Engineering Design Teacher Professional Development: A Model

1. Engineering Design Teacher Professional Development: A Model Vincent Childress North Carolina A&T State University An NCETE Partner Institution

2. Evolution of the Model National Center for Engineering and Technology Education; professional development (PD) for 5 years Overall goal: Get technology education teachers to infuse engineering design into their existing curricula; via – PD In PD, wanted to emphasize what has been missing from Technology Education lab based problem solving; constraints, optimization, prediction and analysis (COPA), done by students before building prototypes. Wanted to also emphasize the entire engineering design (EngD) process. Wanted to capitalize on expertise of engineering, mathematics, and science partners, who were professors on respective campuses of the Center. Wanted to use engineering design challenges (EDC) to help teachers understand how to infuse EngD into their curricula.

3. PD, Year 1 Mini Challenges: Voltage divider problem that required use of physics for electricity and simple algebra, and electronics technology knowledge. Fluid power problem that focused on mechanical advantage. So that there was a curvilinear problem we tried an adapted version of the TSM Connection Activity (LaPorte & Sanders, 1996) Insulated Panel. Main Engineering Design Challenge: Water Tower Challenge Boolean logic, logic gates, relays & transistors to interface pumps with sensors Filled a large trash can to simulate water tower. Context was management of clean drinking and sanitation water. Other math was simply algebra and science was related to water flow and head. Used same engineering design process used by engineering partner in real life. Teachers kept an electronic portfolio that documented the EngD process and which could be used with their students. Teachers were expected to adapt what they learned for use with their students. Scale down EngD challenges to their level.

4. PD, Year 1 Teachers worked in pairs, and had some prerequisite instruction in cooperative learning. 100 hours total of PD, with spring PD for prerequisite preparation and summer PD for doing the main EngD Challenge.

5. PD, Year 1 Voltage divider provided work that led up to the ability to design the interface needed to drive the pumps for the Water Tower Challenge.

6. PD, Year 1 Teachers designed the interface needed to drive the pumps for the Water Tower Challenge.

7. PD, Year 1 Teachers also had a fluid power mini challenge and Insulated Panel.

8. PD, Year 1 Movie of successful Water Tower Challenge solution. Play Quicktime Movie

9. PD, Year 1 The main problem was the main EngD challenge was too big and industrial. One teacher implemented the voltage divider challenge. One teacher implemented the engineering design process. No teachers to our knowledge attempted to scale down the water tower challenge for use with their kids. The mini challenges were more of a model to follow than the main challenge. Teachers do not typically like having to work with breadboards and electronic components. The amount of time required to teach their students the needed prerequisites discourages implementation of EngD related to electronics.

10. PD, Year 1 Students have trouble with simple math

11. PD, Year 2 Mini Challenges: Voltage divider problem, Fluid power problem, and the Insulated Panel. But this time we also had a paper only design challenge so teachers could focus on the design process and be less burdened by lab and material manipulation. Main Engineering Design Challenge: Water Tower Challenge Boolean logic, logic gates, relays & transistors to interface pumps with sensors, much smaller pump, tubing instead of hose… Filled a 5 gal. bucket can to simulate water tower. (table top ready) This time we set aside extra time (16 hours) for teachers to prepare plans for implementing what they learned. This time was reduced to about 10 hours because of a problem caused by adding an extra variable to the challenge. Used same engineering design process used by engineering partner in real life. Introduced engineering notebooks as an “extra” thing teachers could do Teachers kept an electronic portfolio that documented the EngD process and which could be used with their students. Teachers were expected to adapt what they learned for use with their students. Scale down to their level.

12. PD, Year 2 Mathematics partner helped with the understanding of the math in the Insulated Panel and developed a tutorial for teachers to use after they left PD. We all helped with Boolean logic.

13. PD, Year 2 Smaller interface and smaller pumps.

14. PD, Year 2 Movie of smaller interface and smaller pump.

15. PD, Year 2 There were some successes. One teacher used an engineering notebook with her kids. One teacher did an simple optimization related challenge with his kids in communication class. The middle school and a high school teacher did the main challenge with their kids.

16. PD, Year 2 Obstacles to implementation: no time, learning styles, math skills, group work.

17. Math for Decision Matrix

18. PD, Year 3 We did not have PD in year 3. Gathered at a central location to drastically revise the PD plan. Developed a more complete rationale based more on the literature than before. Learned examples of much smaller/scaled down EngD challenges. Discussed “lesson study” to address practice. Discussed the management of cooperative learning. Discussed lesson planning to address implementation issues related to curriculum. Discussed student assessment. Each year an external evaluator provided feedback in addition to PD workshop evaluations. Year 2 involved internal evaluators who provided feedback. Year 2 PD teachers attended to provide feedback.

19. PD, Year 4 Developed a robust model for PD and an in-depth rationale document to support the basis of the model’s design.

20. PD, Year 4 The NCETE professional development sequence has been developed to enable high school teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to: Increase their subject matter knowledge in engineering design and strengthen their mastery of pedagogical content knowledge related to the infusion of design experiences into their courses (Mundry, 2005; Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2007); Apply principles and practices of engineering design as they work individually and in small groups to develop solutions to technical problems (Wicklien, 2006; Truxel, 2007); Develop proficiency in introducing engineering design challenges to high school students as a part of standards-based instruction in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Mundry, 2005); Engage in reflective practice as members of the learning community by analyzing instructional effectiveness, modifying lessons, and revising materials in order to improve subsequent instruction (Garet, Birman, Porter, Desimone, Herman, & Yoon, 1999; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003);

21. PD, Year 4 The NCETE professional development sequence has been developed to enable high school teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to: Identify and select design challenges and instructional materials that will motivate and enable their students to move efficiently through learning progressions in engineering design (Mundry, 2005); Assess the effectiveness of student performance in completing open-ended engineering design challenges (Mundry, 2007); and Infuse engineering design experiences in their science, technology, and mathematics on a regular, on-going basis so their students acquire key engineering concepts while exploring the STEM disciplines (Mundry, 2007). Additionally, NCETE will: Assess the effectiveness of the professional development model (Tushnet, et al., 2006). Develop capability to enhance the quality and quantity of professional development offered by local providers to high school engineering and technology education teachers and their partners (Tushnet, et al., 2006).

22. PD, Year 4 Wrote a detailed PD “lesson plan” based on the rationale document, revised goals, and internal and external evaluator feedback… Developed “indicators of success” to assess each component of the PD model. Now during implementation of Year 4, we are studying the teachers who participated.

23. PD, Year 4 Introductory EngD Challenge: Bungee Jump Emphasizes prediction and analysis Scaled down from previous years’ challenges Main Engineering Design Challenge: Irrigation Challenge Emphasizes most EngD steps Scaled down from previous years’ challenges Used engineering design process adapted from the Dartmouth project. Part of PD was online. http://www.ncat.edu/~gcsts/EngineeringDesign.htmlOffline Introduced engineering notebooks as the main means of documenting content knowledge and the EngD process. Set aside massive amounts of time for teachers to identify and design their own EngD lessons and challenges that fit with their existing curricula. Teachers were immersed in “Backward Design” and performance assessment. Teachers were expected to reflect on what they had learned. Teachers had a chance to practice their own EngD challenge instruction. Teachers were and are being assessed based on our criteria sheet related to EngD, pedagogy, and student assessment.

24. Year 4: Team Building Teachers, in teams, did a survival simulation. Success Indicators: Ranking form that comes with the materials provides evidence that participants realized the value of capitalizing on group effort compared to individual effort. Looking to see if teachers are getting students into groups while visiting and observing.

25. Year 4: Eng Design Teachers, in teams, Bungee Cord Challenge, Instruction on EngD, Guest Speaker, Food for the World Challenge Success Indicators: Improved comprehension of the engineering profession and the engineering design process Teachers’ solutions, our rubrics, teachers’ engineering notebooks, field observations

26. Year 4: Eng Design Bungee cord challenge was done first as an icebreaker that teaches COPA Motivating

27. Year 4: Assessment Rubric Design using ITEA’s Measuring Progress Success Indicators: Teachers develop rubrics for their own lessons and use ours to assess peers in workshop Teachers’ development of own rubrics and use of rubrics as observed in the field

28. Year 4: Lesson Planning Wiggins and McTeigh’s Backward Design Success Indicators: The teacher's activity has the following characteristics: Identifies what to assess about students. Has a motivating, grade level appropriate and realistic scenario. Has all of the engineering design steps explained. Includes mathematical and scientific based analysis. Is predictable. Uses mathematics and science to optimize some aspect of a possible solution. Includes a component in which students physically verify their predictions. Plans to use an engineering notebook. Identifies content for a student assessment rubric and other multiple assessments. Feedback forms from teachers who listened to the presentation. Teachers’ lesson plans, field observations

29. Year 4: Lesson Study After planning lessons, teachers practiced teaching their lessons to the peer group. Success Indicators: Everyone provided feedback using a rating form and video. Teachers visit each other during implementation to provide feedback. No one had done this yet.

30. Year 4: Implementation Teachers invite professors to observe and help and provide feedback. Teachers are to help each other if they live and work near by. Teachers return to have a reflection session post implementation. Success Indicators: Frequency of implementation that meets criteria Frequency of teachers helping each other Attendance of teachers at post implementation reflection session

31. Year 4: Implementation So far 8 teachers completed PD at A&T and I’ve: Observed and assisted 4, Scheduled to observe and assist 3 others, One teacher avoids communication. So far the 4 teachers have met most of the criteria on the rating sheet and I’ve collected student work, videos, photos, pretest-posttest summaries, engineering notebook samples…

32. Year 4: Implementation Internal evaluator has interviewed teachers and they indicate that they have adopted many pedagogical improvements related to lesson planning and assessment and group activity. Most teachers have only implemented their own activity and the Bungee Cord. Kelly and Denson interviewed teachers from previous PD efforts (years 1 and 2) and determined that teachers structure the EngD process for students at first and then ease up on that structure later.

33. Recommendations Use the PD model with the local supervisor and all of the STEM teachers in the system for small to medium size systems. Local supervisor should visit STEM teachers and help as part of his or her regular job. Develop more EngD Challenges for teachers to use so that on-going infusion of EngD into the technology education curriculum will be possible. It’s difficult to write true COPA-related EngD Challenges. Our project was not allowed to write a curriculum and most all of the other work out there had CO or PA but not COPA.

34. Recommendations Once a real curriculum is in place and system-wide participation is on-going, conduct a quasi-experiment to see the influence on STEM standardized tests (NSF wants this). Be sure to enlist the direct support of a mathematician, engineer, and scientist. Our STEM partners made a big difference. The PD Model should be posted some time this summer at: http://ncete.org/flash/index.php

35. Conclusions It is possible to get teachers to write lessons that teach EngD and COPA or CO, PA, C, O, P, A… Lesson planning and assessment training are important. They need help to meet the COPA criteria. Instruction in cooperative learning helps. Having teachers do the EngD Challenges helps.

36. Discussion The PD Model should be posted some time this summer at: http://ncete.org/flash/index.php