Preparation of Math and Science Teachers for the Twenty-first Century at North Carolina State University The belief that preservice mathematics and science teachers should learn mathematics, science, and teaching methods from models of good teaching in a technology-rich environment was the underpinning of a National Science Foundation 21st Century project at North Carolina State University. Teams of scientists and science and mathematics educators worked together to evaluate content and methods courses in the education curriculum. The main objectives of the project were to: 1) introduce technology into mathematics, statistics, chemistry, physics, mathematics education, and science education instruction; and 2) use a constructivist approach to teaching undergraduates who are preparing to teach. The project addressed the belief among undergraduates and faculty that telling is teaching and listening is learning. The assumption was that if undergraduates who are preparing to become science and mathematics teachers are immersed in a learning environment that requires them to use technology to construct their understanding of content and pedagogy, then they will use technology and constructivist teaching methods when they become teachers. To examine the effects of the project on faculty, a three-year evaluation was conducted. A survey was developed to measure differences between some of the project faculty and a random sample of their colleagues in the first, second, and third years of the project. The survey showed that the faculty's teaching methods, while nearly identical before the project, have diverged. The differences between the NSF project and the control groupÕs use of lecture was evidenced after one year of the project. Over three years, the use of different teaching methods remained relatively stable for the control faculty. At the beginning of this project, there were no significant differences between the NSF project and control groupÕs use of technology for instruction. Generally, both groups used little technology in class for instruction. After the first year, small differences were noted in the increased use of technology for class demonstrations by project faculty. In the third year, project members continued to increase the use of technology to include requiring computers and/or calculators for student assignments and they increased the use of computer classrooms for instruction. Over this same period, the control groupÕs use of technology declined slightly. Table 1 presents the relevant frequency comparison between the two groups. /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Mean Ranks and p-Values of Project and Control | | Faculties' Extent of Technology Used for | | Instruction in Third Year | |----------------------------------------------------------| | NSF Control | | Technology Use Faculty Faculty p-Values | |----------------------------------------------------------| | Demonstration 59 34 <.0005 | | Student Assignments 51 36 <.02 | | Computers for Tests 43 38 <.11 | | Calculators for Tests 47 37 <.10 | | Computer Tchg. Lab 52 36 <.01 | | MBL 48 38 <.08 | |----------------------------------------------------------| | Total Technology Use 50 32 <.005 | \----------------------------------------------------------/ To summarize, the NSF project faculty are using more technology for instruction than the control faculty. During the first year, there were no differences between the two groupsÕ use of technology for instruction. Change was gradual with the project faculty first trying out technology with classroom demonstrations and then beginning to give more responsibility to students by requiring specific software, computers, and calculators for assignments. At the beginning of this project, there were no attitudinal differences between the two faculty groups concerning the instructional uses of computers. However, in the second year of the project, the NSF project faculty had significantly better attitudes than their colleagues. The project facultyÕs attitudes continued to improve in the third year, while a small, but not significant, decrease was noted in the control facultyÕs attitudes. In relation to students, faculty expressed concerns initially that using technology would take away instructional time, therefore making it impossible to cover the course syllabus. In reality, they found that the technology allowed more time to cover the syllabus. Another concern was the learning curve associated with the time taken to learn how to use new technologies and new methods of teaching. Some faculty worried about collegial disapproval. This disapproval was a barrier that some faculty had to overcome. Finally, faculty had to take risks with students who complained about changes in instruction. Interestingly, students complaints were received from the traditionally successful students. The major student criticism was that other students could be as successful with the technological tools, and that was not fair. This project has successfully demonstrated that mathematicians, scientists, and educators can work together to initiate and sustain instructional innovations at a university. Faculty changed their instructional methods and attitudes and began to use technology and constructivist methods to teach undergraduates who will be the mathematics and science teachers of the Twenty-first century. The principal investigators for this project were Sarah B. Berenson, Lee V. Stiff, and Robert Savage. For more information, contact: The Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education College of Education and Psychology North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 .