STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012

Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010

1

Robert R. Lurker, M.Ed. South Jordan, UT 84095

660-441-1469 [email protected]

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center

A state-of-the-art, comprehensive Technology Learning Center focusing across disciplines, will nurture independent, self-directed learners with hands-on skills and an understanding of evolving technology. This innovative model, implemented in three phases through public/private partnerships, provides the foundation for high quality Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teacher education.



2

Presentation Contents Overview Slide # 1-9

● STEM Education Today ● Defining STEM Literacy ● STEM Education Reform ● TLC Project – Improving STEM Education ● STEM Education Transformation ● Project History ● Goals and Objectives

Learning Concepts Slide # 10-16

● Creative Learning Systems ● Learning Environment ● Sample Layout ● Standardized Test Performance ● Case Study ● SmartLab™ Student Comments

Learning Environment Slide # 17-26

● Design Concept ● Building Design Concept ● Central Core ● Example ● Learning Areas ● Educational Applications ● Potential Core Course Offerings ● Repeatability ● Outcomes

Learning into Practice Slide # 27-45

Phase I – 21st Century Learning Demonstration ● Demonstration Facilities ● Implementation Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction

● Technology Learning Center Design and Construction ● Lab Design Concepts/Possibilities ● Advanced Zone Design Applications ● Community Design Applications/Interactions ● Building Design Concept Example

Phase III – 21st Century in Practice ● Operations ● Opportunities for Involvement ● Funding Opportunities ● Budget Estimates – Technology Learning Center Phases I, II, III and STEM Implementation Statewide

Summary Slide # 46

Selected Bibliography Slide # 47- 49

Contributors Slide # 50- 58

Appendices Slide # 59- 71



3

STEM Education Today Over the years educational institutions have isolated many

disciplines and moved away from the teaching of other subjects considered as no longer relevant. The National Governors Association (NGA) Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda report describes the core curriculum as “silos” and “often criticized as being irrelevant and boring to today’s students.” The report points out three factors that turn off students to STEM disciplines and professions: 1) the artificial separation in the curriculum of natural phenomenon into subjects; 2) lack of attention to the human-made world of engineering and technology; and 3) the disconnect of coursework from the lives of students.

The right curriculum requires a teaching workforce that is qualified and prepared to teach STEM education. The NGA in the same report describes the workforce as “under-qualified in large part because of teacher shortages caused by attrition, migration, and retirement.” Their solution is: “States must also support high quality preparation and professional development for teachers that lead to improvements in large numbers of classrooms.”



4

Defining STEM Literacy The National Governors Association (NGA) Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda report provides definitions of STEM literacy developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Technology Education Association “STEM literacy refers to an individual’s ability to apply his or her understanding of how the world works within and across four interrelated domains.

• Scientific literacy is the ability to use scientific knowledge … (in three main areas — science in life and health, science in Earth and environment, and science in technology).

• Technological literacy means the ability to use, manage, understand, and assess technology. … Technology is the innovation, change, or modification of the natural environment to satisfy perceived human needs and wants.

• Engineering literacy is the understanding of how

technologies are developed via the engineering design process; … Engineering design is the systematic and creative application of scientific and mathematic principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

• Mathematical literacy means the ability of students to analyze, reason, and communicate ideas effectively as they pose, formulate, solve, and interpret solutions to mathematical problems in a variety of situations.“

“Consequently, a STEM classroom shifts students away from learning discrete bits and pieces of phenomenon and rote procedures and toward having investigating and questioning the interrelated facets of the world.” (Morrison, 2006)



5

STEM Education Reform Key Challenges

• U.S. students of all ages are at a comparative

disadvantage internationally in terms of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education as shown by lower math test scores among others.

• Poor high school graduation rates contribute to higher

unemployment and crime rates among young adults. • Inadequate, lecture-based methods of pre-service

and in-service teachers for early childhood, elementary, middle/junior high secondary and post-secondary levels result in ill-equipped teachers and unacceptable turnover rates.

• STEM education reform is required to address 21st Century technological needs for the U.S. to succeed in a global economy.

Opportunities

• Build learning environments that address the 21st Century and prepare students and teachers for a global economy.

• Apply innovative, existing methods developed by Creative Learning Systems (CLS) for their learning labs. CLS has provided positive outcomes that suggest this approach is a candidate for identification as a "best practice".

• Apply a comprehensive approach to the University level for pre- and in-service STEM teacher education and provide broad access and technology resources for general education and capstone courses.

• Address community needs for post professional technology education for business, industry, law enforcement and the military.

• Apply the “three-dimensional textbook” approach (Taylor, 2009) creating holistic, sustainable learning environments, that apply green technology in the design and ongoing operational philosophy.



6

TLC Project – Improving STEM Education The Technology Learning Center (TLC) project

implementation addresses a broad range of the issues identified by the National Governors Association, the US Department of Education, the White House and others.

The NGA identifies three strategies for STEM improvement that are addressed by the TLC Project:

1. Align state K–12 STEM standards and assessments with postsecondary and workforce expectations for what high school graduates know and can do.

2. Examine and increase the state’s internal capacity to improve teaching and learning. • States should support promising new models of

recruiting, preparing, certifying, compensating, and evaluating teachers in STEM content areas.

• States should support extra learning opportunities to support STEM teaching and learning in the schools.

3. Identify best practices in STEM education and bring them to scale. • States should create and expand the availability

of specialized STEM schools.



7

TLC Project - STEM Education Transformation STEM education projects tend to focus on only one aspect of technology in

the hands of the student (e.g. laptops, ipods, electronic textbooks). Technology is not a single device nor just electronic or computer devices. If we want teachers to inspire students and lead them to a knowledge of technology and the ability to adapt to 21st century technology, we must change our focus to the teachers and their experience with, and knowledge of, technology (STEM literacy). We must be more inclusive as we provide teachers the opportunity to both learn, experience and apply technology.

The TLC Project starts out using existing proven resources (i.e. “best practices”). Further research and study are not required. The TLC Project focuses first on the teachers through pre- and in-service hands-on experience with a broad range of existing and developing technologies.

This approach provides the foundation for improvement and reshaping of our STEM PreK-20 curriculum and educational facilities. A major outcome is a prepared educational workforce with the knowledge to lead the transformation from traditional teaching and learning methods to 21st Century concepts and practices.

The TLC project involves a wide array of partnerships including: public and charter schools, regional professional development centers, universities and community colleges, business and industry, law enforcement, military, private foundations, and the general community.



8

TLC Project History • Conception 2003 – Southeast Missouri State

University – 1st Meeting – Nashville TN, International

Technology Education Association (ITEA) with Creative Learning Systems (CLS)

– Basic concept utilizing the CLS Lab for teacher education

• Project Development – University of Central Missouri 2003-2007

– Transformed from lab-based application to holistic learning concept

• Basic lab to advanced lab environment for teacher education, University General Education and Capstone courses

– Site visits – Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, California, Hawaii

– Building concept “Technology Education” ages 2 weeks through Adult Learners

• Community College Development – Pahrump, Nevada 2007-2008

– Development for shared High School/College facility with dual credit

– Rural branch campus application to a “learning park” with TLC as campus core

• Project Phase Development – 2009-2011 – Developed a 3-phase approach to implementation

including budget, staffing and revenue source generation

• Selected Publications and Presentations – Lurker, R., Downing, J., & Wilson, D. (2009). The

Technology Learning Center. In Taylor, Anne P., Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design for Learning Environments (pp. 176-177). Everbest Printing Company, Ltd., University of New Mexico Press

– Advanced Facilitator Development Conference, Greeley, CO, 2006

– International Technology Education Association, Kansas City, MO, 2005

– The International Association of Science, Technology and Society, Baltimore, 2005

• Awards – William E. Warner Professional Practice Award.

Epsilon Pi Tau, 2011



9

TLC Project - Goals and Objectives

General Objectives

Create a technology focal point (“Green” building) that is accessible, visible, and hands-on for all students on campus. (General Education Classes)

Support teacher education at all levels (teachers, counselors and administrators) PreK-20.

Provide access to technology and training opportunities for students and parents in public and charter schools, business and industry, law enforcement, military and the general community.

Immerse students and teachers in a 21st Century learning environment, while preparing them for a global economy.

Education Objectives

Provide all education majors with hands-on experience with a broad range of technology.

Provide in-service training for PreK-16 teachers, locally and statewide, including teachers from underperforming schools.

Establish partnerships with public and charter schools, to expand their course offerings and access to advanced technology.

Provide curriculum development opportunities to integrate technologies and methods into existing classes both at the University level and in PreK-16 schools.

1. Develop a state-of-the-art, comprehensive Technology Learning Center that will prepare independent, self-directed learners and incorporate cutting-edge technology.

2. The Center will nurture and develop skills that include individual goal setting, problem solving, communication and collaboration, innovation, self-evaluation and an understanding of evolving technology.

Applications include: pre- and in-service teacher education, general education and capstone courses with a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teacher education.

Goals:



10

Learning Concepts Current educational best practices and

learning theories indicate that environmentally based, project-based, hands-on, active, relevant, constructivist learning can close the achievement gap (Hoody & Lieberman, 1998).

Students become responsible for their own learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. v), and teachers act as facilitators (Caine & Caine, 1991, p. 22).

Whole Brain Teaching and Learning Characteristics – Delivery of learning can be designed to respond to personal uniqueness; Unique people can be made an integral part of the learning design; Learning through affirmation and discovery can be more effective, fulfilling, enjoyable, and last longer (Herrmann-Nehdi, 2006).



11

“21st Century Learning Labs for Students of all Abilities

Creative Learning Systems engages learners with

fully-integrated classroom systems focused on technology exploration, alternative energy education and media production. In a Creative Learning Systems SmartLab™, students develop 21st century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, communication, project-management and self-direction. They apply leading-edge technology to academically linked, hands-on projects. It's a learning experience that engages, challenges and motivates like no other.” www.creativelearningsystems.com

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center (TLC)

Creative Learning Systems SmartLab™ is the

cornerstone of this project. The concepts, facilities and track record of designing and installing over 700 installations since 1987 represent elements of multiple "best practices". Examples include: The ePortfolio system™ supports authentic assessment. Improved test scores have been documented. CLS applies leading edge technology to core, academically-linked, hands-on projects. Integration of multiple technologies is encouraged. They approach technology as a tool to be applied to workflow rather than as an isolated set of skills.

Because of their uniqueness, there is currently no equivalent, competing product. The TLC project applies and expands the model to the university/college level and targets pre- and in-service teachers and students completing general education requirements. The TLC project also provides technological resources to business, industry, military and other aspects of the general community.

http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/prod/smart.asp

http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/prod/alternative-energy.asp

http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/prod/alternative-energy.asp

http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/prod/multimedia.asp

http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/



12

Learning Environment Creative Learning Systems

• Learner Centered, Project-Based Learning • Open-Ended - NOT a Modular Approach

• Fundamental Competencies • Multiple Learning Paths • Flexible

• Self-Directed Learning Format • North Central Regional Education Laboratory

• Constructivism • “Generate, Demonstrate & Exhibit”, Brooks & Brooks (1993)

• Brain-Based Learning Theory • Twelve Brain/Mind Learning Principles, Caine & Caine (1997)

• Theory Of Multiple Intelligences • Howard Gardner (1983)

• Positive Outcomes • Improved STEM test scores • Student and Teacher satisfaction

• More Than 20 Years Experience • Over 700 Installations, US and Canada



13

Capacity

- Technology Core – Sample Layout

1

1. Aqua Culture 2. Bio-Technology Zone 3. Robotic Work Cell 4. Global Commons™

5. Facilitator Zone 6. Knowledge Wall 7. Ideation Zone™ 8. Collaboration Cove™

9. Head End Room 10.Digital Editing Booth 11.Virtuality Studio™

w/ CYC Wall™

The Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Technology Plaza, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii

2

8 10

5

4

9

7

6

6

3

11



14

Standardized Test Performance

• Results for full-time students

Grades 9, 10, and 11 after 1 year of full-time residency in the Creative Learning Plaza

• *STAR Results shown Comparison with STAR Results

for the State of California and for the Vista School District.

*1998 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)

- Outcomes

Creative Learning Plaza – Vista Village, California

Guajome Park Academy Vista, CA



15

Case Study

• Technology-based charter school – Test results

*Created 2002 Albuquerque, NM

- Outcomes

Southwest Secondary Learning Center*



16

SmartLab™ Learning Environment*

Students’ Comments – “Most Teens Associate School with

Boredom, Fatigue” – SmartLab™ students report “High

Levels of Interest”

• Source school survey data – Gallup Organization, June 8th, 2004

- Outcomes

* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™



17

Learning Environment

The old “assembly line” model no longer supports

what we know about how the brain/mind learns (Caine & Caine, 1991, pp. 13-14). This means architects must provide different configurations for learning environments, more flexibility, adaptability, movable components, and future conversion to other uses (Locker & Olsen, 2004).

Schools must become more community oriented through shared facilities, multiple use, and community participation in the planning process (Brubaker, 1998).

Kats (2006) reports in “Greening America’s Schools” that students in sustainable, high-performance school buildings experience health and learning benefits tied to green design and improved ventilation, temperature controls, good lighting, and better views. Teachers also benefit, which increases teacher retention.

Project-based learning often requires more learning space and architectural support for different space usage and for changing student/teacher/community relationships. (Taylor, 2009)



18

Design Concept A multisensory design focuses on the

application and integration of technology across disciplines through hands-on learning. Teachers and students alike are surrounded by technology and a silent curriculum. The facility, a “Three-dimensional Textbook”, brings to life phenomena typically only studied in textbooks.

This is a demonstration project that brings together multiple "best practices" creating an orchestrated immersion into a modern 21st century learning environment. Resources are reconfigurable and deployable empowering students to design and develop their learning environment. Visual access to all learning areas provides inspiration and motivation. A visit to the Technology Learning Center becomes an experience: “what you don’t touch, you see”.

- Design Concept



19

Building Overview Cross Discipline, Cross Curriculum Collaboration Resource Multi-Age Learning Environment Holistic, Sustainable Environment

Green Design, Construction and Building Operations

Alternative Energy Demonstration and Application

Community Resource Professional Development Business, Industry, Law Enforcement, Military Public, Private Schools, University, Community

College

- Building Design Concept



20

Central Core

Central Core of Technology Common Technologies

Interdisciplinary Approach Cross-Curriculum

Career Exploration Grades 6 through Adult

Education Technovation Plaza™ Customizable/Configurable

Surrounding Support Areas

Advanced Technology Zones Cross-College Multi-Discipline

Collaboration Resources Advanced Projects Capstone Courses

Customizable/Configurable




21

Central Core - Example Building Technology Core

Central Core of Technologies Technovation Plaza™

Surrounding Areas Advanced Technologies Collaboration Areas Project Development Experimental Design

Areas Visually Accessible

Open Atrium Living Growing

Environment Grades 6 through Adult Learners

Original concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg




22

Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of Technology

* Creative Learning Technovation Plaza™ and SmartLab™ Transdisciplinary Learning Engagements



23

Educational Applications



24

Graduate

TECH 5100 Technology in a Facilitative Environment (3)

TECH 5200 Technology Philosophy and Practice (3)

TECH 5400 Practicum in Technology

Project Design and Development (3-6) TECH 6000

Facilitating Technology in a Hands-on Environment (3)

Public and Charter Schools

TECH 100 Introduction to Technology

TECH 200 Technology and Self Direction

TECH 400 Technology Project Design and Development

Potential Core Course Offerings Undergraduate

TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology (3)

TECH 2000 Technology and Self Direction (3)

TECH 4000 Technology Project Design and Development (3-6)

Certificate Program

Undergraduate and Graduate Technology Certificates

• 3-4 Courses • Electives • 15 Credits

TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT

• Inquiry-based • Hands-on • Interdisciplinary • Facilitating • Teams • Projects



25

Repeatability Example

Missouri STEM Implementation *Missouri Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs)

• North West MO - NW MO State Univ. - Maryville • South Central - MO S&T- Rolla • South West MO - MO State Univ. – Springfield • St. Louis - University of MO - St. Louis • Central - UCMO - Warrensburg • South East - SE MO State Univ. - Cape Girardeau • Heart of MO - University of MO - Columbia • Kansas City - University of MO - Kansas City • North East MO - Truman State University - Kirksville



26

Outcomes



27

Learning into Practice

Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration STEM Pre-Service, In-Service Education, Fundamental Concepts in

SmartLab™ utilizing temporary facility; Classes begin in 4 – 6 months, Year 1.

Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction

Public Planning Process, Design Development, Construction, 2 - 3 years; Concurrent with Demonstration Phase.

Phase III - 21st Century in Practice

STEM Teacher Education, Regional Professional Development Center, Child Development Center, Small Business Development, General Education, Capstone Program Support, Community Resource; Full Implementation of Technology Learning Center.



28

Phase I 21st Century Learning Demonstration

The focus is on teachers and STEM education. The

demonstration phase allows rapid implementation of a SmartLab™ in a temporary facility for Pre-Service and In-Service teachers. Year round services delivered in the region include classes, workshops and summer programs. Teachers will experience and develop or enhance 21st century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, effective communications, self-direction and project management, while experiencing the application of hands-on technology.



29

Demonstration Facility

– Applications • Pre-Service, In-Service Education • Workshops and Summer Programs

– Partnerships • Regional Professional

Development Center • Local/Regional Campus

– Resource Development – Evaluation/Oversight

• Advisory Group • Outcomes

– Temporary Facility (shovel-ready) • Renovation/Construction

– 4,000 sq. ft. • SmartLab™

– 24 - 30 Seats, 4 Islands • Lab, Seminar, and Facilitator Areas

– Facility Usage 4 yr. Estimates* • Pre-Service Students – 750 - 950 • In-Service Teachers – 1350 - 1690 • Total Training Hours – 109,000 - 136,000

– Duration - 4 Years

- Implementation

Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration

* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment



30

* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™

SmartLab™*

Learning Environment: Critical Thinking

Problem Solving, Creativity ePortfolio

Collaboration Communication Self-Direction

Application of Technology Project Management

Information and Media Literacy

Staffing

Facilitators: University/College Faculty

Graduate Students

Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration

- Implementation



31

Phase II Design Collaboration and Construction

To educate in the 21st century we must replace the factory model

designs for education and make the learning environment real and relevant to today's technology as well as the students’ lives.

The environment itself and the objects within it become a teaching tool or “three-dimensional textbook” (Taylor, 2009).

The innovative design becomes an outgrowth of the collaboration between the University/college campus and community engagement, as the boundaries blur, to benefit and serve the whole community. The Center’s construction becomes a living, touchable example of green design and sustainability, a flexible learning environment .

The TLC Project’s unique building design provides the modern infrastructure to facilitate Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s goal for “states to recruit, train, mentor and support a great new generation of teachers who can better prepare our students for college and work.”



32

Technology Learning Center Design and Construction

– Public Planning Process • University/College • Public Education and Community • Business and Industry • Government

– Design Development • Holistic, Sustainable Environment

– Green Design and Construction – LEED Certification

– Resource Development • Business and Industry Partnerships

– Building and Facilities Construction • Planning Duration

– Begin 6 months – 1 year from Phase I startup

– 6 months – 1 year • Construction

– 18 months – 2 Years – Technology Learning Center Transition

• Building Testing and Staging • Relocations • Dedication

- Implementation

Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction



33

Lab Design Concepts/Possibilities



34

Advanced Zone Design Applications

• Judgment Use of Force

• Firearms Training

• Counter-Terrorism

• Chem-bio response

• Marksmanship Training

• Incident Command

• Tactical Carbine

• Tactical Handgun skills

• Rifle Instructor

• Behavior Pattern

Recognition

• Checkpoint Security

Simulation Vendors



35

Advanced Zone Design Applications (Cont.)



36

Community Design Applications/Interactions

Level 2 - Example



37

Community Design Applications/Interactions

Level 3 - Roof Example



38

Building Design Concept - Example




39

Completed construction of the 21st Century Technology

Learning Center brings together under one roof STEM Teacher Education, Regional Professional Development Center, Child Development Center, Small Business Development, General Education, and Capstone course support to serve the community. Expanding resources for the university/college and STEM teacher education through the advanced technology zones, the Elementary Technology Center, and the Child Development Center will provide unique opportunities including collaboration, partnerships, project-based learning and student observations.

The TLC “addresses a basic need for teacher professional development that models current best practices in educational theory. …Teaching multiple ages using the same centralized facility ensures continuity in learning that has been lacking in the educational system as a whole.” (Taylor, 2009)

Phase III 21st Century In Practice



40

Operations

– Programs • STEM Teacher Education • Regional Professional

Development Center • Child Development Center • Small Business Development • General Education • Capstone Program Support

– Evaluation/Oversight • Expanded Advisory Group • Outcomes

– Operational Functions • Revenue Development

– Tuition, Fees and Grants – Facilities Generation, Rentals and Sales – Partnerships and Sponsorships

• Expenditures – Staffing and Technology – Building Maintenance

– Facility Usage Estimates • Based on Phase II Design Collaboration

– Duration: Useful Building Life Estimate 25 years

- Implementation

Phase III - 21st Century in Practice



41

Opportunities for Your Involvement

• Partnerships – Education – Business and Industry – Government – Foundations

• Sponsorships – Labs – Facilities – Exhibits

• Advisory Group Committees – Technology Center – Child Development Center – Professional Development Center – Business and Entrepreneurial Center

• Research – STEM – Educational – Business and Industry

• Funding – Public – Private

- Stakeholders



42

- Funding Opportunities



43

Technology Learning Center

Phase I - Teacher Preparation – 21st Century Learning Demonstration

• Programs – STEM Teacher Education – Classes, Workshops, Summer Camp

• Temporary Facility – 24 - 30 Seat SmartLab™

• Partnerships – Regional Professional Development Center – Local/Regional Campus

• 4 years • $4.6 - $5.2 Million • Funding through public/private partnerships

- Budget Estimates

Custom-designed for each Campus based on their unique educational goals and usage models.

* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment



44

Technology Learning Center

Phase II – Engineering and Construction – Design Collaboration and Construction

• Public Planning Process • Final Design Development

– Holistic, Sustainable Environment

• Construction/Equipment/Furnishings • Resource Development

– Business and Industry Partnerships

• 2 – 3 years • $25 - $40 Million

Phase III - Teachers/Students/Community – 21st Century in Practice

• Programs – STEM Teacher Education – Elementary Technology Center – Advanced Zones and Labs – Regional Professional Development Center – Child Development Center – Small Business Development – General Education – Capstone Program Support

• Facility Usage Estimates – Based on Phase II Design Collaboration

• Cost Estimate – Based on Phase II Design Collaboration

- Budget Estimates




45

STEM Implementation Statewide

Phase I - Teacher Preparation

– Regional Professional Development Centers (State of Missouri)

• Programs – STEM Teacher Education – Classes, Workshops, Summer Camp

• Temporary Facility – 24 - 30 Seat SmartLab™

• Partnerships – Regional Professional Development Center – Local/Regional Campus

• 3 – 5 Years Implementation • Capital Cost $9 Million Total for 9 Locations • Operations $2 to $3 Million per Lab

– Over 4-year period

Phases II & III -

Teachers/Students/Community – Technology Learning Centers

• Customized to individual Campus

- Budget Estimates




46

TLC - STEM Education Transformation Phase I: 21st Century Learning Environment

Demonstration of best practices - SmartLab™ Preparing for a global economy through immersion Collaborative education/STEM literacy

Pre-Service STEM Teacher Education Teachers, counselors and administrators, PreK-16 Hands-on, whole brain learning experience

In-Service Training Support for PreK-20 Teachers, counselors and administrators Regional Professional Development Centers Underperforming schools and districts statewide

STEM Education Reform Outcomes Qualified STEM educators Improved student/teacher retention and graduation rates Integrated, transdisciplinary STEM learning methods Improved standardized test performance

Phases II and III: Technology Focal Point for PreK-20

General Education technology classes (All Majors) Accessible, observable and interactive technology Facilities for integrated capstone courses

Community Partnerships Access to integrated technology and training Students and parents in public and charter schools Universities, colleges and foundations Business and industry, law enforcement, military

21st Century Green Building Showcase Living, working, growing, flexible and adaptable Holistic, sustainable environment, green design Alternative energy demonstration and application Best practices in educational facilities design and operations

- Summary



47

Selected Bibliography • Abramson, P. (2005). 10th Annual School Construction Report.

Dayton: School Planning & Management. • Abramson, P. (2005, February). 2005 College Construction

Report. College Planning & Management . • American Architectural Foundation & KnowlwdgeWorks

Foundation. (2005). National Summit on School Design. Washington, DC: American Architectural Foundation & KnowlwdgeWorks Foundation.

• American Architectural Foundation. (2006). Designed For Learning Forum, School Design and Student Learning in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: American Architectural Foundation.

• Anstrand, D. E., & Kirkbirde, E. E. (2009). The Education Environment Program. DesignShare.

• Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

• Brubaker, C. W. (1997). Planning and Designing Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

• Cibulka, J. G. (2009). Meeting Urgent National Needs in P-12 Education: Improving Relevance, Evidence, and Performance in Teacher Preparation. Washington: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).

• Creative Learning Systems. (1994). Creative Learning Plaza: The Ultimate Environment for Authentic Learning . San Diego, CA: Creative Learning Systems, Inc.

• Creative Learning Systems. (2004). Self-Directed Learning, Curriculum Design and The Creative Learning Environment . San Diego, CA: Creative Learning Systems.

• Creative Learning Systems. (2004). The SmartLab. Longmont, CO: Creative Learning Systems.

• Dando, A. (2004). Standardized Test Performance In a Creative Learning Environment. San Diego: Creative Learning Systems.

• Disney Institute. (2001). Perfecting the art of customer service. New York: Disney Editions.

• Duncan, A. (2009, November 23). Duncan Endorses Efforts to Improve STEM Education. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov: www.ed.gov

• Duncan, A. (2009, February 9). Secretary Arne Duncan Speaks at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Council on Education. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov: www.ed.gov

• Duncan, A. (2009, March 12). Secretary Arne Duncan Testifies Before the House Budget Committee on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov: www.ed.gov

• Garcia, A. G. (n.d.). Designing Early College High Schools: What does it take? Texas High School Project.

• Herrmann, N. (2006). Making Partnerships and Alliances Really Work. Lake Lure, NC: The Ned Herrmann Group.



48

• Herrmann, N. (1994). The Creative Brain. Kingsport: Brain Books.

• Herrmann, N. (1996). The Whole Brain Business Book. Ney York: McGraw-Hill.

• Herrmann-Nehdi, A. (1998, January). Training With The Brain In Mind: The Application Of Brain Dominance Technology To Teaching And Learning. Lake Lure, NC, USA: Herrmann International.

• Hoody, L., & Lieberman, G. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. State Education and Environment Roundtable.

• International Technology Association. (2003). Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

• International Technology Association. (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association and its Technology for All Americans Project.

• ISTE International Society for Technology in Education. Maximizing the Impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system. Eugene, OR : ISTE International Society for Technology in Education.

• Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding The Status and Improving The Prospects. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Washington: The National Academies Press.

• Kats, G. (2006). Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits. Washington: The U.S. Green Building Council.

• Lemke, C. (2003). Standards for a Modern World: Preparing Students for the Future. Learning & Leading with Technology , 31 (1).

• Locker, F. M., & Olsen, S. (2004). Design Share The International Forum for Innovative Schools. Retrieved 2010, from Flexible School Facilities: designshare.com/Research/Locker/FlexibleSchools.asp

• Machi, E. (2009). Improving U.S. Competitiveness with K12 STEM Education and Training. Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

• Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM Education: The Students, The Academy, The Classroom. TIES STEM Monograph Series.

• Nair, P. (2009). Don't Just Rebuild Schools-Reinvent Them. Education Week , 28 (28), 24-25.

• National Alliance For Pre-Engineering Programs. (2002). Project Lead The Way. Project Lead The Way . Clifton Park, New York: Project Lead The Way.

• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of State Boards of Education, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Accelerating the Agenda: Actions to Improve America's High Schools. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2008). Promoting STEM Education: A Communications Toolkit. Washington: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

- Bibliography



49

• National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

• National Institute of Building Sciences. (2010, January 25). McGraw-Hill Construction Monthly, Historical, and Forecast Data. Retrieved 2010, from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities - Data & Statistics: www.edfacilities.org

• Pullias, D. (1997, April). The Future is ... Beyond Modular. The Technology Teacher.

• Pullias, D. (1992, January). What is Technology Education? The Technology Teacher.

• Reed Business Information . (2009, May 11). RSMeans. Retrieved 2009, from Quick Cost Estimator: www.rsmeans.com

• Reynard, R. (2008). 21st Century Teaching and Learning: Assessing New Knowledge. THE Journal.

• Schneider, J. W. (2006). Designing and Building for the Class of 2020. Building Design and Construction.

• Snyder, M., & Causey, D. (2006). Alaska's Smart Science Through Technology (AKS2T2). Anchorage, AK, USA: College of Education, University of Alaska Anchorage.

• Taylor, A. P. (2009). Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design for Learning Environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

• Teach For America. (2008). 2008 Annual Report: Priorities and Results. New York, NY: Teach For America.

• Technology & Learning. (2009, March 29). Survey says students don't think their schools' tech is current. Retrieved 2009, from Technology & Learning: www.techlearning.com

• Technology & Learning. (2009, March 5). Testimony from [U.S.]

House of Representatives' STEM Hearing. Retrieved 2009, from Tech & Learning: www.techlearning.com

• The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). Are They Really Ready To Work? Employers' Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century U.S. Workforce. The Conference Board, Inc.

• The White House. (2009, November 29). Educate to Innovate. Retrieved 2009, from The White House: www.whitehouse.gov

• The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009, November 23). President Obama Launches "Educate to Innovate" Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM) Education. Retrieved 2009, from The White House: www.whitehouse.gov

• Thode, B. (1989, November). Applying Higher Level Thinking Skills. The Technology Teacher.

• U.S. Green Building Council. (2003). Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.

• Wright, M. (2000). From The Editor: What does an Elementary School Technology Education Classroom Look Like? Technology and Children, 5 (2), 2-4.

- Bibliography

http://www.techlearning.com/



50

Contributors From the initial conceptual “seeds” to the development of this

Technology Learning Center proposal, a wide array of individuals have contributed their expertise, experience and visions for STEM education reform. They participated in interviews via e-mails, phone calls or in person; facilitated and/or hosted numerous site visits; provided reference data, information, and analyses; and reviewed drafts. Inclusion as a contributor is not meant to imply formal endorsement of this draft proposal by an individual and/or organization; it is a recognition of their assistance to the author. Dr. Jerry Ackins, Superintendent, Crest Ridge R-VII School District,

Centerview, MO Bob Ahring, Director, Public Safety, University of Central Missouri,

Warrensburg, MO Martha L. Albin, Ed.D., Interim Vice President, Finance and

Administration, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Jennifer E. Aldrich, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Pat Anderson, Director, Safety and Security, Great Basin College, Elko, NV

Patricia A. Antrim, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Human Development and Associate Professor of Library Science and Information Services, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Thomas R. Atkinson, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Educational Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

David Baird, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Industrial & Engineering Technology and Middle & Secondary Education, Cape Girardeau, MO

Rochelle R. Barabas, M.S., Assistant Professor of Graphic Imaging and Design Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dr. Chris Belcher, Assistant Superintendent, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO

Julie J. Blaine, M.S., Interim Director of the Central Regional Professional Development Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Zinna L. Bland, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Business Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

George W. Boddy, Ph.D., Director of Extended Campus and Distance Learning, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Steven R. Boone, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Chemistry, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Butch Borasky, Board of County Commissioners, Nye County, Pahrump, NV

Richard D. Bruce, Ph.D., LEED AP, Assistant Professor, Department of Technology and Construction Management. Missouri State University, Springfield, MO



51

Ruth S. Burkett, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Science Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Julie Burner, Director of Technology, Holden R-III School District, Holden, MO

Kim Butler, Facilitator Support Specialist, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO; Formerly Instructor, Technology Education, Roosevelt High School, Johnstown, CO; and Facilitator, Aims Community College, Greeley, CO

Kathryn A. Callahan, Ph.D., Professor of Fashion and Apparel Merchandising, School of Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Pricilla L. Callison, Ph.D., Director of Pedagogy & Research, Regional Professional Development Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Glenn A. Carriker, Ed.S., Interim Director, Missouri Safety Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Bryan W. Carter, Ph.D., Associate Professor of English, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Kyle R. Carter, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Psychology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Gary Clark, Whiteman Training and Education Center, Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster, MO

Julie A. Clawson, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Nursing and Professor of Nursing, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Renee S. Cole, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

E. Samuel Cox, Ph.D., Interim Chair of the Department of Communications and Professor of Speech Communications, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Shawn Cripe, Projects Administrator, Office of Sponsored Programs, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Angla Dando, Ph.D., Education System Analyst, International Relations, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO

Edward W. Davenport, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science and Professor of Mathematics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dr. Jim Davis, Principal, Warrensburg Middle School, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO

Pauline Denning, Technology Coordinator, Thomas R-2J School District, Loveland, CO

Matt Dickstein, Chief Executive Officer, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO

Mollie M. Dinwiddie, Ed.S., Interim Dean, Library Services and Professor of Library Services, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Linda Dooling, Director, Professional Development, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO

Joyce A. Downing, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College of Education and Associate Professor of Special Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Boyd K. Earl, Kindergarten Teacher, Nibley Park Elementary School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake City, UT

- Contributors



52

Paula J. Elefante, Executive Director, EDEN, Inc. Economic Development Authority Nye County, Pahrump, NV

Paul H. Engelmann, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Terri Fayle, Assistant to the Director and Program Administrator, Office of Sponsored Programs, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Larry G. Ficken, Superintendent, Knob Noster R-VIII School District, Knob Noster, MO

Steve Fotenos, U.S. Secret Service, Kansas City, MO Tom Frayer, SmartLab Facilitator, Mountain View High School,

Thomas R-2J School District, Loveland, CO Richard A. Frazier, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Science

Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Karen B. French, Assistant Director Community Engagement,

Union Station, Central Missouri State University, Kansas City, MO

Gary S. Frey, Ed.D., Professor of Industrial Technology, University of Montana Western, Dillon, MT

Eric D. Fudge, M.S., Director, Instructional Technology and Design, Center for Teaching and Learning, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO

Dorothy S. Gallagher, Board of Regents, Nevada System of Higher Education, Elko, NV

Ted R. Garten, Ph.D., Development Officer, College of Education and Human Services, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

John W. D. Gole, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Biology and Earth Science and Associate Professor of Biology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dr. Dan Gordon, Principal, Warrensburg High School, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO

Doug Graham, Educational Consultant/CEO, School Technologies Inc., Albuquerque, NM

Alice L. Greife, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Science and Technology and Professor of Industrial Hygiene, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Carl J. Grigsby, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Secondary/Middle School Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Lt. Ed Gulic, Public Affairs, Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster, MO

Carolyn Harris, Consultant, Health Systems Planning, Policy and Program Planning, Administration, Evaluation, Research and Grant Writing, Riverside, CA

Dr. Lindell L. Harrison, Superintendent, Holden R-III School District, Holden, MO

M. Gene Heaton, Enterprise GIS Project Supervisor, City of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX

Janet Herdon, North Kansas City School District, Kansas City, MO Patricia Herrmann, Client Relationship Manager, Herrmann

International, Lake Lure, NC Jerry Hill, Ed.S., Assistant Superintendent for Student

Achievement, Nye County School District, Pahrump, NV

- Contributors



53

Mark Hines, Technology Coordinator, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, HI

Karen Holley, Grant Writer, Nye County School District, Pahrump, NV

Eric C. Honour, Jr., D.Mus., Director of Music Technology and Assistant Professor of Music, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Delores Hudson, Board of Governors, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

C. Wilson Hurst, M.S., Assistant Professor of Graphic Arts Technology Management and Photography, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Patricia Jannuzzi, Principal, Academic Lafayette Charter School, Kansas City, MO

Michael Jinks, Ph.D., Superintendent, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO

Odin L. Jurkowski, Ed.D., Chair of the Department of Career and Technology Education and Associate Professor of Instructional Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Richard C. Kahoe, Ed.S., Associate Professor of Career and Technology Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dr. Larry Keisker, Director, Clinical SVCS, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Joseph Kelly, AIA, Project Architect, Sprotte+Watson Architecture & Planning, Inc., Vista, CA

Gregory E. Kennedy, Ph.D., Professor of Child and Family Development, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Andrew K. King, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Elementary Education and Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Darrell Lacy, Director, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository, Pahrump, NV

Sharon L. Lamson, Ph.D., Chair Curriculum and Instruction and Professor of Elementary Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Tammy Long, Executive Director, Greater Warrensburg Area Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center, Warrensburg, MO

LTC William R. Lynn, M.B.A., Chair of the Department of Military Science and Leadership and Professor of Military Science, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

James R. Machell, Jr., Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Human Development and Professor of Educational Leadership, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Bob MacIntosh, Associate Director of Technology, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, HI; formerly Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO

James R. Marble, Ph.D., Habitat Restoration Biologist, Las Vegas, NV; formerly, Director of Natural Resources Office Nye County, NV

Barbara J. Mayfield, J.D., Director of Accessibility Services, ADA/504 Coordinator, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Christopher M. Meehan, M.S., Assistant Professor of Computer Aided Drafting and Design, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

- Contributors



54

Matthew A. Melvin, Ed.D., Assistant Provost for Enrollment Management, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dean Meyers, President, Inventive Technology Inc., Westminster, CO

Larry K. Michaelsen, Ph.D., Professor of Management, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Carol A. Mihalevich, Ph.D., Professor of Reading, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dr. Doug Miller, Coordinator of Professional Development, Leadership Academy, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO

W. Douglas Miller, Supervisor of Technology Education, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, State of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO

Julie Milner, Charter School Technology Coordinator, Academic Lafayette Charter School, Kansas City, MO

Joy Mockelmann, Ph.D., Supervisor, State System of Support, Wyoming Department of Education, Cheyenne, WY

Thomas M. Moore, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Agriculture, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Gary Nelson, President, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO

Lareesa Nelson, Business Manager, Urban Community Leadership Academy (UCLA), Kansas City, MO

Robert J. Ohrenberg, Ed.D., Professor of Manufacturing Management, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Carolyn P. O’Keefe, M.S., Director of Lee’s Summit Facility, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Paul A. Page, Ph.D., Vice President for University Advancement, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Kyle W. Palmer, Ph.D., – Program Coordinator and Professor of Computer Aided Drafting and Design Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Bobby R. Patton, Ph.D., President and Professor of Speech Communication, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Ann M. Pearce, B.S., Associate to the President, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Novella Perrin, Ph.D., Dean of The Graduate School and Assistant Provost for Research, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Aaron M. Podolefsky, Ph.D., President and Professor of History and Anthropology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Pamela Raffurty, Director, Workshop on Wheels Child Care Resource & Referral, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Jim Ramos, Regional Manager, Advanced Interactive Systems, AIS, Seattle, WA

Dan Ramseier, President, High Country Technology Consultants Inc., Greeley, CO

Larry Ray, Contracts and Capital Development Manager, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

C. David Rice, Ph.D., Assistant Provost for Information Technology and Instruction and Professor of History, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Joe C. Rice, President and CEO, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, HI

- Contributors



55

Diana Ringen, Librarian, Whiteman AFB Elementary, Knob Noster R-VIII School District, Knob Noster, MO

Betty Roberts, Ph.D., Vice President of Administration and Finance, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Kent Roberts, Principal, Pahrump Valley High School, Nye County School District, Pahrump, NV

Dr. William E. Roberts, Superintendent of Nye County School District; Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired), Pahrump, NV

Beth C. Rutt, M.S., Director of Campus Activities, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO

Wesley A. Savage, P.E., M.B.A., Director, Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies and Development, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Joseph A. Scarcella, Ph.D., Program Coordinator Adult/Vocational/Technology Teacher Education and Assistant Professor, California State University, San Bernardino, CA

Suzanne Schelp, Copyright Permissions Coordinator, Library Services, James C Kirkpatrick Library, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Dan L. Sevier, Assistant Superintendent, Knob Noster R-VIII School District, Knob Noster, MO

Y.T. Shah, Sc.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Judith Penrod Siminoe, J.D., General Counsel, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Claire A. Sinclair, Public Affairs Specialist, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of External Affairs, Pahrump, NV

Richard D. Sluder, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Health and Human Services, and Professor of Criminal Justice. Formerly Interim Dean of the College of Education and Human Services, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Stan Smith, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO

Mary L. Snyder, Ph.D., Dean, College of Education and Professor of Education, University of Alaska Anchorage, AK

Margaret E. Stone, Ph.D., Interim Director of Sponsored Research and Projects, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Marcus L. Stucker, Director Aux. Services, Holden R-III School District, Holden, MO

Sue E. Sundberg, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Deborah Sutton, Director, Instructional Technology, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO

John R. Sutton, Ph.D., Chair of the School of Technology and Professor of Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Bob Swadell, Developer, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired), Pahrump, NV

Anne Taylor, Ph.D., Hon, AIA, ACSA Distinguished Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM

Windy Thill, Director, Career & Technical Education, Shawnee Mission Public Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS

- Contributors



56

Douglas D. Thomas, Ed.D., Director, Midwest Center for Charter Schools and Urban Education, and Professor of Education Administration, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Frank Tussing, Executive Director, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy & Business, Las Vegas, NV

Jeffrey M. Ulmer, M.S., Assistant Professor of Industrial Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Gene A. Vinson, Ed.S., Director of the Central Regional Professional Development Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Peter L. Viscusi, Ph.D., Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Dean of The Honors College and Professor of History, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Victoria S. Voland, B.S.E., Director of the Foster/Knox Child Care Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Troy E. Wade, Chairman, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy & Business, Las Vegas, NV

Barton A. Washer, Ph.D., Assistant V Professor of Occupational Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Russell A. Watson, M.S., AIA, Principal, Sprotte+Watson Architecture & Planning, Inc., Vista, CA

E. Lee Weir, Ed.D., Professor of Graphic Imaging and Design Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Bernard Westley, Urban Community Leadership Academy (UCLA), Kansas City, MO

Virginia E. Wheeless, Ph.D, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Communications, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Michael E. Wiggins, Ph.D., Director National Police Institute and Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Ruthann Williams, M.S., Assistant Professor of Business Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Kurt Williamson, Vice President of Learning Environments, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO

Diane C. Wilson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Instructional Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

George W. Wilson, Ph.D., Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Frederick D. Worman, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Agriculture and Professor of Agriculture, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Michael D. Wright, Ed.D., Dean of Education and Professor of Career and Technology Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Benny K. Yates, M.A., Assistant Professor of Technology Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

John R. Zelazek, Ph.D., Professor of Secondary Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

John N. Zey, M.S., Associate Professor of Industrial Hygiene, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

Note: University of Central Missouri; formerly Central Missouri

State University

- Contributors



57

Site Visits

The Harold S. Winograd Center for Innovative Learning, Aims

Community College, Aims College Corporate Education Center, Greeley, CO

Guajome Park Academy, Vista Unified School District, Vista, CA Mid-Pacific Institute, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Technology

Plaza and the Dennis S. L. Chew Technology Center, Honolulu, HI

Mountain View High School, Tech Lab, Thompson R-2J School District, Loveland, CO

Nibley Park Elementary School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake City, UT

Roosevelt High School, Weld RE5J School District, Johnstown, CO Shawnee Mission North High School, Shawnee Mission Public

Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS Shawnee Mission South High School, Shawnee Mission Public

Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS Southwest Secondary Learning Center, Southwest Learning

Centers, Albuquerque, NM Wood River Middle School, Blaine County School District, Hailey,

ID Yucca Mountain, Nuclear Waste Repository, U.S. Department of

Energy, Nye County, NV

- Contributors



58

To learn how you can become involved, please contact:

Robert R. Lurker, M.Ed.

11392 Skylux Ave. South Jordan, UT 84095

660-441-1469 [email protected]

“In the realm of technology, the educational community is playing catch-up. Industry is far

ahead of education. And tech-savvy high school students often are far ahead of their

teachers.”

“Public schools that do not adapt to the technology needs of students risk becoming

increasingly irrelevant. Students will seek other options.”

“Reforms within the system will require strong leadership and a willingness to restructure the learning environment in fundamental

ways.”

~ Conclusions, National Technology Plan, 2005 ~

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center

mailto:[email protected]



59

Potential Course Descriptions Slide # 60 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of Technology Slide # 61- 63 Pre-Service & General Education Classes Slide # 64 Building Design Concept Slide # 65 Applications Slide # 66 Extended Campus Slide # 67 Potential Revenue Source Generation Slide #68-69 High School Repurposing Model Slide # 70 P-20 Planning Considerations Slide # 71

Appendices



60

- Potential Course Descriptions

Level One First Introduction

Self-Directed Learning

Level Two Deepening

Understanding Small Project Design

Projects Self-Direction

Design Collaboration and Development

TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology (3) This course presents learners with practical hands-on engagements to build skills in, science, technology, engineering, math and communications, using a problem-solving, collaborative approach. Learners work in pairs or in teams, discovering underlying principles of technology and applying them through critical thinking, systems design, problem solving, and decision-making. Students will be introduced to concepts such as self-assessment, portfolio creation and relating to the facilitator as a co-learner rather than an authority.

TECH 2000 Technology & Self-Direction (3) This course continues the learner’s introduction to the lab’s technology and deepens the learner’s understanding of the philosophy and practice of research, problem solving, self-directed learning, and especially metacognition. The learning is then introduced to small project design and development. Prerequisite: TECH 1000 or consent of instructor

TECH 4000 Technology Project Design & Development (3-6) In this course, learners research, design & develop complex projects using group collaboration, addressing areas of special interest, business or community need. Learners at this level are expected to combine skills and concepts to solve complex problems. May be repeated for a maximum of 6 semester hours. Prerequisite: TECH 1000, 2000 or consent of instructor

Assessments are portfolio-based. All courses are linked to local, state, or national academic standards.



61

Computer Graphics

Science and Data

Acquisition Robotics and Control

Technology

In Computer Graphics, students explore areas such as graphic arts, image capture, photo processing and manipulation, animation and special effects. They learn to distinguish between, and effectively use, bitmap graphics (digital “painting”), and object-oriented graphics (computer-aided “drawing” or “CAD”) applications. As learners progress, they integrate computer graphics with other software applications to create advanced graphic and commercial art, websites and multimedia presentations. Computer graphics also serves as an important portfolio development tool for documenting projects and learning processes.

In this system of technology, students collect experimental data using testing equipment and probeware, typically linked with a computer-controlled interface. Data are then analyzed to draw conclusions from experiments. Students engineer and test scale models and analyze materials and structure. Using chemical, physical and bioscience probeware, students collect and analyze experimental data to explore principles of science through hands-on, inquiry-based projects.

In this area of study, mechanical processes are managed through automation control interfaces and learners design and program robotic systems to perform task-oriented challenges. Students explore logical programming and explore how sensors, electronic and computer controllers are used to manage complex mechanical processes. The concept of sense, decide, and act is introduced and students develop whole-systems perspectives.

Core Competencies




62

Circuitry

Publishing

Computer Simulation

The study of circuitry is explored through electricity, pneumatics and microelectronics.

Students develop an understanding of the scientific and technological principles underlying each of these systems. With this foundation, students design complex systems utilizing each technology.

This broad area of inquiry encompasses the capture and production of content in any single media, such as print, sound or electronic media. It includes word processing, presentations, and graphic representation of data or processes in the form of flowcharts, tables and graphs. It also includes the capture, production and presentation of single-media content such as audio, video and digital still images. Learners quickly progress from developing core competencies in these areas to the regular application of these tools to document their learning throughout the SmartLab™.

In this area of study, computer-based systems are used to model real-world systems

and processes. Learners use software tools to explore cause-and-effect dynamics in complex systems. Computer simulation in the SmartLab™ spans such diverse subjects as the engineering of bridge systems, electronic and mechanical system design, economics and entrepreneurship, organizational, political and social systems, flight simulation, game design and scientific modeling.

Core Competencies




63

Mechanics and

Structures Multimedia Design

In Mechanical Systems, learners create and study structures and machines. Hands-on

learning engagements foster an understanding of simple and complex machines and structural physics.

In multimedia design, learners develop advanced communications skills through the

integration of two or more media using technology-based tools. Students explore linear and interactive presentations and the applications for each. Learners progress from basic to more advanced software and production tools, creating dynamic video presentations, animated graphics, websites and interactive e-portfolios. As with all documentation and presentation applications in the SmartLab™, the emphasis quickly shifts from developing necessary skills to the application of the technology for portfolio development and presentation of learning.

Core Competencies

Source: Creative Learning Systems, 2008; Resources and Systems of Technology, How They Come Together in a SmartLab™




64

Senior

• TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology

• TECH 2000 Technology & Self Direction

• TECH 4000 Technology Project Design &

Development

• Academic Disciplines Capstone Courses using TLC

• Academic Disciplines Concentrations in individual College/Programs

Junior Sophomore

Pre/Post-Service & General Education Classes

Freshman



65

Centralized Multi-Age Facility




66

Applications




67

Extended Campus




68

Service Partnership Opportunities • University/College

– Tuition and fees – General access lab usage fees

• Public schools – Regional Professional Development Center

• Charter schools • Community Education classes • Businesses

– Product development/prototyping – Food sales to local restaurants, campus food

services – Workshops – Space/facilities rentals – Equipment rental/usage

• Summer Camp/Summer workshops – Campus housing – Food services – Facilities

Community Resources • Energy generation

– Wind – Solar – Other

• Recycling center/processing • Food service/Coffee Shop

– Student program management • Physical Arcade • Climbing Wall

Global Production Biomes

• Food production sales • Plant sales • Aquaculture production • Year-round indoor community gardens • Summer garden spaces

Potential Revenue Source Generation



69

Advanced Technology Zones • Collaboration Coves and Ideation Spaces

– Global business project collaboration/meetings

• Business & Research Rentals – Anechoic Chamber – Virtual Reality Public Safety & National

Security Simulators • Military including Reserves • Security, Safety • Local Law Enforcement, Secret Service,

FBI, Homeland Security – Virtual Reality CAVE – Virtuality Studio & Editing Booths – Sound Studios – Hard Fabrication and Prototyping Zone – Fire & Water Zones

• Burn lab • Water testing pool

– Bio Technology Zones

Elementary Technology Center • Classes and programs for children

– After-school classes – Evening classes – Summer programs/classes

Child Development Center

• Day-time childcare • Evening childcare • Community workshops

– Parents, Childcare workers

Potential Revenue Source Generation (Cont.)



70

High School: Repurposing Model v1.0

High School Science and Technology areas repurposed to address the proposed 21st Century Science Standards.



71

P-20 Planning Considerations

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

Education

Transcript of STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a