student and organizational learning - CCLP - Iowa State University

DRAFT

About the EditorsNorena Norton Badway is Coordinator of the Ed.D. Program in Educational Leadership atSan Francisco State University, where she advises and teaches doctoral students from P-12and postsecondary education backgrounds. She conducts research and provides facultyprofessional development related to several aspects of community college education,including curriculum design, cycles of faculty inquiry about learning outcomes, achievementfor under-prepared students, organization and culture, and contextualizing developmentaleducation. She has previously directed the Community College Cooperative at Universityof California Berkeley, and was a Senior Research Associate with the National Center forResearch in Vocational Education.She is a program evaluator for Advanced Technological Education and Middle CollegeHigh School initiatives, and serves a PI or co-PI for research focusing on the preparationof technicians in STEM fields, demonstrating the consequences of advanced technologicaleducation, and academic pathways for ATE students.She earned a Ph.D. from the University of California Berkeley in educational policy,organization, measurement, and evaluation.Frankie Santos Laanan is associate professor in the department of educational leadershipand policy studies at Iowa State University (ISU). He is a faculty member in the CommunityCollege Leadership Program (CCLP) and serves as the Higher Education ProgramCoordinator. In 2004 he founded the Office of Community College Research and Policy(OCCRP), which serves as the research arm of CCLP. He has held faculty positions atUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of North Texas. Before joiningthe faculty ranks, he was senior research analyst in the Office of Vocational Education andInstitutional Research at Coast Community College District in Costa Mesa, California andresearch associate at the Center for the Study of Community Colleges in Los Angeles. Anative of Guam, he served as staff assistant to the late Governor Ricardo J. Bordallo in theWashington Liaison Office, Office of the Governor of Guam in Washington, D.C.DRAFTHis research focuses on college access, minority students’ pathway to the baccalaureateand beyond, career and technical education, and the impact of community colleges onindividuals and society. Currently, he is Principal Investigator and Co-PI on three NationalScience Foundation grants. His research is funded under programs including Researchon Gender in Science and Engineering, Advanced Technological Education (ATE), andScience Talent Expansion Program (STEP). These NSF projects focus on the role ofcommunity colleges in preparing future scientists and technicians; and, the extent to whichthese institutions could increase more women and underrepresented individuals to pursuepre-STEM and advanced technology careers.He received his B.A. degree (1993) in political science, M.A. (1994) and Ph.D. (1998)degrees in higher education and organizational change from the University of California,Los Angeles (UCLA).i

About the ContributorsApril AndersonChristopher A. Duree is the Chancellor of the Iowa Valley Community College District.With over two decades of administrative experience, he has served as a community collegeVice President of Academic Affairs, Provost, and is a past-president of the Iowa Associationof Career and Technical Education. Duree has been a consultant on institutional effectivenessissues, spoken about leadership and managing change with numerous audiences, andcontinues to research and write on the topic of community college leadership. He holdsa B.A. in Education from the University of Iowa, an M.S.E. in Education Administrationfrom Drake University, a Specialist in Education from Northwest Missouri State University,and a Ph.D. in Higher Education from Iowa State University.Latrice E. Eggleston is an assistant professor of higher education in the department ofeducational leadership and policy studies at Iowa State University. Her research interestsinclude workforce development, transfer student matriculation and retention, STEMeducation, and two-year college faculty and staff development. She is most passionateabout her research on access and retention issues for women and minorities in highereducation and its impact on the development of human capital. She received her B.A. inenglish and Ph.D. in educational policy studies from the University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign and her MS in educational administration and policy studies from the StateUniversity of New York at Albany.Dimitra L. Jackson is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Office of CommunityCollege Research and Policy at Iowa State University. Her research interest includescommunity college and university partnerships, transfer, and women in Science, Technology,Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).DRAFTAdditionally, she is interested in K-12 math and science preparation and the impact of thisacademic socialization on a student¹s decision to pursue advance degrees in STEM areas.She received her B.S. in Psychology from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Shereceived both her M.Ed in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies with an emphasis inStudent Affairs as well as her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies with anemphasis in Higher Education Administration from Iowa State University.Michael E. Miller is an instructor of science at Indian Hills Community College as wellas a graduate student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studiesat Iowa State University. His research interests include community college faculty selfdeterminationof interests and efficacy in terms of faculty development opportunities. Hereceived his B.S. in Biology from Missouri State University and his M.S. in Molecular,Cellular and Developmental Biology from Iowa State University.iii

DRAFTiv

DRAFT

Student and Organizational Learning:Preparing the 21 st Century TechnicianNorena Norton Badway, Frankie Santos Laanan, and Latrice E. EgglestonAbstractIn 2005 the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program at the National ScienceFoundation funded the first research project on technician education. The project titled“Student and Organizational Learning: Preparing the 21 st Century Technician,” focusedon four critical aspects: improve student learning, design novel curriculum and pedagogy,disseminate center innovations, and develop transformational leadership. This introductionprovides the background and framework that guided this research project and shares thepromising practices of ATE Centers and Projects.Objectives and SignificanceAdvanced Technology Education (ATE) national goals include producing more scienceand engineering technicians to meet workforce demands, and improving the technicalskills and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) preparation ofthese technicians and the educators who prepare them. The National Science Foundation(NSF) fosters improvement in technician education, particularly in two-year colleges,by supporting the design and implementation of new curricula, courses and laboratories,educational materials, opportunities for faculty and student development, and collaborationamong educational institutions and partners from business, industry, and government.Each of these components is linked to a particular body of research, although researchframeworks are often not made explicit nor is there evidence that they are carefullyconsidered in implementing ATE programs.DRAFTThis research project emphasized theory-driven research to describe and analyze currentpractices, and to design new frameworks about the four Critical Aspects of ATE impacton community college students and organizations. That is, research terminology,methodology and frameworks was employed in this study, and each segment was groundedin research literature. Linking the research in this proposal to a body of related knowledgeallows a broad foundation. Further, basing our research on theory offers a frameworkfor identifying appropriate variables for analysis, fostering a thorough examination ofthese questions. A theory driven approach to NSF research and evaluation can result inmore judicious use of funds as well as provide a paradigm for interpreting and applyingnew information (Hubbardd, Huang, & Mulvey, 2003; Mulvey, et al., 2003). Each ofour research objectives are tied to nationally credible and research-based frameworks,following standard procedures for empirical studies and the No Child Left Behind Act of2002. Overall, our goal was to:3

• describe and analyze the landscape of existing practices for what we have termedCritical Aspects of ATE/STEM Programs,• align those four Critical Aspects with theoretical and conceptual literature,• design new coherent and comprehensive frameworks for future research, and• produce research reports for current and future ATE programs to thoughtfullyincorporate these findings in their own programs.Specifically, the objectives of the research project were:• to describe and analyze the multiple methods that current ATE programs use toassess student learning, and to develop a research-based framework for assessingstudent learning outcomes for education in STEM fields;• to describe the range of current program elements in ATE programs, and to designa research- based framework for linking the contributions of these programelements with a variety of indicators of student success;• to describe the multiple meaningful ways in which ATE programs shareinformation with others, and to develop a research-based framework fordissemination and transportability; and• to identify the role ATE participation has on the leadership development offaculty, and to develop a research-based framework for transformationalleadership development in ATE-funded programs.The significance of this research lies in expanding knowledge and the potential of theimpact of ATE programs to build capacity among the nation’s community colleges toprepare students for technician education in STEM fields.Intellectual MeritThis research project advances knowledge by connecting research and practice for STEMeducation, and by acknowledging the value of NSF funding to organizations as well as tostudents. The research applies a multi-layer approach to analyzing how student learningis assessed, to program design, for sharing what has been learned with other colleges andon developing local leadership capacity. The deliverable from this study, which is themonograph, documents the different practices based on selected ATE Centers. Thesepractices are aligned with theoretical and conceptual frameworks existing in research andprofessional literature, and develop guidelines to inform current and future planning andimplementation of education for technicians in STEM fields.DRAFTBroader ImpactsThis study of Critical Aspect of ATE/STEM Programs has the potential to change localATE practices for students, faculty and administrators in community colleges. Personnelin ATE programs will understand multiple approaches and instruments to measure studentlearning outcomes, and will examine their own use of outcomes data to improve curriculum,pedagogy and programs for education in STEM fields. In addition, practitioners willappreciate relative effectiveness of the myriad of program components available to them to4

encourage adoption of learning modes and content associated with strong student learningoutcomes. Further, practitioners will gain a broad spectrum of dissemination examplesthrough which they can share their products and concepts with others. Practitioners willdesign innovations that purposefully allow for “reinvention” at other sites, increasing thelikelihood that what is developed at one site can be meaningfully adapted for use at anothercollege. In addition, STEM educators will understand the role of ATE programs in fosteringleadership capacity, leading to the adoption of activities that increase practitioner skills inguiding transformational change, a prized commodity in today’s community colleges.This study will also impact evaluation of ATE programs. Evaluators will not only gaina template for theory-based appraisal of STEM education programs, they will also gaindescriptors and benchmarks for student assessment, program components, disseminationas well as leadership development. This research project will also aid NSF in building aneven stronger system for technical education in STEM fields by informing both practice andfurther research. This research will lay the groundwork forfuture studies in which forms ofassessment, program design, and dissemination are most likely to result in significant andsustainable reform, and how to facilitate the development of transformational leadershipskills among community college personnel. Finally, NSF will gain a more completedocumentation of the considerable impact of federal dollars on technician education inSTEM fields.BackgroundThe ATE program at NSF is now over eighteen years old, and enough time has passed thata variety of colleges have had time to have a variety of experiences focusing on a variety oftechnologies. In this first decade, colleges have used ATE funds to develop skunkworks ontheir campuses — a small group of people who design new ideas in an especially enrichedenvironment outside of routine organizational procedures (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition). Each skunkworks has been dedicated to improving student learning as wellas sharing with other sites the materials they have developed. At first glance, these ATEprograms are engaged in very similar activities — developing curriculum and pedagogythat will systemically reform education in STEM fields, so that students might be preparedto succeed in their academic pursuits as well as in cutting-edge industries. At the decademark, it is fitting to survey the landscape of these activities in what we have called FourCritical Aspects of STEM education.DRAFTOur approach included four phases. First, we developed a research-based theoretical andconceptual lens for each Critical Aspect, to identify the variables for investigation suggestedby recognized experts in the field. Second, we used that theoretic and conceptual lens togather data at six ATE programs and Centers located in the western and mid-western regionsof the country. Third, we compiled individual case studies for each of the colleges, to allowus to examine the relationships among the Critical Aspects within a particular environment.Further, we analyze the relationships among the Four Critical Aspects across colleges,to gain an understanding of how any particular aspect currently operates and could beenhanced among the nation’s STEM related education programs.5

ATE programs and Centers were selected by the research team that represented one ofthe initial ATE Center foci of impact: agricultural technologies and biotechnologies;chemical and process technologies, environmental technologies; engineering technologies,information technologies; and manufacturing and nanotechnologies. The foci wereregrouped and new ones were added in 2008 that included: agricultural and environmentaltechnologies; information and securities manufacturing technologies, learning andevaluation foci were added after the data collection of the project was completed during2007-2008. Centers were selected that were in close proximity to the grantees’ homeinstitutions or were willing to allow the research team to conduct two-three day visits.biotechnologies impact areas respectively.Table 1 summarizes the Centers selected based on the initial impact areas. Agrowknowledgeat Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Bio-Link at San FranciscoCommunity College in California represented agricultural and SpaceTec located in CocoaBeach, Florida represented the engineering technologies impact area. ATEEC (AdvancedTechnology Environmental and Energy Center) represented the environmental technologiesimpact area, while MCIT (Midwest Center for Information Technology) represented theinformation technologies area. One ATE Project was also selected to conduct observationsof student learning and pedagogical practices of faculty at Gateway to ManufacturingExcellence at St. Louis Community College. Faculty participating ranged from four to tenparticipants at the Centers. Student participation ranged from as little as two participantsto twenty-seven. In most cases, one-day pre-site visits were conducted prior to the twodayfull-site visits, where center-artifacts that included NSF proposals, faculty syllabi,course listings, brochures, Center products, evaluation reports and NSF final reports werecollected.Table 1. Summary of Selected ATE Centers and Participants by Impact Areas#ATE Center and # # Non- #Impact AreaBusiness/ TotalLocation Faculty Faculty StudentsIndustry 1AgrowKnowledge 2Agricultural4 5 26 0 35(Cedar Rapids, IA)Technology Bio-Link 245 8 3 7 55(San Francisco, CA)EngineeringTechnologyEnvironmentalTechnologyInformationTechnologyManufacturingTechnologySpaceTec 2Cocoa Beach, FLATEEC 2Bettendorf, IAMCITOmaha, NEGateway to ManufacturingExcellence 3(Florissant Valley, MO)DRAFT5 4 27 3 396 2 2 2 1210 3 13 2 284 1 45 0 501Includes National Visiting Committee (NVC) Members and External Evaluators.2Began initially as National ATE Centers and now are National ATE Resource Centers.3Non-ATE Center, NSF ATE Project. Only observations where conducted.6

These sites represent large, senior ATE programs (Brevard Community College);–significant and established programs (City College of San Francisco, and KirkwoodCommunity College); and a smaller program with less experience and less funding (St. LouisCommunity College). The sites span technologies, including biotechnology, agriculturaltechnology, information technology, and manufacturing technologies (education, 3-DModeling).Our conceptual framework for examining the Four Critical Aspects is as follows:a). Improve student learning: ATE programs promise to increase student learning andalso to expand its content. We know that ATE programs plan to increase student learning inliberal arts areas, including science and mathematics, at the same time they foster studentlearning in applied areas like engineering and technology. What we do not know is howa range of ATE programs measure “student learning” – what evidence demonstrates thatstudents have gained more or different competencies than they would in conventionalprograms? This Aspect will apply research- based concepts and theories to discover thearray of evidence used by ATE programs to verify student learning.b). Design novel curriculum and pedagogy: ATE programs often promise to developnovel curricular materials or ways of teaching to improve student learning. These productsoften blend content with pedagogy, so that students are self-directed and learn to constructtheir own meaning. Using indicators of high quality curriculum and pedagogy fromresearch, this Aspect will discover the range of programmatic elements implemented byATE programs contributing to student success.c). Dissemination: For NSF to gain maximum return on its investment in technicianeducation in STEM fields, it is essential that innovations developed with grant funding beshared with educators at other sites. ATE programs often “rate” themselves, and are ratedby other colleges, by the amount of dissemination that has been accomplished. Applyingresearch on the adoption of innovations, this Aspect, will discover the variety of tangibleproducts as well as intangible conceptualizations that our sample colleges have shared withothers.DRAFTd). Developing transformational leadership: Although ATE has never expressed anexplicit goal of developing leaders who can guide transformational change among thenation’s community colleges, we believe NSF funded activities might have this result.We will seek to discover if engagement in ATE programs has facilitated professionaladvancement for faculty. If so, we will apply the ACE-identified processes used by leadersto transform organizations to discover what types of NSF funded endeavors are likely tobuild leadership capacity.Grounding the Activities in Current KnowledgeThe National Science Foundation (NSF) has recognized and supported the critical role oftwo-year colleges in providing education in the areas of science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (STEM). NSF has supported two-year colleges through direct grants;7

collaborative efforts in which two-year colleges play a major role; curriculum materialsand faculty enhancement activities that benefit students and faculty in two-year colleges;workshops, conferences, studies, and other special activities (National Science Foundation,2001).The ATE program, in particular, promotes improvement in the education of science andengineering technicians at the undergraduate and the secondary school levels. Specifically,for community colleges, NSF views these educational institutions as critical participantsin the leadership role of ATE projects as well as the institutions to develop and delivereffective technician education programs, and to partner with other two-year colleges, fouryearcolleges and universities, secondary schools, business, industry, and government.Research on Two-Year CollegesArguably two-year colleges are a relatively new entity in American higher education(Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Townsend & Twombly, 2001; Vaughan, 2000). In reviewingthe current extant literature, the research on two-year colleges can be organized in studiesthat attempt to understand the transfer function (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Dougherty, 2004;Eggleston & Laanan, 2001; Laanan, 2001; McCormick & Carroll, 1997; Nora & Rendon,1990), role of community colleges as the pipeline for underrepresented students pursuingscience, engineering, and mathematics (Ethington & Wolfle, 1986; Fennema & Sherman,1977; Pallas & Alexander, 1983; Sherman, 1980, 1982, 1983), college choice (Hossler &Gallagher, 1987; Hossler & Maple, 1993; Stage & Hossler, 1989), aspirations of students(Baker & Velez, 1996; Laanan, 2003a; Lee, Mackie-Lewis, & Marks, 1993; Whitaker &Pascarella, 1994), and self-concept (Laanan, 2003a; Sax, 1994a; Sax, 1994b; Pascarella,Smart, Ethington, & Nettles, 1987).Even with all of the research on community colleges and their students, there is a dearthof empirical evidence and knowledge about the ways in which ATE programs measurestudent learning, the programs of study in which they are enrolled, the ways in whichnew ideas about STEM education is shared among community colleges, or ways in whichfaculty develop leadership skills through ATE activities. Answering those questions are theobjectives of this proposal. Each multi- layer of our proposed study — student, program,organization, dissemination — is grounded in a theoretic base of previous research. Wedifferentiate among them to clarify their foundations, although we intend to fuse the layersof data collection and analysis.DRAFTTechnician Education: Past, Present, and FutureSince their inception, community colleges have served local communities, regions, states,and the nation by providing the opportunity for all people to benefit from higher education.In each of its 1,100 locations in the U.S., these colleges have responded to the needs oftheir constituencies while creating communities of learning for people of all ages, race,socioeconomic status, and levels of education. Community Colleges enroll over 5.5 millionstudents pursuing credit courses, which account for almost half of all undergraduates inAmerican higher education (The National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Overthe past five years, community colleges have seen steady increases in enrollments. From8

1998 to 2003 the number of associates degrees conferred by degree-granting institutionsincreased by 12% (The National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).From the 1990’s to the present multiple factors have caused a clear evolution in educationfrom vocational to career and technical education. These factors include the fundamentalnature and structure of work and the economy, family life, and a rapidly changing societythat is constantly being impacted by the global economy, technology, and innovation. TheNational Board of Professional Teaching Standards (2001) summarized the characteristicsof exemplary career and technical education curricula that addresses these fundamentalchanges in this manner:Career and technical education has changed from a field in which studentsworked in isolation on specific skills that were sometimes obsolete before evenbeing tested in the marketplace to one in which students, under the guidance ofaccomplished teachers, work in teams on multidisciplinary projects that havebroad applicability in the marketplace. Embracing this purpose, career andtechnical educators are attempting to avoid the narrow occupational specificityof earlier times and provide students with opportunities to envision a range ofcareer paths in a variety of different industries.In addition to these factors, skill standards and industry-driven certification programs arebecoming central to many CTE programs (Carew, 2002; Wonacott, 2003). These strategiesattempt to prepare 21st century technicians for a workplace that requires constant skillsupgrading in order to take advantage of emerging career opportunities, or to avoid a layoffwhen their current employer downsizes, merges, or closes. Today’s workforce is beinglabeled “mobile knowledge workers.” This term implies mobility, continuing education,and broad-based skills that prepare students for a variety of scenarios in their careerladders. These workplace realities require that technician education programs also createopportunities for these “mobile knowledge workers” at multiple exit and entrance points tocontinue their education and/or transfer to a 4-year program.DRAFTThere is extensive literature on postsecondary educational attainment, but only recentlyhave researchers started to focus on the educational outcomes of students at the communitycollege of or sub-baccalaureate level. For example, Alfonso, Bailey, and Scott (2005) havestudied educational outcomes of occupational sub-baccalaureate students and studied therelationship of various institutional and student factors on completion rates. They concludethat “community colleges have yet to figure out and implement the optimal approach toproviding direct occupational preparation academic education.”In a recent study of ATE Centers and sites, Thomas Bailey et al. (2004) made severalrecommendations and conclusions for further research. Specifically, Bailey et al.recommended that, “A broad research agenda is needed to explore the best ways tocombine academic and technical instruction, both to meet the needs of the job marketand to prepare students for subsequent education.” In their book titled The EducationGospel: The Economic Power of Schooling, Grubb and Laserson (2004), assert that the9

challenge now is to create environments for learning that incorporate both economic andcivic goals, and to prevent the descent of education in to with narrow work skills and emptycredentials. Clearly, the landscape for preparing technicians for the 21st century is complexand at times uncertain.With more students attending community colleges than every before and a workforce thatis difficult to predict in this post 9/11 world, it is more important than ever that we striveto have a deep understanding of the outcomes of ATE programs and the factors that leadto them. As more students pursue the community college option, we must ensure that thetechnician education pathways that we create for our students lead to opportunities to earna living wage and continue their education. Only through deeper study can we identifythe factors that create quality ATE programs and equal access to higher education for allstudents regardless of race, SES, gender, or age. Although many national reports callfor leadership that can transform student learning experiences and outcomes, the role ofATE programs in doing all three — shaping future community college leaders as well asprograms of study and student achievement — is overlooked.Critical Aspects #1: Student Learning and AssessmentWe know that ATE programs plan to increase student learning in liberal arts areas, likescience and mathematics, at the same time they foster student learning in applied areas likeengineering and technology. Annual reports from ATE programs celebrate the success ofstudents resulting from novel curriculum and new pedagogies. What we do not know ishow ATE programs measure “student success” or student learning — what evidence ATEprograms accept that demonstrate students have gained more or different competenciesthat they would in conventional programs?Research suggests that there are many choices for assessing student learning, and that thesechoices form a continuum from abstract to applied, from theoretic to contextualized, orfrom hypothetical to authentic. Most conventional forms of measuring student outcomesuntil the turn of this century focused on what have pejoratively been referred to as “bodycounts” — the number of students who completed courses, programs, certificate anddegrees, or obtained employment, transferred or entered the military, etc. (U.S. Departmentof Education, 2005). A second form of indirect or “proxy” measures of student learninghas been testing, either with instruments designed by faculty or some form of standardizedtesting devised by professional associations.DRAFTProxy items are efficient but simplistic substitutes from which an observer makes inferencesabout a student’s ability to perform in a real-world situation (Kerka, 1995). Facultydesignedproxy measures, such as paper and pencil tests, ascertain if students know “about”the desired skills, in lieu of actual performance. Industry certification or licensure examsare generally another example of proxy measures of student learning, because they utilizemultiple-choice responses rather than direct measures of performance. Students who aretaught with hands-on, applied methodologies find themselves in a double-bind when testedon multiple choice instruments (Badway, 2004).10

Another strong contender in the literature is Chickering and Gamson (1987), a seminalsource for evaluating undergraduate programs. These researchers suggest seven principlesfor good practice in undergraduate education, including instructors who give promptfeedback so students know what they know and what they do not know. Other writerscontradict the value of this type of assessment interaction between instructor and student,finding it to be suitable only for the “old” type of workplace in which decisions are madeby supervisors and workers are not expected or encouraged to solve problems. In cuttingedgeindustries, the unknowns are often unknowable in advance: technicians often don’tknow what they do not know, and will need to engage in a collaborative troubleshootingprocess to find the cause of errors (Badway, 2004).More enlightened perspectives directly measure student learning, following currentaccreditation requirements in all fifty states (Grubb & Badway, 2005). These measuresof learning have titles such as “authentic assessment.” Assessment is authentic when itreplicates real work application and directly examines student performance (Custer et al.,2000). Authentic assessments have meaning in themselves because the learning has valuebeyond the classroom and is meaningful to the learner (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998; Wiggins,1993; Custer, Schell, McAlister, Scott, & Hoepfl, 2000). Custer et al. (2000) has set criteriafor authentic assessment, advocating engaging problems of importance to students, replicasof problems faced by working professionals, tasks that require students to produce a highqualityproduct or performance, having transparent criteria, quality measured by bothprocess and product, evaluated against well-articulated rubrics, and so firmly embedded inthe curriculum that they are practically indistinguishable from instruction.At the highly authentic end of the assessment continuum is the use of “messy” or illstructuredlearning evaluations — learning and assessment exercises that are carefullycrafted by education and industry experts to reflect unanticipated predicaments inherentin genuine production situations (Jacobs & Teahen, 1996; Jonassen, 1997). Currentaccreditation standards have contributed the requirement to use assessment data to improvecurriculum, pedagogy and programs. By discovering the range of student learningassessment approaches in place at ATE programs, current and new STEM programs willunderstand the range of options available to them. Further, the research on technicianeducation will add to the knowledge base needed to enhance the effectiveness of theseprograms at the national level. Uncovering the student learning dimension will offerinformation to ATE program administrators, faculty and researchers about strategies forprogram improvement and student success.DRAFTCritical Aspect #2: Program ElementsIn the competitive arena of ATE proposals, community colleges promise a litany ofprogrammatic elements, both to raise the bar on innovation but also to distinguishthemselves from other applicants. After all, NSF does not award grants to replicate anexisting innovation, so each proposal is required to “one-up” other applicants in the noveltyand magnitude of program elements. Research and conceptual studies, however, providea rich collection of promising practices for content, pedagogy, supplemental/support,professional development, articulation, and recruitment/retention.11

The content for much of career-technical education is driven by industry standards.Content is industry-driven when employers and professional associations identify a set ofcompetencies that would meet the need of industries and the college incorporates thoseskills and knowledge into the curriculum. A more sophisticated example of industry-drivencontent occurs when industry representatives also help set ways of teaching (pedagogy),assessment expectations, rubrics for evaluating those assessments, and benchmarks forstudent achievement (Badway, 2003).Another perspective on promising practices in content design is the integration of academicand career-technical competencies, as prescribed by the Carl D. Perkins VocationalTechnical Education Acts of 1990, 1994 and 1998. When academic and career-technicalcontent is integrated students often learn academic skills within the context of use fromthe workplace (Badway, 1997). Several pedagogical approaches appear to offer promisefor helping students make sense of academic content. Constructivist curriculum andpedagogy suggest that effective learning consists less in recording information (rotelearning) than in interpreting it. Through interpreting what is received and attended to, thelearner must personally construct meaning about the content (Gaff, Ratcliff & Associates,1996). Problem-based and project-based learning are often confused with one another;one significant difference is the sequence of learning activities.In problem-based learning, students are presented with a critical event or scenario beforeacademic content is delivered. Students determine what they already know, what theproblem explains, and what they do not know and need to discover before they begin aprocess of seeking information to answer the questions they have devised. On the otherhand, project-based learning occurs at the end of a unit of instruction, after students havemastered certain content. Students apply what they have learned to a project, whereas theydiscover what they need to learn in a problem (Savery & Duffy, 1995).DRAFTAnother pedagogy that is often applied in career-technical programs is simulation, inwhich students perform real-world problems in a facility that is designed to replicate theworkplace. Simulations range from routine, in which students merely follow a set of predeterminedsteps, to constructivist, in which students generate new approaches to problemsand evaluate the quality of the results (Plants, Dean, Sears & Venable, 1980). Supplementalor support services are often considered a critical aspect of student success. Academicassistance such as tutoring, placement into an internship or the workplace, and supportfor making the transition among educational segments often play a critical role in studentachievement of their goals (Laanan, forthcoming, 2006; Eggleston & Laanan, 2001; Grubb& Badway, 1995).Professional development can prepare community college faculty with sophisticatedskills in assessment and improvement of student learning outcomes, even though mostinstructors in two- year institutions lack formal training in curriculum design or pedagogy.ATE programs often include professional development to assist instructors in gainingskills and confidence for imparting the content and pedagogies discussed earlier (Grubb& Badway, 2005). Three additional program components are mentioned in the research12

new practices or ideas that are designed to stimulate local change — tangible as well asintangible elements (Louis & Jones, 2002). Individual activities, strategies or componentsof larger products might be useful to other campuses (U.S. Department of Education,2001). Even new perspectives or conceptions might enlighten the thinking of othercampuses (Hutchinson & Huberman, 1993). Applying the Principle of Divisibility to thissix college sample will allow us to seek evidence of instrumental forms of transportability— tangible products such as modules, videos, or case studies — as well as conceptualforms — intangibles such as new perspectives about curriculum, pedagogy or assessment.A Principle of Reinvention is grounded in organization change research and embracesmodifications made by other sites to suit local conditions. The Reinvention model followsthe perspective popularized by Senge, who argues that knowledge is not useful at a localsite until it has been socially processed through some collective discussion and agreementon its validity and applicability (Senge, 2004). Although ideas and products are constructedby their designers, their use is most likely to spread to other community colleges whenproducts can be reconstructed by their users (Boczhowski, 1999). Transportabilitythen, is less dependent on where the knowledge originates than it is dependent on thereceiving site’s ability to process information (Hutchison & Huberman, 1993). Strongand sustained results occur when promising practices or components are adapted to theculture or particular circumstances of other institutions (U.S. Department of Education,2001). The new Transportability Design and Evaluation Framework (TDEF) will define,collect examples of, and share guidelines for implementation of models that are groundedin research and which foster rapid, extensive, and meaningful diffusion and adoption ofATE funded innovations.Critical Aspect #4: Building Community College Leaders for the 21st Century:The Role of NSF Funding in Fostering Transformational LeadershipLeadership for America’s community colleges has reached crisis proportions, in terms ofmagnitude as well as characteristics. One cause of the leadership crisis is the retirementglut. Leaders who joined community colleges during the rapid growth years of 1965-1985are now entering retirement age. In California alone, one-third of community colleges arecurrently seeking department chairs, deans, vice presidents, presidents and chancellors.Further, this trend will be exacerbated in the near future, with many of community collegeadministrators nearing retirement. Even with such a large need, avenues to preparetransformational leaders for community colleges are sparse.DRAFTAcademic and professional training programs have been developed by a number ofuniversities as well as by the American Association of Community Colleges, but theseprograms have two critical limitations. They require potential leaders to absent themselvesfrom their local environment for training, and therefore lack the contextual application ofskills generally considered to be the hallmark of effective leadership preparation programs.Second, they emphasize preparation for senior administrative positions — Chancellor andPresident — rather than for middle level leadership. In short, the location and goals ofmost training for leaders lacks the breadth and depth community colleges need today. Notonly does the nation need a large number of leaders, changes in the environment of highereducation require institutional transformation — unfamiliar territory for many communitycollege leaders (Eckel & Kezar, 2003).14

New demands and new sets of knowledge required to lead a community college. Kezarand Eckel (2002) note that “financial pressure, growth in technology, changing facultyroles, public scrutiny, changing demographics, and competition in the world” call forinstitutional transformation beyond the strategic change that is more common in highereducation. Transformational change alters the culture of an institution by changingunderlying assumptions and organizational behaviors, processes and products; is deep andpervasive, affecting the whole institution; is intentional; and occurs over time (Eckel &Kezar, 2003, p. 29). Based on our experience with large and small ATE programs, webelieve that NSF grants to improve technician education in STEM fields have become apreviously unrecognized pathway for training transformational leaders.In this research project, we documented the leadership skills acquired by NSF programpersonnel and to elaborate strategies by which NSF grant-funded organizations canexplicitly foster the development of transformational leadership. The theoretic frameworkfor this research comes from the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Project onLeadership and Institutional Transformation, a 5 1/2 year, 26 college initiative funded bythe W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The institutions that made the most progress towards theirtransformational goals used core, secondary and interconnected processes that fosteredinstitutional sense-making or developing new collective understandings — getting peopleto think differently (Weick, 1995). A key finding of this project was that transformationalleaders consciously implement processes that allow sufficient time to explore, discuss, andcreate new interpretations that will shape new activities and behaviors (Senge, 1992). Eckeland Kezar (2003) discovered that leaders use six processes to facilitate transformationalchange, including (a) engagement in inclusive, ongoing, and widespread conversations thatbuild upon one another; (b) inclusive processes to articulate and develop a set of concreteand meaningful concepts; (c) cross-departmental working groups; (d) giving publicpresentations; (e) creating faculty and staff development opportunities; and (f) benefitingfrom outsiders and their ideas.DRAFTA new framework, applying ACE theory to ATE practices, will document the role of NSFfunding in the development of transformational leadership among community colleges,as well as allow local programs to thoughtfully incorporate research-based activities thatfoster leadership development.MethodologyThe primary goals and objectives of the project remained the same in providing theorydriven research that describes and analyzes current promising practices of ATE programsand Centers while also designing new frameworks to view the impact of four criticalaspects: improvement of student learning; development of novel curriculum andpedagogy; dissemination and transportability of Center innovations; and development oftransformational leadership among faculty and administration of ATE funded programs.Research protocols and interview questions were formulated and guided by the criticalaspects. Interviews were conducted one-on-one with faculty and were either face-to-face15

or by telephone. Students participated in focus groups interviews that were on-site at theCenter or partnering community college. Observations were conducted at the Center’shost community college with the exception of MCIT, as it is the only Center whose grantfunding is facilitated by a non-for-profit entity who has partnered with community collegesto receive grant funding from NSF. Each research team member took field notes at both thepre- and full-site visit. Additionally, any remaining Center artifacts were collected at thefull-site visits.Following the collection of the data, interviews where transcribed and coded usingthematic analysis often used in qualitative research with a basic interpretive approach tofind meaning and understanding in the participants perspectives (Anderson, 1998, 2004;Creswell, 1998; Merriam and Associates, 2002). Centers were studied as single case studysites (Stake, 1995).This monograph includes 7 chapters that highlight the findings of this research project andthe critical aspects :• Student and Organizational Learning: Preparing the 21 st Century TechnicianNorena Norton Badway, Frankie Santos Laanan, and Latrice E. Eggleston• Organizational Structure of Leadership and Dissemination within SelectedATE CentersFrankie Santos Laanan, Dimitra L. Jackson, and Norena Norton Badway• Faculty Participation in an ATE Center: Teaching Pedagogy, Student Learningand Student SuccessMichael E. Miller, Latrice E. Eggleston, Frankie Santos Laanan, and Norena NortonBadwayDRAFT• An Authentic Assessment Model of Teaching, Learning, and Credentialing inan ATE CenterLatrice E. Eggleston• Assessing the Impact of Professional Development Activities Funded by NSFATE Centers on Instructional Practices and Student LearningFrankie Santos Laanan, Christopher A. Duree, Latrice E. Eggleston, andNorena Norton Badway• Faculty Perceptions of Leadership and Leadership Development AmongAdvanced Technological Education (ATE) FacultyMichael E. Miller, Frankie Santos Laanan, Latrice E. Eggleston, April L. Anderson,and Norena Norton Badway• Voices of Advanced Technological Education Faculty and Students:Perspectives on Teaching and Learning.Latrice E. Eggleston, Frankie Santos Laanan, Christopher A. Duree, andNorena Norton Badway16

Developing the 21 st Century Tech-lectualand Future STEM InnovatorIn 2010, the National Science Board released their report Preparing the Next Generationof STEM Innovators, this report defined the STEM innovator as an individual who has“developed the expertise to become leading STEM professionals and perhaps the creatorsof significant breakthroughs or advances in scientific and technological understanding”(National Science Board, 2010, p. 1). This monograph highlights the essential elementsneeded in producing the 21 st century tech-lectual or highly skilled technician that has thepractical knowledge and ability to understand theoretical concepts necessary for maximumperformance in the workplace.Tech-lectuals are able to demonstrate the 21 st century skills that call for creativity, criticalthinking, communication, and collaboration that infuse information, media and technologyliteracy (Partnership for 21 st Century Skills, 2009). Student and Organizational Learning:Preparing the 21 st Century Technician shares the Critical Aspects that promote thedevelopment of the tech-lectual: a future STEM Innovator.REFERENCESAnderson, R. (1998). Intuitive inquiry: A transpersonal approach. In W. Braud & R.Anderson, Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honoringhuman experience (pp. 69-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Anderson, R. (2004). Intuitive inquiry: An epistemology of the heart for scientific inquiry.The Humanistic Psychologist, 32(4), 307-341.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fivetraditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.DRAFTMerriam, S. B. and Associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples fordiscussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.National Science Board (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators:Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: The NationalScience Foundation.Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved at: http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdfStake, R. E. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.17

DRAFT

Chapter 2Organizational Structure of Leadership andDissemination within Selected ATE CentersDRAFT

DRAFT

Organizational Structure of Leadership andDissemination within Selected ATE CentersFrankie Santos Laanan, Dimitra L. Jackson, and Norena Norton BadwayAbstractThis study discusses the organizational structure of the National Science Foundation (NSF)funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Centers. More specifically, this studydiscusses the extent to which the organizational structure fosters professional developmentand dissemination from the perspective of 9 PIs and Co-PIs of the ATE Centers. Highlightedin this study are the experiential leadership skills the Center site directors demonstrateand exhibit in preparing future senior-level community college leaders in the newmillennium. Additionally, this study focuses on the dissemination avenues provided by theorganizational structures of four ATE Centers: AgrowKnowledge, Advanced TechnologyEnvironmental Education Center (ATEEC), Midwest Center for Information Technology(MCIT) and SpaceTec. The experiences of the Center PIs and Co-PIs were exploredthrough a qualitative approach which utilized individual, semi-structured interviews. Thefindings suggest faculty support and providing opportunities for faculty to engage withother professionals through conferences and workshops as essential strategies for assistingin the preparation of future community college leaders.Keywords: organizational structure, dissemination, professional development, faculty,community college, leadersIntroductionDRAFTWith the celebration of America’s community colleges 100 th anniversary in 2001, it isessential that we continue to reflect, assess, and evaluate the leadership and the roles leaderswill play in the continued success of America’s community colleges. Impending retirementrates of current community college presidents, senior administrators, and faculty leaderscreates opportunities to “find qualified individuals to replace those individuals retiring andan opportunity to identify people with a new vision that fits the needs of the communitycollege” (Shults, p. 2). This opportunity to seek new visions and strategies is essentialgiven the change in roles and responsibilities of community college leaders. Further, therecurrently remains a gap in the literature regarding the “restructuring of university highereducation leadership programs to prepare students for these new community collegeleadership positions” (Brown, Martinez, & Daniel, 2010, p. 46).21

Literature ReviewLeadershipThe literature is very explicit regarding the need to increase the number of vision-drivenindividuals ready to assume leadership positions in America’s community colleges. It isimportant, however, to clearly define leadership and the specific context in which leadershipis operationalized. Although there are numerous definitions, leadership must be applied to aframe of reference to clearly understand and identify effective leadership and to effectivelyprepare individuals for influential positions (Hines, 1992). Hines further asserts that, “atheory of leadership appropriate for community colleges should reflect and enhance thevalues to which community colleges subscribe: provide access to education, build a senseof empowerment among constituents, remain flexible and adaptable to change, and meetthe needs of the community.DRAFTNew Community College LeadershipThe literature highlights faculty as a “vital component of community college leadership”(Shults, 2001, p. 6) and points out that many community college leaders, includingpresidents, were once community college faculty members. Effective leadership incommunity colleges is representative of the missions and values of respective institutions.While some individuals are born leaders and possess the innate ability to carry a vision,leadership training (Brown, Martinez, & Daniel, 2010) is needed to prepare futurecommunity college leaders. Hines (1992) highlighted 4 principles of effective communitycollege leadership, which includes 1) good teaching, 2) fostering leadership in others, 3)manages change effectively and efficiently, and 4) creates community. Townsend (1996)concurs with this thought by highlighting the need to create awareness within the leadershipcurriculum of how the experiences and perceptions of individuals are affected by race andethnicity, gender and social class. Fostering leadership with sensitivity to cultural biases,more specifically, regarding women and individuals of color within leadership models(Townsend, 1996) as well as fostering a multicultural perspective of leadership (Gibson-Benninger, Ratcliff & Rhoads, 1996) are also essential to prepare leaders who are able tofunction in a homogeneous environment. Additionally, the opportunity to obtain advanceddegrees is another requirement of emerging community colleges leadership. A doctoraldegree has been identified as a passport into community college leadership (Townsend,1996).The need to equip future community college leaders with effective tools and knowledge isdefinitely on the radar of current community college executives. Ebbers, Gallisath, Rockel,and Coyan (2000) assert that current community college leadership clearly understandsand recognizes the need to plan and train a major source of potential future communitycollege leaders (p. 376).22

Partnerships in AcademiaProviding professional development opportunities for future community college leadersis essential to ensure that they have the necessary skills and traits to successfully lead.Skills and traits can be developed through partnerships and collaborations with varyingacademic institutions as well as non-academic institutions, industry, and management.While partnerships in academia are common, little is known about academic partnershipsand their impact (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2010). Academic partnerships exist for manyreasons that range from personal relationships surrounding common interests, facilitiessharing, ease of transition, professional development and training (Amey, et al., 2010).This study primarily focuses on partnerships that exists among entities within the ATECenters as well as the partnerships that exists among entities that are not within the ATEpartnership but have impacted the leadership development of participants.Conceptual FrameworkAn organizational framework, more specifically a human resource framework, was used toguide this study. The human resource framework is based on psychological theories whichfocus on the idea of understanding the needs, values, and skills of its members more sothan the productivity or regulations (Sullivan, 2010). Leaders operating within the humanresource frame “generally operate by influencing, coaching, mentoring, forming taskforces, and empowering others” (p. 564), which have proven to be effective strategies whendeveloping community college leaders (Shults, 2001). Within this type of organizationalframework, partnerships are created which take into account the needs of all individuals.Engagement in activities is encouraged and validation takes place. It is also noteworthy tomention, that this framework is essential when highlighting the needs of females, in thiscase female faculty members, in that it emphasizes “participation, win-win negotiation,consensus building, caring, and nurturing” (Sullivan, 2010, p. 563).The conceptual model used in this study is an adaptation of Amey, Eddie, and Ozaki’s(2007) Partnership Development Model. The Partnership Development Model takes intoaccount antecedents, motivation, context, and the partnerships themselves to describe andunderstand collaborations and partnerships across educational sectors (Amey, et al., 2007).DRAFTFor the purposes of this study the partnership component of the model was expandedto understand the experiences of the Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-principalInvestigators (Co-PIs) in ATE partnerships. The conceptual framework Conceptual Modelof the Organizational Structure of ATE (Figure 1), used for this study highlights thestructure of the ATE partnerships. Highlighted in the model are the different ATE Centersand the institutions involved in each of the Centers. Additionally, the study also drawsattention to the non-partners and the collaboration among and beyond the partnerships.Moreover, the conceptual model used in this study supports Hines’ (1992) principles ofeffective community college leadership as described above. Below is a description of theConceptual Model of the Organizational Structure of ATE (Figure 1) which is used for thisproject.23

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of the Organizational Structure of ATEPurpose and Research Questionspartnership?DRAFTthe ATEThe purpose of this study was to explore and understand the experiences of the PIs/Co-PIsin selected ATE programs regarding dissemination and leadership. More specifically, thisstudy sought to understand the partnerships and structures used by the PIs and Co-PIs toprovide leadership opportunities for future community college leaders. This study will alsoexplore how knowledge is disseminated among institutions within the ATE partnership aswell as beyond the partnership to non-partner institutions and constituents. This study alsoseeks to highlight the skills that are developed as a result of the ATE partnership.Research questions that guided this study included the following:1. How do the PIs/Co-PIs of selected ATE programs describe their role in providingleadership opportunities for community college faculty through partnerships andorganizational structures?2. How do the PIs/Co-PIs of selected ATE programs provide dissemination avenuesof knowledge and information within and beyond the ATE partnership to preparefuture community college leaders?3. What leadership skills are enhanced and developed among faculty as a result of24

ContextThe Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program was designed to educate andprepare individuals for the high-technology fields that drive our nation’s economy.The program consists of partnerships that exist among academic institutions, includingcommunity colleges as well as colleges and universities, and among industry employers.The partnerships are designed to encourage improvement in the education of science andengineering technicians at the undergraduate and secondary school levels. Curriculum andprofessional development among the involved faculty members as well as career pathwaysto two-year colleges from secondary schools and from two-year colleges to four-yearinstitutions; and other activities are required in program participation. The partnershipsin this study comprise 4 ATE Center sites which include AgrowKnowledge, AdvancedTechnology Environmental Energy Center, Midwest Center for Information Technologyand SpaceTEC.MethodologyData CollectionIndividual interviews were conducted in 2007 and 2008 with 3 PI and 6 Co-PIs of the ATECenter Sites to understand their role in providing leadership opportunities and disseminationavenues through partnerships and organizational structures within the ATE program. Eachinterviewee participated in a 1-hour semi-structured interview. Semi-structured interviewsare designed to “to explore a topic more openly and to allow interviewees to express theiropinions and ideas in their own words” (Esterberg, 2002, p. 87). Interview protocols weredeveloped and utilized by members of the research team to guide each of the interviews.All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.Data AnalysisCreswell (2009) viewed data analysis as an interactive process and drew attention to sixsteps in the analysis of qualitative research. The first step is to organize and prepare datafor analysis. The second step involves reading through all the data, and the third stepbegins the detailed analysis with a coding process. To “get a sense of the whole,” all of thetranscripts were carefully read once without taking notes (Creswell, 2009, p. 186). Codingis the organizing of interview information into “chunks or segments of text before bringingmeaning to information” (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). The “codes [are] allowed to emergeduring data analysis” (Creswell, 2009, p.187). The fourth step in the process is to generatedescriptions from the coding process, and the fifth step is to explain how the themes will berepresented in the findings. Lastly, the sixth step is interpreting the data. In analyzing thedata, the research team followed Creswell’s six steps.DRAFTDelimitationsThe study is delimited to the experiences and partnerships among institutions andorganizations involved in selected ATE programs. This study does not take into accountthe experiences of non-partnership institutions and organizations.25

FindingsThe findings for this study are divided into three major themes. Within the themes are subthemes.The purpose of the sub-themes is to further explore the experiences of the PIs/Co-PIs. The PIs/Co-PIs of ATE described their role in fostering and creating leadership amongcommunity college faculty as 1) creating organizational structures and avenues for peopleto grow, 2) educating within and beyond through partnerships, and 3) promoting skilldevelopment. The first theme will highlight the organizational structures formed by thePIs/Co-PIs of ATE that provide leadership opportunities for faculty members and the waysthe PIs/Co-PIs support leadership opportunities for faculty. The second theme focuses onpartnerships as it relates to how information is provided to faculty for leadership developmentopportunities and how information is disseminated to partners as well as to individualsbeyond the partnership. The third theme focuses on promoting skill development andhighlighting skills development through participating in ATE. The experiential leadershipprovided by the ATE PIs/Co-PIs are effectively preparing individuals who are able to fillthe anticipated shortage of senior-level community college leaders. The PIs/Co-PIs exhibitleadership strategies through creating structures for people to grow, partnerships to bedeveloped and skills development to be promoted.Creating organizational structures for people to growOrganizational structures and partnerships that facilitate leadership development werediscussed extensively among the PIs/Co-PIs of the selected ATE centers. The PIs/Co-PIsviewed the “growth of people” as one of the two clear indicators of leadership development.The PIs/Co-PIs discussed three ways in which the PIs/Co-PIs encourage the “growth ofpeople,” which includes:• Faculty support in professional development opportunities outside of theclassroom,• Faculty support in professional development opportunities within the classroom,and• Providing funding for professional development opportunities.DRAFTThe PIs/Co-PIs of ATE expressed seeing a dramatic change and growth in the leadership ofmany of the faculty members involved in the ATE program. One Co-PI asserted:“Absolutely… from the time I joined the project until now, there’s been a verydramatic change in [the] growth of it and the growth of the people that havebeen involved in it and that I would say is really true of the faculty members...because they’ve been involved in the, but it’s been a really good change duringthat time.”Faculty support in professional development opportunities out of the classroomThe literature is clear regarding the new ideas and visions that could result from thechanging leadership in community colleges. The PIs/Co-PIs believe that the willingnessof faculty to develop professionally was a response to the “out of the classroom support”that the PIs/Co-PIs provided to the faculty involved in the ATE program. The PIs/Co-PIs26

encouraged faculty to attend conferences, workshops and other professional developmentopportunities. One PI expressed“We really started pushing them to get out there [conferencepresentation].”Another PI draws attention to one of the presentations and states:“A presentation [called synergy ] was made there about problem base caselearning and the whole effort for that conference was devoted to developing acase study for your local group and we had a group of 20 people working onthat and that’s where the interest really begin.”Faculty support in professional development opportunities in the classroomIn addition to supporting the faculty through valuing and implementing their opinionsand ideas, support was also provided in curriculum development. Valuing good teachingand fostering leadership within the faculty, which is highlighted as principles of effectivecommunity college leadership, (Hines, 1992) was exhibited by the ATE PIs/Co-PIs. Fundingfor current technology and lab equipment were provided and new strategies were integratedinto the current curriculum and classrooms instead of asking the faculty to restructure theircurrent way of teaching. Additionally, the PIs/Co-PIs were proactive in keeping up-to-dateon current technology and found ways to buy new machines so faculty could have the latesttechnology. One PI stated:“What we did was take and start to integrate technology into the existingclassrooms we had and existing courses and the existing curriculum...I askedthe animal science guys what was new out there for technology for them. Wellone thing they came up with was ultrasounds. I funneled the money togetherand we bought an ultrasound machine and now they were teaching the useof ultrasound for everything from pregnancy checking to backpack thicknessin swine…and, information systems in our computers what we needed forcomputers we needed computers and had the ability to play CDs at the time orCDs or…compact discs you know and so we ordered computers that had thoseplayers in it, and we put more memory into it so we bought different kinds ofsoftware packages and brought in more technology by bringing that in, whenwe started to see some rewards for learning the technology then the technologycame and then I knew once you had the faculty hooked on technology then itstarted to filter into the classroom.”DRAFTThe PI/Co-PIs valued the work of the faculty and were committed to ensuring that facultymembers had the latest technology in their classrooms. This commitment was proven in theallotted funds for current technology and software packages.Providing funding for professional development opportunitiesFunding for any type of faculty development and for pursuing advanced degrees wasprovided for the faculty members. Developing leaders holistically and globally wasessential to the PIs/Co-PIs of the ATE program.27

“As a department we identified how we might use the funds in the first few years of thegrant to help instructors move ahead with enhancing their degree’s and so like I said myselfand two other faculty have since got our master’s degrees and we’ve had one other in thedepartment get his bachelor’s and you know those would be in part to the MCIT fundingand that’s got to be a huge help to an instructor.”One PI/Co-PI expressed never turning down a funding request and expressed that if thefunding is available, support is provided:“I’ve never turned down a request for a faculty development of any kind, if Ican find it financially to send that instructor to where they want to go or to helpthem to get to the next level that’s great with me.”Even in instances where funding was not available, the faculty members found theconferences, workshops and other professional development so beneficial and relevant totheir own learning and development that many of them put forth personal energies andresources.“For the last 3 years the college has paid for that, but what’s happen in a senseis that they have alot of things to do and they just dip this in on the side so reallythey have been putting in a lot of their own time and effort to keep this goingbecause it’s important.”Educating within and beyond through partnershipsDeveloping leaders entails varying aspects. In addition to people growing and offeringnew ideas and initiatives, partnerships must be created so that individuals are able tocontinue to dialog with other professionals in the field where information and knowledgeis disseminated. The PIs/Co-PIs highlighted three ways in which information wasdisseminated within and beyond the ATE centers through partnerships. The three waysincludes a) Workshops, b) Institutes and c) Non-Academic Institutes. Professionaldevelopment opportunities, such as workshops, institutes and non-academic institutesprovide ways for faculty members to engage in meaningful conversations. The PIs/Co-PIs stated that it is essential to provide emerging leaders the opportunity to engage withindividuals outside of their respective businesses/institutions. One PI/Co-PI highlightedthe benefit of engaging regionally with other professionals in the field by stating:DRAFT“Well I think they’re connected and, whenever you participate in anything likethat beyond your own boundaries it helps you grow as a leader.”Another PIs/Co-PIs highlighted that encouraging individuals to think broadly is not onlybeneficial to professional development but it is also exciting. He expressed:“Have them engage with each other and think regionally instead of just whatthey are doing in their business and so that is sort of exciting.”28

Another PI/Co-PI expounded on this thought and highlighted the need to connect withemerging leaders and management within industry. He asserted:“That is something that we would like to take out all across the four state region,not only to help those businesses and leaders but as a way to really connect withsort of the next level of emergent leaders and industry and sort of this on-goingrelationship with us and MCIT so that we can be more cohesive regionally withour employers than having to go to them and work with this little group hereand this little group there and try and put together all on our own. Have themengage with each other and think regionally instead of just what they are doingin their business.”The collaboration among faculty and industry allows for relationships to be formed.Additionally, this collaboration educates faculty on what industry is currently doing andkeeps industry abreast on what faculty are doing in the classroom. These relationships helpestablishes rapport that can later be used to benefit students, faculty, and industry.WorkshopsThe workshops, which are primarily the professional development structures that are usedby AgrowKnowledge and SpaceTec, last about 3-4 days. The PIs/Co-PIs of ATE view theirrole as moving beyond their initial institutions and assisting their partners in leadership.One of the initiatives is partnership training, which is designed to provide leadershiptraining to the partners within the ATE program. Bringing together individuals from highschools, community colleges, and universities to discuss faculty development createsan environment where individuals can share initiatives and engage in dialog regardingeffective teaching strategies. Additionally, discussions around what is helpful and whatis not helpful in the process is beneficial for individuals to take back to their respectiveinstitutions to disseminate information. The opportunity to educate all partners involved isessential to the ATE organizations. One of the PIs/Co-PIs expressed:DRAFT“Well and part of that is going to become about by our partner training thatwe have coming up this summer, the partner training is designed to provideleadership training to our current partners if you count Kirkwood we’ve gotabout 19 community colleges that are actively involved right now, we’ve hadmore than that, but some of those are one person departments and they didn’tbut we’ve got some very active partners and doing some active training and wecan expand out to some of the other schools and get them more involved.”One of the ways partners are trained within ATE is through workshops. Professionaland faculty development workshops provide opportunities for faculty to both obtainand disseminate materials that can be useful to all partners. Additionally, making thisinformation available to individuals beyond the ATE partnerships is essential as well.29

“One of the things we’re doing as a requirement for the faculty developmentworkshop is for the people coming into the workshop to provide some materialthat will be put on the website, something innovative that they’re doing nowcurrently and those will add, of course, to the clearinghouse and make us abetter resource although I think working more closely with someone like theNational FFA because we need to work on that education from all the waythrough and if they go away there’s we need to have…some flow and workthrough so those, those are some of the things and I think having a more definedbusiness plan as to what we want to get done and accomplish will also be to dothat.”Another PI/Co-PI expressed feeling committed to being a national leader and sharingknowledge as his responsibility:“I feel committed and responsible as being a national leader in my teaching as,in the way I teach, in the content that I teach, and I’m more than willing to shareall of that to the partners or anybody who asks.”Academic InstitutesThe academic institutes were the primary source of professional development activitiesdisseminated by ATEEC and MCIT that lasted nearly a week (5-7 days). Individuals whoparticipated in institutes were able to spend a little more time engaging in professionaldevelopment exercises and activities. However, some concern was expressed regardingthe leadership component and the leadership development opportunities that are seen asabsent among leaders within the field. Many of the PIs/Co-PIs expressed that technicians,program coordinators and other individuals within management positions in the field almostnever have formal training and experience regarding leadership. ATE provides avenues forleaders in industry to engage in conversations around leadership. One way is through themonthly seminar series.DRAFT“We started sharing that we are going to continue to meet and we started thisIT leadership academy and we got a lot of feedback from people on our boardand they come into the organization as network technician or systems adminprogram or whatever and if they are really good they usually end up gettingpromoted into some sort of management position and they almost never haveany training or experience around leadership or management and often timesdon’t do a very good job at it and they wanted us to help and so I got somebusiness people together and we created a sort of a steering committee and wedevelop this seven day once a month seminar series.”The opportunity to have dialog among other leaders and professionals not only createsavenues for individuals with no formal leadership training to access resources, but it alsocreates opportunities to share information and knowledge to future leaders.30

“First of all the partnership we built, I can go into our partner meetings andI know that people are coming from the other colleges and we can sit downand have honest discussion about what’s happening in agriculture and what’shappening in education.”The goal of ATE is to not only create leadership opportunities and avenues for disseminationamong ATE partners. The partners within ATE also value the informal partnerships that arecreated within the community among non-partners.Non-academic institutesIn addition to educating, supporting and disseminating information to the academic sectorand emerging leaders in faculty positions, ATE also viewed educating the next generationas a part ofDRAFTtheir global outreach. One of the opportunities awarded to MCIT through itsacademic institute was the chance to form collaborations with non-academic entities thatfocused on out of school youth.“We were approached by the Kellogg foundation to create an alternativecredential and credentialing system for out of school use, which we worked onfor the last couple of years and many of our MCIT colleges were involved and itwasn’t just purely MCIT activity but we leveraged MCIT and that was one of thereasons why they asked us to be involved and we were looking at the whole fourstate reason and we created this prototype called get into it and it’s basicallybusiness that would hire out of school youth who have an interest in IT to workfull time salary and benefits and then all of their learning would be projectbased so as we go out and sell website development or brochure developmentor data entry or taking your album and turning them into MP3 files I mean therewould be a whole menu of things that they would be doing that they would learnthe technical non-technical skills by doing those different tasks and now Metrois going to partner with us to pilot with us here in our building starting in thespring.”Promoting skills development broadly was an important component of ATE. The alternativecredentialing system for out of school youth was definitely geared towards promotingskills development beyond the academic environment and reached individuals who wouldotherwise not have exposure to such opportunities.Promoting skill developmentPromoting professional skill development is definitely at the heart of the ATE Center and itsinitiatives. The opportunity to get individuals involved in these activities was an importantgoal of the Centers.31

“Another thing is the working connection IT faculty development institute andwe changed it to the working connection IT professional development institutebecause we want it to reach out more to people from business and industryto come. So we have been able to get more business people and also moresecondary school teachers we have been able to get more from that population[to participate in faculty development opportunities].”The PIs and the Co-PIs of the ATE Centers expressed that they wanted to see thefaculty develop as leaders. As a result of seeking varying opportunities to develop andgrow professionally and participate in different workshops, conferences and conferencepresentations, faculty were able to develop additional skills sets that would benefit themindividually and with their respective institutions and students. A Co-PI at one of the ATECenters highlighted how many faculty had never presented at a conference. The PIs andCo-PIs began to encourage the faculty members to be proactive in seeking out opportunitiesto be involved in presenting at conferences. When asked to elaborate on the developmentof this skill, one Co-PI stated:“When we first started none of them ever had gone to do any sort of speakingat any sort of a conference and we really started pushing them to get out thereand speak and we had these forms for them to fill out but little by little most ofthem have gone out and presented on some exciting things that they have beendoing and just having an opportunity to do that most of them just really enjoyit. So we have done a number of different presentations and probably the bestconferences are the League Renovation of Community College. You get theright audience and so they have gone and done umm we created one time basiclittle templates of all of our best practices and put them on a cd and then 3 or 4of the faculty went and did a round table and they have done other presentationsfocuses on one or two specific activities and on the website we had a lot of thatinformation.”A PI echoed this same perspective by stating:DRAFT“Not as one of the major goals no, but dissemination took place and it takesplace in various ways. We had an open door to anybody who wanted informationabout any of the things we were thinking about. The faculty members as Isaid became leaders and they just didn’t become leaders just within MCIT butthey begin to develop leadership and seeing that they had something to offerand we went from only one speaking at national conventions we now have 14of our faculty that have presented now and it’s just beautiful to just see thesepeople come along and say you think I could really make a presentation and weencouraged them and so we were disseminating of what we were doing at themajor IT convention nationally.”In addition to conference presentations and speaking engagements, faculty as well as PIsand Co-PIs were involved in opportunities where transferable skills could be learned.32

Another one of these opportunities was fundraising.“It’s given me some opportunity because for example I’m involved in fundraisingand I never I never really did that before and so that’s given me a new perspectivein how to visit with people uh, which are some of the things that I could use inother areas of my life but it’s given me and I would say it’s given me a feelingthat it’s easier to go out and talk to somebody now because I was involved insales before but this is a different kind of sales.”The faculty involved in ATE found the leadership workshops and conferences so beneficialto their professional and leadership development that they sought out opportunities toattend events where different leadership strategies were taught and discussed. The facultyfelt that the conferences, workshops and opportunities for collaboration (regionally andnationally) provided better insight and were very beneficial.“The different opportunities that have been afforded me because of what MCIThave given me a better insight for example going to Washington to the AACCconference for the past three years.”The skills that were developed as a result of participating in ATE allowed faculty to developadditional skills and share knowledge broadly. Presenting at conferences and engaging indiscussions with other professionals were rewarding to faculty, industry and non-academicconstituents.DiscussionProfessional development has been cited as a necessity in preparing future communitycollege leaders. Shults (2001) asserted that “in order to gain the skills and traits importantto be effective leaders, those in the community college leadership pipeline must have accessto appropriate professional development” (p. 9). The purpose of the ATE program is toprepare individuals for high-technology fields. While preparing faculty to educate studentsis important, it is also essential that we prepare our faculty and ensure that they have theessential skills and experiences to assume leadership positions in community colleges. Thisstudy highlighted three broad key findings.DRAFTThe first broad key finding focused on ensuring the growth of people. The PIs/Co-PIsdiscussed three ways in which they supported the growth of people: 1) faculty supportin professional development opportunities outside of the classroom, 2) faculty support inprofessional development opportunities inside of the classroom, and 3) through fundingfor professional development opportunities. The PIs and CoPIs did not view their role ofproviding professional development opportunities as the traditional thought of locating“new knowledge relevant to teaching, package it in an attractive manner, and get it into thehands of teachers” (Wilson & Berne, 1999). They rather encouraged the faculty membersto “understand their own knowledge” (Wilson & Berne, 1999) and make meaningof that knowledge. Providing opportunities for faculty to then share this knowledge33

through conference presentations and facilitations were important components of facultydevelopment.The second broad key finding focused on educating within the partnership and beyondthe partnership through: 1) workshops, 2) institutes, and with non-academic institutes.The PIs/Co-PIs view their role of supporting faculty in their current activities as well asproviding funds for faculty to engage in opportunities beyond the classroom as an importantcomponent of their professional development. As the PIs and Co-PIs made availabledifferent professional development opportunities and experiences, they also ensured thatfaculty were able to reflect on and engage in discussions regarding their experiences.The opportunity to dialogue among mentors (Wilson & Berne, 1999) “plays a key role inpreparing people for leadership positions” (Shults, 2001). Engaging with faculty of varyingexperiences and backgrounds allowed for broad perspectives and skill development thatwill be useful in the academic environment.The third key finding highlights professional skill development which the literature notesas an important aspect of leadership. Presenting at conferences and engaging in discussionswith other professionals allowed faculty to develop additional skills that were useful intheir classrooms.Recommendations for Future ResearchFuture research on this topic should include the following:• Conduct intensive, longitudinal studies with PIs/Co-PIs involved in ATEprograms. Exploring short-term and long-term impacts will assist inunderstanding the overall experiences of the individuals involved in theseprograms.• Involve other selected ATE Centers in the study to understand the experiences ofthe PIs/Co-PIs in other centers. PIs/Co-PIs can be studied across different centersto gain a deeper understanding of the lived experience of participants.• Focus more in-depth on specific findings. This would also be beneficial to furtherunderstand the impact of ATE partnerships on non-partners. For example, furtherexploring the experiences of out of school youth (Non-academic institutes) wouldprovide additional information regarding the impact of the partnerships on theindividual community.DRAFTImplications for Research, Policy and PracticeThe findings of this study offer a number of implications. The ATE organization is in aunique position to prepare faculty to assume leadership positions in community collegesin the new millennium. They are positioned to ensure that quality individuals are preparedwith the necessary skills and experiences to meet the challenge of impending retirementsand the prediction of vacancies. Programs such as ATE, demonstrate the necessity of34

supportive individuals in leadership positions who are aware of the skills needed for thecontinued success of America’s community colleges. Additionally, the opportunity toeducate beyond the ATE partnership is a clear indicator of their commitment of continuingto insure that the pipeline for community college leadership positions is replenished.The findings suggest that preparing faculty early and providing them with the necessaryskills and opportunities for professional development is important. The faculty viewed thesupport from current leadership both inside and outside of the classroom as well as thefunding provided to pursue advanced degrees and participate in professional developmentopportunities as evidence of the “shared power” between the faculty and the PIs/Co-PIs. Thefindings also suggest that the collaborations among the faculty and staff internally as wellas externally among non-partners have proven to further assist in leadership preparationamong community college faculty.The findings of the analysis have particularly important implications for policy and practicein that understanding the impact of PIs/Co-PIs on faculty and faculty members’ views ofleadership positions and responsibilities add to the literature on leadership, organizationalstructures and broader impact. A clear understanding of organizational structures thatimpact the growth of people and the development of partnerships is essential in the questto continue to ensure that individuals are prepared to assume community college leadershippositions.ReferencesAmey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Campbell, T. G. (2010). Crossing boundaries creatingcommunity college partnerships to promote educational transitions. CommunityCollege Review, 37(4), 333-347.Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaborationin higher education: A model. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations acrosseducational sectors, (New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 139, pp. 5-14).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.DRAFTBrown, L., Martinez, M., & Daniel, D. (2010). Community college leadership preparation:Needs, perceptions, and recommendations. Community College Review, 30(1), 45-66.Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Ebbers, L. H., Gallisath, G., Rockel, V., & Coyan, N. (2000). The leadership institute for anew century: LINCing women and minorities into tomorrow’s community collegeleadership roles. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(5), 375-382. doi:10.1080/106689200263971Esterberg, K. C. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw Hill.35

Chapter 3Faculty Participation in an ATE Center: TeachingPedagogy, Student Learning and StudentSuccessDRAFT

DRAFT

Faculty Participation in an ATE Center: TeachingPedagogy, Student Learning and Student SuccessFrankie Santos Laanan, Michael E. Miller, Latrice E. Eggleston, andNorena Norton BadwayAbstractThis study examined the impact of the Midwest Center for Information Technology(MCIT), a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Advanced Technological Education(ATE) Center. Specifically, the study sought to understand faculty approach to pedagogy,student learning, and student success. Using a qualitative approach, perspectives fromadministrators, faculty and students were explored. Findings were validated via comparisonto data collected from external evaluators working closely with the program. Findingssuggest two interventions are seen as key to the success and sustainability of the Center: theWorking Connections Institute and problem-based case learning (PBCL). Together, theseinterventions help faculty stay current in emerging technologies and increase exposureto student-centered pedagogical methods. Coupled with improved articulation agreementsand employer feedback, these interventions are believed to increase student success.Keywords: students, faculty, interventions, learning, pedagogy, technologiesIntroductionThe National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated the Advanced Technological Education(ATE) program in 1993 in response to the 1992 Scientific and Advanced Technology Act(SATA) (Bailey et al., 2003). The goals of the ATE initiative were to increase the nation’sproductivity and competitiveness in technical and scientific fields by promoting systematicreform of the nation’s science, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) education(Bailey et al., 2003). The ATE programs promote improvement in these fields by providingsupport for curriculum development and program improvement at the undergraduate andsecondary school levels (Maricopa County Community College District & NSF, 1999).Recognizing the potential of the nation’s community colleges in meeting these goals, NSFhas made these institutions the primary medium through which the ATE programs meetthese goals and objectives (Ashlock, Wright, & AACC, 2001). ATE centers not only preparestudents to enter the technical workforce, but also provide students with the academic skillsnecessary to continue in higher education (Maricopa County Community College District& NSF, 1999). ATE Centers and projects must have a focus in at least one of the followingareas: agriculture technology/biotechnology, environmental technology, chemical andprocess technology, engineering technology, information technology, manufacturingtechnology/nanotechnology, and/or learning and evaluation. ATE Centers are expected tocollaborate with a range of institutions, including two- and four-year colleges, universities,secondary schools, and business and industry. ATE projects are more limited and focuson at least one of the following: development of curriculum and educational materials,DRAFT39

program improvement, professional development for educators, technical expenses, and/orlaboratory development (Bailey, 2003).Literature ReviewAccording to the U.S. Bureau of Labor (2010), employment in numerous occupations relatedto information technology (IT) is expected to grow at a faster rate than most occupations.For example, employment opportunities for network systems and data communicationsanalysts are expected to grow 53% between 2008 and 2018, second only to biomedicalengineers in terms of expected growth (Bureau, 2010). Wright (2009) notes at least 7other IT-related occupations expected to increase faster than the national average. At thesame time, enrollment in IT-related programs has declined in recent years (Aasheim, Li, &Williams, 2009; Granger et al., 2007; Patterson 2005; Pollacia & Russell, 2007). Severaltheories have been advanced to explain the widening gap in occupations and enrollmentin IT programs, but the central fact remains that there is a growing sense of urgency toincrease enrollment while simultaneously improving the training and preparation studentsreceive.Aasheim, Li, and Williams (2009) conducted a study to determine what skills were viewedas most important by managers in IT-related fields and IT faculty. Their findings indicate thatboth managers and faculty place a premium on interpersonal skills such as communicationand teamwork, and personal skills such as honesty, analytical skills and creative thinking.Technical skills ranked third among five categories considered. These findings indicateIT programs not only need to increase total enrollment, but also need to simultaneouslyincrease the emphasis on both non-technical and technical skills.Faculty members in Career and Technical Education (CTE) fields assume multiple roles toassist students in reaching their goals including: coach, mentor, facilitator, collaborator, andtechnology advocate (Berns & Erickson, 2001; Brown, 2002a, 2002b; Sturko & Gregson,2009). In addition, CTE faculty members need collaborative skills to improve partnershipswith business and industry as well as to work effectively in a team of peers (Brown, 2002a,2002b; Sturko & Gregson 2009). To help faculty members develop the skills necessary toeffectively fill these various roles, it has been suggested that CTE faculty should participatein professional development opportunities focused on collaboration and team learning(Sturko & Gregson, 2009). These professional development activities should be on-going,collaborative (Fullan, 1995), and based in the context of the institution’s needs (Sturko &Gregson, 2009). Additionally, as employers in technical fields have identified non-technicalskills such as communication, team-work, and problem-solving to be highly importantemployee characteristics (Teeter et al., 1999), IT curriculum should become increasinglystructured to strengthen these skill sets.DRAFTOver the past two decades there has been a growing body of evidence supporting constructivistlearning as superior to the more traditional transmission of knowledge through lecturing(Richardson, 2003). As stated by Lebow (1993), constructivist learning has the followingprinciples: (1) maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects40

of instructional practices; (2) provide a context for learning that supports both autonomyand relatedness; (3) incorporate the reasons for learning into the learning activity; (4)support self-regulated learning by promoting attitudes that enable the learner to assumeresponsibility for learning; and (5) strengthen the tendencies of the learner to engage inlearning processes, by encouraging exploration of mistakes. A pedagogical approach thatcombines these principles with increased interpersonal interactions may increase students’technical knowledge at the same time as improving non-technical communication skills.PurposeBadway and Laanan (2005) identify four critical aspects by which ATE Centers andprograms should be assessed: (1) how student learning is being improved; (2) howfaculty design and implement novel curriculum and pedagogical strategies for studentlearning; (3) how ATE Centers disseminate and transport Center products; and (4) howtransformational leadership is developed among faculty involved in ATE Centers. Utilizingthis framework, the purpose of this study was to explore the impact an ATE Center hashad on its pedagogical approach as well as improvement in student learning and studentsuccess from the perspectives of the faculty and students. Research questions that guidedthis study included the following:• How has participation in an ATE center changed the pedagogical philosophy andtechniques of faculty members?• How has student learning been impacted by involvement in an ATE Center?• How has student success been impacted by involvement in an ATE Center?ContextHistorically, state and local governments have been seen as responsible for overseeingtechnology-based economic development (Meares, Sargent, & DOC, 1999). As such,community colleges have played an increasingly important role in educating regionalemployees in technological fields (Kerr, 2002). The Midwest Center for InformationTechnology (MCIT) was funded through an NSF grant in 2001 with a renewal grantawarded in 2005. At its core, MCIT is a working consortium of ten community collegesin the four-state region of Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota administeredthrough the not-for-profit Applied Information Management (AIM) Institute based inOmaha, Nebraska. MCIT works in collaboration with K-12 school districts, four-yearcolleges and universities, and employers with the goal of strengthening and expandingthe region’s information technology workforce (Grandgenett, Mortenson, Ostler, & Topp,2007).DRAFTThe overall goal of MCIT is to increase the preparedness of the region’s IT workforce;primarily through faculty and teacher professional development, 2+2+2 articulation,innovative education/training programs, and dissemination of best practices. In the renewalaward, MCIT identified four objectives to assist in meeting the guiding goal (Grandgenett,Mortenson, Ostler, & Topp, 2008):41

• Objective 1: To identify the IT skills needed for the region’s highest demandcareer pathways, and to adapt curriculum to provide the most appropriate level ofIT education in conjunction with these programs of study.• Objective 2: To laterally diffuse the best practices developed by the MCITconsortium members in order to leverage resources; standardize the quality ofIT education across the region and better meet the needs of employers and fouryearcolleges and universities, and more effectively recruit new students to ITprograms of study.• Objective 3: To expand the participation of MCIT colleges in emerging frontiersin IT by jointly adapting and sharing curriculum and instructional resources tomeet the needs of employers across the region.• Objective 4: To increase the retention of IT students, particularly women andstudents of color, and ensure that all graduates possess both the technical and nontechnicalskills required for post-secondary transfer and career success.MethodologyA qualitative, constructivist approach was employed to explore the impact of the MidwestCenter for Information Technology (MCIT). The constructivist approach in qualitativemethodology allows the researcher the ability to use an inductive investigative strategythat allows rich descriptions to be made as the researcher seeks to provide meaning andunderstanding of the experiences of the participants (Merriam & Associates, 2002). MCITwas chosen as a representative ATE center at which to determine the impact of NSF-fundedactivities on the development of promising practices in student learning, curriculum, andstudent success. MCIT serves as a single case of and ATE Center program (Merriam, 1998;Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Methods for data collection included interviews, observations,Center artifacts, and document reviews which are all common ways of data collection forqualitative studies (Yin, 2003) . Comparing findings across these diverse data sets allowedfor the validation of themes derived from the interviews and focus groups, which served asthe primary data set for this analysis.DRAFTTo better understand the impact of MCIT on all center participants, a tiered interview approachwas undertaken. Interviews were conducted individually with MCIT administrators (PIand Co-PIs), external evaluators, and faculty at various colleges in the MCIT partnership(both full-time and adjunct). Students were interviewed using a focus group approach.A total of 17 interviews were analyzed: four of which were with the PI and Co-PIs, onewith an external evaluator, nine with faculty who were not Co-PIs, and three student focusgroups representing a total of 13 students. All students were enrolled in an IT program atan MCIT-participant community college.One hour interviews were conducted in October and November of 2008. All interviewswere semi-structured in nature, allowing for follow-up questions and clarifications.Interview protocols were developed with approximately 14 questions for administrators andfaculty, and 16 for student focus groups. Five members of the research team conducted theinterviews which were recorded using audiotape. Due to the geographical area represented42

in the MCIT partnership, interviews were conducted both on-site and via teleconference.Data from all interviews were transcribed and coded by themes and subthemes using atwo-stage coding process. Themes were first identified by research team members andcompared across each interview. Themes were then divided into specific categories underthe overriding interests of MCIT’s impacts on pedagogy as well as student learning andsuccess. Supplementary data were collected from annual external evaluation reports toreinforce and triangulate the emerging themes.FindingsFour themes emerged from interviews conducted with administrators, faculty, andstudents: (1) participating in the ATE Center yields improved opportunities for professionaldevelopment for faculty; (2) the networking and collaboration that occurred duringprofessional development activities was important to faculty; (3) participating in MCIT hasincreased faculty interest in creating student-centered learning environments; and (4) thereis an evolving approach to assessing student learning but there is no standardized systemfor tracking student success. In addition to these themes, two key interventions recurredthroughout the interviews: MCIT’s Working Connections Institute and problem-based-caselearning (PBCL). The Working Connections Institute is seen as integral to keeping facultyat the forefront of emerging technology as well as serving as a forum for the disseminationof best practices for teaching and learning. PBCL was one such practice introduced throughWorking Connections, and has since been whole-heartedly adopted by MCIT and itsparticipating faculty in emphasizing student-centered learning and engagement.Offering Professional Development Opportunities Through WorkingConnectionsThe Working Connections Institute is a week-long workshop held annually in the summerat which MCIT and participating community college faculty and businesses receive indepth,quality, and collaborative training. Topics range from emerging technology andcertifications to pedagogical techniques. Training opportunities are determined viasurvey of faculty intending to participate in the following summer’s Institute. In addition,satisfaction and impact of Working Connections is evaluated by a post-Institute survey.Since its inception, attendance at the Working Connections Institute has nearly doubled;increasing annually from 84 participants in 2004 to 160 participants in 2007 (Grandgenettet al., 2008).DRAFTOne of the strengths of the institute is the ability to keep MCIT faculty members up-to-datewith emerging technology. Faculty members repeatedly reported that technology (bothsoftware and hardware) advances so rapidly that it is difficult to stay current, let alonefeel comfortable leading others through learning about the emerging technology. However,faculty members who have participated in Working Connections report feeling much moreprepared and informed of emerging technology. Shelly, a faculty participant, states that:43

Some of the classes I’ve been in have been very useful…We’ve been able to getsome good materials; books, sometimes ones that are very hot off the press…Being right on the edge of technology and being able to learn some of the newthings that are coming out is great.Thus, faculty are able to benefit from the new knowledge and skills gained about cuttingedge technology, while also receiving invaluable materials.Working Connections also offers faculty members a chance to earn certification or trainfor a certification exam in systems identified by faculty or regional employers as emergingor important. Laura, an adjunct faculty member, relates that she received such in-depthtraining in a software package during Working Connections that she was asked by hercollege administrators to train the rest of the college faculty in that package over thecourse of the next semester. At first, she was hesitant as she did not know how the full-timefaculty would respond to being trained by an adjunct, but she was eventually welcomedand enjoyed the role she played as a trainer.Networking and Collaborating Through Working ConnectionsThe most frequently cited benefit of the Working Connections Institute was an increase infaculty networking and collaboration. Faculty members often stated that through WorkingConnections they gain exposure to new perspectives, ideas, and methods. WorkingConnections was viewed as the chief medium for the lateral diffusion of ideas through theMCIT network. Faculty members not only received training in matters of technology, butwere able to connect with faculty teaching similar subjects at other institutions. Further,in some cases, Working Connections served as the vehicle by which new curriculumwere shared; one of the most prominent examples gleaned from the interviews was thedevelopment and implementation of a cyber-security curriculum that would lead to anassociate’s degree. Ron, one of the faculty members who initiated the cyber-securityprogram discussed this collaborative environment:DRAFTThe strengths of the program are that they allow us to work across the consortium.Out of the ten community colleges, three have developed a security program…Others have a tendency to integrate within the class, but they don’t have anyformally defined program… Some of the biggest challenges there was tryingto get the articulation between schools… The networking among the collegesreally helped with that… That way, those colleges can come in and use thoseresources to teach different concepts.Thus, networking and consortium collaboration on developed and new novel curriculumallowed participating colleges the opportunity to obtain and make use of resources outsideof their respective college campuses and navigate issues of course articulation.In fact, altering views of pedagogical practices appears to be the most oft-cited benefitto networking and collaboration within the MCIT consortium. In addition to sharingcurricula and resources, faculty members from participating colleges value the impact that44

membership in MCIT has had on their philosophy and approach to teaching. Joe, one of theprinciple investigators, states:I think that if network is number one [benefit], number two would be the effectof infusion of pedagogy; new ideas and new technologies. It’s one thing to go toa conference and it’s another thing to learn something from the conference, andit’s yet another thing to actually apply what you’ve learned and I think that iswhere MCIT had some dramatic impacts.The opinions expressed in the Center site visit interviews reflected the findings of a facultysurvey reported by Grandgenett et al. (2008) in which 85% of faculty members who hadattended a Working Connections stated the experience had an impact on improving thecurriculum of the courses they instructed.Creating Student-Centered Learning Environment Through PBCLCenter interviews reveal the chief pedagogical change catalyzed by participation in MCIThas been the overwhelming adoption of the methodology known as problem-base caselearning (PBCL) to promote student learning and engagement. MCIT’s faculty were firstintroduced to this technique while participating in a workshop hosted by another NSFfundedATE center, the Center for Innovation in Technology Education (CITE) basedin Nashville State Community College. Since the initial exposure, MCIT’s faculty haveoverwhelmingly adopted PBCL, with most faculty reporting using PBCL in at least onecourse.Faculty report the benefits of PBCL include: removing faculty from the center of thelearning environment, increasing student engagement, improving students’ non-technicalskills (reading, writing, teamwork), and creating a more real-life learning experience. Inthis student-centered environment, faculty expressed a change in how they view their ownrole; viewing themselves more as facilitators of education rather than drivers of education.Faculty members using PBCL report that in this environment, students must take on moreresponsibility for their own education. At the same time, most students participating in thefocus groups state they prefer the more hands-on approach over lecturing. Students alsoreport an increased feeling of responsibility and engagement. In describing how PBCLeffects student engagement, Jane reported the following:DRAFTClasses are more self-directed. You give students projects to do and then theybreak up into teams. You give them just enough background information aboutsome aspect of technology and then they go out and do some research and bringback a solution to the proposed problem. This doesn’t mean that there is any onecorrect solution. There could be many solutions…Faculty members expressed that PBCL would impact the future success of students. It wasbelieved that students who had previously been in a course using PBCL were far moreprepared for problem solving in their higher level courses, as well as having a more teamorientedapproach. Further, these characteristics of problem solving, team-orientation, and45

improved communication skills were seen as critical to preparing students for successoutside of school:[There] has been a change in philosophy, and certainly a change in the industry,where there [is] more emphasis on working in teams, understanding thecustomer, understanding the client; certainly more about communication, bothwritten and orally. So I think MCIT was well positioned to change curriculumto the new population and the more people started having success then the morepeople were staying with the program.In the last part of this quotation, Paul articulates the belief expressed by some facultymembers that PBCL has had a positive impact on the retention of female and non-traditionalstudents, whom participants believed to be more inclined to programs with discernableTom:DRAFTsocial impacts.Assessing Student Learning and Tracking Student SuccessAssessing Student LearningWhen asked what methods faculty members commonly use to assess student learning,the responses were markedly diverse. There was a tendency for some faculty membersto focus on formal assessment methods, such as quizzes and exams, while others cited anincreasing use of alternative assessment, such as group evaluations and projects or papers.Interestingly, there was a tendency for those faculty members who had exhibited a greaterenthusiasm for PBCL to also report a more learner-centered approach to assessment. Forexample, David responded mentions using both group member reviews and journaling inassessment:Overall it is to whether they can do the hands-on and whether they can reportback to me how they have learned, so a lot of it is journaling. All their labreports they have to put in what they are learning, and so I assess how theyare learning and making sure I’m on track. In the problem-based, it is a littlebit more subjective. They do a peer review, so they get a team score as far asif their solution actually solved the problem and then individually they gradeeach other as to how well they participated in the team. Then I’m kind of overalllooking at their performance as a team and whether they did it or not.At the same time, there is a reported increase in the use of rubrics, which introduce studentsto the objectives and measures of the course. Overall, faculty seem to be increasinglyobjective-oriented in their means of assessment. This is true regardless of how learnercenteredfaculty report being. For example, MCIT has made it possible for participatingcolleges to purchase test preparation software to help students prepare for certificationexams, as mentioned by46

[O]ne neat thing that the grant helped us with is that we started purchasing testpreparation software for industry standards certifications… some of the otherinstructors… use some of those industry standards certifications as a final intheir class. And so the students can go to the lab and use the practice exam andas they prepare for the final that lines them up with preparations to go take thecertification and because of the grant... and they have exam vouchers that arediscounted… as part of the cost of the course and so that kinds of help build ina certification or an assessment that would be an Industry standard.Tracking Student SuccessThe one area faculty report struggling the most is in determining and tracking studentsuccess. As MCIT’s core participants are all community colleges, student goals are asvariable as the student population itself. Students reported a diverse set of goals includingearning an associate’s degree, earning a certificate, gaining skills for immediate employmentand transferring to a four-year college or university where they may continue on towardsa bachelor’s or an advanced degree. Adding to this complication, instructors were freeto determine the best method for assessing student learning; therefore, it is difficult tocompare student learning and student success across the MCIT consortium.One of MCIT’s objective is to improve articulation between regional high school andparticipating colleges as well as between core partners and four-year institutions. To thatend, during participation in the MCIT initiative, 22 new agreements have been madewith regional high schools while 185 existing agreements have been revised, and 30 newarticulation agreements have been made with colleges while eight have been revised(Jeanetta, 2008). In addition, the number of students articulating from high schools intoMCIT’s programs increased from 398 in 2002 to 852 in 2008, while the number of studentsarticulating from MCIT’s programs to four-year institutions increased from 122 in 2002 to433 in 2008 (Gradgenett et at., 2008). At the same time, the number of students graduatingfrom MCIT’s programs increased from 745 in 2002 to 987 in 2008 (Gradgenett et at.,2008).DRAFTFor those students entering the workforce out of MCIT’s programs, the most frequentlycited measures of success included graduate follow-up interviews as well as regionalemployer interviews. Faculty reported feelings of accomplishment when former studentswould contact them to relate how well the training provided had prepared them for theworkforce, as exemplified by the response from Derrick:I think the measure of success is found when you talk to people in business andindustry and they say the community college graduates do a better job for usthan the four year college degree’s students and that is the truest measure youcan find.To help track the success of students, a survey was administered to program graduates andcurrent employers, the results of which indicate MCIT’s programs had prepared studentsfor employment in the information technology field (Grandgenett et al., 2007). However,47

employers reported that additional improvement could be made in developing students’non-technical skills; an area that may be addressed by continued expansion of the PBCLmethodology.Discussion and ConclusionsThis study was undertaken to explore and understand the influence of NSF funding onfaculty approach to pedagogy, student learning and success at the MCIT ATE Center. Fromthe analysis of interviews with program administrators, faculty, and students, MCIT’sbenefits appear to be clustered into four themes: yielding professional developmentopportunities for faculty, networking and collaboration among faculty, creating studentcenteredlearning environments, and tracking student success. Overall, two aspects of theMCIT Center appear to be fundamental to the success of the Center as a viable educationalconsortium: the Working Connections Institute as a means of professional developmentand problem-based case learning as an effective pedagogical methodology.Working Connections appears to serve as the primary vehicle for a number of facultyrelatedactivities, including leadership development, networking and collaboration,continued education, and lateral diffusion of promising practices. At the time interviewswere conducted, the NSF-grant for the MCIT Center was coming to an end. Of all theactivities made possible through the NSF funds, Working Connections was the activityfaculty members were most concerned about sustaining. It was the belief that WorkingConnections provided an unequalled opportunity at which to gain new knowledge ofemerging technologies, to share opinions and ideas in a collaborative environment as wellas a prime opportunity to gather the input of regional IT employers.Interestingly, both the method by which topics to be covered during the Working ConnectionsInstitutes and the dissemination of PBCL through the institute demonstrate acceptance ofLebow’s (1993) principles of constructivist learning. Through the constructivist model oflearning, the learners are allowed the opportunity to determine their goals and objectives,thus resulting in enhanced engagement with the subject. The sense of autonomy gainedthrough such an approach will likely serve the region’s IT technicians well as they will berequired to problem-solve on nearly a daily basis while at the same time keeping currentwith emerging trends and technology.DRAFTPBCL was a key pedagogical technique introduced and laterally diffused through the WorkingConnections Institute. Faculty adopting this methodology expressed an increased interestin creating student-centered learning environments, including an increased use in studentgeneratedreflective assessment. At the same time, students expressed an appreciation for themore hands-on and applicable knowledge generated through case learning. This outcomemay be especially powerful in those situations in which faculty develop the research projectwith employer input. In accordance with the NRC’s (1996) National Science EducationStandards, an additional benefit to this approach is the incorporation and improvement ofnon-technical skills such as written and verbal communication, teamwork, and creativethinking.48

In terms of student success, MCIT has made strong advancements: articulation agreementswith regional high schools and four-year institutions have been increased and refined;student engagement appears to have improved by the expanding use of PBCL, and employerfeedback of program graduates has been positive. Areas in which further improvementscan be made appear to be in the non-technical skills; skills that may be addressed by furtherdiffusion and refinement of the PBCL methodology.Problem-based learning emerged from medical schools in the mid-1950’s and adheresto the tenets of constructivist learning (Savery & Duffy, 1996), thus resulting in greaterstudent engagement in the learning process as well as generating a more defined sense ofcommunity within the learning environment. This latter point may be especially poignant,as Tinto (1993) suggests that an increase in community engagement may result in animproved student retention rate. One of MCIT’s objectives was to increase retention rates,especially among women and students of color, any increase in a sense of community mayhelp in meeting this objective. Interestingly, interviewees felt that PBCL was especiallyeffective for females and returning students.In addition to the aforementioned themes and interventions, another interesting fact thatemerged from analysis of interviews was the tendency to overlook students of color whenaddressing the need to increase diversity in the IT student body. Given NSF’s objective ofincreasing diversity (NSB, 2010), the interview protocol for this study included questionsconcerning faculty views of increasing diversity. Interestingly most faculty membersinterviewed touched on programs designed to increase the representation of women in theIT workforce but few mentioned a need to increase students of color. This omission maybe indicative of the regional demographics, or it may indicate an increased need to clarifythe goals of NSF’s diversity objective.Overall, the stakeholders of the ten community colleges representing MCIT’s core appearto be positively impacted by the creation and maintenance of the Center. Faculty express anincreasingly student-centered philosophy, students demonstrate a high level of interest andengagement, there has been an increase in number of students graduating from MCIT’s ITprograms as well as students articulating to four-year institutions, and employer feedbackon program graduates had been positive. From the analysis, Working Connection andPBCL are integral aspects of MCIT’s success and will be keys to the sustainability of theCenter as NSF’s funding has expired.DRAFTImplications for Policy, Practice and ResearchMCIT has proven to be effective at providing professional development to faculty membersthrough the Working Connections Institute and student engagement has been improvedthrough the expanding use of PBCL. Further developments of student-centered learningenvironments and faculty with emerging technologies will serve to further strengthen thebenefits provided by participating in MCIT. Improvements could be made in definingand tracking student success. While administrators and faculty members reported thedifficulties in measuring and tracking student success, partly due to the widely varying49

Brown, B. L. (2002a). New wine in new bottles: Transforming vocational education intocareer and technical education. Practice application brief no. 21. Columbus, OH:Center on Education and Training for Employment, Ohio State University.Brown, B. L. (2002b). Professional development for career educators. ERIC digest.Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education.Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and potential of professional development. In Guskey, T. &Huberman, M. (Eds.). Professional Development in Education: New Paradigmsand Practices (pp. 253 – 267). New York: Teachers College Press.Grandgenett, N., Mortenson, R., Ostler, E., & Topp, N. (2007). External evaluation reportof the Midwest Center for Information Technology. Retrieved from http://www.aiminstitute.org/mcit/images/stories/MCIT/mcit_eval_report_feb07.pdfGrandgenett, N., Mortenson, R., Ostler, E., & Topp, N. (2008). External evaluation reportof the Midwest Center for Information Technology. National Science Foundation.Granger, M. J., Dick, G., Jacobson, C. M., and Slyke, C. V. (2007). Information systemsenrollments: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Information Systems Education,18(3), 303-311.Jeanetta, J. (2008). Progress Report. Presented to the National Visiting Committee, Omaha,NB.Kerr, R. (2002). Information technology workforce development: Public policy review anddiscussion. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED480961.pdfDRAFTLebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional design: five principles toward anew mindset. ETR & D, 41(3), 4–16.Maricopa County Community College District & National Science Foundation (NSF)(1999). Advanced technological education: An overview and profile of 11 nationalcenters. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.Meares, C., Sargent, J., & Office of Technology Policy (DOC), W. (1999). The DigitalWork Force: Building Infotech Skills at the Speed of Innovation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED441150.pdfMerriam, S. B, (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B. & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples fordiscussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.51

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC.National Science Board (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators:Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033/Patterson, D. A. (2005). Restoring the popularity of computer science. Communications ofthe ACM, 48(9), 25-28.Pollacia, L., and Russell, J. (2007). Addressing the decline in CIS enrollment. Issues inInformation Systems, 8(1), 97-102.Richardson, V. (1993). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model andits constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.Stake, R. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Sturko, P., & Gregson, J. (2009). Learning and collaboration in professional developmentfor career and technical education teachers: A qualitative multi-case study. Journalof Industrial Teacher Education, 45(3), 34-60.Teeter, T., Bailey, J., Cherepski, D., Faucett, J., Hines, R., Jovanovic, N., et al. (1999).Preparing for a new century: Information technology workforce needs. Little rock,AR: Arkansas University.DRAFTTinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2 nded.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.U.S. Bureau of Labor. (2010). Overview of the 2008-2018 Projections. Bureau of LaborStatistics, US Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11Edition. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm.Wright, B. (2009). Employment, trends, and training in information technology. OccupationalOutlook Quarterly, 53(1), 34-41.Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3 rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.52

Chapter 4An Authentic Assessment Model of Teaching,Learning, and Credentialing in an ATE CenterDRAFT

DRAFT

An Authentic Assessment Model of Teaching,Learning, and Credentialing in an ATE CenterLatrice E. EgglestonAbstractThis study highlights the curriculum development, student learning and assessment ofparticipants in an ATE Center whose primary purpose is to increase technicians in one ofthe seven impact areas – engineering technologies. In particular, this article reports on theinvestigation of assessment methods used to measure student learning and curriculum inan NSF-funded ATE Center. Findings of the study suggest a unique model of teaching,learning and credentialing through authentic assessment at Southcoast CommunityCollege nestled in the heart of the aerospace industry. Through industry collaboration, corecompetency identification, curriculum integration, authentic assessment of learning andvalued certification, the ATE Center creates a successful model in producing highly skilledand trained aerospace technicians.Keywords: student learning, curriculum, assessment, aerospace, engineering, technician,certificationIntroductionOn May 14, 2009, Space Shuttle Atlantis launched its successful 32 nd mission. If you werewatching its launch, you would hear those covering the launch begin and end in this way:T-minus 31 seconds. The hand-off has occurred. Twenty-five. Solid rocketbuster-nozzlegimbals check. Firing chain is armed. Sound suppression watersystem activated. T- minus thirteen, twelve, eleven, ten, nine, eight…go formain engine start…six, five, four, three, two, one and zero, and lift-off of spaceshuttle Atlantis whistling the crest of its historic achievements in space.DRAFTHouston, Atlantis, it’s on a role. Roger role. Houston is now controlling. The roleremover is completed. Atlantis is in a heads down position on course for a 51.6degree 136 by 36 statute mile orbit. The three main engines on Atlantis havenow been throttled down to 72 percent of rated thrust as the orbiter prepares topass through the area of maximum dynamic pressure on the vehicle in the loweratmosphere.Engines now beginning to throttle back up. Atlantis you are go at throttle up.Copy. Go. Throttle up. All three engines looking really good back at throttleup…Atlantis heads into orbit flying heads down wings leveled into an historicsunset in its thirty-second mission. (STS [Space Transportation System], 2009).55

What is needed for this historic feat to occur? Who are the scientists, engineers, technicians,and other support staff who make the launch possible? How important are they to ournational space program? How do we ensure they are trained to meet the task of preparingspace shuttles like Atlantis to take off? What is the role of the engineering technician?What role does the community college play in properly preparing and training techniciansfor such tasks?A few years away from its twentieth year anniversary, the Advanced TechnologicalEducation (ATE) program sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) hascontinued to expand the need to train and increase the number of skilled techniciansin science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields to compete in an everincreasing global market. Community colleges, with partnerships among senior collegesand universities and business and industry, serve as the primary conduits to which ATEprograms are housed and implemented. In fact, Reid et al. (2007) sees these Centers asintermediaries to government, industry, and educational institutions in reaching the goalto train technicians in STEM. In addition, community colleges have a history of preparinga well-qualified technical workforce for the needs of local and regional industries (Weeks,2009).The ATE impact areas encompass seven foci: manufacturing technologies; agricultural andenvironmental technologies; biotechnology, chemical and process technologies; engineeringtechnologies; information and security technologies; micro- and nanotechnologies; andlearning and evaluation (Patton, 2008). These areas of impact help address the needs andshortages of technicians across the country in STEM fields.This study highlights the curriculum development, student learning and assessment ofparticipants in an ATE Center whose primary purpose is to increase technicians in one ofthe seven impact areas – engineering technologies. In particular, this article reports on theinvestigation of assessment methods used to measure student learning and curriculum inan NSF-funded ATE Center.DRAFTLiterature ReviewThe Role of the Federal Government and the National Science FoundationThe federal government has played a unique and significant role in the education of skilledlaborers. More importantly, those seeking to learn a specific trade or to become experts in avocational field, have been assisted by the federal government in acquiring practical skillsto effectively function in their trained fields. As early as the Smith Hughes Act of 1917 tothe numerous revisions of the Perkins legislation (1990, 1998, 2004, 2006) including theSchool-to-Work Opportunities Act (1994), Welfare-to-Work Act (1996) and the WorkforceInvestment Act (1998), the federal government has been actively engaged in ensuring thatthe nation remains a leading competitor in the global markets with well-trained laborers.NSF, an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 (NSF, 2010) to promotethe progress of science and other initiatives including health, prosperity, welfare andnational defense, believes that the development and education of highly-skilled technicians56

in the STEM fields is essential in remaining globally competitive and on the cutting edgeof scientific research and discovery. Further, NSF believes that the key to maintaining thiscompetitive edge relies on the effectiveness of teaching and learning in the classroom andschool laboratories. As teaching in these classrooms and laboratories involves curriculumintegration, work-based learning, contextual teaching and career guidance (Dare, 2001)to promote 21 st century technicians, community colleges are the conduit in which this canoccur as its structures are most adaptable and able to provide both practical and theoreticaltraining.In 1992, by federal mandate (US Public Law 102-476), the NSF established the ATEProgram wherein it was positioned to leverage resources from two-year degree grantinginstitutions (i.e., community colleges) to increase the pool of skilled-technicians (TheEvaluation Center Western Michigan University, 2005). Its focus was also to establishand improve novel curriculums that helped to better prepare students with content andapplication. Curricula of ATE programs have promoted this integration of hard and softskills with a great emphasis on learning new and advanced technologies. ATE marked anew era in Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs where CTE programs centeredon hard skills – simply learning a vocation.New Vocationalism – Academic and Vocational Curriculums IntegratedNorton Grubb (1996) articulated how students who attend community colleges who areidentified as “working in the middle” call for a more distinctive training of these semiprofessionalworkers at community colleges that integrates academic and vocationalcontent within courses that are offered in the college. Grubbs calls for a true approachto “curriculum integration” that “takes the form of academic material incorporated intovocational courses” (p. 142). This is what Bragg (2001) termed “new vocationalism” – themovement to integrate academic and technical courses in an effort to provide students withboth hard (technical) and soft (interpersonal communication) skills that employers seekacross the college curriculum.DRAFTGrubb and Lazerson (2005) purport that the new wave in vocationalism focused onlinking it to professionalism where credentialing would also be linked to formal educationor schooling including obtaining associate degrees at community colleges or technicalinstitutes. Moreover, Grubb and Lazerson argue that institutional drift particularlyin community colleges seeks to gain a higher status by offering degrees for jobs in theoccupational hierarchy where jobs for example in STEM fields rank at the top. Yet, this“new vocationalism” must include linking theory to practice for students. Further, Grubband Lazerson (2005) contend that:One goal is to teach in more constructivist, meaning-centered, and contextualizedways following the idea that students need to be better prepared to understandthe deeper constructs underlying practice. (p. 17).Thus, this goal speaks to teaching students what they need to know and how to appropriatelyapply it to any given situation or task. With the proper teaching, where academic and57

vocational skills are integrated, students will effectively learn and be successful once theyenter the working world.Assessment in Career and Technical Education ProgramsAssessment has many forms and faces. Reese (2009) purports that assessment in educationinvolves formative, summative, interim, diagnostic, predictive, benchmarking and skillstandard models that determine or appraise if student learning has occurred. Reese arguesthat formative assessments are vital to CTE because they measure what students havelearned and what hands-on skills will be useful for the workplace (p. 18). Further, shecontends that industry recognized assessments such as credentials and certificates yieldingcertification of skills is most valued in terms of providing an accountability measure ofstudent classroom success and achievement.Moving beyond assessments of learning in CTE that are usually standardized test-based,written exams or projects that simply render a letter grade or standardized score are notenough in measuring what students have really learned and can use and apply in theworkplace. Laanan and Badway (2005) contend that authentic assessment models are morevalued among students in STEM technician education where students must be ready todemonstrate their skills and abilities on the first day of the job. Authentic assessment modelsprovide a measure of student learning that includes the demonstration of transferable skillsfor life long learning.The 2006 Perkins IV Act calls for more levels of accountability, standards and assessments(Reese, 2009). Assessments should match what is being taught in the curriculum to trulygauge what is being learned by the student. Keiser, Lawrenz and Appleton (2004) wouldmaintain that standards of the curriculum and assessments need “to help ensure the qualityof education and the development of employees for technical level jobs (p. 182).”DRAFTPurpose and Research QuestionsIn an effort to develop highly skilled technicians, NSF has funded 36 ATE Centers eachyear that focus on seven impact areas. Based on data from the U.S. Bureau of LaborStatistics, Weeks (2009) reports that a shortage and need for growth in occupational areassuch as electrical engineering technicians, environmental technicians, and others will needknowledge in engineering, technology, as well as mathematics and other areas includingEnglish language. Coastal Community College (CCC) was purposely selected for thisstudy because it uniquely focuses on engineering technologies while using aerospace as aprimary context for learning and preparing engineering technicians.The purpose of this study was to further examine the elements associated with studentassessment that measure student learning and curriculum at CCC. More specifically, thisstudy sought to identify how assessment measures were selected, what experiences studentsgained through the assessments and what contributions were made to their success. Inparticular, the following questions guided this inquiry:58

• How are student experiences, in terms of students learning, measured?• What methods are used to assess student learning?• Who determines the methods used to evaluate student learning?Theoretical FrameworkAuthentic assessment (Mueller, 2006) measures the practical and theoretical knowledgeof students who are able to critically think, articulate and communicate to other intendedparties such as employers and clients. It is considered an assessment of performance that isan alternative or direct assessment. It is a form of assessment where students are asked toperform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledgeand skills. Authentic assessment tenets include five rudiments:• Perform a task• Task contrived to real-life• Construction and application of knowledge• Student demonstrates or shows• Direct evidence of learned experienceMueller (2006) argues that authentic assessment calls for students to perform a real-world/work task that demonstrates meaningful applications of essential knowledge where skills inthe area can be assessed. Additionally, students are able to construct and apply their learnedknowledge while also demonstrating or showing direct evidence of the learned experience.Essentially, students successfully demonstrate application of the theory or theories used.In summary, authentic assessment is used as a theoretical lens in understanding a modelof teaching, learning and credentialing used by an ATE Center producing engineeringtechnicians for the aerospace industry.DRAFTMethodologyThis study employed a qualitative method of inquiry using a singe case study of a single site(Stake, 1995) to study student teaching, learning and credentialing in ATE. More specifically,this study sought to understand the lived experiences of faculty, staff, administrators andstudents who benefit from NSF ATE Center funding. In an attempt to search for meaning andunderstanding from the participants’ perspective, a basic interpretive qualitative approachwas used to identify themes that cut across the data from the participants (Merriam et al.,2002). Further, as noted earlier, CCC was purposely selected as it was the host site for theATE Center.One-on-one interviews were conducted with administrators, industry partners, and facultyinvolved in the execution of the Center goals and objectives. These interviews wereapproximately one-hour in length, semi-structured that were recorded and later transcribed.Additionally, classroom observations of faculty and students were also conducted overa 3-day period. Site artifacts (i.e., NSF proposals, faculty syllabus, etc.) were collected59

on-site. A team of five researchers conducted the interviews, classroom observations, andcollected the center artifacts to use in the document analysis. Each researcher also usedjournals to record field notes to use during the analysis of the data.SettingInterviews and classroom observations were conducted on-site at the Aerospace CertificationProgram Center that is housed on the campus of CCC. CCC is nestled in the heart ofthe “space coast” and aerospace industry. CCC is the main campus of four campuses ofthe community college that houses the systems administration unit. CCC enrolls nearly15,000 students in over 100 diploma, certificate and degree programs. It is a 2-year degreegranting institution that celebrates its 50 th year anniversary in 2010 with 27 associatedegree programs. In particular, CCC offers an Associate of Applied Science in EngineeringTechnology (60 credits) and an Associate of Science in Aerospace Technology (64 credits).Center participants including faculty and students were engaged in these programs.The ATE Center has 12 partners that include 11 community colleges and 1 university thatis located in the nine states (Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, New Mexico,Texas, Washington and Virginia). The Center is heavily connected with industry and anadvocate for strong partnerships.ParticipantsThere were a total of 36 participants that included two administrators (the Center PI andFacility Manager who were both males); two industry partners (one female and one male);two faculty members (both males; one-full-time and one- part-time who had over ten yearsof industry experience. There were 27 students and five faculty members who participatedin five classroom observations. Of the students, 21 were males and six were females; whilethere were four male faculty and one female faculty member. The students were enrolledin either the Engineering Technology Program or the Aerospace Technology Programs togain degrees for either work or transfer. Two of the participating faculty members werealso interviewed. Class sizes ranged from 10 to 12 students with a number of students inthe same courses that the researchers observed. Classroom observations of participatingstudents and faculty helped to form the five emerging themes from the study.DRAFTData AnalysisInterviews were transcribed and coded by themes. Field notes from classroom observationsand Center tours were reviewed and used as references points to the interviews and documentanalysis of Center artifacts that included the Center NSF proposal, end-of-the year reports,newsletters, Center and campus websites, faculty course syllabi, and promotional materialof the college and Center. In order to validate accuracy and trustworthiness of interpretationof the identified themes and to gain a clear understanding of the data, the research teamconducted peer debriefing of the data.60

FindingsThemesThe five major themes that emerged from this study were: collaboration in developingprogram curricula, identification in core competencies needed in industry, integrationof hard and soft skills development, authentification in assessing student learning, andcertification recognized nationally by the industry. These five themes promoted an authenticmodel of faculty teaching, student learning and industry certification for graduates of theAS (Aerospace Technology) and AAS programs (Engineering Technology) that werestrengthened by the ATE Center resources and funding.CollaborationA critical component in the development of the program curriculums and course content forthe Aerospace and Engineering Technology programs were driven by input from industrypartners and faculty. In fact, the Center PI boasts about the National Technology AdvisoryCommittee for the Center which is composed of local industry and business representativesthat have first-hand knowledge of the industry needs among its technician workforce. ThePI states:We have a national technology advisory committee that’s made up of locals andfrom day one they have told us we would like our entry level to look like this toknow these skills to have these competencies.Koller, et al. (2006) reports that the success of the ATE Center has been “its steadfastadherence to the principle of industry verification of need and content” (p. 3). Itscollaboration to create a program that meets the needs of industry employers is what allowsthe development of curriculum and course content to match the output of highly-skilledtechnicians in the industry. Further, this collaboration began on “day one” of the formationof courses with the intent that the appropriate content needed would be infused in eachcourse.DRAFTThe ATE Center PI knew that creating this collaboration and “going through the processwith industry” would help them in forging ahead to develop courses in the AerospaceTechnology Program curriculum that would coincide with the existing EngineeringTechnology curriculum. More importantly, collaboration with industry allowed the ATECenter to meet NSF ATE goals of developing new programs and curricula for trainingtechnicians. This collaboration was the starting point in identifying the core competenciesof technicians, especially those in aerospace, which provides the context of the industrysetting.IdentificationThe initial collaboration with industry yielded the need to further identify the corecompetencies technicians in the industry needed and were most valued. This necessity toidentify core competencies in the industry was critical to aligning curriculum goals andobjectives for course content. What the industry and business leaders wanted, the ATE61

Center Program administrators and faculty along with their national advisory board workedto deliver. They brought in national leaders and trainers to conduct a DACUM process toidentify these core competencies and skill proficiencies. The PI stated that the advisoryboard, faculty and administrators of the Center:…conducted a DACUM with industry so that [they] knew from the beginningthat the curriculum should contain these elements and the individual is going toperform these tasks and need to know these skills and what competencies theyneed to have and what standards.The DACUM process is a tool used to develop curriculums that identifies and determinesthe competencies needed for a specific vocation. It is often used to structure trainingcurriculums that use the expert knowledge of those currently working in the field.A qualified DACUM facilitator guided the Center’s process over a number of days with 16training workshops completed with representatives from partnering schools. The DACUMprocess identified skills in four areas that students should know when they enter the industry:duties and tasks; knowledge and skills; tools and equipment; and traits and attitudes for theworkplace (Koeller, et al., 2006). A core set of competencies were developed and adoptedthrough this process that ensured that students skills would match current and needed skillsin the industry. In addition, Center industry partners, administration, and faculty ensuredthat:[They] assign[ed] proficiency codes to each of those tasks and this was not onlythe very best technicians telling us these are the tasks we do on our job and thisis what we need to know.It is evident, that the identified core competencies were embedded in the core curriculumfrom the program inception. The technical skills sets and workplace competencies wereintegrated into the curriculum to assist students with the skills they needed for entry-levelaerospace technician jobs.DRAFTIntegrationThe Center demonstrated that a critical element in student learning involved integratinghard (technical) and soft skills (communication that yields appropriate attitudes and values)in the classroom and laboratory that would transcend into the workplace. Developing thewhole person as a competent worker was key for the Center. An industry partner notedthat their goal in the development of the curriculum was to make the worker more than amultitasker. He notes,I think one of the biggest concerns you will see is that we are trying to makethe aerospace technician a more complete person than a multitasker…we aretrying to give you a wide range of skills.62

The core competencies integrated what students needed to know in terms of technicalapplication especially with the use of current tools and technologies, in addition, to knowinghow to handle the day-to-day activities in the workplace. One faculty member noted thata “part of what [the Aerospace Program] offers is that mixture [and] the hands-on andpersonal experience” students need to succeed in the industry.Students were heavily involved in classes that provided them with a “hands on program”that allowed them “time to complete projects” on a schedule that would be applicable towhat they would experience in the average work environment. Students also learned to beable to work in teams and communicated the functions of the project through presentations.In fact, in one of the classroom observations (Introduction to the Aerospace), students werechallenged to provide a verbal synopsis of articles they were to review about the historyof the aerospace industry and technology in space exploration. Although, the introductorycourses have less hands-on activities, they gradually progress to more hands-on throughoutthe semester. Basic knowledge and information are usually given in these courses to exposestudents to general concepts and knowledge before moving on to learning the technicalskills necessary for the work environment.AuthentificationAn authentic mode of assessment framed each course where students were given real-lifeproblems to solve; opportunities to demonstrate their abilities to solve them; and classroomforums to communicate how it was done. Student learning was continuously measuredby classroom activities and assignments. The rudiments of authentic assessment wereembedded in course delivery and student application, which were clearly demonstrated inclassroom observations and interviews with faculty.In one of the classes we observed. The faculty member asked a group of students to showus the current project they were working on dealing with making composites. In the oneon-oneinterview, he explained how he goes about teaching his class and shows us theresults again:DRAFTI showed a composite DVD this morning for about 15 minutes and it showedthem what we were going to be doing. They did a wet layup. Put one on thevacuum. But, before we did it, we watched the DVD and then we went throughthe hands-on process in here…this is the project here. When they come backnext week they are going to take these out and weigh them and compare theresult.The faculty member, who also works full-time in the industry, elaborates more on theimportance of having students visually experience what is supposed to happen in producingthe product, as a starter to the hands-on experience students will get.The classroom observations, provided evidence to the research team how important facultywanted to make sure students understood the concepts and theories of what they were doingand it’s proper application in the real world or workplace. Faculty industry experience63

was clearly important to helping create a learning environment where student learning andassessment authenticated their learning experience.CertificationThe ATE Center in the development of the Aerospace Program and its core curriculumwas formulated through collaborative efforts with industry and business partners. Moreimportantly, these collaborations resulted in identifying the critical technical and intrinsicskills industry required that would be integrated into the new core curriculum that wasdeveloped. Further, a unique way of authenticating the learning experience throughuseful measures of authentic assessment with hands-on experience for students wouldculminate into a nationally recognized and highly valued industry certification that assuredemployers that students were more than prepared for entry level technician positions. Anindustry partner notes that, “If you want to work in the industry, you will have to have thiscertification.”Koller et al. (2006) notes that the development of the aerospace technician core certificationand examination includes an assessment that is written, oral, and requires practicaldemonstration. Students must past the examination with a 67% score on the written portionand passing scores on the oral and practical demonstration. The six core competency areasinclude: Introduction to Aerospace, Applied Mechanics, Basic Electricity, AerospaceSafety, Materials & Processes, and Tests and Measurements. A trained examiner, who mustbe certified by the ATE Center, administers the exam. Individuals in the aerospace industrywho do not have a degree and pass the certification become certified aerospace techniciansand can earn 24 credits hours toward an associate degree.This certification has also provided more opportunities for incumbent workers in the field totake advantage in furthering their education across the 11 partnering institutions of the ATECenter. According to the Center PI, the American Council on Education (ACE) endorsedthe certification program in 2007, although the first graduates and certified technicianswere awarded degrees and certificates in 2004 from CCC.DRAFTThe ATE Center’s Aerospace and Certification Programs have resulted in strongerarticulation agreements to four-year colleges as well as stronger partnerships with industrythat are national recognized as noted in their 2+2 articulation agreement with Embry RiddleUniversity’s (Daytona Beach, FL) Aerospace Engineering Program which is often rankedamong the top 10 programs according to the US News and World Report.The aerospace program certification provides sustainability of the ATE Centers goal tocreate a nationally recognized certification program with curriculum developed by facultyand industry that authentically assesses students’ theoretical knowledge and practicalapplication skills and abilities needed in the aerospace industry.64

Discussion and ConclusionAs technologies continue to advance and expand, it is vital for the necessity of a skilledworkforce to achieve economic progress in a global economy making authentic assessmentof required skills among technicians that is valued by employers and recognized by industry,educational institutions, and government agencies. The ATE Center in this study has clearlyprovided a model to emulate in developing degree programs and national certifications thatensure students are well prepared for the world of work. Further, the capitalization onrelationships that are continued and strengthened in an effort to build and foster a highlyskilled workforce for the 21 st century and beyond, have proven to be critical to meeting this21 st century challenge.Community colleges are at the forefront to accomplish this endeavor through the ATEprogram as they create new pathways to degree attainment, career advancement andcredentialing that is validated by industry and education arenas. Institutions of highereducation (community colleges and universities) must come together to exert time,resources and energy in building relationships that work to prepare our students to comeinto the workplace ready to be adaptable and flexible. Thus, strengthening collaborationsto identify industry needs while moving to integrate these needed proficiencies of technicaland intrinsic skills that also authenticate a student’s learning experience and culminate intoa nationally recognized certification are vital to our nation’s economic stability.This model of authentic assessment of teaching, learning and credentialing demonstrates asGrubb and Lazerson (2005) articulate how an ATE Center has made it possible to:Strengthen both occupational preparation and liberal learning; particularly bydeveloping programs that integrate academic and professional learning andthat connect classrooms to the workplace in mutually beneficial ways (p. 20).DRAFTMoreover, this model has created a “well-defined and structured process that unitesindustry-based needs and relevant workplace competencies with demonstrated knowledgeand skills that permit a valid certification” (Koller, et al., 2006, p. 8) for students whoobtain the credentials including a degree and a nationally recognized certification.Implications for Further ResearchIt is clear that more studies on the impact of technician training and education through NSFATE Center funding should be examined. More specifically, future studies need to examinethe organizational changes and dynamics of technician education within community collegesacross disciplines in STEM. Additionally, studies that show the impact of relationshipsof government, education institutions, and industry in technician training are critical toimproving and increasing skilled labor in STEM areas. Further, more in-depth qualitativeand quantitative studies should investigate how these programs are fairing in increasingunderrepresented groups and providing economic benefits associated with techniciantraining including educational attainment and certification. Satisfaction of industry with65

technician skill sets that have been identified through processes like DACUM or TECA(Technical Education Curriculum Assessment) tools in curriculum development noted byKeiser et al. (2004) are also crucially important and deem further study.ReferencesBadway, N. N. & Laanan, F. S. (2005). Student and organization learning: Preparingthe 21 st century technician. Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No.0603132.Bragg, D. D. (2001). Opportunities and challenges for the new vocationalism ofAmerican community colleges. New Direction for Community Colleges, 115, 5-15.Dare, D. E. (2001). Leaner centered instructional practices supporting the newvocationalism. New Directions for Community Colleges, 115, 81-91.Grubb, W. N. (1996). Working in the middle: Strengthening education and training for themid-skilled labor force. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2005). Vocationalism in higher education: The triumph ofthe education gospel. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 1-25.Keiser, J.C., Lawrenz, F., & Appleton, J.J. (2004). Technical education curriculumassessment. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29 (3), 181-194.Koller, A., Brotemarkle, D., Margiotta, F., Neumann, S. (2006). Validity and reliability ofthe SpaceTEC® aerospace technician core certification examination [Monograph].Cocoa, FL: SpaceTEC®.Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed).Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3-17).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mueller, J. (2006). Authentic assessment toolbox: What is authentic assessment?Retrieved from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htmNational Science Foundation (2010). About the National Science Foundation. Retrievedfrom http://www.nsf.gov/about/Patton, M. (Ed.) (2008). ATE centers impact 2008-2010. Tempe, AZ: MaricopaCommunity Colleges.DRAFT66

Reid, M., Jacobs, J., Ivanier, A., & Morest, V. S. (2007). ATE regional centers: Communitycollege research center final report. New York: Columbia University, TeachersCollege, Community College Resource Center. Retrieved at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=575.Reese, S. (2009). Assessing the value of education. Techniques, 84(8) 17-20.Space Transportation System (2009). STS-132. Review of Shuttle Atlantis launch of May14: Flight Day 1 Launch video archived on Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS132#May_14_.28Flight_Day_1_.E2.80.93_Launch.29Stake, R. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.The Evaluation Center Western Michigan University (2005). About ATE: Advancedtechnological education (ATE) program. Kalamazoo, MI. Retrievedfrom http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/ate/ate.html.Weeks, P. (2009). The Outlook in engineering-related technology fields. New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 146, 69-76.DRAFT67

DRAFT

Chapter 5Assessing the Impact of ProfessionalDevelopment Activities Funded by NSF ATECenters on Instructional Practices and StudentLearningDRAFT

DRAFT

Assessing the Impact of Professional DevelopmentActivities Funded by NSF ATE Centers onInstructional Practices and Student LearningFrankie Santos Laanan, Christopher A. Duree, Latrice E. Eggleston, andNorena N. BadwayAbstractThis article takes a qualitative approach in assessing the impact of professional developmentactivities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Advanced TechnologicalEducation (ATE) program on curriculum and pedagogy as it relates to student learning.Using a single case study approach, one-on-one in-depth interviews with three facultymembers and one administrator (dean) in an agricultural program at Midwest PrairieCommunity College, which serves as the host college to an ATE Center focusing onagricultural and biotechnology, were conducted. The participants had or were activelyengaged in the ATE Centers professional development activities. Findings suggests thatfaculty serve as ‘facilitators of learning’; faculty are exposed to and use new technology;faculty actively integrate academic and technical skills by providing real-life experiencesthrough hands-on learning for students; and faculty are exposed to new perspectives andways of viewing the field in relation to other areas. Further, a passion and commitment forstudent learning is evident; institutional support is strong and a sense of ‘growing people’is ingrained in the culture of the institution and among faculty in the program.Keywords: faculty development, community college, pedagogy, agriculture, learningIntroductionDRAFTIn 1993 the National Science Foundation (NSF) demonstrated support of the skills standardsmovement recognizing the community college as an integral component of the reformmovement through the allocation of funds for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE)program. The program stipulates that “with an emphasis on two-year colleges, the AdvancedTechnological Education (ATE) program focuses on the education of technicians for hightechnologyfields that drive our nation’s economy” (NSF, 2006) by fostering improvementsin new curricula, courses, laboratories, and educational materials as well as opportunitiesfor faculty and student development, and collaboration among education institutions andpartners from business, industry, and government (Badway & Laanan, 2005). AlthoughATE programs are now well over ten years old, there exists an ongoing need for evidenceand knowledge about the ways in which community college faculty and staff membershave used and benefited from the funding expended on professional development activitiesthat contribute to student learning. This article reports on an investigation of the impact ofNSF-funded ATE professional development activities on curriculum and pedagogy as itrelates to student learning.71

Purpose and Research QuestionsThe NSF has identified specific strategic fields in which the development and educationof highly skilled technicians is considered essential to remain competitive in globalmarkets. The ATE Centers and projects funded by NSF must have a focus in at least oneof the following areas: advanced manufacturing technology, agricultural/environmentaltechnology, biotechnology/chemical and process technology, engineering technology,information/security technology, micro-/nanotechnology and learning/evaluation. MidwestPrairie Community College (MPCC) was purposely selected for the study because thisinstitution houses one of three national centers that have been funded by NSF in theagricultural technology/biotechnology area.The purpose of this study was to further examine the NSF-funded ATE project at MidwestPrairie Community College (MPCC) and identify what program elements have beendeveloped and implemented as a result of professional development activities designedto ensure a quality student learning experience. In order to describe and analyze theinstructional elements that are contributing to student success, the following question wasused to guide and inform the study:• How have professional development activities funded by NSF-ATE grantsstrengthened instructional practices and student learning in the agriculturalprograms at MPCC?Literature ReviewProfessional Development of Community College FacultyCommunity colleges tout that their strength is found in their faculty (Fugate & Amey,2000). The community college instructor is viewed as “the crucial and pivotal reference inthe classroom and learning experience” (Van Ast, 1999, p. 561). Seemingly, these two-yearinstitutions have always valued the importance of good teaching and offered an environmentin which faculty are generally satisfied with their jobs; however, like members of mostprofessions, instructors would prefer to have more professional development opportunities(Cohen & Brawer, 1989).DRAFTWith good intentions, faculty development programs are frequently designed to improveteaching; however, follow through from workshop to the classroom often times results, atbest, in short term success (Outcalt, 2000; Murray, 1999). The fragmentation and disconnectof commonly used, one-day workshops continues to perpetuate negative attitudes thatfaculty have developed towards traditional professional development activities (Wilson &Berne, 1999). In his qualitative study of community college teaching, Grubb (1999) foundthat instructors want professional development opportunities that can be incorporated withtheir professional lives and also build a collegial network with their professional colleagues.In a report sponsored by the NSF and published in 2006 by the American Association ofCommunity Colleges (AACC), the characteristics of exemplary community college faculty72

were described. A prevalent feature identified was “their desire and passion to teach studentswhose ages range from teens to older adults in open enrollment institutions” (Patton, 2006,p. 5). Among other characteristics, exemplary community college instructors demonstrateda willingness to stay abreast of new developments in their fields and integrate this currentinformation into classroom and lab experiences through simulated real-life experiences.Certainly, one might correctly discern that meaningful professional development activitiescan play a critical role in sustaining this desired passion to teach, and also facilitate stayingon top of new developments in the instructors’ chosen fields. Indeed, some of the literaturestrongly suggests that professional development activities can even be a factor in deterringthe effects of “burnout” of both beginning and mid-career community college faculty(Fugate & Amey, 2000; Van Ast, 1999; Cohen & Brawer, 1989).Professional Development for ATE FacultyOne of the over-riding goals of the ATE program is to promote the collaboration of resourcesof community colleges with secondary schools, four-year colleges and universities,business and industry and government (Salinger, 2003). As such, there is never a shortageof need for professional development activities that help the program meet its intendedgoal. Not surprisingly, for well over a decade, program appropriations for ATE professionaldevelopment opportunities have comprised the greatest portion of the funding (Patton,2005).Professional development for faculty is critical for the updating of skills and trainingrequired to effectively implement new ATE programs (Zinser & Lawrenz, 2004).Furthermore, business and industry representatives who partner with ATE Centers oftengauge the success of their collaborations by how well faculty keep their skills current inthe use of new technologies actually being used in the workforce (Patton, 2005). Thesepartners from the private sector demonstrate their support by providing equipment, advice,internships, and employment opportunities for graduates (Bailey et al., 2004).DRAFTUnfortunately, in many cases, ATE faculty do not receive support to participate inprofessional development activities unless there is NSF funding available (Gold and Powe,2001). Interestingly, according to Patton (2005) business and industry partners place ahigh value on professional development. However, in a recent study of how former ATEgrantees sustain project initiatives after funding has ended, professional development wasnoted as one of two areas that experience a productivity decline (Welch & Gullickson,2006). Clearly, not everyone holding leadership positions has the same opinion about theimportance of sustaining ATE programs without external funding and training a highlyskilled labor force for local industry.In their examination of the effectiveness of ATE-funded professional development activities,Gold and Powe (2001) identified institutional support as one of seven basic elements thatshould exist for successful training to occur. For those institutions that experience a declinein professional development productivity when funding is terminated, one might questionthe level of genuine institutional support provided on the front end of the funding. Seemingto be most preferable is the attitude of a west coast community college president who73

elieved that the ATE initiatives were essential in fulfilling the college’s academic andcommunity missions, and noted that the center would remain on his campus no matter whatfunding challenges the institution might face (Patton, 2003).Theoretical FrameworkCommunity college teachers can become more effective and improve the quality ofinstruction in their classrooms by being exposed to new ways of teaching throughprofessional development and interaction with their colleagues (Nwagwu, 1998). Manyinstructors who acknowledge direct linkage between professional development activitiesand quality instruction are willing to take advantage of professional developmentopportunities (Fugate & Amey, 2000). Murray (2001) suggests the following framework ofconditions that must exist for this to happen:• First and foremost, those who hold the administrative positions responsible forproviding academic leadership must demonstrate their commitment to teachingexcellence by fostering a climate that supports faculty development.• Faculty development programs must relate to both the faculty member’sprofessional goals, and the mission and goals of the institution.• Faculty members must be given recognition for excellence in teaching through theinstitution’s reward structures.• Faculty development activities must be the result of collaborative efforts betweeninstructors and academic administrators.• Support and consultation through professional discourse with colleagues in thesame field must be made available.• Administrators at all levels of the organization must genuinely demonstrate thatthey value good teaching.DRAFTNoticeably, the framework suggests that professional development activities will only beas effective as the institutional leadership’s commitment to foster a culture that focuses ona quality learning experience for students and faculty growth.The National Research Council (NRC) issued the National Science Education Standards(NSES) in 1996. Chapter four specifically outlined the four standards that should becharacteristic of all quality professional development initiatives for science teachers at alllevels of education. These standards are listed below:• Standard A – Professional development requires learning essential science contentthrough the perspectives and methods of inquiry.• Standard B – Professional development requires integrating knowledge ofscience, learning pedagogy, and students; it also requires applying that knowledgeto science teaching.• Standard C – Professional development requires building understanding andability for lifelong learning.• Standard D – Professional development activities must be coherent and integrated.74

and document review were used (Merriam, 2002, p.8). These multiple data collectionstrategies sought to add strength to the themes of this qualitative inquiry and to assist withensuring the goodness and trustworthiness of the study (Creswell, 2003; Esterberg, 2002).Participants and SiteConsistent with case study methodology (Creswell, 2003), both site and participants werepurposely selected to better understand how professional development activities haveimpacted instruction and student learning in agricultural studies programs at MPCC. Thisparticular site was chosen because of its affiliation with the NSF-ATE program and thevariety of emphases in agricultural technology embedded in the curriculum. Each havingbeen involved with ATE-funded professional development activities, three faculty memberswho teach courses in the agriculture department and the Dean of Agricultural Studies atMPCC were selected for interviews.Data Collection and ProcessingOne hour interviews were conducted with the faculty and administrator participants in lateMarch 2007 and June 2007 with follow-up visits to conduct field observations of studentand faculty interaction in the classrooms a week later in June 2007. These interviews weresemi-structured to allow opinions and discussions and were transcribed. Protocols wereestablished and followed. Non-participant observations were situated in classrooms andlab settings where teachers and students were engaged in a variety of settings including:lecture, large and small group discussions, and student presentations. Course syllabi,activity guideline worksheets, departmental information on the school web site, and coursecatalog descriptions were examined for document review.A two-stage coding process was employed for data analysis. First, a review of field notesand interview transcriptions were completed line-by-line and open-ended to identifyrecurring themes and then followed by focused coding that entailed a line by line review toextract specific passages that fit the themes categorized. Next, themes and categories wereanalyzed and compared across each interview. Supplementary data was gathered fromdocuments and analyzed to reinforce and triangulate the emerging themes. To validateaccuracy of findings, peer debriefing among research team members were employed toensure trustworthiness of the interpretations and meaning of the data.DRAFTFindingsSetting and ParticipantsBased in the central plains of rural United States, MPCC is one of the largest communitycolleges in the region. With enrollment in 2006-07 of over 15,000 students, the institutionoffers over 100 career and college transfer programs; ranks in the top five percent of twoyearcolleges in America for the number of two-year degrees awarded; and transfers morethan 50 percent of its graduates to four-year colleges. In particular, the agricultural programat MPCC is one of the largest of its kind in the nation and offers students 11 differentprograms, a 400-acre lab site with state-of-the-art technology, four greenhouses, and a new76

equestrian center. Since its inception in July 2001, the hub of the NSF-funded ATE Centerhas been housed in the main instructional building for the Agricultural Studies programs.The offices and classrooms used for interviews and non-participant observation werelocated in this facility.A total of four participants were interviewed which included three faculty members (1male and 2 females) and the Agricultural Department Dean (1 male). Teaching experiencesranged from three years of teaching exclusively at the community college to more thantwenty-five years of combined instruction in public high schools and community colleges.Analysis of ThemesAs illustrated in Figure 1, seven themes emerged from the data that capture the essence ofhow ATE-funded professional development activities impact and strengthen instructionand student learning in the agricultural studies programs at MPCC. The instructorsviewed their role in the learning process as facilitator. ATE-funded activities were viewedas a critical link to staying abreast of the latest technologies. There was an obviouscommitment to integrating academic and technical skill standards by offering real-lifeexperiences through hands-on activities. ATE-funded professional development was alsoconsidered a means by which instructors built collegial networks with others in their field.These professional relationships fostered a culture that encouraged faculty to broadentheir perspectives through exposure to agriculture in other regions of the country. Theadministration genuinely valued teaching and demonstrated strong institutional support forprofessional development. “Growing people” through professional development activitieswas believed to be an essential element for sustaining a teacher’s passion and commitmentto student learning.DRAFT77

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11Figure 1. Seven themes related to ATE-funded professional development activities atMPCC.Teacher as Facilitatorof LearningInstitutional Support&“Growing People”Exposure to and Useof New TechnologyPassion andCommitment toStudent LearningNew Perspectivesthrough Exposure toAgriculture in OtherAreasATE-FundedProfessionalDevelopmentActivities at MPCCReal-Life Experiencesthrough Hands-OnLearning ActivitiesIntegration ofAcademic & TechnicalSkillsTeacher as Facilitator of LearningFaculty discussed the importance of engaging their students throughout the learningprocess. Suzanne talked excitedly about her classroom activities and her steadfast beliefTeacher as Facilitator of Learningthat you must give the students “lots of ownership.” She spoke of the need to “work withmy students Faculty on discussed a very personal the importance level” while of engaging emphasizing their “it’s students not always throughout me teaching, the it’sthe learning facilitating.” process. In Suzanne reference talked to her excitedly frequent use about of her cooperative classroom learning activities teaching and her strategies,Suzanne steadfast once belief again that was you clear must give about the “You’ve students got “lots to be of ownership.” willing to be She the spoke facilitator.” of the Ryanwas need also to an “work advocate with my for students providing on a classroom very personal environment level” while in emphasizing which he provided “it’s not enoughinput always and me material teaching, for it’s students the facilitating.” to “take In a position reference and to her defend frequent that position use of cooperative based on thelearning teaching strategies, Suzanne once again was clear about “You’ve got to beinformation we talked about in class.”willing to be the facilitator.” Ryan was also an advocate for providing a classroomenvironment in which he provided enough input and material for students to “take aRyan position believed and defend that the that students position “want based to on see the that information their action we on talked the exercises about in class.” are workingtoward an end goal that’s going to teach them something they can use in the future…they’re more engaged if they can see the end result.” In a moment of reflection, Gary,Dean of the Agricultural Studies programs, explained that teachers serving as facilitatorsin the classroom had become one of the greatest pedagogical shifts he had witnessed in thedepartment over the years. “Students have to become active learners. …they can’t sit backand think we’re going to open up their brains and pour all the information in for them.”Numerous lab activities, field trips, class presentations, and small group work were alsomentioned by the faculty as methods that had been employed to include the students inmeaningful activities.DRAFT78

Document review of handout worksheets explaining the activities and level of studentinvolvement confirmed the instructors’ commitment to providing an engaged classroom.Additionally, one-half day was spent conducting classroom observations of studentpresentations and assessing to what extent they had responsibility for their own learning.Clearly, a high level of preparation for the presentations was obvious on the behalf of thestudents, while the instructor played more of a supervisory role directing each activity thushighlighting the theme of teacher as facilitator of learning.Exposure to and Use of New Technology Used by IndustryEach of the four participants was asked to discuss their perspectives of how the professionaldevelopment activities funded by the NSF/ATE grant have influenced teaching and learning.Embedded in their responses was a theme of how ATE-funded training opportunities hadgreatly influenced classroom and lab applications of the newest technologies. Barry, in hiseighth year of teaching at MPCC, is deeply involved with the ATE grant and professionaldevelopment activities. Without reservation, he believed the workshops offering exposureto and training in the use of the latest high-tech equipment were critical, stating that teachers“really were not able to incorporate it [the technology] effectively until they participatedin the workshops.” There are workshops specifically designed to “create awareness oftechnology” with hands-on activities to ensure instructors will “know how to apply” thematerial when they return to the classroom. Speaking about his personal experience, hedescribed a workshop that had expanded his awareness of how graphing calculators couldbe used in his instruction of students studying global positioning and information systems.He had not operated a graphing calculator “in years” and summarized by saying “theworkshop was very interesting and helped me understand it pretty well.” Perhaps the onemost influenced by the ATE-funded technology workshops was Ryan, the youngest facultymember interviewed, stating that the experience had “opened [his] eyes” and impressedupon him that “there is no limit to what you can do or what you can achieve in the classroomas far as introducing technology or other directives.”DRAFTGary acknowledged the importance from the perspective of his administrative positionby simply stating that the professional development activities focused on technology hadresulted in some of the “most obvious” benefits. By participating in the workshops, hisfaculty had received “technical updating” that they could “take into the classroom.” As aparticipant in one of the workshops, Suzanne echoed a similar position about the importanceof bringing back current information about advances in technology to her classroom andhaving “opened students’ eyes tremendously” as a result of sharing her new knowledge.Suzanne was adamant about these training opportunities allowing her to remain up-to-dateso she could teach students “what’s going to be current tomorrow.”Skill Standards through Real-Life ExperiencesThrough the various stages of data analyses, one of the stronger themes to emerge was theattention given by faculty to integrate academic and technical skill standards through handson,real-life experiences that allow students the opportunity to develop a comprehensiveset of competencies necessary for the workplace. Ryan, who had previously worked inbusiness and industry in management for a hybrid seed company and as an agronomist for79

12 years before starting his teaching career at Midwest Prairie, is a third-year agronomyinstructor in the agricultural studies department. Ryan works with first and second yearstudents who are pursuing two-year degrees or one-year diplomas in either career andtechnical areas or the transfer program. When asked in the interview to explain how heintegrates academic skills into his curriculum along with career and technical skills, he wasenthusiastic in offering this response:“I tell them they are crop specialists at a co-op and they need to write a monthlynewsletter and I give them a topic like how to use Round-Up corn and soybeansboth. They have to submit a topic to the co-op newsletter and do a one-pagearticle on that, basically, a position paper. They have to take a position anddefend that position but it’s based on information we have talked about in classon Round-Up herbicide. But they have to use their communication skills toconvince farmers of what they believe to be the correct route.”Ryan was passionate when he spoke of the importance of connecting the curriculum, histeaching, and the students’ learning to real-life experiences. He started his answer by firstletting me know that he “centers” his classes on hands-on, real-life examples. There was noquestion in his mind that some day each of his students would be “in the workforce” and“working as crop specialists.” He wanted them prepared with the necessary competenciesto confidently stand in front of an audience of farmers and articulate their knowledge.In the interview with Suzanne, a bubbling passion for teaching students the skills they needfor the world of work remained present. “I’m such an advocate on student learning. Mywhole career is finding different ways for students to learn so that they can become moreproficient for their lifetime skills.” Suzanne was equally excited to discuss her integrationof academic skills, such as math and science, with agriculture business classes.DRAFT“I’m using crop examples from what they’re learning in that class or examplesfrom swine production or beef production are all brought in so the scienceis integrated with materials that they have learned from their labs and otherclasses.”More than once, she referenced to her hands-on approach to teaching as noted in hercomments, “…everything that I teach I do in real life situations…” and, “providing themwith … real life situations so they develop lots of ownership.”Both Ryan and Suzanne demonstrated an unquestionable passion for working withcommunity college students, integrating academic and technical skill standards, andoffering real-life learning experiences in classroom and lab settings. A review of documentsfurther substantiated their expectations of students. In Suzanne’s syllabus for AgriculturalSalesmanship, she specifically notes in her learning outcomes and course competenciesthat students will be able to: “illustrate the profile of a professional sales person.” In Ryan’ssyllabus for Crop Scouting he had stated that students will: “scout fields identifying pestsand determining if the pest level is at the economic threshold.” The commitment that was80

explicitly clear in their interview statements was also reinforced by their expectations incourse syllabi providing a pattern of consistency that was evident.Broadened Perspectives through Exposure to Agriculture in Other AreasAs the interviews progressed, faculty and staff spoke about the importance of broadeningtheir perspectives and knowledge in the field of agriculture outside the confines of theirinstitution and region. The professional development activities funded by the ATE programhad given them the opportunity to establish a network with other colleagues from acrossthe country. Workshops had been designed with the intention of agricultural educators,farmers, and agricultural industry representatives sharing different philosophies, principles,and farming practices.The chance to exchange different ideas and learn about agriculture from different regionsof the country helped ignite a flame of excitement with Suzanne. The experience of visitinga commercial onion farming operation in California inspired her to the degree that she feltlike she “wanted to ask ten thousand questions to the owner of the facility or the farm.”Suzanne carried that same level of excitement back to her classroom and was anxiousto share her new knowledge with students. She valued her experiences at the workshopstating that she was exposed to “a whole different mind-set.” Ryan also remarked about thevalue of networking at the workshops. Some of the development in forming his teachingphilosophies had been broadened from the interaction “with other community collegeinstructors and a few high school instructors.” For both Suzanne and Ryan, one of the keyrewards from attending the professional development activities provided by the ATE grantwas networking with other educators and growing from exposure to other agriculturalphilosophies and practices.Gary demonstrated staunch administrative support of his faculty attending workshops.He was steadfast in his belief that instructors should “not only come back with a newawareness of what is happening out there from a technical perspective” but also “comeback with something in their hands that they can take into the classroom.” Gary, as well,acknowledged the advantages of networking with agriculture educators from other regions.After attending the workshops, he expected his faculty to “come back with a nationalperspective because they sit in a classroom with people from all over the United States.”DRAFTPassion and CommitmentCertainly, one might expect the most obvious benefits of ATE-funded professionaldevelopment to surface in themes of new teaching practices, learning about new technologies,and networking with colleagues. However, a less tangible theme emerged from analyses ofinterviews with faculty and staff at MPCC. Professional development was critical to avoidthe effects of “burnout” that come as a result of the institution’s failure to help teachersgrow personally and professionally. In his discussion of how the ATE-funded professionaldevelopment had impacted his faculty, Gary was explicit as he reflected on impressionableexperiences earlier in his career.81

“I saw teachers who were burned out, teachers that had poor attitudes aboutwhat they did to make a living…. They couldn’t separate that attitude fromtheir teaching. And no mater how hard they tried, the students can pick thatup, and the students could sense that the teacher isn’t happy or satisfied withwhat they’re doing. They’re not going to do a very good job. So I think facultydevelopment activity has just been one way that I call attitude adjustment.”If the energy, passion, and commitment of faculty responses to the same interview questionsserve as an indicator, Gary’s trust in faculty development providing the necessary “attitudeadjustment” was being rewarded. As Ryan discussed how ATE-funded workshops hadimpacted his teaching, he referenced to the ripple effect that his attitude had on students.“Basically, when students see instructors who are, for lack of a better term, excited orpassionate about the material that they are teaching, it’s easier for [the students] to getengaged.” Suzanne’s passion for teaching could not be contained throughout the interviewand in reference to her teaching and interaction with students, she states, “I love it. …mygreatest high in life is when I’m in the classroom and everything is just clicking and thestudents are just rockin’ and everything.” Throughout the various aspects of the study, thepassion, commitment, and excitement seen with Susan could not have been more clearlyillustrated among the other faculty at MPCC.Institutional SupportEach of the four interviews finished with an open-ended question asking participants toshare if there were other critical elements in order for ATE-funded professional developmentactivities to have an impact on teaching and learning. Faculty members were gracious inrecognizing the importance of the advocacy role that the administration played in supportof attending workshops, seminars, and conferences. Ryan discussed his relationship withthe ATE program as one in which there were no “boundaries” or “limitations.” If he felt thata workshop was important for learning new material of benefit to his students, the attitudeof administration was to “help you in any way we can to get you there.” He had been“encouraged” to attend educational seminars noting what he had attended “was great.”Suzanne also gave credit to the institution’s “strong administrative support” for professionaldevelopment that allowed the faculty to stay “on that edge of what you’re learning todaywill be used tomorrow.” Certainly, the faculty recognized institutional support as a stalwartcomponent of the ATE program’s success at MPCC.DRAFTPerhaps the theme of institutional support is best framed by the comments of Gary as hedescribed “growing people” as the “philosophical umbrella” that guides the department.In his administrative role as dean of the department, Gary was steadfast in his belief thatwhatever he could do to help everyone “grow professionally and personally” should serveas the heart of the department’s “central mission.” As a result of this institutional support,the desired passion and commitment to their teaching and student learning was clearlyevident in the behaviors and statements of the instructors who participated in the interviews.82

Discussion and ConclusionsThe intent of this investigation was to assess and better understand how professionaldevelopment activities funded by the NSF-ATE grant have strengthened instructionalpractices and student learning specifically in the agricultural programs at MPCC. Seventhemes emerged that spoke to faculty serving as ‘facilitators of learning’; faculty beingexposed to and using new technology; faculty actively integrating academic and technicalskills by providing real-life experiences through hands-on learning for students; facultybeing exposed to new perspectives and ways of viewing the field in relation to other areas;seeing an evident passion and commitment for student learning; seeing strong institutionalsupport and witnessing how a “growing people” mentality is ingrained in the culture of theinstitution and among faculty.Overall, the impact on ATE funded professional development on instructional practiceswas more apparent than the impact it has had on student learning. Undoubtedly, workshopactivities and conferences designed to provide faculty with new knowledge contributes totheir role as facilitators of learning and using new ideas for hands-on, real-life learningexperiences with students in the classroom. Additionally, the extra funding contributed toadvancing the administration’s commitment to the professional development of faculty.Although the focus of attention was given to what seemed to be the obvious impact ondeveloping new technologies, building professional global networks and sustaining theexcitement that comes as a result of learning about new practices from colleagues in thefield was also important to expanding faculty perspectives about the field. This speaks toMurray’s (2001) tenets of institutional commitment and support as well as the need foropportunities for faculty to network with their colleagues.Implications for Policy, Practice and ResearchDRAFTThroughout the investigation, we were unable to pin down how any of the activities had adirect and measurable impact on student learning. However, in line with the NRC’s (1996)National Science Education Standards, an integration of the knowledge of sciences withacademic skills was demonstrated and helped faculty strengthen the capacity to promotinglife-long learners. What needs further investigation is how this has truly effected studentlearning. What measures can we use to identity that students are being impacted in a positiveway with regards to their learning and preparation? It is possible that more studies can bedone to validate the impact with those who employ these technicians and with business andindustry partners?Although current studies suggest that it is critical for faculty to update skills needed toeffectively teach in the ATE curriculum (Zinser & Lawrenz, 2004) and that ATE businessand industry partners value the collaborations with centers based on how well facultykeep their skills current (Patton, 2005), again, further study is needed to show howprofessional development activities directly impact student success outcomes particularlyin the classroom in terms of student learning. As the experiences of faculty in this study83

demonstrate the positive impact of professional development in their pedagogical stylesand practices there still remains much to be done in measuring how it impacts studentlearning. In other words, the experiences of faculty regarding professional developmentand how it has broadened their perspectives in their respective fields of study and exposedthem to new knowledge should be further investigated as to how this directly impactsstudent learning and engagement.ReferencesBadway, N. N. & Laanan, F. S. (2005). Student and organization learning: Preparingthe 21 st century technician. Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No.0603132.Bailey, T., Hughes, K. L., & Moore, D. T. (2004). Working knowledge: Work-based learningand education reform. New York: Routledge Falmer.Barnett, L. & San Felice, F. (Eds.) Teaching by choice: Cultivating exemplary communitycollege STEM faculty. Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2006.Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American community college. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluatingquantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation, Inc.Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of social research. CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.DRAFTEsterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. United States:McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Finch, C. R. & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational andtechnical education (5 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Fugate, A. L. & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: Aqualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. CommunityCollege Review, 28(1), 1-22.Grubb, W. N. (1997). Not there yet: Prospects and problems for “Education throughOccupations.” Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22, 77-94.Gullickson, A. R., Coryn, C. L. S., & Hanssen, C. E. (2006). ATE indicators ofproductivity: Six-year trends 2000-2005. Kalamazoo, MI: Western MichiganUniversity, The Evaluation Center.84

Gold, N. & Powe, K. W. (2001). Assessing the impact and effectiveness of professionaldevelopment in the ATE program. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,The Evaluation Center.Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in communitycolleges. New York: Routledge.Lynch, R. L. (2000). New directions for high school career and technical education in the21 st century (Information Series No. 384). Columbus: The Ohio State University,ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.McClenney, K. M. (2004). Redefining quality in community colleges. Change, 36(6). 16-21.Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion andanalysis (1 st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Murray, J. P. (1999). Faculty development in a national single sample of communitycolleges. Community College Review, 27(3), 47-64.Murray, J. P. (2001). Faculty development in publicly supported 2-year colleges.Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(7), 487-502.National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC: National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment.National Science Foundation. (2006). Division of undergraduate education: Advancedtechnological education (ATE). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5464.DRAFTNwagwu, E. C. (1998). How community college administrators can improve teachingeffectiveness. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(1), 11-19.Outcalt, C. L. (2000). Community college teaching – Toward collegiality andcommunity. Community college review, 28(2), 57-70.Patton, M. (2003). ATE grants impact community colleges. Community College Journal,74(2), Special Issue, ss-4-ss7. Washington, DC: Author.Patton, M. (2005). Advancing technological education: Keeping America competitive.Washington, DC: Community College Press, 2006.85

Patton, Madeline. 2006. Teaching by Choice: Cultivating Exemplary Community CollegeSTEM Faculty. Lynn Barnett and Faith San Felice (Eds.). Washington, DC:American Association of Community Colleges.Patton, M. (Ed.) (2006). ATE Centers Impact 2006-2007. Tempe, AZ: Maricopa CommunityColleges.Rojewski, J. W. (2002). Preparing the workforce of tomorrow: A conceptual framework forcareer and technical education. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27 (1),7-35.Salinger, G. (2003). The ATE program. Community College Journal, 74(2), Special Issue,ss-2-ss3. Washington, DC: Author.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Van Ast, J. (1999). Community college faculty: Making the paradigm shift. CommunityCollege Journal of Research and Practice, 23(6), 559-579.Welch, W. W., & Gullickson, A. R. (2006). The sustainability of advanced technologicaleducation supported efforts: An evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western MichiganUniversity.Wilson, S. M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professionalknowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.Zinser, R. & Lawrenz, F. (2004). New roles to meet industry needs: A look at the advancedtechnological education program. Journal of Vocational Education Research,29(2), 85-99.DRAFT86

Chapter 6Faculty Perceptions of Leadership andLeadership Development Among AdvancedTechnological Education (ATE) FacultyDRAFT

DRAFT88

Faculty Perceptions of Leadership andLeadership Development Among AdvancedTechnological Education (ATE) FacultyMichael E. Miller, Frankie Santos Laanan, Latrice E. Eggleston, April L. Anderson,and Norena Norton BadwayAbstractThe current study seeks to explore faculty self-definitions of their own-leadership andto determine how that leadership has been developed through participating in NationalScience Foundation (NSF)-funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Centers andinitiatives. Faculty perspectives were explored using a constructivist qualitative approachwith interviews of 22 faculty members across four Centers comprising the primary datasetfor analysis. Findings indicate ATE Centers support faculty members in a variety ofprofessional development activities that may otherwise not have been possible. Amongthe opportunities most highly regarded by faculty members are activities not commonlyassociated with community college faculty leadership development, including givingpresentations and pursuing grants. Themes that emerged from the interviews included:(1) the importance of networking and collaboration during professional developmentactivities, and (2) the tendency for faculty members to relate their leadership and leadershipdevelopment directly to effectiveness in teaching. Using these themes, recommendationsare made for future policy, practice, and research.Keywords: faculty, leadership, development, teaching, collaboration, NSF, ATE CenterIntroductionDRAFTThe words to meet tomorrow’s needs, to address the needs, tailored to the needs, or somecombination thereof are noted in the vision, mission or purpose statements of AdvancedTeachnological Education (ATE) Centers that seek to improve technician education; increasetechnician workforce, and build stronger relationships with the communities, governmentalagencies and business and industry partners it serves. The Advanced TechnologicalEducation (ATE) program was created by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in orderto meet the goals of the 1992 Scientific and Advanced Technology Act (SATA) (Bailey,2003). The ATE initiative is working towards the goal of reforming science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and increasing STEM graduates from ournation’s schools in an effort to improve our nation’s competitiveness (Bailey, 2003). Onestep in reforming STEM education is by ensuring that the faculty in these fields are highqualityinstructors offering students cutting-edge information and materials.89

Many ATE Centers provide access to professional development workshops and classesfor their faculty. The workshops offer a variety of developmental opportunities fromcourses on specific discipline-related topics to general technology instruction. Attendingthe workshops allows faculty to learn about the newest technological advances in theirfields, gain knowledge and skills that they can pass on to their peers and students, anddevelop their leadership skills both in the classroom of their respective institution. Thisstudy examines the leadership skills faculty gained from participation in professionaldevelopment activities sponsored by ATE Centers, including how faculty viewed theirleadership skills and opportunities.Literature ReviewWhat is leadership? How does one define a concept that is, of necessity, embroiled in anindividual-specific context? Bennis and Nanus (1985) identified more than 350 definitionsfor the word “leadership.” It is no surprise that there is an ongoing controversy not onlyabout how to define the term, but also in how to approach leadership from a theoreticalperspective.Historically, leadership was viewed as a collection of inherit traits and behaviors: strength,power, and social distance (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989). This view ofleadership has come to be termed the “great man” theory (Kezar, 2002). More recentnotions of leadership take a more developmental orientation, taking into account cognitiveprocesses as well as meaning-making for oneself and others (Amey, 1992; Amey, 2005;Eddy, 2003). Others view leadership through the lens of initiating change (Laursen, 2009;Kezar & Lester, 2009).Complicating the matter even further is the tendency to use “leadership” interchangeablywith “administration” or formal leadership positions. For example, when the AmericanAssociation of Community Colleges (AACC) set out to design a framework through whichto identify leaders, culminating in the widely-cited Competencies for Community CollegeLeaders (AACC, 2006), the term “leadership” is used interchangeably with “collegepresident.” When Frankel, Schechtman, and Koenigs (2006) explored images of idealleadership, they used the systematic multiple-level observations of groups (SYMLOG)model developed by Bales, Cohen, and Williamson (1979) which has primarily been usedto view leadership from a managerial standpoint (Hogan, 1988).DRAFTThis administrative-centric view of leadership is not surprising. This may be especially truefor discussions about community colleges, where there has been a growing concern aboutthe impending retirements of large numbers of senior administrative officials (Schults,2001). But where does this administrative/managerial-dominant view of leadership leavefaculty? Cooper and Pagotto (2003) would argue that “new community college leadersare often drawn from faculty ranks” and are “floundering in new roles for which they arenot prepared” (p. 28). Leadership for faculty who participate in ATE funded professionaldevelopment may offer a different view.90

Most literature concerning faculty leadership approaches the topic from the perspectiveof moving faculty into administrative roles (Kezar et al., 2007; Laursen & Rocque, 2009).However, the concept of shared governance as defined by Lucey (2002) in conjunctionwith Vaill’s (1997) “learning premise” gives us a space through which to view facultyleadership primarily as facilitating learning by focusing on academic and curricular affairs.However, this conception does not take into consideration faculty members’ self-definitionof their own leadership roles. To date, little literature exists providing a venue throughwhich faculty can define their own leadership.PurposeBadway and Laanan, (2005) contend that there are four critical aspects by which ATECenters and programs should be assessed. These critical aspects include: (1) how studentlearning is being improved; (2) how faculty design and implement novel curriculum andpedagogical strategies for student learning; (3) how ATE Centers disseminate and transportCenter products; and (4) how transformational leadership is developed among facultyinvolved in ATE Centers . Utilizing this framework, the purpose of this study was to explorethe impact that ATE Centers have had on developing transformational leadership amongparticipating faculty members. This study was guided by the following research questions:• How do faculty members view their own leadership?• How have faculty leadership roles been affected by participating in an ATECenter?• What ATE Center-supported opportunities for leadership development do facultymembers find most beneficial?ContextDRAFTThis current study interviewed faculty members at four ATE Centers covering a diversearray of center impact areas – the Advanced Technology Environmental Education Center(ATEEC – environmental technologies), the Midwest Center for Information Technology(MCIT – information technologies), the National Aerospace Technical Education Center(SpaceTec – engineering technologies), and the National Center for Agriscience andTechnology Education (AgrowKnowledge – agricultural technologies) – to assess ATECenter supported opportunities for leadership development; to better understand howfaculty view their own leadership; and to gauge how leadership development for facultywho participate in the Center professional development is valued.ATEEC was established as an ATE Center through a 1994 NSF grant and is hosted by ScottCommunity College in Bettendorf, Iowa, part of the Eastern Iowa Community CollegeDistrict, which has three campuses (including Muscatine and Clinton Community Colleges).ATEEC’s vision is to, “create a national network of community colleges, supported throughpublic and private partnerships, that prepares and maintains an environmental technologyworkforce to address industry’s needs and to promote the transfer of secondary studentsto higher education” (Lensch, 1997). ATEEC was designed to address the need to build91

a strong environmental technological education infrastructure through curriculum andprofessional development as well as program improvement at the nation’s communitycolleges and secondary schools (Lensch, 1997).MCIT was funded through an NSF grant in 2001 with a renewal grant awarded in 2005. Atits core, MCIT is a working consortium of ten community colleges in the four-state regionof Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota and is administered through the notfor-profitApplied Information Management (AIM) Institute based in Omaha, Nebraska.MCIT’s goal is to increase the preparedness of the region’s IT workforce; primarily throughfaculty and teacher professional development, 2+2+2 articulation, innovative education/training programs, and dissemination of best practices (Kirlin et al., 2001).SpaceTec was created through a 2002 NSF grant with a renewal grant awarded in 2005,and is based at Brevard Community College in Cocoa, Florida. Spacetec’s goal has been toformalize aerospace technician education nationally and establish a skill-based standardsprogram with industry-wide endorsement as well as conduct outreach for college, university,and K-12 students and instructors. To help meet these objectives, Spacetec’s core partnershipincludes 12 community colleges and universities, members of the industry, NASA, the USAir Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (Koller et al., 2005).AgroKnowldege was founded through an NSF grant in 2001 and is based at KirkwoodCommunity College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The mission of AgrowKnowledge is to,“encourage and support improved technical education for community college studentsenrolled in agriculture, food, and natural resources (AFNR) programs” (Hanson et al.,2008). The Agrowknowledge network includes community colleges, universities andsecondary schools partners and is informed by a 12-member Industry Council as well asprofessional and trade organizations (Hanson et al., 2008). Partnerships and efforts of theCenter are aligned among four critical growth areas: (1) agricultural environment, naturalresources and security; (2) alternative energy for agriculture; (3) agricultural GIS/GPSsystems; and (4) agricultural biotechnology.DRAFTNSF has made the nation’s community colleges the primary medium through which toadminister ATE Centers and programs (Ashlock & Wright, 2001). It is important to note thatall participants included in the present study were heavily involved with the activities andevents in their respective community colleges. As such, the views and opinions expressedherein will come from the perspective of community college faculty and may differ fromthose that would be expressed by faculty at other institutions of higher education.Since the collection of data at these sites, ATEEC and MCIT remain Regional Centers thatfocus on academic initiatives and technician workforce needs within a specific region.Agrowknowledge and Space Tec are now National Resource Centers that are taking amore global perspective in providing technological educational reforms in developing newprograms, curricula, professional development, and recruitment and retention of studentson a broader scale. (Patton, 2008). In addition, MCIT has sustained its Center withoutcontinued funding as a Center from the NSF.92

MethodologyA qualitative, constructivist approach was employed to explore the impact of four NSFfundedATE Centers on faculty leadership and leadership development. More specifically,a multicase study approach was employed as each case met the general criteria as suggestedby Stake (2006). Four ATE Centers were selected for this study because they were relevantto the study as members of the ATE programs; they provided diversity of contextual focusesin technician training and professional development opportunities, in addition to allowingthe researcher to learn about the complexity of these contexts and how they contribute tothe goals of the study. The Centers included in this study were the Advanced TechnologyEnvironmental Education Center (ATEEC), the Midwest Center for Information Technology(MCIT), the National Aerospace Technical Education Center (SpaceTec), and the NationalCenter for Agriscience and Technology Education (AgrowKnowledge). It is important tonote that these Centers were also chosen for the current study due to the variety of subjectmatters (i.e., ATE Center impact areas) covered and the types of partnerships represented.Methods for data collection included interviews, observations, and document reviews(Merriam, 2002). Findings were compared across these data sets, allowing for validationof themes derived from the interviews.All interviews were conducted with faculty members from the four ATE Centers. Interviewswere obtained over a two-year period (as a collection from a larger study) from site visitsto the Centers that lasted over a 2-3 day period. A total of 22 interviews were conductedand analyzed. Faculty members were interviewed individually by members of the researchteam that included both males and females. The interviews were one-hour in length andsemi-structured in nature, allowing for follow-up questions and clarifications as needed.Interview protocols for faculty were developed to cover a broad array of subjects. In all,the protocols consisted of fourteen questions, included in these protocols were questionsrelated to faculty leadership and Center activities which helped develop leadership amongthe faculty members. Interviews were conducted primarily on-site but included interviewsconducted via teleconference when necessary. All interviews were audio-taped andmanually transcribed at a later date.DRAFTTranscripts were coded separately by three members of the research team to individuallyconstruct emergent themes and subthemes. Themes and subthemes were subsequentlycompared across the research team to triangulate and validate findings (Stake, 2006). Thecombined results were analyzed for the themes represented in the current analysis.FindingsThrough the analysis of interviews with 22 faculty members across four ATE Centers,it is obvious that participation in a Center made it possible to engage in professionaldevelopment opportunities that otherwise would not have been available. In many cases,the activities faculty members were most excited about and/or proud of were leadershipactivities that are not generally attributed to community college faculty, such as givingpresentations, writing grants, and accepting formal leadership positions through the93

ATE Center in addition to staying committed to their teaching responsibilities. Whiledescribing their experiences, three primary themes emerged: (1) ATE supported leadershipdevelopment opportunities through attending institutes, conferences, workshops as theyprovided opportunities for presenting, grant writing, and holding leadership roles withinthe Center; (2) faculty lead through networking and collaboration as they often viewed thenetworking and collaboration that occurred during professional development activities asbeing just as, if not more, important than the discipline-specific content being delivered;and (3) faculty became leaders in the classroom as they often related their professionaldevelopment activities and leadership experiences back to improving in-class instructionand increasing student success. This latter theme is related to the learning-centered missionof community colleges.ATE Supporting Leadership DevelopmentAcross the four Centers considered in the present study, faculty cited similar leadershipdevelopment opportunities as being the most influential on their roles as leaders, includingconference/workshops, networking, giving presentations, grant writing, as well as holdingformal leadership roles created through Center activities. Many of these opportunitieswould not have been possible without funding and support from the ATE Centers.Attending institutes, conferences, and/or workshopsSeveral Centers have created their own workshops and/or institutes through which facultyengage in professional development as well as expand their leadership experience. Forinstance, MCIT developed Working Connections, a week-long institute at which facultygain exposure to emerging technology as well as pedagogical techniques, while ATEECdeveloped SEET (Sustainable Energy Education and Training), an intensive workshoptraining format focusing on both environmental education and effective pedagogy. Thesetypes of intensive institutes are often among the first professional development activitiesmentioned by faculty members when asked which Center-related opportunities have beenthe most beneficial. In describing the experience at Working Connections, Rhonda had thisto say:DRAFTI really liked… Working Connections… because you are actually spending awhole week on one subject matter. Trying to make you, not necessarily anexpert in that field, but make you better versed and comfortable teaching thatsubject matter… [A]ny time we are successful as faculty, our students are goingto be more successful. The more we keep up with the changing technology, themore we can keep our students up with that changing technology, I think thebetter chance that they would have of being employed because of that.Although ATEEC also has a Fellows Institute where math, science and environmentaleducators apply to spend a ten-day period investigating trends in environmental and energyissues, centers that did not develop their own institute often made funds available so thatfaculty could attend workshops and conferences held outside of the Center. For example,Austin, a faculty member at a SpaceTec-affiliated community college credits the Centerwith supporting his professional development activities hosted by other institutions:94

[O]ne workshop I attended in was in Lancaster and the people there havebeen in composite industry for years: Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell… all thosecompanies. They put on a really good workshop. It’s all for educators. Thereis another called Barius which is a composite training facility and BCC fundedmyself and another instructor to go through that course and it’s a more handson…During the course of the program we do 6 to 8 projects… [I]t not onlyhelps me understand what these materials are but how I need to teach thestudents to use the materials.ATE funding allowed participating faculty to attend workshops, institutes, or conferencesthat were sponsored by other Centers that enhanced their knowledge and skills wherefunding would ordinarily be unavailable.Giving presentationsNot only did faculty members attend more conferences, but many reported givingpresentations as an example of increased leadership that may not have been possiblewithout ATE Center support. Several faculty credit Center activities for allowing them topresent posters or participate in round-table sessions at the League for Innovation AnnualConference – an international organization advocating for “innovation, experimentationand institutional transformation” in community colleges (League for Innovation, 2010).Robert from MCIT describes this experience:Personally, I went and presented a couple of posters at the League forInnovation… I really appreciated the opportunity. With a budget of $550 ayear, it’s kind of hard to go to a national conference and so for the years thatwe had the funding; [it] was very helpful… [O]ne of my other colleagues wentto one, and I didn’t know if he had done much of that before… Just going toa national meeting or national training… I think in itself is helpful becauseyou see what people are doing all across the country and they come back withdifferent ideas and you know, “wow, this is what they are doing, why can’t wedo it?”DRAFTFaculty acknowledge that giving presentations and participating in conferences can increaseboth discipline-specific knowledge as well as awareness of improved pedagogy. At thesame time, faculty members report an increased role in community service through givingpresentations, as exemplified by Brandon, an instructor at AgrowKnoweldge:I was asked to speak at a… local TV show… Ethics in Iowa I think it’s called,or something close to that, and I was asked to speak on the ethics, federal farmprogram um, which was interesting because the panel was a mixed panel soI’ve had an opportunity to work on a… board of directors for our local co-opand I think that my status here as an instructor probably helped me with thatposition… I think it’s… given me opportunities to serve in the community.95

Through giving presentations, faculty felt they were able to simultaneously increase theirroles as leaders of teaching and learning as well as enhance their contributions to communityservice. In some cases, faculty saw their increased exposure as a means by which to advancetheir leadership within their field of study. A prime example of improving all three areasof leadership- within the discipline, teaching and learning, and community service- can befound in Shaun’s description of an opportunity made available through MCIT:One of the publishers a couple years ago had me do a series of workshops onhow to develop an information security program and where it would [fit] inthe curriculum, some recommendations... I did seven cities across the UnitedStates on that. That also allowed me to make connections with some of theauthors in this area. That really built some of my confidence in the area. Also,it has gotten me in contact with the Chamber of Commerce to do presentationswith executives. I’ve also done several national conferences on security in thatrespect, but probably more importantly is serving with the Lieutenant Governorto discuss the issues where they might be vulnerable.Faculty participants gained confidence in presenting and were able to translate those skillsinto their effectiveness in teaching, learning and serving their broader needs within thecommunity of their respective colleges and abroad (i.e., international conferences, etc.).Grant-writing opportunitiesAs is true with giving presentations, grant-writing is normally an activity associated morewith university faculty than community college faculty (Piland & Wolf, 2003), however,Brandon from MCIT seems to take great personal pride in the fact that he helped write twogrants, one of which was funded:[W]hen you talk about leadership, we would not have had the confidence togo after another NSF grant if I hadn’t had the experience with this one andthat definitely was a plus for a couple of reasons. AIM and their staff havebeen doing grants and grant writing for years and we asked them to write thegrant for us the first time and we didn’t get it and we paid them, I think $1000dollars, to write the grant and then I felt obligated, since I had the college hereto spend a thousand dollars to write a grant that we didn’t get, I felt obligatedto try again in 2 years. And because of that, and because of the contacts andthe expertise at AIM and their staff, they really helped us out a lot once we didget the grant and how to submit reports and how to work with fast lane and allkinds of stuff.Other faculty participants mentioned grants and grant-writing, and there seemed to begenuine interest in how grants could increase professional development opportunities and,subsequently, instruction.DRAFTimprove96

Holding formal positions in ATE Center partnershipsBy their very nature as grant-funded, collaborative ventures, ATE Centers offer facultymembers opportunities to hold formal leadership roles, thus allowing them to increasetheir leadership experience. For example, in each of MCIT’s 10 core community collegepartners there is a site coordinator. These individuals not only help oversee MCIT-relatedactivities at their home institution, but also have the ability to direct grant funds whichwere divided equally among Center partners. Ryan, a site coordinator for one of MCIT’sparticipating community colleges, describes his leadership role:[S]ince I’ve been the site coordinator, people look to me because that meantI handle the money. It is a matter of me directing other[s] to find out whattraining they want to have and what we can do with that. It has also given methe experience of going out and seeing other community colleges and comingback with that information and allowing me to take a little bit of a leadershipposition in trying to change or develop our curriculum.However, even without such formal roles within a given Center it is possible for facultymembers to act as advocates for the Center as a whole, thus assuming a leadership role.For example, Anne, a faculty member with AgrowKnowledge, reports that as part of aconference planning committee she was able to bring AgrowKnowledge in to do awarenesstraining for the State Agriculture Teachers’ Association.Leading Through Networking and CollaboratingWhen describing conferences and/or workshops in which they engaged, faculty membersfrequently focused on two characteristics of a successful event: quality discipline-relatedlearning and networking with other community college faculty. The latter quality,networking, is viewed as equally, if not more, important than the content being covered.This is especially true when the faculty interactions create a collaborative environmentthrough which to share ideas concerning teaching and learning as well as curriculumdesign. Jason describes the quality of both content and collaboration of an ATE-sponsoredinstitute when he says:DRAFT[Working Connections] was an ideal opportunity without any outside influencesthat you had to rush out to teach or something. You had it there and youwere there all day and that is what you did… [I]t was very beneficial to theinstructors because it really made your next semester after that, you were thatmuch ahead of the game to get ready and prepare for that class... I think itwas the association with the other teachers and instructors… We really hada good class and had a lot of good cross-talk amongst the instructors; goodsuggestions that were made on how to improve the class or this particular topic,rather than being left to your own devices.97

While Working Connections appears to be a particularly effective venue, judging fromthe ringing endorsements given by most faculty interviewees, this theme of combiningdiscipline with collaboration at workshops is common among all Centers. For example,Anne describes experiencing a conference supported by AgrowKnowledge with thefollowing:[Learning] what I needed for my students enlightened me and brought me to awhole new world where, once I came back from that conference in April, therewas not one class that I changed but there was almost every class that I alteredcurriculum because of that… You see, I’m a thief; if I can find a better idea anda better way I’m gonna steal it and I’m gonna use it.Bob describes his experiences at a SEET Conference that ATEEC sponsors and how theopportunities to collaborate and talk with people in the field is invaluable. He states:Yeah I think that my involvement with ATEEC has definitely improved myleadership skills and just my overall knowledge. For instance, this summer Iwas able to attend the SEET Conference in Colorado at the national renewableenergy lab. Not only did that further my knowledge of renewable resources butit allowed me to make contacts and share information with other people.Brian believes that the ATEEC’s SEET Conferences and Fellows Institute “bring educatorsfrom around the country together with like minded goals” and it benefits them as teachersand leaders in the industry. This belief among faculty participants in ATE Center professionaldevelopment activities resonates throughout all the faculty interviews. Networking andcollaboration provide faculty an opportunity to be leaders in their industry.Leading Through Teaching in the ClassroomThe above quote by Anne is an example of how faculty members at ATE Centersconsistently relate their own experiences back to improving classroom instruction. Whenasked about their leadership, it was common for faculty to either start their response bymentioning leadership in the classroom or to relate a professional development activityback to increasing instructional effectiveness. As an example, Robert, a faculty memberfrom MCIT frames his own leadership in the following way:DRAFT[F]rom the faculty side, leadership skills are probably boiling down to confidencein your teaching style and being able to get the students encouraged… [H]ereat the college, I’ve noticed that in most cases when students start out here,they want to sit back and be lectured to; believe it or not. They don’t wantto do anything extra; “you mean, you aren’t going to tell me all the things Ineed to know to complete this?” No, you have to go out and do it... I thinkfrom that leadership perspective from myself it has been, “no, you have to haveconfidence with these students.” Especially if they are going to be doing thisas a career; they have to be able to go out and search and take things uponthemselves to learn. They have to be responsible for their own learning.98

Other faculty members view their role in in-class leadership as being demonstrated not onlyby teaching their students the technical skills they will need to be successful in the future,but also by serving as role models of professional demeanor for their students. Facultymembers feel they lead by example through demonstrating acceptable professional behaviortimeliness,respect, and personal presentation. Susan, an instructor at AgrowKnowledge,reports herself on leadership as:I constantly have to model for student learning because… the majority of mystudents, especially in Agribusiness, will eventually become managers. So theyhave got to be able to model themselves and, you and I know, that you are theindividual you admire the most, you model yourself after.Included in leading through teaching is the initiative faculty members express in developingand altering course curriculum. Faculty members frequently report that the collaborativerelationships made possible through their respective ATE Centers have greatly improvedor enhanced the courses in which they teach, as exemplified by the quotes from Jason andAnne given above. It was common for faculty members to refer to collaborative efforts oreven to identify individual faculty members who were involved in creating a brand newcurriculum or helping adjust curriculum content and deliver to better improve instructionaleffectiveness. It was nearly universal throughout the interviews for faculty members torelate a leadership or professional development activity back to their practice of teaching.Discussion and ConclusionsWhen describing their own leadership and participation in an NSF-funded ATE Center,faculty members consistently related their experiences back to improving instruction andstudent success. This may not be surprising given the primacy of teaching and learningin the mission of most community colleges (Boggs, 2003). Faculty responses indicatethat they have internalized this mission and view their leadership as primarily related toleading learning. Those responses that ventured further afield from student learning stillreflect the mission of the community colleges, most notably community responsiveness(Boggs, 2003). What may be surprising is the leadership development activities aboutwhich faculty seem most excited, including: networking with faculty members within aswell as outside of their home institution, giving scholarly presentations, writing grants, andholding formal leadership roles within the ATE Center. Most of these activities are morecommonly associated with leadership development in universities rather than communitycolleges (Piland & Wolf, 2003).DRAFTThe most notable differences between the interests expressed by community collegefaculty interviewed in the current study and the leadership development more commonamong university faculty are: (1) community college faculty largely do not have the heavyburden of an ever-increasing expectation of discipline-related research, and (2) in contrastto university faculty, community college faculty almost always relate their activities backto improving student learning.99

The findings reported here agree with more quantitative results of a survey administeredby Wallin and Smith (2005) in which faculty members reported that professionaldevelopment opportunities focused in the clusters of instruction and curriculum were themost valuable in helping them meet their needs. When considered together, the interestcommunity college faculty express in activities that improve classroom leadership mayindicate an internalization of the community mission focusing on teaching and learningor, alternatively, the need for an increased awareness of effective teaching techniques maybe reflective of the fact that, unlike primary and secondary school teachers, college anduniversity instructors receive little to no formal training in pedagogy prior to teaching theirfirst class (Corbin, 1998). In either case, the results indicate professional developmentactivities intended primarily for community college faculty should address pedagogy, or atthe very least relate the content being covered directly to student learning.When constructing or identifying professional development opportunities that areappropriate for community college faculty, it not only necessary to address pedagogy throughthe activity, these activities should create or support a collaborative environment in whichfaculty members are given the opportunity to engage with each other in meaningful ways.Faculty members routinely mentioned networking and collaboration as being importantqualities of conferences in which they participated. These findings agree with Kezar andLester (2009) when they assert that faculty members often report external networks asimportant sources of support and that attending conferences focused on student-centeredlearning and assessment is important to meeting their responsibilities.By focusing primarily on teaching as their leadership, faculty members may be indicatinga lack of interest in moving into administrative or formal leadership roles, as suggestedby Cooper and Pagotto (2003). In Lucey’s (2002) view of shared governance, facultyare primarily responsible for academic and curricular issues while administrators areaccountable for institutional stray and decisions regarding resource allocation. Thus,tailoring professional development offerings to more effectively address the leadershiprole faculty see themselves in such as teaching and learning, could assist in improvingthe overall leadership of the college. However, as administrative leadership is also key tothe overall success of the college, this view of faculty leadership does little to avoid thelooming crisis in formal leadership roles.DRAFTImplications for Policy, Practice and ResearchCenter-specific institutes focusing on both discipline-related content and pedagogy appearto be highly regarded by ATE faculty members. Developing more such institutes may beadvisable. In doing so, coordinators should pay special attention to creating an environmentsupportive of networking and collaboration, as faculty members view these activities asbeing among the most useful experiences. It may also be preferable to follow MCIT’sexample in allowing faculty members to determine what topics will be covered in futureinstitutes.100

When developing or identifying leadership development opportunities for communitycollege faculty, faculty members should be allowed to self-determine what their goals and/or objectives will be, as their definition of their own leadership will be context-specific.More research should be conducted on faculty self-perceptions of their own role(s) inleadership as well as their leadership development needs. Most current research viewsfaculty leadership from the perspective of administrators or vice versa. Yet, outcomes ofthis study demonstrates that there is also a need to allow faculty members from K-12, 2-year,and 4-year institutions to define and differentiate their own needs in terms of leadershipdevelopment, where they can define leadership to meet those needs which will more thanlikely be context driven and mission specific.ReferencesAmerican Association of Community Colleges. (2006). Competencies for community collegeleaders. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/competencies/Documents/compentenciesforleaders.pdfAmey, M. J. (1992). Cognitive constructions of leadership. Paper presented in SanFrancisco, California at the American Educational Research Association annualmeeting.Amey, M. (2005). Leadership as learning: Conceptualizing the process. CommunityCollege Journal of Research & Practice, 29(9-10), 689-704. doi:10.1080/10668920591006539Ashlock, T., & Wright, S. (2001). Students at the learning edge: Advanced TechnologicalEducation programs at community colleges. Washington, DC: American Associationof Community Colleges.DRAFTBailey, T. R., Matsuzuka, Y.; Jacobs, J.; Morest, V. S.; Hughes, K. L. (2003).Institutionalization and sustainability of the National Science Foundation’sadvanced technological education program. ERIC document: ED482183.Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P. & Williamson, S. A. (1979), SYMLOG: A system for the multiplelevel observation of groups. New York: The Free Press.Bensimon, E., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrativeleadership: The “L” word in higher education. Washington, DC: George WashingtonUniversity Press.Badway, N. N. & Laanan, F. S. (2005). Student and organization learning: Preparingthe 21 st century technician. Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No.0603132.101

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:Harper & Row.Boggs, G. (2003). Leadership context for the Twenty-First Century. New Directions forCommunity Colleges, 123, 15-25.Cooper, J., & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. NewDirections for Community Colleges, 123, 27-37.Corbin, S. (2001). Role perception and job satisfaction of community college faculty,Inquiry, 6(1), 43-52.Eddy, P. (2003). Sensemaking on campus: How community college presidents framechange. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6), 453-471.doi:10.1080/10668920390190619Frankel, M., Schechtman, J., & Koenigs, R. (2006). Too much of a good thing? Valuesin leadership for educational organizations. International Journal of EducationalManagement, 20(7), 520-528.Grandgenett, N., Mortenson, R., Ostler, E., & Topp, N. (2008). External evaluationreport of the Midwest Center for Information Technology. Undertaken by theApplied Information Management Institute (AIM). Funded by the National ScienceFoundation (NSF).Hanson, S., Brase, T., Feil, D., & Parker., R. (2008). AgrowKnowledge Resource Center.Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No. 0802510.DRAFTHogan, D. B. (1988), The SYMLOG Leadership Profile as a predictor of managerialperformance. In R. B. Polley, A. P. Hare, & P. J. Stone (Eds), The SYMLOGPractitioner (pp. 191-210). New York: Praeger.Kezar, A. (2002). Expanding notions of leadership to capture pluralistic voices: Positionalitytheory in practice. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 558-578.Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Promoting grassroots change in higher education: Thepromise of virtual networks. Change, 41(2), 44-51.Kezar, A., Lester, J., Carducci, R., Gallant, T., & McGavin, M. (2007). Where are thefaculty leaders? Strategies and advice for reversing current trends. LiberalEducation, 93(4), 14-21.Kirlin, D., Pensabene, T., Juricek, L., Jeanetta, J., Sweeney, R., & Walker., P. (2001).Midwest Center for Information Technology. Unpublished National ScienceFoundation Grant No. 0101715.102

Koller, A., Margiotta, F., Taylor, P., Swindell, J., Lau, M., McCreight, K., Dalton, M.,Gerorge, C., & Neilsen, A., (2005). SpaceTEC National Center of Excellence.Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No. 0532618.League for Innovation (2010). About the League. League for Innovation in the Community.Retrieved from http://www.league.org/league/about/about_main.htm.Laursen, S., & Rocque, B. (2009). Faculty development for institutional change: Lessonsfrom an Advance Project. Change, 41(2), 18-26.Lensch, E. K. (1997). Advanced Technology Environmental Education Center (ATEEC).Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No. 9714425.Lucey, C. (2002). Civic engagement, shared governance, and communitycolleges. Academe, 88(4), 27-31.Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed).Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3-17).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Patton, M. (2008). ATE centers impact 2008-2010. Tempe, AZ; Maricopa CommunityColleges.Piland, W., & Wolf, D. (2003). In-house leadership development: Placing the collegessquarely in the middle. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123, 93-99.Schults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community collegeleadership. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.DRAFTStake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Vail, P.B. (1997). Learning as a way of being. Address presented at the 1997 InternationalConference on Servant-Leadership, Ann Arbor, MI.Wallin, D., & Smith, C. (2005). Professional development needs of full-time faculty intechnical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(2),87-108. doi:10.1080/10668920590524238103

DRAFT

Chapter 7Voices of Advanced Technological EducationFaculty and Students: Perspectives on Teachingand LearningDRAFT

DRAFT

Voices of Advanced Technological EducationFaculty and Students: Perspectives on Teachingand LearningLatrice E. Eggleston, Frankie Santos Laanan, and Christopher A. Duree, andNorena N. BadwayAbstractUsing a case study approach, this study investigates the current landscape of an AdvancedTechnological Education (ATE) Center - AgrowKnowledge located at KirkwoodCommunity College in Cedar Rapids, IA. It explores faculty and student perspectives ofthe learning process, student connections to faculty pedagogical methods and proceduresand the mismatches or connections of student learning and faculty teaching in ATEprograms. Voices of students and faculty are captured through focus group and one-on-oneinterviews. Findings suggest that faculty and students stress the necessity of continuedactive-collaborative learning, student-centered instruction, and the development of lifeskills through internship and classroom experiences in the learning process. The conceptof new vocationalism coupled with Bloom (1976) student learning theory and authenticassessment provide meaningful lenses to contextualize and understand faculty and studentvoices on teaching and learning in ATE.Keywords: faculty, students, vocationalism, ATE, learning theory, assessmentIntroductionBasic skills for the 21 st century are requiring an integration of job-specific skills withtheoretical (academic) skills. Integrated academic and vocational curriculum and instructionare critical to the preparation of successful employees and lifelong learners (Bragg, 2001,p. 8). In fact, Advanced Technological Education (ATE) programs are requiring that basicknowledge in liberal arts areas such as science and mathematics are taught to providecritical foundational steps to training and development in conjunction with teaching newtechnologies to prepare a global workforce. ATE programs, which are sponsored by theNational Science Foundation (NSF), provide funding support to community colleges tofoster improvement in new curricula, courses, and laboratories; educational materials;opportunities for faculty and student development; and collaboration among educationalinstitutions and partners from business, industry, and government (Badway & Laanan,2005).DRAFTOne of the goals of ATE programs is to counter the primary responsibilities of traditionalvocational education programs that relied on teaching basic skills to individuals forthe sole purpose of equipping them with skills that would lead to employment and notnecessarily knowledge and life-long skills that reach far beyond simple job readiness.107

ATE programs clearly focus on integrating practical applications with academic skills inscience, technology, engineering and math (STEM) areas to prepare and improve two-yearcollege technicians.Yet, with the onset of new advances in technology and the need for a more highly-skilledand versatile workforce, basic academic knowledge has became a necessity for employmentsuccess and promotion. Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs birthed a new erafor vocational and technical education and redefined its goals for teaching and learningin the classroom. Spawning from CTE programs, ATE programs in the same fashionfurther redefined vocational and technical education requiring more training that integratedacademic and practical curriculums and mandated more accountability measures of studentsuccess.Bragg (2001) argues that it is important to take stock of postsecondary vocational educationby examining its changing focus and evolving goals. In this vain, the researchers, Badwayand Laanan (2005) articulate four critical aspects of assessing ATE programs and theireffectiveness in preparing 21 st century technicians. These critical aspects articulate theneed to assess: (1) how student learning is being improved; (2) how faculty design andimplement novel curriculum and pedagogical strategies for student learning; (3) how ATECenters disseminate and transport Center products; and (4) how transformational leadershipis developed among faculty involved in ATE Centers. This paper seeks to discuss two ofthose critical aspects: student learning and curriculum and pedagogy from the perspectiveof ATE students and faculty.Purpose and Research QuestionsThe purpose of this investigation is to explore the current landscape of ATE programsas observed and experienced by students and faculty in terms of student learning andcurriculum development in ATE programs. This study attempts to answer the followingquestions:DRAFT• How do students and faculty in ATE programs describe the student learningprocess?• How does student learning for ATE students connect with faculty pedagogicalmethods and procedures?• Are there connections or mismatches of student learning and curriculumdevelopment among students and faculty in ATE?As technologies continue to advance and expand, the necessity of a skilled workforce toachieve economic progress in a global economy remains. As a part of a sponsored projectby NSF through ATE programs, this study provides new knowledge to the field of educationthat helps to better integrate workforce education with the traditional academic curriculain liberal arts at secondary and postsecondary educational institutions, especially withintwo-year colleges that provide technological training for the 21 st century workforce. Itis imperative that educators, administrators, and policy makers assess the most current108

trends in national legislation (i.e., ATE) to provide recommendations for redevelopmentand modifications to program implementation as well as to draw attention to the outcomesof such legislation that work to produce a well educated and skilled workforce. Therefore,the significance of this study is to advance our understanding of student learning andcurriculum development at one ATE center in the Midwest by utilizing qualitative data toilluminate the perspectives and experiences of students and faculty.Literature ReviewIn 1992, ATE programs were established from a federal mandate (United States Public Law102-476) “to establish a national advanced technician program, utilizing the resources of theNation’s two-year associate-degree-granting colleges” and specifically “to expand the poolof skilled technicians in strategic advanced technology fields, to increase the productivityof the Nation’s industries and to improve the competitiveness of the United States ininternational trade, and for other purposes” (The Evaluation Center Western MichiganUniversity, 2005). Several studies have been written about the success of specific ATEprograms and their innovations in teaching and training science and engineering technicians(Badway, 2003, 2004). Although clear goals and objectives have been articulated in theoutcomes of student learning in ATE, a precise definition of student learning and whatevaluators are assessing has not, nor have voices of ATE students and faculty, been heardto clarify that definition of learning and teaching in such programs.Student LearningHistorically, research on student learning has articulated several propositions includingbeing goal oriented, linking new information to prior knowledge, organizing information,acquiring meta-cognitive and cognitive structures, occurring in phases (recursive), andinfluenced by human development (Jones et al., 1987). Further, understanding of studentlearning relates to student learning styles which allow us to understand how and whyhuman beings learn (Keefe, 1979, 1982; Gregorc, 1979).DRAFTThe current literature on student learning suggests that student learning is synonymouswith cognitive and meta-cognitive processes of thinking, understanding, inferring,problem solving, and evaluating to apply acquired knowledge to a situation or problembeing presented. Current studies in the integration of STEM discuss the need for furtherstudy in the use of technology in helping to motivate and engage students in learning(Galbraith, 2006). There remains preconceived conceptions regarding the challenges ofstudent learning in subjects that are the foundation to STEM fields that hinder studentsfrom performing well in these areas (Bathmaker, 2005).TeachingDare (2001) contends that teaching in the new vocationalism has involved reformsthat have not only included changes in curriculum integration, work-based learning,contextual teaching and learning and career guidance, but needed changes in teachingand learning. Teaching in the new vocationalism has also promoted pedagogical practices109

of constructivist curriculum theories that seek to meet learners’ needs by emphasizinglearner-centered instruction or student-centered instruction (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992;Dare, 2001; Doolittle & Camp, 1999). This pedagogical philosophy centers on studentstaking a more active role and holding more responsibility in the learning process. A typicallearner-centered classroom will find an instructor modeling the task while students workcollaboratively with each other at the same time receiving feedback from the instructor.Students are given some degree of choice on what they want to learn and how they will selfevaluate and are evaluated by their instructors.Theoretical FrameworkTraditional theories regarding vocational and technical education continue to infuse thebeliefs of Charles Prosser and John Dewey into a contemporary theory that combinesessentialism, pragmatism, progressivism, and constructivism philosophies to publiceducation (Pratzner, 1985), which essentially integrates academic and technical education.Pratzner (1985) articulates that Prosser believed that social efficiency was the preparationof a well-trained individual to provide a skilled workforce, while Dewey believed that pubiceducation should meet the needs of an individual for “personal fulfillment and preparationfor life.” Thus, education should include building the foundations of basic skills that canprovide practical use.New paradigms of viewing vocational education call for lenses that view the integrationof academic study and vocational (or technical) training (Bragg, 1999; Doolittle & Camp,1999; Copa, G. H., & Plihal, J. 1996; Grubb, 1997; and Pratzner, 1985), which have beenidentified as the new vocationalism. New vocationalism highlights the meaningful linkagesbetween vocational and academic education. As Bragg (2001) articulates, work in the neweconomy “requires an integration of academic and technical concepts to solve real-worldproblems.” (p. 8). Looking through these lenses of integration (combining both academicwith practical training), become essential to understanding both student and faculty beliefsabout teaching and learning.DRAFTBenjamin Bloom (1976) articulated a model for student learning. He purported that atrue model of student learning includes three elements including student characteristics,instruction, and learning outcomes. In addition, Bloom argues that there are threeinterdependent variables that account for the greatest degree in variance in student learning:cognitive entry behaviors, affective characteristics, and quality instruction. Cognitive entrybehaviors are those behaviors that determine the extent to which students have learnedthe basic learning skills. Affective characteristics are those characteristics that determinethe extent to which the student is motivated or engaged in the learning process. Qualityinstruction refers to the extent to which it is appropriate for students learning. Thus, wecan measure student learning and differences in student learning by assessing how studentsuse their cognitive abilities, how well students participate or are engaged in the learningprocess, and the quality of instruction they receive.110

Bloom’s student learning theory compliments the elements of authentic assessment and helpsus to understand the nuances of teaching and student learning in the new vocationalism era.Authentic assessment, also referred to as performance assessment, alternative assessmentand direct assessment is best defined by Mueller (2006) “as a form of assessment wherestudents are asked to perform a real-world task that demonstrates meaningful applicationof essential knowledge and skills” (p. 1). Further, this assessment includes five rudimentsthat can be matched to Blooms student learning theory.The rudiments of authentic assessment include performing a task that is contrived to reallife where construction and application of knowledge is determined by students who helpdetermine direct evidence of their learned experience (Mueller, 2006). Within Bloom’smodel, quality instruction that seeks appropriateness for student learning is based onthe task being performed that is connected to real-life situations. The construction andapplication of a student’s knowledge promotes engagement and motivation of students inthe learning process as students are allowed a choice on what format they can demonstratethey have mastered the skill to be learned. This student-centered characteristic complimentsthe affective characteristic in the Bloom model as well as connects the direct evidence ofthe learned basic skill or cognitive entry behavior for the student in the learning process.A look at the lens of new vocationalism through the Bloom student learning model andauthentic assessment of student learning and teaching will allow us to understand furtherthe complexities of teaching and student learning in ATE.MethodologyUsing a constructivist and case study approach, the setting of this investigation tookplace at AgrowKnowledge National Center for Agriscience and Technology Educationlocated at Kirkwood Community College (KCC) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Purposefulsampling (Creswell, 2007) was used as this site was specifically chosen as it is one of thethree nationally recognized ATE Centers funded by NSF in the agricultural technology/biotechnology area and is identified as a chosen site for the University of the Pacific andIowa State University NSF/ATE funded grant.DRAFTAt the first stage of the study, an initial site visit was conducted at AgrowKnowledge inMarch 2007. The goal of the initial site visit was to familiarize the research team memberswith the environment in which faculty and students interact in both formal and informalsettings as well as to collect documents about the Center. Team members toured the campusand facilities, visited classrooms and instructional labs of the Center. Follow-up visits weremade two weeks later to the site for data collection.A qualitative method of inquiry was conducted during the data collection process, as theresearch team sought to gain an understanding and to determine the inner experience ofparticipants at the Center (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Specifically, focus group interviews withstudents in an Agricultural Science program at the sponsoring ATE Center were conductedalong with one-on-one semi-structured in-depth interviews with faculty members in theseprograms over a two-day period. The ATE Center Director and KCC Faculty member who111

also serves as the Principal Investigator for the Center chose student participants who wereenrolled in Agricultural programs specifically in the areas of Agriculture, Food, and NaturalResources. Faculty participants teach students enrolled in the above listed Agriculturalprograms and were chosen by the Dean of Agricultural Sciences at KCC.Interview protocols for students and faculty were developed with approximately 15questions to guide the interviews. Examples of these questions follow:Student Protocol Questions• In what ways has the instructor helped you understand the material?• What have you gained from all of your courses?• How do you feel about Math, Science and Technology courses?• What is the best method for you in terms of your learning style?Faculty Protocol Questions• How do you engage students in the classroom?• How do you create a student-centered learning environment that providesmeaningful experiences for students?• What are the key components to students being successful in the ATE program?These questions assisted the research team in conducting the interviews with students andfaculty that often lead to other probing questions based on the participant’s response.Three members of the research team conducted the interviews. One member was femaleand two members were males. The interviews were recorded using an audiotape device.Follow-up interviews were conducted via email to clarify responses from participantsprovided during the face-to-face interview.DRAFTData from all interviews were transcribed and coded by themes (e.g., active-collaborativelearning, student-faculty interaction, etc). A two-stage coding process was used to identifythemes. Themes were identified by research team members from the transcribed interviewsand compared across each interview. Themes were later divided into specific categoriesunder the umbrella of teaching and student learning. Peer debriefing among research teammembers regarding identified themes validated accuracy and ensured trustworthiness(Krefting, 1991; Merriam, 1988) of interpretation of the meaning of the data. Pseudo namesof participants were used to protect individual identities as stipulated by the approvedinformed consent document signed by each participant.FindingsA total number of 13 students and 4 faculty members participated in the interviews. Two1½-hour focus group interviews were conducted with two groups of students, yielding atotal number of 9 student participants. Focus Group 1 consisted of 5 Agricultural Businessmajors who were all White males who ranged in age from 19 to 20 years. Two studentswere in their first year of the program, while the remaining students were in their 2 nd year.112

Focus Group 2 consisted of 4 Veterinary Technician (Animal Health Technology) studentswho were all White females who ranged in age from 21 to 29 years. Two students were intheir first year of the program. In terms of faculty, two faculty members were White malesand two were White females. Faculty members taught courses in Agricultural Business,Chemistry, GPS/GIS (geospatial technologies), Applied Math and Statistics.Three major themes emerged in the analysis related to teaching and student learningincluding involving quality instruction, student engagement and motivation and learnedskills. Quality instruction was achieved through active collaborative learning (i.e., handsonlaboratory experiences) and student centered instruction. Engagement and motivationof students were enhanced during such quality instruction. Faculty developing life skillsand other basic skills through related student experiences (i.e., internships) continued tofully engage and motivate student learning while improving student-learning skills.DRAFTOverall, students and faculty seemed to be connected in their ideas and needs relatingto student applied and contextual learning experiences while engagement in the learningprocess remained focused on the student. Perspectives of faculty and student voices arecaptured. Their voices contextualize and define the true notions of teaching and studentlearning in ATE centers. Excerpts from the in-depth interviews are highlighted anddiscussed.Quality instruction through active-collaborative learningOverwhelmingly, student participants indicated that active and collaborative learning occursduring hands-on experiences and lab activities that provide more field knowledge. Studentsthought this was key to their understanding and learning process. Mark, an Agribusiness(AB) major captures the responses of most students when he states that:“…hands on and visual for me. If I have to sit down and read a book I’mnot gonna understand it, and even sometimes just to listen to things I don’tunderstand…I’d rather like see something that you know goes with a picture, adiagram anything like that where I can comprehend it a lot better.”The lab and hands-on experiences help students to “make the connection” to what they seethemselves doing once they leave the community college and enter the work world. Nikki,a Veterinary Technician (VT) student, notes that for her “it’s the hands-on…in school” thattells her “exactly” what she’s going to do when she’s at her job. She reiterates that she’llknow how to use the machine that they mention in her textbook and “there’s no surprise”when she has to use it at work. Bobby, an AB student agrees as he indicates that essentially“hands-on just reinforces everything that you’ve already read.”Additionally, Rhonda shares Nikki’s sentiments when she comments about the VT program.She states that:113

“One of the great things about the program too is our labs. They try and keepthings as close to what you would be doing in practice as possible. In practiceyou have to log everything and make certain records for legal reasons…”Students also shared other examples of activities that were related to their area of study thatthey found helpful in their learning process. Another AB student, Ron, shares his experiencein his Principles of Agribusiness class where he was required to develop a business plan forhis own start-up company. He says this experience has taught him the skills to apply forloans and make presentations to banks and other lending institutions including “convincingsomebody that you’re going to be a success at what you’re doing.”Ron goes further when reiterating the necessity for “hands-on” experiences and relates it tothe role of the community college as he states,“We’re hands on. That’s what the community college does. They do morefield days. They do more hands on stuff in the classroom.”True to its mission, the community college is seen as a place where students can obtain aneducation that prepares them for more formal education or work. The community college isseen to meet students where they are in their lives and prepare them to be productive whenthey leave the college.Thus, “hands-on” and “active-collaborative” learning are essential for student learning andsuccess in the ATE programs. In fact, Tom, an AB student, best summarizes the feelings ofall student participants when he states: “I like active learning. I wish there was more of ithere.”Quality instruction through student-centered instructionFaculty and students perceived the need for hand-on, real-life, laboratory experiences asbeing significantly important to their learning and teaching styles. One of the Agribusinessinstructors, Shelly, articulates the essential use of hands-on activity and contextual classroomexperiences as she discussed what distinguishes her teaching from other instructors:“…I have always been an advocate of learning and understanding how studentslearn not only in just the classroom but to be able to learn more life skills…Myteaching is correlated not only to how they learn the varieties and differentways they learn but also developing those skills as well…”Shelly placed a strong emphasis on teaching students skills that could be transferred totheir everyday lives. She advocated for students to learn skills that they could use at home,work and school. Further, Shelly articulates that she “facilitates” learning in her classroomand the student’s are often placed in real-life situations that they will eventually experienceat some point lives.DRAFTin their114

“Lots and lots of laboratory activities, lots and lots of working together…I tryto take a look at myself as not a lecturer but as a facilitator of learning andputting students into real life concepts [so] that they can actually experienceit.”For ATE faculty, this notion of being the “facilitator of learning” provides students a placein the learning process as teachers use hands-on, real-life, laboratory experiences. Thesetools become appropriate methods for student learning and teaching as students are able tobecome a major part of the learning process.A Chemistry instructor, Rose, also talks about the need to provide students with moreapplied and contextual learning experiences which are appropriate for student learning.She states:DRAFT“…You know, it’s looking at what we can do to help these kids achieve…whatmore can we pull in and how can we get them even more actively involved…there’s always some kinds of hands-on lab type situation that’s put into classes…it’s more than just regurgitating information.”Other faculty members responded in the same manner and reiterated the need forincorporating more applied experiences and opportunities for their students to learn thecourse material. A GPS GIS faculty instructor, Todd, notes:“...the GPS program we have has access to most of the current technology thatwe can talk about or teach them about a particular item and then we actuallygo into the lab or just go outside and apply that and show students exactly howit works, instead of just being theory based and myself lecturing all day aboutthis is what can be done, this is what can’t be done. I can actually show studentsand students can actually get their hands-on [experience].”Todd’s response demonstrates how teaching students “emerging technologies”, ATEprograms seek to connect real-life and “hands-on” experiences to students as it preparesthem to use needed skills in the field. Further, it is what keeps students engaged and opento learning. It is no doubt that faculty and students agree that hands-on, applied, contextualexperiences are essential to their learning and teaching processes.Development of life skills through internship and classroom experiencesAdditionally, students indicated their need to learn what they needed to know for their jobsand the necessity for them to use their experiences in their internships to help them be fullyprepared. They felt their experiences in their internships were essential to their overalllearning experiences.115

In particular, students felt that it was important for them to integrate what they werelearning in the classroom into their internships and vice versa. They also felt strongly abouthow their teachers dealt with disseminating this type of information. In fact, Ron, the ABstudent stated that:“…If we need to go find information, she won’t just like give us the websiteyou know or tell us exactly what to do. She’ll make us go out and hunt for it.Sometimes you learn better if you actually discover things on your own insteadof them handing it to you.”Like Ron, many of the other students indicated that their instructors made them moreresponsible in the learning process. They often challenged students to find the answers andto further research the course material. ATE faculty pushed students to be more independentin their learning and often encouraged exploration and discovery because they serve asimportant life skills.While Rhonda, the VT student, states similar sentiments about how faculty members workto prepare them for life experiences and build on their skills, she also explains how herclassroom experiences will prepare her to work in a veterinary clinic. She notes how herclasses have provided her with opportunities to work on the computer system used byveterinary clinics to set-up appointments and the “anesthetic machines and fluid pumps andblood machines…” used by technicians which are all incorporated into her learning furtherstrengthening her confidence in herself and her ability.Faculty continued to respond that their goal was to put “students into real life concepts” asit would allow them to experience how others in their desired professions would behaveand act. Shelly, the Agribusiness instructor, reiterates the need to model professionalbehavior in the classroom and how important it is to her students as they prepare to becomemanagers in the Agribusiness industry. She states:DRAFT“It has to be modeled and I constantly have to model for student learningbecause the majority of my students especially Agribusiness will eventuallybecome managers so they have to be able to model themselves…”This idea of modeling professional behaviors for students in Shelly’s view was importantin teaching students how to act professionally and how to act in life as a professional.Other instructors make reference to teaching student life skills as well by using theexperiences of other students. As the Chemistry teacher, Rose, states, “It’s [helping them]figuring out how does the information actually pertain to the real world” that helps themlearn the material and learn how to deal with issues that happen daily in the real world. LikeRose, another Chemistry instructor, Bob, who also teaches GPS GIS courses notes that,116

“I try to get as much interaction as possible and then develop scenarios orsituations in class where they can relate to real life situations… I try to relateit back to experiences they’ve already had and then use what those experiencesare to teach the concept…[For example], I have one student who is a formerfarmer coming back for education and he basically gave a testimonial about hisexperience with tile…and drainage systems and all the students wanted to listento what he had to say and were interested…”Faculty note the importance of helping students develop life skills in the classroom as theymodel and demonstrate through hands-on laboratory experiences while also using student’sown experiences. Faculty continue to engage students in the learning process and connecttheir life experiences to future life experiences students can anticipate. Thus, students andfaculty see the importance of work-based learning or internship programs and believe theyare essential to the learning process for students in technical education programs.Discussion and ConclusionThis study highlights student and faculty perspectives on teaching and student learningin an ATE center. Students and faculty continue to voice their desire and need for moreapplied activities and experiences in combination with general academic instruction:relating academic material to the “real world”. In addition, faculty see and respond tosuch needs as they attempt to provide students with more practical experiences throughinstruction that is student-centered.Traditionally, methods to assess and evaluate teaching and student learning have beenmeasured by student attainment in certification, standardized tests scores, and studentemployment. Authentic forms of assessment or alternative assessment such as studentand faculty voices may yield a new form of assessment of teaching and student learningin ATE. Further, alternative measures to assess such learning different from traditionalmodels may provide a more effective instrument to measure student learning outcomesin integrated instructional curriculums that are more closely aligned with the goals andobjectives of what instructors expect students to learn in new vocational programs such asATE (Custer et al., 2000). Using this new vocationalism lens in conjunction with Bloom’sstudent learning theory and rudiments of authentic assessment to assess what students havelearned can serve as a vital tool for successful outcomes in teaching and student learning.DRAFTImplications for Policy, Practice and ResearchATE prides itself on improving the knowledge and skills of technicians as communitycolleges prepare these high skilled individuals for the workplace. As new technologiesemerge in an ever-changing global market, employers are seeking workers that areprepared and ready to meet the complex challenges the market faces. As ATE advancesand continues to grow, their goals of improving curricula, developing new programs andproviding professional development of the educators (Patton, 2008) that teach technicianswill be vital to supplying the nations needed human capital to the national economy.117

As this study shows, providing real-life experiences, creating student-centeredenvironments and authentically assessing student’s knowledge is critical to teaching andstudent learning. Grubb and Badway (1998) note the advantages of providing studentsreal-life work experiences and how those experiences help students connect academics topractical knowledge of the job and how students are able to better demonstrate their jobreadiness skills. We know that teaching and student learning encompasses a myriad ofassessments of student cognition, industry certification, and the acquisition of basic skillsin STEM courses as it relates to ATE programs. Yet, additional study should be conductedto hear the rich voices of students and faculty and their notions about the teaching andlearning processes in ATE.ReferencesBadway, N. N. (2003). Pedagogical analysis of learning modules using the ModuleArchitecture Model© Evaluation Report 1 for the National Center for ManufacturingEducation. Higher Education and Evaluation Group.Badway, N. N. (2004). Indicators of knowledge and skill acquisition and transfer inmodules developed under the Module Architecture Model© of TechnicalInstruction. National Science Foundation Evaluation Report prepared for SinclairCommunity College. Higher Education Evaluation and Research Group.Badway, N. N. & Laanan, F. S. (2005). Student and organization learning: Preparing the21 st century technician. Unpublished National Science Foundation Grant No.0603132.Bathmaker, A. (2005). Hanging in or shaping a future: Defining a role for vocationallyrelated learning in a ‘knowledge’ society. Journal of Education Policy, 20(1), 81-100.DRAFTBloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.Bragg, D. D. (1999). Reclaiming a lost legacy: Integration of academic and vocationaleducation. In A. J. Paulter, Jr. (Ed), Workforce education: Issues for the newcentury (pp. 181–196). Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken.Bragg, D. D. (2001). Opportunities and challenges for the new vocationalism inAmerican community colleges. In D. Bragg (Ed.) New Directions for CommunityColleges, 115, 5-16.Cobb, P.; Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A Constructivist alternative to therepresentational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 23(1), 2-33.118

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques andprocedures for developing grounded theory (3 rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Copa, G. H., & Plihal, J. (1996). General education and subject matter educationcomponents of the vocational teacher education program. In N. K. Hartley & T. L.Wentling (Eds.), Beyond tradition: Preparing the teachers of tomorrow’s workforce(pp. 91–112). Columbia, MO: University Council for Vocational Education.Creswell, J., W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Custer, R. L., Schell, J., McAlister, B. D., Scott, J. L., & Hoepfl, M. (2000). Usingauthentic assessment in vocational education. Information Series No. 381.Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440293).Dare, D. E. (2001). Leaner-centered instructional practices supporting the newvocationalism. In D. Bragg (Ed.) New Directions for Community Colleges, 115, 81-91.Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999) Constructivism: The career and technicaleducation perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46.Fisher, K. (2003). Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment.Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 313-325.Galbraith, P. (2006). Students, mathematics, and technology: Assessing the present –challenging the future. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Scienceand Technology, 37(3), 277-290.DRAFTGregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals (Ed.), Student Learning Styles (pp. 19-26). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Grubb, W. N. (1997). Not there yet: Prospects and problems for Education throughOccupations. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22(2), 77-94.Grubb, W. N. and Badway, N. N. (1998). Linking school-based and work-basedlearning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s co-op seminars for school-to-workprograms. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A. S., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Learning and thinking.In B. F. Jones, A. S. Palincsar, D. S. Ogle, & E. G. Carr (Eds.), Strategic teachingand learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas (pp. 3-32). Elmhurst, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.119

Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning styles: An Overview. In National Association ofSecondary School Principals (Ed.), Student Learning Styles (pp. 1-17). Reston,VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Keefe, J.W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Studentlearning styles and brain behaviour (pp. 1-18). Reston, VA: National Associationof Secondary School Principals.Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness.The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Mueller, J. (2006). Authentic assessment toolbox: What is authentic assessment? Naperville,IL, North Central College. Retrieved from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm.Patton, M. (2008). ATE centers impact 2008-2010. Tempe, AZ; Maricopa CommunityColleges.Pratzner, F. C. (1985). The vocational education paradigm: Adjustment, replacement, orextinction. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 22(2), 6–19.The Evaluation Center Western Michigan University (2005). About ATE: Advancedtechnological education (ATE) program. Kalamazoo, MI. Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/ate/ate.html.DRAFT120