1. Ed Geary
  2. Directror
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Western Washington University
  1. Julie Antilla
  2. Associate Professor of Educational Leadership
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Seattle Pacific University
  1. Kathryn Baldwin
  2. Assistant Professor
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Eastern Washington University
  1. Jennifer Dechaine
  2. https://www.cwu.edu/teachstem/stem-teaching-program
  3. Associate Professor and Chair
  4. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  5. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  6. Central Washington University
  1. Dan Hanley
  2. Director of Educational Research and Evaluation
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Western Washington University
  1. Tamara Holmlund
  2. https://labs.wsu.edu/tamara-holmlund/
  3. Professor
  4. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  5. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  6. Washington State University Vancouver
  1. Joan Pasley
  2. http://www.horizon-research.com/about-hri/staff/joan-d-pasley
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Horizon Research, Inc.
  1. Jose Rios
  2. Associate Professor
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. University of Washington Tacoma
  1. Roxane Ronca
  2. Project Director
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Western Washington University
  1. Jen Sorensen
  2. Assistant Professor
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Seattle University
  1. Ann Wright-Mockler
  2. Sr. STEM Education Consultant
  3. The Next Generation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Preparation in Washington State
  4. https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa/index.html
  5. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Public Discussion
  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 12, 2019 | 10:57 p.m.

    Welcome to our collaborative project to create Next Generation STEM Teacher Preparation Programs across Washington State. We are a diverse collection of individuals, representing numerous institutions and organizations.  We believe that by working together, our ideas, expertise, and innovations will lead to teacher preparation program improvements positively impacting all of our future graduates.  

    We are interested in sharing with, and learning from other educators, administrators, and policy makers who are working to improve STEM teacher preparation at their institutions and/or in their states and communities.

    We invite your questions and look forward to discussions about all aspects of STEM teacher preparation for secondary and elementary educators.

    We are particularly interested in talking with you about STEM Clinical Practice, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, integrating Computer Science, Engineering, and Sustainability concepts and practices into existing Math and Science teacher preparation programs, ideas and examples for diversifying the STEM teaching workforce, and models of systemic change.

  • Small default profile

    Terry Bergeson

    Higher Ed Administrator
    May 13, 2019 | 01:00 p.m.

    This video is great! Our partnership for better NextGen/STEM teacher preparation is unfolding across the higher education and k-12 system with involvement of Science, mathematics, computer science and Education faculty and k-12 STEM teacher leaders. That's the only way the change can be sustained.

  • Icon for: Roxane Ronca

    Roxane Ronca

    Co-Presenter
    May 13, 2019 | 01:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Molly Stuhlsatz

    Molly Stuhlsatz

    Facilitator
    May 13, 2019 | 01:15 p.m.

    Thanks for sharing your work! I love the focus on developing a vision for the next generation of teacher preparation among such a large group of stakeholders. Consensus is a process that can be so challenging for big teams. What processes and tools are you using to make sure that your collaboration moving forward? How are you measuring your success?

  • Small default profile

    Ed Geary

    Higher Ed Faculty
    May 14, 2019 | 10:07 a.m.

    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.

     
    1
    Discussion is closed. Upvoting is no longer available

    Molly Stuhlsatz
  • Icon for: Molly Stuhlsatz

    Molly Stuhlsatz

    Facilitator
    May 15, 2019 | 10:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Roxane Ronca

    Roxane Ronca

    Co-Presenter
    May 13, 2019 | 01:40 p.m.

    The tools we are using to collaborate are regular zoom (video-conference) meetings and a very complex system of google folders to organize our work.  Finalized work is posted to our public website: https://serc.carleton.edu/nextgen_wa.

    We have norms around communication that include timely agendas for each meeting, and posted notes after each meeting.

    Success is measured along different time-frames: there's the small-scale success of the "immediate step right in front of you" such as planning workshops, preparing presentations at conferences, inviting appropriate colleagues to join our effort, reminding folks of deadlines, making resources available on our website, etc. 

    There is also the larger-scale success of seeing if each "small step" is moving us toward our broader vision and keeping us on track and avoiding "mission creep". 

    And then there is the large scale success of sustainable changes within our individual teacher preparation programs.  This type of large-scale success can be measured in hindsight; but we can measure real-time changes that might promote or encourage such sustainable change.

    More specifically, each Working Group has established a vision and goals toward which we are all working.  These are all spelled out on our website.

  • May 13, 2019 | 09:50 p.m.

    Thanks for showcasing your efforts! I would like to know more about your teacher preparation programs and the incorporation of NGSS!

  • Icon for: Tamara Holmlund

    Tamara Holmlund

    Co-Presenter
    May 14, 2019 | 02:39 p.m.

    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. 

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 14, 2019 | 06:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Darla Edwards

    Darla Edwards

    Director of Special Projects
    May 13, 2019 | 10:42 p.m.

    Thank you for sharing such a creative project.  I love the collaboration across organizations.  What were some of the obstacles or challenges that you encountered as you began to implement this across the state?  

  • Icon for: Tamara Holmlund

    Tamara Holmlund

    Co-Presenter
    May 14, 2019 | 02:59 p.m.

    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. 

  • Small default profile

    Ed Geary

    Higher Ed Faculty
    May 14, 2019 | 06:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Daniel Capps

    Daniel Capps

    Facilitator
    May 14, 2019 | 12:05 p.m.

    Nice video! I am curious about what kind(s) of general knowledge has been produced through this project related to teacher preparation that you think might be useful for other states to know about?

  • Icon for: Tamara Holmlund

    Tamara Holmlund

    Co-Presenter
    May 14, 2019 | 02:48 p.m.

    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. 

  • Icon for: Courtney Arthur

    Courtney Arthur

    Facilitator
    May 14, 2019 | 01:59 p.m.

    This is such a great program! Could you say a bit more about the direction you foresee this going to scale up, if possible? I am also curious about how you are measuring the success of the program. Thank you for sharing this important work!

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 15, 2019 | 11:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Jan Heiderer

    Jan Heiderer

    Communications Coordinator, GLOBE Implementation Office
    May 14, 2019 | 08:35 p.m.

    Nice video Ed! I'm seeing your GLOBE roots! How long as this program been going and how many teachers have been trained? Maybe I should go back and look at the video again.. but are you exclusively focused on preservice teachers or do you work with experienced teachers as well?  Good to see your work Ed. All the best!

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 15, 2019 | 10:35 a.m.

    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

  • Icon for: Matthew Cass

    Matthew Cass

    Higher Ed Faculty
    May 15, 2019 | 11:28 a.m.

    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!

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 15, 2019 | 12:04 p.m.

     Hi Matthew, the in-service teachers we are working with on our NextGen project tend to be expert teachers with mentorship experience and strong knowledge of the NGSS and/or CCSS. They are helping to inform changes to our STEM teacher preparation programs, and ground us in the realities of actual classroom and student needs.  We support inservice teacher participation in our workshops and as active working group members with stipends and travel support.  We also try to be strategic about use of their time and expertise since they are pulled in many directions (same with our higher education faculty colleagues). We don't do any formal "training" of inservice teachers as part of our NextGen work. Our primary focus is to improve the learning and preparation experiences for future secondary STEM teachers and elementary teachers of STEM.

  • Icon for: Pai Suksak

    Pai Suksak

    Graduate Student
    May 15, 2019 | 10:55 p.m.

    Hi Ed, 

    Thank you for sharing such an interesting program! As you mentioned above that this year is the third year of an initial 4th year effort to improve STEM teacher preparation program and is just moving into pilot testing of the model, what were some of the obstacles or challenges that you or preservice teachers in the program encountered as you began pilot testing of the model? Thanks!

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 16, 2019 | 10:01 a.m.

    Hi Pai, thanks for the question. Bringing all of the people together who have a role in STEM teacher preparation, and agreeing on priorities for change at the elementary and secondary levels have been two of the challenges. People are quite busy, and STEM teacher preparation may not be the main priority for many or our non-STEM elementary or secondary education colleagues. In addition, our teacher preparation programs are already quite "full" with current concepts and practices.  Consequently if we propose new activities, curricula, or courses we have to also figure out what to eliminate from our current programs so that we don't increase time to degree or simply overwhelm students. We are currently discussing different approaches to integrating Computer Science, Engineering, and Sustainability into current Mathematics and Science education courses and curricula. These range from integrating one or two activities into existing courses to creating new courses or curricula, to making systemic changes across our elementary and secondary STEM education degree programs.

    Listening to colleagues and students, building support for changes by finding logical synergies between people's interests and expertise, and understanding student needs has been critical as we move toward pilot testing of research-based models and activities. Tapping into the experiences of our current preservice teachers and graduates is also helping us better understand what is working well and what aspects of our degree programs need improvement.

  • Icon for: Dianne Kirnes

    Dianne Kirnes

    Program Manager
    May 20, 2019 | 11:50 a.m.

    I liked this video a lot.  I feel collaborative and integrated learning in STEM is the future.  Our teachers need to prepared and begin teaching our students to think outside the box for solutions to real world problems. That's how real growth and innovation occurs.

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 20, 2019 | 12:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Michael Haney

    Michael Haney

    May 20, 2019 | 02:41 p.m.

    Thanks for the presentation and for the comprehensive vision of how teacher (STEM) education can evolve.  For 8 years I headed a public STEM high school that fully integrated all STEM (and a few other) disciplines.  The problems at the school level were massive but surmountable because I hired the faculty and was not bound to use any set curriculum.  You have an excellent staff, a great vision, a broad state-wide commitment, but my concerns are with implementation at the school level.  

    How flexible is Washington on course content, especially given the testing requirements?   I found in Maryland that my recourse was to tell administrators and parents that the course titles (a requirement) were not full descriptions of the content.  For instance, after physics (1st semester of 9th grade), the students would not know all the physics they needed, that would only come after their 4th science course (Biology, second semester of 10th grade).  After the first class of successful seniors, everyone was satisfied.

    I would love to have been able to hire teachers from your program.  My solution for broadening the perspectives of experienced teachers was to pair them with university professors who acted as mentors.  My question is...will your teachers find schools and departments willing to allow them to integrate topics and concepts from other disciplines?

    You have a great program, I wish you great success.    

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 20, 2019 | 07:25 p.m.

    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. 

  • Icon for: Frederick Nelson

    Frederick Nelson

    Higher Ed Faculty
    May 20, 2019 | 03:03 p.m.

    Thank you for this important work in building community among the different STEM disciplines. The networked community is a powerful mode for enhancing communication and removing constraints. How is this working in the more traditional subject areas in high schools?

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 20, 2019 | 07:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Icon for: Michael Haney

    Michael Haney

    May 20, 2019 | 05:01 p.m.

    Wouldn’t it be great if NSF or one of the CS organizations gathered models and examples of how CS had been incorporated into other disciplines in schools.  I suspect there is much more going on than we know so we just keep reinventing slightly more innovative implementations from scratch.  

    There a 30 year history of this integration among STEM high schools such as the members of Nat’l Consortium of Specialized Schools in Science, Math and Technology, but these tend to be for very gifted students and the mathematics used is pretty advanced for high schools.  We need better examples to share broadly.  

  • Icon for: Ed Geary

    Ed Geary

    Lead Presenter
    May 20, 2019 | 06:49 p.m.

    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. 

  • Further posting is closed as the showcase has ended.