June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
K-12 & Pre-College Engineering
26.1217.1 - 26.1217.14
Peer Instructor or College Faculty - Who is Better for Leading Teacher Professional Development? (Evaluation)The University is beginning its 4th year of an NSF Math and Science Partnership Grant. Two ofthe program’s primary goals are as follows:1. Improve 7-12 science and mathematics achievement to prepare for and increase interest in the college study of engineering or other STEM careers.2. Develop mathematics and science teacher knowledge of engineering and the engineering design and challenge-based instruction process through explicit training and classroom implementation support.In addition to improving math and science teaching, the program also seeks to develop acommunity of teachers who will implement an explicit and authentic articulation of engineeringin 7th-12th grade math and science classrooms so that these teachers will effectively enablestudents to understand engineering design and consider careers in engineering fields.The primary mechanism for developing this cadre of teachers is through a two-year summerinstitute. For two summers, teachers complete seven weeks of engineering courses, contentcourses, and professional development. After successful completion of the two year program,participants earn a Certificate in Engineering Education. The courses in the summer instituteinclude courses addressing engineering design, courses addressing engineering applications ofscience and courses covering applications of math in engineering. The courses are mostly taughtby college faculty recognized as excellent teachers but several have been taught by high schoolteachers who are experienced at K-12 engineering education.In order to determine efficacy of the approach and to provide a mechanism for continuousimprovement, feedback from the participants is collected both as surveys and focus groupdiscussions. This feedback has consistently indicated that peer instructors (experienced highschool instructors) are more effective at presenting concepts effectively and broadeningparticipants understanding of the content as compared with college faculty. Analysis wasperformed to determine if there were statistically significant differences between participantevaluations of courses led by college faculty as compared to courses taught by high schoolinstructors. A one-way ANOVA indicates that there are statistically significant differences notonly in enabling participants to understand concepts but also in understanding and applying theengineering design process.This paper describes the courses in the summer institute, the pedagogical approach used, and theevaluation of teaching effectiveness as regards the course instructors. The paper describeschanges made to the program based on participant feedback and provides recommendations forteacher professional development based on lessons learned in the program.
Rutz, E., & Kukreti, A. R., & Steimle, J., & Maltbie, C. (2015, June), Peer Instructor or College Faculty – Who is Better for Leading Teacher Professional Development? (Evaluation) Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24554
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015