The purpose of this discussion is to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) to leading and managing technology and engineering education programs. Our first comment is below as well as my response. Click comment to reply to this message.
Johnny J Moye said...
Good morning and happy new year everyone. I am not sure how this thing is supposed to work but I am going to throw a comment out there - Luke, please excuse me if I am doing this all wrong.
My comment is that to lead a program means more than performing the day to day management of that program (which already takes the whole day).
Program leaders, at all levels, must have a vision of where the program(s) need to be in 10 - 15 years and work towards that end. If a leader just responds to the day to day situations, his/her program will surly die.
Just my 2 cents. Any comments??
My comment is that to lead a program means more than performing the day to day management of that program (which already takes the whole day).
Program leaders, at all levels, must have a vision of where the program(s) need to be in 10 - 15 years and work towards that end. If a leader just responds to the day to day situations, his/her program will surly die.
Just my 2 cents. Any comments??
Johnny,
You are right on track and thank you for the comment.
I think you have identified both a threat and opportunity. I agree that the day-to-day business of running a program is very time consuming and we as a profession have the opportunity to define what technology and engineering education looks like in 10-15 years.
My two cents:
Running a Program: There is great disparity in what programs look like across the country and as such a lot of time is wasted trying to define what we do, what we teach and how we individually do business. Until we can commonly define what technology and engineering education looks like at the classroom level there is little that can be done to reduce the day-to-day tasks.
Resolution: Through Race To The Top, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) is working with ITEEA and the STEM Center for Teaching and Learning (STEM CTL) to deliver a rigorous program of study in Technology Education as part of Maryland’s STEM effort. Curriculum and assessment are delivered through online formats. Professional development is delivered through both face-to-face and online formats. The use of pre- and post-assessment data is used to inform instruction, expand curricular resources and to strengthen the professional development model. All resources are being developed with the understanding that MSDE and ITEEA would develop a rigorous program of study that would serve as the baseline instructional model adopted by local school systems. MSDE fully expects local school system staff and teachers to work across districts to further develop resources and share best practices. Currently, 18 of 24 local school systems, 110 high schools and over 275 teachers are voluntarily participating in this project.
As a result of the project and the resources provided to teachers, we have moved past the day-to-day management question and are focusing on where we collectively want to see technology and engineering education programs in 10-15 years. More information on the project is posted in my next comment.
Vision: Our profession, like technology, is one that continually evolves and the next evolution of technology education needs to better serve students. Our priorities are workforce development and expanding opportunities for all students. As we revise technology and engineering education in Maryland we are focusing on pathway development and STEM. Each technology education course should include the application of math, science and technology through a problem/project based approach. Further, courses should be developed into a program sequence which offers students early college credit, advanced standing/weighted credit and the opportunity to see beyond their high school careers. Programs should be developed collaboratively at the local, state and national levels.
RTTT Project 4 – ITEEA Formative Assessment and Curriculum Development Overview
ReplyDeleteAccomplishments to Date:
Curriculum Development: MSDE and ITEEA staff have developed a standards aligned, resource rich curriculum guide with embedded just-in-time professional development for the Foundations of Technology (FoT) course. The FoT course is used by most local school systems to meet the Maryland Technology Education graduation requirement. The curriculum guide includes ready to teach, educational resources such as presentations, design briefs, grading rubrics, student exemplars, formative assessment items as well as sample end-of-course assessment items and embedded videos. The guide is organized via a website, which can be viewed on a teacher’s computer or mobile device. The guide is available to participating Maryland school systems at no cost. Further development of the curriculum guide will produce a student website and possibly a curriculum “app” which could be downloaded by students and/or teachers.
Professional Development: Master teachers are responsible for conducting both face-to-face and online professional development sessions. Four, one week, face-to-face professional development sessions will be conducted during the summer of 2011. Each master teacher will maintain a series of online office hours as a way to dialogue with teachers both formally and informally. Office hours are held biweekly throughout the school year and are hosted via EbDonline (ITEEA’s online learning community). Just-in-time professional development is provided through the embedded videos included in the curriculum guide. The embedded videos showcase effective teaching practice and insight into the hardest to teach concepts.
Assessment: The FoT model course guide includes standards-based assessments administered in three parts; a pre-test (online), end-of-course assessment (online), and design challenge (hands-on & online). Results from both the pre-test and end-of-course assessment are used to measure gains in students’ technological literacy, identify gaps within the curriculum guide and inform teacher professional development. The design challenge is used to assess students’ understanding of the engineering design process, through both a scenario-based challenge and online follow-up assessment. Results from the design challenge are used to better understand how student’s thought processes are applied within a problem-based curriculum. Results are collected by ITEEA and distributed to staff in participating local school systems and MSDE. Data are reported by course, unit of instruction and by the standard being assessed. Further, the reports outline teacher, school, school system, state and national data trends. A new assessment system is currently being developed and will be piloted in the spring of 2012. Through the new assessment system teachers will be able to administer both formative and summative course assessments and produce instant data reports which will have an immediate impact on instruction.
Luke,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I have been impressed with the work that you and MSDE have done in the way of promoting the FoT program and working to make Technology and Engineering Education a staple of a Maryland student's education. North Dakota has made strides in recent years with the addition of our state CTE scholarship that requires students to complete a program of study within a particular CTE curricular area. However, Technology & Engineering Education is still not a graduation requirement. I am curious what other state leaders are doing to encourage schools to get onboard with the EbD curriculum and develop programs with a clear scope and sequence? Additionally, as we look at assessment and the requirements in that area, how are states handling the issue of local control of curriculum and a wide range of curricular offerings other than EbD and it's built-in pre and post assessments? What other assessment tools are being used?
In Idaho over the past 3 years we have been trying to gather all of our Technology Education programs along with our Pre-Engineering programs and align them to a single distict program area with base curriculum models that teachers choose for their program of study.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the necessary research we chose 4 standard curriculum models that have been written to meet the National ITEEA standards for Technological Literacy. Program teachers were provided the 4 models, PLTW, ITEEA's EbD, The CAD Academy, and PCS's SySTEMic Solutions. The expected curriculum transition is to be complete by 2015. As of December 2011 our 63 Engineering Technology Education (ETE) programs breakdown as follows: 14-PLTW, 40-EbD, 2-CAD Academy and 7-Undeclared.
So far 57 of the existing programs have implemented the first course in the established program of study. I will be working with the Idaho Technical Colleges during 2012 to establish the necessary Tech Prep articulation to all 4 of the curriculum models. All programs that are using the EbD model will be signing the Network agreements and will implement pre and post assessments as part of this transition. The goal now is to establish a common Technical Skill Assessment that represents the base content area of the high school programs. Steve Rayborn Idaho Program Manager
One program development dilema that impacts our dialog frequently is "credits." We talk "proficiency based" or Carnegie but we often get derailed on "all schools MUST" or some variation of potential flexibility or lack thereof ... is anyone else getting derailed on this curriculum issue or do you have effective modes of handling "credits" that work? I'm looking for answers ... if the dialog does not fit here, please email me your ideas (rjdake@ksde.org).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStandards should start making programs STNDARD.
ReplyDeleteA good leader also looks at business and industry of their state to help direct course development. Like science (Bio, Earth, Chemistry) Technology ed. has areas, Power and Energy ,Communication, Transportation, Biotechnology.
Biotechnology taught by a Technology Ed. teacher proves the need for science standards taught by a tech ed. certified teacher. Got off topic.
Every department in a school should have a vision of adding programs, labs, and teachers until many of the above areas are offered to your students. Yes some IA may have to be eliminated or facilities shared. What is best for your students in your state with future occupational outlooks is most important. But as a general ed. subject equal to science and math. From experience, it takes about 10 years to change a department.