Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Grant Proposal
Shakeerah Brodie
Project Director
Sbrodie1@my.westga.edu
(678) 778 1719
1
Abstract
As STEM jobs continue to increase, the need for students to be proficient in these areas are
essential for the future of this country (Akers, 2017). Unfortunately, data show that this is not the case.
Many employers are having a difficult time finding qualified and competent candidates to fill these
positions. This is especially true for Clayton County Public Schools students, who year after year test
scores in Math and Science are well below their peers in the other Metro Atlanta districts. Hence the
urgent need for change in curriculum practices if the mission is for them to be college and career ready.
As studies support early introduction to STEM having a significant impact on students future careers, this
grant proposal seeks to obtain funding for STEM professional development to work with 3rd grade math
and science teachers for five days during the summer of 2018, with three follow up sessions during the
The goals are to create a professional development program that helps teachers to understand
that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics all play vital roles in the development of students
readiness for STEM fields. It seeks to provide a foundation for these core content areas and build on
their current pedagogy to increase student achievement. The idea is to equip teachers with the
competency, self-confidence, and comfort of being able to teach STEM based lessons to their students. It
also strives to provide teachers with experiences that help them overcome apprehensions or fear that
they may have with utilizing technology in STEM. By providing knowledge and skills, the professional
development seeks to encourage the teachers to be more willing and able to integrate technology in their
classes. Some of the activities that will address these goals are teachers discussing current strategies for
STEM education and relate that to current classroom practices, teachers altering lesson plan to include
strategies discussed in class and teachers completing GIZMO simulation as examples of STEM lessons.
Through these activities, the expectation is that teachers will be able to successfully implement STEM
lessons, resulting in an increase in STEM interest and test scores. Partnerships with Verizon and local
businesses for necessary resources will also be essential in the success of the professional development.
2
Introduction
Increasing student achievement is a fundamental concern for many school districts and
teachers (Akers, 2017, p. 28). To address this concern, Clayton County Public Schools (CCPS) offers
numerous professional development opportunities; however, they have done little in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) based learning. Research supports the benefits of STEM
based learning programs. This is especially true for bridging the achievement gap with minority students
and underachieving populations. In recent years, Georgia Department of Education has declared their
dedication to preparing students for the 21st century workplace careers by providing opportunities in
STEM fields. To align themselves with the states initiatives, Clayton County schools need to provide
The purpose of this grant proposal is to seek funding to implement professional development in
STEM based learning. STEM, the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is
increasingly being promoted in elementary education. However, elementary educators are largely
untrained in the 21st century skills of computing (a subset of technology) and engineering (Rich, Jones,
Belikov, Yoshikawa & Perkins, 2017). As this is the case for CCPS, this grant will outline the
demonstrated needs, goals and objectives of the PD. Based on the needs, goals and objectives, the plan
of operation, evaluation plan and partnerships will also be discussed. Finally, supporting data and budget
information will be provided. These components are all essential in the planning of an effective PD. As
outlined below, CCPS data demonstrates the need for this PD.
In recent years, CCPS has taken initiatives to improve student achievement in specific content
areas. One such initiative was having elementary teachers move toward subject specialization. This is
when elementary teachers are assigned to specific content areas, as typically done in middle and high
schools. The subject specialization model enables elementary teachers to reach more students by
focusing on their best subjects and teaching those subjects to two or more classes of students, rather
than just one (Public Impact, 2012). However, science and math teachers across the county continue to
produce GMAS scores below state averages. Despite the districts initiatives, there is a need for
additional support to ensure that student achievement increases. The following sections will outline data
3
supporting the need for PD in STEM based learning. I will also synthesize the current literature and
research that supports the implementation of STEM based learning PD to increase student achievement.
The data for STEM education is plentiful in todays research arena. As we continue to move
toward a technology based society, the need for students to go into the science, math and engineering
fields is a must. The U.S. understands the detriment it will face if students continue to score below other
nations in these pertinent areas. To stay globally competitive, the push for STEM education continue to
be at the forefront of many states (Royal, 2016). This push must also include effective PD for
educators. In the following paragraphs, I will present both quantitative and qualitative data in support for
Clayton County Public Schools is the 5th largest district in Georgia. Among their Metro RESA
counterparts, they consistently score lower in the areas of Mathematics and Science. Below is the
current 3rd grade GMAS scores for 2015 and 2016. You can see that CCPS continues to have the lowest
scores in comparison to their Metro Atlanta counterparts. This data supports the initiative to change the
teaching practices in Math and Science. STEM PD will benefit teachers by giving them strategies to
Number % % % % Number % % % % DI L
Tested BL DL PL DI L Tested BL DL PL
GWINNETT COUNTY 13,451 15.1 36.2 34.8 13.9 13,436 17.9 38.4 31.1 12.6
COBB COUNTY 8,900 17.7 35.6 34.7 12.0 8,888 22.3 39.5 28.3 9.9
DEKALB COUNTY 8,333 35.2 37.2 21.3 6.3 8,324 36.4 37.0 19.7 6.9
FULTON COUNTY 7,215 19.2 34.5 30.6 15.8 7,204 22.9 34.2 28.2 14.7
CLAYTON COUNTY 4,520 35.3 41.6 20.2 2.9 4,515 39.1 42.5 15.9 2.6
ATLANTA PUBLIC 4,480 32.0 35.5 23.9 8.6 4,479 36.1 35.1 20.2 8.6
SCHOOLS
4
FORSYTH COUNTY 3,384 6.0 23.2 39.4 31.4 3,377 9.1 32.0 37.9 21.1
Number % % % % Number % % % % DI L
Tested BL DL PL DI L Tested BL DL PL
GWINNETT COUNTY 13,312 17.4 37.7 33.8 11.1 13,299 20.1 39.0 27.3 13.7
COBB COUNTY 8,504 19.2 39.2 33.0 8.6 8,487 21.9 40.4 25.6 12.1
DEKALB COUNTY 8,015 35.1 37.9 21.7 5.4 7,985 36.9 37.7 17.7 7.7
FULTON COUNTY 7,188 18.4 33.9 32.6 15.0 7,163 22.3 36.3 25.4 16.0
ATLANTA PUBLIC 4,490 30.7 38.4 24.0 6.9 4,490 35.2 36.3 18.3 10.3
SCHOOLS
CLAYTON COUNTY 4,318 38.6 42.8 16.5 2.0 4,310 38.6 43.2 14.7 3.5
FORSYTH COUNTY 3,354 6.9 25.1 41.2 26.8 3,350 8.7 32.3 35.1 23.9
As shown above, CCPS students at beginning and developing levels are consistently higher than
the other districts in the Metro Atlanta Area. The chart shows that in 2015, 81.4% of our students were
beginning and developing learners in math and 81.7% in Science. In 2016, very little progress was made
as 76.9% in math were beginning and developing learners and 81.6% in Science. This data supports the
need for not only a change in curriculum practices, but also the need for effective PD. In the case study,
Partnerships and Experience in Building STEM Pipelines by Ralston, Hieb and Rivolis (2013), teachers
attitudes about STEM PD was measured. The study found that implementing ongoing PD for their
selected STEM program, encouraged teachers to continue with the project and teaching strategies even
when transferring to other schools. The well-designed PD, effectively led to increased student scores and
interest in Science and Math courses overall. The study also found that elementary implementation
increased the likelihood of students taking STEM courses in high school. The study followed the students
to their high schools and those schools reported an increase in students selecting STEM classes by over
5
The consistent failing GMAS scores and lack of STEM based learning PD directly supports the
need for STEM based learning in schools. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence presented, provides
a clear reason why STEM PD is essential for struggling districts such as CCPS. Alongside the
quantitative and qualitative data to support the need for STEM based learning implementation, there is an
abundance of research in support for implementing STEM on the elementary level. Some of the research
In recent years, there has been a push for students to go into the fields of STEM. According to
Royal (2016), the growth of STEM-related jobs over the last 10 years was three times that of non-STEM
fields. In order to prepare students in the U.S. to be globally competitive, education has begun to refocus
its attention on its current practices. A shift to expose students to STEM based learning is on the
rise. Many studies are showing that the benefits of STEM in schools are having measurable success on
student achievement across not only Science and Math, but all subjects. As this is the case, it is
essential that teachers participate in PD to implement strategies that will positively impact student
achievement. In the following paragraphs, relevant and current literature will be reviewed in support of
the need for teacher PD to implement STEM based learning in elementary schools.
In the peer-reviewed article, America's Children: Providing Early Exposure to Stem (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math) Initiatives by Nancy K. DeJarnette (2012), she discussed how
teaching science inquiry was not a common approach in elementary schools. The common practice was
elementary students learning about scientific theory and the nature of science rather than doing scientific
investigations for themselves. She noted that many schools were successful in implementing STEM PD
if they provided extensive training and follow up that supported the teachers. She presented a significant
amount of information on the benefits of universities and companies providing instruction and pedagogy
on scientific inquiry for teachers. Her focus was more on the training necessary for STEM to be effective
Hieb, and Gary Rivoli (2013), took a different approach to implementing successful STEM
programs. Their case study discussed the efforts of an elementary schools initiatives to create a STEM
6
pipeline. This pipeline was comprised of an elementary school and middle schools all feeding high
schools with students engaged in a selected pre-engineering curricula. The study did more follow up with
a select number of students. The study revealed that students were more likely to choose STEM based
courses in high school and even college courses. The students scores were significantly higher in math
and science then their peers not enrolled in STEM based classes.
students. Ernest, Clark and Bowers assert, Effective professional development that affects teacher
quality requires excitable, job-embedded, results-driven learning experiences, which are focused on
content that integrates directly into classrooms and builds a community of learners (Ernest, Clark &
Bowers, 2016, p.66). As CCPS strives to also build a community of learners, it is essential that PD
addresses the content areas necessary to implement STEM into the classroom. This idea is comparable
to the case study presented by Levin and Schrum (2012), of Walton Middle School.
development to impact student achievement. In the case study, professional learning communities
supported by instructional coaches and school administrators led to teachers being more confident in
their pedagogy and instructional practices. The teachers received technology driven PD and support
throughout the school year. This practice ultimately led to a difference in test scores and students being
more self-motivated. Teachers that are confident in their craft produce confident self-motivated students.
A further push in research and literature has been to implement STEM PD for elementary
teachers to encourage natural curiosity and creativity in early childhood. Havice (2015), believes that
childrens lives must be enriched by the active study of STEM content, promoting the natural curiosity and
innovation of students who learn best by doing. Robinson, Dailey, Hughes and Cotebish (2014), found
that talent development in science should begin in the early grades with investigative opportunities to
encourage curiosity and engagement. This would inherently lead to interest in science that would last as
students progress across grade levels. Ramirez (2013), believes that as a scientist, one of the best ways
to encourage creativity and curiosity is by improving STEM in schools. She asserts that doing so is not
just morally right, but a sound economic choice for the country.
7
There is other research that supports the early implementation of STEM as an advantage to
students overall success. Sithole, Chiyaka, McCarthy, Mupinga, Bucklein, & Kibirige (2017), claims that
attrition in the Science fields is directly related to late introduction. They maintain this as one of the major
challenges to STEM. They emphasize countering this problem with elementary teachers being trained in
STEM to implement in grades as early as Kindergarten. Capobianco, Diefes-Dux, Mena, and Weller
(2011), further states that perceptions of careers in engineering in elementary education are limited to
mechanics, laborers, and technicians. DiFrancesca, Lee, and McIntyre (2014), believe these attitudes
and limited understanding can potentially be improved by introducing young students to engineering and
allowing them to engage in the practices of engineers. The limited exposure to engineering concepts
prevents elementary students from developing an accurate understanding of what engineering entails
The predominant message in the literature synthesized, is that early implementation of STEM PD
is the key to impacting students long term achievement (Werner, 2017). The need for redefining the
existing concepts of STEM based careers for both educators and students must be addressed. This is
done through first providing teachers with a foundation in STEM based learning and subsequently having
them implement new practices and strategies in the classroom. The results, as seen in the literature,
would surely be an increase in students interest and achievement. As this is the case, it is important to
develop a PD course that has attainable and clearly defined goals and objectives to accomplish the task.
In the following sections, the goals and objectives will be outlined and discussed for the proposed PD.
Whether in the classroom with students or a professional development course with educators,
setting a purpose for an implemented learning experience is important (Goldring, Preston & Huff, 2012).
This is done by forming smart goals and objectives. In any professional development, the first component
during the development phase is establishing the goals and objectives that you want your target audience
to master. It is imperative that you set these attainable targets and ensure that your participants are
aware of their purpose for attending the PD (Reeves, 2009). In the following sections, the goals and
objectives for the proposed STEM based learning PD will be reviewed. An outline of the goals and
8
Goals
Establishing goals should follow the SMART plan (Rich, Jones, Belikov, Yoshikawa, & Perkins,
2017). Goals must be specific and concise, have a measurable outcome and represents attainable goals.
Goals must also be relevant and results-oriented. Finally, there must be a time limit set that is
reasonable. In creating the goals for the STEM based learning PD, these strategies were considered and
guided the established the process. The overall purpose for the year-long professional development
program is to provide teachers with ongoing support with technology based STEM activities. The goals
were broken into two areas. The first goal was an increase in knowledge and the second goal was an
Create a professional development program that helps teachers to understand that science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics all play vital roles in the development of students readiness for STEM
fields. The goal is to provide a foundation for these core content areas and build on their current
pedagogy to increase student achievement. Specifically, 3rd grade math and science teachers will be
given strategies and lessons to implement in their classes to increase motivation, rigor, creative and
critical thinking skills as measured by class work and assessments grades in math and science.
This goal addresses the need for students to be motivated and encouraged to apply themselves.
As discussed by Ramirez (2013), igniting curiosity creates self-motivated learners. This is done by
increasing the knowledge of educators that touch these students in classrooms every day. This goal
begins with establishing the need for developing a foundation for teachers and then building on existing
pedagogy to be effective facilitators of STEM based learning activities. Teachers need to know why
STEM is essential for students. Establishing a goal that will increase their knowledge in a field that can
ultimately lead to lifelong success for students, align with the districts mission of making students globally
competitive.
Equipping teachers with the competency, self-confidence, and comfort of being able to teach STEM
based lessons to their students. Providing them with experiences that help them overcome
apprehensions or fear that they may have with utilizing technology in STEM. By providing knowledge and
9
skills, the professional development seeks to encourage the teachers to be more willing and able to
This second goal addresses the use of technology. Many educators continue to recoil from
integrating technology into their curriculum. While CCPS is rich in technology, effective implementation
continues to be an issue. This is especially true for veteran teachers. If change is going to occur, then
supporting teachers as they face their fears of technology is essential. Providing a support system that
begins with PD and continues with building and district leaders is key (Levin and Schrum, 2012). This
goal seeks to tear down the walls of intimidation as it pertains to technology. The goal is for participants
to become comfortable and competent with integrating technology. This can be measured by their
application of technology in their classroom when teaching STEM based learning activities.
Goals are important elements to professional development programs. They provide the overall
statements for the general purpose of attending. It is important to establish and share these goals.
However, it is equally important to develop more specific objectives that fall under the general goals. The
next section will review the objects that will address an increase in knowledge and technology use in
Objectives
As the goals follow the SMART concept, the objectives should also be specific, measurable,
attainable, results-oriented and timed. The objectives of the PD correlates with the goals identified as
they address how both an increase in knowledge and an increase in technology implementation will be
attained. Setting individual performance objectives provides a link between goals, requirements, and
individual contributions to the courses (Brown, 2016). The following objectives are outlined for the STEM
10
STEM fields. The goal is to provide a foundation 3. To build on teachers current pedagogy in the
content areas of science, technology, engineering
for these core content areas and build on their and mathematics.
Equipping teachers with the competency, self- 1. To increase competency skills in technology.
confidence, and comfort of being able to teach 2. To eliminate anxiety of STEM and technology
integration.
STEM based lessons to their students. Providing
them with experiences that help them overcome 3. To encourage collaboration with peers on the
development and implementation of technology
apprehensions or fear that they may have with integrated lessons.
their classes.
Each of the objectives in Goal 1 directly align. The objectives reiterate the importance of
foundational skills, pedagogy in STEM, strategies for successful delivery, and the need for on-going
support. The same is true for the objectives in Goal 2. They further support the need to increase
competency skills for teachers so that it eliminates fears that prevent full implementation of technology.
In addition, it encourages collaboration with peers to create a community of learners. Finally, the objective
11
seeks to foster a love for technology. As these goals and objectives have been established, the following
Plan of Operations
Once the goals and objectives are in place, developing a schedule and timeline for your PD is
necessary (Brown, 2016). For the purpose of this PD, the project delivery format was broken down into
five full days during the summer with three follow up sessions during the school year. Each day is guided
by an essential question. Goals and objectives will be posted that align with the days activities. This
procedure ensures that everyone in on the same plate with expectations (Grimmett, 2014).
As science and math scores continue to be lower in CCPS than any other Metro Atlanta school,
the target audience was science and math teachers. As research suggest, the benefits of early
implementation of STEM based learning to be advantageous to test scores and overall student
achievement (Wenner, 2017). Therefore 3rd grade teachers were targeted, as this is the earliest grade of
A key component to the plan of operation is carefully developing activities that align with the
stated goals and objectives. On the first day, the guiding question is, What do we know and what do we
need to know about STEM education and its research?. Activities on this day align with objectives
because they establish a foundation for STEM and provide strategies that build and/or enhance teachers
current pedagogy. The second day focuses on strategies the work in STEM. Activities align with
objectives, as they focus on learning more strategies and building teachers content knowledge. One of
the activities will be for the teachers to research a technology tool that lends itself to STEM exploration.
This activity follows best practices as described by Royal (2008). He identified the need for teachers to
do some self-exploration to practice concepts presented in PD. The third day begins to introduce
participants to the second goal and objectives. Activities align with goals, as they begin to immerse
teachers into technology integration. The purpose of having them work with technology is to have them
comfortable and familiar when it is time for classroom implementation. This is done through activities
such as simulations on Gizmo. The fourth days activities are about collaboration while addressing the
goals and objectives. Teachers continue to integrate technology as they collaborate to create STEM
lesson plans. Collaboration is included in the standard. On the fifth day, the objectives align with the
12
follow up activities, as they aim to provide long-term support through peer collaboration and PD until
mastery. The subsequent follow up days throughout the school year will focus on strengthening the
content knowledge, technology comfort and implementation of STEM based lessons. The purpose is to
As in all plans of operation, a detailed schedule is required. Creating and subsequently providing
participants with a breakdown of what they will do each day creates a community of learners. In this
subsection, a review of each day will be presented along with a detailed table. The table includes the
daily guiding questions, goals, objectives and planned activities. The PD will be held at the Professional
Learning Center for five days during the summer from 8 to 4:30pm.
On day 1, the guiding question is What do we know and what do we need to know about STEM
Education and its Research?. Goal 1 and objectives 1, 2 and 3 will be displayed for participants. The
activities for this day include review the foundations of STEM and reading articles on current research in
support of early education implementation. This establishes a foundational support for teachers. As
suggested in the study by Lu, Zhang, and Wu (2017), strengthening teachers teaching theories help
established the needs for the PD. For teachers to fully embrace what they are teaching and why, the
ground work must be laid. The final activity for this day will call for teachers to alter an old lesson plan of
On day 2, the guiding question is What strategies work when integrating STEM?. This class will
focus on goal 1 objectives 2 and 3. The class begins with the teachers sharing their revised lesson plans.
As the day progresses, strategies that can be implemented in the classroom will be discussed. Teachers
will be given handout to support the strategies and they will have opportunities to engage in collaborative
discussions. The final activity will give a preview of the next days lessons, as teachers must research
Day 3 begins with a discussion on the technology researched. Teachers will be presented with
the guiding question, How do we integrate technology into STEM based learning?. The activities this
day will address goal 1, objective 3 and goal 2, objectives 1-4. The primary focus on this day is getting
teachers use to working with technology, especially programs that are STEM based. Teachers will be
13
given a list of technology based STEM resources and have opportunities to explore. Teachers will also
interact with Gizmo, completing a lesson. Teachers will look at a STEM lesson plans and compare it to
their typical lesson plans. Finally, teachers will form groups to begin the process of working on their
technology integrated STEM lesson plan. They will be given a general rubric as a guide for lesson
creation.
The guiding question for day 4 centers around collaboration. The activities this day include
discussions in assessments and determining STEM mastery levels. Teachers will be given time for
teachers to collaborate and work on lesson plans. The trainer will facilitate the process. On day 5, the
teachers will be required to teach a modified version of the lesson to their peers. Facilitator and peers will
give feedback to improve lesson. All lessons will be uploaded to a shared bank of lessons for the
The subsequent follow up sessions conducted during the year will address the guiding questions
of How do we assess student products to drive instruction?, How do we support students needs in
STEM? and Whats next?. All goals and objectives will be reviewed and touched on throughout the
sessions. The activities on these days will include sharing glows and grows of lessons implemented in
their classroom. Teachers will be required to bring student products, assessments, etc. to review.
Teachers will also form new groups and modify a previous lesson to include technology and STEM
activities for uploading on a shared drive. Teachers will also discuss next steps in continuing STEM in
14
*Activities align with objectives because they establish a
foundation for STEM and provide strategies that build and/or
enhance their current pedagogy.
Day 2 Goal 1 Teachers will present their revised lesson plans.
Objectives 2, 3 Teachers will be given a paper and discuss how students learn
What in STEM
strategies Teachers will view a video on STEM strategies for the
work when classroom
integrating Teachers will learn strategies for scaffolding students learning
STEM? in STEM
Teachers will begin to look at the part technology plays in
STEM
Teachers will research one form of technology (hardware or
software) that can be integrated into STEM and share
15
products to Teachers will discuss how to use artifacts to drive and modify
drive instruction.
instruction? Teachers will form new groups and modify a previous lesson to
include technology and STEM activities.
Lessons will be uploaded on a shared drive.
The timeline of this plan begins in October of 2017, with the submission of the
proposal. In February of 2018, the funding notification will be determined. If the funding is
approved, all personnel will be employed to begin working on their respective jobs as it
pertains to the PD. As the funding ends in May of 2019, the PD will be implemented in July
of 2018. The follow up sessions will be completed in the months of September, December
16
January 2018
February 2018 Grant Funded
March 2018 Hire Personnel
April 2018 All personnel perform identified duties
May 2018 Recruitment of participants.
June 2018
July 2018 Professional Development conducted for 5 days
August 2018 Teachers return to school
September 2018 Classroom Implementation takes place
1st Follow up session is completed in September
October 2018 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
November 2018 Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required.
December 2018 2nd Follow up session is completed in December
January 2019 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
February 2019 Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required
March 2019 3rd and final follow up session is completed in March.
April 2019 Teacher continue to implement lessons.
Support will be given in the form of observations, classroom visits,
scheduled mentoring as requested or required.
May 2019 Grant ends
Evaluation Plan
Program evaluation is an important component to gaging the success of the any professional
development. Evaluations are necessary in improving future designs (Guskey, 2000). In the following
subsections, I review the external evaluators role and responsibilities. The data and collection strategies
are also listed. Finally, the process vs. outcome is discussed as it describes the value of completing
program evaluations.
External Evaluator
It essential to have an outside evaluator that would provide objective feedback. The external
evaluator would make recommendations for changes to strengthen activities. She will be responsible for
giving instant feedback during the program, allowing for modification to be made immediately. She will
give techniques for getting feedback from participants about their experiences (Levin & Schrum, 2012).
She will also provide follow-up recommendations based on data such as test results, interviews with
teachers and administrators, and classroom observations (Brown, 2016). For this purpose, I would
17
Data collection and schedule is an essential component of the evaluation plan. First outlining a
schedule of when the evaluator will collect data will allow for real time modifications as necessary
(Goldring, Preston & Huff, 2012). Identifying how information will be gathered, measured and used will
keep the evaluator and evaluated on the same plate (Guskey, 2000). Utilizing the schedule and outline
below, they would assess the effectiveness of the PD in relation to their departments. They would be
able to provide vital feedback in their specific content areas as well as insight on improving certain
components.
18
Did participants build STEM lesson plans
on their current created with peers
pedagogy in the Mock lesson
content areas? demonstrations
Did participants Teacher feedback
increase competency to peers.
skills in technology?
Did participant
eliminate anxiety of
STEM and technology
integration?
3. Was implementation Structured Implementation To document and
Organization advocated, facilitated, interviews with of lessons improve
Support & and supported in participants and organization
Change schools? district or school support
Were problems administrators To inform future
addressed quickly Participant lesson change efforts
and efficiently? plan
Were sufficient implementation
resources made Use of shared
available? drive
Were successes
recognized and
shared?
4. Did participants Questionnaires Degree and To document and
Participants' effectively implement Structured quality of improve the
Use of New technology based interviews with implementation implementation of
Knowledge STEM in their participants and Student program content
and Skills classes? their supervisors products
Participant
reflections
Direct observations
Students Products
5. Student What was the impact
Student test scores Student learning To focus and
Learning on students? Questionnaires outcomes: improve all
Outcomes Did STEM affect Structured Cognitive aspects of
student performance interviews with (Performance & program design,
or achievement on students, teachers, Achievement) implementation,
scores? and administrators Affective and follow-up
Are students more Student products (Attitudes & To demonstrate
confident as learners Dispositions) the overall impact
in STEM? Psychomotor of professional
Are students engaged (Skills & development
in technology? Behaviors)
Process Evaluation
When discussing evaluations, process and outcomes is and necessary element. Process
evaluation allows you to look at how the program develops. Program directors need this information in
order to modify the program if the process is not going in the direction desired. Process evaluations
19
document the implementation process, helping stakeholders see how a program outcome or impact was
achieved. It essentially looks at the processes of the professional development, as well as the
management and organization together to identify its promised outcomes (Linnell, 2017).
Outcomes Evaluation
The type of evaluation normally desired is the outcome evaluation. Outcome evaluations assess
the effectiveness of a program by questions that ask what happened to program participants and how
much of a difference the program made for them. Outcome evaluations measure the success of a
program in creating change. This type of evaluation help all stakeholders understand how a program
outcome was achieved and whether the goals and objectives were met.
In this PD, the evaluator will obtain this information through formal and informal processes.
Surveys will be given to participants before, during and following implementation. The evaluators will also
meet with administrators, teachers and parents to converse about the advantages and disadvantages as
a result of attendance in this PD. As described by Havice (2015), seeking the feedback of stakeholders
will provide authentic review of the effectiveness of the PD. The stakeholders also include the
partnerships formed with companies that will provide support to the PD. These partnerships will be
Partnerships
important to effectively plan. The planning not only includes the components of the PD, but also the
resources necessary to carry it out. This includes the material, facilities, instructors, funding and other
goods that may be needed. Often, local stakeholders are willing to assist and invest in the community
schools as a way of giving back. However, limiting yourself to local establishments could hinder your
efforts depending on the community and resources. Therefore, looking at larger organizations and
businesses may be a better option to getting essential funding and resources for effective PD and
subsequent implementation.
Partners
As the popularity of STEM education continues to grow, larger corporations understand the
benefits of investing in students. They realize that their long-term existence depends on our current
20
students and their academic success. Currently, Verizon has an initiative called Verizon Innovative
Learning #weneedmore. Verizon acknowledges that in order for students to compete for the jobs of the
future, students must have access to technology and STEM education. Therefore, they have committed
$160 million in free technology, access and hands-on learning in STEM for students in need. They are
funding programs and creating partnerships with nonprofit organizations such as schools. They have
created a webpage with resources for students and educators on STEM activities. Verizon have provided
several articles on different reasons why STEM is essential for students. They also provide current
insight in the jobs requiring more STEM majors. These articles could help establish the need for STEM
and provide a foundation for teachers in my PD. Providing a foundation is essential for buy in from
teachers. As I design my PD, I will seek the aid of Verizon to assist me with meeting goals.
Verizon also offers an abundance of assistance and resources that would be essential for the
success of my PD course. Verizon offers every child and teacher working with STEM, tablets and two-
year data plans. This is not only a great incentive for the participants of the PD, but it ensures they have
the technology necessary to successfully implement the PD throughout the year. Verizon also provides
extensive teacher training, support and an immersive curriculum for the students. This training will
support the teachers throughout the year, as the PD I am creating is only for the summer. The follow up
sessions would supplement what they are doing in their classes. These are the major contributions and
Participant Recruitment
Participant recruitment is one of the more vital areas to effectively plan for, as the
participants is the driving force behind the plan. When designing and implementing a professional
development course for educators, it is important to effectively plan (Levin and Schrum, 2012). The
planning not only includes the components of the PD, but also the plan for recruiting participants to attend
your PD. As I have already identified the 3rd grade science and math teachers as my target audience, my
plan is to first target schools where the 3rd grade teachers have departmentalized. Not all schools in the
district chose to departmentalize 3rd grade, since it was optional. I plan to target these teachers because
the STEM PD focuses on math and science content areas. These teachers would have more of a vested
interest and would benefit from the focused goals and objectives of the PD.
21
While my plan is to focus on the departmentalized 3rd grade math and science teachers, getting
them to give up 5 days of their summer would be very difficult. Therefore, I plan to implement strategies
that will make attending the PD appealing (Ralston, Hieb, & Rivoli, 2013). The first strategy would be to
appeal to the administrators. I would speak with the administrators of these specific skills, outlining the
benefits and potential for student achievement. I would also let them know that funding would include
fees for substitutes during the follow up sessions. Hopefully the administrators would be able to strongly
encourage their teachers to attend and even give them some incentives on the school level for
participating. My second strategy would be to provide a small stipend for the participants. Included in
this grant is funding for teachers attending the PD. I will also solicit funding from the science and math
departments, as they are allotted funding for paid PD annually. Optimistically, with stipends, support from
administrators and strategies for student achievement, teachers will be more than willing to attend.
Conclusion
Research supports the idea that children need to have real-world connections to what they are
learning, or else they disengage (Havice, ,2015). As a means of learning, action oriented, hands-on
technology and engineering education can bring relevance into the classroom. As presented through out
this grant proposal, CCPS students are in need of an academic shift that will increase their achievement
in the areas of math and science. As suggested by Akers (2017), their curiosity needs to be awakened to
activate purpose and drive. The only way to accomplish this is to properly train educators through
effective professional development. This grant will provide essential means to do just such.
Implementing STEM strategies in CCPS, will align with the needs of the students as well as the
teachers. The review of literature has shown the positive effects of implementation, when done correctly
with follow up. Advocates support STEM engagement by providing opportunities, expertise, programs
and experiences. They play a key role in promoting STEM engagement which in turn provide a road map
for young people to find employment opportunities in STEM fields (Engaging the Field of STEM, 2017).
As I move toward finalizing this grant, I reflect on the study done by Douglas and Strobel. The
summarized the need for STEM based learning best when stating, The urgency of the need for a
substantial increase in the number of students pursuing science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) education is perhaps best understood by looking at the Federal Governments monetary
22
commitment to the cause, which is considerable despite the economic troubles the U.S. has faced in
recent years (Douglas & Strobel, 2015, p.245). In 2010, Federal agencies spent $3.4 billion to support
STEM education (National Science and Technology Council, 2011). The stakes involved are clearly very
high, further supporting the need for CCPS to join the cause.
In the following sections, other essential components of this grant proposal will be presented.
The budget summary will be given, including a narrative to explain funding requested. The project team
and facilities will be given to identify necessary persons and places. Finally, the data collection
23
Budget Narrative
In calculating the total expenses needed for the STEM PD, the final projected cost is $34,466.10.
The personnel cost totaled $13,900. This cost included pay for the project director, assistant project
director, workshop facilitator and the external evaluator. The fringe benefits total of $4,170 is for the
project manager, assistant project manager and external evaluators health care while working on the
project. This total was 10% of the overall personnel costs. The participants cost of $10,000 was a $500
stipend paid for a maximum of 20 participants. The travel cost was based on me and 4 participants
attending the GaETC Conference for 3 days and 2 nights. The conference early bird registration cost
was a total of $1000 for the five of us. We will be staying at the Marriott Atlanta Airport for 2 nights at
$163 per night. Attendees would have their own room, totaling $1,630. The hotel provides
complimentary breakfast, therefore a meal stipend of $50 each day for lunch and dinner will be given to
the 5 attendees for the 2 days. On the final day, a meal stipend is not required because the conference
ends prior to lunch. Mileage will be given at a rate of $0.53 per mile calculated from the district office to
the conference. The mileage is calculated to be approximately 17 miles each way for a total of $90.01 for
all attendees. Additional costs are for box lunches provided during the PD for the 8 total days, books for
the participants and staff, and binders and paper for notetaking and included activities. This additional
A. Personnel - $13,900
a. Project Director - $5,000
b. Assistant Project Director - $3,000
c. Workshop Facilitator - $2,400 ($300/day x 8 days)
d. External Evaluator - $3,500
B. Fringe - $4,170 (10% of $13,900 x 3)
C. Participant Cost - $10,000 ($500 x 20 participants)
D. Support Personnel - $0
E. Travel $3220.10
a. GaETC early bird cost - $1,000 ($200 x 5 attendees)
b. Lodging - $1,630 ($326 hotel total for 2 nights x 5 attendees)
c. Food - $500 ($100 total for 2 days x 5 attendees)
d. Mileage - $90.10 (34 miles roundtrip x $.053/mile x 5 attendees)
F. Additional Cost - $3,176
a. Box Lunch - $1,800 ($9.00/box x 25 people x 8 total days)
b. Supplies - $1,376
i. Bringing STEM to the Elementary Classroom - $773.75 ($30.95 x 25
total people)
ii. STEAM Kid: 50+ Science/ Technology/ Engineering/ Art/ Math Hands-
On Projects for Kids - $562.25 ($22.49 x 25 total people)
iii. Binders - $25.00 ($1.00 x 25 total people)
24
iv. Paper - $15.00 ($3.00 x 5 packs)
G. Evaluation - included in personnel cost
25
Capacity
The capacity indicates the project team and facilities. These roles are vital to the success of the
overall project. The team will be identified along with the duties and responsibilities of each person.
There are instances where some duties will overlap and other duties may not be listed but assigned on a
need basis.
Program Director
The program director will be Shakeerah Brodie. She is the gifted lead in the district, with 16 years
of experience in teaching. She conducts workshops on both the district and school level concerning
Plan, direct, and coordinate activities to ensure that goals, objectives and all
plans as required
development
Tiffany Christian is a gifted lead teacher and professional PD facilitator. She often gives PD in
science and math. She has been an educator for 13 years, teaching on both the middle and high school
levels. She current serves as a middle school science and math teacher. Her duties are as follows:
26
Assist in the implementation of the logistics of running the professional development
With Program Director, plan the professional development for the school year
Provide logistical support as needed to the Program Director and outside evaluator
development
Workshop Facilitator
Regina Willingham will serve as the workshop facilitator. She is an experienced PD facilitator,
specializing in classroom curriculum. She has served in numerous leadership roles in the district and had
Outline goals and objectives with participants, helping them to attain mastery of all
External Evaluator
Jacqueline Wilson is currently the math district lead who is a professional curriculum writer. She
has served in many roles in education over the last 16 years including a former math facilitator. She now
Facilities
The facilities being utilized for the purpose of this PD will be the Professional Learning Center. It
is located in Jonesboro, GA. The classes will be held in a double room located within the facility to
accommodate the number of participants. There is not a cost for this facility, as it is free for CCPS
27
employees. If necessary, the computer lab located in the facility will be available upon request as seen
necessary.
28
Data Collection
In an effort to assess the strengths and needs of the PD, several forms of data will be noted.
While most will come in the form of observation and informal conversation with the participants, there will
be some formal forms collected. Presented below are some of the forms that will be given to the
participants. Interview questions are also presented, as the evaluator will use these with stakeholders at
the schools.
29
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Diasgree
interesting, collegial interesting, collegial interesting, collegial
and professional and professional and professional
conducive exchange. Strongly conducive to exchange. Neutral conducive to exchange. Strongly
to a collegial Agree a collegial a collegial Diasgree
professional professional professional
exchange. exchange. exchange.
Session
Session content Session Session Session content
content and Session content
and strategies will content and content and and strategies will
strategies and strategies will
be useful in my strategies strategies be useful in my
will be be useful in my
work. Strongly will be useful will be useful work. Strongly
useful in my work. Neutral
Agree in my work. in my work. Diasgree
work.
I would I would I would
I would recommend I would I would recommend
recommend recommend recommend
this session to recommend this this session to
this session this session this session
colleagues. Strongly session to colleagues. Strongly
to to to
Agree colleagues. Neutral Diasgree
colleagues. colleagues. colleagues.
*4. What is the most significant thing you learned today?
*5. What support do you need to implement what you learned?
6. How will you apply what you learned today to your work?
7. How can we build on this session for follow-up learning?
8. If you werent satisfied with any part of todays session, please explain why.
9. What type of other professional development would you like to see?
10. Additional comments:
*Document retrieved from Survey Monkey.
To what degree do you agree with the Rate the item using scale below
items below? (5 Strongly Agree 1
Strongly Disagree) 5 Strongly 4 3 2 1 Strongly Not
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Applicable
The staff development:
1. was of high quality. 5 4 3 2 1 0
2. was timely. 5 4 3 2 1 0
3. was relevant to my needs. 5 4 3 2 1 0
4. format and structure facilitated my
5 4 3 2 1 0
learning.
5. enhanced my understanding of how to
5 4 3 2 1 0
develop a formative evaluation plan.
6. enhanced my understanding of how to
5 4 3 2 1 0
implement a formative evaluation plan.
30
7. helped me gain new information and
5 4 3 2 1 0
skills.
8. will assist me in making better-informed
5 4 3 2 1 0
decisions.
9. provided important resources for me. 5 4 3 2 1 0
10. will assist my district/school and/or me
5 4 3 2 1 0
in developing a formative evaluation plan.
11. will assist my district/school and/or me
5 4 3 2 1 0
in implementing formative evaluation.
12. met my expectations. 5 4 3 2 1 0
What was the most useful part of this staff development? Why?
What was the least useful part of this staff development? Why?
31
References
Akers, R. (2017). A journey to increase student engagement. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 76(5),
28-32.
Brown, D. (2016). Professional development goal setting for teachers. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from
http://work.chron.com/professional-development-goal-setting-teachers-5431.html
Capobianco, B., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of
DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where is the "e" in STEM for young children?
Douglas, K. A., & Strobel, J. (2015). Hopes and goals survey for use in STEM elementary education.
Ernst, J. V., Clark, A. C., & Bowers, S. W. (2016). Flexible and job-embedded professional development
for in-service technology, design, and engineering educators. Journal of Technology Studies,
42(2), 66.
Goldring, E. B., Preston, C., & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional development
Havice, W. L. (2015). Integrative STEM education for children and our communities. Technology &
Linnell, D. (2017, June 19). Process evaluation vs. outcome evaluation. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from
http://tsne.org/blog/process-evaluation-vs-outcome-evaluation
Lu, Y., Zhang, W., & Wu, X. (2017). A survey of english teacher professional development in
Southeastern Chongqing minority schools: Problems and solutions. Theory and Practice in
32
Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: Professional
Public Impact. (2012). Redesigning schools: Models to reach every student with excellent teachers
subject specialization (elementary). Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://op-
portunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Subject_Specializa-
tion_Elementary_School_Model-Public_Impact.pdf
Ralston, P. S., Hieb, J. L., & Rivoli, G. (2013). Partnerships and experience in building STEM
pipelines. Journal Of Professional Issues In Engineering Education & Practice, 139(2), 156-162.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000138
Ramirez, A. (2013, April 30). Cultivating creativity and curiosity with STEM| arcade | dialogue on design.
stem
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get
Rich, P. J., Jones, B. L., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins. (2017). Computing and engineering in
elementary school: The effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs
about teaching computing and engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Education
Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM
intervention on gifted elementary students science knowledge and skills. Journal Of Advanced
Royal, K. (2016, July 08). Benefits of STEM programs. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from
http://connectlearningtoday.com/benefits-stem-programs/#
Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student
attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges.
Walker, M. A. (2016, July 26). Milestones: Metro Atlanta elementary school state test results.
33
Retrieved June 14, 2017, from http://www.myajc.com/local-education/2016-georgia-milestones-
elementary-scores/
Wenner, J. A. (2017). Urban elementary science teacher leaders: Responsibilities, supports, and needs.
34