*********************************************************** * * * A REVIEW OF THE 1-10 MATHEMATICS INSERVICE PROJECT: * * * * An Interim Report of an Innovation in Teacher Education * * * *********************************************************** Neil Cranston John Dungan Christine Grieve Research Services Department of Education PO Box 33 North Quay,Q,4002 ## A copy of the full report (including Displays, Instrumentation, and Appendixes) is available from the authors ## PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this interim report is to describe the major characteristics of an initiative in inservice education for primary and secondary teachers of mathematics. The report provides important background information on the initiative and highlights the essential features of the inservice model employed. The major early outcomes and impact of the initiative, as well as some emerging issues for consideration are also presented. The report is based on the activities of an external evaluation team during 1989. OVERVIEW OF THE 1-10 MATHEMATICS INSERVICE PROJECT Aims and Background The 1-10 Mathematics Inservice Project (MIP), which commenced in late 1988, is an initiative of the Queensland Department of Education. The overall aim of the Project is to improve the classroom practices of a group of teachers of mathematics. While a major contextual input to the Project has been the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus introduced in all Queensland State schools in 1987, the Project is not seen as providing specific inservice for teachers with respect to this Syllabus. The Project is, however, con- sistent with the overall thrust of the Syllabus, which outlines a continuous program of mathematical learnings for students across Years 1 to 10. It is also consistent with Years 11 and 12 syllabus initia- tives. For Years 1 to 10, the scope of mathematics is considered in terms of major concepts, processes and affects, with the Syllabus encouraging teachers to achieve a balance in using six teaching ap- proaches to meet the needs of students. The approaches are: *direct teaching; *activity-based learning; *discussions; *applications and problem solving; *open-ended investigations; and *consolidation and practice. It has been reported earlier that Queensland teachers involved in the development of Years 1 to 10 Mathematics across both primary and secondary schools, experienced some difficulties in adopting 'new' teaching approaches outside of their usual repertoire (Thurlow, Dungan & Guse, 1988) . In particular, those teachers who relied mainly on direct, whole-class instruction, were unfamiliar with techniques such as activity-based approaches and open investigations. An earlier study indicated that many primary teachers were already using these approaches and therefore the degree of required change was relatively small for primary teachers, but considerable for secondary teachers (Dungan, Thurlow & Guse, 1987). In particular, the use of certain teaching approaches such as discussions and activity-based learning represented a relatively high incidence of change. The MIP therefore represented an opportunity for a group of teachers to broaden their teaching approaches within a discipline which has traditionally been taught along rather conservative lines. Project Management and Participants The overall management of the MIP resides with a widely representative Project Management Committee (Chaired by the Associate Director, Junior Secondary, Division of Schools). Responsibility for the day-to-day planning, organisation and implementation of the Project is vested with a Project Officer (Statewide Mathematics Consultant) and a Planning Group, consisting of four regional mathematics consultants. Participants in the MIP include 30 teachers, comprising practising primary and secondary teachers, mathematics subject masters and admin- istrators from 15 schools. These participants come from schools across the Brisbane South, Brisbane North, West Moreton, Darling Downs, Sun- shine Coast and South Coast education regions. It is anticipated that the Project will expand in 1990 to other schools within these South- East Queensland regions and to regions in the State currently not participating. AIMS OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES The overall aim of the research and evaluation activities associated with the MIP was to provide information for decision-making regarding the Project during 1989 and beyond, as well as informing the development of future inservice initiatives.In particular, the research and evaluation activities aimed to: *identify the essential elements of the inservice model employed; *identify emerging short-term outcomes, especially in terms of classroom practices and other school outcomes; and *determine those features of the Project which might be successfully adopted in future teacher inservice initiatives in mathematics and other curriculum areas. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCEDURES The external evaluation team collected information on the MIP over the period March to August 1989. Information collection procedures includ- ed: *Interviews Interviews were conducted from late-March to July with Project partici- pants (teachers and administrators), members of the Planning Group, the Project Officer and some students. Interviews with teachers and admin- istrators were conducted at the 15 Project schools. An open-ended prompt interview schedule was employed to facilitate dialogue during interviews. Two members of the evaluation team conducted each interview and later discussed with each other the major issues emerging from the interview. *Questionnaires Questionnaires were forwarded to all Project participants and members of the Planning Group in July. The questionnaire was designed specifi- cally for completion by participants, with members of the Planning Group invited to respond to those items they considered relevant. A total of 19 participants and 2 members of the Planning Group returned questionnaires. *Observations Members of the external evaluation team observed and participated in parts of selected workshop sessions, Planning Group meetings and limit- ed classroom activities from mid-March to July. *Review of Project-Related Materials Informal evaluation information collected by the Planning Group over the course of the Project and other information concerning the Project were critically reviewed. *Literature Review A review of the literature on current approaches to teacher inservice education was also undertaken. THE MIP INSERVICE MODEL Major Elements of the MIP Inservice Model The model of inservice used in the MIP comprises various elements. Participants were nominated for inclusion in the Project by the respec- tive regions. The actual procedures of identification and nomination varied across the regions. An initial four-day workshop was conducted for participants at the commencement of the Project at the end of 1988. The workshop was led by Afzal Ahmed from the West Sussex Institute of Higher Education, England. Ahmed is a mathematics educator of interna- tional reputation and was a member of the Cockcroft inquiry into mathe- matics education in England. Special consultancy sessions involving Ahmed and members of the Project Planning Group and senior regional personnel were also conducted at this time. Following these introductory workshop and consultancy activities, the Project in 1989 involved withdrawing all participants to a central location for a series of 16 full-day workshops. These workshops were organised by the Planning Group and were designed to allow participants to consider a range of issues relating to mathematics education. The agendas of the various workshop sessions evolved as the year pro- gressed. Between the workshop sessions, members of the Planning Group visited participants in their schools to provide support and to assist them in developing appropriate teaching strategies and learning experi- ences. A key assumption underlying the Project is that the expertise for significant teacher development resides within the participants them- selves. The Project provides the context and opportunity for partici- pants to consider, reflect on and discuss key issues relating to mathe- matics education and to engage in mathematics activities. Essentially, the model of teacher inservice education underpinning the MIP comprises the following major elements: *overall co-ordination of the Project by a Planning Group of mathematics consultants, whose role is to plan and co-ordinate workshop sessions and help determine future directions of the Project; *introductory workshop sessions for participants and members of the Project Planning Group; *a major initial impetus to the Project involving significant challenges to participant's existing teaching practices; *the withdrawal of a small group of practising teachers from primary and secondary schools, meeting regularly in a series of ongoing workshops to discuss and reflect on key issues relating to mathematics education; and *between session coaching visits of participants by members of the Planning Group to support participants within their own classrooms. A Review of Some Relevant Inservice Literature Action-focused or action-research approaches are terms used in the literature to characterise good current practices in teacher inservice activity. These approaches underlie some particular inservice models such as the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) of Heck, Stiegelbower, Hall and Loucks (1981) and the coaching model of Joyce and Showers (1980, 1982). A basic premise of action-focused approaches is that the responsibility and ownership of professional development activities should reside within teachers themselves. The expertise for professional development is considered to exist within all teachers, with adequate support structures and group interaction among peers necessary to utilise this expertise. Action-focused approaches affirm teachers as active learners and researchers within their own classrooms. One action-focused approach, the coaching model of Joyce and Showers (1980, 1982), highlights the following elements as important for teachers in developing new approaches: *study the theory or rationale underpinning the approaches; *observe demonstrations or model the approaches; *practice approaches in special environments such as simulated classroom settings; *provide structured and open-ended feedback on attempts at implementing the approaches; and *undertake coaching activities to further develop these approaches. Joyce and Showers propose that teachers and administrators should regularly observe each other's teaching as they attempt to develop new skills. The coaching model is firmly based on the notion that teachers need companionship and interaction with their peers to develop new teaching approaches. Ahmed (1987) supports this and argues that working in isolation actually inhibits sustained change for teachers, with more effective support coming from other teachers who are having similar experiences. Most commentators believe that teacher inservice activities should be regular and ongoing (e.g. Ingvarson, 1987). The Cockcroft report (1983) on mathematics education in England states that school-based inservice support for teachers should be a continuing process. The general theme in the literature is essentially that meaningful change for teachers takes considerable time (see, for example, Loucks & Pratt, 1979). Guskey (1986) proposes that teachers will only change their beliefs and attitudes about teaching or curriculum programs after they have observed evidence of beneficial changes in student learning outcomes and such a process will, of course, involve a period of time. Besides inservice activity being spaced over a period of time, it is also important that teachers perceive these activities to be personally relevant. Holly (1982) reported that a group of American teachers indicated that the single most important factor determining the value of an inservice education activity was its personal relevance. Various studies have also highlighted the importance of providing some form of support or follow-up activity for teachers during inservice education programs. Southwell (1989) claims it is established that inservice education is less effective if not followed up with continual support for teachers. Guskey (1986) believes that continued support following the initial stages of inservice activity is crucial. Finally, Andrews (1988) reports on the findings of a study which examined over 200 inservice teacher training and development activities implemented in recent years across all Australian States. A total of 15 programs were selected as representing good practice in inservice teacher development programs. Dempster (1989) summarises the major findings of Andrews study and identifies the following as elements of good practice identified across these inservice programs: *effective leadership; *external support; *advanced planning and organisation; *parental support and involvement; *program ownership by the participants; *teacher self-confidence and self-worth as themes; *involvement of the whole school community; *a commitment to managing change; *a close monitoring and systematic evaluation; *a supportive organisational climate; *a direct relationship with the school culture; *the provision of time for reflection; *a spaced approach to delivery; and *access to a resource network. The MIP Inservice Model and Messages from the Literature This section will briefly compare the theoretical model of inservice underpinning the MIP with the essential features of good current approaches to teacher inservice outlined above. Further considerations of a comparative nature and information on the successful implementation or otherwise of various features of the MIP will be considered in a later section of this report. Various characteristics of the inservice model employed in the MIP match with features of good inservice practice evident in the research literature. The MIP appears to fit under the umbrella of action-focused approaches to teacher inservice education. Participants in the MIP are encouraged to explore ideas and resolve issues and concerns themselves, by interacting with peers, trying ideas in their classrooms and reflecting on their practice. This is consistent with the assumption underlying action-focused approaches, that the expertise for professional development resides within practising teachers. The regular and ongoing nature of action-focused approaches is also evident in the MIP as the Project allows participants to consider various issues relating to mathematics education over the course of a year. The MIP also contains some elements of the coaching model of inservice outlined by Joyce and Showers (1980, 1982). The provision of feedback on attempts at implementing new approaches and coaching activities are incorporated within the MIP model. In addition, the opportunity of peer support and companionship for teachers engaged in inservice activity is provided within the Project. Various studies have highlighted the importance of providing some form of support or follow-up activity for teachers during inservice education programs (e.g. Southwell, 1989). Formal support structures are clearly apparent within the MIP inservice model, with Project participants having regular contact with Planning Group members between workshops. The literature also suggests that it is important for teachers to perceive inservice activities to be personally relevant. For example, the CBAM model (Heck et al. 1981) stresses the importance of the personal concerns of teachers being addressed, as teachers are concerned about how changes will personally affect them. The MIP has attempted to address participants' issues and concerns by basing a significant portion of the Project within participants' work environments and in particular, their classrooms. Some elements of good inservice practice highlighted in the research literature are not readily apparent in the MIP inservice model. Joyce and Showers contend that in developing new approaches, teachers should study the underlying theory or rationale. A study of the underlying theory behind approaches such as open investigations, for example, does not appear to have received a major emphasis in the MIP. Joyce and Showers also believe that teachers need to observe demonstrations or modelling of new approaches and practice these approaches in special environments. This appears to have occurred on only a limited basis within the MIP. It is also instructive to consider the MIP in relation to some of the findings of Andrews (1988) who identified various features of good inservice practice. The model underpinning the MIP might be considered strong in elements such as: external support; advanced planning and organisation; program ownership by the participants; the provision of time for reflection; a spaced approach to delivery; and access to a resource network. The model also addresses in some ways elements such as: teacher self-confidence and self-worth; and a close monitoring and systematic evaluation. However, the model does not appear to cater for elements such as: parental support and involvement; involvement of the whole school community; and a direct relationship with the school culture. Some of these issues will be explored further in the section on Early Findings. EARLY FINDINGS The information collection procedures employed focused primarily on participants' perceptions and attitudes with respect to the Project. These were limited direct observations of participants' classrooms and, in particular, of students engaging in mathematical activities. The discussion of the early findings which follow are therefore largely drawn from participants' perceptions and attitudes, observations of workshop sessions, and the evaluators' syntheses and interpretations of these. The findings are considered firstly in terms of the major elements of the inservice model employed, before examining early Project outcomes for participants and students. Some emerging issues which may be of importance in the future development of the Project and similar inservice initiatives are then presented. It should be noted that much of the information reported in the remainder of this document was shared variously with members of the Planning Group, the participants and the Project Officer. Elements of the Inservice Model The findings in this section are presented under various sub-headings representing the essential elements of the inservice model adopted in the MIP. *Initial Input and Impetus for the MIP The two two-day workshop sessions conducted by Ahmed for the participants in 1988 made a critical contribution to the Project. Almost all of the participants indicated that they enjoyed Ahmed's sessions and were challenged by his ideas. His input was seen as critical to the Project, with almost 90 per cent of participants who completed the questionnaire rating Ahmed's input as either very important or important in achieving the aims of the Project. Ahmed's contribution gave the Project credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of participants. He achieved this largely by his considerable knowledge of, and obvious expertise in, the area of mathematics education. Moreover, he produced evidence in the form of classroom anecdotes and student products which contributed to the soundness and validity of his views concerning mathematics education. Participants perceived him as an extremely competent and innovative mathematics educator, who could speak from a position of wide experience. Ahmed motivated and challenged participants, and encouraged them to critically examine and reflect on their teaching practices. Participants generally perceived him as an educator of great personality, who provided them with insights concerning the investigative approach to mathematics. *Overall Co-ordination of MIP by Planning Group The Planning Group consisted of members with varying professional backgrounds and experiences. It comprised members with a mix of primary and secondary school teaching experiences as well as different professional skills, interests and abilities. Given the nature of the Project and the wide range of participants involved, the inclusion of both primary and secondary trained consultants in the Planning Group was important. Participants were generally unaware of the contribution of the Planning Group in co-ordinating workshop sessions and in determining the overall direction of the Project. Some participants indicated during interviews that they believed the Planning Group were doing a good job and working hard. Participants generally perceived the Planning Group to be operating at a different level to Ahmed, who was considered the major Project 'expert' and to have higher status than members of the Planning Group. Some participants believed the Planning Group should have provided firmer directions for the Project at times, such as determining, setting and informing participants of the goals and objectives for the Project. The MIP placed heavy demands on members of the Planning Group, each of whom held responsibilities as mathematics consultants in their own regions. Aside from the Project Officer who was assigned to the Project full-time, the MIP absorbed at least half of the work time of the other four Planning Group members. This time was devoted to regular Planning Group meetings to review the Project and plan workshop sessions, visiting participants in schools between sessions and attending the regular workshops. Involvement in the MIP changed the regular mathematics consultancy activities of the Planning Group members. Members of the Planning Group participated fully in the workshop sessions, merging successfully into the larger group while generally avoiding being seen in the role of mathematics 'experts'. Participants had ready access to Planning Group members at either the workshop sessions or during their regular school visits. In this way, the Planning Group members had the opportunity to become acquainted with participants' mathematics teaching practices and views on mathematics education. One participant commented that the regular discussions possible with his consultant enabled his suggestions concerning possible agenda items to be included in the workshop sessions. The Planning Group had some special consultancy and training sessions with Ahmed early in the Project. These sessions were designed to assist the Group in clarifying their thoughts about the Project and to develop their planning and leadership skills. Apart from these sessions and other isolated instances, however, it appears that the Planning Group have not received extensive specialist support or inservice to develop their planning and leadership skills. Although participation in the Project has enhanced the consultancy skills of individual Planning Group members, it appears the Group has largely itself developed necessary skills as effective inservice agents, drawing extensively on their previous individual experiences and expertise. *The Opportunity for Teachers to Meet Regularly in a Series of Ongoing Workshops The regularity of the fortnightly workshop sessions is an important component of the model as it aims to allow participants to try ideas in their classrooms and then discuss and reflect on their efforts with peers at subsequent sessions. Participants clearly recognise the impor- tance of having regular sessions. Some participants, however, indicated that longer than two weeks was needed between sessions to try ideas in schools. Also, attendance at the workshop sessions was a problem for some participants, in particular for some subject masters who commented on the many demands placed on their time. Attendance patterns at the workshop sessions also reflected the concerns of some participants about regular absences from school associated with participating in the Project. While absences from workshop sessions were fairly infrequent in the early stages of the Project and while still relatively small, they have increased as the year has progressed. Participants' views on the workshop sessions varied considerably. Participants reported that a most valuable aspect of the sessions was the opportunity to mix with their peers. The sessions allowed participants to mix with their fellow teachers on a professional and social basis over a considerable period of time and offered opportunities to establish important contacts with peers working across six different education regions. The mix of primary and secondary teachers allowed both groups to learn from each other, although the Project participants soon developed a whole-group identity during the workshop sessions, with primary-secondary distinctions lessening. Some participants also commented on camaraderie developing and valuable interchanges occurring with other participants during travel to the sessions. The Project has contributed to breaking down some of the barriers of isolation experienced by teachers. The participants largely approved of the opportunities afforded by the sessions to discuss mathematics with peers, engage in mathematics activities and review resources. The opportunity to engage in mathemat- ics activities was also mentioned specifically by some participants during interviews, with the Project providing them with a chance to actually 'do' some mathematics. Some participants commented that this also gave them greater understanding and empathy for their students. Another feature of the sessions which some participants commented favourably upon was the professional readings supplied. They acted as stimuli for discussion and reflection for some participants. For exam- ple, at one school the participants reported that the readings prompted valuable dialogue among other mathematics teachers, as well as making a considerable impact upon some visiting trainee teachers. The opportuni- ty to plan future units of work during the sessions was welcomed by some participants, although others believed this could be achieved more easily in their schools where they had access to their own resources. The interviews revealed that some participants believed certain sessions lacked significant direction, necessary input or clear objectives. Some participants commented on the 'sameness' of sessions, particularly as the Project unfolded. These feelings are possibly explained by the similar structure and format adopted for many sessions. The workshop sessions also had a somewhat inflexible nature, with a whole-group agenda being prepared for each session. This agenda made it generally difficult for some participants to explore issues in accord with their own particular interests and needs. Other participants commented that they were still unclear, even after many sessions, as to what they were expected to gain from their involvement in the MIP or what expectations others had of them. In particular, there was uncertainty among participants concerning expectations related to their involvement in the future development of the Project. Participants also rated the involvement of two teachers for each school and the mix of an administrator and a teacher for each school as impor- tant elements of the Project. *Between Session Visits by Members of the Planning Group All members of the Planning Group visited participants in their schools between sessions. These visits were intended to assist participants in developing their mathematics teaching within the context of their own work environments and in particular, their own classrooms. These follow- up visits to schools were collectively described as consultancy or coaching sessions in line with the work of Joyce and Showers (1980, 1982). The activities of different Planning Group members during these sessions varied considerably and changed over the course of the year. Activities ranged from those in which consultants simply observed participants during mathematics classes to those where consultants actively involved themselves with students during classes and provided critical feedback to the participants at the conclusion of lessons. Moreover, as the year has progressed, discussion between some participants and consultants has focused on a wider range of issues associated with the teaching of mathematics. All Project participants were not totally convinced as to the value of these visits. Some participants indicated during interviews that they would prefer consultants to adopt a more active role during their visits, providing critical feedback at the end of lessons and perhaps demonstration lessons where appropriate. The rather passive role which some consultants adopted, involving mainly observations with little or no feedback provided, was not a popular mode of operation among participants. Participants indicated that the visits by the Planning Group members helped to keep the participants 'on task' and assisted in maintaining the impetus and momentum of the Project, particularly in the early stages. Some participants indicated that the visits made them 'do something' within their classrooms in relation to the Project and helped them to refocus their thinking. Other benefits associated with these visits included the opportunity for consultants to share ideas collected from their visits across a variety of schools. Moreover, some consultants evidently interacted quite regularly and extensively with other mathematics teachers besides the Project participants, affirming and encouraging them. This recognition and affirmation from a recog- nised external curriculum 'expert' has been one of the wider beneficial Project outcomes. A small number of the participants have also been acting as 'consultants' within their own schools and engaging in coach- ing-type activities with their peers, including non-Project teachers. Planning Group members see this as a natural extension of the Project and encourage participants to observe and discuss each other's lessons. The value of these school visits by members of the Planning Group varied. Certainly, in the initial stages of the Project these visits provided important support and encouragement for participants as they were challenged and as they experimented with alternative ways of teaching mathematics. As the Project continued throughout the year, however, it became apparent that the visits were not as crucial, with some consultants not visiting Project participants between every session. Regular visits probably became less critical in schools where Project participants initiated coaching activities with their own school peers. Early Project Outcomes It is clear that the overall aims of the MIP have been interpreted differently by Project participants. This may also be the case for members of the Planning Group. Some of the objectives of the Project only became clear as the year progressed. However, confusion and a lack of clarity still exists for some participants. Frequently, areas of interest have been explored as needs have emerged. Many participants are still grappling with the major messages of the Project in an effort to adapt them to the needs of their students. This process has involved making some major modifications to teaching and learning programs for those participants. Essentially, the Project appears to be about encouraging a certain approach to teaching and learning, many features of which are applicable across all curriculum areas, rather than fostering specific techniques in the area of mathematics education. This approach, which has emerged as the Project has developed, appears to have the following key features: *encouraging students to own their learning; *encouraging students to explore a variety of solutions in their learning; *encouraging students to learn from each other; *moving the focus of teaching and learning from the teacher to the student; *encouraging teachers to become facilitators of learning; *encouraging teachers to use a variety of teaching approaches to match students' different needs and learning styles; *ensuring learning becomes a co-operative endeavour between students and students, and students and teachers; and *encouraging teachers to critically reflect on their practices. It would be generally accepted that significant philosophical changes would be necessary for many teachers to incorporate these features within their teaching programs and that such changes would take time. Therefore, any emerging outcomes of the MIP are clearly early findings. The nature and extent of future outcomes could be expected to change over time. It should also be remembered that the findings which follow have largely been drawn from participants' perceptions. Given the few opportunities for formal observations of participants during actual classes it is not possible to validate participants' perceptions directly. Interview information collected from members of the Planning Group who have made frequent visits to participants' classes, however, has contributed to the validation process. Finally, it is of course not possible to link any specific participant outcomes solely with participation in the MIP. Changes in mathematics teaching practices or specific student outcomes might result from a variety of factors, including the MIP. Given these constraints, the following section attempts to identify some emerging participant, student and other outcomes which may have been fostered through the MIP. *Participant Outcomes It appears there has been a wide range of participant outcomes associated with involvement in the MIP. Participants have identified changes ranging from little alteration to their thinking and practices about mathematics education through to significant changes in their thinking about basic tenets of teaching and learning. The potential to benefit from the Project may be less for recently graduated teachers. However, one outcome which seems to be universal is the important peer support, professional and social friendships, associations and networks fostered by this Project. Participants in the MIP have met on a regular basis over the course of more than a year, thereby having ample opportunities to develop and establish contacts and links with peers. Participants have been able to engage in professional dialogue, as well as interact on a social basis with peers working in both primary and secondary schools. For many participants, the Project has helped to break down some of the barriers of isolation often experienced by teachers. This is an important outcome of the Project for some participants. The Project has also provided important recognition and affirmation for participants as practising teachers. One participant indicated he felt privileged to be involved in the Project. During their visits to schools, Planning Group members have encouraged and affirmed participants, giving them recognition as effective practitioners in their own work environment. The Project has also developed considerable goodwill between the Department and at least some participants, as they recognise and acknowledge the Department's contribution to improving mathematics education. Participants have recognised this commitment in the ongoing nature of the Project and the considerable resources, particularly in terms of personnel, employed throughout the Project. Several participants have indicated that the MIP is the best inservice program they have experienced. This perception seems to be based on the extensive and ongoing nature of the MIP compared with traditional single or half day inservice offerings. A handful of participants have indicated that the MIP has significantly changed their thinking about teaching and learning, and in fact, their basic philosophy of education. These participants appear to have largely adopted or are at least trying to implement the particular approach to teaching and learning endorsed by the MIP, described previously. They comment about making the students' mathematicians, encouraging students to discuss and to write about their mathematics, 'opening-up' lessons by encouraging students to search for alternative solutions, and using concrete materials and activity-based lessons where appropriate. One participant spoke of trying to stop telling students how to 'do maths' and instead letting children 'grapple with maths'. These participants typically claim to be critically reviewing their teaching styles. Many have totally changed their questioning techniques. These participants generally agree that the key features of this approach to teaching and learning are equally applicable to other curriculum areas besides mathematics. Finally, it should be noted, however, that at this stage the number of participants demonstrating these marked changes is relatively small. Other participants claimed they were teaching in this way prior to their involvement in the MIP. This seems to be particularly so for some of the primary teachers in the MIP or for participating secondary teachers who had previously worked in primary schools. These participants indicated that the MIP had confirmed and validated their practices and given them confidence to continue their mode of operation. For these participants, the Project appears to have heightened their awareness of the teaching approaches outlined in the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus. Some participants have indicated the major change to their practice has been in attempting open investigations with their students. These participants have perceived the MIP to be essentially concerned with promoting open investigations, one of the six teaching approaches of the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus. These participants speak of trying to do an open investigation with their classes within a specified time period, for example, one investigation per fortnight. Participants who have associated the MIP almost solely with open investigations appear to have gained less from the Project than others, and have expressed some dissatisfaction that the Project has not provided more substance or firmer guidelines. There appears to be a common perception among participants that the general approaches highlighted by the MIP necessitate the widespread use of group work. Many participants indicated that they group students at some stage during their mathematics classes. While the Project certainly appears to have encouraged participants to group students during mathematics classes, there has been little or no formal training during the workshop sessions to assist participants in developing necessary skills in both students and teachers for effective group work. Overall, it is not clear as to the extent to which the MIP has to date engendered significant and lasting changes among participants. As noted previously, it may well be premature to attempt to identify such changes. However, it certainly appears that the approach to teaching and learning noted earlier and the thinking about mathematics education espoused by the MIP have been incorporated within the regular practices of only a handful of participants. For example, little evidence has yet emerged of changes to work programs which reflect the MIP approaches. Moreover, any changes which have emerged may be the result of factors other than the MIP alone, for example, the introduction of the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus or relevant inservice activities. A more detailed study of participants' mathematics practices within their classrooms over an extended period of time may help resolve some of these issues. *Student Outcomes Most participants working in secondary schools indicated they were using the approaches of the MIP mainly with Year 8 students. Participants from primary schools were implementing these approaches with their own particular classes, with administrators often working across classes at a variety of Year levels. While it is early to be anticipating substantial student outcomes associated with the Project, it does seem that most outcomes to date relate to the affective domain. Whether the outcomes for students can be considered long-term must be treated with cautious optimism. Participants described students as enjoying and having fun with mathematics, developing affects such as confidence and persistence. Some students are evidently becoming more motivated as they are enjoying their mathematics. As students are exploring and creating their own mathematics, some are experiencing more success in mathematics classes than before. This success is seen to be enhancing the self- concept of these students, with participants identifying carry-over effects beyond the mathematics classroom. The different physical classroom arrangements, including group work, used by participants has also provided the opportunity for some students to develop the ability to work co-operatively with others. Most participants claim that students are understanding their mathematics more. Consequently, some participants believe that they may have previously underestimated the mathematical proficiencies of some students. Students are also evidently discussing mathematics and writing about the discipline much more in class. There are no clear messages yet as to whether the MIP approaches are more suitable for students of particular ability levels. *Other Project Outcomes It is possible to identify some other broader outcomes which have emerged as a result of the MIP. There is some evidence of participants developing professionally in other areas. For example, some participants have been involved in addressing groups of teachers not involved in the MIP concerning the teaching of mathematics. In the limited cases in which it has occurred, this has facilitated the dissemination of the messages of the MIP beyond the participant's immediate school environment. These activities have given the participants involved recognition, encouragement and affirmation from their peers. Planning Group members have claimed the MIP has developed their consultancy skills. As well, some Planning Group members have indicated they have enhanced their skills as classroom teachers, which would be of benefit should they return to teaching duties. Involvement in the MIP has heightened awareness of the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus among many of the Project participants and to a lesser extent among other non-participating teachers. Project participants at some schools have themselves conducted inservice activities for their peers as a direct result of their involvement in the MIP, serving to promote the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Syllabus to some extent. Some Emerging Issues for the Future Development of the MIP Several issues for consideration in the development of the MIP beyond 1989 have emerged following analysis, synthesis and reflection on the information collected on the Project's implementation during 1989 in the six South-East Queensland education regions. These are summarised below in terms of eight key elements. *Project Management and Organisation The composition, roles and responsibilities of Project managers and Project management groups should be clarified and understood by relevant personnel. Consideration of the level of expertise and experience desired of individuals and members in these groups will be critical to the Project. While existing expertise and experience from 1989 involvement in the MIP should be capitalised on, time commitments involved in assuming membership of the various Project management groups, together with broad Project responsibilities should be considered. The establishment and implementation of effective and efficient procedures relating to basic organisational arrangements for participants, such as provisions for teacher relief and travel, need to be facilitated by Project managers. *Aims of the MIP and Inservice Model The major long- and short-term aims of the MIP for 1990 should be clarified and communicated to participants. These aims should be well understood by all members of the Project management groups. This should assist understanding among participants as to the intents of the Project and help clarify future possible expectations. The critical elements of the model of inservice to be used should also be clarified and well understood by members of the Project management groups. Guided study of the relevant literature may assist in these processes. *Project Participants Various issues pertaining to both continuing and new Project participants need to be resolved. The commitment and willingness of current participants to continue their Project involvement in 1990 should be determined. The nature of the involvement of current participants will also need resolution, as there are issues associated both with their own continuing development as well as their broader contribution to the development of others. This will obviously depend on many factors including the participant's capacity to contribute further and associated time demands. In addition, the needs of continuing and new participants should be identified. Clear statements of the short- and long-term expectations on continuing and new participants and their roles in the Project should be developed and clearly communicated to all Project participants. Project managers may also need to determine specific criteria for selecting new MIP participants. Sharing these criteria and guidelines for selecting participants with regions should enhance the development and impact of the Project. Those with limited teaching experience might be expected to benefit less from involvement in the Project. *MIP Workshop Sessions The essential rationale and purposes for the continuing regular workshop sessions should be reviewed, clarified and communicated to relevant personnel. Issues to be considered include the number, frequency and timing of workshop sessions, workshop structure and content, and the roles of Project managers and participants during the sessions. Furthermore, specific aims and objectives of sessions should be formulated by Project managers and communicated to participants. *MIP Support Structures The nature and extent of formal and informal support structures for participants in the future development of the MIP require consideration. In particular, the purposes, nature and frequency of any consultancy and coaching activities by Planning Group members or others with this responsibility should be clarified. The potential contributions of other regional mathematics consultants not directly involved in the MIP and other relevant personnel (e.g. those involved in similar inservice projects) should also be considered and capitalised on where appropriate. The broader roles of management groups in supporting the Project may also need to be examined. *Project Inputs In consideration of the significant initial impact of Ahmed to the Project in 1989, the potential contribution of incorporating a major initial impetus for the MIP for continuing and new regions in 1990 should not be overlooked. Accessing relevant expertise among Project participants and from other sources, and adopting measures to develop the leadership and planning skills of Project managers should enhance the impact of the Project. Further, as noted above, the relationship of the MIP to other similarly based inservice projects should also be considered. *Monitoring of the MIP To ensure the effective and efficient development of the Project in continuing and new regions, appropriate review and monitoring processes should be established. The roles of individuals and groups involved in these monitoring activities should be considered. Subsequently, appropriate feedback processes and decision-making mechanisms should also be established. *Promotion and Publicity of the MIP Mechanisms for the effective promotion and publicity of the major aspects and messages of the MIP need to be established. The wider credibility and future status of the Project may depend to a large extent on the effective promotion and publicity by key Project personnel and on the wider dissemination of information regarding the MIP among the State's educational community. Other Comments In addition to the above, it may be useful to reflect on the elements of good inservice practice identified by Andrews (1988) referred to earlier. The promotion and publicity of the MIP should be given particular attention in each of the participants' schools. Participants may need assistance in this process, for example from members of the Planning Group or the Project Officer. Consideration and careful attention to this is likely to address two of Andrew's elements currently receiving minimal attention in the MIP, viz: 'parental support and involvement', and 'the involvement of the whole school community'. Two additional elements which should be enhanced with appropriate attention concern 'the commitment to managing change' and 'a supportive organisational climate'. Participants may need skill development to address these elements adequately in their own schools. This need for skill development for participants may have wider Project implications. For example, participants may need input from experts in various aspects of classroom management and in those relating to skills in working with other teachers within their schools. Some Wider Implications of the MIP for Inservice Education Programs The focus of the MIP has been the development of sound teaching and learning practices within the context of mathematics education. However, many aspects of the approach to teaching and learning which the Project has encouraged, and the inservice model adopted to support these developments, are applicable across other curriculum areas. It is therefore valuable to consider the wider implications of the MIP for inservice education programs. As might be expected many of these are iterations of issues raised earlier. *Organisational Issues Organisational details of inservice initiatives need to be resolved prior to their commencement, for example, travel arrangements and allowances, and provisions for teacher relief. Participants may interpret the extent and success to which these issues are addressed as an indication of commitment by the managing body to the initiative. The support of key personnel, both within and outside the school, may also help alleviate potential problems of an organisational nature. *Inservice Participants The criteria for selecting inservice participants and the selection procedures themselves should be clearly formulated. They should be developed to be in line with the major goals and objectives of the initiative and the anticipated roles (if any) of participants. These goals and expectations need to be clearly communicated to participants at the commencement of the initiative. *Promotion and Publicity of Inservice Initiatives Consideration should be given to promoting and publicising inservice initiatives to a wide range of audiences including those within the participants school and across the region. It is likely that the impact of the inservice activity within a participant's school will be greater if a sense of ownership concerning the activity is developed across the whole staff or the relevant sections thereof. It is important that the initiative is legitimised and given credibility within the school. One way this may occur is for senior officers, for example, Inspectors or Regional Directors, to launch and promote inservice initiatives within schools by addressing staff about major project goals and anticipated outcomes. The wider promotion and publicity within a variety of Head Office, Regional and school forums should also assist in the development of initiatives. The MIP experience suggests that it may be valuable to market innovations and inservice initiatives by using individuals with significant professional standing and credibility to provide an initial impetus to the Project. Background knowledge and experience in teacher development, curriculum expertise, authority and personality would seem to be some of the necessary key characteristics of such individuals. Ongoing maintenance and development of the initiative should occur if this original impetus is continued by an expert planning group of credible committed professionals. *Structure and Nature of Inservice Initiatives There are benefits to be gained by teachers and administrators withdrawing from their school environment in a regular and ongoing way. This is likely, for example, to foster the establishment of important professional and social links and networks. Key elements in these withdrawal sessions appear to be their regular and ongoing nature, with allowance for sufficient time during sessions for participants to exchange and explore ideas with peers. In determining the frequency and timing of inservice sessions, however, the impact of participants' regular absences on schools should be taken into account. As elements of an overall program, sessions should have clear objectives and not remain open-ended forums in which participants are largely left to their own devices and resources to resolve and explore issues. The use of open-ended activities, however, may effectively comprise elements of an overall program. Greater benefits are also more likely to emerge where participants receive appropriately timed inputs from individuals with relevant expertise. *Other Messages for Inservice Managers It is important that managers of major inservice programs determine their major goals prior to commencement. Furthermore, managers should regularly reflect on and review these goals as the program unfolds and amend or develop new goals as needs emerge. In particular, reflection on the original intents of the program, the level of development and growth in participants and the participants' evolving needs, should be carefully monitored. CONCLUSION The MIP represents a resource intensive inservice initiative of the Department of Education aimed specifically at improving the teaching of mathematics. The Project has represented an attempt to improve the classroom practices of practitioners working in a curriculum area which has traditionally been seen to employ conservative teaching and learning practices. It has provided a group of teachers of mathematics the opportunity to explore a range of approaches to the teaching of mathematics over an extended period of time. While it may be too early to detect any long-lasting outcomes, some major short-term participant outcomes have emerged, at least as evidenced in the perceptions of participants. In addition, the experiences of the Project provide some suggestions for future inservice initiatives, both in mathematics and more broadly. While many participants view the Project as the best inservice in which they have been involved, expectations regarding the longer-term impact and effectiveness of the MIP should be treated with cautious optimism. REFERENCES Ahmed, A. (1987). Better Mathematics. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Andrews, B. (1988). Some Exemplary Practices in Inservice Teacher Training and Development. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Cockcroft, W.H. (1983). Mathematics Counts. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Dempster, N. (1989). Approaches to In-Service Education: Past and Present. Unicorn, 15, 92-95. Dungan, J.F., Thurlow, G.R. & Guse, A.R. (1987). Report No.1 on the Trial of the Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Project. Unpublished report. Queensland: Department of Education Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12. Heck, S., Stiegelbauer, S.M., Hall, G.E. & Loucks, S.F. (1981). Measuring Innovation Configurations: Procedures and Applications. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas. Holly, M.L. (1982). Teachers' Views on Inservice Training. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 417-418. Ingvarson, L. (1987). Models of Inservice Education and their Implications for Professional Development Policy. In Inservice Education: Trends of the Past, Themes for the Future. Anstey, M., Bull, G. & Postle, G. Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education: Centre for Research and Development in Curriculum, School of Education. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1980). Improving Inservice Training: The Messages of Research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379-385. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1982). The Coaching of Teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 4-10. Loucks, S. & Pratt, H. (1979). A Concerns-Based Approach to Curriculum Change. Educational Leadership, 37, 212-215. Southwell, B. (1989). Over the Rainbow: The Pot of Gold or Another Rainbow? Changes in Primary Mathematics Education in NSW. Unicorn, 15, 73-77. Thurlow, G.R., Dungan, J.F. & Guse, A.R. (1988). Teacher Support Provisions for Years 1 to 10 Mathematics: Findings in a Selection of Trial and Non-Trial Schools. Research Services Branch, Division of Curriculum Services. Queensland: Department of Education.