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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Questions
 Does anyone here provide professional development
training?
 What are you hoping to gain from this session?
Training Structure
 Topics Covered
 Materials Covered
 Instructors
 Challenges
 Resolutions
 Assessment
Topics Covered
 Inventor (IED and POE) – 5th yr
 fischertechnik/RoboPro (POE and GTT) – 5th yr
 Civil engineering concepts and Revit (CEA) – 3rd yr
 Digital Electronics (DE) – 1st yr
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
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
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
Challenges - Duration and Distance
 Tried four hour, six hour and eight hour sessions
 Travel distance may be prohibitive
 Large states
 Traffic
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
Results of Training
 Fall 2010
 Spring 2011
 Both sessions attended
Results – Fall 2010
Results – Fall 2010
Results – Spring 2011
Results - Both Sessions Attended
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
Step by Step
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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
Discussion
Follow up
Laura LeMire
Engineering Coordinator
Community College of Baltimore County, MD
443-840-5904
llemire@ccbcmd.edu