housed in schools in the participating districts.

RATIONALE

Background and History

History of the Modellawas -- The Madison Project has been conducting workshops in large cities for about five years. cities include New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Diego.

These The

workshops have generally been run during the summer or on Saturdays.

Demonstration classes were conducted by Project staff as examples of how it ought to be done.

Dissemination of the Project's materials was handled mainly through talks by Dr. Davis and films he had made.

Interested people

were welcome to visit Madison Project classes.

The Madison Project was written into the original proposal for the Elk Grove Training and Development Center.

The first year the

model program was coordinated, by Doris Machtinger and Phyllis Ferrell.

During this year, both taught classes at Juliette Low School which were identified as demonstration classes. visitation.

These classes were open to

Together they also taught two workshops on released time

for all the teachers at Juliette Low School and also for interested teachers in districts belonging to the consortium. involved about twenty-five (25) people.

These workshops

During the summer a Madison

Project workshop was set up for sixteen (16) teachers from various districts of the consortium.

Beginning with the Fall of 1967 Doris Machtinger was given full responsibility for coordinating the model program. the demonstration teacher.

Judith Lowe became

The demonstration aspect of the program is

devoted entirely to dissemination of the fact that there is a program called Madison Project Math and that Lhis program is worth adopting.

The training aspect of the model program provides a training program for diffusion of the materials into the schools.

Both the demonstra-

tion'and training programs are described above.

There is much written

about the ideal way to teach children and adults including opinions on the inter-relationship of needs and climates.

The Madison Project has

taken the position that generally learning of this kind of material takes place best where there is: 1.

general parental and teacher agreement on goals

2.

creative, flexible, well-educated teachers

3.

a very flexible school administration that supports both teacher

it

and student 4.

a non-authoritarian atmosphere in classroom, school, community and in most of the homes

5.

respect for children as people

6.

general satisfaction of children's needs

7.

mutual respect and affection among all people involved

8.

a general atmosphere of maturity, flexibility, creativity and cooperation in the school and in the community.

Further, the Project has taken the position that learning, i.e., true incorporation, and synthesis of information, is best accomplished

where there is opportunity for discovery.

When this opportunity exists,

there is a chance for the materials themselves to be reinforcing rather than for reinforcement to depend on the pleasing of a teacher.

The Project also has taken the position that the student learns best when he is active rather than passive.

Dr. Davis [1] sums up the

Project's history and impact as follows:

History of the Projct Itself -- The Project's earliest exploratory classroom work was done in the academic year 1957-8 at the Madison School in Syracuse, New York with low-I.Q. culturally-deprived 7th

- 10 -

graders, under the direction of Professor Robert Davis of Syracuse

University, and Mrs. Jane Downing and Mr. William Bowin of the Syracuse Public Schools.

These children had, in many cases, not

yet learned elementary school arithmetic.

Nontheless,

it seemed

inadvisable for many reasons to teach them remedial arithmetic; for example, they already disliked arithmetic, there was no reason to 1

suppose that repetition of a teaching procedure that had failed in the past would lead to success in the future, these children badly

needed success experiences and a feeling of vitality and challenge in their school work, and arithmetic is, in any case and for any child, a rather isolated small piece of the wide world of mathematics.

Hence, the children were taught portions of algebra and analytic geometry.

Their response was favorable beyond expectation:

they

learned arithmetic (which was, of course, repeatedly required in the alebra and geometry), they learned algebra and geometry, they acquired a new enthusiasm for school (for example, truancy decreased markedly), and they seemed to have modified their personal self-concepts and aspiration levels.

The instructional procedure was to use "individ-

ualized instruction" -- students either worked alone, or else in small groups, and the teachers divided their attention among the groups and individual students.

At no time did the teachers attempt to address

the entire class as a total group.

This year might be described as an

attempt by Project personnel to convince themselves that significant improvement in the curriculum was possible. 1958-9.

Because of the preceding year's success with low-1.Q.

culturally-deprived seventh-graders, the Project sought to explore the potential for curriculum improvement with normal seventh-graders, and with normal and bright fourth-graders.

Exploratory teaching during

-7

1958-9 focussed on these groups, in middle class neighborhoods. Unfortunately, at this point the Project's previous use of individualized instruction was lost, and was replaced by teaching via working with the entire class as a total group.

The reason for this was

primarily the involvement of new teachers, not accustomed to individualized or small-group instructiou.

The procedure of working with

the total class as a single group remained normal Project practice

until 1963, when various Project advisors (especially Leonard Sealey of Leicestershire, England) reopened this issue.

The year 1958-9

began the Project's concern for elementary school children, and for normal (or even bright) children. 1959-62.

In 1959 the geographical focus of Project work shifted

from upstate New York to Connecticut, and Mrs. Beryl S. Cochran of the Weston, Connecticut Public Schools became the dominant Influence on the Project's exploratory teaching.

The Project's efforts acquired,

thereby, some new emphases, which characterized most Project work for the next few years: i)

ii)

iii) iv)

Teaching to the entire class as a single group Preferences for homogeneous grouping within a school Emphasis on working with top groups, in grades 2 through 6 Following the same children for as many years as possible (usually about 5 years)

v)

Use of visiting specialist teacher for mathematics, to work with the regular classroom teacher

vi)

Emphasis on demonstrating that bright children in grades 2 through 6 could learn a very large amount of sophisticated

mathematics (even completing large sections of high school

and collegelevel mathematics)

-12-

vii)

Extensive study of how these children learned so much, with particular emphasis on creativity and sdiscovery.

The Project's exploratory teaching of this period involved the most sophisticated mathematical content, and the greatest emphasis on creativity, that the Project had ever experienced, and -- for grades 3 through 7 -- these lessons are probably still the most "advanced"

(in these senses) that have been taught by any project thus far.

The

lesson learned here -- and recorded on film, audio tape, and in other

ways -- that bright children in grades 2 through 7 can learn a very large amount of mathematics in a creative way, and enjoy doing it (in fact, enjoy it immensely), ought not to be forgotten.

The Madison

Project has subsequently de-emphasized this aspect, because of the very great difficulty of locating teachers who can teach such classes, but the fact remains:

Much of the mathematics nowadays learned in

high school and in college can be learned easily by bright elementary school children in grades 2 through 6, and the children can enjoy it very much.

At some time our society must pay heed to this unused

potential -- particularly in, view of the fact that such matheLatical

experiences are viewed by the children as exciting and pleasurable, not as unpleasant.

These "advanced" classes (especially at Weston, Connecticut) have been studied 1,y Psychoanalytically-trained psychiatrists (C. Brooks

Fry, M.D., and Carol Fry, M.C.), who have emphasized the children's great eagerness and their unusual absence of anxiety; they have been studied from the point of view of the children's own perceptions and

preferences by the clinical psychologist Herbert Barrett; and they have been studied from the point of view of objective measures of mathematical achievement by J. Robert Cleary, of Educational Testing Service.

- 13 -

But perhaps most of all the growth of these children over a period of 5 years has been recorded in detail on film, video tape, and audio tape.

One can observe how these children approach problems in math-

ematics and mathematical physics.

Their power and their enthusiasm

are impressive.

For these "advanced" classes, it is worth adding that "bright" children means approximately the top third of the entire student population in, suburban communities such as Weston, Connecticut; the overall average. I.Q. for these "advanced" classes is about 120, but this

point should not be pursued in, detail since I.Q. does not seem to

play an especailly decisive role in the achievement of these students. It should not be over-emphasized.

It is worth emphasizing, however, that attempts to replicate these results in other schools have not always succeeded.

There is

apparently some combination of attributes in certain schools that makes it possible to succeed in these schools in a way that is not possible in general.

The Madison Project has not succeeded in identi-

bying the attributes of a school that make such "advanced" classes possible, and this is probably one of the Project's most regrettable failures.

Project personnel and consultants believe that the attributes necessary for success probably include: General Parental and teacher agreement on the desirability of these goals, and on over -all educational goals in general ii)

iii)

Creative, flexible, well-educated teachers

A very flexible school administration and school organization, that supports both teacher and student in every possible way

- 14 -

A non-authoritarian atmosphere, in the class, in the

iv)

school, in the community, and in most of the homes

Respect for children as people

v)

General satisfaction of children's needs, including needs

vi)

for physical activity, affection, attention, autonomy, etc.

Mutual respect, and even affection, among all the people

vii)

involved:

parents, teachers, children, and ad"inistrators

A general atmosphere of maturity, flexibility, creativity,

viii)

and cooperation in the school and in the community The identification of necessary attributes is elusive.

None-

theless, the fact remains, in some schools, but not in others, it is

possible for "bright" elementary school children to learn a large amount of high school and college mathematics, in a creative way, and enjoy doing it.

No one who witnessed the Weston classes can escape from the feeling that this fact must be important. 1961-present.

In 1961 the Project opened a third office, at

Webster College, In Webster Groves, Missouri. At the present time the Project has three offices:

at Syracuse

University, Syracuse, New York; at Weston, Connecticut; and at Webster College.

Since 1961 the Project has cooperated in a variety of teacher

training programs at Webster College, to the extent that new emphases have appeared in Project work:

The major emphasis has been on teacher education, both pre-service (college undergraduate) and in-service ii)

In ter s of student selection, the Project began in 1961

working primarily with "ordinary" college-bound students, in "ordinary" school situations, but still with considerable

- 15--

emphasis (wherever possible) on the use of specialist

mathematics teachers for the intermediate grades. The Project began to be concerned with larger numbers of

iii).

teachers and larger numbers of students, spread geographically over much of the United States (and even in Canada, Australia, England, and Africa).

As a result of the preceding amphases, the Project began to

iv)

distinguish more sharply between tentative, exploratory lesson sequences, and reliably-tested stable lesson sequences.

Only the latter were used in large-scale teacher education work.

The Project had a number of unsatisfactory experiences in

v)

attempting to work with junior high school students (grades 7 and 8).

Students at this grade level pose especially difficult

problems for curriculum planning; this has been, in general, the experience of a large number of curriculum projects.

Probably much more study of children of this age is needed, together with a far greater effort to use the results of such studies in designing school programs, and in allocating grades among the various buildings (e.g., 8-4, or 6-6, or 4-4-4, or 6-3-3, etc.). 1963-present. i)

Beginning in 1963, several new emphases appeared:

The students whom the Project follows for 3, 4, or 5 consecutive years were, of course, getting older and moving into later grades.

Largely as a result of this, together with

unresolved doubts about the program for grades 7 and 8, the Project began to focus considerable effort on grade 9.

scale, the Project reviewed its At the other end of the age

ii)

and exploratory teaching in nursery school, kindergarten, desultory and grades 1 and 2 -- which had until then been

systematic attack on disorganized -- and began a concerted this grade level. exploratory teaching of mathematics at following returns to earlier Perhaps most important are the directions:

work with culturally-deprived The Project began large-scale

iii)

and in Chicago, with unexpectedly urban children, in St. Louis gratifying results.

by Leonard Sealey of LeicesterThe Project, stimulated in part

iv)

original interest in individshire, England, has renewed its procedure of dividing a class ualized instruction and in the "committees" or "small groups" of of (say) 30 students up into about 3 or 4 each.

seldom if ever In either case, the teacher

the entire class. stands at the front of the room and addresses for a while, then Instead, the teacher sits' with one group

moves on to another, etc. let students work alone or Finally, as a result of the desire to

combine some mathematics with some in small groups, of the desire to to reach "non -- verbal" children whose and of the desire physical science, function naturally in a world of ability may be great but who do not the 'Project has acquired another and abstractions, verbal behavior

emphasis: v)

to its effort to produce The Project has given new impetus

form of a library of "individualized study materials," in the experiments, mathemat"shoe-box" kits for various scientific

ical puzzles, etc.

- 17 -

PURPOSE

Basic beliefs underlying the philosophy of the Madison Project are the following: 1.

There is a need to broaden and expand the scope of the existing math programs to incorporate more areas of math than usually found in the arithmetic programs.

The Madison Project materials

will broaden that base. 2.

The traditional teaching of math has tended to focus more on students' failures and weaknesses than their successes. children lack all important success experience.

Thus

The Madison

Project materials will provide the success experiences necessary for learning and a general good attitude toward math. Axe

The Madison Project model program provided the following promises. for educational change: 1.

By providing teachers a chance to be exposed to this material and helping them use it in their classroom, we are beginning to induce a change on the curriculum in mathematics.

2.

By providing training for teachers on a released time basis

we are asserting that continued education is an essential part of today's teaching and should be included in, not added to the existing work Riad. 3.

By emphasizing the assisting role 'for the teacher in place of

the directive instructing role, we are making a subtle change in the whole social climate of the classroom directed at

making school a more human place and pleasure rather than a chore.

This change will be essential considering the trend for

students to spend more and more of their life in school.

- 18 -

The objectives of the model program, as originally formulated,

were divided into two categories, demonstration and training.

The

behavioral objectives of the demonstration were: 1.

Visitors to the program would talk to collegues about their experience.

2.

Visitors would order the Madison Project materials.

3.

Visitors would provide a source of people for workshops

The behavioral objectives of the training program were: 1.

Teachers Would be able to perform specific Madison Project skills.

2.

Teachers would be able to teach the Madison Project materials.

3.

Teachers would teach Madison Project materials in their classroom.

4.

Teachers would transfer the relaxed, discovery type low pressure technique inherent in the Madison Project lessons to other subjects.

5.

Teachers would open their classes to their collegues.

6.

Teachers would merge Madison Project lessons with regular work.

The objectives of the training program stayed the same throughout the three years, bolt the objectives of the demonstration program shifted.

The demonstration program served as a service to the Northern Illinois area to provide an opportunity for the community to see an operating model of a Madison Project program.

It's objectives were to publicize

the existance of the program and deploy its materials, not to get participants in the workshops.

Relation'of the Model Prsoram to the Basic Questions of T 6 D A major portion of the training program was devoted to encouraging participants to expose and study, openly and objectively, their own behavior.

Ass Madison Project lessons were "practiced" by each teacher

with the aid and support of three other teachers.

These "practice"

lessons were critiqued, often with the aid of the s'lander's Interaction

- 19-

Analysis Scale and audio and video tape.

Further, teachers in the

program were encouraged to demonstrate the new materials with their collegues and discuss with them their new techniques. The whole format of the Madison Project materials is such as to imply.a change in teacher role.

These materials are discovery materials

and not 'conducive to the traditional paradign of: teacher

to student ---,i0back to teacher.

Information --0 to

The materials are informa-

tion laden, the teacher serving only as a catalyst for student-material interaction.

The specific skills teachers learned in the Madison Project program are:

Pebbles in the bag Postman stories

Tic-tac-toe

Graphing lesson: Et +A= 12 Graphing lesson:

3 x

+ 1 =ia

Guess the function Quadratic equation lesson Area with geoboards

Area equation on graph Tin Foil geometry The effects of the program on students is both obvious and subtle.

Obviously the students will have mastered those skills which their teachers present to them, hopefully the same ones mentioned above.

More subtle is the question of attitude and transfer of learning. It is hoped that their attitude toward math will become more optimistic,

that when they are faced with a mathematical problem, they will assume

they can solve it rather than that they will fail.

It is also hoped

that they will begin seeing math as a tool to help shine light upon other disciplines.

Lastly, it is hoped that they will love math for

its own intrinsically captivating self -- derive pleasure from the

discipline in the abstract without additional rewards.

ACTIVITIES

Demonstration

During the three years of demonstrating the Madison Project Math materials for the Elk Grove Training and Development Center the following activities were used: 1.

Orientation

2.

Observation

3.

Participation

4.

Discussion

The initial orientation was a very brief, sketchy description of 'the Madison Project Math materials.

The interest of the participants

encouraged us to extend this to a very detailed description of the history of the program and its materials.

The initial demonstrations

had a long observation period in which the visitors watched as many as five half-hour classes.

Their apparent boredomindicated

by glassy

eyes and frequent yawning, encouraged us to shorten this observation period to one twenty-minute session.

This proved to be long enough to

give credibility to the claims made about the materials during the orientation.

Initially there was no opportunity for participation since most of the time was being spent on observation of demonstration classes.

We noticed during the brief orientation period that our visitors were hesitant to put down the manipulative material and often made us late to the demonstration classes.

When we changed format we made this

experience with the manipulatives an integral part of the demonstration program.

- 22

Under the original format our visitors were so tuckered out after hours of observation that they had very little to say.

Under the latter

format, after hearing about the Madison Project Math, seeing it demonstrated and experiencing the materials, the visitors were eager to react to what they had seen and experienced.

They were encouraged to consider

the implications of the material in their home setting as well as its implications generally.

IERiakIK The following activities were used in the training programs of Madison Project Math:

Presentation Independent manipulation of materials Independent study

Micro-teaching Critiquing Group dynamics games Xerox listening course Simulation materials (SRA)

The Madison Project Math materials were presented to the teachers in the same way as they would be presented to the students.

The teachers

then practice-taught these materials before a group of their peers using a small group of students. teachers.

These lessons were then critiqued by the

Each teacher had the chance to teach four or five times during

each workshop.

This gave the workshop leader a chance to help the teachers

clear up areas in the presentation that may have been hazy and gave the teachers a chance to try out the new materials with help and guidance before they went back to their own classrooms.

-23-

During all the workshops

teachers had the chance to manipulate the independent exploration material for themselves, following the included instructions so that they would know what the students were going to experience.

In two

of the workshops time was provided for the teachers to pursue interesting projects in depth themselves with the workshop leader serving as a resource person.

In some of the workshops group dynamic games, such as the NASA

game, tinker toys motivation game, and the trio process observation were used.

These were used mainly to expose participants to situations

in which they were forced to notice their own behavior patterns.

It

was hoped that they could perhaps relate their behavior in those groups to their effect on children.

It was also hoped that they would develop

a deeper, more trusting relationship with the teachers in their critique groups, thus making the critique experience more real and more in depth. In two workshops the Xerox listening materials were presented.

The pre and post tests included with this showed a 100% improvement for everyone but we questioned its transfer value when not listening to Xerox listening tapes.

The SRA simulation materials were used in most of the workshops. These were used mainly to get teachers to start talking to one another on how they handle problems in their own classrooms.

This opened up

discussion on goals, appropriateness of gcals and in general provided teachers with a chance to re-evaluate their own basic values and beliefs in education.

Dissemination

The activity most often used to disseminate Madison Project Math program was a personal visit to the superintendent to describe'the materials.4

-24-

and see if the district would be interested.

Occasionally a presenta-

tion was made to an administrators' meeting, or a group of teachers on Institute Day.

Other Activities

During the three years of the program three large group meetings were held.

These were held to provide teachers the apportunity to hear

"great" men and their. ideas.

The first of these meetings featured

author John Holt, the second, the Director of the Madison Project, Dr. Robert B. Davis and the last, author Niel Postman. T_

echniques

It is difficult to separate activities from techniques.

I have

designated the things the participants did as activities; the things the Model Program, Coordinator did were techniques.

used in demonstration were quite elementary.

The techniques

The demonstrator listened

and tried to ascertain the visitors objectives in being there, then responded accordingly.

During the training sessions the techniques used included various degrees of lecture, personal experience and confrontation. interesting technique developed WAS the micro-teaching.

The most

For this

technique, modified from its form as conceived by Dwight Allen at Stanford University, teachers were divided into groups of four.

One

member of the group presented a concept to four or five students while the others watched.

If the teacher doing the presenting got into trouble

the other teachers helped out. (The mood was kept very informal.)

The

other three teachers in the group watched the presentation, often did a Flander's interaction analysis on the lesson, an analysis of questions asked and kept record of anything else the group felt was of interest.

-25

-

After the lesson the group critiqued the lesson, concentrating on the method of presenting the new materials and the interaction with the children.

A suggested list of questions for discussion is included

in Appendix B.

EVALUATION

Formative Evaluatioll

The formative evaluation process of the Madison Project Math was basically twofold.

First, data was gathered from each workshop partici-

pant and second, visitors to the demonstration school were asked to complete an evaluative form.

The evaluation procedure for the workshops initially consisted of a content and process test and subjective comments pertaining tO''specific asked items.

This data, particularly the mathematics skills test for the

participants, was deemed of little value for it failed to provide pertinent information to the stated objectives. were changed.

Accordingly, the procedures

Throughout the program different techniques were tried.

The last of the formative evaluation consisted of pre and post measures of participant competencies for each of the Madison Project Math lessons, a "This I Believe" measure affording each participant an opportunity to

express philosophical beliefs concerning the teaching of mathematics and a general comments statement from which reaction to each workshop was determined (See Appendix C for forms).

Other evaluative techniques were employed during certain of the

workshops in an effort to gain different formative data.

These techniques

included a pre and post measure of a derivation of the "Draw-A-Man" test

and pre and post workshop audio tape analysis.

The modified "Draw-A-Man"

was used in an effort to determine any modification of the teacher's perception of his relationship with students as a result of the workshop. This technique was perhaps the most meaningful of all techniques tried,

but was discontinued because it was too expensive.

The audio tape analysis

was employed to ascerta3n any major changes in teacher classroom verbal behavior after completioa of the Madison Project Math Workshop.

-27

The feedback from the formative data was analyzed for each workshop.

One of the major changes introduced early in the program as a

result of this data was,

the inclusion of children as an integral part

of the learning experience of workshop participants.

After presenting

the teacher partidipants with specific lessons, the teachers had an

opportunity to immediately try them with childen.

This practice enabled

them to ascertain the specific aspects of the lesson that needed strengthening or to clarify any questions that arose as a result of actually teaching the lesson to a group of students.

Early results indicated that the optimal group size was 16, so an attempt was made to keep workshop enrollment around this number. There was no question but that the most productive use of time

resulted in the workshop that met everyday as opposed to once a week. After Fall, 1967, therefore all workshops were conducted on this basis. Indications from the formative data were that a catalyst was necessary to promote "groupness" and group dynamics games were incorporated into the workshops after Fall, 1967. Requests for Madison Project Math workshops were so numr'rous that the Model Program Coordinator could not fill the demand.

Beginning in

Spring, 1968 an effort was made to train some people to be able to conduct their own workshops.

At least 7 Madison Project Math workshops have been

conducted by those trainees.

The major summative evaluation focus has been upor the training of workshop participants. ipants.

A follow-up questionnaire was mailed to 154 partic-

Responses were received from 120 or 78%.

The information gathered pertained to the following basic questions related to the attainment of the basic program objectives: 1)

the extent to which participants actually have or have not employed

- 28 -

the Madison Project Mathematics activities in their classrooms. 2)

possible reasons for not using the activities

3)

the extent of student understanding of each activity

4)

degree of confidence expressed by each participant toward his ability to teach the Madison Project Math activities

5)

the extent to which teachers who have not attended a workshop have evidenced an interest in attending such a program

6)

the extent to which workshop participants have discussed Madison Project Mathematics with other jeachers about the program

7)

the extent to which Madison Project Mathematics materials have either been purchased or constructed by schools

8)

the attitude of workshop participants toward the adequacy of their personal mathematics preparation for the program

9)

a general rating of the value of the workshops of the participants

()Iterations

A total of 21/i teachers and administrators participated in the

Madison Project Math workshops.

Complete list is on file.

A total of 264 educators visited the demonstration sessions.

list is also on fil, Various means were used to collect data.

They included:

1)

Summative questionnaire (Nov.., 1968)

2)

Formative Questionnaire (post test, all workshops)

3)

Content & Pedagogy Test (post test - 1 workshop)

4)

Draw-A-Man test (pre & post test -- 2 workshops)

5)

This I Believe test ( pre & post test -- 2 workshops)

6)

Audio tapes (pre. & post -- 1 workshop)

7)

Brickbats & bouquets (every second day -- all workshops)

The forms are compiled in Appendix

29 -

This

Treatment of Data 1)

Content analysis was applied to the "This I Believe" data in an effort to ascertain changes of beliefs toward the teaching of mathematics

2)

Chi-square analysis was applied to the formative questionnaire to determine changes in competencies to use the Madison Project Mathematics activities

3)

The summative questionnaire, being descriptive in natures was

tabulated and cumulative results reported. 4)

Content analysis was applied to the audio tapes in an effort to determine changes in the verbal behavior of the workshop participants

5)

the pre and post measures of the modification of "Draw-A-Man" test were analyzed by a trained psychologist for observable alterations of behavior

Sumary of Findings The extent to which workshop participants have used the Madison Project Mathematics activities is reported in. Table 1.

The activity

used most frequently was Tic-tac-toe (101) while the area equation on graph was'used least (18).

Table 2 presents the opinion of the teacher participants regarding the understanding by their students of the various Madison Project Mathematics activities.

As can readily be determined, the teachers were of

the opinion that the activities were, by and large, very well or well understood.

Few teachers indicated a poor understanding on the part of

students while no teachers reported very poor understanding on the part of the students.

-30-

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

=4X

geometry

Tin Foil

.

Area equation on graph

geoboa rds

Area with

lesson

Quadratic equation

Guess the function

3x 0+ 1

lesson

Graphing

-1-axe 12

lesson

Graphing

"..=MO!........e.11.1011.11.0...111.1.111....+,1pro

I

I

ft

22

58

WI

80

have used I have not used but intend to do so

..59

I

16

22

the grade is inaeprosiriate

15

like the lesson '

cont

the materials are unavai;able

I have not used and do not intend to do so because:

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

TABLE

6

5

2

4

7

..,..1.1111111MOT,

e..Fc....

2

4.

other

iver- oorly # 1

24

57

42

8

did not use this

75

79

Tin foil geometry

equation

on graph

Area

38

19

poorly

Area with geoboards

31

83

49

well

69

I

I

well

lesson

Quadratic equation

Guess the function

3x0+ 1 *LN,

lesson

Graphing

Graphing lessor +,64 = 12

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

ver

n my opinion most of the students understood these activities:

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

TABLE 2

Table 3 presents the responses of the teachers when asked about their ability to use the Madison Project Mathematics activities with the children.

For no lesson do the insecure, very insecure responses

out-number the very confident, confident indications.

There is, however,

considerable variance with regard to confidence in the ten different activities.

It can be noted that the two activities which the teachers

indicate to be the ones with which they are insecure are those which were listed as being used least frequently (quadratic equation lesson and area equation on graph).

The workshop participants were next asked whether or not they were

aware of other teachers in their building who had not attended a Madison Project Mathematics workshop that wanted to use Madison Project Math. Of the 120 who responded to this question, 72 or 60% said "yes" and 44 or 36.6% replied "no".

Four or 3% offered replies but did not respond

either "yes" or "no" to the question.

The Mason Project workshop participants were next asked whether they had talked to teachers responsible for teaching mathematics in schools other than their own about Madison Project Mathematics.

Eighty-

two (68.3%) replied "yes" to the question while 38 (31.7%) responded "no"

Actual materials purchase or construction by the workshop participants was deemed to be rather good evidence of the degree of commitment to Madison Project Math,

Table 4 displays this data.

The participants next were asked whether or not their math background was sufficient to enable them to participate effectively in the workshop.

One hundred fifteen (95.8%) indicated that their mathematics

background was sufficient whereas five (4.2%) replied that it was not. In conclusion, the teachers were querried as to the overall value of the workshops to them.

Sixty-one (53%) replied that the Madison

Project Math workshops had been highly beneficial; fifty-three (46%)

-33-

54

25

35

Area equation on graph

Tin foil geometry

=A

81

84

confident

Area with geoboards

lesson

Quadratic equation

Guess the function

3x0+ 1

Graphing lesson

lesson

Graphing

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

ver

1

t

46

16

33

27

confident I

f insecure I I

12

9

1

1

very insecure

How do you fee 1 about your ability to use these activities with children?

voacmcL-V401.11.1010..r.mill.",...c

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

TABLE 3

..,

TINIIIIL-

......,.

..........................mmree...;*

TABLE

4

Number of Schools Making Some

Number of Schools

Workshop Date

Purc192LETILpment

Pan.1114.4.41.....1.*.I.N.,

6/21 - 7/21/67

11

13 -4.1,14., g4001.0...1.1,1

Nate .14,1001. MI/MX .1.1.0.00...41 0.0401.

10/67 - 1/68

ono ono

do

V4WINII

4

3/5 - 15/68 r

it

4/15 - 23/68 ./.004,40094V,041grni. 441011,1001.A0 WAISF

0/ II,Lon V eV

iernayfp

4110.40r 4004i*

on4111.,440

I 0.,01 0M1 WInborMWIA.041614.4.0.10..101il

010.04~40.0./.40.004.......10.004bigifiihMOMNIO 0/04..hilliileiMainEddinii0

/0040 MY/404

6

6 06/".04

00.0.0.104..4I1614104Ma4;01.

10

13

7/12/68

1110AVOMMIN.V.oulaV444444.4140v0.44.4.,4044****.

6/24 - 7/9/68 0,1,4(.04,41.44144.4.1.11

0,

44

14

5/3/68

41111060,*111..0014.1M,01V.0101/

11

11

mu, Y rwl,V4v,,

6/24

',too..., a. r

9

12

.11Movio4p,oalovs,..

4/22

0.

e

o,

.0, rm..... 0,,

...........WfmoOM....0440..or{.

VII

30

39 "44IFIN

10/7 - 11/68 4444.4III40.44.444144.4101.1oVarvION4(4....4.4.,.V.444

o, lv....+0,,,, row*

V

10

10

l 44,444.A.ov*.,*

35

vo,20.104

*v.

4...IWON01000.11011710.10010.10100

noted that it had been beneficial and one (1%) replied the workshop had been of little value to him.

In summary of the 154 workshop participants 120 responded to a questionnaire.

The data appears to indicate favorable responses

to the Madison Project Mathematics workshops.

More specifically, the

data suggests that Madison Project Mathematics has transferred from the workshops to the classroom where, it is being used by the teachers:

that children appear to understand the activities; that teachers are generally confident in their ability to teach the activities; that the participants have discussed Madison Project Mathematics with their colleagues; and that other teachers are desirous of training in Madison Project Math; that commitment to Madison Project Math is evidenced by the acquisition of necessary materials for teaching and finally that those who participated in the workshops were of the opinion that the program was beneficial to them.

The basic questions of the Elk Grove Training and Development Center are related, to two basic concepts -- changing role perceptions

and teacher behavior and the acquisition of specific skills by the participating professionals.

While Madison Project Mathematics was concerned with both of these facets, the one most readily measured was that dealing with skills acquisition.

The gaining of additional requisite skills and techniques

for the teaching of mathematics was a prime concern of the Madison Project Math workshops.

The summative data suggests that these tech-

niques and skills are being employed in the classrooms.

Ultimately the

impact of this instruction will be evidenced from the large numbers of children to be exposed to Madison Project Mathematics.

If one multiplies

the number of workshop participants by an average classroom size (30

- 36 -

pupils), some 6000 children will be effected by Madison Project Math per year

When this, in turn, is multiplied by the number of years

teachers will be involved in the teaching of mathematics, the number of students that may be effected by the Madison Project Mathematics program becomes significantly large.

describIn writing recommendations, one is always torn between ing the unattainable ideal situation or the practical alternative that 'accomplishes the goals. fine.

On a practical. level, the program ran

The demand for workshops was more than the budget allowed.

Since I fully endorse the released time format, one recommendation

would be either more money for released time or more matched funds from the districts for the same purpose.

The area of evaluation is one area that presents sticky problems. There is a need for more illuminating techniques In three areas. main evaluation done has been called, formative.

The

However, in fact,

each this formative evaluation, was really summative with respect to workshop.

There is a need to develop unobtrusive techniques to help

well as make plans for a workshop leader make day-to-day decidions as the next workshop.

The technique used for the summative data relied entirely on answers to questionivaires.

There is no data about "how well" a teacher

teaches the lesson she reports she is teaching.

Techniques need to be

developed for this purpose.

Lastly, this program did not evaluate the effect of the program on the children.

Minimally, attempts should have been made to demon-

hindered by exposure to strate that the children's performance was not these materials.

Once this pessimistic outlook was dispensed with, an

attempt should have been made to show that childrents performances were enhanced and their attitudes toward math improved.

Tools to do these

jobs also need to be developed. I must point out that the Elk Grove Training and Development Center provided an excellent staff of supportive, compassionate co-workers.

Admin-

istrators were always to be counted on for support if a problem came up. 38

REFERENCES

1.

Davis, Robert B., A Modern Mathematics Program as it

Pertains to the Interrelationship of Mathematical Content ing Methods and Classroom Atmosphere.

Teach-

(The Madison Project)

Cooperative Research Project No. D-093, of the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. sity - Webster College.

1965.

-39-

Syracuse Univer-

ABSTRACT

The Madison Project Mathematics is a program that was imported from outside the local area by the Elk Grove Training and Development Center.

This math program is best described as supportive and supple-

mentary.

It assumes the content of the basic programs and takes this

content one step further.

The Elk Grove Training and Development Center offered workshops and a demonstration program in the math project from January, 1967 through June, 1969.

The Model Program Coordinator was Mrs. Doris

Machtinger; Demonstration Assistants were Mrs. Judy Lowe and Miss Michaelene Palac; 264 educators visited the program; 214 teachers and principals took part in the workshops.

The visitors came from all

over the United States, Puerto Rico, Equador and other countries. Workshop participants were mainly from the local area.

However,

Madison Project Math has been incorporated in the curriculum as a result of this program in such distant places as Charleston, Ill., Evanston, Ill., Wilmette, Ill., Fish Creek, Wis., Columbia, Neb., Corpus Christi, Texas, and Grand Forks, N.D.

It is estimated that

at least 6000 children a year will be exposed to Madison Project Math lessons as a result of this progra

.

All the school districts cooper-

ating made the minimal commitment of ordering the materials besides sending teachers to the workshops.

The demand for Madison Project

Mathematics is still high in this area.

It is only regretful that

funds are not available to continue this program.

APPENDIX A

Chronological Overview

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

DATE

LEADER

6/21 - 7/21/6

Doris Machtinger

NO. OF PARTICIPANTS 16

NO. OF SCHOOLS IN DIST. #25 #59 Par. #15 #25 #59 #65

7

5 2

10/67-1/68

3/4-15/68

Doris Machtinger

Doris MachtInger

21

16

4 6 4 1 4 3 2

4 6

4/15-18,23/68 4/22-5/3/68 6/24-7/12/68 (Leadership)

Bernice Gliege Miriam Gulesarian Doris Machtinger

8 10

7

'16

2 1 1 2 2 1

8

7

6/24-7/9/68

Michalene Palac Rosalyn Hefner John Kropp Jessie Valerio Joy Lutsch Arlyle Ferguson Jerry,Garr

71

6 3 1

6 12 4 5 2 7

2

10/7/-11/68

Doris Machtinger

16

1 4

4

11/18-22/68

Jerry Garr

12

11/18-26/68 12/2-6/68

Peg Aiman Carl Seltzer

10 15

1 2 1 1 8 1 7

2 7

1 3

#428 #21 #25 #54 #57 #25 #428 #15 '#25

#54 #59 #65 #116 Par. #15 #21 #23 #25 054 #57 #59 #65 Par. Wis. #21 #25 #54 #59 #65 #15 #23 #25 #65 #21 #39

#54 #57 #65

APPENDIX

B

Syllabi Followed in the Workshop

ELK GROVE TRAINING

&

DEVELOPMENT CENTER

DISCUSSION GUIDE

Questions to be answered in group discussion by people observing the lesson.

1.

What content was covered:

2.

What techniques were used?

3.

Which kids responded to which parts of the lesson?

4.

Describe the behavior of each childA

5.

Speculate on how much each child got out of the lesson.

6.

Who enjoyed the lesson the most?

7.

Who seemed to enjoy the work the least?

What problems arose?

9.

How were they handled?

Why?

Why?

Discussion Guide Page 2

10. How else could they have been handled?

11. Will the problem be a problem for tomorrow's teacher?

12. How will it be handled then?

13.

(For this lesson's teacher to answer) again, what would you do differently?

If you could do this lesson over

14. What was the best part of this lesson that you will repeat if you can?

15. What is the lesson going to be tomorrow?

DM/ce

a.

Content

b.

Special action with respect to special problems.

6/12/68

11

JUNE

#54 - S.P.A.

MONDAY, 1ST

MONDAY, 24TH

,

#54 - Davis Film

MONDAY, 8TH #25 - S.R.A.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD

#54 - Cuisennaire Rod Film

#54 - Video Tape

TUESDAY 2ND

#57 - Video Tape

#25 - Davis Film

#57 - Cuisennaire Rod Film

#25 - Cuisennaire Rod Film

TUESDAY, 9TH

FRIDAY, 28T1f

TUESDAY, 25TH

THURSDAY, 27TH

WEDNESDAY, 26TH

CALENDAR

I

I

#57

Graphing Introduction to Geoboards

+3 -4

Graphing

#54

3 xri

More graphing

#25

Dist.

Postman stories Addition

Tic-Tac-Toe Number line Pebbles in the bag

#57

DAY 6

Postman stories Addition, Subtraction & Multiplication

Tic-Tac-Toe Number line Pebbles in the bag

#54

Graphing Geoboard area

Geoboards

Geoboards & Graphing

DAY 7

Guess the function

Postman stories Addition & Subtraction

Number line Tic-Tac-Toe Pebbles in the bag Pet Shop

DAY 2

#25

Dist.

DAY 1

Tinfoil geometry 5 sq. geometry Paper folding

Graphing Geoboard area

Shoeboxes & Paper folding

DAY 8

Postman stories Multiplication Quadratic equations

Quadratic equations

Postman stories Multiplication Open sentences

DAY 3

Shoeboxes Pattern game

Tinfoil 5 sq. geometry

Tinfoil 5 sq. geometry

DAY 9

Film and rods

Guess the function Pattern game

Guess the function Quadratic equation

DAY 4

I

T

,6

Mop up

Paper folding Shoeboxes

Mop up

DAY 10

Graphing and variations of Tic-Tac-Toe

Graph a +6=

3 x 0 + 4

0+6= 9

Graph Introduce

*DAY 5

2:30

2:00.

1:00

12:00

11:30

11:00

10:00

9:00

x

Critique

Micro-teach

Break

+

Postman

Lunch

Critique

Micro-teach

_

Coffee Break

Trio, leveling, trio

#

-P.I.B.

MONDAY

Finite differences

NASA Moon Game

Guess the function Open sentences Quadratic equations

TUESDAY

.

-

Harder graphing

.

Men Haar Hoolim

Easy graphing

WEDNESDAY

.

_

.._

i'

ESS & L.c. kids

Graphing

&

Tin foil geometry

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1

.

11

Geoboards

T

Bring in other games

..,.....

Gattegno Film

Shoe boxes

a;V

Real math

Kids & Critique

Kids & Critique

Use of In-service package

1.003:00

3:004:00

_

Adult Simulation

Graphing & Geoboards

_

_

Trio, leveling, trio

P.I.B. #

10:20

9:00

3:004:00

1:003:00

10:15

9:00

MONDAY

1

1

I

t

!

..,..

package

Use of In- service

Kids & Critique

Tinker toys for motivation

Graphing & Geoboards

Math

1

WEDNESDAY

,lt*,,...,NLY.,',..11....71...a

Use of In-service package -

Kids & Critique

Xerox listening material

Xerox listening material

2:45

Baughman

Kids & Critique

NASA

Guess the function Even and odds

,ele.r.1.............a.......... t

Kids & Critique

SRA

Postman Even and odds

TUESDAY

it

Kids & Critique

Plans for own worksho

5 square geometry

.

Content Rules for "Guess the Function"

....T.C",".

1

1

1

Micro-teaching 3

Graphing

FRIDAY

Kids & Critique

Luncheon

Puzzling Gattegno film Evaluation

Lab - shoeboxes

joo...mr.ssm...wk,---

4

rt

1

.".'""...4"'--"''"F......""'.."""'."4.'''''"""e"P"'' 1

Kids & Critique

It

Ideal School Conference

THURSDAY

APPENDIX

C

Evaluation Instruments

DATE

NAME

POSITION

Please indicate how you feel about the effectiveness of the following parts of your visit to the Madison Project Math Program:

1.

Orientation

2.

Envolvement (opportunity to work with the shoe boxes)

3.

Classroom visitation

4.

De-briefing session

In order to get soma Seeling-for-vhat-are--the-mostvaluable-type -of Madison Project experiences for teachers, we need some data on the use of these mateials in classes. Would you please fill out the following questionnaire and return it to me? Thank you. W ta

0 td

I

0 11

04 Please check the appropriate columns. You may want to put in more than one

v

o rd

44

.2 g

4 I> :-',

A 4-)

a)

§1

r044 1.4

check.

0 13 V

0 0 ri 4.4 4.4 0 4-I M

0-4 0 0 1

0

r4 o

.4..) 0

H 1g 1

r4 rl .0 rl 44

Pi

.1. M rl

0

rd 0 0 0 P0 rtr N co-4 0 0

rd

.0 0 ri 4-1 ..0 0

A

to

A 0 0M

44 0

o

44

00 0

0 i 14 0

0

13 m

Al 44

A H 44

7.4

0

44 A4 44

co 4-5

4.5

w .,4

H

4, Wil

+3 0,

...) -:y...)

+I 0-4

4-)

0

&.-

+8 451 1 gi 1.1 r-11 0 b0 er4

A r4 0 b0 a ..rt al 0 r4 M

0.

d

c.)00

A

H

rZi

44 0

0 00

Jiv

rd

4.) I

0H g 0 1M r-

5 50 44 P-4

41

r?

,..r...........

Tic-tac-toe .............,.

Pebbles in the Bag .......

Postman Stories

Guess the Function

--_-_-___ ..............,

G:mphing

i +,f

I

\-

No. ,

1

..._.

Graphing

'
1+ M -/

Geo-boards

Shoeboxes

Any anecdotes or comments you think may be useful

.....


(312) 259.8050

Recently we had the pleasure of meeting you and demonstrating for you the Madison Project Mathematics materials. As we discussed during your visit, the coordinator of the Madison Project model program is available to offer consultant services for this program. We are interested to know if we can be of any further help to you. In order to ascertain our effectiveness as a demonstration program, we need to have some information from you. Would you be kind enough to fill out this information sheet and return it to us. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Doris Machtinger, Madison Math Coordinator DM/ce Encl.

LEADERSHIP IN NEW EDUCATIONAL DIRECTIONS, A TITLE III PROGRAM OF E.S,E.A.

ELK GROVE TRAINING

&

DEVELOPMENT CE"NTE"R

Madison Project

1.

Did you use any of the methods and/or materials presented in the Madison Project demonstration before you saw the demonstration? Methods:

Yes

No

Materials:

Yes

No

Not sure e.semommoINNalao

Not sure

If yes, which ones?

2.

Have you talked to any of the following persons about your visit to the Madison Project demonstration and the things (methods, materials, ideas) you saw and heard? '(Check those persons you talked with) principal

superintendent

teacher 0111011101011111111111110

other

school board member

curriculum coordinator (Please specify)

have not talked to anyone 3.

Have you started to use (are you using) any of the ideas and/or materials presented by the Madison Project demonstration? Ideas:

Yes

No

Materials:

Yes

No

If yes, which ones?

4.

Do you plan to use any of the ideas and/or materials presented by the Madison Project demonstration? Ideas:

Yes

No

Not sure

Materials:

Yes

No

Not sure

If yes, which ones?

Madison Project

Page 2 5.

6.

7.

Would you like to consult with the Coordinator to help you implement and/or discuss the program? Discussion:

Yes

No

Will let you know

Implementation:

Yes

No

Will let you know

Do you feel your ideas about teaching and methods of teaching have been changed as a result of visiting the Madison Project demonstration? Ideas:

Definitely changed

1

2

3

4

Definitely NOT changed

Methods:

Definitely changed

1

2

3

4

Definitely NOT changed

Materials: Definitely changed

1

2

3

4

Definitely NOT changed

Comfients (suggestions, criticism, etc.) and/or questions you have concerning the Madison Project program?

DM/ce 11/28/67

Grade

like 3 x1:1+4 =4

Graph equations

like CI 441 pg 7

Graph of equations

Quadratic Equations

from given data (What's my rule?)

Wite an equation

Multiplication of signed numbers

Addition & subtraction of signed numbers

......___

-

I can do this myself

appropriate columns.

Please 'check the

Plotting points on a graph

DIRECTIONS:

'Leader' s Name

Workshop

Wstrict

School

Name

.

I know about it but I can't do it myself

....

.

I don't know what you mean by this

.

I know it well enough to teach

MADISON PROJECT MATH CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE

it.

ELK GROVE TRAINING

&

DEVELOPMENT CENTER

MADISON PROJECT EVALUATION SHEETS

Name

Grade you teach

School

Workshop leader

Length of workshop

Dates of workshop_

DM/ce - 9/30/68

34:1 +

Graphing lesson

Tin foil geometry

geometry

5 square

Area equation on graph

Area with geoboards

Quadratic equation lesson

ve.OV,.

411100400

e, .0YMb

do

0.111111

I cannot

i will do I will no; do

like

I do not

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE COLUMNS FOR THE FOLLOWING MADISON PROJECT LESSONS

If kids were available for testing the new materials, please comment on how you felt initially and how you feel now about this experience:

General comments about this workshop:

ELK GROVE TRAINING

&

DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Madison Project Math

BOUQ

ETS

BRICKBATS

MADISON PROJECT MATH WORKSHOP

1.

I

believe this about students' ability to perform in math:

2.

I

believe this about students' attitudes toward math:

3.

I

believe this about the best classroom climate for teaching math:

4.

I

believe this about the best kind of grouping for teaching math:

5.

I

believe parents feel like this about modern math:

6.

I

feel like this about modern math:

DM/ce - 10/1/68

-1 L,;;Tokii, Trm

mod

ioq

Po4,10(2m4,46/i/o-l-r

1706 West Algonquin Rd., Arlington Heights, III. 60005

(312) 259-8050

December 18, 1968

Dear Madison Project Workshop Participant;

The Elk Grove Training and Development Center is trying to put together a comprehensive evaluation report of the effectiveness of its programs. We very badly need your cooperation in our effort to help supply what data we can. Please help us by filling out the enclosed questionnaire and returning it immediately. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

h

nger, Coordinator Doris Mac Madison Project Math DM/ce Encl.

LEADERSHIP IN NEW EDUCATIONAL DIRECTIONS, A TITLE III PROGRAM OF E.S.E.A.

I.

Tin Foil geometry

Area equation on graph

Area with geoboards

lesson

Quadratic equation

Guess the function

3x 1:3+ 1 =2N

lesson

Graphing

0+,41= 12

Graphing lesson

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

.

_...

TI have used

I have not used but intend to do so the grade level is inappropriate I

don't like the lesson

the materials are unavailable

I have not used and do not intend to do so because:

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

other

.

....

Tin foil geometry

Area equation on graph

geoboa rds

Area with

lesson

Quadratic equation

Guess the function

3)cl:1+1=A

lesson

Graph in

0+4 = 12

Graphing lesson

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

ver

well

,

well I

Poorly

..

very poorly I

did not use this

In my opinion most of the students understood these activities:

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

---

......._.-

=1.1

Tin foil geometry

Area equation on graph

geoboa rds

Area with

Quadratic equation lesson

Guess the function

3x0+ I

Graphing lesson

lesson

Graphing

Tic-tac-toe

Postman stories

Pebbles in the bag

very confident confident insecure

very insecure

How do you feel about your ability to use these activities with children?

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SPACES

IV.

am aware of other teachers in my building who have not attended a Madison Project Math workshop who want to use Madison Project Math. I

Yes

V.

have talked to teachers responsible for teaching mathematics in schools other than my own about Madison Project Math. I

Yes

VI.

No

No

Please check those materials your school has purchased specifically for Madison Project Math activities: Geoboards Peg games Shoe boxes

Teacher's edition of Discovery Test Teacher's edition of Exploration Test Student's edition of Discovery Test Student's edition of Exploration Test Other games commercially available seen at Madison Project workshop.

VII.

.V111.

Briefly comment on the reaction of the children to the Madison Project Math

Was your math backgrounu sufficient to enable you to participateteffectively in the workshop? Comment:

Yes

No

X.

I

feel the Madison Project Math workshop was: Highly beneficial

Of little value

Beneficial

Of no value

School Level

Name

I

teach or

Date of workshop attended

.11.1111Pt7IM,L,,T,

MADISON PROJECT MATH

Fol low -Up Questionnaire

In an effort to continually examine our Madison Project Math program we are asking those teachers who have participated in the workshops to provide us with current information. It is our belief that such information obtained after you have had an opportunity to return to your classroom and try some of the activities will be most helpful to our on-going evaluation.

Please provide the information requested and return the questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope by

Many thanks for your help in this matter!

Sincerely,

Doris Machtinger, Coordinator Madison Project Math DM/ce Encl.

APPENDIX

D

Consultants to the Program

DIRECTORY OF CONSULTANTS

John Holt

Neil Postman Judith Lowe

Gerald Baughman Robert B. Davis

0

APPENDIX

E

Relevant Materials

NON-PROFIT ORG.

qAk 6rovsTrahiii(46) mod

U. S. Postage

PAID

Mt. Prospect, III. Permit No. 33

lscusloputivAf6orfsr

1706 West Algonquin Rd., Arlington Heights, III. 60005

The Elk Grove Training and Developri at Center has been organized to help meet the demand that Education keep pace with mushrooming mass of new information, scientific discovery, and innovation in methods and techniques. Members of the Center consotorium include public, private, and parochial schools, colleges and universities, and the cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc.

Funded under Title III of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Afgre

AREA CODE 312/259-8050

FOR INFORMATION OR AN APPOINTMENT

WE DON'T '6";14S1 4TLi Ael-.21q1 6WILDREN

47TRUCiOtE TO 5E606/15 Tic touch, to manipulate materials in a laboratory at This is the heart of Madison Project Mathematics that introduces children to the wide spectrum of sop concepts. Directed by Dr. Robert B. Davis of Syracuse

College, the Madison Project is an exciting supple velopment project outstanding in its approach to and to the discovery method of learning.

The materials used by the Madison Project are de range of the daily mathematics curriculum. By car and by increasing the vitality and relevance of th with mathematics, Madison Project stimulates stu mathematical environment.

Self exploration materials, and classroom discus

MAL I atIA

.STUMNT6) NOR °61.4Apsi

TM;

INITiATSD 5E60105 MATURE ADULT. Pt: R'.13.1DavO

141i,02E-N fN TI-161R

als in a laboratory atmosphere, to discover) a unique approach roject Mathematics ide spectrum of sophisticated mathematical B. Davis of Syracuse University and Webster

an exciting supplementary curriculum dein its approach to independent exploration

(

I

Q-j"-

staples of the Madison Project. Simple, but clever in concept, the selfexploration materials are housed in an attractively decorated shoe box a delight to both students and teacher, yet complete in their mathematical accuracy. Alone, or in small groups, students enjoy playing with the mathematics rviterials, following direction cards or inventing and carrying out their own mathematics projects.

arning.

Bison Project are designed to broaden the curriculum. By careful readiness building, and relevance of the students' experience

oject stimulates students to explore their

d classroom discussion materials are two

Classroom discussions build on actual experiences. It is impossible to suppress young minds as they seek to test and compare newly discovered mathematical vistas.

In the world of mathematics, the big idea for little people is the Madison Project. You're invited to contact the program's coordinator, Doris Machtinger, at the Elk Grove Training and Development Center. Phone (area code 312) 259-8050 for information or an appointment concerning demonstrations.

L"

evvi

annp

ELK GROVE TRAINING

&

DEVELOPMENT CENTER

MADISON PROJECT

The Madison Project is a supplementary mathematics program. It has been directed by Dr. Robert B. Davis of Syracuse University and Webster College and has been funded mainly by the U.S. Office of Education, with additional funds from a long list of subscribers.

The project started in the Madison Junior High School in Syracuse, New York as an attempt to solve the problem of weak skills and lack of sympathy for a "mathematical" approach in college freshmen:, Soon after it began, the program moved down into the elementary school, since, after all, tit IS where the work really begins, The Madison Project tries to keep the materials of a nature that is refreshing to both teacher and student, while maintaining mathematical accuracy. The teaching approach nurtured in the very form of the materials is one of respect for the student as a person with ideas worth cultivating. The materials fall, basically, into two categories, self-exploratory materials and classroom discussion materials.

The self-exploration materials corrist of a set of apparatus and some direction cards, housed in a shoe box, attractively colored blue. Students enjoy playing with the materials, alone or in small groups, following the direction cards or inventing their own tasks. The materials are ideal for learning center materials, math-lab materials and, of course, material for the activity shelf in a self-contained classroom. The classroom materials again can be roughly broken into two categories. While Madison Project materials do not teach children their basic skills, they do provide the children with some tools that they generally do not have at their disposal, e.g., working with negative numbers. Some of the Madison Project lessons are designed to teach children these tools. These tools are usually taught through the use of games, games a7 common as tic-tac-toe. Once the tools are mastered, the really exciting lessons can follow. These lessons are concerned with allowing the children to use their new tools, to explore their power, to test out their mathematical environment. These lessons are especially conducive to discovery teaching. The Elk Grove Training & Development Center is sponsoring a model program of the Madison Project materials for the third year. The materials are being demonstrated by Miss Micky Pelee at Fairview School in Schaumburg School District #54, Mr. Wayne E. Schaible, Superintendent; Mr. Marvin Johnson, Principal. The program is coordinated by Mrs. Doris Machtinger. The I C, D Center is interested in helping interested schools adopt any part of this progra to fit their needs. if you are interested, contact Mrs. Doris Machtinger at the I & D Center, phone 259-8050

DM/ce 9/11/68

y, 0449\4.

*

f

<

$16.25 15.00 ea.

-

-

-

-

$6.00 2.50

Order from:

$6.00 2.50

Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Inc. 106 W. Station Barrington, 60010 or South*St. Reading, Mass. 0186

Teacher's Edition - - - Student's Edition - - - -

Exploration in Mathematics - - by Dr. R.B. Davis

Teacher's Edition Student's Edition

- by Dr. R.B. Davis

Math Media Division N & M Associates P.O. Box 1107 Danbury, Conn. 06810

Discovery in Mathematics

Omer from:

1 set of 6 4 sets of 6 ea. - - -

Geoboard & Workcards Tower Puzzle & Workcards Centimeter Blocks & Workcards Discs & Workcards Weights, Springs & Workcards Peg Game & Workcards

Shoe boxes with instruction cards and materials.. Set of 6 includes:

inLaanla2IExpioration Material --

Order from:

In-Service

Madison Project c/o Webster College Webster Groves, Mo.

Package

63119

$3.00 ea.

Houghton Mifflin Company 1900 S. Batavia Ave. Geneva, Iii. 60134

Service Package - -

Order from:

Add 8% for handling charges Add State and Local taxes where they apply

$1.20 ea.

Colored Centimeter Rods (Kit of 19 rods)

Centimeter Rods - -

MATERIALS USED IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM

Xerox Effective Listening Kit

Xerox Corporation 600 Madison Ave. New York, N.Y. 10022

S.R.A. Teaching Problems Lab

Science Research Assoc., Inc. 259 E. Erie St. Chicago, Iii. 60611

Leveling: A Method For Communicating Significant Personal Information

R.B. Morton

NASA Moon Game Tinker Toy Motivation Game Process Observation Trio Especially designed tapes illustrative of adult workshop problems

DECISION MAKING EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS: You are a member of a space crew originally scheduled to rendezvous with a mother ship on the lighted surface of the moon. Due to mechanical difficulties, however, your ship was forced to land at a spot some 200 miles from the rendezvous point. During re-entry and landing much of the equipment aboard was damaged and, since survival depends on reaching the mother ship, the most critical items available must be chosen for the 200 mile trip. Below are listed the 15 items left intact and undamaged after landing. Your task is to rank order them in terms of their importance for your crew in allowing them to reach the rendezvous point. Place number 1 by the most important item, the number 2 by the second most important, and so on through number 15, the least important.

Box of matches

Food concentrate 50 feet of nylon rope

Parachute silk Portable heating unit

Two .45 calibre pistols 11.111111Mkaa

One case dehydrated Pet milk Two 100 lb. tanks of oxygen

.1ma....Maggleam

Steller map (of the moon's constellation) Life raft

Magnetic compass 5 gallons of water Signal flares First aid kit containing injection needles

Solar-powered FM receiver-transmitter

SUPERINTENDENT'S

coma lAwrence 9.180647.09

eonnnuraiy &aloft:had Ss Aoot Zisitgai 54

SCHAUMBURG TOWNSHIP, CO OK COUNTY P.O. ROSELLE, ILLI NOIS NLACKHAWK SCHOOL II lino4 Blvd. & Schaumb erg Read Hoffman Estates, Min ois 60172

April 1, 1968

Mrs. Dory Machtinger Elk Grove Training & Developmental Center 1706 W. Algonquin Rolling Meadows, Illinois Dear Dory: I would like to share with you toy observations of the'four people that we sent to your Madison Math Workshop in March. I had a meeting with than last week to discuss ideas that they might have concerning the summer workshop. I was impressed not only with their opinion of the Madison materials but also with their attitudes. You could sense that these people had worked constructively together and were also able to critise and discuss each others suggestions without any offense being taken. Whatever there exposure in your workshop was, you certainly conveyed to these people a sense of unity and purpose. These traits will :sake them better pereAke, as well as better teachers. Thank you for your efforts and help.

Sincerely, JJ

R. J. Cisek, Principal Blackhawk & Twinbrook Schools

RJC:dn

1969
ERIC Archive, Curriculum Development, Elementary School Mathematics, Elementary School Teachers, Inservice Teacher Education, Instructional Materials, Program Descriptions, Program Evaluation, Machtinger, Doris D.
English