STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

on

  • 5,056 views

A state-of-the-art, comprehensive Technology Learning Center focusing across disciplines, will nurture independent, self-directed learners with hands-on skills and an understanding of evolving ...

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,056
Views on SlideShare
4,988
Embed Views
68

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
27
Comments
4

6 Embeds 68

http://www.scoop.it 56
http://www.techgig.com 5
http://www.slashdocs.com 3
http://www.docseek.net 2
http://joquettajohnson.com 1
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Proposed New Science Standards to Include Technology and Engineering
    In a May 3, News release ITEEA (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association) reported, “…the National Science Board and the National Academy of Science, as part of the process of creating a new generation of science standards, released a draft that includes technology and engineering as a major addition to the science content to be taught, presumably, by science educators. These standards were also to be in the direction of “common core” standards that have been a major effort by the National Governors Association, et al, for the language and mathematics subjects.”

    The current mainstream school facility models restrict the teaching of science, math, technology and engineering subjects to individual rooms designed around isolated topics/disciplines. The National Governors Association report– “Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda”, pg. 8 further describes it. “The existing core curriculum, which is divided into silos and focuses on traditional math and science, is often criticized as being irrelevant and boring to today’s students. Studies report that the interest levels of American students, especially girls, in science begin to drop around middle school. As factors in turning off high numbers of students to STEM disciplines and professions, researchers point to the artificial separation in the curriculum of natural phenomenon into subjects, the focus on natural sciences and lack of attention to the human-made world of engineering and technology, and the disconnect of coursework from the lives of students.”

    This change in national standards gives DoDEA schools a unique opportunity to design new schools with the traditional Science and Technology areas repurposed to address the proposed 21st Century Science standards. I have attached a diagram of what this environment may look like based on my earlier work with the STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center Project. (see http://slideshare.net/rlurker – STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center – slide 70) See also (see DoDEA Work Session #1 Report, pgs 36-43 http://21stcentury.dodea.edu/)

    Originally posted on the collaboration space for participants of the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Facilities for 21st Century Learning initiative Jun 2011.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • New/Updated Materials Jan 2012 – New TLC project flyer and updated STEM Education Reform: TLC Project materials with updated contact information and addition slides. The slides address the proposed new Science Standards to Include Technology and Engineering and moving the TLC project concept into the high schools (see slides 70-71). Updated download setting, you can now down load presentations directly from Slideshare or the web link.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • The Next Steps:
    We have the opportunity to build learning environments in the United States that address the 21st Century and prepare students and teachers for a global economy. At this time we are seeking three things to move forward:
    1) An innovative University/College with a strong Teacher Education program interested in advancing the field of STEM Teacher Education; capable of applying a comprehensive approach for pre- and in-service STEM teacher education; and with the capacity to provide broad access and technology resources for general education and capstone courses.
    2) The development of public and private partnerships, including foundations, business and industry, government, local communities and school districts.
    3) Sponsorships for the various Labs, Facilities, Exhibits and Technology that will be part of the Technology Learning Center.
    I look forward to speaking with you further about how this concept could fit within your University/College and the community.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Received the 2011 William E. Warner Professional Practice Award in April from Epsilon Pi Tau (EPT), the international honorary for professions in technology. Recognition for the “STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center Project.”
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012STEM Education Reform:Technology Learning Center A state-of-the-art, comprehensive Technology Learning Center focusing across disciplines, will nurture independent, self-directed learners with hands-on skills and an understanding of evolving technology. This innovative model, implemented in three phases through public/private partnerships, provides the foundation for high quality Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teacher education. Robert R. Lurker, M.Ed. South Jordan, UT 84095 660-441-1469 rlurker@gmail.com Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 1
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Presentation ContentsOverview Slide # 1-9 Learning into Practice Slide # 27-45 ● STEM Education Today ● Defining STEM Literacy Phase I – 21st Century Learning Demonstration ● STEM Education Reform ● TLC Project – Improving ● Demonstration Facilities ● Implementation STEM Education ● STEM Education Transformation Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction ● Project History ● Goals and Objectives ● Technology Learning Center Design andLearning Concepts Slide # 10-16 Construction ● Lab Design Concepts/Possibilities ● Creative Learning Systems ● Learning Environment ● Advanced Zone Design Applications ● Sample Layout ● Standardized Test Performance ● Community Design Applications/Interactions ● Case Study ● SmartLab™ Student Comments ● Building Design Concept Example Phase III – 21st Century in PracticeLearning Environment Slide # 17-26 ● Operations ● Opportunities for Involvement ● Design Concept ● Building Design Concept ● Funding Opportunities ● Budget Estimates – ● Central Core ● Example ● Learning Areas Technology Learning Center Phases I, II, III and ● Educational Applications ● Potential Core Course STEM Implementation Statewide Offerings ● Repeatability ● Outcomes Summary Slide # 46 Selected Bibliography Slide # 47- 49 Contributors Slide # 50- 58 Appendices Slide # 59- 71 Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 2
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012STEM Education Today Over the years educational institutions have isolated many disciplines and moved away from the teaching of other subjects considered as no longer relevant. The National Governors Association (NGA) Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda report describes the core curriculum as “silos” and “often criticized as being irrelevant and boring to today’s students.” The report points out three factors that turn off students to STEM disciplines and professions: 1) the artificial separation in the curriculum of natural phenomenon into subjects; 2) lack of attention to the human-made world of engineering and technology; and 3) the disconnect of coursework from the lives of students. The right curriculum requires a teaching workforce that is qualified and prepared to teach STEM education. The NGA in the same report describes the workforce as “under-qualified in large part because of teacher shortages caused by attrition, migration, and retirement.” Their solution is: “States must also support high quality preparation and professional development for teachers that lead to improvements in large numbers of classrooms.” Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 3
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012Defining STEM LiteracyThe National Governors Association (NGA) Innovation • Engineering literacy is the understanding of howAmerica: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering technologies are developed via the engineeringand Math Agenda report provides definitions of STEM design process; … Engineering design is theliteracy developed by the Organisation for Economic systematic and creative application of scientificCo-operation and Development and the International and mathematic principles to practical ends suchTechnology Education Association as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines,“STEM literacy refers to an individual’s ability to apply processes, and systems.his or her understanding of how the world works within • Mathematical literacy means the ability of studentsand across four interrelated domains. to analyze, reason, and communicate ideas • Scientific literacy is the ability to use scientific effectively as they pose, formulate, solve, and knowledge … (in three main areas — science in interpret solutions to mathematical problems in a life and health, science in Earth and environment, variety of situations.“ and science in technology). • Technological literacy means the ability to use, “Consequently, a STEM classroom shifts students away manage, understand, and assess technology. … from learning discrete bits and pieces of phenomenon Technology is the innovation, change, or and rote procedures and toward having investigating modification of the natural environment to satisfy and questioning the interrelated facets of the world.” perceived human needs and wants. (Morrison, 2006) Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 4
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 STEM Education Reform Key Challenges Opportunities• U.S. students of all ages are at a comparative • Build learning environments that address the 21st disadvantage internationally in terms of science, Century and prepare students and teachers for a technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) global economy. education as shown by lower math test scores among • Apply innovative, existing methods developed by others. Creative Learning Systems (CLS) for their learning labs. CLS has provided positive outcomes that• Poor high school graduation rates contribute to higher suggest this approach is a candidate for identification unemployment and crime rates among young adults. as a "best practice". • Apply a comprehensive approach to the University• Inadequate, lecture-based methods of pre-service level for pre- and in-service STEM teacher education and in-service teachers for early childhood, and provide broad access and technology resources elementary, middle/junior high secondary and post- for general education and capstone courses. secondary levels result in ill-equipped teachers and • Address community needs for post professional unacceptable turnover rates. technology education for business, industry, law enforcement and the military.• STEM education reform is required to address 21st • Apply the “three-dimensional textbook” approach Century technological needs for the U.S. to succeed (Taylor, 2009) creating holistic, sustainable learning in a global economy. environments, that apply green technology in the design and ongoing operational philosophy. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 5
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012TLC Project – Improving STEM Education The Technology Learning Center (TLC) project implementation addresses a broad range of the issues identified by the National Governors Association, the US Department of Education, the White House and others. The NGA identifies three strategies for STEM improvement that are addressed by the TLC Project: 1. Align state K–12 STEM standards and assessments with postsecondary and workforce expectations for what high school graduates know and can do. 2. Examine and increase the state’s internal capacity to improve teaching and learning. • States should support promising new models of recruiting, preparing, certifying, compensating, and evaluating teachers in STEM content areas. • States should support extra learning opportunities to support STEM teaching and learning in the schools. 3. Identify best practices in STEM education and bring them to scale. • States should create and expand the availability of specialized STEM schools. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 6
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012TLC Project - STEM Education Transformation STEM education projects tend to focus on only one aspect of technology in the hands of the student (e.g. laptops, ipods, electronic textbooks). Technology is not a single device nor just electronic or computer devices. If we want teachers to inspire students and lead them to a knowledge of technology and the ability to adapt to 21st century technology, we must change our focus to the teachers and their experience with, and knowledge of, technology (STEM literacy). We must be more inclusive as we provide teachers the opportunity to both learn, experience and apply technology. The TLC Project starts out using existing proven resources (i.e. “best practices”). Further research and study are not required. The TLC Project focuses first on the teachers through pre- and in-service hands-on experience with a broad range of existing and developing technologies. This approach provides the foundation for improvement and reshaping of our STEM PreK-20 curriculum and educational facilities. A major outcome is a prepared educational workforce with the knowledge to lead the transformation from traditional teaching and learning methods to 21st Century concepts and practices. The TLC project involves a wide array of partnerships including: public and charter schools, regional professional development centers, universities and community colleges, business and industry, law enforcement, military, private foundations, and the general community. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 7
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 TLC Project History• Conception 2003 – Southeast Missouri State – Rural branch campus application to a “learning University park” with TLC as campus core – 1st Meeting – Nashville TN, International • Project Phase Development – 2009-2011 Technology Education Association (ITEA) with – Developed a 3-phase approach to implementation Creative Learning Systems (CLS) including budget, staffing and revenue source – Basic concept utilizing the CLS Lab for teacher generation education • Selected Publications and Presentations• Project Development – University of Central – Lurker, R., Downing, J., & Wilson, D. (2009). The Missouri 2003-2007 Technology Learning Center. In Taylor, Anne P., – Transformed from lab-based application to Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable holistic learning concept Design for Learning Environments (pp. 176-177). • Basic lab to advanced lab environment for Everbest Printing Company, Ltd., University of teacher education, University General New Mexico Press Education and Capstone courses – Advanced Facilitator Development Conference, – Site visits – Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Greeley, CO, 2006 Colorado, California, Hawaii – International Technology Education Association, – Building concept “Technology Education” ages 2 Kansas City, MO, 2005 weeks through Adult Learners – The International Association of Science, Technology and Society, Baltimore, 2005• Community College Development – Pahrump, Nevada 2007-2008 • Awards – Development for shared High School/College – William E. Warner Professional Practice Award. facility with dual credit Epsilon Pi Tau, 2011 Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 8
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 TLC Project - Goals and ObjectivesGoals: 1. Develop a state-of-the-art, comprehensive Technology Learning Center that will prepare independent, self-directed learners and incorporate cutting-edge technology. 2. The Center will nurture and develop skills that include individual goal setting, problem solving, communication and collaboration, innovation, self-evaluation and an understanding of evolving technology. Applications include: pre- and in-service teacher education, general education and capstone courses with a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teacher education.Education Objectives General Objectives  Provide all education majors with hands-on  Create a technology focal point (“Green” experience with a broad range of technology. building) that is accessible, visible, and hands-on  Provide in-service training for PreK-16 teachers, for all students on campus. (General Education locally and statewide, including teachers from Classes) underperforming schools.  Support teacher education at all levels (teachers,  Establish partnerships with public and charter counselors and administrators) PreK-20. schools, to expand their course offerings and  Provide access to technology and training access to advanced technology. opportunities for students and parents in public  Provide curriculum development opportunities and charter schools, business and industry, law to integrate technologies and methods into existing enforcement, military and the general community. classes both at the University level and in PreK-16  Immerse students and teachers in a 21st Century schools. learning environment, while preparing them for a global economy. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 9
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012Learning Concepts Current educational best practices and learning theories indicate that environmentally based, project-based, hands-on, active, relevant, constructivist learning can close the achievement gap (Hoody & Lieberman, 1998). Students become responsible for their own learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. v), and teachers act as facilitators (Caine & Caine, 1991, p. 22). Whole Brain Teaching and Learning Characteristics – Delivery of learning can be designed to respond to personal uniqueness; Unique people can be made an integral part of the learning design; Learning through affirmation and discovery can be more effective, fulfilling, enjoyable, and last longer (Herrmann- Nehdi, 2006). Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 10
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012“21st Century Learning Labs cornerstone of this project. The concepts, facilities and for Students of all Abilities track record of designing and installing over 700 installations since 1987 represent elements of multiple Creative Learning Systems engages learners with "best practices". Examples include: The ePortfoliofully-integrated classroom systems focused on system™ supports authentic assessment. Improvedtechnology exploration, alternative energy test scores have been documented. CLS applieseducation and media production. In a Creative leading edge technology to core, academically-linked,Learning Systems SmartLab™, students develop 21st hands-on projects. Integration of multiple technologiescentury skills such as critical thinking and problem is encouraged. They approach technology as a tool tosolving, collaboration, communication, project- be applied to workflow rather than as an isolated set ofmanagement and self-direction. They apply leading- skills.edge technology to academically linked, hands-on Because of their uniqueness, there is currently noprojects. Its a learning experience that engages, equivalent, competing product. The TLC project applieschallenges and motivates like no other.” and expands the model to the university/college levelwww.creativelearningsystems.com and targets pre- and in-service teachers and students completing general education requirements. The TLC project also provides technological resources toSTEM Education Reform: Technology business, industry, military and other aspects of theLearning Center (TLC) general community. Creative Learning Systems SmartLab™ is the Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 11
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Learning EnvironmentCreative Learning Systems • Learner Centered, Project-Based Learning • Open-Ended - NOT a Modular Approach • Fundamental Competencies • Multiple Learning Paths • Flexible • Self-Directed Learning Format • North Central Regional Education Laboratory • Constructivism • “Generate, Demonstrate & Exhibit”, Brooks & Brooks (1993) • Brain-Based Learning Theory • Twelve Brain/Mind Learning Principles, Caine & Caine (1997) • Theory Of Multiple Intelligences • Howard Gardner (1983) • Positive Outcomes • Improved STEM test scores • Student and Teacher satisfaction • More Than 20 Years Experience • Over 700 Installations, US and Canada Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 12
  • Technology Learning Center - Technology Core – Sample Layout 1/20/2012 Capacity 9 10 8 7 11 6 5 6 2 3 1 4 The Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Technology Plaza, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii 1. Aqua Culture 5. Facilitator Zone 9. Head End Room 2. Bio-Technology Zone 6. Knowledge Wall 10.Digital Editing Booth Developed By: R. Lurker 3. Robotic Work Cell 7. Ideation Zone™ 11.Virtuality Studio™ © 2012, 2011, 2010 4. Global Commons™ 8. Collaboration Cove™ w/ CYC Wall™ 13
  • Technology Learning Center - Outcomes 1/20/2012 Standardized Test Performance Guajome Park Academy Vista, CA • Results for full-time students Grades 9, 10, and 11 after 1 year of full-time residency in the Creative Learning Plaza • *STAR Results shown Comparison with STAR Results for the State of California and for the Vista School District. *1998 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Developed By: R. LurkerCreative Learning Plaza – Vista Village, California © 2012, 2011, 2010 14
  • Technology Learning Center - Outcomes 1/20/2012 Case StudySouthwest Secondary Learning Center*• Technology-based charter school – Test results *Created 2002 Albuquerque, NM Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 15
  • Technology Learning Center - Outcomes 1/20/2012 SmartLab™ Learning Environment* Students’ Comments – “Most Teens Associate School with Boredom, Fatigue” – SmartLab™ students report “High Levels of Interest” • Source school survey data – Gallup Organization, June 8th, 2004 Developed By: R. Lurker* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™ © 2012, 2011, 2010 16
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012Learning Environment The old “assembly line” model no longer supports what we know about how the brain/mind learns (Caine & Caine, 1991, pp. 13-14). This means architects must provide different configurations for learning environments, more flexibility, adaptability, movable components, and future conversion to other uses (Locker & Olsen, 2004). Schools must become more community oriented through shared facilities, multiple use, and community participation in the planning process (Brubaker, 1998). Kats (2006) reports in “Greening America’s Schools” that students in sustainable, high-performance school buildings experience health and learning benefits tied to green design and improved ventilation, temperature controls, good lighting, and better views. Teachers also benefit, which increases teacher retention. Project-based learning often requires more learning space and architectural support for different space usage and for changing student/teacher/community relationships. (Taylor, 2009) Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 17
  • Technology Learning Center - Design Concept 1/20/2012 Design Concept This is a demonstration project that brings together A multisensory design focuses on the multiple "best practices" creating an orchestrated immersion application and integration of technology across into a modern 21st century learning environment. Resources disciplines through hands-on learning. Teachers are reconfigurable and deployable empowering students to and students alike are surrounded by technology design and develop their learning environment. Visual and a silent curriculum. The facility, a “Three- access to all learning areas provides inspiration and dimensional Textbook”, brings to life phenomena motivation. A visit to the Technology Learning Center typically only studied in textbooks. becomes an experience: “what you don’t touch, you see”. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 18
  • Technology Learning Center - Building Design Concept 1/20/2012 Building Overview  Cross Discipline, Cross Curriculum  Alternative Energy Demonstration and Application  Collaboration Resource  Community Resource  Multi-Age Learning Environment  Professional Development  Holistic, Sustainable Environment  Business, Industry, Law Enforcement, Military  Green Design, Construction and  Public, Private Schools, University, Community Building Operations College Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 19
  • Technology Learning Center - Building Design Concept 1/20/2012 Central Core Central Core of Technology  Common Technologies  Interdisciplinary Approach  Cross-Curriculum  Career Exploration  Grades 6 through Adult Education  Technovation Plaza™  Customizable/Configurable Surrounding Support Areas  Advanced Technology Zones  Cross-College  Multi-Discipline  Collaboration Resources  Advanced Projects  Capstone Courses  Customizable/Configurable Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 20
  • Technology Learning Center - Building Design Concept 1/20/2012 Central Core - Example Building Technology Core  Central Core of Technologies  Technovation Plaza™  Surrounding Areas  Advanced Technologies  Collaboration Areas  Project Development  Experimental Design Areas  Visually Accessible  Open Atrium  Living Growing Environment  Grades 6 through Adult Learners Original concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 21
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of Technology Developed By: R. Lurker* Creative Learning Technovation Plaza™ and SmartLab™ Transdisciplinary Learning Engagements © 2012, 2011, 2010 22
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Educational Applications Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 23
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Potential Core Course Offerings Public and Charter Schools Undergraduate TECH 100 TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology Introduction to Technology (3) TECH 200 TECH 2000 Technology and Self Direction Technology and Self Direction (3) TECH 400 TECH 4000 Technology Project Design and Development Technology Project Design and Development (3-6) Graduate Certificate Program TECH 5100 Technology in a Facilitative Environment (3) TECHNOLOGY TECH 5200 Undergraduate and ENVIRONMENT Graduate • Inquiry-based Technology Philosophy and Practice (3) Technology Certificates • Hands-on TECH 5400 • 3-4 Courses • Interdisciplinary Practicum in Technology • Electives • Facilitating Project Design and Development (3-6) • 15 Credits • Teams TECH 6000 • Projects Facilitating Technology in a Hands-on Environment (3) Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 24
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Repeatability ExampleMissouri STEM Implementation *Missouri Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs) • North West MO - NW MO State Univ. - Maryville • South Central - MO S&T- Rolla • South West MO - MO State Univ. – Springfield • St. Louis - University of MO - St. Louis • Central - UCMO - Warrensburg • South East - SE MO State Univ. - Cape Girardeau • Heart of MO - University of MO - Columbia • Kansas City - University of MO - Kansas City • North East MO - Truman State University - Kirksville Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 25
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Outcomes Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 26
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012Learning into Practice Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration STEM Pre-Service, In-Service Education, Fundamental Concepts in SmartLab™ utilizing temporary facility; Classes begin in 4 – 6 months, Year 1. Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction Public Planning Process, Design Development, Construction, 2 - 3 years; Concurrent with Demonstration Phase. Phase III - 21st Century in Practice STEM Teacher Education, Regional Professional Development Center, Child Development Center, Small Business Development, General Education, Capstone Program Support, Community Resource; Full Implementation of Technology Learning Center. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 27
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Phase I 21st Century Learning Demonstration The focus is on teachers and STEM education. The demonstration phase allows rapid implementation of a SmartLab™ in a temporary facility for Pre- Service and In-Service teachers. Year round services delivered in the region include classes, workshops and summer programs. Teachers will experience and develop or enhance 21st century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, effective communications, self- direction and project management, while experiencing the application of hands-on technology. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 28
  • Technology Learning Center - Implementation 1/20/2012 Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration Demonstration Facility – Applications – Temporary Facility (shovel-ready) • Pre-Service, In-Service Education • Renovation/Construction • Workshops and Summer Programs – 4,000 sq. ft. – Partnerships • SmartLab™ • Regional Professional – 24 - 30 Seats, 4 Islands Development Center • Lab, Seminar, and Facilitator Areas • Local/Regional Campus – Facility Usage 4 yr. Estimates* – Resource Development • Pre-Service Students – 750 - 950 – Evaluation/Oversight • In-Service Teachers – 1350 - 1690 • Advisory Group • Total Training Hours – 109,000 - 136,000 • Outcomes – Duration - 4 Years Developed By: R. Lurker* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment © 2012, 2011, 2010 29
  • Technology Learning Center - Implementation 1/20/2012 Phase I - 21st Century Learning Demonstration SmartLab™* Learning Environment: Critical Thinking Staffing Problem Solving, Creativity Facilitators: ePortfolio Collaboration University/College Faculty Communication Graduate Students Self-Direction Application of Technology Project Management Information and Media Literacy Developed By: R. Lurker* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™ © 2012, 2011, 2010 30
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Phase II Design Collaboration and Construction To educate in the 21st century we must replace the factory model designs for education and make the learning environment real and relevant to todays technology as well as the students’ lives. The environment itself and the objects within it become a teaching tool or “three-dimensional textbook” (Taylor, 2009). The innovative design becomes an outgrowth of the collaboration between the University/college campus and community engagement, as the boundaries blur, to benefit and serve the whole community. The Center’s construction becomes a living, touchable example of green design and sustainability, a flexible learning environment . The TLC Project’s unique building design provides the modern infrastructure to facilitate Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s goal for “states to recruit, train, mentor and support a great new generation of teachers who can better prepare our students for college and work.” Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 31
  • Technology Learning Center - Implementation 1/20/2012Phase II - Design Collaboration and Construction Technology Learning Center Design and Construction – Public Planning Process – Building and Facilities Construction • University/College • Planning Duration • Public Education and Community – Begin 6 months – 1 year from • Business and Industry Phase I startup • Government – 6 months – 1 year – Design Development • Construction • Holistic, Sustainable Environment – 18 months – 2 Years – Green Design and Construction – Technology Learning Center Transition – LEED Certification • Building Testing and Staging – Resource Development • Relocations • Business and Industry Partnerships • Dedication Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 32
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Lab Design Concepts/Possibilities Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 33
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Advanced Zone Design ApplicationsSimulation Vendors • Judgment Use of Force • Firearms Training • Counter-Terrorism • Chem-bio response • Marksmanship Training • Incident Command • Tactical Carbine • Tactical Handgun skills • Rifle Instructor • Behavior Pattern Recognition • Checkpoint Security Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 34
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Advanced Zone Design Applications (Cont.) Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 35
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Community Design Applications/InteractionsLevel 2 - Example Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 36
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Community Design Applications/InteractionsLevel 3 - Roof Example Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 37
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Building Design Concept - Example Developed By: R. LurkerOriginal concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg © 2012, 2011, 2010 38
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Phase III 21st Century In Practice Completed construction of the 21st Century Technology Learning Center brings together under one roof STEM Teacher Education, Regional Professional Development Center, Child Development Center, Small Business Development, General Education, and Capstone course support to serve the community. Expanding resources for the university/college and STEM teacher education through the advanced technology zones, the Elementary Technology Center, and the Child Development Center will provide unique opportunities including collaboration, partnerships, project-based learning and student observations. The TLC “addresses a basic need for teacher professional development that models current best practices in educational theory. …Teaching multiple ages using the same centralized facility ensures continuity in learning that has been lacking in the educational system as a whole.” (Taylor, 2009) Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 39
  • Technology Learning Center - Implementation 1/20/2012 Phase III - 21st Century in Practice Operations – Programs – Operational Functions • STEM Teacher Education • Revenue Development • Regional Professional – Tuition, Fees and Grants Development Center – Facilities Generation, Rentals and Sales • Child Development Center – Partnerships and Sponsorships • Small Business Development • Expenditures • General Education – Staffing and Technology • Capstone Program Support – Building Maintenance – Evaluation/Oversight – Facility Usage Estimates • Expanded Advisory Group • Based on Phase II Design Collaboration • Outcomes – Duration: Useful Building Life Estimate 25 years Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 40
  • Technology Learning Center - Stakeholders 1/20/2012 Opportunities for Your Involvement• Partnerships • Research – Education – STEM – Business and Industry – Educational – Government – Business and Industry – Foundations • Funding• Sponsorships – Public – Labs – Private – Facilities – Exhibits• Advisory Group Committees – Technology Center – Child Development Center – Professional Development Center – Business and Entrepreneurial Center Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 41
  • Technology Learning Center - Funding Opportunities 1/20/2012 Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 42
  • Technology Learning Center - Budget Estimates 1/20/2012 Technology Learning Center Phase I - Teacher Preparation – 21st Century Learning Demonstration • Programs – STEM Teacher Education – Classes, Workshops, Summer Camp • Temporary Facility – 24 - 30 Seat SmartLab™ • Partnerships – Regional Professional Development Center – Local/Regional Campus • 4 years • $4.6 - $5.2 Million • Funding through public/private partnerships Developed By: R. LurkerCustom-designed for each Campus based on their unique educational goals and usage models. © 2012, 2011, 2010* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment 43
  • Technology Learning Center - Budget Estimates 1/20/2012 Technology Learning Center Phase III - Teachers/Students/Community – 21st Century in Practice • Programs – STEM Teacher Education Phase II – Engineering and Construction – Elementary Technology Center – Design Collaboration and Construction – Advanced Zones and Labs • Public Planning Process – Regional Professional Development Center – Child Development Center • Final Design Development – Small Business Development – Holistic, Sustainable Environment – General Education • Construction/Equipment/Furnishings – Capstone Program Support • Resource Development • Facility Usage Estimates – Business and Industry Partnerships – Based on Phase II Design Collaboration • 2 – 3 years • Cost Estimate • $25 - $40 Million – Based on Phase II Design Collaboration Developed By: R. LurkerCustom-designed for each Campus based on their unique educational goals and usage models. © 2012, 2011, 2010 44
  • Technology Learning Center - Budget Estimates 1/20/2012 STEM Implementation Statewide Phase I - Teacher Preparation – Regional Professional Development Centers (State of Missouri) • Programs – STEM Teacher Education – Classes, Workshops, Summer Camp • Temporary Facility Phases II & III - – 24 - 30 Seat SmartLab™ Teachers/Students/Community • Partnerships – Regional Professional Development Center – Technology Learning Centers – Local/Regional Campus • Customized to individual Campus • 3 – 5 Years Implementation • Capital Cost $9 Million Total for 9 Locations • Operations $2 to $3 Million per Lab – Over 4-year period Developed By: R. LurkerCustom-designed for each Campus based on their unique educational goals and usage models. © 2012, 2011, 2010 45
  • Technology Learning Center - Summary 1/20/2012 TLC - STEM Education TransformationPhase I:  STEM Education Reform Outcomes 21st Century Learning Environment  Qualified STEM educators  Demonstration of best practices - SmartLab™  Improved student/teacher retention and graduation rates  Preparing for a global economy through immersion  Integrated, transdisciplinary STEM learning methods  Collaborative education/STEM literacy  Improved standardized test performance Pre-Service STEM Teacher Education Phases II and III:  Teachers, counselors and administrators, PreK-16  Technology Focal Point for PreK-20  Hands-on, whole brain learning experience  General Education technology classes (All Majors) In-Service Training Support for PreK-20  Accessible, observable and interactive technology  Teachers, counselors and administrators  Facilities for integrated capstone courses  Regional Professional Development Centers  Community Partnerships  Underperforming schools and districts statewide  Access to integrated technology and training  Students and parents in public and charter schools  Universities, colleges and foundations  Business and industry, law enforcement, military  21st Century Green Building Showcase  Living, working, growing, flexible and adaptable  Holistic, sustainable environment, green design  Alternative energy demonstration and application  Best practices in educational facilities design and operations Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 46
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Selected Bibliography• Abramson, P. (2005). 10th Annual School Construction Report. • Creative Learning Systems. (1994). Creative Learning Plaza: Dayton: School Planning & Management. The Ultimate Environment for Authentic Learning . San Diego,• Abramson, P. (2005, February). 2005 College Construction CA: Creative Learning Systems, Inc. Report. College Planning & Management . • Creative Learning Systems. (2004). Self-Directed Learning,• American Architectural Foundation & KnowlwdgeWorks Curriculum Design and The Creative Learning Environment . Foundation. (2005). National Summit on School Design. San Diego, CA: Creative Learning Systems. Washington, DC: American Architectural Foundation & • Creative Learning Systems. (2004). The SmartLab. Longmont, KnowlwdgeWorks Foundation. CO: Creative Learning Systems.• American Architectural Foundation. (2006). Designed For • Dando, A. (2004). Standardized Test Performance In a Creative Learning Forum, School Design and Student Learning in the Learning Environment. San Diego: Creative Learning Systems. 21st Century. Washington, DC: American Architectural • Disney Institute. (2001). Perfecting the art of customer service. Foundation. New York: Disney Editions.• Anstrand, D. E., & Kirkbirde, E. E. (2009). The Education • Duncan, A. (2009, November 23). Duncan Endorses Efforts to Environment Program. DesignShare. Improve STEM Education. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov:• Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of www.ed.gov understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. • Duncan, A. (2009, February 9). Secretary Arne Duncan Speaks Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Council on Development. Education. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov: www.ed.gov• Brubaker, C. W. (1997). Planning and Designing Schools. New • Duncan, A. (2009, March 12). Secretary Arne Duncan Testifies York: McGraw-Hill. Before the House Budget Committee on the Fiscal Year 2010• Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching Budget Request. Retrieved 2009, from ED.gov: www.ed.gov and the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for • Garcia, A. G. (n.d.). Designing Early College High Schools: What Supervision and Curriculum Development. does it take? Texas High School Project.• Cibulka, J. G. (2009). Meeting Urgent National Needs in P-12 • Herrmann, N. (2006). Making Partnerships and Alliances Really Education: Improving Relevance, Evidence, and Performance in Work. Lake Lure, NC: The Ned Herrmann Group. Teacher Preparation. Washington: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 47
  • Technology Learning Center - Bibliography 1/20/2012• Herrmann, N. (1994). The Creative Brain. Kingsport: Brain • Kats, G. (2006). Greening Americas Schools: Costs and Books. Benefits. Washington: The U.S. Green Building Council.• Herrmann, N. (1996). The Whole Brain Business Book. Ney • Lemke, C. (2003). Standards for a Modern World: Preparing York: McGraw-Hill. Students for the Future. Learning & Leading with Technology ,• Herrmann-Nehdi, A. (1998, January). Training With The Brain In 31 (1). Mind: The Application Of Brain Dominance Technology To • Locker, F. M., & Olsen, S. (2004). Design Share The Teaching And Learning. Lake Lure, NC, USA: Herrmann International Forum for Innovative Schools. Retrieved 2010, from International. Flexible School Facilities:• Hoody, L., & Lieberman, G. (1998). Closing the achievement designshare.com/Research/Locker/FlexibleSchools.asp gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for • Machi, E. (2009). Improving U.S. Competitiveness with K12 learning. State Education and Environment Roundtable. STEM Education and Training. Washington: The Heritage• International Technology Association. (2003). Advancing Foundation. Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, • Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM Education: The Professional Development, and Program Standards. Reston, VA: Students, The Academy, The Classroom. TIES STEM International Technology Education Association. Monograph Series.• International Technology Association. (2000). Standards for • Nair, P. (2009). Dont Just Rebuild Schools-Reinvent Them. Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Education Week , 28 (28), 24-25. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association and • National Alliance For Pre-Engineering Programs. (2002). Project its Technology for All Americans Project. Lead The Way. Project Lead The Way . Clifton Park, New York:• ISTE International Society for Technology in Education. Project Lead The Way. Maximizing the Impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, century education system. Eugene, OR : ISTE International National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association Society for Technology in Education. of State Boards of Education, Council of Chief State School• Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Officers. (2008). Accelerating the Agenda: Actions to Improve Education: Understanding The Status and Improving The Americas High Schools. Washington, DC: National Governors Prospects. National Academy of Engineering and National Association. Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on K- • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. 12 Engineering Education. Washington: The National Academies (2008). Promoting STEM Education: A Communications Toolkit. Press. Washington: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 48
  • Technology Learning Center - Bibliography 1/20/2012• National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: House of Representatives STEM Hearing. Retrieved 2009, from Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda. Tech & Learning: www.techlearning.com Washington, DC: National Governors Association. • The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families,• National Institute of Building Sciences. (2010, January 25). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for McGraw-Hill Construction Monthly, Historical, and Forecast Human Resource Management. (2006). Are They Really Ready Data. Retrieved 2010, from National Clearinghouse for To Work? Employers Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Educational Facilities - Data & Statistics: www.edfacilities.org Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century U.S.• Pullias, D. (1997, April). The Future is ... Beyond Modular. The Workforce. The Conference Board, Inc. Technology Teacher. • The White House. (2009, November 29). Educate to Innovate.• Pullias, D. (1992, January). What is Technology Education? The Retrieved 2009, from The White House: www.whitehouse.gov Technology Teacher. • The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2009,• Reed Business Information . (2009, May 11). RSMeans. November 23). President Obama Launches "Educate to Retrieved 2009, from Quick Cost Estimator: www.rsmeans.com Innovate" Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology,• Reynard, R. (2008). 21st Century Teaching and Learning: Engineering & Math (STEM) Education. Retrieved 2009, from Assessing New Knowledge. THE Journal. The White House: www.whitehouse.gov• Schneider, J. W. (2006). Designing and Building for the Class of • Thode, B. (1989, November). Applying Higher Level Thinking 2020. Building Design and Construction. Skills. The Technology Teacher.• Snyder, M., & Causey, D. (2006). Alaskas Smart Science • U.S. Green Building Council. (2003). Building Momentum: Through Technology (AKS2T2). Anchorage, AK, USA: College National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green of Education, University of Alaska Anchorage. Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.• Taylor, A. P. (2009). Linking Architecture and Education: • Wright, M. (2000). From The Editor: What does an Elementary Sustainable Design for Learning Environments. Albuquerque: School Technology Education Classroom Look Like? University of New Mexico Press. Technology and Children, 5 (2), 2-4.• Teach For America. (2008). 2008 Annual Report: Priorities and Results. New York, NY: Teach For America.• Technology & Learning. (2009, March 29). Survey says students dont think their schools tech is current. Retrieved 2009, from Technology & Learning: www.techlearning.com• Technology & Learning. (2009, March 5). Testimony from [U.S.] Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 49
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 ContributorsFrom the initial conceptual “seeds” to the development of this Thomas R. Atkinson, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Educational Technology Learning Center proposal, a wide array of individuals Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO have contributed their expertise, experience and visions for STEM David Baird, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Industrial & Engineering education reform. They participated in interviews via e-mails, phone Technology and Middle & Secondary Education, Cape calls or in person; facilitated and/or hosted numerous site visits; Girardeau, MO provided reference data, information, and analyses; and reviewed Rochelle R. Barabas, M.S., Assistant Professor of Graphic Imaging drafts. Inclusion as a contributor is not meant to imply formal and Design Technology, University of Central Missouri, endorsement of this draft proposal by an individual and/or Warrensburg, MO organization; it is a recognition of their assistance to the author. Dr. Chris Belcher, Assistant Superintendent, Warrensburg R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO Julie J. Blaine, M.S., Interim Director of the Central Regional Dr. Jerry Ackins, Superintendent, Crest Ridge R-VII School District, Professional Development Center, University of Central Centerview, MO Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Bob Ahring, Director, Public Safety, University of Central Missouri, Zinna L. Bland, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Business Education, Warrensburg, MO University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Martha L. Albin, Ed.D., Interim Vice President, Finance and George W. Boddy, Ph.D., Director of Extended Campus and Administration, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Distance Learning, University of Central Missouri, MO Warrensburg, MO Jennifer E. Aldrich, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Early Childhood Steven R. Boone, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Sciences and Professor of Chemistry, University of Central Pat Anderson, Director, Safety and Security, Great Basin College, Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Elko, NV Butch Borasky, Board of County Commissioners, Nye County, Patricia A. Antrim, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Educational Pahrump, NV Leadership and Human Development and Associate Professor Richard D. Bruce, Ph.D., LEED AP, Assistant Professor, of Library Science and Information Services, University of Department of Technology and Construction Management. Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Missouri State University, Springfield, MO Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 50
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Ruth S. Burkett, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Science Education, E. Samuel Cox, Ph.D., Interim Chair of the Department of University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Communications and Professor of Speech Communications,Julie Burner, Director of Technology, Holden R-III School District, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Holden, MO Shawn Cripe, Projects Administrator, Office of SponsoredKim Butler, Facilitator Support Specialist, Creative Learning Programs, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO; Formerly Instructor, Technology Angla Dando, Ph.D., Education System Analyst, International Education, Roosevelt High School, Johnstown, CO; and Relations, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO Facilitator, Aims Community College, Greeley, CO Edward W. Davenport, Ph.D., Chair of the Department ofKathryn A. Callahan, Ph.D., Professor of Fashion and Apparel Mathematics and Computer Science and Professor of Merchandising, School of Technology, University of Central Mathematics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Dr. Jim Davis, Principal, Warrensburg Middle School, WarrensburgPricilla L. Callison, Ph.D., Director of Pedagogy & Research, R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO Regional Professional Development Center, University of Pauline Denning, Technology Coordinator, Thomas R-2J School Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO District, Loveland, COGlenn A. Carriker, Ed.S., Interim Director, Missouri Safety Center, Matt Dickstein, Chief Executive Officer, Creative Learning Systems, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Inc., Longmont, COBryan W. Carter, Ph.D., Associate Professor of English, University Mollie M. Dinwiddie, Ed.S., Interim Dean, Library Services and of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Professor of Library Services, University of Central Missouri,Kyle R. Carter, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Warrensburg, MO Affairs and Professor of Psychology, University of Central Linda Dooling, Director, Professional Development, Missouri Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, JeffersonGary Clark, Whiteman Training and Education Center, Whiteman City, MO Air Force Base, Knob Noster, MO Joyce A. Downing, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College ofJulie A. Clawson, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Nursing and Education and Associate Professor of Special Education, Professor of Nursing, University of Central Missouri, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Warrensburg, MO Boyd K. Earl, Kindergarten Teacher, Nibley Park ElementaryRenee S. Cole, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake City, UT of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 51
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Paula J. Elefante, Executive Director, EDEN, Inc. Economic John W. D. Gole, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Biology and Development Authority Nye County, Pahrump, NV Earth Science and Associate Professor of Biology, University ofPaul H. Engelmann, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Dr. Dan Gordon, Principal, Warrensburg High School, WarrensburgTerri Fayle, Assistant to the Director and Program Administrator, R-VI School District, Warrensburg, MO Office of Sponsored Programs, University of Central Missouri, Doug Graham, Educational Consultant/CEO, School Technologies Warrensburg, MO Inc., Albuquerque, NMLarry G. Ficken, Superintendent, Knob Noster R-VIII School Alice L. Greife, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Science and District, Knob Noster, MO Technology and Professor of Industrial Hygiene, University ofSteve Fotenos, U.S. Secret Service, Kansas City, MO Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MOTom Frayer, SmartLab Facilitator, Mountain View High School, Carl J. Grigsby, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Secondary/Middle Thomas R-2J School District, Loveland, CO School Education, University of Central Missouri,Richard A. Frazier, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Science Warrensburg, MO Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Lt. Ed Gulic, Public Affairs, Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster,Karen B. French, Assistant Director Community Engagement, MO Union Station, Central Missouri State University, Kansas City, Carolyn Harris, Consultant, Health Systems Planning, Policy and MO Program Planning, Administration, Evaluation, Research andGary S. Frey, Ed.D., Professor of Industrial Technology, University Grant Writing, Riverside, CA of Montana Western, Dillon, MT Dr. Lindell L. Harrison, Superintendent, Holden R-III School District,Eric D. Fudge, M.S., Director, Instructional Technology and Design, Holden, MO Center for Teaching and Learning, Central Missouri State M. Gene Heaton, Enterprise GIS Project Supervisor, City of San University, Warrensburg, MO Antonio, San Antonio, TXDorothy S. Gallagher, Board of Regents, Nevada System of Higher Janet Herdon, North Kansas City School District, Kansas City, MO Education, Elko, NV Patricia Herrmann, Client Relationship Manager, HerrmannTed R. Garten, Ph.D., Development Officer, College of Education International, Lake Lure, NC and Human Services, University of Central Missouri, Jerry Hill, Ed.S., Assistant Superintendent for Student Warrensburg, MO Achievement, Nye County School District, Pahrump, NV Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 52
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Mark Hines, Technology Coordinator, Mid-Pacific Institute, Andrew K. King, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Elementary Honolulu, HI Education and Technology, University of Central Missouri,Karen Holley, Grant Writer, Nye County School District, Pahrump, Warrensburg, MO NV Darrell Lacy, Director, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository,Eric C. Honour, Jr., D.Mus., Director of Music Technology and Pahrump, NV Assistant Professor of Music, University of Central Missouri, Sharon L. Lamson, Ph.D., Chair Curriculum and Instruction and Warrensburg, MO Professor of Elementary Education, University of CentralDelores Hudson, Board of Governors, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Tammy Long, Executive Director, Greater Warrensburg AreaC. Wilson Hurst, M.S., Assistant Professor of Graphic Arts Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center, Warrensburg, MO Technology Management and Photography, University of LTC William R. Lynn, M.B.A., Chair of the Department of Military Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Science and Leadership and Professor of Military Science,Patricia Jannuzzi, Principal, Academic Lafayette Charter School, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Kansas City, MO James R. Machell, Jr., Ph.D., Chair of the Department ofMichael Jinks, Ph.D., Superintendent, Warrensburg R-VI School Educational Leadership and Human Development and District, Warrensburg, MO Professor of Educational Leadership, University of CentralOdin L. Jurkowski, Ed.D., Chair of the Department of Career and Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Technology Education and Associate Professor of Instructional Bob MacIntosh, Associate Director of Technology, Mid-Pacific Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Institute, Honolulu, HI; formerly Creative Learning Systems,Richard C. Kahoe, Ed.S., Associate Professor of Career and Inc., Longmont, CO Technology Education, University of Central Missouri, James R. Marble, Ph.D., Habitat Restoration Biologist, Las Vegas, Warrensburg, MO NV; formerly, Director of Natural Resources Office Nye County,Dr. Larry Keisker, Director, Clinical SVCS, University of Central NV Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Barbara J. Mayfield, J.D., Director of Accessibility Services,Joseph Kelly, AIA, Project Architect, Sprotte+Watson Architecture ADA/504 Coordinator, University of Central Missouri, & Planning, Inc., Vista, CA Warrensburg, MOGregory E. Kennedy, Ph.D., Professor of Child and Family Christopher M. Meehan, M.S., Assistant Professor of Computer Development, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Aided Drafting and Design, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 53
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Matthew A. Melvin, Ed.D., Assistant Provost for Enrollment Paul A. Page, Ph.D., Vice President for University Advancement, Management, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MODean Meyers, President, Inventive Technology Inc., Westminster, Kyle W. Palmer, Ph.D., – Program Coordinator and Professor of CO Computer Aided Drafting and Design Technology, University ofLarry K. Michaelsen, Ph.D., Professor of Management, University Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Bobby R. Patton, Ph.D., President and Professor of SpeechCarol A. Mihalevich, Ph.D., Professor of Reading, University of Communication, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO MODr. Doug Miller, Coordinator of Professional Development, Ann M. Pearce, B.S., Associate to the President, University of Leadership Academy, Missouri Department of Elementary and Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO Novella Perrin, Ph.D., Dean of The Graduate School and AssistantW. Douglas Miller, Supervisor of Technology Education, Provost for Research, University of Central Missouri, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, State of Warrensburg, MO Missouri, Jefferson City, MO Aaron M. Podolefsky, Ph.D., President and Professor of History andJulie Milner, Charter School Technology Coordinator, Academic Anthropology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Lafayette Charter School, Kansas City, MO Pamela Raffurty, Director, Workshop on Wheels Child CareJoy Mockelmann, Ph.D., Supervisor, State System of Support, Resource & Referral, University of Central Missouri, Wyoming Department of Education, Cheyenne, WY Warrensburg, MOThomas M. Moore, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Agriculture, Jim Ramos, Regional Manager, Advanced Interactive Systems, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO AIS, Seattle, WAGary Nelson, President, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Dan Ramseier, President, High Country Technology Consultants Longmont, CO Inc., Greeley, COLareesa Nelson, Business Manager, Urban Community Leadership Larry Ray, Contracts and Capital Development Manager, University Academy (UCLA), Kansas City, MO of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MORobert J. Ohrenberg, Ed.D., Professor of Manufacturing C. David Rice, Ph.D., Assistant Provost for Information Technology Management, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO and Instruction and Professor of History, University of CentralCarolyn P. O’Keefe, M.S., Director of Lee’s Summit Facility, Missouri, Warrensburg, MO University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Joe C. Rice, President and CEO, Mid-Pacific Institute, Honolulu, HI Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 54
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Diana Ringen, Librarian, Whiteman AFB Elementary, Knob Noster Richard D. Sluder, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Health and R-VIII School District, Knob Noster, MO Human Services, and Professor of Criminal Justice. FormerlyBetty Roberts, Ph.D., Vice President of Administration and Finance, Interim Dean of the College of Education and Human Services, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MOKent Roberts, Principal, Pahrump Valley High School, Nye County Stan Smith, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Warrensburg R- School District, Pahrump, NV VI School District, Warrensburg, MODr. William E. Roberts, Superintendent of Nye County School Mary L. Snyder, Ph.D., Dean, College of Education and Professor District; Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired), Pahrump, NV of Education, University of Alaska Anchorage, AKBeth C. Rutt, M.S., Director of Campus Activities, Central Missouri Margaret E. Stone, Ph.D., Interim Director of Sponsored Research State University, Warrensburg, MO and Projects, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MOWesley A. Savage, P.E., M.B.A., Director, Institute for Marcus L. Stucker, Director Aux. Services, Holden R-III School Entrepreneurial Studies and Development, University of Central District, Holden, MO Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Sue E. Sundberg, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics Education,Joseph A. Scarcella, Ph.D., Program Coordinator University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Adult/Vocational/Technology Teacher Education and Assistant Deborah Sutton, Director, Instructional Technology, Missouri Professor, California State University, San Bernardino, CA Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, JeffersonSuzanne Schelp, Copyright Permissions Coordinator, Library City, MO Services, James C Kirkpatrick Library, University of Central John R. Sutton, Ph.D., Chair of the School of Technology and Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Professor of Technology, University of Central Missouri,Dan L. Sevier, Assistant Superintendent, Knob Noster R-VIII School Warrensburg, MO District, Knob Noster, MO Bob Swadell, Developer, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired),Y.T. Shah, Sc.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Pahrump, NV University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Anne Taylor, Ph.D., Hon, AIA, ACSA Distinguished Professor,Judith Penrod Siminoe, J.D., General Counsel, University of School of Architecture and Planning, University of New Mexico, Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Albuquerque, NMClaire A. Sinclair, Public Affairs Specialist, U.S. Department of Windy Thill, Director, Career & Technical Education, Shawnee Energy, Office of External Affairs, Pahrump, NV Mission Public Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 55
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012Douglas D. Thomas, Ed.D., Director, Midwest Center for Charter Michael E. Wiggins, Ph.D., Director National Police Institute and Schools and Urban Education, and Professor of Education Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Central Missouri, Administration, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Warrensburg, MO MO Ruthann Williams, M.S., Assistant Professor of BusinessFrank Tussing, Executive Director, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Energy & Business, Las Vegas, NV Kurt Williamson, Vice President of Learning Environments, CreativeJeffrey M. Ulmer, M.S., Assistant Professor of Industrial Learning Systems, Inc., Longmont, CO Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Diane C. Wilson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of InstructionalGene A. Vinson, Ed.S., Director of the Central Regional Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Professional Development Center, University of Central George W. Wilson, Ph.D., Interim Provost and Vice President for Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics, University ofPeter L. Viscusi, Ph.D., Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Studies and Dean of The Honors College and Professor of Frederick D. Worman, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Agriculture History, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO and Professor of Agriculture, University of Central Missouri,Victoria S. Voland, B.S.E., Director of the Foster/Knox Child Care Warrensburg, MO Center, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Michael D. Wright, Ed.D., Dean of Education and Professor ofTroy E. Wade, Chairman, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy & Career and Technology Education, University of Central Business, Las Vegas, NV Missouri, Warrensburg, MOBarton A. Washer, Ph.D., Assistant V Professor of Occupational Benny K. Yates, M.A., Assistant Professor of Technology Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Education, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MORussell A. Watson, M.S., AIA, Principal, Sprotte+Watson John R. Zelazek, Ph.D., Professor of Secondary Education, Architecture & Planning, Inc., Vista, CA University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MOE. Lee Weir, Ed.D., Professor of Graphic Imaging and Design John N. Zey, M.S., Associate Professor of Industrial Hygiene, Technology, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MOBernard Westley, Urban Community Leadership Academy (UCLA), Kansas City, MO Note: University of Central Missouri; formerly Central MissouriVirginia E. Wheeless, Ph.D, Dean of the College of Arts and State University Sciences and Professor of Communications, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 56
  • Technology Learning Center - Contributors 1/20/2012 Site VisitsThe Harold S. Winograd Center for Innovative Learning, Aims Community College, Aims College Corporate Education Center, Greeley, COGuajome Park Academy, Vista Unified School District, Vista, CAMid-Pacific Institute, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Technology Plaza and the Dennis S. L. Chew Technology Center, Honolulu, HIMountain View High School, Tech Lab, Thompson R-2J School District, Loveland, CONibley Park Elementary School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake City, UTRoosevelt High School, Weld RE5J School District, Johnstown, COShawnee Mission North High School, Shawnee Mission Public Schools, Shawnee Mission, KSShawnee Mission South High School, Shawnee Mission Public Schools, Shawnee Mission, KSSouthwest Secondary Learning Center, Southwest Learning Centers, Albuquerque, NMWood River Middle School, Blaine County School District, Hailey, IDYucca Mountain, Nuclear Waste Repository, U.S. Department of Energy, Nye County, NV Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 57
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012STEM Education Refor m:Technology Learning Center “In the realm of technology, the educational community is playing catch-up. Industry is far ahead of education. And tech-savvy high school students often are far ahead of their teachers.” To learn how you can become involved, please contact: “Public schools that do not adapt to the technology needs of students risk becoming increasingly irrelevant. Students will seek Robert R. Lurker, M.Ed. other options.” 11392 Skylux Ave. South Jordan, UT 84095 “Reforms within the system will require strong 660-441-1469 leadership and a willingness to restructure rlurker@gmail.com the learning environment in fundamental ways.” ~ Conclusions, National Technology Plan, 2005 ~ Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 58
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Appendices Potential Course Descriptions Slide # 60 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of Technology Slide # 61- 63 Pre-Service & General Education Classes Slide # 64 Building Design Concept Slide # 65 Applications Slide # 66 Extended Campus Slide # 67 Potential Revenue Source Generation Slide #68-69 High School Repurposing Model Slide # 70 P-20 Planning Considerations Slide # 71 Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 59
  • Technology Learning Center - Potential Course Descriptions 1/20/2012 TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology (3) Level One This course presents learners with practical hands-on engagements to build skills in, science, technology, engineering, math and communications, using a problem-solving, First Introduction collaborative approach. Learners work in pairs or in teams, discovering underlying principles Self-Directed Learning of technology and applying them through critical thinking, systems design, problem solving, and decision-making. Students will be introduced to concepts such as self-assessment, portfolio creation and relating to the facilitator as a co-learner rather than an authority. TECH 2000 Level Two Technology & Self-Direction (3) This course continues the learner’s introduction to the lab’s technology and deepens the Deepening learner’s understanding of the philosophy and practice of research, problem solving, self- Understanding directed learning, and especially metacognition. The learning is then introduced to small Small Project Design project design and development. Prerequisite: TECH 1000 or consent of instructor TECH 4000 Projects Technology Project Design & Development (3-6) In this course, learners research, design & develop complex projects using group Self-Direction collaboration, addressing areas of special interest, business or community need. Learners Design Collaboration at this level are expected to combine skills and concepts to solve complex problems. and Development May be repeated for a maximum of 6 semester hours. Prerequisite: TECH 1000, 2000 or consent of instructor Developed By: R. LurkerAssessments are portfolio-based. All courses are linked to local, state, or national academic standards. © 2012, 2011, 2010 60
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of TechnologyCore Competencies In Computer Graphics, students explore areas such as graphic arts, image capture, photo processing and manipulation, animation and special effects. They learn to distinguish between, and effectively use, bitmap graphics (digital “painting”), and object- oriented graphics (computer-aided “drawing” or “CAD”) applications. As learnersComputer Graphics progress, they integrate computer graphics with other software applications to create advanced graphic and commercial art, websites and multimedia presentations. Computer graphics also serves as an important portfolio development tool for documenting projects and learning processes. In this system of technology, students collect experimental data using testing equipment and probeware, typically linked with a computer-controlled interface. DataScience and Data are then analyzed to draw conclusions from experiments. Students engineer and test Acquisition scale models and analyze materials and structure. Using chemical, physical and bioscience probeware, students collect and analyze experimental data to explore principles of science through hands-on, inquiry-based projects. In this area of study, mechanical processes are managed through automation controlRobotics and Control interfaces and learners design and program robotic systems to perform task-oriented Technology challenges. Students explore logical programming and explore how sensors, electronic and computer controllers are used to manage complex mechanical processes. The concept of sense, decide, and act is introduced and students develop whole-systems perspectives. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 61
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of TechnologyCore Competencies The study of circuitry is explored through electricity, pneumatics and microelectronics.Circuitry Students develop an understanding of the scientific and technological principles underlying each of these systems. With this foundation, students design complex systems utilizing each technology. This broad area of inquiry encompasses the capture and production of content in any single media, such as print, sound or electronic media. It includes word processing,Publishing presentations, and graphic representation of data or processes in the form of flowcharts, tables and graphs. It also includes the capture, production and presentation of single-media content such as audio, video and digital still images. Learners quickly progress from developing core competencies in these areas to the regular application of these tools to document their learning throughout the SmartLab™. In this area of study, computer-based systems are used to model real-world systems and processes. Learners use software tools to explore cause-and-effect dynamics inComputer Simulation complex systems. Computer simulation in the SmartLab™ spans such diverse subjects as the engineering of bridge systems, electronic and mechanical system design, economics and entrepreneurship, organizational, political and social systems, flight simulation, game design and scientific modeling. Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 62
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of TechnologyCore Competencies In Mechanical Systems, learners create and study structures and machines. Hands-on Mechanics and learning engagements foster an understanding of simple and complex machines and Structures structural physics. In multimedia design, learners develop advanced communications skills through the integration of two or more media using technology-based tools. Students explore linear and interactive presentations and the applications for each. Learners progress from Multimedia Design basic to more advanced software and production tools, creating dynamic video presentations, animated graphics, websites and interactive e-portfolios. As with all documentation and presentation applications in the SmartLab™, the emphasis quickly shifts from developing necessary skills to the application of the technology for portfolio development and presentation of learning. Developed By: R. LurkerSource: Creative Learning Systems, 2008; Resources and Systems of Technology, How They Come © 2012, 2011, 2010Together in a SmartLab™ 63
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Pre/Post-Service & General Education Classes• TECH 1000 Introduction to Technology • TECH 4000 • TECH 2000 Technology Project Design & Technology & Self Direction Development Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior • Academic Disciplines Concentrations in individual College/Programs • Academic Disciplines Capstone Courses using TLC Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 64
  • Technology Learning Center - Building Design Concept 1/20/2012 Centralized Multi-Age Facility Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 65
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Applications Developed By: R. LurkerOriginal concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg © 2012, 2011, 2010 66
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Extended Campus Developed By: R. LurkerOriginal concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg © 2012, 2011, 2010 67
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Potential Revenue Source Generation Service Partnership Opportunities  Community Resources • University/College • Energy generation – Tuition and fees – Wind – General access lab usage fees – Solar • Public schools – Other – Regional Professional Development Center • Recycling center/processing • Charter schools • Food service/Coffee Shop • Community Education classes – Student program management • Businesses – Product development/prototyping • Physical Arcade – Food sales to local restaurants, campus food • Climbing Wall services – Workshops  Global Production Biomes – Space/facilities rentals • Food production sales – Equipment rental/usage • Plant sales • Summer Camp/Summer workshops • Aquaculture production – Campus housing – Food services • Year-round indoor community gardens – Facilities • Summer garden spaces Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 68
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 Potential Revenue Source Generation (Cont.) Advanced Technology Zones  Elementary Technology Center • Collaboration Coves and Ideation Spaces • Classes and programs for children – Global business project – After-school classes collaboration/meetings – Evening classes • Business & Research Rentals – Summer programs/classes – Anechoic Chamber – Virtual Reality Public Safety & National Security Simulators  Child Development Center • Military including Reserves • Day-time childcare • Security, Safety • Evening childcare • Local Law Enforcement, Secret Service, • Community workshops FBI, Homeland Security – Virtual Reality CAVE – Parents, Childcare workers – Virtuality Studio & Editing Booths – Sound Studios – Hard Fabrication and Prototyping Zone – Fire & Water Zones • Burn lab • Water testing pool – Bio Technology Zones Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 69
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 High School: Repurposing Model v1.0 Developed By: R. LurkerHigh School Science and Technology areas repurposed to address the proposed 21st Century Science Standards. © 2012, 2011, 2010 70
  • Technology Learning Center 1/20/2012 P-20 Planning Considerations Developed By: R. Lurker © 2012, 2011, 2010 71