Enhancing Teacher Knowledge in Pre-Engineering Software Applications

1. Enhancing Teacher Knowledge in Pre-Engineering Software Applications Providing professional development for pltw and other stem teachers Laura LeMire – engineering coordinator The Community College of Baltimore County, MD

2. Overview PLTW CCBC’s role in providing professional development Training structure Results of CCBC’s training Expansion of training program Application to other topics Discussion

3. What is PLTW? • A not-for-profit organization • Developed pre-engineering courses for middle and high school students • Curriculum taught in ≈3,500 schools in 50 states • For teacher certification • Must attend intense 2-week summer training • Learn the curriculum and associated software

4. High School “Pathway to Engineering” Courses • Core • Introduction to Engineering Design (IED) • Principles of Engineering (POE) • Engineering Design and Development (EDD - Capstone) • Options • Aerospace Engineering • Civil Engineering and Architecture • Computer Integrated Manufacturing • Digital Electronics

5. Middle School “Gateway to Technology” Units • Core • Design and Modeling • Automation and Robotics • Options • Flight and Space • Science of Technology • Magic of Electrons • Energy and the Environment

6. Professional Development Training • Provided by Affiliate Universities for PLTW teachers and counselors in their region • Maryland Affiliate University = UMBC • Affiliate Universities offer • Summer core training by course - STI • Fall workshops • Major curriculum revision updates

7. CCBC’s Role • Provide additional Professional Development training • Originally software training just for Maryland PLTW teachers • Expanding to 7 states nationwide through NSF grant • Working with PLTW HQ to make available to all Affiliates

8. Why CCBC? • Existing affiliation with UMBC, Baltimore County and Baltimore City public school systems • Availability of training rooms • Parking accessibility • Location • Funding • TIME Center – ATE Center • MSDE – Perkins • Schools • NSF

9. Questions • Does anyone here provide professional development training? • What are you hoping to gain from this session?

10. Training Structure Topics Covered Materials Covered Instructors Challenges Resolutions Assessment

11. Topics Covered Inventor (IED and POE) – 5thyr fischertechnik/RoboPro (POE and GTT) – 5thyr Civil engineering concepts and Revit (CEA) – 3rdyr Digital Electronics (DE) – 1styr

12. Material Covered Software Changes Gotchas - things that stump teachers and/or students Basic to advanced features and commands Links to support material Actual PLTW projects or ones with similar features Component or content review Best practices

13. Instructors • Master Teachers • Teach PLTW course in middle or high school • Recommended by their STI Master Teacher • Teach at STIs • Affiliate Professors • Engineers or technically trained in appropriate field • Attended STI • Teach at STIs with a Master Teacher • Professors • Expert in software or content matter

14. Challenge - Schedule •  Initially offered one level three times a year • Many teachers were unable to attend all three sessions • Attendance Challenges • Scheduling conflicts • Workload • Weather • Budget – substitutes and travel to training

15. Challenges - Duration and Distance • Tried four hour, six hour and eight hour sessions • Travel distance may be prohibitive • Large states • Traffic

16. Challenge - Instruction Level • Teachers with NO training • STI required for certification • Last minute changes • Teachers with a lot of experience • Want to expand knowledge • Get reinforcement in a particular area • Everything in between

17. Resolution • Multiple training levels - Inventor and fischertechnik • Different levels offered one to two times a year • Based on length of existence of PLTW curriculum in area • Teacher experience • Courses with multiple sessions • Teachers asked to commit to attend both sessions • Limited enrollment • Run training for full day – 8 hours • Substitute at school for the whole day • Replicate training in different areas of state

18. Assessments • Initially – self evaluation • Knowledge of topic • Comfort level with material • Training itself • Added targeted content assessment for knowledge • Specific topic • Different levels • Format • Multiple choice • “I don’t know” option • Application

19. Getting Teachers to Take Assessment • Carrots • Get Continuing Education credit for completing 16 hrs • Let teachers know funding depends on showing results • Sticks • Will not pay for sub unless pre and post assessments are completed • May not attend unless pre-assessment is completed before training session

20. Results of Training MARYLAND 67 teachers over 3 years From 9 counties and DC Feedback was very positive Self-evaluation assessment scores increased dramatically Test scores improved Teachers expressed need for additional training

21. NSF Grant • NSF Grant awarded July 1, 2010 • Train-the-trainer model • Expand program to 7 Affiliate Universities nationwide • 2010/11 • Rochester Institute of Technology, NY • Sinclair Community College, OH • 2011/12 • San Diego State University, CA • University of South Carolina • Purdue University, IN • 2012/13 • University of Texas at Tyler • Milwaukee School of Engineering, WI

22. Training Team from CCBC • Laura LeMire • Affiliate Professor • Training Coordinator and civil engineering instructor • Shawn Lupoli • Computer science professor • fischertechnik instructor • Alan Zube, Mark Lastova and Omar Garcia • Master Teachers • Inventor and Revit instructors

23. Training Plan • Team meets with Coordinator and Instructors from expansion sites during PLTW STI training conference • Gather instructor input/feedback • Revise curriculum • Revise assessments • Team travels to one of the new sites – conducts video/conference call with all participating sites • Final preparation for training • Monthly conference calls with Coordinators

24. Results of Training Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Both sessions attended

25. Results– Fall 2010

26. Results– Fall 2010

27. Results – Spring 2011

28. Results - Both Sessions Attended

29. Application to Other Topics • Registration and assessment must be user friendly • Provide notification of training well in advance • Include on state or district schedule of PD for year • Set a deadline for completing pre-training assessment • One to two sessions • Multiple levels • A la carte training • Allows instructors at new sites flexibility within a structured environment • Better meet needs of attendees

30. Step by Step Determine areas where teachers lack confidence/knowledge Source funding! Identify and get commitment from trainers Develop content to include in training Develop assessment to determine success of training Market training – include in PD schedule Set up registration and data collection systems Conduct training Analyze results

31. Discussion

32. Follow up Laura LeMire Engineering Coordinator Community College of Baltimore County, MD 443-840-5904 llemire@ccbcmd.edu