STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

Technology Learning Center
1/20/2012

STEM Education Reform:
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

1/20/2012

Presentation Contents
Overview 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 and
Learning 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 Practice
Learning 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
2

1/20/2012

STEM 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.”
© 2012, 2011, 2010
3

1/20/2012

Defining STEM Literacy

The National Governors Association (NGA) Innovation • Engineering literacy is the understanding of how
America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering technologies are developed via the engineering
and Math Agenda report provides definitions of STEM design process; … Engineering design is the
literacy developed by the Organisation for Economic systematic and creative application of scientific
Co-operation and Development and the International and mathematic principles to practical ends such
Technology 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 students
and 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)

© 2012, 2011, 2010
4

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.
© 2012, 2011, 2010
5

1/20/2012

TLC 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.

© 2012, 2011, 2010
6

1/20/2012

TLC 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.

© 2012, 2011, 2010
7

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
8

1/20/2012

TLC Project - Goals and Objectives
Goals: 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.
© 2012, 2011, 2010
9

1/20/2012

Learning 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).

© 2012, 2011, 2010
10

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 ePortfolio
fully-integrated classroom systems focused on system™ supports authentic assessment. Improved
technology exploration, alternative energy test scores have been documented. CLS applies
education 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 technologies
century skills such as critical thinking and problem is encouraged. They approach technology as a tool to
solving, collaboration, communication, project- be applied to workflow rather than as an isolated set of
management and self-direction. They apply leading- skills.
edge technology to academically linked, hands-on Because of their uniqueness, there is currently no
projects. It's a learning experience that engages, equivalent, competing product. The TLC project applies
challenges and motivates like no other.” and expands the model to the university/college level
www.creativelearningsystems.com and targets pre- and in-service teachers and students
completing general education requirements. The TLC
project also provides technological resources to
STEM Education Reform: Technology
business, industry, military and other aspects of the
Learning Center (TLC) general community.
Creative Learning Systems SmartLab™ is the
© 2012, 2011, 2010
11

1/20/2012

Learning Environment
Creative 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
© 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)

Creative Learning Plaza – Vista Village, California
© 2012, 2011, 2010
14

1/20/2012

Case Study
Southwest Secondary
Learning Center*

• Technology-based charter school
– Test results

*Created 2002 Albuquerque, NM

© 2012, 2011, 2010
15

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

* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™
© 2012, 2011, 2010
16

1/20/2012

Learning 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)

© 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”.
© 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
© 2012, 2011, 2010
19

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
20

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
21

1/20/2012

Learning Areas: Integrated Systems of Technology

* Creative Learning Technovation Plaza™ and SmartLab™ Transdisciplinary Learning Engagements
© 2012, 2011, 2010
22

1/20/2012

Educational Applications

© 2012, 2011, 2010
23

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)

© 2012, 2011, 2010
24

1/20/2012

Repeatability Example

Missouri 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
25

1/20/2012

Outcomes

© 2012, 2011, 2010
26

1/20/2012

Learning 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.

© 2012, 2011, 2010
27

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.

© 2012, 2011, 2010
28

Technology Learning Center - Implementation
1/20/2012

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

* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment
© 2012, 2011, 2010
29

1/20/2012


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

* Creative Learning SmartLab™ a basic version of the Technovation Plaza™
© 2012, 2011, 2010
30

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 today's 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.”
© 2012, 2011, 2010
31

1/20/2012

Phase 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
32

1/20/2012

Lab Design Concepts/Possibilities

© 2012, 2011, 2010
33

1/20/2012

Advanced Zone Design Applications
Simulation 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
34

1/20/2012

Advanced Zone Design Applications (Cont.)

© 2012, 2011, 2010
35

1/20/2012

Community Design Applications/Interactions

Level 2 - Example

© 2012, 2011, 2010
36

1/20/2012

Community Design Applications/Interactions

Level 3 - Roof Example

© 2012, 2011, 2010
37

1/20/2012

Building Design Concept - Example

Original concept developed for University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg
© 2012, 2011, 2010
38

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)

© 2012, 2011, 2010
39

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

© 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
41

Technology Learning Center - Funding Opportunities
1/20/2012

© 2012, 2011, 2010
42

Technology Learning Center - Budget Estimates
1/20/2012


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

Custom-designed for each Campus based on their unique educational goals and usage models.
© 2012, 2011, 2010
* Facility Usage based on 85% enrollment 43

1/20/2012


Phase III - Teachers/Students/Community
– 21st Century in Practice
• Programs
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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
44

1/20/2012

STEM Implementation Statewide

Phase I - Teacher Preparation
– Regional Professional Development
Centers (State of Missouri)
• Programs
– 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
© 2012, 2011, 2010
45

Technology Learning Center - Summary
1/20/2012

TLC - STEM Education Transformation
Phase 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
46

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).
© 2012, 2011, 2010
47

Technology Learning Center - Bibliography
1/20/2012

• Herrmann, N. (1994). The Creative Brain. Kingsport: Brain • Kats, G. (2006). Greening America's 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). Don't 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 America's 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.

© 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). Alaska's 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
don't think their schools' tech is current. Retrieved 2009, from
Technology & Learning: www.techlearning.com
• Technology & Learning. (2009, March 5). Testimony from [U.S.]

© 2012, 2011, 2010
49

1/20/2012

Contributors
From 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
50

Technology Learning Center - Contributors
1/20/2012

Ruth 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 Sponsored
Kim 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 of
Kathryn 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, Warrensburg
Pricilla 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, CO
Glenn 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, CO
Bryan 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, Jefferson
Gary 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 of
Julie 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 Elementary
Renee S. Cole, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt Lake City, UT
of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

© 2012, 2011, 2010
51

1/20/2012

Paula 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 of
Paul H. Engelmann, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO
Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Dr. Dan Gordon, Principal, Warrensburg High School, Warrensburg
Terri 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, NM
Larry 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 of
Steve Fotenos, U.S. Secret Service, Kansas City, MO Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO
Tom 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 and
Gary 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, TX
Dorothy 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, Herrmann
Ted 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
52

1/20/2012

Mark 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 Central
Delores Hudson, Board of Governors, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO
Missouri, Warrensburg, MO Tammy Long, Executive Director, Greater Warrensburg Area
C. 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 of
Michael Jinks, Ph.D., Superintendent, Warrensburg R-VI School Educational Leadership and Human Development and
District, Warrensburg, MO Professor of Educational Leadership, University of Central
Odin 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, MO
Gregory 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
53

1/20/2012

Matthew 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, MO
Dean Meyers, President, Inventive Technology Inc., Westminster, Kyle W. Palmer, Ph.D., – Program Coordinator and Professor of
CO Computer Aided Drafting and Design Technology, University of
Larry 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 Speech
Carol A. Mihalevich, Ph.D., Professor of Reading, University of Communication, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg,
Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO MO
Dr. 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 Assistant
W. 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 and
Julie 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 Care
Joy Mockelmann, Ph.D., Supervisor, State System of Support, Resource & Referral, University of Central Missouri,
Wyoming Department of Education, Cheyenne, WY Warrensburg, MO
Thomas M. Moore, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Agriculture, Jim Ramos, Regional Manager, Advanced Interactive Systems,
University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO AIS, Seattle, WA
Gary Nelson, President, Creative Learning Systems, Inc., Dan Ramseier, President, High Country Technology Consultants
Longmont, CO Inc., Greeley, CO
Lareesa Nelson, Business Manager, Urban Community Leadership Larry Ray, Contracts and Capital Development Manager, University
Academy (UCLA), Kansas City, MO of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO
Robert 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 Central
Carolyn 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
54

1/20/2012

Diana 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. Formerly
Betty 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, MO
Kent Roberts, Principal, Pahrump Valley High School, Nye County Stan Smith, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Warrensburg R-
School District, Pahrump, NV VI School District, Warrensburg, MO
Dr. 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, AK
Beth 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, MO
Wesley 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, Jefferson
Suzanne 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, NM
Claire 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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
55

1/20/2012

Douglas 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 Business
Frank 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, Creative
Jeffrey 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 Instructional
Gene 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 of
Peter 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 of
Troy E. Wade, Chairman, Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy & Career and Technology Education, University of Central
Business, Las Vegas, NV Missouri, Warrensburg, MO
Barton 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, MO
Russell 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, MO
E. 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, MO
Bernard Westley, Urban Community Leadership Academy (UCLA),
Kansas City, MO Note: University of Central Missouri; formerly Central Missouri
Virginia E. Wheeless, Ph.D, Dean of the College of Arts and State University
Sciences and Professor of Communications, University of
Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO

© 2012, 2011, 2010
56

1/20/2012

Site Visits

The Harold S. Winograd Center for Innovative Learning, Aims
Community College, Aims College Corporate Education Center,
Greeley, CO
Guajome Park Academy, Vista Unified School District, Vista, CA
Mid-Pacific Institute, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Technology
Plaza and the Dennis S. L. Chew Technology Center, Honolulu,
HI
Mountain View High School, Tech Lab, Thompson R-2J School
District, Loveland, CO
Nibley Park Elementary School, Salt Lake City School District, Salt
Lake City, UT
Roosevelt High School, Weld RE5J School District, Johnstown, CO
Shawnee Mission North High School, Shawnee Mission Public
Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS
Shawnee Mission South High School, Shawnee Mission Public
Schools, Shawnee Mission, KS
Southwest Secondary Learning Center, Southwest Learning
Centers, Albuquerque, NM
Wood River Middle School, Blaine County School District, Hailey,
ID
Yucca Mountain, Nuclear Waste Repository, U.S. Department of
Energy, Nye County, NV

© 2012, 2011, 2010
57

1/20/2012

STEM Education Refor m:
“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 ~

© 2012, 2011, 2010
58

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
© 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

Assessments are portfolio-based. All courses are linked to local, state, or national academic standards. © 2012, 2011, 2010
60

1/20/2012

Core 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 learners
Computer 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. Data
Science 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 control
Robotics 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.
© 2012, 2011, 2010
61

1/20/2012

Core 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 in
Computer 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.

© 2012, 2011, 2010
62

1/20/2012

Core 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.

Source: Creative Learning Systems, 2008; Resources and Systems of Technology, How They Come © 2012, 2011, 2010
Together in a SmartLab™
63

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
64

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
68

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

© 2012, 2011, 2010
69

1/20/2012

High School: Repurposing Model v1.0

High School Science and Technology areas repurposed to address the proposed 21st Century Science Standards.
© 2012, 2011, 2010
70

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a

Recently uploaded

STEM Education Reform: Technology Learning Center v5.3a