From robotics to cybersecurity to AI: how a PD portfolio grows with the field

If you looked at our first professional development session — back in 2012 — and our most recent one, the technology would be unrecognizable. The first used Lego robots and the Logo programming language to introduce engineering concepts to K-12 teachers. The most recent used large language models and prompt engineering to help teachers evaluate AI-generated content in their classrooms.

The technology changed completely. The pedagogy did not.

That is the point. A PD practice built around a specific platform — “we are the micro:bit people” or “we do the Scratch workshop” — has a shelf life measured in product cycles. A PD practice built around how teachers learn, how content transfers to classrooms, and how to design for active participation is durable. The platform is a vehicle. The design philosophy is the engine.

The timeline

Our PD work spans roughly 15 years and tracks the evolution of computing education itself.

2012–2015: Robotics and engineering integration. Early work focused on using robots (Baxter, Lego, Arduino) as a medium for teaching computer science and engineering concepts to K-12 teachers. The peer-reviewed study from this era — Burrows, Borowczak, Slater, & Haynes (2012) — documented the approach and outcomes. The key insight: robotics engaged teachers who would not have signed up for a “programming workshop,” because the robot was a tangible, physical system.

2016–2018: Computational modeling and the RAMPED program. The MSP-funded RAMPED program (Robotics, Applied Mathematics, Physics and Engineering Design) brought 22 K-12 teachers through a year-long PD experience using NetLogo, virtual reality, Arduinos, Raspberry Pis, and Jupyter notebooks. The program explicitly targeted cross-disciplinary integration — teachers from math, science, social studies, and English all participated. Our NetLogo study from this era documented what worked and what needed improvement.

2018–2022: Cybersecurity, CS integration, and scale. Multiple concurrent NSF- and NSA-funded programs — WySLICE, WySTACK, and GenCyber — reached over 200 teachers across Wyoming. The content shifted toward cybersecurity, computational thinking, and micro:bit-based physical computing. The delivery model matured: summer institutes followed by academic-year implementation support, with teacher-authored lesson plans contributed to CxEdHub. This era produced the bulk of our published evaluation data.

2023–present: AI literacy and the CRAFT framework. The most recent phase integrates AI literacy — including prompt engineering, bias evaluation, and “Check the Machine” protocols — into the PD portfolio. The CRAFT pedagogical framework (Contextualize, Reframe, Assemble, Fortify, Transfer), developed through our research, provides a unified design language across all topic areas and is documented in forthcoming publications.

What stayed constant

Across every platform, every program, and every funding source, four design principles remained fixed:

Hands-on, always. The ratio of active participation to passive delivery has never dropped below 60:40. In most sessions, it is closer to 70:30. This is not aspirational language — it is a structural constraint on how we build session agendas.

Groups of three or more, never pairs. Pairs produce parallel work. Groups of three or more produce negotiation, explanation, and authentic collaboration. Every collaborative activity in every program since 2016 has used groups of three or more.

Teacher as designer, not deliverer. The goal of every PD is for teachers to leave with something they built — a lesson, an activity, an assessment — not something we handed them. Teacher-authored artifacts are the primary output.

Follow-up is not optional. No one-shot workshops. Every program includes academic-year follow-up — virtual coaching, peer collaboration, or implementation observation — because the research is clear that single-dose PD does not produce sustained change.

What we got wrong along the way

A 15-year portfolio is also a 15-year record of design failures. The honest accounting matters because the failures shaped the current approach as much as the successes did.

Early robotics workshops were too platform-dependent. When Lego updated its software and pricing, the curriculum became immediately obsolete. That experience taught us to design around concepts, not products — and to prefer open-source, low-cost platforms (like the micro:bit) that are less vulnerable to vendor decisions.

The first iteration of WySLICE underestimated how much time teachers needed for lesson design. We allocated one day at the end of the summer institute for lesson creation. It was not enough. Subsequent cohorts received two full days, and the quality and implementation rate of the lessons improved measurably.

Our earliest virtual follow-up sessions were too infrequent — once per quarter. Teachers lost momentum between sessions and arrived at each one having to re-orient. Moving to monthly touchpoints with shorter duration solved the engagement problem without increasing the total time commitment.

Each of these corrections was data-driven. We collected feedback, measured outcomes, and adjusted. That iterative process is what separates a portfolio from a list of programs.

Why the timeline matters

When a district invests in PD, they are not just buying content. They are buying the provider’s accumulated design knowledge — the failures that were corrected, the findings that shaped the approach, the iteration history that separates a refined product from a first draft.

We have 15 years of that history. Each program built on the one before it. The micro:bit work was possible because of the robotics work. The cybersecurity microcredentials were possible because of the GenCyber camps. The AI literacy modules are possible because of everything that came before.

That compounding is what a portfolio looks like.