STEM Based Learning Professional Development

Grant Proposal

Shakeerah Brodie
Project Director
Sbrodie1@my.westga.edu
(678) 778 1719

1
 Abstract

As STEM jobs continue to increase, the need for students to be proficient in these areas are

essential for the future of this country (Akers, 2017). Unfortunately, data show that this is not the case.

Many employers are having a difficult time finding qualified and competent candidates to fill these

positions. This is especially true for Clayton County Public Schools students, who year after year test

scores in Math and Science are well below their peers in the other Metro Atlanta districts. Hence the

urgent need for change in curriculum practices if the mission is for them to be college and career ready.

As studies support early introduction to STEM having a significant impact on students future careers, this

grant proposal seeks to obtain funding for STEM professional development to work with 3rd grade math

and science teachers for five days during the summer of 2018, with three follow up sessions during the

fall and spring of the 2018-2019 school year.

The goals are to create a professional development program that helps teachers to understand

that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics all play vital roles in the development of students

readiness for STEM fields. It seeks to provide a foundation for these core content areas and build on

their current pedagogy to increase student achievement. The idea is to equip teachers with the

competency, self-confidence, and comfort of being able to teach STEM based lessons to their students. It

also strives to provide teachers with experiences that help them overcome apprehensions or fear that

they may have with utilizing technology in STEM. By providing knowledge and skills, the professional

development seeks to encourage the teachers to be more willing and able to integrate technology in their

classes. Some of the activities that will address these goals are teachers discussing current strategies for

STEM education and relate that to current classroom practices, teachers altering lesson plan to include

strategies discussed in class and teachers completing GIZMO simulation as examples of STEM lessons.

Through these activities, the expectation is that teachers will be able to successfully implement STEM

lessons, resulting in an increase in STEM interest and test scores. Partnerships with Verizon and local

businesses for necessary resources will also be essential in the success of the professional development.

2
 Introduction

Increasing student achievement is a fundamental concern for many school districts and

teachers (Akers, 2017, p. 28). To address this concern, Clayton County Public Schools (CCPS) offers

numerous professional development opportunities; however, they have done little in Science,

Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) based learning. Research supports the benefits of STEM

based learning programs. This is especially true for bridging the achievement gap with minority students

and underachieving populations. In recent years, Georgia Department of Education has declared their

dedication to preparing students for the 21st century workplace careers by providing opportunities in

STEM fields. To align themselves with the states initiatives, Clayton County schools need to provide

more STEM based professional development (PD) to its teachers.

The purpose of this grant proposal is to seek funding to implement professional development in

STEM based learning. STEM, the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is

increasingly being promoted in elementary education. However, elementary educators are largely

untrained in the 21st century skills of computing (a subset of technology) and engineering (Rich, Jones,

Belikov, Yoshikawa & Perkins, 2017). As this is the case for CCPS, this grant will outline the

demonstrated needs, goals and objectives of the PD. Based on the needs, goals and objectives, the plan

of operation, evaluation plan and partnerships will also be discussed. Finally, supporting data and budget

information will be provided. These components are all essential in the planning of an effective PD. As

outlined below, CCPS data demonstrates the need for this PD.

Demonstrated Need Overview

In recent years, CCPS has taken initiatives to improve student achievement in specific content

areas. One such initiative was having elementary teachers move toward subject specialization. This is

when elementary teachers are assigned to specific content areas, as typically done in middle and high

schools. The subject specialization model enables elementary teachers to reach more students by

focusing on their best subjects and teaching those subjects to two or more classes of students, rather

than just one (Public Impact, 2012). However, science and math teachers across the county continue to

produce GMAS scores below state averages. Despite the districts initiatives, there is a need for

additional support to ensure that student achievement increases. The following sections will outline data

3
supporting the need for PD in STEM based learning. I will also synthesize the current literature and

research that supports the implementation of STEM based learning PD to increase student achievement.

Demonstrated Need Supporting Data

The data for STEM education is plentiful in todays research arena. As we continue to move

toward a technology based society, the need for students to go into the science, math and engineering

fields is a must. The U.S. understands the detriment it will face if students continue to score below other

nations in these pertinent areas. To stay globally competitive, the push for STEM education continue to

be at the forefront of many states (Royal, 2016). This push must also include effective PD for

educators. In the following paragraphs, I will present both quantitative and qualitative data in support for

STEM PD to impact student achievement.

Clayton County Public Schools is the 5th largest district in Georgia. Among their Metro RESA

counterparts, they consistently score lower in the areas of Mathematics and Science. Below is the

current 3rd grade GMAS scores for 2015 and 2016. You can see that CCPS continues to have the lowest

scores in comparison to their Metro Atlanta counterparts. This data supports the initiative to change the

teaching practices in Math and Science. STEM PD will benefit teachers by giving them strategies to

impact learning in these areas.

Table 1. 2016 3rd Grade GMAS Scores

System Name Mathematics Science

Number % % % % Number % % % % DI L

Tested BL DL PL DI L Tested BL DL PL

GWINNETT COUNTY 13,451 15.1 36.2 34.8 13.9 13,436 17.9 38.4 31.1 12.6

COBB COUNTY 8,900 17.7 35.6 34.7 12.0 8,888 22.3 39.5 28.3 9.9

DEKALB COUNTY 8,333 35.2 37.2 21.3 6.3 8,324 36.4 37.0 19.7 6.9

FULTON COUNTY 7,215 19.2 34.5 30.6 15.8 7,204 22.9 34.2 28.2 14.7

CLAYTON COUNTY 4,520 35.3 41.6 20.2 2.9 4,515 39.1 42.5 15.9 2.6

ATLANTA PUBLIC 4,480 32.0 35.5 23.9 8.6 4,479 36.1 35.1 20.2 8.6

SCHOOLS

4
 FORSYTH COUNTY 3,384 6.0 23.2 39.4 31.4 3,377 9.1 32.0 37.9 21.1

Table 2. 2015 3rd Grade GMAS Scores

System Name Mathematics Science

Number % % % % Number % % % % DI L

Tested BL DL PL DI L Tested BL DL PL

GWINNETT COUNTY 13,312 17.4 37.7 33.8 11.1 13,299 20.1 39.0 27.3 13.7

COBB COUNTY 8,504 19.2 39.2 33.0 8.6 8,487 21.9 40.4 25.6 12.1

DEKALB COUNTY 8,015 35.1 37.9 21.7 5.4 7,985 36.9 37.7 17.7 7.7

FULTON COUNTY 7,188 18.4 33.9 32.6 15.0 7,163 22.3 36.3 25.4 16.0

ATLANTA PUBLIC 4,490 30.7 38.4 24.0 6.9 4,490 35.2 36.3 18.3 10.3

SCHOOLS

CLAYTON COUNTY 4,318 38.6 42.8 16.5 2.0 4,310 38.6 43.2 14.7 3.5

FORSYTH COUNTY 3,354 6.9 25.1 41.2 26.8 3,350 8.7 32.3 35.1 23.9

As shown above, CCPS students at beginning and developing levels are consistently higher than

the other districts in the Metro Atlanta Area. The chart shows that in 2015, 81.4% of our students were

beginning and developing learners in math and 81.7% in Science. In 2016, very little progress was made

as 76.9% in math were beginning and developing learners and 81.6% in Science. This data supports the

need for not only a change in curriculum practices, but also the need for effective PD. In the case study,

Partnerships and Experience in Building STEM Pipelines by Ralston, Hieb and Rivolis (2013), teachers

attitudes about STEM PD was measured. The study found that implementing ongoing PD for their

selected STEM program, encouraged teachers to continue with the project and teaching strategies even

when transferring to other schools. The well-designed PD, effectively led to increased student scores and

interest in Science and Math courses overall. The study also found that elementary implementation

increased the likelihood of students taking STEM courses in high school. The study followed the students

to their high schools and those schools reported an increase in students selecting STEM classes by over

233% over a period of 3 years.

5
 The consistent failing GMAS scores and lack of STEM based learning PD directly supports the

need for STEM based learning in schools. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence presented, provides

a clear reason why STEM PD is essential for struggling districts such as CCPS. Alongside the

quantitative and qualitative data to support the need for STEM based learning implementation, there is an

abundance of research in support for implementing STEM on the elementary level. Some of the research

will be reviewed in the following section.

Demonstrated Need Literature Synthesis

In recent years, there has been a push for students to go into the fields of STEM. According to

Royal (2016), the growth of STEM-related jobs over the last 10 years was three times that of non-STEM

fields. In order to prepare students in the U.S. to be globally competitive, education has begun to refocus

its attention on its current practices. A shift to expose students to STEM based learning is on the

rise. Many studies are showing that the benefits of STEM in schools are having measurable success on

student achievement across not only Science and Math, but all subjects. As this is the case, it is

essential that teachers participate in PD to implement strategies that will positively impact student

achievement. In the following paragraphs, relevant and current literature will be reviewed in support of

the need for teacher PD to implement STEM based learning in elementary schools.

In the peer-reviewed article, America's Children: Providing Early Exposure to Stem (Science,

Technology, Engineering and Math) Initiatives by Nancy K. DeJarnette (2012), she discussed how

teaching science inquiry was not a common approach in elementary schools. The common practice was

elementary students learning about scientific theory and the nature of science rather than doing scientific

investigations for themselves. She noted that many schools were successful in implementing STEM PD

if they provided extensive training and follow up that supported the teachers. She presented a significant

amount of information on the benefits of universities and companies providing instruction and pedagogy

on scientific inquiry for teachers. Her focus was more on the training necessary for STEM to be effective

in elementary classrooms, emphasizing follow up sessions to ensure teacher mastery.

Partnerships and Experience in Building STEM Pipelines by Patricia A. S. Ralston, Jeffrey L.

Hieb, and Gary Rivoli (2013), took a different approach to implementing successful STEM

programs. Their case study discussed the efforts of an elementary schools initiatives to create a STEM

6
pipeline. This pipeline was comprised of an elementary school and middle schools all feeding high

schools with students engaged in a selected pre-engineering curricula. The study did more follow up with

a select number of students. The study revealed that students were more likely to choose STEM based

courses in high school and even college courses. The students scores were significantly higher in math

and science then their peers not enrolled in STEM based classes.

Another study revealed the importance of teacher PD as a necessary component of encouraging

students. Ernest, Clark and Bowers assert, Effective professional development that affects teacher

quality requires excitable, job-embedded, results-driven learning experiences, which are focused on

content that integrates directly into classrooms and builds a community of learners (Ernest, Clark &

Bowers, 2016, p.66). As CCPS strives to also build a community of learners, it is essential that PD

addresses the content areas necessary to implement STEM into the classroom. This idea is comparable

to the case study presented by Levin and Schrum (2012), of Walton Middle School.

The superintendent at Walton Middle School also believed in job-embedded professional

development to impact student achievement. In the case study, professional learning communities

supported by instructional coaches and school administrators led to teachers being more confident in

their pedagogy and instructional practices. The teachers received technology driven PD and support

throughout the school year. This practice ultimately led to a difference in test scores and students being

more self-motivated. Teachers that are confident in their craft produce confident self-motivated students.

A further push in research and literature has been to implement STEM PD for elementary

teachers to encourage natural curiosity and creativity in early childhood. Havice (2015), believes that

childrens lives must be enriched by the active study of STEM content, promoting the natural curiosity and

innovation of students who learn best by doing. Robinson, Dailey, Hughes and Cotebish (2014), found

that talent development in science should begin in the early grades with investigative opportunities to

encourage curiosity and engagement. This would inherently lead to interest in science that would last as

students progress across grade levels. Ramirez (2013), believes that as a scientist, one of the best ways

to encourage creativity and curiosity is by improving STEM in schools. She asserts that doing so is not

just morally right, but a sound economic choice for the country.

7
 There is other research that supports the early implementation of STEM as an advantage to

students overall success. Sithole, Chiyaka, McCarthy, Mupinga, Bucklein, & Kibirige (2017), claims that

attrition in the Science fields is directly related to late introduction. They maintain this as one of the major

challenges to STEM. They emphasize countering this problem with elementary teachers being trained in

STEM to implement in grades as early as Kindergarten. Capobianco, Diefes-Dux, Mena, and Weller

(2011), further states that perceptions of careers in engineering in elementary education are limited to

mechanics, laborers, and technicians. DiFrancesca, Lee, and McIntyre (2014), believe these attitudes

and limited understanding can potentially be improved by introducing young students to engineering and

allowing them to engage in the practices of engineers. The limited exposure to engineering concepts

prevents elementary students from developing an accurate understanding of what engineering entails

and, therefore, from pursuing engineering careers.

The predominant message in the literature synthesized, is that early implementation of STEM PD

is the key to impacting students long term achievement (Werner, 2017). The need for redefining the

existing concepts of STEM based careers for both educators and students must be addressed. This is

done through first providing teachers with a foundation in STEM based learning and subsequently having

them implement new practices and strategies in the classroom. The results, as seen in the literature,

would surely be an increase in students interest and achievement. As this is the case, it is important to

develop a PD course that has attainable and clearly defined goals and objectives to accomplish the task.

In the following sections, the goals and objectives will be outlined and discussed for the proposed PD.

Goals and Objectives

Whether in the classroom with students or a professional development course with educators,

setting a purpose for an implemented learning experience is important (Goldring, Preston & Huff, 2012).

This is done by forming smart goals and objectives. In any professional development, the first component

during the development phase is establishing the goals and objectives that you want your target audience

to master. It is imperative that you set these attainable targets and ensure that your participants are

aware of their purpose for attending the PD (Reeves, 2009). In the following sections, the goals and

objectives for the proposed STEM based learning PD will be reviewed. An outline of the goals and

subsequent objectives that fall under those goals will be highlighted.

8
Goals

Establishing goals should follow the SMART plan (Rich, Jones, Belikov, Yoshikawa, & Perkins,

2017). Goals must be specific and concise, have a measurable outcome and represents attainable goals.

Goals must also be relevant and results-oriented. Finally, there must be a time limit set that is

reasonable. In creating the goals for the STEM based learning PD, these strategies were considered and

guided the established the process. The overall purpose for the year-long professional development

program is to provide teachers with ongoing support with technology based STEM activities. The goals

were broken into two areas. The first goal was an increase in knowledge and the second goal was an

increase in technology integration.

Goal 1 - Increase in Knowledge

Create a professional development program that helps teachers to understand that science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics all play vital roles in the development of students readiness for STEM

fields. The goal is to provide a foundation for these core content areas and build on their current

pedagogy to increase student achievement. Specifically, 3rd grade math and science teachers will be

given strategies and lessons to implement in their classes to increase motivation, rigor, creative and

critical thinking skills as measured by class work and assessments grades in math and science.

This goal addresses the need for students to be motivated and encouraged to apply themselves.

As discussed by Ramirez (2013), igniting curiosity creates self-motivated learners. This is done by

increasing the knowledge of educators that touch these students in classrooms every day. This goal

begins with establishing the need for developing a foundation for teachers and then building on existing

pedagogy to be effective facilitators of STEM based learning activities. Teachers need to know why

STEM is essential for students. Establishing a goal that will increase their knowledge in a field that can

ultimately lead to lifelong success for students, align with the districts mission of making students globally

competitive.

Goal 2 - Increase in Technology Integration

Equipping teachers with the competency, self-confidence, and comfort of being able to teach STEM

based lessons to their students. Providing them with experiences that help them overcome

apprehensions or fear that they may have with utilizing technology in STEM. By providing knowledge and

9
skills, the professional development seeks to encourage the teachers to be more willing and able to

integrate technology in their classes.

This second goal addresses the use of technology. Many educators continue to recoil from

integrating technology into their curriculum. While CCPS is rich in technology, effective implementation

continues to be an issue. This is especially true for veteran teachers. If change is going to occur, then

supporting teachers as they face their fears of technology is essential. Providing a support system that

begins with PD and continues with building and district leaders is key (Levin and Schrum, 2012). This

goal seeks to tear down the walls of intimidation as it pertains to technology. The goal is for participants

to become comfortable and competent with integrating technology. This can be measured by their

application of technology in their classroom when teaching STEM based learning activities.

Goals are important elements to professional development programs. They provide the overall

statements for the general purpose of attending. It is important to establish and share these goals.

However, it is equally important to develop more specific objectives that fall under the general goals. The

next section will review the objects that will address an increase in knowledge and technology use in

STEM based learning activities.

Objectives

As the goals follow the SMART concept, the objectives should also be specific, measurable,

attainable, results-oriented and timed. The objectives of the PD correlates with the goals identified as

they address how both an increase in knowledge and an increase in technology implementation will be

attained. Setting individual performance objectives provides a link between goals, requirements, and

individual contributions to the courses (Brown, 2016). The following objectives are outlined for the STEM

based learning PD.

Table 3. Goal 1 and Objectives

Goal 1 Increase in Knowledge Create a Objectives

professional development program that helps 1. To increase understanding of the foundations of

STEM based learning and how it supports student
teachers to understand that science, technology, achievement.

engineering, and mathematics all play vital roles

2. To equip teachers with strategies to implement
STEM lessons in the classroom setting.
in the development of students readiness for

10
 STEM fields. The goal is to provide a foundation 3. To build on teachers current pedagogy in the
content areas of science, technology, engineering
for these core content areas and build on their and mathematics.

current pedagogy to increase student 4. To develop long-term support for teachers in

STEM based learning.
achievement. Specifically, 3rd grade math and

science teachers will be given strategies and

lessons to implement in their classes to increase

motivation, rigor, creative and critical thinking

skills as measured by class work and

assessments grades in math and science.

Table 4. Goal 2 and Objectives

Goal 2 - Increase in Technology Integration Objectives

Equipping teachers with the competency, self- 1. To increase competency skills in technology.

confidence, and comfort of being able to teach 2. To eliminate anxiety of STEM and technology
integration.
STEM based lessons to their students. Providing

them with experiences that help them overcome 3. To encourage collaboration with peers on the
development and implementation of technology
apprehensions or fear that they may have with integrated lessons.

utilizing technology in STEM. By providing 4. To foster a relationship with technology

knowledge and skills, the professional

development seeks to encourage the teachers to

be more willing and able to integrate technology in

their classes.

Each of the objectives in Goal 1 directly align. The objectives reiterate the importance of

foundational skills, pedagogy in STEM, strategies for successful delivery, and the need for on-going

support. The same is true for the objectives in Goal 2. They further support the need to increase

competency skills for teachers so that it eliminates fears that prevent full implementation of technology.

In addition, it encourages collaboration with peers to create a community of learners. Finally, the objective

11
seeks to foster a love for technology. As these goals and objectives have been established, the following

sections will outline the plan of operation.

Plan of Operations

Once the goals and objectives are in place, developing a schedule and timeline for your PD is

necessary (Brown, 2016). For the purpose of this PD, the project delivery format was broken down into

five full days during the summer with three follow up sessions during the school year. Each day is guided

by an essential question. Goals and objectives will be posted that align with the days activities. This

procedure ensures that everyone in on the same plate with expectations (Grimmett, 2014).

As science and math scores continue to be lower in CCPS than any other Metro Atlanta school,

the target audience was science and math teachers. As research suggest, the benefits of early

implementation of STEM based learning to be advantageous to test scores and overall student

achievement (Wenner, 2017). Therefore 3rd grade teachers were targeted, as this is the earliest grade of

content specialization for teachers.

A key component to the plan of operation is carefully developing activities that align with the

stated goals and objectives. On the first day, the guiding question is, What do we know and what do we

need to know about STEM education and its research?. Activities on this day align with objectives

because they establish a foundation for STEM and provide strategies that build and/or enhance teachers

current pedagogy. The second day focuses on strategies the work in STEM. Activities align with

objectives, as they focus on learning more strategies and building teachers content knowledge. One of

the activities will be for the teachers to research a technology tool that lends itself to STEM exploration.

This activity follows best practices as described by Royal (2008). He identified the need for teachers to

do some self-exploration to practice concepts presented in PD. The third day begins to introduce

participants to the second goal and objectives. Activities align with goals, as they begin to immerse

teachers into technology integration. The purpose of having them work with technology is to have them

comfortable and familiar when it is time for classroom implementation. This is done through activities

such as simulations on Gizmo. The fourth days activities are about collaboration while addressing the

goals and objectives. Teachers continue to integrate technology as they collaborate to create STEM

lesson plans. Collaboration is included in the standard. On the fifth day, the objectives align with the

12
follow up activities, as they aim to provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until

mastery. The subsequent follow up days throughout the school year will focus on strengthening the

content knowledge, technology comfort and implementation of STEM based lessons. The purpose is to

provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until mastery.

Plan of Operations Schedule

As in all plans of operation, a detailed schedule is required. Creating and subsequently providing

participants with a breakdown of what they will do each day creates a community of learners. In this

subsection, a review of each day will be presented along with a detailed table. The table includes the

daily guiding questions, goals, objectives and planned activities. The PD will be held at the Professional

Learning Center for five days during the summer from 8 to 4:30pm.

On day 1, the guiding question is What do we know and what do we need to know about STEM

Education and its Research?. Goal 1 and objectives 1, 2 and 3 will be displayed for participants. The

activities for this day include review the foundations of STEM and reading articles on current research in

support of early education implementation. This establishes a foundational support for teachers. As

suggested in the study by Lu, Zhang, and Wu (2017), strengthening teachers teaching theories help

established the needs for the PD. For teachers to fully embrace what they are teaching and why, the

ground work must be laid. The final activity for this day will call for teachers to alter an old lesson plan of

theirs based on a strategy discussed in the class.

On day 2, the guiding question is What strategies work when integrating STEM?. This class will

focus on goal 1 objectives 2 and 3. The class begins with the teachers sharing their revised lesson plans.

As the day progresses, strategies that can be implemented in the classroom will be discussed. Teachers

will be given handout to support the strategies and they will have opportunities to engage in collaborative

discussions. The final activity will give a preview of the next days lessons, as teachers must research

technology tools that lend themselves well to STEM implementation.

Day 3 begins with a discussion on the technology researched. Teachers will be presented with

the guiding question, How do we integrate technology into STEM based learning?. The activities this

day will address goal 1, objective 3 and goal 2, objectives 1-4. The primary focus on this day is getting

teachers use to working with technology, especially programs that are STEM based. Teachers will be

13
given a list of technology based STEM resources and have opportunities to explore. Teachers will also

interact with Gizmo, completing a lesson. Teachers will look at a STEM lesson plans and compare it to

their typical lesson plans. Finally, teachers will form groups to begin the process of working on their

technology integrated STEM lesson plan. They will be given a general rubric as a guide for lesson

creation.

The guiding question for day 4 centers around collaboration. The activities this day include

discussions in assessments and determining STEM mastery levels. Teachers will be given time for

teachers to collaborate and work on lesson plans. The trainer will facilitate the process. On day 5, the

teachers will be required to teach a modified version of the lesson to their peers. Facilitator and peers will

give feedback to improve lesson. All lessons will be uploaded to a shared bank of lessons for the

teachers to access during the school year.

The subsequent follow up sessions conducted during the year will address the guiding questions

of How do we assess student products to drive instruction?, How do we support students needs in

STEM? and Whats next?. All goals and objectives will be reviewed and touched on throughout the

sessions. The activities on these days will include sharing glows and grows of lessons implemented in

their classroom. Teachers will be required to bring student products, assessments, etc. to review.

Teachers will also form new groups and modify a previous lesson to include technology and STEM

activities for uploading on a shared drive. Teachers will also discuss next steps in continuing STEM in

their classrooms and supporting student achievement.

Table 5. Plan of Operations Schedule

Location: Professional Learning Center
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Dates: 5 days during the summer 3 days during the school year (TBD)
Day 1 Goals/ Activities
Objectives
What do we Goal 1 Teachers will review the foundations of STEM and the
know and Objectives 1, 2, 3 beginning of the movement
what do we Teachers will be given an article to read about the benefits of
need to STEM in early education as well as current state and county
know about statistic of students taking STEM courses
STEM Teacher will watch a video on future jobs in STEM
Education Teachers will begin to discuss current strategies for STEM
and its education and relate that to current classroom practices
Research? Teachers will be assigned to alter one lesson plan from the
previous year and include one of the strategies discussed in
class. They will present their revised lesson plans.

14
 *Activities align with objectives because they establish a
foundation for STEM and provide strategies that build and/or
enhance their current pedagogy.
Day 2 Goal 1 Teachers will present their revised lesson plans.
Objectives 2, 3 Teachers will be given a paper and discuss how students learn
What in STEM
strategies Teachers will view a video on STEM strategies for the
work when classroom
integrating Teachers will learn strategies for scaffolding students learning
STEM? in STEM
Teachers will begin to look at the part technology plays in
STEM
Teachers will research one form of technology (hardware or
software) that can be integrated into STEM and share

*Activities align with objectives, as they focus on learning more

strategies and building teachers content knowledge.
Day 3 Goal 1 Teachers will be given a list of technology based STEM
Objectives 3 resources
How do we Goal 2 Teachers will be given a list of apps that can be utilized to
integrate Objectives 1, 2, 3, encourage STEM in and out of the class. They will be given an
technology 4 opportunity to explore the apps
into STEM Teachers will discuss the role of online games in STEM and
based explore various grade appropriate options for integration.
learning? Teachers will do a GIZMO simulation as an example of a STEM
lesson
Teachers will look at a STEM lesson plan and compare it to
their typical lesson plans.
Teachers will form groups to begin the process of working on
their technology integrated STEM lesson plan. They will be
given a general rubric as a guide for lesson creation.

*Activities align with goals, as they begin to immerse teachers into

technology integration. The purpose of having them work with
technology is to have them comfortable and familiar when it is time
for classroom implementation.
Day 4 Goal 1 Teachers will discuss assessments in STEM and mastery levels.
Objectives 3 Teachers will collaborate and work on lesson plan. Trainer will
How can Goal 2 facilitate the process.
peer Objectives 1, 2, 3, Teachers will be required to teach a modified version of the
collaboration 4 lesson to their peers. (2 day process)
help with Peers will give feedback to improve lesson
STEM
integration? *Teachers continue to integrate technology as they collaborate to
create STEM lesson plans. Collaboration is included in the
standard.
Day 5 Goal 1 Teachers will continue to present their lesson and receive
Objectives 3 feedback for revisions.
How can Goal 2 Teachers will upload lesson on a shared drive to implement in
peer Objectives 1, 2, 3, the classroom throughout the school year.
collaboration 4 Teachers will complete evaluations and given follow up dates.
help with
STEM *On day 5, the objectives are focused on technology integration.
integration? The activities planned integrate technology, helping to foster a
relationship between peers.

Follow-Up Goal 1 Teachers will be given an interactive STEM lesson to complete

Session 1 Objectives 3, 4 online. It will be a lesson that can be used in their classroom.
Teachers will share glows and grows of lessons implemented in
How do we their classroom.
assess Teachers will be required to bring student products,
student assessments, etc. to review.

15
 products to Teachers will discuss how to use artifacts to drive and modify
drive instruction.
instruction? Teachers will form new groups and modify a previous lesson to
include technology and STEM activities.
Lessons will be uploaded on a shared drive.

*The objectives align with the follow up activities, as they aim to

provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until
mastery.
Follow-Up Goal 1 Teachers will be given an interactive STEM lesson to complete
Session 2 Objectives 3, 4 online. It will be a lesson that can be used in their classroom.
Teachers will share glows and grows of lessons implemented in
How do we their classroom.
support Teachers will be required to bring student products,
students assessments, etc. to review.
needs in Teachers discuss strategies for enriching and remediating
STEM? students using STEM lessons.
Teachers will form new groups and modify a previous lesson to
include technology and STEM activities.
Lessons will be uploaded on a shared drive.

*The objectives align with the follow up activities, as they aim to

provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until
mastery.
Follow-Up Goal 1 Teachers will share glows and grows of lessons implemented in
Session 3 Objectives 3, 4 their classroom.
Teachers will be required to bring student products,
Whats next? assessments, etc. to review.
Teachers will form new groups and modify a previous lesson to
include technology and STEM activities.
Lessons will be uploaded on a shared drive.
Teachers will discuss next steps in continuing STEM in their
classrooms and supporting student achievement.

*The objectives align with the follow up activities, as they aim to

provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until
mastery.

Plan of Operations - Timeline

The timeline of this plan begins in October of 2017, with the submission of the

proposal. In February of 2018, the funding notification will be determined. If the funding is

approved, all personnel will be employed to begin working on their respective jobs as it

pertains to the PD. As the funding ends in May of 2019, the PD will be implemented in July

of 2018. The follow up sessions will be completed in the months of September, December

and March of the following school year.

Table 6. Projected Plan of Operation Timeline

Month Projected Activities
October 2017 Submit Grant Proposal
November 2017 Await proposal decision
December 2017

16
 January 2018
February 2018 Grant Funded
March 2018 Hire Personnel
April 2018 All personnel perform identified duties
May 2018 Recruitment of participants.
June 2018
July 2018 Professional Development conducted for 5 days
August 2018 Teachers return to school
September 2018 Classroom Implementation takes place
1st Follow up session is completed in September
October 2018 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
November 2018 Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required.
December 2018 2nd Follow up session is completed in December
January 2019 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
February 2019 Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required
March 2019 3rd and final follow up session is completed in March.
April 2019 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required.
May 2019 Grant ends

Evaluation Plan

Program evaluation is an important component to gaging the success of the any professional

development. Evaluations are necessary in improving future designs (Guskey, 2000). In the following

subsections, I review the external evaluators role and responsibilities. The data and collection strategies

are also listed. Finally, the process vs. outcome is discussed as it describes the value of completing

program evaluations.

External Evaluator

It essential to have an outside evaluator that would provide objective feedback. The external

evaluator would make recommendations for changes to strengthen activities. She will be responsible for

giving instant feedback during the program, allowing for modification to be made immediately. She will

give techniques for getting feedback from participants about their experiences (Levin & Schrum, 2012).

She will also provide follow-up recommendations based on data such as test results, interviews with

teachers and administrators, and classroom observations (Brown, 2016). For this purpose, I would

choose the Math district lead, Jaqueline Wilson.

Data Collection and Schedule

17
 Data collection and schedule is an essential component of the evaluation plan. First outlining a

schedule of when the evaluator will collect data will allow for real time modifications as necessary

(Goldring, Preston & Huff, 2012). Identifying how information will be gathered, measured and used will

keep the evaluator and evaluated on the same plate (Guskey, 2000). Utilizing the schedule and outline

below, they would assess the effectiveness of the PD in relation to their departments. They would be

able to provide vital feedback in their specific content areas as well as insight on improving certain

components.

Table 7. Data Collection Schedule

Month Collection Activity/ Method
July 2018 Teacher Survey of PD
August December 2018 Interviews with Administrators, Teachers, Students
January April 2019 Final Teacher Survey
Review Student GMAS scores
Final Interviews with Stakeholders

May 2019 Submit to Program Director final comprehensive evaluation report

Table 8. Evaluation Guide

How Will What Is How Will
Evaluation What Questions Are Information Be Measured or Information Be
Level Addressed? Gathered? Assessed? Used?
1. Did they like it? Questionnaires Initial and post To improve
Participants' Was their time well administered at the satisfaction with program design
Reactions spent? end of the session the experience and delivery
Did the material make
sense?
Will it be useful?
Was the leader
knowledgeable and
helpful?
2. Did participants Teacher discussion New strategies To improve
Participants' acquire on the articles and learned program content,
Learning anunderstanding of videos. New skills format, and
the foundations of Revised lesson Less/No organization
STEM based learning plans to include apprehension
and how it supports learned STEM with technology
student achievement? strategies.
Are participants Research paper on
equipped with a form of
strategies to technology
implement STEM (hardware or
lessons in the software) that can
classroom setting? be integrated into
STEM.

18
 Did participants build STEM lesson plans
on their current created with peers
pedagogy in the Mock lesson
content areas? demonstrations
Did participants Teacher feedback
increase competency to peers.
skills in technology?
Did participant
eliminate anxiety of
STEM and technology
integration?
3. Was implementation Structured Implementation To document and
Organization advocated, facilitated, interviews with of lessons improve
Support & and supported in participants and organization
Change schools? district or school support
Were problems administrators To inform future
addressed quickly Participant lesson change efforts
and efficiently? plan
Were sufficient implementation
resources made Use of shared
available? drive
Were successes
recognized and
shared?
4. Did participants Questionnaires Degree and To document and
Participants' effectively implement Structured quality of improve the
Use of New technology based interviews with implementation implementation of
Knowledge STEM in their participants and Student program content
and Skills classes? their supervisors products
Participant
reflections
Direct observations
Students Products
5. Student What was the impact
Student test scores Student learning To focus and
Learning on students? Questionnaires outcomes: improve all
Outcomes Did STEM affect Structured Cognitive aspects of
student performance interviews with (Performance & program design,
or achievement on students, teachers, Achievement) implementation,
scores? and administrators Affective and follow-up
Are students more Student products (Attitudes & To demonstrate
confident as learners Dispositions) the overall impact
in STEM? Psychomotor of professional
Are students engaged (Skills & development
in technology? Behaviors)

Process Evaluation

When discussing evaluations, process and outcomes is and necessary element. Process

evaluation allows you to look at how the program develops. Program directors need this information in

order to modify the program if the process is not going in the direction desired. Process evaluations

19
document the implementation process, helping stakeholders see how a program outcome or impact was

achieved. It essentially looks at the processes of the professional development, as well as the

management and organization together to identify its promised outcomes (Linnell, 2017).

Outcomes Evaluation

The type of evaluation normally desired is the outcome evaluation. Outcome evaluations assess

the effectiveness of a program by questions that ask what happened to program participants and how

much of a difference the program made for them. Outcome evaluations measure the success of a

program in creating change. This type of evaluation help all stakeholders understand how a program

outcome was achieved and whether the goals and objectives were met.

In this PD, the evaluator will obtain this information through formal and informal processes.

Surveys will be given to participants before, during and following implementation. The evaluators will also

meet with administrators, teachers and parents to converse about the advantages and disadvantages as

a result of attendance in this PD. As described by Havice (2015), seeking the feedback of stakeholders

will provide authentic review of the effectiveness of the PD. The stakeholders also include the

partnerships formed with companies that will provide support to the PD. These partnerships will be

discussed in the following section.

Partnerships

When designing and implementing a professional development course for educators, it is

important to effectively plan. The planning not only includes the components of the PD, but also the

resources necessary to carry it out. This includes the material, facilities, instructors, funding and other

goods that may be needed. Often, local stakeholders are willing to assist and invest in the community

schools as a way of giving back. However, limiting yourself to local establishments could hinder your

efforts depending on the community and resources. Therefore, looking at larger organizations and

businesses may be a better option to getting essential funding and resources for effective PD and

subsequent implementation.

Partners

As the popularity of STEM education continues to grow, larger corporations understand the

benefits of investing in students. They realize that their long-term existence depends on our current

20
students and their academic success. Currently, Verizon has an initiative called Verizon Innovative

Learning #weneedmore. Verizon acknowledges that in order for students to compete for the jobs of the

future, students must have access to technology and STEM education. Therefore, they have committed

$160 million in free technology, access and hands-on learning in STEM for students in need. They are

funding programs and creating partnerships with nonprofit organizations such as schools. They have

created a webpage with resources for students and educators on STEM activities. Verizon have provided

several articles on different reasons why STEM is essential for students. They also provide current

insight in the jobs requiring more STEM majors. These articles could help establish the need for STEM

and provide a foundation for teachers in my PD. Providing a foundation is essential for buy in from

teachers. As I design my PD, I will seek the aid of Verizon to assist me with meeting goals.

Verizon also offers an abundance of assistance and resources that would be essential for the

success of my PD course. Verizon offers every child and teacher working with STEM, tablets and two-

year data plans. This is not only a great incentive for the participants of the PD, but it ensures they have

the technology necessary to successfully implement the PD throughout the year. Verizon also provides

extensive teacher training, support and an immersive curriculum for the students. This training will

support the teachers throughout the year, as the PD I am creating is only for the summer. The follow up

sessions would supplement what they are doing in their classes. These are the major contributions and

resources that would be needed.

Participant Recruitment

Participant recruitment is one of the more vital areas to effectively plan for, as the

participants is the driving force behind the plan. When designing and implementing a professional

development course for educators, it is important to effectively plan (Levin and Schrum, 2012). The

planning not only includes the components of the PD, but also the plan for recruiting participants to attend

your PD. As I have already identified the 3rd grade science and math teachers as my target audience, my

plan is to first target schools where the 3rd grade teachers have departmentalized. Not all schools in the

district chose to departmentalize 3rd grade, since it was optional. I plan to target these teachers because

the STEM PD focuses on math and science content areas. These teachers would have more of a vested

interest and would benefit from the focused goals and objectives of the PD.

21
 While my plan is to focus on the departmentalized 3rd grade math and science teachers, getting

them to give up 5 days of their summer would be very difficult. Therefore, I plan to implement strategies

that will make attending the PD appealing (Ralston, Hieb, & Rivoli, 2013). The first strategy would be to

appeal to the administrators. I would speak with the administrators of these specific skills, outlining the

benefits and potential for student achievement. I would also let them know that funding would include

fees for substitutes during the follow up sessions. Hopefully the administrators would be able to strongly

encourage their teachers to attend and even give them some incentives on the school level for

participating. My second strategy would be to provide a small stipend for the participants. Included in

this grant is funding for teachers attending the PD. I will also solicit funding from the science and math

departments, as they are allotted funding for paid PD annually. Optimistically, with stipends, support from

administrators and strategies for student achievement, teachers will be more than willing to attend.

Conclusion

Research supports the idea that children need to have real-world connections to what they are

learning, or else they disengage (Havice, ,2015). As a means of learning, action oriented, hands-on

technology and engineering education can bring relevance into the classroom. As presented through out

this grant proposal, CCPS students are in need of an academic shift that will increase their achievement

in the areas of math and science. As suggested by Akers (2017), their curiosity needs to be awakened to

activate purpose and drive. The only way to accomplish this is to properly train educators through

effective professional development. This grant will provide essential means to do just such.

Implementing STEM strategies in CCPS, will align with the needs of the students as well as the

teachers. The review of literature has shown the positive effects of implementation, when done correctly

with follow up. Advocates support STEM engagement by providing opportunities, expertise, programs

and experiences. They play a key role in promoting STEM engagement which in turn provide a road map

for young people to find employment opportunities in STEM fields (Engaging the Field of STEM, 2017).

As I move toward finalizing this grant, I reflect on the study done by Douglas and Strobel. The

summarized the need for STEM based learning best when stating, The urgency of the need for a

substantial increase in the number of students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and math

(STEM) education is perhaps best understood by looking at the Federal Governments monetary

22
commitment to the cause, which is considerable despite the economic troubles the U.S. has faced in

recent years (Douglas & Strobel, 2015, p.245). In 2010, Federal agencies spent $3.4 billion to support

STEM education (National Science and Technology Council, 2011). The stakes involved are clearly very

high, further supporting the need for CCPS to join the cause.

In the following sections, other essential components of this grant proposal will be presented.

The budget summary will be given, including a narrative to explain funding requested. The project team

and facilities will be given to identify necessary persons and places. Finally, the data collection

instruments will be presented for informational purposes.

23
 Budget Narrative

In calculating the total expenses needed for the STEM PD, the final projected cost is $34,466.10.

The personnel cost totaled $13,900. This cost included pay for the project director, assistant project

director, workshop facilitator and the external evaluator. The fringe benefits total of $4,170 is for the

project manager, assistant project manager and external evaluators health care while working on the

project. This total was 10% of the overall personnel costs. The participants cost of $10,000 was a $500

stipend paid for a maximum of 20 participants. The travel cost was based on me and 4 participants

attending the GaETC Conference for 3 days and 2 nights. The conference early bird registration cost

was a total of $1000 for the five of us. We will be staying at the Marriott Atlanta Airport for 2 nights at

$163 per night. Attendees would have their own room, totaling $1,630. The hotel provides

complimentary breakfast, therefore a meal stipend of $50 each day for lunch and dinner will be given to

the 5 attendees for the 2 days. On the final day, a meal stipend is not required because the conference

ends prior to lunch. Mileage will be given at a rate of $0.53 per mile calculated from the district office to

the conference. The mileage is calculated to be approximately 17 miles each way for a total of $90.01 for

all attendees. Additional costs are for box lunches provided during the PD for the 8 total days, books for

the participants and staff, and binders and paper for notetaking and included activities. This additional

cost totaled $3,176.

A. Personnel - $13,900
a. Project Director - $5,000
b. Assistant Project Director - $3,000
c. Workshop Facilitator - $2,400 ($300/day x 8 days)
d. External Evaluator - $3,500
B. Fringe - $4,170 (10% of $13,900 x 3)
C. Participant Cost - $10,000 ($500 x 20 participants)
D. Support Personnel - $0
E. Travel $3220.10
a. GaETC early bird cost - $1,000 ($200 x 5 attendees)
b. Lodging - $1,630 ($326 hotel total for 2 nights x 5 attendees)
c. Food - $500 ($100 total for 2 days x 5 attendees)
d. Mileage - $90.10 (34 miles roundtrip x $.053/mile x 5 attendees)
F. Additional Cost - $3,176
a. Box Lunch - $1,800 ($9.00/box x 25 people x 8 total days)
b. Supplies - $1,376
i. Bringing STEM to the Elementary Classroom - $773.75 ($30.95 x 25
total people)
ii. STEAM Kid: 50+ Science/ Technology/ Engineering/ Art/ Math Hands-
On Projects for Kids - $562.25 ($22.49 x 25 total people)
iii. Binders - $25.00 ($1.00 x 25 total people)

24
 iv. Paper - $15.00 ($3.00 x 5 packs)
G. Evaluation - included in personnel cost

Total Expense $34,466.10

25
 Capacity

The capacity indicates the project team and facilities. These roles are vital to the success of the

overall project. The team will be identified along with the duties and responsibilities of each person.

There are instances where some duties will overlap and other duties may not be listed but assigned on a

need basis.

Program Director

The program director will be Shakeerah Brodie. She is the gifted lead in the district, with 16 years

of experience in teaching. She conducts workshops on both the district and school level concerning

various topics in increasing student achievement. Her duties will be as follows:

Plan, direct, and coordinate activities to ensure that goals, objectives and all

elements of the professional development are accomplished

Establish work plan and staffing for the professional development

Responsible for supervision of all personnel

Outline work plan to assign duties, responsibilities, and scope of authority

Review status reports prepared by project personnel and modify schedules or

plans as required

Confer with project personnel to provide advice and to resolve problems

Responsible for overall quality and management of the professional

development

Oversee budget, ensure financial accountability

Recommend personnel for program/project implementation

Supervise professional development delivery and assess needs

Assistant Program Director

Tiffany Christian is a gifted lead teacher and professional PD facilitator. She often gives PD in

science and math. She has been an educator for 13 years, teaching on both the middle and high school

levels. She current serves as a middle school science and math teacher. Her duties are as follows:

26
 Assist in the implementation of the logistics of running the professional development

Work with Program Director to recruit and retain teachers

With Program Director, plan the professional development for the school year

Provide logistical support as needed to the Program Director and outside evaluator

Work with Program Director in coordinating materials

Assist in mentoring and coordinating with program participants during professional

development

Workshop Facilitator

Regina Willingham will serve as the workshop facilitator. She is an experienced PD facilitator,

specializing in classroom curriculum. She has served in numerous leadership roles in the district and had

16 years of experience. Her duties will be as follows:

Become proficient with program instructional material

Leads professional development sessions

Outline goals and objectives with participants, helping them to attain mastery of all

External Evaluator

Jacqueline Wilson is currently the math district lead who is a professional curriculum writer. She

has served in many roles in education over the last 16 years including a former math facilitator. She now

specializes in curriculum integration. Her duties will be as follows:

Evaluate professional development effectiveness

Interview teachers, administrators, students, etc. on effectiveness of the program

Conducts follow up visits

Provides written reports of all observations and feedback

Facilities

The facilities being utilized for the purpose of this PD will be the Professional Learning Center. It

is located in Jonesboro, GA. The classes will be held in a double room located within the facility to

accommodate the number of participants. There is not a cost for this facility, as it is free for CCPS

27
employees. If necessary, the computer lab located in the facility will be available upon request as seen

necessary.

28
 Data Collection

In an effort to assess the strengths and needs of the PD, several forms of data will be noted.

While most will come in the form of observation and informal conversation with the participants, there will

be some formal forms collected. Presented below are some of the forms that will be given to the

participants. Interview questions are also presented, as the evaluator will use these with stakeholders at

the schools.

Professional Development Evaluation Form

1. Default Section
*1. Workshop Title
*2. Please select the date the PD took place.
Date of PD:
MM/
DD/
YYYY
*3. Please rate the following:
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Diasgree
I am I am satisified with I am I am I am satisified with
I am satisified with
satisified today's satisified with satisified today's
today's
with today's session. Strongly today's with today's session. Strongly
session. Neutral
session. Agree session. session. Diasgree
Handouts Handouts were Handouts Handouts Handouts were
Handouts were
were engaging and were were engaging and
engaging and
engaging useful. Strongly engaging engaging useful. Strongly
useful. Neutral
and useful. Agree and useful. and useful. Diasgree
Time in the Time in the Time in the
workshop Time in the workshop workshop Time in the
Time in the
was workshop was was was workshop was
workshop was
sufficient to sufficient to allow sufficient to sufficient to sufficient to allow
sufficient to allow
allow learning and allow allow learning and
learning and
learning and practicing new learning and learning and practicing new
practicing new
practicing concepts. Strongly practicing practicing concepts. Strongly
concepts. Neutral
new Agree new new Diasgree
concepts. concepts. concepts.
The The The
The workshop was The workshop was
workshop workshop The workshop was workshop
well planned and well planned and
was well was well well planned and was well
interactive. Strongly interactive. Strongly
planned and planned and interactive. Neutral planned and
Agree Diasgree
interactive. interactive. interactive.
The The The
The presenter was The presenter was
presenter presenter The presenter was presenter
effective. Strongly effective. Strongly
was was effective. Neutral was
Agree Diasgree
effective. effective. effective.
The The atmosphere The The atmosphere The The atmosphere
atmosphere was enthusiastic, atmosphere was enthusiastic, atmosphere was enthusiastic,
was interesting, and was interesting, and was interesting, and
enthusiastic, conducive to a enthusiastic, conducive to a enthusiastic, conducive to a

29
 Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Diasgree
interesting, collegial interesting, collegial interesting, collegial
and professional and professional and professional
conducive exchange. Strongly conducive to exchange. Neutral conducive to exchange. Strongly
to a collegial Agree a collegial a collegial Diasgree
professional professional professional
exchange. exchange. exchange.
Session
Session content Session Session Session content
content and Session content
and strategies will content and content and and strategies will
strategies and strategies will
be useful in my strategies strategies be useful in my
will be be useful in my
work. Strongly will be useful will be useful work. Strongly
useful in my work. Neutral
Agree in my work. in my work. Diasgree
work.
I would I would I would
I would recommend I would I would recommend
recommend recommend recommend
this session to recommend this this session to
this session this session this session
colleagues. Strongly session to colleagues. Strongly
to to to
Agree colleagues. Neutral Diasgree
colleagues. colleagues. colleagues.
*4. What is the most significant thing you learned today?
*5. What support do you need to implement what you learned?
6. How will you apply what you learned today to your work?
7. How can we build on this session for follow-up learning?
8. If you werent satisfied with any part of todays session, please explain why.
9. What type of other professional development would you like to see?
10. Additional comments:
*Document retrieved from Survey Monkey.

Professional Development Final Exit Questionnaire

Name: ________________(optional) Position Title/Role: __________________________

District/School/: __________________________________________ Date: ____________ Topic(s):
_________________________________ Duration (hours/days)___________________

To what degree do you agree with the Rate the item using scale below
items below? (5 Strongly Agree 1
Strongly Disagree) 5 Strongly 4 3 2 1 Strongly Not
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Applicable
The staff development:
1. was of high quality. 5 4 3 2 1 0
2. was timely. 5 4 3 2 1 0
3. was relevant to my needs. 5 4 3 2 1 0
4. format and structure facilitated my
5 4 3 2 1 0
learning.
5. enhanced my understanding of how to
5 4 3 2 1 0
develop a formative evaluation plan.
6. enhanced my understanding of how to
5 4 3 2 1 0
implement a formative evaluation plan.

30
7. helped me gain new information and
5 4 3 2 1 0
skills.
8. will assist me in making better-informed
5 4 3 2 1 0
decisions.
9. provided important resources for me. 5 4 3 2 1 0
10. will assist my district/school and/or me
5 4 3 2 1 0
in developing a formative evaluation plan.
11. will assist my district/school and/or me
5 4 3 2 1 0
in implementing formative evaluation.
12. met my expectations. 5 4 3 2 1 0

How will you use what you have learned?

What was the most useful part of this staff development? Why?

What was the least useful part of this staff development? Why?

What additional training/support do you need?

31
 References

Akers, R. (2017). A journey to increase student engagement. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 76(5),

28-32.

Brown, D. (2016). Professional development goal setting for teachers. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from

http://work.chron.com/professional-development-goal-setting-teachers-5431.html

Capobianco, B., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of

elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering

Education, 100, 304-328. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00015.x b

DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where is the "e" in STEM for young children?

engineering design education in an elementary teacher preparation program. Issues In Teacher

Education, 23(1), 49-64.

Douglas, K. A., & Strobel, J. (2015). Hopes and goals survey for use in STEM elementary education.

International Journal Of Technology And Design Education, 25(2), 245-259.

Ernst, J. V., Clark, A. C., & Bowers, S. W. (2016). Flexible and job-embedded professional development

for in-service technology, design, and engineering educators. Journal of Technology Studies,

42(2), 66.

Goldring, E. B., Preston, C., & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional development

for school leaders. Planning & Changing, 43(3/4), 223-242.

Grimmett, H. (2014). The practice of teachers' professional development: A cultural-historical approach.

Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Havice, W. L. (2015). Integrative STEM education for children and our communities. Technology &

Engineering Teacher, 75(1), 15.

Linnell, D. (2017, June 19). Process evaluation vs. outcome evaluation. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from

http://tsne.org/blog/process-evaluation-vs-outcome-evaluation

Lu, Y., Zhang, W., & Wu, X. (2017). A survey of english teacher professional development in

Southeastern Chongqing minority schools: Problems and solutions. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 7(2), 128. doi:10.17507/tpls.0702.06

32
Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: Professional

development that makes a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 99(1), 26-42.

Public Impact. (2012). Redesigning schools: Models to reach every student with excellent teachers

subject specialization (elementary). Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://op-

portunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Subject_Specializa-

tion_Elementary_School_Model-Public_Impact.pdf

Ralston, P. S., Hieb, J. L., & Rivoli, G. (2013). Partnerships and experience in building STEM

pipelines. Journal Of Professional Issues In Engineering Education & Practice, 139(2), 156-162.

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000138

Ramirez, A. (2013, April 30). Cultivating creativity and curiosity with STEM| arcade | dialogue on design.

Retrieved July 13, 2017, from http://arcadenw.org/article/cultivating-creativity-and-curiosity-with-

stem

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get

results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rich, P. J., Jones, B. L., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins. (2017). Computing and engineering in

elementary school: The effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs

about teaching computing and engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Education

in Schools, 1(1). doi:10.21585/ijcses.v1i1.6

Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM

intervention on gifted elementary students science knowledge and skills. Journal Of Advanced

Academics, 25(3), 189. doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799

Royal, K. (2016, July 08). Benefits of STEM programs. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from

http://connectlearningtoday.com/benefits-stem-programs/#

Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student

attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges.

Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46-59.

Walker, M. A. (2016, July 26). Milestones: Metro Atlanta elementary school state test results.

33
 Retrieved June 14, 2017, from http://www.myajc.com/local-education/2016-georgia-milestones-

elementary-scores/

Wenner, J. A. (2017). Urban elementary science teacher leaders: Responsibilities, supports, and needs.

Science Educator, 25(2), 117-125.

34