Thanks, Terry!  The broad participation of Education faculty, STEM-disciplinary faculty, k-12 teachers, Administrators in Higher Ed and in K-12 is what makes this project so satisfying.

We are also using several models to guide out work. We have modified the Keck/PKAL ("river") model (2016) for Systemic Undergraduate Education reform to help support out STEM teacher preparation reform efforts.  Vision creation (and sharing with our colleagues and supporters) has been extremely important, and conducting Landscape Analysis to collect baseline data on where each of our partnering institutions is at with respect to different dimensions of STEM teacher preparation (e.g. current Clinical Practice experiences, the diversity of our current majors and graduates, capacity and readiness to make changes at the individual, program, college, and institutional levels, etc.). Each of our working groups is developing or adapting rubrics to allow institutions to map where they are, to determine where they would like to be, and then develop plans to make progress towards their goals. We are also having regular conversations about "what success looks like" at each of the levels mentioned about, plus what overall project success will look like.

Thanks, this is really interesting. I'll take a look at the Keck/PKAL model. I love the idea of the landscape analysis. It certainly is important to have a clear vision of the baseline in order to think about where the change is needed.

While the teacher education programs vary across each university partner, we share the innovations we are making and learn from each other. At WSU, we are incorporating Education for Sustainability, engineering practices, and NGSS dimensions to immerse preservice teachers in learning how to enact STEM-PBL units with elementary students. 

We also are studying where undergraduates experience sustainability education prior to entering a teacher education program in order to develop a more explicit pathway for new teachers. 

Washington is an NGSS and CCSS adoption state and our State Standards also include Computer Science. Consequently, all of our programs have been working to align courses and curricula to the standards.  In our preliminary alignment analysis we discovered that our programs are doing well with respect to Disciplinary Core Ideas and Scientific practices, but had only some attention to engineering practices and even less focus on cross-cutting concepts.  This has led us to consider how to integrate more engineering practice experiences into our courses (as well as computer science). To that end we have created Engineering and Computer Science integration working groups as well as a Math in STEM working group. Each of these groups is looking at models and resources that promote student learning at the intersections between Math and Science and Engineering, and Computer Science. Education for Sustainability is being looked at as a possible unifying theme to promote cross-disciplinary, NGSS and CCSS aligned learning that is relevant to K-12 students and teachers.

Because many of the improvements in STEM teacher preparation are outside of colleges of education, this project both requires and provides good opportunities for networking across education, science, mathematics, computer science, and engineering educators, as well as each university's administrators and student services and external community stakeholders. Our project provides a great framework for purposefully engaging others. This networking can also be challenging, in that teacher education is not the first priority of many of our potential partners. We are finding that getting and keeping people engaged over time requires, among other things, purposeful communication and explicit "asks" that resonate with each person's role, expertise, and/or mission. 

The first challenge we had to overcome was agreeing on a common vision for NextGen STEM Teacher preparation... which we did by considering what students graduating in 2030 would need to be successful in their jobs and as citizens. We then considered how future teachers (both elementary and secondary) would need to be prepared inspire and prepare their students to be successful.  This led to a set of characteristics we believed all secondary STEM teachers should have as well as characteristics Elementary teachers of STEM should have.

Once we had a common vision, identifying what aspects of STEM teacher preparation to focus on improving to help us achieve this vision,  became the next challenge as each of our institutions and teacher preparation programs is different. We identified 8 areas to work on/improve. These included two foundational components--Diversity and Organizational Change/Collaboration building and six high value components-- Clinical Practice, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Computer Science Integration, Engineering Integration, Education for Sustainability, and Math in STEM.

Once we had working groups (consisting primarily of STEM education and education and K-12 and two-year college faculty from institutions across the state) up and running in each of these areas, the greatest challenge was supporting effective communication within and across working groups, and between the leadership team, working groups, and other interested parties.

Time is another challenge,  as everyone working on the project has another full-time job. We provide funding to support active working group members and institutional leaders, but it doesn't by any means, cover all of the work that people are putting into this collaborative effort.  Meeting frequently by Zoom video conferencing and less regularly at face-to face workshops helps us be productive given that working group members and institutional leaders are spread out across the state.

This year we are transitioning from our Working Groups, who have been focused on research and development to Implementation Teams (i.e. groups of faculty, K-12 educators, administrators, and community partners associated with a particular higher education institution(s)). Implementation Teams are currently agreeing on their highest change priorities and looking to pilot test, use, and eventually integrate the products and resources from the working groups to improve  their STEM teacher preparation programs. Consequently, during this transition year, we are adding yet another level of complexity to our communication and collaboration efforts... both within and between institutions.

Thanks for your question, Daniel. One area we have devoted much attention to is how to engage and support more diverse students in teacher education. At this point, we have identified barriers and challenges that we did not initially expect. We are exploring various strategies, from conversations about policy at the state level to the role of a pathway for sustainability education across an undergraduate program (e.g., attracting first generation college students because they see sustainability as critical and relevant to their lives and then helping them see teaching as a great career choice where sustainability education can be enacted with K-12 students). All of this is a work in progress. 

Great questions Courtney.  We currently have 8-10 university partners (plus 5 community colleges and several K-12 education service districts) actively engaged in NextGen STEM teacher preparation improvement efforts in Washington State. We also have 5-8 additional university partners in the state who we hope to engage as the project progresses so that eventually every program that currently produces mathematics and science teachers can benefit from and contribute to this NextGen STEM teacher preparation work. One of the lessons we have learned over the first 2+ years of the project is that different institutions are in different places with respect to the change process. Some institutions are just beginning to build capacity for change while others are already beginning to implement changes at their institutions.  During the next 18 months we will also be working to more broadly disseminate the NextGen model and associated products, to STEM education colleagues in other states and regions.

With regards to " measuring success", At the institutional and program levels, each of our working groups is developing or adapting rubrics to allow institutions to map where they are, to determine where they would like to be, and then develop plans to make progress towards their program goals. Success will be different for each institution given different institutional and programmatic change priorities. We are also still discussing "what success looks like" at the state and project levels, but closer alignment of our courses, curricula, and programs to the NGSS and CCSS, the creation of new degree pathways to earn a Computer Science endorsement and possibly an elementary STEM endorsement, and development and implementation of a strategic plan to increase the diversity of the STEM teaching workforce in Washington State are some of the components we are looking at.  Ultimately, the success of this effort will be measured by the success of future teachers who graduate from our programs and their ability to prepare and inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, systems thinkers, and engaged citizens.

Hi Jan, we are in our 3rd year of an initial 4-year effort to improve STEM teacher preparation programs across Washington State.  We are just moving from our research and development phase into pilot testing of models, tools, and resources to improve science and math education programs at several universities.  Our focus is on improving the preparation of preservice teachers... both secondary and elementary, but as part of this work we are partnering with inservice teacher colleagues and administrators so that their knowledge and expertise informs the changes we are making to our programs.  One of the NextGen components we are all excited about is the incorporation of Sustainability concepts and practices into our programs by connecting students and teachers to investigations of relevant societal and environmental issues.

My best to you and the GLOBE program

Hi Ed, great video.  I too am curious about how many teachers you have had "buy in" to be trained.  Are you using a cohort model or do teachers self-select?  Getting K-12 (pre-service or in-service) teacher participation can sometimes be difficult in NC as they are pulled in so many directions.  I'd love to hear your approach.  Thanks!

Hi Dianne, we concur and are interested in creating models for future teachers to experience STEM learning and teaching experiences that are culturally and locally relevant to their students.  This is why we are excited about using using a theme of Education for Sustainability to underpin learning in our STEM teacher preparation programs.

Thanks Mike, your concern about implementation at the school level  is shared by many/most of us working on this project.  WA state has adopted the NGSS and CCSS (and added Computer Science to the mix) so that is one of the drivers of change in our K-12 schools.  However, actually understanding and implementing the standards is a complex challenge.  Many of our high schools are just beginning to understand and grapple with the implications of the standards. Fortunately, Washington is also rethinking its testing requirements.  In the past we have had a single 10 grade biology exam as THE science exam, but this will be changing. We hope will provide more flexibility for teaching science and mathematics courses that include computer science and engineering and brings together math and science learning around projects and problems of interest and relevant to students in local communities.  We are looking at Sustainability issues (environment, society, economics) as a way to promote cross-disciplinary STEM (plus) learning. We are also working with school and district partners as part of our project so that we can find schools eager to hire our graduates, but it is still very much a work in progress. 

Good question Frederick, since we are just transitioning from our research and development phase to planning, pilot testing and implementing changes to our STEM teacher preparation programs, we won't likely know the answer to your question for at least a few  years.  We are working in partnership with our state K-12 education agency to better align our STEM teacher preparation programs with the NGSS and CCSS so that as we prepare and graduate NextGen teachers they will be able to go into NextGen schools... but change is slow.. and many of our high schools are just beginning to understand and plan for transitioning to 3D learning and cross-disciplinary STEM learning.  There are numerous traditions, practices, and barriers that inhibit this type of transformation in more traditional schools, but part of our networked improvement community includes K-12 teacher and administrator voice so we are hopeful that as our teacher preparation programs evolve, so will schools.

Hi Mike, great comments and its good to hear from you. Finding out what is already out there (models, resources, tools) with respect to integrating CS into STEM teacher preparation programs and/or into K-12 schools is one of the foci of our CS working group.  With Washington State science/math standards now including CS concepts and practices, understanding and finding good models and resources is becoming quite important.   We have a new K-12 CS endorsement in WA state, but it is crafted more like a major in CS plus education courses than something that is currently practical to implement or likely to attract students into CS teaching careers.  Consequently, we are looking at creating some pilot pathways to earning a CS endorsement... one pathway we are considering is a dual endorsement (secondary Math endorsement plus a CS endorsement) since there is more demand from schools for hiring math teachers. Another pathway we are considering is a BAE in CS through the Computer Science Department.