RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Graduate Training That Fosters -Centered Instruction and Professional Development By Thomas C. Pentecost, Laurie S. Langdon, Margaret Asirvatham, Hannah Robus, and Robert Parson

ver the past 10 years, Background A new graduate teaching assistant our department has in- The Course (TA) training program has been troduced major changes The target course for our efforts developed to support curricular into its first-year chemis- is the first semester of the typical reforms in our large enrollment tryO course. These include the use of two-semester General Chemistry general chemistry courses. student personal response systems sequence. This course typically en- The focus of this training has (clickers) together with peer instruc- rolls ~950 each fall, most been to support the TAs in the tion (Mazur, 1997), interactive lec- of whom are majors in a natural implementation of student-centered ture demonstrations, a course help science. Engineering majors do not recitation sessions and support the room staffed by instructors and teach- usually take this course; instead, professional development of the TAs. ing assistants, a student-centered they enroll in a one-semester Gen- The training includes discussion recitation environment, and online eral Chemistry course taught in of the pedagogical basis for the homework systems. Since fall 2006 the College of Engineering. Three reforms, review of key chemistry this transformation project has been sections of General Chem- concepts, and practice leading supported by a -funded istry I existed in fall 2007 and fall student-centered sessions. Data course improvement initiative. As is 2008—one section of ~175 and two from the TAs, students, and faculty typically the case at Carnegie-1 insti- sections of ~400 students. Students suggests that the new training has tutions, our department relies heavily attend three 50-minute per had a positive impact on the TAs’ on graduate teaching assistants (TAs) week and a four-hour recitation/ ability to lead student-centered for undergraduate chemistry instruc- laboratory section. The first hour recitations and on their professional tion. Because these TAs are the pri- of this section is devoted to recita- development. mary student contacts for much of tion activities. These recitation/lab the course, it is critical that they be sessions are limited to 20 students. brought into the course transforma- Beginning in the fall 2008, under- tion project at the earliest possible graduate learning assistants (LAs; opportunity (Gutwill-Wise, 2001; Otero, Pollock, & Finkelstein, Seymour, 2005). To this end, we 2010) were integrated with TAs to have created a new TA training pro- cofacilitate recitation activities. gram for incoming graduate students. Key goals of this program are to have TA responsibilities and existing incoming graduate students review training core concepts in general chemistry General Chemistry I TAs are ex- while being trained to lead student- pected to facilitate two recitation/ centered recitation sections. lab sections per week, grade weekly

68 Journal of College Science Teaching laboratory reports, and proctor large tal duties. The program expanded successful) in traditional learning group exams. Other duties include to include all 31 incoming graduate environments and as a result tend two hours per week of drop-in tutor- students in fall 2008. In both years, to view learning from a “transmis- ing in the course help room and at- participants received a $500 supple- sionist” perspective (Roehrig, Luft, tending weekly meetings to prepare mental stipend for completion of Kurdziel, & Turner, 2003). To in- for recitation and laboratory. this expanded training. crease TA confidence and success in The Chemistry Department has a nontraditional learning environ- had a TA training program in place Goal 1—Facilitate ment based on constructivist prin- for over 20 years. This program implementation of student- ciples, we introduced this theoretical was used for all TAs, not just new centered recitation model framework and made explicit the graduate students. Training activities Before fall 2007, the responsibility design of the materials (Nurrenbern, typically occurred during the week for running recitation sessions fell Mickiewicz, & Francisco, 1999). prior to the start of fall classes. This to individual TAs. Problem sets were During the training, we structured program included an administrative available for their use, and most reci- learning activities to model the type orientation to the course, labora- tation sessions featured the TA at the of learning environment TAs were tory/safety training, and presenta- board working problems. Although expected to foster in their teaching tions by experienced TAs. These a few TAs used small-group activi- (Roehrig et al., 2003). presentations covered classroom ties on their own, the majority of the Materials developed for student- management and frequently occur- recitations were not student focused. centered recitation sessions were de- ring student–TA conflicts. New TAs In addition, TAs often faced student veloped in 2006/2007 with increased were required to carry out a video- pressure to finish recitation early in focus on conceptual understanding taped microteaching experience, order to start on the three-hour labo- and molecular visualization. We which was critiqued by a senior TA. ratory activity. expected all TAs to use the materials Although some pedagogy was dis- In fall 2007, a new model for during their recitations, leading to cussed, the focus of this training was recitation was implemented that standardization of the recitation ex- not specifically on any pedagogical placed a greater emphasis on the perience for students and decreasing training or content review. role of the student. This model was the time required of TAs to prepare designed from a constructivist (Bod- materials. We used these materials New TA training ner, 1986) perspective and in accord during the training both to model fa- New training was first implement- with recent recommendations for cilitation of small group discussions ed in fall 2007. Incoming gradu- instruction (Bransford, Brown, & and to refresh the TAs’ knowledge of ate students with high probability Cocking, 2000). It draws on features the course content. of teaching General Chemistry I found in Peer-Led Team Learning were invited to come to campus two (Varma-Nelson & Coppola, 2005) Goal 2—Support TA weeks before the semester started, and Tutorials for Introductory Physics professional development which is one week earlier than new (Finkelstein & Pollock, 2005; McDer- Teaching experience offers graduate graduate students normally report. mott, 1993; Redish, 2003). Because students an opportunity to review This allowed TAs to complete both the TAs are the primary instructors for basic chemistry knowledge while the new three-day TA training and recitation sessions, it is essential that developing their teaching skills. the existing training previously de- they be given support to successfully In addition, fostering the develop- scribed. Twenty-five incoming TAs implement the new model. Our new ment of graduate students’ teach- participated, of which 19 were as- TA training program is intended to ing ability can enhance their abili- signed to General Chemistry I for provide this support. ties to communicate their research fall. The five additional General TA buy-in to course transforma- (Gilreath & Slater, 1994). Depart- Chemistry I TAs used in fall of tions has been identified as a factor ment faculty expressed concern 2007 were experienced graduate in the success of the transformation that TAs were not getting the most students. The remainder of TAs who (Gutwill-Wise, 2001; Seymour, from their teaching experience un- participated in the training were as- 2005). Most incoming graduate der the model then being used. The signed other courses or departmen- students have been educated (and new training was viewed as a way

Vol. 41, No. 6, 2012 69 research and teaching

to emphasize the importance of and ing have emphasized the importance fall 2007, time was allotted for a to provide support for this aspect of of ongoing support for TAs during discussion of recitation during these their professional development as the semester (Birk & Kurtz, 1996; meetings. The new three-day training graduate students. The dedication of Nurrenbern et al., 1999; Roehrig et will be described below. The topic of departmental resources to this train- al., 2003). To provide this support we in-term support will be revisited in ing provides tangible evidence that made use of the existing hour-long the discussion. the department values this aspect of weekly TA meeting. This meeting their graduate program. had typically focused on the next Structure of new TA training Previous assessments of TA train- week’s laboratory experiment. In Figure 1 shows the schedule for fall 2007 training. The training began with a brief overview of the teach- FIGURE 1 ing and learning literature in gen- New teaching assistant training schedule—Year 1 (2007). eral and some chemical Day One literature in particular. The format Time Activity was interactive with a mix of group 9:00 – 9:20 Welcome and Introductions activities and brief presentations. 9:20 – 9:45 Introduction to/Purpose of Training Our strategy was to engage TAs in 9:45 – 10:30 General Chemistry I Concept Survey the type of learning environment they would be expected to culti- 10:30 – 10:45 Break vate in their own sessions. Figure 10:45 – 11:30 Introduction to Course Reform 2 details the first Learning Theory 11:30 – 12:30 Lunch With Experienced TAs Session, in which we elicited TAs’ 12:30 – 2:15 Learning Theory learning experiences in an effort 2:15 – 2:30 Break to ground the discussion of current 2:30 – 3:45 Learning Theory (cont.) learning theory. The content review 3:45 – 4:30 General Chemistry I Final Exam sessions were modeled after our intended recitation structure. The Day Two training leader facilitated discus- Time Activity sions among TAs as they worked 9:00 – 9:10 Debrief From Yesterday through the recitation materials in 9:10 – 10:15 Conceptual Understanding and Problem Solving small groups. Each session ended 10:15 – 10:30 Break with a discussion of likely student 10:30 – 11:45 Content Session 1 – Thermochemistry ideas and difficulties. 11:45 – 12:45 Lunch The fall 2008 training followed a 12:45 – 2:15 Content Session 2 – Shapes of Molecules and VB Theory similar schedule with slight changes. 2:15 – 2:30 Break One change was a reduction of the 2:30 – 4:00 Content Session 3 – Equilibrium time devoted to learning theory. 4:00 – 4:30 Wrap Up Feedback from fall 2007 partici- pants indicated that they found this Day Three interesting but were not sure how Time Activity to make use of it. This has been an 9:00 – 10:30 Content Session 4 – Stoichiometry issue in other TA training programs 10:30 – 10:45 Break (Luft, Kurdziel, Roehrig, & Turner, 10:45 – 12:15 Content Session 5 – Intermolecular Forces 2004). The additional time was used to implement a suggestion from the 12:15 – 1:15 Lunch fall 2007 cohort. TAs desired prac- 1:15 – 2:45 Content Session 6 – Nuclear Model of the Atom tice leading a recitation session and 2:45 – 3:00 Break feedback about their facilitation. In 3:00 – 4:30 Closing Exercise 2008, participants were placed into

70 Journal of College Science Teaching small groups and assigned a recita- FIGURE 2 tion topic. Within their groups, TAs worked though the materials and Expanded schedule for 12:30–2:15 Learning Theory Session. discussed strategies for leading the Introduction—Participants answer the following questions individually: recitation. The next day, groups were scrambled and pairs of TAs facili- The class I enjoyed the most (got the most out of) as an undergrad was tated a recitation with the other TAs because . serving as students. This allowed all The class I enjoyed the least (got the least out of) as an undergrad was TAs to practice leading a session, get because . feedback from their peers (and an experienced TA) about the session, Get into groups of four: and review all the same topics as in Share your answers with each other. fall 2007. What do all the enjoyable classes have in common? We realized this model of a sepa- What do all the nonenjoyable classes have in common? rate “special training” for incoming Report to the entire group. TAs was not cost-effective as a long- term strategy and wanted to ensure Presentation on Learning Theory: Constructivism sustainability beyond the life of the Stages of Development course reform project. During Years Applications to First-Year College Chemistry 3 and 4 (2009 and 2010), permanent department faculty and staff assumed leadership roles in planning and lead- these data: effects of training on TA continued support from someone ing the sessions alongside the project professional development and im- throughout the semester. staff. Explicit links between the TA plementation of the recitation mod- training program and the university’s el. Each of these is presented next. Goal 1—Implementation of Graduate Program have been In the analysis that follows, data “student-centered” recitation forged, and we now involve experi- from students of any experienced model enced TAs and LAs in the recitation TAs and new TAs who did not have At the end of the semester, we ask facilitation activities. Key activi- the training that taught in fall of students to evaluate various course ties from Years 1 and 2 have been 2007 and 2008 were excluded so components through a survey. The incorporated into the more broadly only data from students of TAs that question most appropriate for evalu- focused department training, which completed training were used. ating TAs’ implementation of our reduced the total time commitment recitation model asked students to for the new TAs and department TA perspectives of the training report how often they work with oth- personnel from seven days to ap- TAs evaluated the training as part er students in recitation. For baseline proximately three days. of the closing exercise on Day 3. In data, we compiled results from the general, feedback was very positive, spring 2007 General Chemistry II Results and TAs indicated that the training course, which was the first semester The new training and its effects was useful. One concern of TAs was that this survey included recitation- were evaluated using multiple data putting the student-centered model specific questions. The spring 2007 sources from Years 1 and 2. TAs’ into action. These concerns lead to course serves as a good control be- responses to questions about effec- the changes in fall 2008 described cause neither the new recitation tiveness and possible improvements previously. Even with explicit prac- model nor the new TA training pro- were used both to evaluate the train- tice in leading recitation, fall 2008 gram had yet been implemented. We ing and to inform modifications. TAs’ main concern at the end of compared these results to those in Student surveys and faculty inter- training still laid with implementing fall 2007 and fall 2008, the first two views served as data sources for the model. In response to a question years of the new TA training. analyzing effects of the TA training. about what additional support was Results in Figure 3 clearly indicate Two main categories emerged from needed, TAs indicated a desire for that TAs who participated in the new

Vol. 41, No. 6, 2012 71 research and teaching

FIGURE 3 fall 2006 allows us to compare first semester TAs. If we were to use data Time spent working with others. from spring 2006, we would not be comparing TAs in their first semes- ter of teaching. These questions ask students to rate their TAs in a variety of areas. For our analysis we selected questions that focused on TAs’ per- formance in the recitation portion of the course and TAs’ interactions with

Percent Responding Percent students. Questions about grading and laboratory-specific questions were omitted. We also controlled for TA experi- ence by only analyzing responses Categories from students in the fall of 2006 who had a first-year graduate student as their TA (15 TAs) and in fall 2007 training required more student–stu- were willing to help them has and 2008 a first-year graduate student dent interactions during recitation. A really improved their attitude to- who had completed the TA train- likely interpretation is that TAs spent wards teaching.” ing—17 and 18 TAs, respectively. more time facilitating small group • “I feel very strongly that since The university scored the responses interactions and less time at the board we began the training I have had and we received class averages for solving problems. fewer complaints about TAs. . . . each question per TA as well as the It really seemed that the TAs un- number of students selecting each Goal 2—TA professional derstood the chemistry better.” option. We calculated the average development • “I think they took everything value of each question across first- The impact of the training on the TAs more seriously. They were aware year TAs in each semester and used professional development emerged of the expectations and deadlines. these in further statistical analysis. from interviews with two faculty It has definitely improved.” The averages of each question members who have significant in- were compared using a one-way teraction with the new TAs. Both In addition to the survey previ- independent analysis of variance were very positive about the train- ously mentioned, students also com- (ANOVA). A Levine’s for ho- ing. They felt that the training had plete an end-of-semester evaluation mogeneity of variances indicated that emphasized to graduate students the of their TA focused on laboratory the variances for many items were importance of their teaching expe- and recitation. In addition to writing significantly different. To compen- riences as part of their professional comments, students respond to sup- sate for this violation of the ANOVA development. Both faculty members plemental questions that use a Likert assumption, a Welch’s F-test was also felt that the training had helped scale that ranged from 1 to 6, with 1 used to determine significant dif- create a sense of camaraderie among being the lowest and 6 the highest. ferences in the means (Field, 2005). the new graduate students, illustrated This particular set of questions had The data for the selected questions in the following comments: been used since fall 2006; thus stu- are in Table 1. Note the values of n dent responses from fall 2006 were differ because some students did not • “Having that sort of support and used as a control group to compare answer all questions. making it [teaching] less of a to fall 2007 and 2008. Only student Results of this analysis tell an chore and more of a training and responses from new TAs in fall 2006 interesting story. It appears that the educational experience and feel- were used. Note this is a different first implementation of the new three- ing like there were people that control than was used to evaluate day presemester training did not by cared how well they taught and Goal 1. The use of the data from itself change students’ perceptions

72 Journal of College Science Teaching of their TAs’ effectiveness. In fall ery TA had an opportunity to prepare, meetings through the fall 2008 semes- 2008, however, students’ responses to practice, and receive feedback on ter. This combination of intensive pre- these questions indicate significant in- implementing our student-centered semester training and ongoing support creases in perceived TA abilities. Two recitation model. The other major is in line with TA feedback from the major changes occurred between fall change is that we integrated the use of training and may explain increased 2007 and fall 2008 that may account undergraduate LAs with TAs in recita- student ratings of TA preparedness for this. First, we used TA feedback tion in fall 2008. One component of and effectiveness in this setting. This from the first implementation to im- the LA model is weekly prep sessions is also supported by comments from prove the presemester training in the with faculty who teach the course. faculty supervisors for the course that second year. Recall that in fall 2008, Thus, both TAs and LAs participated they have seen a marked decrease in we structured the training so that ev- in weekly recitation-specific prep student complaints about TAs.

TABLE 1 Results of student course evaluations.

Original New TA New TA training training training (fall 2006) (fall 2007) (fall 2008) Welch F Student course evaluation item df 1 p-value Mean Mean Mean df 2 SD SD SD n n n 4.75 4.80 5.04 10.702 0.000* Questions were handled well. 1.067 1.161 1.109 2 444 576 604 1046.552 5.17 5.29 5.56 27.592 0.000* Teaching assistant came to recitation prepared. 1.075 1.066 0.734 2 448 577 611 966.490 4.79 4.75 5.04 10.765 0.000* TA explained concepts and principles in addition to solving 1.076 1.129 1.146 2 problems. 448 579 611 1060.805 5.02 5.03 5.20 5.056 0.007* TA provided enough time for students to ask questions. 1.051 1.139 1.058 2 447 579 610 1049.304 4.50 4.53 4.78 7.726 0.000* TA clarified the material presented in lectures and texts. 1.213 1.353 1.302 2 448 579 609 1059.628 5.13 5.12 5.20 0.762 0.467 TA interacted effectively with the students. 1.086 1.253 1.231 2 447 578 610 1065.788 5.22 5.31 5.53 19.170 0.000* TA was interested in the course and had knowledge of the 0.935 1.008 0.775 2 subject. 448 578 611 1012.369 4.85 4.77 5.12 14.030 0.000* TA was enthusiastic about teaching. 1.198 1.309 1.100 2 447 577 611 1032.589 4.69 4.67 4.98 12.087 0.000* TA took an active interest in the progress of his/her students. 1.203 1.383 1.158 2 447 577 609 1040.684 4.85 4.91 5.15 11.058 0.000* Overall effectiveness as a teacher 1.085 1.236 1.101 2 446 575 610 1047.801

Note: TA = teaching assistant. *difference significant at theα = 0.05 level

Vol. 41, No. 6, 2012 73 research and teaching

Summary the recitation, identify likely student Acknowledgment The new training program seems difficulties, and discuss how to ask The authors wish to thank Susan Hen- to have provided TAs with more good guiding and probing questions. drickson, Veronica Bierbaum, Brian confidence and skills in implement- One benefit of the TA training has Hollandsworth, and Hallie Kupfer for ing a student-centered recitation been to bring together the first-year their work in supporting the implemen- model. Students are spending more graduate students prior to their first tation and analysis of the data. This time working in groups and seem to week of classes. Several TAs noted work was supported by the University of value this experience. The faculty this as the most valuable part of the Colorado Science Education Initiative. interview data suggest that the new training for them. It seems that this training is fostering the development initial grouping of TAs creates con- References of the TAs by providing support nections that expand beyond their Birk, J. P., & Kurtz, M. J. (1996). Using for them in their teaching. The TAs TA assignments into their classes cooperative learning techniques might be interpreting this support as and friendships outside of school. to train new teaching assistants. an indication of the importance of This has also been helpful as the Journal of Chemical Education, 73, this aspect of their graduate educa- TAs engage in discussions during 615–616. tion training. meetings in order to help their fellow Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: TAs appreciate the rationale teacher through a tough situation with A theory of knowledge. Journal of behind the training; however, even a student or to debate the best way to Chemical Education, 63, 873–877. after our modifications in Year 2, present an idea. This creation of a Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & they are unsure about how to make community has benefitted more than Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). use of the educational theory in their the students and TAs; it has helped How people learn: Brain, mind, own teaching. This concern has been those in the general chemistry pro- experience, and school. Washington expressed by TAs in other environ- gram to feel as if they are a team. DC: National Academies Press. ments (Luft et al., 2004). It is likely From the start of the TA training Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics that the incoming graduate students project, an effort has been made to using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: do not have enough experience in produce a program that is sustainable Sage. the role of instructor for the educa- within the department without the Finkelstein, N. D., & Pollock, tional theory to have meaning. This continued assistance of the special S. J. (2005). Replicating and suggests that this material would be staff. Laboratory staff and depart- understanding successful more suited for the ongoing weekly mental faculty have been increasingly innovations: Implementing tutorials meetings, as TAs are encountering involved to take over the training pro- in introductory physics. Physical student difficulties and other chal- gram from the project staff, ensuring Review Special Topics—Physics lenges in their teaching. The useful- the program’s continued growth and Education Research, 1(1), 010101. ness of ongoing teaching strategy persistence in years to come. The Gilreath, J. A., & Slater, T. F. (1994). discussion has been proposed by program is now at a point at which it Training graduate teaching assistants others (Nurrenbern et al., 1999; is sustainable using only departmental to be better undergraduate physics Roehrig et al., 2003). In fall 2007, we funds and personnel. In addition, what educators. Physics Education, 29, intended to provide this type of sup- started as a seven-day total training 200–203. port during the weekly TA meetings, (“new” plus “standard”) has been Gutwill-Wise, J. P. (2001). The impact but it was often the case that discus- streamlined to about three days total. of active and context-based learning sions of the laboratory experiments Overall, the TA training has con- in introductory chemistry courses: and other procedural matters took the tributed to the creation of a vibrant An early evaluation of the modular majority of the time. Even the addi- teaching and learning community approach. Journal of Chemical tional 50-minute weekly recitation within the department, within which Education, 78, 684–690. prep meeting for TAs and LAs in fall faculty, graduate students, under- Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. 2008 did not provide enough time graduate students, and staff are regu- H., & Turner, J. A. (2004). Growing to bring in extra theoretical connec- larly involved in activities devoted a garden without water: Graduate tions. Much of that time was spent to increasing the effectiveness of our teaching assistants in introductory having TAs and LAs work through general chemistry instruction. n science laboratories at a doctoral/

74 Journal of College Science Teaching research university. Journal of model. American Journal of Physics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Research in Science Teaching, 41, 78, 1218–1224. Hall. 211–233. Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: Thomas C. Pentecost (pentecot@gvsu. user‘s manual. Upper Saddle River, Wiley. edu) was a science teaching fellow with NJ: Prentice Hall. Roehrig, G. H., Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. the University of Colorado Science Edu- McDermott, L. C. (1993). Guest P., & Turner, J. A. (2003). Graduate cation Initiative and is now an assistant Comment: How we teach and teaching assistants and inquiry- in the Department of Chemistry how students learn—A mismatch? based instruction: Implications for at Grand Valley State University in Allen- American Journal of Physics, 61(4), graduate assistant training. Journal dale, Michigan. Laurie S. Langdon was 295–298. of Chemical Education, 80, 1206– a science teaching fellow with the Science Nurrenbern, S. C., Mickiewicz, J., 1210. Education Initiative and is now a research A., & Francisco, J., S. (1999). The Seymour, E. (2005). Partners in associate in the School of Education, Mar- impact of continuous instructional innovation: Teaching assistants in garet Asirvatham is a senior instructor in development on graduate students college science courses. Lanham, the Chemistry and Biochemistry Depart- and undergraduate students. Journal MD: Rowman and Littlefield. ment, Hannah Robus is a laboratory co- of Chemical Education, 76, 114–119. Varma-Nelson, P., & Coppola, B. ordinator in the Chemistry and Biochem- Otero, V., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, (2005). Team learning. In M. M. istry Department, and Robert Parson is a N. D. (2010). A physics department‘s Cooper, T. Greenbowe & N. J. professor in the Chemistry and Biochemis- role in preparing physics : Pienta (Eds.), The chemists guide try Department and a fellow of JILA, all at The Colorado learning assistant to effective teaching (pp. 155–169). the University of Colorado in Boulder. nSTa’s Exemplary Science Monograph SerieS: Call for Contributors NSTA Press invites potential chapter authors to consider writing for All teachers, organizations, and other professionals who have the Exemplary Science series. The monographs are reports on how developed ways to meet STEM objectives and the teaching exceptional teachers and schools have succeeded with the reforms standards outlined by the earlier NSES are urged to prepare a recommended in the National Science Education Standards. three- to six-page outline to indicate use of the STEM reforms. All The monographs promote similar efforts and programs conceived, proposals will be reviewed by a national advisory board. Chapter developed, and implemented by top-notch educators. Series editor authors will be required to submit a semi-final draft of 20-30 Robert E. Yager seeks programs that demonstrate successful pages. About one-third of each chapter should be actual evidence transitions to the new standards while also incorporating STEM of improved student learning. All proposal outlines should be instruction in classrooms in meaningful ways. received before the end of 2012. Outlines of proposed chapters are currently being reviewed. The new monograph—the 10th in the series—focuses on efforts to encourage interest in and knowledge of STEM. It is the most For specific inquiries, call 319-335-1189 or e-mailRobert-yager@ publicized new reform effort for dealing with science and technology uiowa.edu. Initial outlines can be e-mailed or sent to Dr. Robert E. in school science programs. The same procedures and organizational Yager, ESP Coordinator, University of Iowa, Science Education schemes used in earlier monographs will be used again. Center, Room 767 VAN, Iowa City, IA 52242.

Vol. 41, No. 6, 2012 75