In-service education and the teacherAuthor(s): J. Fred WeaverSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 10, No. 7 (November 1963), pp. 456-457Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41186805 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 06:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.189 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:26:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Focal point J. Fred Weaver

In-service education and the teacher

Uuring the past year this section of The Arithmetic Teacher has given special emphasis to reports of in-service education programs. Various approaches and ac- tivities have been observed.

All such programs undoubtedly have had a common end in view, although dif- ferent means may have been used in an attempt to achieve that end. As Houston and De Vault1 have asserted, "A basic premise of in-service education is that professional growth of teachers will bring about increased achievement or learning in their pupils." More specifically, it would not be unjust to say that our in- service education programs are predicated upon the belief that a teacher's increased understanding of the subject matter of mathematics will result in increased mathematical learnings on the part of that teacher's pupils. We are beginning to have research evidence in support of this belief.2

Regardless of the validity of this basic hypothesis upon which in-service educa- tion programs are built, significant ques- tions arise regarding various facets of such programs. For example: 1 What mathematical content should be

included in the program? Should it be restricted to the mathematical content of the elementary school curriculum, or should it go beyond this in scope? How far beyond? How sophisticated an approach should be taken to the content included in the in-service program? No

» W. Robert Houston and M. Vere De Vault, "Mathematics In-Servioe Education: Teacher Growth Increases Pupil Growth/' The Arithmetic Teacher, X (May, 1963), 243.

* Ibid., pp. 243-47.

more sophisticated than that used with the elementary school pupil himself?

2 Should the in-service program deal ex- clusively with subject matter back- ground, or should it include implications for the elementary school classroom? Should it deal with instructional meth- ods and materials? To what extent should the "mathematical" and the "pedagogical" be kept separate? Or should they be closely interwoven?

3 Should the in-service program be com- pulsory or voluntary? If compulsory, should it be so for all teachers, or only for some? If only for some, for which ones?

4 Should "released time" be provided for the in-service program, or should it be carried out other than during "school time"?

5 Should any kind of credit be given for participation in the in-service program? If so, what kind(s): local professional credit only? college or university credit also? Should there be any distinction between these two kinds of credit?

6 Who should serve as leaders or con- sultants for in-service programs? Local supervisors or directors of mathematics? Local teachers: elementary school? sec- ondary school? Persons in similar posi- tions but from an "outside" school system? College or university personnel: in mathematics education positions? in "pure mathematics" positions?

7 Should an in-service program extend throughout a school year? Less than a school year? Less frequent sessions over a longer period of time, or more frequent sessions over a shorter span?

456 The Arithmetic Teacher

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.189 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:26:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

One-hour sessions? Two-hour sessions? 8 What instructional methods and ma-

terials are appropriate: lectures? text- books? if so, which one(s)? films? TV? programmed materials? other possibil- ities?

9 What about in-service education for principals, supervisors, etc.? Should they participate in the same program as do the teachers, or should there be a special program for them? Do they need any program at all? These are but some of the questions to

be faced in connection with an in-service program. Undoubtedly there are no pat answers to any of the questions. A good answer to a particular question in one situation will not necessarily also be a good answer to the same question in an- other situation.

Regardless, there may be a greater de-

gree of common feeling about some of these questions than we realize. How do teachers react to questions such as the ones posed? After all, an in-service pro- gram is planned primarily for a teacher's benefit (and indirectly, of course, for a child's benefit!)

We are most anxious to know how teach- ers would answer the questions raised earlier - some of them, or all of them. We invite you readers who are elementary school teachers to express your reactions in writing to the editor of this section of the journal (Prof. J. F. Weaver, Boston University, 332 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass. Z.C. 02215). It is our hope to devote a future issue of this section to a sympo- sium based on teachers' answers to ques- tions raised regarding in-service education programs. Do let us hear from you, the teacher, now.

Questions they asked-

Does in-service training of mathematics teachers result in greater knowledge and understanding of arithmetic concepts and processes?

Ruddell and Balow report an evaluation of an in-service arithmetic program where their find- ings lead to the conclusion that an in-service program they designed produced higher arith- metic achievement on the part of first-grade children. They reported the study in the Jour- nal of Educational Research, Vol. 57 (September, 1963).

// you are going to involve outside consultants in elementary instruction, should they teach the teachers or work directly with the pupils?

In a study of the role of science consultants in sixth-grade classes in Chicago, John R. Genther, the University of Chicago, found that students showed more gain when the consult- ants worked with the teachers rather than di- rectly with the children. [We ask, "Would this also be true if we were to study the role of mathematics consultants in the elementary

school?"] Genther's study is reported in the Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 57 (Sep- tember, 1963). How can you detect creativity?

Paul Torrance, University of Minnesota sug- gests the following key signs: a) Curiosity - A child's questions are persistent

and purposeful. b) Flexibility - If one approach doesn't work,

the creative child thinks of another ap- proach.

c) Sensitivity to problems - A child is quick to see gaps in information, exceptions to rules, and contradictions.

d) Redefinition - Child sees hidden meanings in statements that others take at face value. He sees connections between things that to others are unrelated.

e) Self-feeling - Creative child is self-directed. Following directions bore him.

f) Originality - He has surprising, uncommon ideas.

g) Insight - He has easy access to realms of the mind which noncreative people visit only in dreams.

- Taken from "Your Child May Be More Gifted Than You Think," Reader's Digest (May, 1963).

November 1968 457

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.189 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:26:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions