research experience for teachers (ret) · 2013-08-12 · broader impacts—the msu ret site project...

Research Experience for Teachers (RET)

at

Michigan State University A NSF Funded Program

Shannon Burton [email protected]

Patricia L. Farrell, Ph.D.

[email protected]

RET Evaluation 2010-11 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

FIRST-YEAR AND SECOND-YEAR SATISFACTION COMPARISON ...................................................................... 9 TABLE 1. TEACHER’S POST RET SUMMER INSTITUTE SATISFACTION .................................................................................. 9 TABLE 2. TEACHER POST RET SUMMER INSTITUTE GOAL PERCEPTIONS........................................................................... 10

FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS ................................................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE 3. FIRST–YEAR TEACHERS POST-RET SATISFACTION (N = 6) ................................................................................ 12 TABLE 4. FIRST-YEAR TEACHER POST-INSTITUTE INPUT (N = 6) ....................................................................................... 13 SATISFACTION WITH RET INSTITUTE..................................................................................................................................... 13 GOALS OF THE PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................... 13 MENTORING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 15 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 16 MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17

SECOND-YEAR TEACHERS ............................................................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 5. SECOND–YEAR TEACHERS POST-RET SURVEY (N = 3 OF 4) ............................................................................... 20 TABLE 6. SECOND-YEAR TEACHERS PERSPECTIVE ON THE RET GOALS ............................................................................ 20 SATISFACTION WITH RET INSTITUTE..................................................................................................................................... 21 GOALS OF THE PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................... 21 MENTORING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 22 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 22 MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23

WEEKLY TEACHER SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 25

FACULTY AND/OR GRADUATE STUDENT POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY FINDINGS ........................................ 42

CURRICULUM SPECIALIST POST INSTITUTE INTERVIEW ................................................................................. 48

POST INSTITUTE TEACHER FOCUS GROUP ............................................................................................................ 51

RECOMMENDATIONS BY TEACHERS ........................................................................................................................ 55 FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS RECOMMENDATIONS. ....................................................................................................................... 55 SECOND-YEAR TEACHER RECOMMENDATIONS. ..................................................................................................................... 56

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 59


Introduction The RET Site on Bio-Inspired Technology and Systems (BITS) aims to establish a strong partnership between Michigan State University (hosting institution), NSF-supported Engineering Research Center for Wireless Integrated MicroSystems (WIMS) (co-hosting organization), school districts, and industry on advancing pre-college science and engineering education, by training a cadre of leaders of middle and high school teachers in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). This is the second of a three year NSF funded RET program grant. During the summer 2011, eight teachers attended a 7-week Summer Institute, participating in cutting-edge research, with “one-on-one” mentoring from engineering faculty and graduate students. Working with PIs, College of Engineering faculty mentors, and a College of Education teacher development specialist, teachers worked on developing innovative, standards-compliant curriculum modules and participated in a number of professional development activities: workshops, seminars, and field trips to industry and national labs. This evaluation report encompasses the findings from the Summer Institute, and a follow up focus group with the teachers and an interview with curriculum specialist. As described in the NSF proposal, the RET Site will have: Intellectual Merit—Under the coherent, interdisciplinary theme of Bio-Inspired Technology and Systems, the RET-BITS Site will expose teachers to intriguing research in diverse areas, such as, artificial muscles, biosensors, biomechanics, biofuels, digital evolution, and biomolecular engineering, addressing important global issues including environment, energy, food, health care, and security. This will lead to the development of innovative curriculum in biology, physics, chemistry, and technology that excites pre-college students and livens up classroom learning. Broader Impacts—The MSU RET Site project is expected to enrich the professional development of a number of future leaders in STEM education, result in innovative curriculum for science and technology courses, and most importantly, peak the interest of middle and high school students in scientific inquiry. By engaging industry in the RET Site activities, the proposed BITS Site will lay the groundwork for a potentially transformative, industry-sponsored RET paradigm that is sustainable. Therefore, the proposed RET Site could positively influence the learning and career paths of young students, especially students from underrepresented groups, in Michigan and beyond for years to come, thus contributing to a technology-savvy workforce that is much needed by America. Goals. The proposed Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) Site aims to:

• Establish a strong partnership between Michigan State University (MSU), NSF Engineering Research Center for Wireless Integrated Microsystems (WIMS), and school districts on advancing pre-college science and engineering education;

• Train middle and high school STEM teachers that can develop students’ confidence and skills to succeed in a competitive global marketplace;

• Develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cutting-edge university research into classroom practices; and

• Lay the groundwork for a new, sustainable, industry-sponsored RET paradigm enabled by partnership between university, industry, and schools.

Evaluation This is the second year of the MSU RET program and of the eight teacher participants, four were returning for their second RET Summer Institute. The focus of the evaluation is to facilitate improvements to the RET Institute and render judgments of the worthiness of the RET site program based on the goals established when proposing the program to NSF. The data design of the evaluation is triangulated: (1) online surveys, (2) focus groups, and (3) interviews. In addition, the online surveys include (1) both quantitative and qualitative processes for gathering insight or perceptions, and (2) pre- and post-surveys and weekly surveys. Data gathering specifically included:

• Teacher Pre-Survey: separate surveys were created for the first- and second-year teacher participants.

Returning Second Year Teachers First Year Teachers Demographic and contextual Data

The reasons why they are returning for a 2-year.

The reasons why they are participating in the RET program.

The aspects of the program they are looking forward to this year.

Their perceptions of the program going into it

Individual program goals e.g., research design and implementation, curriculum development.

Their perception of 2-day orientation compared to the previous year’s orientation.

Their perception of 2-day orientation.

Their perception of the weekly schedule, which was altered based on their feedback from last year.

Their perception of weekly schedule.

They explained any changes they wanted to make to their research experience.

They explained any changes they wanted to make to their curriculum development experience.

• Teacher Post Survey: separate surveys were created for the first- and second-year teacher

participants. Several questions were follow-up to the pre-survey. First Year and Returning Second Year Teachers

Rate their perception of how well the goals for the MSU RET program were being met including:

• How well the RET Institute prepared them to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.

• How well the RET Institute assisted them in developing and implementing innovative curriculum by translating cutting-edge curriculum education from

the university into the classroom. They rated their overall satisfaction with the RET program.

They addressed whether or not their goals for the program were met.


They rated the mentoring provided by the professor and/or graduate student. They rated their satisfaction with Jennifer Doherty, who worked with them on

curriculum development. They rated their curriculum plan as of the beginning of August (they have until

October 1 to submit it to teachscience.org). They provided insight into their learning of tangible skills and abilities with regards to

conducting research and creating curriculum plans. They rated their satisfaction with the professional development opportunities offered

through the RET program. They rated how well the management team carried out their roles and responsibilities. They were asked to provide insight into other knowledge, skills and abilities that they

obtained, which they can now take back and use in the classroom. They were also asked to provide recommendations for improving the program and

what assistance or opportunities they want the RET program to offer them during the academic year.

• Teacher Weekly Surveys: The teachers completed a weekly online survey instrument

inquiring into their engagement with their research, mentoring, and professional and curriculum development for the week. The last question they answered each week was, “Overall, rate your RET experience for this week.” The survey included Likert scale and open-ended questions and again, the weekly survey instrument was tailored for the first- and second-year teachers.

• Faculty and Graduate Student Post Institute Survey: The faculty and graduate students who mentored the teachers on their research were asked to complete an online survey at the end of the Institute. They were asked to provide insight into:

o How well each of the RET goals were being met o Their satisfaction with the program o How well the teacher met their expectations o Their satisfaction with their own mentoring of the teacher o Their satisfaction with the weekly schedule o Their involvement and perception of the teacher’s curriculum o How well the management team carried out their roles and responsibilities o Their recommended changes to the program.

• Teacher Follow Focus Group: At the December 2011 Design Day Expo, the teacher

participants were asked to meet with the evaluators for approximately 45 minutes. The evaluators inquired further into the development of an innovative curriculum including their interactions with the curriculum specialist, submitting their work to teachengineering.com, and implementing their curriculums.

• Curriculum Specialist Interview: A follow-up interview with the curriculum specialist was

conducted in December. The layout of this report first focuses on a comparison of the first- and second-year teachers’ satisfaction and perspectives on the RET Summer Institute. The next two sections provide further insight into the first- and second-year teachers’ perspectives on the Summer Institute. Following the

teachers’ perspectives and insights are the faculty/graduate students’ post-Institute feedback followed by the December RET Teachers’ focus group input and curriculum specialist interview data. The last section is the conclusion, which includes some high level recommendations based on the feedback from the participants.


First-Year and Second-Year Satisfaction Comparison The teacher participants completed pre- and post-surveys Both sets of teachers were asked the same satisfaction questions at the end of the Summer Institute. The survey perspective statements included five scale responses: Completely satisfied, Mostly satisfied, Mixed-equally satisfied and not satisfied, Mostly dissatisfied, and Completely dissatisfied. The first question they responded to inquired into their overall satisfaction with the RET Summer Institute (see Table 1). Two of the second year teachers (n = 3 of N = 4) were completely satisfied (66.7%) with the RET Summer Institute, while 5 of the six first year teaches (n = 6 and N = 6) were completely satisfied (83.3%). On the other hand, the second year teachers were completely satisfied (100.0%) with the mentoring provided by the faculty and/or graduate student(s), while four of the six first-year teachers were mostly satisified (66.7%). Two of the three second year teachers were completely satisfied with Jennifer’s assistance on curriculum development while only one first-year teacher was completely satisfied. Curriculum development is a topic that is discussed many times in this evaluation report. Lastly, the professional development received lower satisfaction ratings – 3 of the first-year teachers (50.0%) and none of the second teachers were completely satisfied.

Table 1. Teacher’s Post RET Summer Institute Satisfaction Completely

Satisfied Mostly

Satisfied Mixed

Response Mostly

Dissatisfied

1st (%)

2nd (%)

1st (%)

2nd (%)

1st (%)

2nd (%)

1st (%)

2nd (%)

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET program 83.3 66.7 16.7 33.3

Please rate the mentoring provided by the professor and/or the graduate student.

16.7 100 66.7 16.7

Please rate your satisfaction with working with Jennifer Doherty on curriculum development.

16.7 66.7 50.0 33.3 33.3

Please rate your satisfaction with the professional development opportunities offered through the RET program.

50.0 33.3 66.7 16.7 33.3

Next, the teacher participants were asked to rate how well the MSU RET goals were being met through the Summer Institute (see Table 2). The second-year teachers were more critical in their ratings of how well the goals of the MSU RET Summer Institute were met. When asked to rate their perception on how well the goals were met for the RET program, 83.3% of the first-year teachers and 66.7% of the second-year teachers indicated excellent. We suggest that you read the open-ended responses by the first- and second-year teachers in their designation section of the report for a full understanding of their ratings.

Table 2. Teacher Post RET Summer Institute Goal Perceptions Excellent Good Average

1st (%)

2nd (%)

1st (%)

2nd (%)

1st (%)

2nd (%)

Rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET program are being met.

83.3 66.7 16.7 33.3

How well has the RET Institute prepared you to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market?

83.3 33.3 16.7 33.3 33.3

Rate how well the RET program is assisting in developing and implementing innovative curriculum.

83.3 66.7 16.7 33.3

Rate how well the management team (e.g. Xiabao Tan, Andrew Kim) carried out their role and responsibilities

83.3 66.7 16.7 33.3


First-Year Teachers The six first-year teachers completed pre- and post-surveys and at least six weekly surveys during the summer Institute/institute.

Teacher Pre-Survey The pre-survey was fairly short and included a few demographic questions and then, a few questions about their preparation for the Institute. All six first-year teachers teach at high schools. The primary subjects the teachers teach are biology, chemistry, physics, and robotics. When asked why they applied for the program, the teachers primarily stated that they wanted to participate in a research experience or for professional development:

• Research experience, contacts with MSU professors and resources, personal growth and interests

• I would like to eventually pursue a PhD in Curriculum development or Science Methods with the intent on teaching future teachers and I feel that this is an excellent opportunity to learn more and be proactive about my future.

• Sounded like fun, interesting work and a great opportunity to become a better teacher • To integrate more engineering and real world application into my curriculum • Interesting research. I like writing lesson plans. I need the money. • I was planning on updating my curriculum this summer anyway.

The teachers were next asked to describe their goals for participating in the program, and the majority stated that they wanted to create lessons to help their student learn the curriculum, and to work on their teaching abilities and research skills.

• To understand the field of digital evolution; understand student misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science and formulate a plan to address those in my classroom;

• To better understand the research process so I am informed when I talk to my students about it; to develop a set of lesson plans that integrates my research experience into the classroom; and to have more content knowledge (specifically in the area of robotics)

• To create a lesson plan to use in the classroom that my students will enjoy and that link to the state standards; to form a positive, lasting relationship with my research advisor and with the college of Engineering; and to have conversations with other teachers who work in different schools to help understand and learn new best practices.

• To create at least 7 lesson plans applicable to my research and a 9th grade biology classroom or an 11th grade physics classroom and to design a research project that will have/be a real world tie in (related to one or more core content standards) for my students.

• To write useable science lessons for grades 7-12 that are pertinent to the research I'll be doing; to learn a lot about the engineering of research I'll be doing; and to pay off my home equity loan!

• To improve programming skills and find better ways to teach evolution.

In relation to their hopes and plans for curriculum development specifically, at the outset of the program, the first-year teachers stated the following:

• Make my classroom more inquiry based and build my entire course around the theme of evolution and the nature of science.

• To work sometime of real research into the classroom. I understand that I am to work with Dr. Choi on how to model the motion of a robotic boat autonomously. It would be nice to find a similar, though less complex system, that my students can research and model.

• Want to come away with a lesson that is engaging, relevant and linked to state standards. • To create engaging, hands on lessons that will have a real world tie in to get the students

involved. • My hope is that our district leaders will embrace these lessons and share them with other

science teachers in our very large district. • My hope is to design an effective curriculum that involves inquiry.

Teacher Post-Survey Overall, the teachers were completely satisfied with their summer research experience at MSU. As shown in the Table 3, 83.3% of the teachers stated that they were completely satisfied with the Institute. They also stated that they met their goals (83.3%) and were either completely or mostly satisfied with the professional development opportunities that were offered to them.

Table 3. First–Year Teachers Post-RET Satisfaction (n = 6) Completely

Satisfied Mostly

Satisfied Mixed

Response Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET program

83.3% 16.7% 0%


16.7% 66.7% 16.7%


16.7% 50.0% 33.3%


50% 33.3% 16.7%

Next, the teachers were asked to respond to four questions regarding their perceptions on how well the goals of RET were met, how well it prepared them in working with their students once they are back in the classroom and the preparation of their new curriculum, and how well the management


team handled their responsibilities (see Table 4). The scale included four-points and the teachers rated the four statements Excellent (83.7%) or Good (16.7%).

Table 4. First-Year Teacher Post-Institute Input (n = 6) Excellent Good

Rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET program are being met. 83.3% 16.7%


83.3% 16.7%


83.3% 16.7%


83.3% 16.7%

Satisfaction with RET Institute Eighty-three percent of the teachers were completely satisfied with the Institute. I suggest that you read all the comments below to learn how satisfied the teachers were with the Institute.

• This was an amazing experience. I can’t believe I actually got paid to have so much fun and learn so much!

• This is the best job I could ever get! I loved the research and can’t wait to bring what I’ve learned back to my students.

• I signed up for this program chiefly for the paycheck originally, but the experience has been priceless. I am so going to change much of my curriculum based on this experience, emphasizing that making mistakes is part of the process.

• Through the Brown Bag sessions, field trips, and time in the morning to research and work on my lesson, I was given all of the tools that I needed to accomplish my goal of developing innovative curriculum for the classroom. In addition, I formed positive connections with faculty and students in the engineering building with the possibility of future collaborations that will benefit my students (tours, guest speakers, etc.).

• I felt that some of the speakers and tours were not the most engaging. I also would have appreciated larger blocks of time for working on curriculum.

Goals of the Program This year, the first-year teachers were also asked to assess how well they thought the program met the goals stated. The post-survey asked them specifically about the following goals:

• To prepare teachers to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.

• To develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cutting-edge curriculum education from the University into classrooms.

The first-year teachers mostly felt that the program did an excellent job in meeting these goals (83.3%). Their open-ended comments indicate their positive responses:

• I learned a tremendous amount of science content that will enhance my teaching. I also learned more about engineering coursework and careers that will help me mentor students.

• This program provides teachers the ability to say to students “I’ve done this; I know what you need to succeed.”

• I know what skills my students SHOULD have, now the challenge is getting them where they need to be.

• Participating in RET has helped me be more confident in helping my students learn about engineering careers. Armed with this information, they will better be able to make decisions for their future and it will make their postsecondary education more focused and efficient.

• I am very excited about using the curriculum I developed this summer. I don’t think this work would have been possible for me without the support of my faculty and the funding support to buy materials.

• We were provided with all the help we needed. I do wish that we had more continues time for curriculum development. Rather than 8 hours over 4 days we could do 8 hours over 2 days.

• Now that I see what sorts of attitudes and abilities are appreciated at the university level, I can better prepare my students.

• With this goal in mind, I thought about how I could implement my research into my classroom during the entire RET experience. Not only was I successful in developing a lesson for my classroom that incorporates engineering, but I also learned a lot of new things that I can share with my students during other units to enhance my curriculum.

• Some of what I wanted to do, and had gotten so excited about, isn’t realistic in my (urban, large) classroom. Thus, good instead of excellent.

Mentoring The first-year teachers were asked in the post-survey about their mentoring experience. Here, the teachers had a mixed response with their mentoring as the open-ended responses show:

• The only drawback was their limited availability, but I understand that summer is a busy time for them and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with them.

• My professor was very helpful. He came in the lab for about an hour every day or two. The grad students started out great but as the program continued she disappeared. She would come any time I had explicit questions for her but she wasn’t very active in the second half. The undergraduate REU student was the most helpful only because he was constantly in the lab with me.

• Helpful, interested in helping, but often distracted. • More than I could have hoped for! My graduate student was intelligent, helpful and patient.

Very good at explaining concepts to me that I didn’t understand, and comfortable enough to


provide constructive criticism to help me get better at what I was doing more quickly. I full attribute how much I learned to my grad student and his willingness to work with me at any time.

• I would like to know the roles that each are supposed to play in this experience. My grad student didn’t do much and mostly sat on the computer social networking. It seemed like a waste of money. She can answer questions via e-mail rather than sitting around waiting for me to have a question.

• They were very helpful and available.

Curriculum Development While the first-year teachers were completely or mostly satisfied, some did have a mixed response to the curriculum development portion of the Institute.

• She did not always seem enthusiastic about helping us. She had some good ideas. It would probably be better to contact her on an as needed basis rather than having standing meetings that you have to go to whether you need help or not.

• She did a nice job with the questions I had. Like I said before I had a difficult time getting started during the two hour block so I still have some work to do on my curriculum. She did a nice job with what I gave her.

• She didn’t waste my time, we focused on what I needed to do and she was very helpful with specific suggestions.

• Although she did provide valuable information related to lesson planning, she did not have a lot of experience with submission to teach engineering and was not able to help us through that process (which was our requirement). Most of the research for submission had to be done on our own. Personally, I feel comfortable planning curriculum and transferring research into the classroom, it was the teach engineering submission that I needed help with.

• Even though it’s difficult to respect someone teaching education who has not taught in a high school science classroom, Jennifer was great. She was helpful exactly where I needed help!

• She had some great ideas that I really appreciated. However, I had a hard time meeting with her outside of our scheduled half hour.

In terms of completing, submitting, and implementing their planned curriculum, the first-year teachers made the following comments:

• My plan is done for my purposes, but I am still working on all of the formatting for teachengineering.com. Submission to that website requires an inordinate amount of time and formatting.

• I have a difficult time getting things done in a two hour block. It’s difficult for me to focus in that amount of time. I would really like to see more extended time for curriculum development. Not necessarily more time, but more continuous time.

• I imagine the teachengineering.com people may want me to fix or improve some things once they review it.

• The only major issue that I had was that I finished early and submitted to Jennifer and an editor at teach engineering for review and waited a VERY long time for them to provide

comments for me to continue with my curriculum writing. I feel that if it had been reviewed and gotten back to me in a timelier manner, I would have had more time to go in and add stuff to it.

• I plan to have all lessons submitted prior to school starting in September. • I don’t have a computer projector in my classroom. And most of the information in my

lessons is PowerPoint.

Professional Development Again, while the first-year teachers were completely or mostly satisfied, some did have a mixed response to the professional development portion of the Institute. The open-ended responses illustrate the teachers’ satisfaction and excitement for the Institute.

• Not sure what parts were specifically professional development as I viewed the entire RET program as such.

• About half of the tours and brown bags were great, but some of them were lacking. • Professional development was helpful and informative. • Each new experience showcased a different engineering career or research initiative here at

MSU that I will be able to take back and share with my students. All of the faculty and students were friendly and forthcoming with research information and ready to answer questions.

• I’m guessing that you’re talking about the brown bag lunches and Friday events? They were all good and very interesting. The Friday lab tours were minutely monotonous. It would be nice if they had something hands on for each of us to do. But I understand that hands on is not really their thing. Thanks for the salad with the pizza… that helps with digestion!

• I would have enjoyed more biology related experiences. In relation to their skill development, after participating in the RET program, the first-year teachers had the following remarks in terms of their tangible skills and abilities:

• My confidence in taking on a whole new curriculum project has increased. • I have learned a lot about designing electronic systems and programming a microcontroller.

I look forward to designing a curriculum based on the microcontrollers we used. I’d like to do a class on programming and logic.

• Changes in how I solve problems, with an increased emphasis on playing with the problem a while to see if I can solve it. More of a “skills as goal” oriented curriculum plan instead of an “I must cover x number of topics” plan.

• Well, I have learned how to use a new 3D modeling software program and use it to teach in my classroom. I learned how to make a professional poster that is research based, and I also learned how to write a formal article based on research (still in development).

• I know more than I did before. I’m more knowledgeable on the curriculum that I developed than I was before. I’m looking forward to teaching this unit this year!

• I feel I have a better handle on taking research and bringing the information into the classroom.


The first-year teachers were also asked what they learned about themselves through participation in the RET Institute:

• I LOVE BIOLOGY… I already knew that but this summer I got reinvigorated. • I learned that I love being given a project and funding to work on. I do really well when I

am given free reign to do what I think is best to move toward project completion. • My students are screwed if I don’t help them to do better. So I learned I have an even

tougher job than I thought! • One thing I learned is that I am detailed to a fault in everything that I do, and sometimes that

hinders me from getting everything I can out of an experience. At RET, I really had to take a step back and put things down to continue learning before I could finish a particular project.

• I’m type A. • I’m in the middle of the type-A spectrum for teachers! I met some that are much more

“anal” and some that are much more relaxed. It was also great to touch base with other inner-city teachers.

The first-year teachers also indicated that they gained the following knowledge, skills and abilities that they can take back to their classrooms through participation in the program:

• The contacts I made with professors and grad students will be very helpful as they are all very willing to help answer my questions.

• The research experience is incredibly valuable, learning about robotics and especially energy (solar systems and battery types) will give me some extra content to talk to students about.

• Skills with computers (basic programming, excel) and population sampling techniques. • The new in depth knowledge of my curriculum. I also will be able to promote engineering

and MSU engineering programs much better. • I am excited about Design Day. I am hoping I can bring my kids to it this year.

Management The teachers next rated the management team. What more can be said from the glowing remarks from the teachers about the management team:

• Drew was very accessible and helpful. • Drew and Xiabo are excellent. They do everything they can to make sure we have a

meaningful and enjoyable experience. They are very approachable. • Facilitated the experience without controlling every aspect. Nice balance of managing but

not micromanaging. • Everything was planned very well and the lab placement was perfect! The brown bag

sessions and the field trips went off without a hitch, they did an excellent job and I would work with them again in the future anytime.

• I’m not sure what Xiabo Tan’s role was? I liked talking to him and he was always happy to be around us!

Some final comments from the first-year teachers included:

• Thanks! • Best Job Ever! • If teachers had to do this every few years to renew their certificates, it would be a huge

improvement over the existing system. This program has made more of a difference in what and how I teach than anything else I’ve done in the almost twenty years since I graduated from MSU. The more teachers you can get in on this the better. If the RET program is Kool-Aid, I tentatively sipped it, then guzzled it, and now I’m hoping for another glass.

• Thanks Drew for all your hard work. I enjoyed working with you this summer. I hope to do it again next summer!


Second-Year Teachers All four second-year teachers completed the pre-survey, while only three of the four completed the post-survey. All four also participated in at least six weekly surveys during the summer Institute/institute.

Teacher Pre-Survey The pre-survey was fairly short and included a few demographic questions. Two of the four returning teachers teach in the high school while one teaches in middle school, and one in elementary school. When asked why they returned to the program, the teachers primarily stated that their experience in the prior year had been a positive and rewarding experience for them especially in relation to their curriculum development:

• The first year was exciting and rewarding enough for my students and myself that I wanted to enhance what was accomplished last summer.

• RET year one provided a good experience for me to reflect on my teaching practice. Year two will provide the opportunity to begin to write curriculum of a quality that merits peer review. I would not do this on my own and I look forward to the challenge.

• My previous experience with the NSF-RET program was very beneficial towards developing new teaching habits as well improving my curriculum development.

• I wanted more time/experience working in the lab that I was/am placed in. I want to continue to work on curriculum for my students and hopefully get supplies that will enable me to complete lessons in my classroom.

The teachers were next asked what their goals were for participating in the program again, and the majority stated that they wanted to continue creating lessons, but also to continue the research itself. They also hoped to expand their curriculum development beyond what they had done in the year previously.

• Finish a lesson set based on my experience and complete a working model/lab highlighting current combustion research

• Master MATLAB software; compose and submit for peer review exceptional curriculum • My goals for the RET this year are to get at least 2 lesson plans fully developed and

submitted to teachengineering.com and to gain further understanding about evolutionary robotics and artificial intelligence.

• Gain results from my experimentation that are applicable to the real-world; find resources that will allow me to replicate experiments in my classroom; and post lessons on teachengineering.com

Teacher Post-Survey Overall, the teachers were completely satisfied with their summer research experience at MSU. As shown in Table 5, 66.7% of the teachers stated that they were completely satisfied with the Institute including the mentoring provided by the professor and/or graduate student. They also stated that they met their goals (66.7%) and were mostly satisfied with the professional development opportunities that were offered to them (66.7%). The discrepancy in satisfaction for professional development seems to stem from a repetition of tours and activities from the previous year.

Table 5. Second–Year Teachers Post-RET Survey (n = 3 of 4) Completely

Satisfied Mostly

Satisfied Mixed

Response Mostly

Dissatisfied Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET program 66.7% 0% 33.3% 0%


100% 0% 0% 0%


66.7% 0% 0% 33.3%


0% 66.7% 33.3% 0%

As shown in Table 6, the second-year teachers provided their perspectives on how well the RET Summer Institute are meeting the goals as laid out to NSF. Two of the three teachers who responded thought that the goals were being met (66.7% = Excellent) while there were variation amongst the three teachers on whether or not the Summer Institute will help them with developing student confidence and skills so they could succeed in a global market. Please read the open-ended responses for further insight into their responses.

Table 6. Second-Year Teachers Perspective on the RET Goals Excellent Good Average

Rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET program are being met. 66.7% 0% 33.3%


33.3% 33.3% 33.3%


66.7% 0% 33.3%


66.7% 33.3% 0%

Rate this year’s schedule. 66.7% 0% 33.3%


Satisfaction with RET Institute 66.7% percent of the second-year teachers were completely satisfied with the Institute. I suggest that you read all the comments below to learn how satisfied the teachers were with the Institute.

• I do not feel that there was enough time for curriculum this summer. While it seemed that the focus of the poster was on curricula, we only had 8 hours a week, broken into four days. Definitely not enough time to accomplish what was asked of us. Also, it seemed that most of the tours and presentations were the same as last year. While I understand there are new people, it was redundant for returners. It also seemed that things were haphazardly put together last minute. While saying that, I feel that my time in research was much beneficial. I feel that allowing teachers to spend time researching, allows them to be better well-rounded. I just thing there needs to be a better split of time.

• It was a terrific experience. No surprises. No disappointments. • This program has grown and become something I’m eager to be involved with. It provides

opportunities for research that break teachers out of the traditional classroom mold.

Goals of the Program This year, the second-year teachers were also asked to assess how well they thought the program met the goals stated. The post-survey asked them specifically about the following goals:

- To prepare teachers to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.

- To develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cutting-edge curriculum education from the University into classrooms.

The second-year teachers had mixed responses in relation to helping them develop student confidence and skills to succeed in the global marketplace. 66.7% felt that the program helped them to develop and implement innovative curriculum. Their open-ended comments indicate their mixed responses:

• While we had a lot of time in the labs, we did not have much time to focus on our curriculum. I do not think that there was the same focus as there was last year. While I have some materials and skills to help my students, we did not spend much time on this.

• I am gaining skills in science and engineering. The skills are current. The skills are being used in the real world. I did not have these skills before RET.

• This summer’s research has given me a whole new approach method for creating an interest in engineering fields for inner city youth. Prior to this summer I had grown a little bit of confidence because of last year’s experience, but this summer has taken me out of my comfort zone and forced me to make my new zone comfortable, increasing my confidence that I can change little lives.

• We did not have much time to focus on this. Last year we had two days for curriculum. Having only two hours four days a week was not conducive to getting much done. Curriculum development takes a long time, with many hours needed to be devoted to it at once.

• I have been teaching Excel to students for years, but this summer I had a chance to see firsthand how it, Excel, is being used in the laboratory.

• The research of evolutionary computations made me look for creativity in my curriculum development. Instead of saying to myself that I’d just develop another simple robotics lesson, I stopped and asked myself how can I present genetic programming, biological evolution, and robotics in one lesson. I found a way and I have to say it’s the most creative lesson plan I’ve ever done.

Mentoring The teachers were asked in the post-survey about their mentoring experience. Again, they were completely satisfied with their mentoring as the open-ended responses show:

• By far, the graduate students and faculty are excellent. They are there to help with any questions, find focus, and also just have someone there to run ideas by.

• Both Dr. Liao and my grad student Xiaoqing provided tremendous support for my learning this summer.

• Tony and Daniel worked constantly on our project. They were patient as the questions came pouring in. Dr. McKinley had meetings constantly to answer questions that arose and to check on our progress including bringing the artist that came up with the Biolume idea in for a meeting to explain his vision to us. I could not have asked for a better group of mentors to work with.

Curriculum Development The only area that the teachers showed variation in their responses was the curriculum development portion of the Institute as 66.7% indicated that they were completely satisfied and 33.3% were mostly satisfied, respectively. The second-year teachers had mixed reviews about the assistance they received and issues with communication.

• At our first meeting, she said that we could just meet by sending things online. The next week she wondered where I was… I had to remind her what she told me. Also, it was very disheartening for her to tell me that my curriculum has nothing to do with engineering, which is surprising since that is what is done in my research lab daily.

• She had ideas that helped me when I was stuck and had no idea how to proceed and create a successful lesson for teachengineering.com

• Jennifer was there for us this summer with answers for any hang up we ran into. She also provided excellent peer review for our curriculum so we could fix it prior to submission.

All three teachers also noted that they did not foresee any issues in successfully completing, submitting and implementing their curriculum plan.

Professional Development Next, the second-year teachers either were mostly satisfied or had a mixed response with their professional development opportunities. The mixed response mostly resulted from a perception that


not enough were provided. The open-ended responses illustrate the teachers’ satisfaction and excitement for the Institute.

• I don’t know if there really was any… which is not necessarily a bad thing based on the ones we had last year (which were things I would never use again).

• The trip to Whirlpool was kind of a snore, and a long drive to boot. But the other experiences were very engaging.

• There aren’t many professional development opportunities, but the ones provided are great! In relation to their skill development, after participating in the RET program, the second-year teachers had the following remarks in terms of their tangible skills and abilities:

• Extensive improvement in my Excel skills. Basic understanding of Matlab and Simulink. Jennifer helped me to craft my lesson with clear goals in mind.

• I can write programs in C++, C, and Java and use multiple IDEs to get the job done. • I am now very familiar with the engineering program and its facilities. I will be able to

share this with my students. • Writing mathematical formulas in Excel.

The second-year teachers were also asked what they learned about themselves through participation in the RET Institute:

• I had a very hard time crafting a lesson that related to my RET experience. I do not teach biology and Dr. Liao focused almost exclusively on biology. Therefore, my lesson topic related to the tools I used this summer: Excel, Matlab, and Simulink.

• I’ve learned that I am more capable of doing any and everything I put my mind to. The thought of learning multiple programming languages as well as development environments in less than two months sounded ridiculous to me at the beginning of the summer, but I did it!

Management The teachers next rated the management team. The second-year teachers either reported the management team as excellent or good. Below are their comments:

• I think they did the best they could. • Expectations were clear and we were kept well-informed. • Drew is always working hard to make sure everything is running smoothly. He’s always

available when issues arise, he’s always thinking of ways to make the program a better experience, and he genuinely cares about what he’s doing. Dr. Tan is a mentor even when you haven’t been assigned to work with him. Brilliant man that has gifts to be shared.

Second-Year Teacher Comparison of First- and Second-Year Experience The second-year teachers were also asked to compare their experience this year to their first year of the program. Here are their comments:

• My second year in the same placement, with Dr. Liao, was very satisfying. I brought my previous experience and felt extremely well prepared to get some work done this summer.

• Last summer the postdoc that I was working with seemed to have other things on her mind often. I suppose taking a job as a professor at another school would do that to you, but it hindered her involvement with the research. This year the two grad students worked with me every hour, every day, every step of the way and the result was fabulous. The amount of information I was able to squeeze out of them was incredible.

They also made recommendations based on their comparisons:

• This summer was great. I’d figure out another way to get the teachers a little more curriculum time, but it was almost perfect.


Weekly Teacher Survey Findings Each week the teacher participants were asked to complete a short survey on SurveyMonkey.com. They answered four questions on: 1) Engagement in research, 2) Mentoring, 3) Curriculum development, and 4) Overall weekly experience. The first week they also answered questions about their orientation to the Summer Institute.

Orientation The teachers thought that the orientation was just enough so they felt comfortable with the expectations, what they should accomplish during the Institute, and the people involved in the Institute.

• Be prepared to work. Be willing to learn from the grad students and postdocs even if they're younger.

• I think it was not completely clear to some what the expectations were at the end, or others were not sure of what the summer consisted of. While there is a schedule sent out before, it does not explain very much.

• For the most part the orientation was just fine. There was a lot of down time. I feel like most of what we did over two days probably could have been done in one day. On the other hand having the extra time to sit and visit with fellow teachers who are passionate about science is priceless.

• Learned a lot of useful information about the program, would have liked a schedule in a handout form for seminars, lunch sessions, and field trips to help me organize my time better.

• It touched on things that seemed important and was well organized. • Well planned but not everything happened as planned.

Engagement in Research For the next five questions, the teacher responses are broken out by weekly date. As for the teachers’ engagement in research, their responses are what one would expect from conducting research such as taking time to research, time constraints, waiting, and understanding faculty/graduate student roles. Overall, the responses are positive and indicate that the teachers were very engaged in their research.

6/24/2011 Most of the new information that my graduate student had to share, I picked up pretty quickly. He gave me some articles to read to bring me up to speed with the research in the lab and we started brainstorming areas that I could focus on.

6/24/2011 I began planning my research experiment on Wednesday. I will measure the growth rates of fungi in a glycerol solution by growing in three different

concentrations of glycerol we will be looking for an ideal concentration to maximize biomass in minimal time. These results will then be used to create a virtual fermentation tank using MATLAB and Simulink. Good times.

6/26/2011 I was able to get re-oriented with the lab and get things organized for the summer.

6/26/2011 I met with Dr. Pennock and my graduate student to discuss our goals for the summer. I spent a lot of time reading articles and one day learning the AVIDA software on my own.

6/26/2011 I’m really enjoying it! I’m a little concerned because of the level of math they are using to model the motion of the boat. I wish I had this type of application when I learned it in college. I’m a little concerned about how helpful I can actually be but I’m getting there.

6/27/2011 I didn’t have much. The main thing I was involved in was the techniques involved in sub culturing.

6/27/2011 Reading papers, and then talking to smart folks for clarification. It was more engaging than it sounds, I promise.

6/27/2011 Spent a majority of the week studying what finite state machines are and Python programming language.

7/1/2011 I was able to figure out and plan exactly what needs to be accomplished for the rest of the summer.

7/2/2011 I was going through the AVIDA-ED exercises that other people have made to determine whether they are usable and what would need to be changed. I became more familiar with the software and we had a couple of meetings with our faculty member to plan our research.

7/2/2011 Starting to get the hang of things and put my learning with what I am doing. I have learned a lot these past two weeks and am excited as to what the next ones will bring!

7/3/2011 Had to scrap my first experiment and start over. Very disappointing. 7/4/2011 We’ve narrowed down the research topics and began in depth study of the

Biolume project. We also had an interesting trip to Whirlpool’s engineering facilities.

7/4/2011 During the past week, I spent most of my time machining various parts necessary for the completion of our project. I have also been drafting specs for parts in the evenings at home.

7/5/2011 I’ve been struggling with what I can do. I’m waiting to get feedback from others in my lab. The feedback I need takes a lot of time to develop so there’s not really anything we can do about it.

7/5/2011 I was able to run a mini-experiment of my own. The staff set it up for me and helped me through it step by step.

7/5/2011 Trying to go from reading papers to understanding current research. 7/7/2011 I am planning and executing my own experiments this week. 7/8/2011 Started running some new samples. It’s neat to get to do my own, even if

they are the exact same that the grad student is running. 7/8/2011 On Thursday of this week was THE DAY that everything I have been

learning and working on just clicked. All of a sudden it all came together in


my brain and I have been working excitedly since then and feel I am really making good progress on my research!

7/8/2011 This week I helped design a solar power system for the robotic boat. 7/10/2011 We developed a curriculum template for the AVIDA-ED activities and

began transitioning the outlines that we have into the template form. I also worked closely with Jeff to learn more about AVIDA-ED’s capabilities and how they compare to the “real” AVIDA so that we know what types of data we can collect and thus what types of activities we can develop.

7/10/2011 I was able to determine that my bacteria are viable for experiments. I also was able to find a pesticide that I believe will work better than the one I used last year. I also have been growing tomatoes and peppers to use for field testing.

7/11/2011 Finally had an opportunity to sit down with all of the Biolume contributors as well as the main artist, Adam Brown, and discuss in detail what the first genetic programming should accomplish. Then we ran into the dilemma of whether or not evolving finite state machines as opposed to genetic programming was the best solution for the project. Tony Clark and I are currently looking into the possibilities of genetic programming instead of evolving the state machines.

7/11/2011 Being my first week – I was just getting started. 7/12/2011 Trying to figure out if what I want to do is doable. 7/13/2011 This week I took pints of my parts drafts to the mill and made the two

sheath clamps I designed. 7/15/2011 Ran several different tests and saw others run additional ones. We did a test

on the new nanoparticles to see how well they got into the cells. Used flow cytometry to get a ton of data on some 3D well experiments. Used the confocal microscope to look at varying layers of cells.

7/15/2011 I learn something new every day. We are working on a proposal to obtain information to conduct more research which has been interesting, and a lot of work. Hopefully, we will get the data we need so I can start analyzing!

7/15/2011 Spent the weeks processing data. I learned several interesting qualities of Excel that I will incorporate into my teaching.

7/15/2011 Producing data indicative of tentative success with initial research. 7/15/2011 It was really slow this week. We received the api from Dr. Fagg at OSU,

but the headers were all that was included. Learning C has been easier than Python, but it’s really late in the summer for this type of change. I guess the good part is that this is a long term project.

7/15/2011 I am incredibly interested though I don’t feel like I’ve gotten anything done… electronics are hard to find online… at least the right ones.

7/17/2011 Was able to exclude some chemicals that I thought was going to work. This enabled me to narrow down what materials to work with.

7/18/2011 This week I designed, built, and tested a starting assembly for the Fuji Imvac engine we are testing in the lab.

7/18/2011 I have been developing a tutorial for AVIDA-ED which will hopefully

introduce students to the software so that they can get the most learning out of it. I got a chance to test out my work on AVIDA-ED curriculum with the Beacon High School program students which was very helpful.

7/22/2011 Ran some experiments with various concentrations to fill in the “gaps” of my data.

7/22/2011 The physics clean lab was awesome!

7/22/2011 I learned a lot! 7/22/2011 Got some results that seemed to match some of what we were hoping to

show. I spent a lot of time this week doing curriculum. 7/22/2011 This week we have been organizing all of our data to put into a proposal for

more CT images from or partner in Korea and reading articles to obtain references to support our research. I feel like we accomplished a lot.

7/22/2011 I took my growth experiment data to Dr. Liao and he, I and Xiaoqing have begun to use MATLAB to interpret and display the data.

7/22/2011 I can’t wait to see everything put together though I feel like I’m running out of time. My lab has been very supportive of everything that I want to do.

7/22/2011 I worked a lot on my bacterial selection experiment. I am trying to see if I can observe evolution in E.coli within a relatively short time frame.

7/22/2011 I was able to decide to continue with more than one fertilizer, to create a foundation of what I can implement into my classroom.

7/25/2011 We managed to get a little more specific with where we’re heading with the Biolume. I’m now learning a third programming language and 5th piece of software in 5 weeks, but other than that it’s going well.

7/28/2011 I have been focused on learning to use MATLAB and SIMULINK this week. I have grown to respect how hard it might be for some of my students to learn new things. It has been very difficult for me to learn these two applications.

7/28/2011 I have been working on a bacterial resistance experiment to demonstrate natural selection in the classroom. I have developed a procedure to test the effects of different antibiotics/disinfectants on the growth of E. coli and I am just starting to get results from the selection (culturing the organisms that grow in the inhibition zone to show how the population can evolve over time).

7/29/2011 Mostly wrap-up. 7/29/2011 I worked a lot on helping to finish up our proposal and working a lot on my

poster, which will also be included in the lab I am working in as well as the RET program.

7/29/2011 Was able to finish up some loose threads and focus on what things I could implement in my classroom.

7/31/2011 Everything is finally coming together! All the pieces are in and I’m now able to assemble and test the things I’ve designed. I am however out of time for the experiment I wanted to do and will have to come back after the program is over.

8/1/2011 Most of the research is over and I’m writing stuff up. 8/4/2011 We didn’t really do anything with the actual research project… the majority


of the research was done on trying to get my student project to work. We are ready to test the student channels today!!

8/4/2011 Finished up some experiments. 8/4/2011 This is the big week to finish everything up. My faculty adviser and

graduate student helped me finish up my poster and make it perfect, and I also finished my lesson plan which is ready to upload to teachengineering.com.

8/4/2011 We’ve made major leaps with the Biolume simulator. It’s been especially exciting and rewarding for me to watch my code come to life. I would never have imagined that all of the reading and studying I had to do in order to understand the research would have resulted in the end product!

8/5/2011 We’re moving at an accelerated rate with the coding of the Biolume Simulator and it’s coming together perfectly.

8/6/2011 I spent the last week finishing lessons and posters. I spent almost no time on research.

8/8/2011 I finished collecting data for my E.coli selection project. 8/8/2011 I was able to complete what I wanted to accomplish this summer, while

leaving a LOT unanswered, which I will hopefully be able to research later.

Mentoring Overall, the teachers were very satisfied with their mentoring over the course of the summer Institute. In several of the labs, the graduate students or an undergraduate student mentored the teachers because the professor was traveling or they are always there conducting their own research for their studies.

6/24/2011 Not only is my graduate student very intelligent, he is also good at explaining things without getting frustrated with my trillion questions. He was very patient and let me work at my own pace to learn which was also really helpful!

6/24/2011 Everyone has been terrific. Dr. Liao suggested the experiment and my grad student Xiaoqing helped me make it happen. I have also received a lot of help from others in my lab: Jin, Robbie and Mike. I also see Suzy (Dr. Liu) several times a day. She is wonderful. Very informative and supportive.

6/26/2011 They are always to help and bounce ideas off of. We have a great relationship and I appreciate that they allow me to run with new ideas and back me up.

6/26/2011 Both my faculty member and graduate student have been very helpful. I was surprised at how interested they were in hearing what I was hoping to get out of the summer program and how that fits into my personal and professional goals for the future. I am very excited because both my faculty and graduate student share many of my interests and passions and I feel like they are a wealth of expertise and advice for me.

6/26/2011 They have done a very nice job of working with me, answering my questions, and making it understandable.

6/27/2011 My grad student was out this week. However, I touched base several times with my professor.

6/27/2011 Any time I had a question, there were several people I could ask, and they all could either help me or point me to someone who could.

6/27/2011 It was limited during week one. Faculty were out because of family illness and grad student left for vacation after my first day in the lab.

7/1/2011 My graduate student is always there to help! 7/2/2011 My graduate student is very helpful. It isn’t always clear what my next

steps should be though. 7/2/2011 Very patient, good at answering questions and gives just the right amount of

material each day so I am engaged, but not overwhelmed. 7/3/2011 Good direction, but I have four bosses and each wants something different

from me. 7/4/2011 We were able to sit and have long discussions about where the Biolume

project is heading and the meaning behind all of the digital evolution combined with art for the average public viewer.

7/4/2011 Bryce has been a great mentor. He and I work well together and are sharing the workload. I thing we are making considerable progress in our research. However, I do concentrate on curriculum development in the coming weeks if I am going to meet my objectives.

7/5/2011 Helpful. Stops in the lab periodically. Gives me a lot of freedom.

7/5/2011 Neither was on campus. Communicated through e-mail. 7/5/2011 Working one on one with a few different people to load the programs

necessary for the research onto my computer and to understand how to use them.

7/7/2011 Xiaoqing has been very helpful in my research. I would describe it as scaffolding. I know enough to be more independent and I am encouraged to exercise this independence.

7/8/2011 They were both very helpful and available. 7/8/2011 My graduate student is very patient and helpful, allowing me to do things

on my own and learn, but also pointing me in the right direction when I need help!

7/8/2011 They answered questions when I had them but haven’t been around much this week. There is an undergraduate in the lab that I go to with most of my questions simply for proximity sake.

7/10/2011 My graduate student is very helpful whenever I have questions. I am working on my own most of the time, but she is readily available to help me when necessary.

7/10/2011 She helped me order materials, figure out what exactly I need and is always there to help.

7/11/2011 Dr. McKinley has been doing a wonderful job as the faculty in charge making all necessary arrangements and accommodations so that we can just continue researching. Tony is out of this world. He’s been patient with me and my lack of the necessary programming knowledge and he’s able to answer every question that arises.

7/11/2011 The graduate student is a nice young girl who is very shy.


7/12/2011 All kinds of help as needed. 7/13/2011 My grad mentor was out of town this week and will be returning Monday. 7/15/2011 Graduate student was in the lab whenever I was, faculty meeting on

Tuesdays and available via e-mail whenever needed. 7/15/2011 Doing a great job of teaching me new things. We have had some great

intellectual conversation the past few days and come up with some great ideas.

7/15/2011 Xiaoqing has been very helpful but has her hands full with a group of high school kids visiting from China.

7/15/2011 The post doc I am working with has been great about helping when needed but not giving me all the answers and dictating too much of what I do.

7/15/2011 Tony Clark has been great. I have a lot of questions being that this is a new area for me altogether, but he’s been patient and able to answer every question.

7/15/2011 They check in periodically but I honestly haven’t really needed a lot of help at this point. I’m working with an undergrad in the lab because he is always around. The mentoring faculty and grad student are excellent; I just haven’t gone out of my way to use them yet.

7/17/2011 They helped me work out what I need to continue spending my time with this summer.

7/18/2011 He was out of town. 7/18/2011 Unfortunately, my faculty member is gone for the rest of the summer and

my graduate student is very busy with other things. My graduate student is very responsive to e-mails though and always willing to help.

7/22/2011 Grad student was in lab whenever I was. Faculty available by e-mail and weekly meeting.

7/22/2011 Both grad students assisted when needed. 7/22/2011 This was a busy week for him with his own research. I have plenty to do,

that’s no problem. 7/22/2011 Patient and helpful as always! 7/22/2011 Xiaoqing and I have had to work together to solve the inevitable data

problems that arise at the end of an experiment. Good time though. Lots of terrific learning!!!

7/22/2011 Dr. Choi is fantastic to work with! The grad student hasn’t been around much. The undergrad is most helpful.

7/22/2011 My faculty member and my grad student are out of town this week. Another faculty member has been working with me though.

7/22/2011 They again lend their expertise and guidance, helping me in whatever questions I have.

7/25/2011 Dr. McKinly, Tony and Daniel all are very helpful and patient with this process. This week Dr. McKinley helped immensely with a direction for the research.

7/28/2011 Dr. Liao has been instructing me directly. Xiaoqing has also been in attendance. She has been answering me more trivial questions. The remainder of my questions have been resolved through trial and error in the

computer lab.

7/28/2011 One of my faculty and my graduate student are out of town this week. I have gotten to know another faculty member better though. We don’t get to meet often but she is very helpful and always responds quickly to my e-mails.

7/29/2011 There when I was, available via e-mail. 7/29/2011 Perfect as always! The people in my lab are excellent, patient, and good at

communicating information. 7/29/2011 As always, they are there to help and encourage me in my research. 7/31/2011 Dr. Choi has done a wonderful job this week of coming in and working with

me to solve problems. We are currently discussing plans to continue working together.

8/1/2011 Professor just got back into town. 8/4/2011 She has kept in good contact with me so I know what’s going on. 8/4/2011 Available when I needed them, present in lab. 8/4/2011 They both helped me a lot by proofreading and helping me fix my poster

with a lot of great constructive criticism. 8/4/2011 They all deserve extra because they’ve gone above and beyond this week.

Tony and Daniel were willing to work with me on the simulator until 2:00am every night!

8/5/2011 They’ve taken me to a level where I can create Java applets and programming on my own. They’re now giving me projects to complete for the simulator and leaving me to do it.

8/6/2011 Ran my final ideas past my grad student for comments. 8/8/2011 They were out of town. Luckily, I already had a clear plan and didn’t need

much guidance. I sought out help from others when necessary. 8/8/2011 They helped me with my poster and my curriculum.

Professional Development In the professional development components of the Institute, the teachers had mixed reaction. They seemed to gain much from the brown bag sessions, but felt a disconnect between the goals of the program and some of the tours.

6/24/2011 I am on a steep learning curve. I know very little about fermenting using fungi and have had to read many articles early on to get up to speed.

6/26/2011 I spent a lot of time reading articles and have clarified many goals for my own classroom teaching and I have some new things to try out and emphasize in my classes.

6/26/2011 There was a lot of down time between events. What we did do I felt was very helpful. I think that just being able to sit and chat with other teachers


who are passionate about their subject is priceless. 6/27/2011 Great intro to the program (week one), some problems with ids and such. 6/27/2011 I’ve come up with at least 3 more lesson plan ideas from my research. 7/1/2011 I felt that the tour was not a good use of time. It wasted an entire day and

while it was somewhat interesting to see, we did not gain any new information about engineering or ways that we could se their knowledge with our students.

7/2/2011 Took a tour to Whirlpool in St. Joseph and I loved it! We learned about company history and procedures for testing products. Also how they have improved over the years.

7/3/2011 Whirlpool tour was boring and of little merit. 7/4/2011 Other than the Whirlpool tour this week’s pd was a carbon copy of last

year’s session. I found the Whirlpool tour to be OK at best… I was expecting to see assembly lines as opposed to the product testing facilities which were kind of dull.

7/7/2011 Had a great meeting with Jen d. She turned me on to free versions of MATLAB.

7/8/2011 Dr. Tan’s brown bag session on Wednesday was SO awesome! I learned so much and it was applicable to all the different things that I teach. Dr. Wolff also gave a great presentation and some good pointers on how to make a great presentation. I am glad that we had the chance to hear what he had to say.

7/8/2011 There were some neat things to bring back from Whirlpool and the poster presentation went well.

7/10/2011 The Beacon center meetings are very interesting and helpful to orient me to the types of questions people are using AVIDA to address.

7/11/2011 I’m definitely engaged in the process of figuring out what the R&D is and figuring out how to explain it best to my kids!

7/15/2011 The brown bag that we had was helpful; I like the tutorial on what programs that MSU offers for their students. It will help me guide my students better at the high school level. The Friday lab visit was good too, but I am feeling like I need more time in the lab to do work and get caught up.

7/15/2011 The brown bag and lab tour were very informative. I especially benefited from the tour of the motion capture lab on the fourth floor.

7/15/2011 Helpful info about posters 7/15/2011 I enjoyed seeing the other labs. 7/17/2011 Again, this week was items that returners have already covered. 7/18/2011 Tours were interesting but their brevity makes them a hollow experience

in contrast to the research we have been assigned to. 7/18/2011 The brown bag seminar on engineering programs at MSU helped me to

understand how to promote the program with my students. 7/22/2011 I got a lot done. 7/22/2011 Plenty of info about the program. 7/22/2011 I enjoyed our meeting with Dean Upda. It was nice to see how involved

and engaged he is in all parts of the Engineering program. I only see it

gaining students and interest under his leadership.

7/22/2011 Lunch on Wednesday at Snyder/Phillips was wonderful but too loud to hear or be heard. Friday’s seminar with the Dean was productive. We eventually moved the discussion toward practical matters related to completing what is required for the Summer.

7/22/2011 I don’t really remember what we did… 7/22/2011 I attended Beacon meetings where researchers discuss their work. These

are really helpful and interesting to hear about the questions that scientists are pursuing.

7/22/2011 While there were a few things planned, we did not really learn/gain anything this week.

7/28/2011 This Wednesday’s brown bag science demo was super cool. I intend to acquire some of the demo tools we saw used.

7/28/2011 I am always unsure what professional development specifically is in this case because I consider both my research and classroom work (which are pretty much one in the same for this project) to both be professional development.

7/29/2011 Both the brown bag lunch session and the lab tours this week were awesome! The best yet! I loved seeing the robotics lab, and could have spent hours listening to Dr. Dong talk about nanotechnologies.

7/29/2011 This week’s brown bag seminar was excellent. There were things that we could actually use and show our students that are relevant to our curriculum.

7/31/2011 WOW! The tours were excellent! The only thing that I didn’t like is that each lab reiterated the same basic ideas for the beginning of their presentation (size and scope of nanotechnology). After visiting the first lab this part was unnecessary. Perhaps in the future, lab tours can be grouped by common topic and a briefing on the basic technology can be given before the tour begins (or at the first lab). Then the other labs can jump right in with their research.

8/1/2011 I’m much more prepared for the poster presentation than I was. 8/4/2011 We did not have a brown bag this week due to it being our final week. 8/6/2011 Lunch with the RET program director was illuminating. I learned much

about how these programs are run. 8/8/2011 Does making the poster count?? This is only the second time I have ever

prepared a poster like this so it was challenging and education. I am happy with the final product and that I have an easy was to show others what I did this summer.

Curriculum Development As for the different components of the Institute, curriculum development lagged behind due to time constraints and having to conduct and understand the research before moving towards curriculum


development. There was also some concern expressed about the template and expectations of uploading materials to teachengineering.com

6/24/2011 Didn’t get to curriculum development yet, as we are just starting out and getting acclimated to the lab.

6/24/2011 I did very little, other than take several pictures of the things I have been doing in the lab.

6/26/2011 Just got a rough idea of the items I want to include in my lessons. Having only two hours at a time is not the best because once you get on a roll of an idea, you have to stop and head to lab.

6/26/2011 I narrowed down my goals more and developed a plan as far as what I want to focus on. While I have not developed any particular curriculum yet per se, I think I have laid the foundation for it.

6/26/2011 This early in the game I felt the time was better spent learning what was going on in my lab. I don’t yet have a connection to use in class though I’m working on it.

6/27/2011 Looked at MI HSCEs, started coming up with a day by day plan for my unit.

6/27/2011 Spent the time familiarizing myself with the criteria and practices for submitting materials to teachengineering.com

6/27/2011 Ideas coming to fruition should begin working them into lesson plans shortly.

7/2/2011 I have a plan for the activities I am developing and I am looking at how to explicitly incorporate nature of science throughout the year.

7/3/2011 No time. 7/4/2011 I’ve drawn up three new ideas for lesson plans and was able to focus them

to specific GLCEs and standards. That will be it for the lesson ideas for this summer thought, I need to get others finished and published before coming up with any more ideas.

7/4/2011 Lab has been so engaging this past week that I have spent all of my spare time involved in research and have made little or no CD progress.

7/5/2011 I’m still deciding what I want to do for the lesson but I feel like I’m at least making some headway.

7/5/2011 Worked on bioethics lesson and a genetic engineering lesson.

7/5/2011 Trying to get an idea for the scale of the lessons I am writing up.

7/7/2011 Still looking for my “killer AP”. 7/8/2011 After meeting with Jennifer, I had some new thoughts and ideas. I

updated my HeLa lesson, engineering lesson and ethics lesson. They are done except for the formatting into TE format. Now I need to work on my RNA and RNAi lessons.

7/8/2011 Jennifer was very helpful on getting me on track this week and zeroing in on my lesson. The only thing is that I reached my “goal” early in the week and feel I need to touch base with her before I continue.

7/8/2011 Meeting with Jenn was a BIG help but I feel so rushed for time. I wish we had more time set aside to work on our curriculum in two hours I feel like I can only scratch the surface.

7/10/2011 I started developing a new AVIDA-ED activity focusing on phylogenetic relationships. I ran into some difficulties with the system, but after talking to one of the programmers I think I know how to get around it to make the lesson work.

7/10/2011 Was able to meet with Jennifer, which I had all my ideas in line, she said that I could e-mail her from now on what I accomplished and she could look over it.

7/11/2011 Jennifer Doherty is working above and beyond this year. We were able to narrow my current research into an all new lesson plan idea. I’m going to attempt to have this one done by the end of summer and published first since she’s taken a genuine interest in it as well.

7/11/2011 I got to focus on the student project in addition to a narrowing of HSCE’s to concentrate on.

7/12/2011 Cramming ideas into the template. 7/15/2011 Met with Jennifer, who pushed my thinking along. We are planning a dry

run of the lab I want to do, but we don’t have the supplies yet. Going to try to get them ordered today.

7/15/2011 Jennifer was very helpful in getting me back on the right track and I am almost done.

7/15/2011 I am zeroing in on my lesson topic. Excel charts are my basic topic.

7/15/2011 I began it, but after meeting with Jennifer I am changing the scope of the lesson, so next week looks to be more productive than this one was in this regard.

7/15/2011 Jennifer is doing a wonderful job and together we’ve been coming up with probably one of the most creative robotics and adaptation lessons ever seen.

7/15/2011 We need more consecutive time to do curriculum. With only a two hour block (effectively only three times a week with everything else going on) by the time I get started, I have to leave for lab. Perhaps having three – four hour blocks would be more beneficial.

7/17/2011 The toughest part of the curriculum development is using the teachengineering.com’s way to identify standards.

7/18/2011 I focused on getting my big ideas and essential questions for my unit fleshed out.

7/22/2011 Just about there! I still have one lesson to put finishing touches on. It will be a 7 lesson unit. However, I am only planning on submitting two. I have been working on putting them into the TE format this week as well.

7/22/2011 I got a lot done! 7/22/2011 I’ve spent some time working on it at home. I’m making excellent

progress.

7/22/2011 I spoke with a few of the RET teachers and then did a big chunk of this, so I feel much better about it now.

7/22/2011 I am waiting for feedback from both Jennifer and from teachengineering.com on how to make changes and finish up my curriculum.


7/22/2011 I have completed my lesson plan and am now working to format the lesson for teachengineering.com

7/22/2011 Struggling to get everything the way I want it. 7/22/2011 I started looking at the teachengineering.com website and how I can fit

what I have been developing into their format. 7/25/2011 Curriculum is almost complete. Jennifer helped guide me in a critical

spot regarding acquired traits. The lesson plan branched out to three activity plans as well.

7/28/2011 I am in the middle of completing my mechanical advantage/Excel lesson. Things are going well. I am in the process of revising the lesson to make it more streamlined and understandable.

7/28/2011 I have basically finished three activities that I am going to use in my classroom and submit to teachengineering.com. I am also collecting results of my bacterial selection experiment to develop an activity that I can use in my classroom.

7/29/2011 Submitted two lessons to TE. 7/31/2011 I’m still struggling with the time constraint. I really wish we had longer

blocks of time to work on our curriculum. 2 or 3 four hour blocks during the week rather than 4 two hour blocks.

8/1/2011 Finished the draft of the lesson and sent it to Jennifer. I got a reply with some suggestions this morning.

8/4/2011 I’ve got one lesson ready to submit to teachengineering.com. 8/4/2011 Put some finishing touches on my unit. 8/4/2011 All finished! I thought it would never happen, so I am very happy. The

editors at teachengineering.com were very helpful in setting me back on track to get everything all set.

8/4/2011 Activity one was finished. Activity two was finished and the combined lesson plan for the two was 95% finished. I’m just waiting for my password to upload.

8/5/2011 Activity 1 is finished. Only one more activity to go to complete the lesson plan.

8/6/2011 I finished my lesson plan… that feels good!!! 8/8/2011 I finished my activities for use in my classroom, but still have a way to go

on the teachengineering.com submission. I feel like it is lot f paperwork for minimal usefulness.

8/8/2011 I finished my curriculum, however, I was told it did not fit in with engineering even though it is what my professor and graduate student do in their engineering lab… I felt put down and surprised that it took until the last week for this to come up.

Weekly Experience The teachers were asked to write about their weekly RET experience. Overall, the teacher were highly impressed, excited, and wanted to continue to be part of the RET Institute. The teachers

relished the brown bags. The negative comments really centered on finding scheduled blocks of times to develop curriculum and the viability of the tours in professional development.

6/24/2011 I have learned a lot, and am excited to learn more! 6/24/2011 It was a great start. But it is still early. One concern: For a day or two I

believed that Xiaoqing, my grad student, would be too busy with her own research to help me with mine. I was wrong about that. Xiaoqing has been very helpful and answered all of my questions.

6/26/2011 Went well. 6/26/2011 I am learning a ton and the days FLY by! 6/26/2011 I can’t wait for the school year to start so I can share these things with

my students! I’m curious to see how I will tie it into my class. 6/27/2011 Pretty good for week one. 6/27/2011 Very satisfying to work hard to learn something, struggle occasionally,

but “get it” eventually. 6/27/2011 As always, it’s an enjoyable experience. I really enjoyed Jennifer

Doherty’s presentation for reverse design of curriculum. 7/1/2011 Again, it seems like we are throwing things together at the last minute

and not looking at how they can be of use to the teachers and their classrooms.

7/2/2011 I was not excited for the Whirlpool tour because I felt like it took too much time away from our research to do something unrelated. I ended up really enjoying it though.

7/2/2011 Very good. Everything is singular together and it has been a great experience!

7/3/2011 I am still learning a lot. 7/4/2011 Excellent experience as usual. Highlight of the week was meeting an

engineer at Whirlpool that’s paid to see if he can break things. (Sounds like a dream job!)

7/4/2011 I would have rather been in lab than driven the two hours out to Whirlpool for an hour tour on the 1st of July.

7/5/2011 I feel like I can actually contribute to the research at this point. 7/5/2011 Overall, pretty good. However, I was not engaged by the Whirlpool

tour. 7/5/2011 Trying to get up to speed, but not there yet. 7/7/2011 I am having a great time. 7/8/2011 I would say this week has been fantastic; however, there was an incident

in the lab. Other than that one incident, it was fantastic. Everyone has been very helpful and understanding regarding the safety incident, but I’m vaguely annoyed that it happened. Now, I need to get blood tests done for six months. I understand that it was a very rare/freak accident, but I am still bothered. However, as I mentioned, everyone has been great about it.

7/8/2011 Even if this program ended now I would be satisfied with all the new things I have learned. I am so glad and so fortunate to have this experience and can’t wait to learn more!


7/8/2011 I’m having an absolutely excellent time and learning a lot!

7/10/2011 I am learning an incredible amount and making lots of good contacts with other teachers and MSU students/faculty.

7/10/2011 Research was good. For returners, when we see the same presentations over again, I don’t find it the best use of our time. I know some things need to be repeated, but it should be kept to a minimum. This week. All presentations were repeats.

7/11/2011 Most productive week yet this summer. It’s not always easy getting everybody in the same location to discuss and pound out the details of a project this large with so many important people involved, but we managed to do it this week and it was very beneficial.

7/11/2011 Excellent week. I’ve really enjoyed it! 7/12/2011 Fun, hard but fun. 7/13/2011 The experience was good I am getting my assigned objectives

completed with the exception of my daily journal entries which admittedly today will be my first but overall I am enjoying myself.

7/15/2011 Everything went great. I am starting to feel a bit crunched for time in the mornings for curriculum and general upkeep (answering e-mails touching base with everyone I need to).

7/15/2011 Learning a lot of new stuff, getting involved in current research, my lesson is coming great so I don’t have any complaints! Having a good time.

7/15/2011 Just past half way point. Deadlines for lesson plans and presentations begin to loom…

7/15/2011 This whole experience is great. I am learning so much about the process of science, especially as it relates to what I am doing in my research.

7/15/2011 Tony and Jennifer Doherty keep my mind going, and keep me busy. I just wish we were doing more with the actual Biolume research. Almost everybody is in Dublin, Ireland, so there’s been 0 Biolume research this week.

7/15/2011 I’ve spent most of my time ordering parts. This is a necessary evil. Next week, I will be designing the circuit board for my solar array and putting it all together. I’ll also have to work out the relay board.

7/17/2011 Things went well, though the professional development did not really help us as much.

7/18/2011 I was excellent. I am having a great time in lab. 7/18/2011 I have been collaborating with another RET teacher working on a

similar project which has been very helpful and interesting. I also really enjoyed the Beacon research seminars that I went to.

7/22/2011 Things went well. I didn’t quite meet my goal to have the entire lesson stuff done by today, but I’m very close. I was able to go use the confocal microscope, which was super cool! I also learned how to take microscope pictures in our lab, which was very neat as well. And now I

have some great pictures for my lessons! 7/22/2011 From the clean lab to the lab tour Friday, it was a great week. I got a lot

done. 7/22/2011 I’m looking forward to this morning’s presentation! 7/22/2011 I feel really lucky to be participating in this program, and I really enjoy

being around the serious researchers as they try and problem solve. 7/22/2011 As we move into the last few weeks, my focus is shifting to working on

my poster and finishing up my lesson for submission. 7/22/2011 I am still having the best time. I love the RET summer experience. 7/22/2011 I can’t wait to tell my robotics team about everything we’ve done! 7/22/2011 I basically know now exactly what I want to accomplish and I am

excited about how it will impact my teaching. I can’t believe we only have two weeks left!

7/22/2011 Went well.

7/25/2011 The only thing not making it excellent were the extreme temperatures all week. They made me miserable.

7/28/2011 Picking up MATLAB and SIMULINK is very useful. My lesson plan is going well. And I will be ready to print my poster by Monday.

7/28/2011 The presentation by the materials science graduate students was awesome. It was very interesting and I know would be engaging for my students. I really liked how it showed the many applications of basic science (chemistry, physics, biology, etc.).

7/29/2011 Great brown bag presenters! 7/29/2011 A lot of hard work, but have learned a lot this week and am working on

how to articulate that learning into written form for our paper and poster, and oral form for next week’s presentation.

7/29/2011 Things went well. I am happy that we are able to se some funding this year for supplies for our classroom, as supplies are a limiting factor when we want to implement new ideas.

7/31/2011 I want the program to continue! I wish I had more constructive criticism to give you but I have nothing bad to say about the last week.

8/1/2011 Robot tour was excellent. 8/4/2011 I’ve got my posters printed. I’m ready to go for my presentations! 8/4/2011 Good wrap-up week. 8/4/2011 Excellent as always. I will miss it for sure! 8/4/2011 This was by far the best week of the summer. I’m eager to continue

working on the Biolume project even though the RET summer institute is coming to an end.

8/5/2011 I just love this program. It’s excellent for me 99% of the time because I enjoy learning so much.

8/6/2011 It was exciting bringing the summer to a successful conclusion. 8/8/2011 I enjoyed the presentations 8/8/2011 Things went well in research and I was able to tie up loose ends. My

presentation and poster also went really well. It is the curriculum that I


am having a hard time with. I feel there was not enough time for that. I also feel frustrated that I have great curriculum for science classrooms, but even though they are don in some engineering labs, they may be more biology, than engineering. So, submitting to teachengineering.com has become a large stress for me this summer.

Final comments The teachers were finally asked to provide any additional comments.

6/26/2011 My one concern is that sometimes things are not communicated well, or things change after they were told to us. For example, we were told our tours/seminars would only be two hours long, as to not interfere with our lab time, but then in an e-mail they said they were going to go until noon. More consistency is needed.

7/8/2011 What if Wednesdays (brown bag days) we were able to work on curriculum up until lunchtime? That would give us one extended day to work.

7/22/2011 I was thinking about the setup of lesson time vs. lab time. I think maybe in the first (or first and second) week we should have less/no lesson time, in order for us to have more now. One day a week, I meet with Jennifer during lesson time, which really makes the whole morning a wash on writing and on Fridays we have seminar/tour. So, really we are only getting three days of two hours. A lot of times, I’m really in the groove at two hours. I think three hours a day for the later weeks with else initially (when I had no clue what I’d be doing the lessons on anyway) would be a good improvement.

7/28/2011 I wish the program were longer (although I have to go back to school August 15th, so I know it is not possible). I am learning so much and I can’t believe I only have one week left!

8/4/2011 I would like to know the official role of the grad students and the cooperating research PhD.

8/4/2011 I plan to continue collaboration with my lab into the fall as more data comes in. I am working on co-authoring a paper based on our research and am very excited to continue working! I hope to continue my research with them next summer.

8/6/2011 Thanks for listening.

Faculty and/or Graduate Student Post-Institute Survey Findings The faculty and graduate students completed a post-survey at the conclusion of the Summer Institute. They were asked why they participated in the summer research experience for teachers, their expectations for the teacher who would work with them in their lab, their perceptions on mentoring, and their expectations of the management team. The post-survey asked both quantitative and qualitative questions being that the questions followed up to the pre-survey questions. This layout for this section of the report is based by question and the responses in the post-survey. A couple of notes to consider while reading the findings: 1) the PI for the project was also one of the faculty who hosted a teacher in their lab, and he responded to both the post-survey, and 2) a couple of the graduate students answered for their faculty. The interview responses are dispersed throughout this section of the report. The first section of the report addresses the RET Summer Institute Goals and the second section examines the RET Summer Institute Program Design.

RET Institute Goals This year’s assessment of the program by the faculty and graduate students included questions related to their thoughts and perspectives as to how well they believed the RET Summer Institute was meeting its stated goals. Below are the responses of the faculty and graduate students regarding the goals themselves. Goal #1: Prepare teachers to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in the global market. The faculty and graduate students indicated that the RET Institute, from their perspective achieved this goal at either the excellent or good level (64.3%). In asking if they had any additional comments about this goal, they gave the following responses:

• All the targets planned have been finished successfully • All teachers were very motivated throughout the summer program; all submitted or were

about to submit curriculum materials to teachengineering.com by the end of the summer program; all seemed to have good plans for implementing the course materials.

• The presentations by the teachers at the conclusion of the program were truly outstanding! That these energetic individuals will transfer cutting-edge science and technology into their classrooms is exciting. Given their enthusiasm and clear understanding of (and ability to present) the material, they are bound to be successful in educating their students and, more importantly, stimulating their desire to learn more.

• I feel that the RET program is mostly geared towards goals 2 and 3. The teachers will probably help develop student confidence but I feel that it isn’t as visible to the MSU engineering faculty and undergraduates.

• As a graduate student, I was not a major contributor to the development of the lesson plan. The teacher and lab professor worked most closely in that regard as they both understand teaching very well.

• I think this would be learned by teachers in their labs, I didn’t see a lot of evidence but I did see that most teachers really wanted to do something about jobs available, workforce, etc.


Goal #2: Form a strong partnership between MSU, school districts, and industry on advanced pre-college science and engineering education. The faculty and graduate students indicated that the RET Summer Institute, from their perspective achieved this goal at either the excellent or good level (71.4%). In asking if they had any additional comments about this goal, they gave the following responses:

• The teacher enjoyed working with us and will definitely want to participate in this program in the future.

• The target of the project has a close relationship with international market. • I would have rated “excellent” if the teachers already implemented the course materials

successfully in the classroom; waiting to see that happen over the Fall or coming Spring. • Many of the teachers were returning for their second summer. In talking with them, it was

clear they were very much aware of other programs and activities at MSU, which their students (and other teachers) can take advantage of.

• The faculty seem to know the teachers very well, and to my understanding many of the teachers (in particular the one assigned to me) have plans to continue working on their research project throughout the year.

• The partnership appears strong as teachers have a desire to return and are envied by their colleagues.

• I don’t have a lot of experience with how well the partnerships are forming. Goal #3: Develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cutting-edge curriculum education from the university into the classrooms. The faculty and graduate students indicated that the RET Summer Institute, from their perspective achieved this goal at either the excellent or good level (78.6%). In asking if they had any additional comments about this goal, they gave the following responses:

• The teacher was very creative but had difficulty to convert micro-scale concept to macro-scale demonstration.

• Advanced technology and easy way to understand. • All had developed new course materials and sound plans to implement. • All the teachers had very specific plans for their classrooms. Several had already developed

and posted multiple exercises, lab assignments, etc. I was particularly impressed at how they were able to translate the cutting edge research into activities accessible to their students, and in a form that recognizes the limitations of their schools in terms of equipment and facilities (highly impressive!).

• The only curriculum I saw was my teacher’s, and judging by that, it was very interesting and seems fun for students on the level he teaches.

• I was really impressed with the curriculum the teacher working in our lab developed for the students based on what we were doing in the lab.

• Our teacher was very excited to bring knowledge and ideas back to the classroom at high school, and they are looking to come back and bring more ideas and subjects with them.

• I think you could say some teachers were resistant to writing “cutting-edge” curriculum. Some/many did a fantastic job, but others limited themselves to worksheet based teaching. I tried to push all teachers forward but I wasn’t as successful as I think we could be. I think

having more information about the goals of engineering education in K12 schools (probably including presentations and examples of the engineering process we are trying to get in K12 classrooms, writ large – instead of just what the teachers are doing in individual labs) might be helpful. I think teachers were also scared of the TE. Org format and may have simplified what they wanted to do because of it. Other limitations included money for supplies (it wasn’t clear to teachers (and me, at least) how much they were allowed to ask for) and the standards these teachers teach.

RET Institute Program Design The following set of responses examines how faculty and graduate students perceived the process-related and program design pieces of the RET Institute. Participation As in the previous year, the faculty and graduate students rated their satisfaction for participation in the Institute between completely satisfied and mostly satisfied with only one responding mixed:

• Wish to have more time for further interaction and curriculum development. • We finished our target very well, have good relationship and learned many things. • I am very impressed by how the faculty, grad student, and staff have worked with the

teachers closely on research and curriculum development activities; everything seems to be working this time around.

• The teacher I worked with was a pleasure and the project was exciting to several of my graduate students. Moreover, the project addressed a really and difficult research problem we needed to solve.

• It was a very intellectually stimulating environment, and allowed me as a graduate student to relay my ideas to those outside my field and develop my communications skills with respect to research.

• I think I would like to know more about K12 engineering education goals and maybe have a better idea about how much engineering we want to have in the curricula.

Expectations Again, as in the previous year, they were completely satisfied to mostly satisfied on the teacher meeting their expectations.

• The major of our teacher is not bioenergy, but he worked very hard. • I was not assigned a teacher this year. • He was very self-sufficient. Being a teacher, he had the skills to teach to a variety of people,

including himself. • The teacher assigned to me was very timely, inquisitive, and willing to do every task. We

worked very collaboratively and were together each step of the way. • I thought most teachers were absolutely awesome but there were some who weren’t that

ambitious.


Mentoring The responses in the post-survey on how they actually carried the mentoring out are below. In the post survey, the faculty/graduate students rated their satisfaction with their mentoring of the teacher in their lab. Overall, they were completely satisfied mostly satisfied or mixed with their efforts.

• The teacher met with the graduate student most of the time. I met with her once in a while to discuss project issues and progress.

• I think we did a very good mentoring for our teacher. • The teacher participated in key brainstorming sessions. Graduate students worked side by

side with him and introduced him to several new technologies and methods that will serve him in the classroom.

• First, we had an initial meeting where we discussed some possible research ideas and a general roadmap for fulfilling them. After a project was chosen, the teacher generally worked on his own (he was very independent) but he asked us to elaborate on concepts and ideas that he did not understand well or wanted to understand better. This system worked very well for us.

• I was able to offer insight into various engineering standards for research, formatting, and general approach to problems. In general, I spent a lot of time in discussion with them making sure they were on the same page as I was with regards to the research being done in lab.

• I think I could have pushed more for teachers to be ambitious. I also want to see more of their curriculum earlier, but I think they might not have time and that these have to come together later? Or maybe they need to write more earlier?

Scheduling In the post-survey for this year’s program, faculty and graduate students were asked to provide feedback related to scheduling as that was an issue in the past year. While most were either completely satisfied or satisfied, they did provide the following comments:

• For my teacher, we had a very tight schedule due to special family events. • Much better than last year, teacher has more time in lab and have enough time to finish

assignment. • It was certainly better and more effective this year. • It was a great experience. • I thought this year’s schedule was much improved over the previous year and allowed for

more in-depth lab work. • As a graduate student, the schedule was pretty flexible and I have no complaints. My

teacher, however, noted that many key personnel had breaks scheduled during the 7 week program. For example, reviewers for their lesson plan were on vacation and unable to respond until the last week of the program. I understand summer is a busy time for vacation, but it is a good consideration to check for next year.

• I dislike working morning and my meetings were all 8-10. Curriculum Development Again, in the post-survey for this year’s program faculty and graduate students were asked to provide their feedback related to the curriculum development piece of the program. While only

42.86% of the respondents were involved in the creation of the curriculum with the teacher, only three provided feedback:

• We presented some initial ideas for research projects. Several of those ideas did not actually become part of the project, but were integrated into the curriculum.

• I was really impressed with this aspect of the program. With the ultimate goal of becoming a teacher myself, it was great to help and see how the teacher incorporated what we were doing and was able to explain it at a level that would be understandable to 9th grade high school students.

• My faculty advisor was the main partner for my teacher for curriculum development, and it seemed to work well. I was treated as a pseudo-student hearing the subject matter for the first time to offer fresh perspective and insight.

Issues In the post survey, only two respondents stated that they had encountered an issue or problem during the summer Institute. The issues appeared to focus on the funding of the teacher’s project, as well as the perceived engagement of the teacher themselves. The responses were:

• The difficulty of converting micro devices into large scale demo with low costs. • Just my points about ambitious teaching.

Management Team As in the past year, the faculty/graduate students rated the management team Very Good to Excellent (71.43%). The open-ended responses back up why the management team was rated so highly.

• I am not putting any rating for obvious reasons (self); but I highly commend Drew Kim’s role in managing the program.

• Again, the outcomes tell the story. The program produced exactly the results I would hope for: Highly motivated teachers taking university research and transforming it into exciting activities for their students, which will enhance their understanding of science and technology, and will likely open many eyes to career paths they might not have considered otherwise.

• There were constant e-mails detailing all the activities that were being carried out, thus keeping faculty, teachers and students involved and up to date. The activities were well executed as well.

• I wasn’t fully aware of the new changes to the schedule until the day the new teachers arrived.

• E-mails were great for clarifying details, expectations were made clear, and everything seemed to run smoothly.

• Everything seemed well-organized.


Recommendations In the post-survey, the last question asked the faculty/graduate students to make recommendations for improving next year’s Institute. They provided some good insights including a change to when curriculum work was done, as well as a better explanation up front in relation to student hours.

• I thought this year’s program was such a step up from what I experienced last year that I wouldn’t change anything.

• I had a wonderful experience this year, but the hours were a bit confusing. I nearly went over hours by an extreme amount until the limitation on student hours was clarified. I would suggest clarifying this issue earlier is all.

• Don’t like curriculum in the morning. The faculty/graduate students had the opportunity in the post-survey to provide any other comments, as well as what they learned about themselves by participating. They provided these comments:

• How to teach and communicate. • I am glad to see the potential impact of this program through this summer, and feel satisfied

about being involved in the creation and leadership of this program. • As a first time participant, I discovered how rewarding it can be to be associated with such a

program. I will definitely do it again. • I mainly learned about my ability to teach others and communicate outside an audience

familiar with specific details relevant to my research. It was a good dry run, so to speak, to see how teaching/mentoring/tutoring works for me.

• It was a great program, and I thank you for letting me participate.

Curriculum Specialist Post Institute Interview This year an interview was conducted in early December with the curriculum specialist involved in the RET Summer Institute to gain some added insight into the operation and learning outcomes of the program. This interview was conducted in the course of an hour with one of the evaluators for the project, and was conducted in December after the teachers were to submit their curriculum plans to teachengineering.com. The questions asked centered on the program design for this year, as well as some comparisons to the past year. Innovation The curriculum specialist was asked questions related to whether or not she felt the curriculum that the teacher’s developed were innovative or not. She stated that many of them did not complete their curriculum in time. She did think the ideas that they had were good and that the majority of her discussions with the teachers centered on connecting what was happening in the labs to the learning outcomes for students. She felt that some of them were a bit uncomfortable stepping outside of a traditional classroom concept. First and Second Year Differences When asked questions as to whether the curriculum differed between the first year and the second year teachers, the curriculum specialist indicated that she did not think that the curriculum differed much, that the second year teachers’ curriculum was more complete. She also indicated that the second year teachers seemed more independent and likely to work on their own. Use of Specialist All of the teachers, for the most part, utilized the support that the curriculum specialist provided. She felt that it really did help the teachers figure out the learning goals and match them up with what they were going to be doing in class. The curriculum specialist felt that the requirement to meet with her weekly assisted the teachers in thinking more thoroughly about their curricula which was different from last year. The curriculum specialist felt that she did impact the curriculum. She really felt she pushed the teachers to look for other ways to teach aside from worksheets and lectures. Assessment was another space where she felt she had some impact in terms of getting the teachers to think about different ways to assess learning outcomes. She also felt that there needed to be more communication between the engineering faculty and other aspects of the program. She felt that she was helping the teachers be better teachers, but she was getting everything through the filters of the teachers. She did not know anything about engineering and neither did the teachers, so sometimes it was difficult in connecting the two. Finally, she felt that last year she was just there to “help”. But, this year her role was more important. She felt that their conversations were more effective and she was able to assist them in better improving their curricula. The teachers seemed to feel more accountable because they were required to meet with her.


Teachengineering.com The curriculum specialist spent some time on the teachengineering.com website. She felt that it was the “kick in the pants” that the teachers needed. The teachers felt that it was onerous, most likely because, in her opinion, teaching is an oral profession and the teachers were not experienced in writing for publication. However, she believed that in order to disseminate you have to do something like teachengineering.com. On another note, the curriculum specialist was not overly impressed with the teachengineering.com website. She said it seemed like it was science with a little bit of engineering. There seemed to be a lot of worksheet based activities and there did not seem to be a good fit with what the teachers in the MSU RET program were trying to do. She felt that the individuals who had posted curricula to the site were most likely teachers like the teachers in the program struggling to understand the template. She also felt that the site had too many distinctions in unit versus activity versus lesson. It was difficult to understand. Mentoring From her perspective, the teachers really liked working with their graduate students. However, it seemed that the teachers who had their own projects to work on got more out of the program than those who worked on a project under a graduate student. It seemed, in her opinion, that those who worked on their own problem learned more about engineering itself. In relation to interaction with the PIs, again, she noted that there seemed to be a disconnection in relation to expectations for the teachers and vice versa. She also noted that the teachers did not seem to work with the faculty a lot. Issues There were a number of challenges/obstacles observed by the curriculum specialist:

• The teachers did not spend all of their curriculum time working on the curriculum in her opinion. She felt as though if they were working on the curriculum for ten hours a week that there should have been more done.

• The curriculum specialist also felt that the curriculum hours of 8 – 10 may have been restrictive for the teachers given their typical work schedule. She also noted that even graduate students do not work 8 to 5 typically and that academics usually have a little bit more flexibility with their time and that it’s built into this program is a “little weird”.

• She also noted that there seemed to be a disconnection between what the faculty members expected the teachers to develop and what was in the standards (GLICS/HUSKIES) for the teachers. In her mind, there was not a space where the two actually came together which caused some confusion about expectations on both ends: the teachers and the faculty.

• Money was the final issue noted. She stated that it takes quite a bit of money to do some of the engineering-related pieces and the teachers often do not have the funding for these activities.

Recommendations The curriculum specialist had the following recommendations for improving the program:

• An examination of when and how to fit curriculum development time into the program that better reflects academic life;

• Hiring an engineering education specialist who can better connect expectations between faculty and the teachers;

• A better or more funding for assisting the teachers in implementing the curriculum in their classrooms;

• Have the teachers develop a common lesson template that would be more conducive to their needs that could be posted on the College of Engineering website rather than teachengineering.com or hire someone to translate the lesson plans developed into the teachengineering.com website format for the teachers;

• Have the teachers disseminate their curriculums in a format more familiar to them like giving a presentation at a MSTA conference with funding to do so.


Post Institute Teacher Focus Group Six of the eight teachers attended the RET teacher focus group at the 2011 Fall Design Day Expo. The evaluators met with the six teachers for approximately 40 minutes and because of time constraints, now all the questions were discussed. The Summer Institute ended in mid-August and Design Day was held the first Friday of December so this provided time for the teachers to reflect on the RET goals and to work on and submit their curriculum to teachengineering.com. One of the RET program goals is for the teachers to develop and implement innovative curriculum translating cutting-edge curriculum education from the university to the classroom. The teachers were asked to address whether or not they felt that they were successful with this goal.

• The $800 they provided this year allowed me to bring the program into the classroom and the curriculum feels innovative.

• I feel that it is innovative, although I does not get to the subject matter until spring. I spent much time redesigning an entire unit. I am excited about it, but I have a lot more work to do and I hope to implement the curriculum soon. I hope to finish up by next summer. I also hope to repeat the second year as I would like to see it through as I feels it is innovative and awesome.

• I had an Avida ed and bacterial experiment, and I just got the final lab reports in and the students overwhelmingly loved it. They loved growing bacteria and even if they did not understand all of it, they definitely understood how evolution occurred….the higher students really got it and were excited. Everyone saw good resistance because they are all at a high concentration….some of the other classes that didn’t have the lab skills….we saw resistance developing to all of them. ….then it was cool to have all those different ones (disks) and they could kind of compare to the other disks….we wanted to show that resistance develops at different rates and to different elements.

• I felt that I was definitely successful with this goal because of the … I was in robotics lab and the robotics aspect was a little too far advanced for the physics class…it was too advanced for what they were doing so I went to the other side thinking of a chemistry connection and I turned a regular electrolysis lab into an oxidation. The one thing that would be helpful would … I would have loved to have gotten a chance to try it out before I got in the classroom. Maybe we should have longer periods of time to work on the curriculum or even a room to try things out like looking at different statistics. We never got to sit down and test it and that would have been good to do over the summer. I am not going to be able to see what works until after I am done.

• During the first summer, we had a lot of time to work on curriculum, but this year we had two hours a day. There needs to be a median between the two years.

• At the beginning I was freaking out about what my lab wanted me to accomplished and fortunately, Jeff said to me that I should do what is useful for me and give them what you did. I need to have something that is useful for me as a teacher and I am not sure how useful it was the group I was with.

• I didn’t write much in my first year. The first year I just learned lab techniques and the second year we did modeling, which was really useful, but unfortunately the software is so

expensive. The median was to take the data we collected and interpret the data in Excel with all the bells in whistles to understand it better.

• The feedback I received from teachingengineering.com was that the curriculum was too “sciency”.

Let’s focus on curriculum development. First, you need to make sure your curriculum includes grade level content expectations. Did all of you know how to insure your curriculum included these expectations? If so, how? Was Jennifer helpful in this area?

• I kind of had a hard time figuring out what to do with Dr. Walton’s research because it was so high level. Once I learned what it was about I was like, oh DNA/RNA lesson, got it. It took me a while to get my focus on what I did and make my kids interested in it, and it came in the form of the cells I was working with (a woman’s cells) so I interfused the technical concepts with a case study of a woman and ethics.

The focus of the conversation turned back to teachengineering.com with a little bit of standards thrown in:

• I think linking it to the standards was the easiest part. The actual writing the curriculum, I can tell it needs these standards, but writing the curriculum was tough because we typically write lessons for us and the teachingengineering.com template was so redundant. It was more the frustration of getting it into the template and once it is in the template it looks terrible. Eventually if it is accepted I hope it is going to be rendered and nice. Right now you can see it but you’re gonna think what in the world is this.

• It was more of a burden trying to get it into the format…..it took me longer to put it into the proper format with copyrights than to actually write it.

• Engineers seemed to make the template and not teachers. Normally you are supposed to look at the standards and build off of them to make sure you are hitting them. A lot of us were like, I have to make this match this and I felt like the standards were an afterthought. They want something in this spot so I can use this.

• I did feel very much like it was perfect for my two classes. I almost knew what I wanted to do and I was able to take thpe standards that I already teach with the science standards. Then I felt like what RET was asking me to do with this teachingengineering.com was completely different than what I was teaching with my lab. The things they wanted me to teach in my lessons was very hard to connect with that, and I felt I was doing my lab mates a disservice.

• We all hated the template. You have to have some kind of template if there is going to be a group presentation of curriculum and I don’t know if there’s a better one out there. Therefore, I made my lesson as small in scope as possible so I wouldn’t fit with the template.

• I felt that a lot of people left out the cool aspects of their curriculum because they did not have the time to write up all of them using the template.

• For me, it’s going to take a month (40 x 4 weeks) 160 hours to get that thing in there. • Jennifer was helping us with curriculum. By the time I went to see her. It would be a good

use for her to make her an expert on teachengineering.com even if it is towards the end … make sure she knows what we are looking for. When you are working on it for two hours you have to come up with a solution.

• There has to be a more teacher friendly format.


• When I get feedback I wonder if there were certain things I stressed over more than others. I know one thing I didn’t do that they will ask for is an answer key. Somewhere it kind of said “we want answers” but I didn’t have a key that I submitted.

• My zip files for each piece was huge. I had 5 or 6 attachments. • The teachengineering.com site is cumbersome. • I looked at some of the lessons on the site and they were o.k. I think once they get on there,

it’s o.k. I think the formatting is awful, and I think if I would have tried to do this on my own I wouldn’t have done it.

• I also think how teachers operate … you know what you know you have to teach. I look at the activity to figure out if it is engaging and will it work. What they put out are the standards and background and all these definitions that I can Google. I don’t think teachers need all the stuff they (teachengineering.com) focus on. Even the handout was not useful.

• I’d love to write lessons that Matlab could simulate but nobody is going to pay for that software, it’s huge.

Based on the dialogue, I asked whether or not it may be better to have someone from teachtngineering.com be a consultant for curriculum versus hiring a curriculum specialist e.g., Jennifer. There was a general consensus amongst the teachers that teachtngineering.com consultants would be better.

• We have a lot of template related questions. I think a lot of my time was spent trying to figure that out; a lot of hours of my time that would have been freed up to do my job better.

• We don’t even need to see them face to face • We can communicate by email • Jennifer was helpful at times but overall, most of the curricular issues that we have we

figured out by talking with each other. We had 7 teachers around us who are pretty good at what they do and who are used to the classroom who can help each one of us out. There were still a few things Jennifer helped us out with but choosing between the person (Jennifer) and a teachengineering.com liaison I would choose the teachengineering.com liaison.

• Half of the time with Jennifer was, “what have you been doing” It took time to catch her up. • We bounced ideas off each other (teachers). A lot of us were in the lab every morning. Jen

was great and she did give me some good guidance, but the teachengineering.com part was the hardest.

The next part focused on another goal of the program, to go back and develop student confidence and skills to succeed in a global market. How was your experience in the lab and working on your research and curriculum helping you meet this goal?

• This goal is not tangible at all. I think it would better for us to have less lofty goals and more practical … like step by step

• I interpreted the question differently. On a daily or weekly basis I’ll be teaching a lesson and be like, at MSU we did this lab and I was able to pull that in and in that way I was able to show them that engineers are doing this and showing them the reality. I feel like they (class) got more out of researching what engineers do other than some of the premade lessons that I’ve had forever. I feel that the lunch sessions and talking to these guys (summer teacher colleagues) make me feel like I can meet that goal and feel that I am a better teacher.

• I interpreted the goal like Angie did. In looking at the lab experiences themselves, I can say that this is the way labs are; this is how labs actually work at the university level. You’d never think that is part of it but it is … having the different lab experience and different examples. I used the examples in my class all the time.

• This is a hard goal to measure … compared to before my experience with RET and after RET, but to get some taste of the fact that you can use computer modeling to study evolution. A big part of it too wasn’t just what I did in my lab; we started going to our lab collaborators and to their meetings and seeing spinoffs, and seeing how useful this is to engineers and not just biologists. All the times I end up interjecting this through the year with the students is useful.

• For example, the BTU of a turkey fryer …. knowing the concept of BTU is not the same as knowing to choose the right machine. Knowing to use the right machine is my goal and not just concepts.

The other questions that we did not get to because of time constraints were: 1. Have you thought about assessing the programs you created? Was or is there guidance in

how to go about assessing your program? Is this an area that you want to learn more about? 2. Other suggestions for curriculum development? A third goal of the RET program is to form

a strong partnership between MSU, school districts and industry on advanced pre-college science and engineering education. How well is MSU meeting this goal? What needs to occur for success? Other suggestions?

3. You participate for 1-2 summers. Do you want to stay involved and how – during the school year and after your second summer?

4. Describe your confidence in your skills and abilities in translating research into classroom practices before participating in RET? After?

5. This is specifically for the second year teachers. As for Professional Development experiences – a couple of you stated that the professional development experiences were not helpful because you experienced them during your first year. Recommendations for second year teachers and their professional development offerings? Other, are there other ways that the second year teachers can spend their time more wisely?

6. Many of you spoke highly of your research experiences. Are there areas of improvement that you did not address in your survey that should be considered around faculty roles and responsibilities? The involvement of graduate students? Remember, they are to be mentoring you through your research experience.

7. Last question … you now have the opportunity to share other comments or recommendations regarding your RET experience.


Recommendations by Teachers The last part of the Summer Institute post-survey provided an opportunity for the first- and second-year teachers to provide insight into their thinking for improving the RET Summer Institute.

First-Year Teachers Recommendations. • Establish contact with grad student and/or faculty member prior to beginning the summer

institute. • Just to provide more continuous time for curriculum. Perhaps Tuesday and Thursday from 8

to lunch (12). • Improved orientation for the grads and post-docs, who seemed somewhat uncertain about

their role, or what the program is designed to do. • The only thing I recommend is to have an expert on teach engineering that is willing to edit

and help us fit our lessons into the correct template, and provide a calendar before the program starts with ALL the field trips, brown bags, and other sessions on it for the entire program.

• Be sure that expectations are clear as far as time on campus and off campus. A lot of the curriculum development is easier done at home just due to parking issues at MSU. Too many textbooks and supplies to bring to campus and then walk .7 miles. The computer labs are dirty and not all the labs have computers with Microsoft word and PowerPoint on it. Perhaps be on campus 2-3 days and the other days we can work either on campus or from home. At home I have all supplies and am comfortable.

• More applicable tours. The first-year teachers were also asked to provide suggestions for possible assistance or opportunities they want to see in assisting them in their teaching and the students' learning.

• Opportunities to bring students for tours. • I’d like to bring some people from the different labs to my class. I would also like to bring

my students when we test the boat. • I’d love to have some MSU folks come out to my school to check it out when I use the

curriculum I designed, and maybe give me some tips or do some evaluations. • I would love to bring my students to MSU or set up guest speakers to come to my school

and share with my students what was shared with me over the summer! • I’m hoping to still get paid for additional hours I put in completing the unit curriculum

development. I have not ordered many supplies yet, so I assume that also will not be an issue.

• I would love if they could help with funding (for bussing) so my students could come to design day. We also have a school to college advisor who has a reverse job shadow day for our ninth graders. Getting some engineers in would be fantastic!

Second-Year Teacher Recommendations. Overall, the second-year teachers recommended including more time in the lab and to socialize with the other teachers, providing opportunities for these teachers to participate in 2012, and more seminar and time devoted to curriculum development.

• I would recommend having Mon-Wed full in lab, Thursday morning professional development and Thursday afternoon and all Friday for curriculum.

• Facebook group for RET • Just add a week?

The second-year teachers were also asked to provide insight into the weekly schedule.

• We need more time for curriculum. • Super, plenty of time for lab work and curriculum development • The schedule was perfect. The only change I’d make is adding a week for finalizing posters,

curriculum and research projects. No specific obligations for the teachers to be anywhere other than tying up loose ends. I found myself burning the midnight oil for two straight weeks in order to be finished by the end of week 7 due to the fact that I had so much coding still to be done with the simulator. It sucked up 7-8 hours daily leaving only the night hours to finish my poster presentation and curriculum

Lastly, the second-year teachers provided suggestions for possible assistance or opportunities they want to see in assisting them in their teaching and the students' learning.

• More curriculum help from Jenn. I intend to continue to ask for her advice. I hope she does not get annoyed.

• They already have by purchasing the materials I need to execute my new lesson plans. The faculty/graduate students and curriculum specialist also provided insight and recommendations to the programs – please see their specific sections of this report.


Conclusion Both first and second year teachers found the ability to do research and apply it to their curriculum development to be a rewarding experience. The teachers felt that the ability to connect with faculty and graduate students at Michigan State University and see research in action was beneficial. Preparation Having teachers who had been part of the process in the prior year seemed to provide a better understanding of the expectations of the program. Research The teachers all seemed to engage in their research experiences. Their sense of excitement about the work clearly emerges from the comments in the surveys. Having open lines of communication with the faculty members and the graduate students seemed to really solidify the experience and allow the teachers to critically examine their work. A few teachers mentioned the difficulty in communication, but appreciated the graduate students’ availability and in some cases, the availability of an undergraduate student who could assist in their questions. Curriculum Development The teachers did have a few suggestions in terms of the curriculum development component of the program. First, a few teachers noted that they would have like longer blocks of time to work on their lessons. They felt as though they would be just getting a rhythm at the end of two hours only to have to return to research. Additionally, they commented on the difficulty in the template and knowing the expectations of uploading their materials to teachengineering.com. A few other insights or recommendations on curriculum development: (1) examine when and how to fit curriculum development time into the program that better reflects academic life; (2) hire an engineering curriculum specialist or someone who works with teachengineering.com to work with the teachers on their curriculum; (3) develop a common curriculum template that would be more conducive to their needs and works with teachengineering.com; and (4) have the teachers disseminate their curriculums in a format that is more familiar with them at statewide conferences e.g., MSTA. Professional Development In terms of professional development, the brown bag sessions seemed to be the sessions that impacted the teachers the most. Many commented that they did not see how some of the tours fit into the overall goals of the program. As in the case of the second-year teachers, returning to the same locations as the year before did not advance their goals for the program. The part of the program that the teachers gained from was making contacts and learning about different MSU professors’ work and MSU resources.


Survey Instruments

RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011

Hello, Teachers: This is the preRET evaluation survey. Each week and at the end of the Institute, you will be asked to reflect upon your RET experience by answering several of the same questions so we can understand your full experience. I want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920. Best wishes on your RET experience. Patricia

1. The first two letters of your last name:

2. How long have you been a teacher?

3. What are the primary grades you teach?

4. Primary living residence for this summer:

1. How did you learn about the RET program?

2. Why did you want to participate in RET?

1.

2. RET Teacher PreSurvey

*

3. RET PreProgram Survey

55

66

55

66

Less than 3 years

nmlkj

36 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

More than 10 years

nmlkj

At MSU

nmlkj

At home

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj

RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 20113. What aspect of the Institute do you look forward to the most?

4. List 24 goals you have for yourself and your RET work. We will follow up with you about these goals at the conclusion of the RET Summer Institute.

5. Do you feel prepared for your RET experience?

6. Rate your perception of this year's weekly schedule. We will follow up with you at the end of the Institute on perception of the schedule.

7. What are your hopes or plans for curriculum development?

8. Rate the 2day orientation.

9. Please tell us why you rated the orientation the way you did.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Somewhat

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 2011RET First Year 201110. Please provide recommendations for helping you prepare for the RET Summer Institute that were not covered before or during the orientation.

11. Is there anything else you want to comment on before beginning the Institute?

55

66

55

66

RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011

Hello, Second Year Teachers: This is the preRET evaluation survey. Each week and at the end of the Institute, you will be asked to reflect upon your RET experience by answering several of the same questions so we can understand your full experience. I want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920. Best wishes on your RET experience. Patricia

1. The first two letters of your last name:

2. How long have you been a teacher?

3. What are the primary grades you teach?

4. Primary living residence for this summer:

1. Why did you decide to return to a second year of RET?

2. What aspect(s) of the Institute do you look forward to the most now that you have been through the Institute last summer?

1.

2. RET Teacher PreSurvey

*

3. RET PreProgram Survey

55

66

55

66

Less than 3 years

nmlkj

36 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

More than 10 years

nmlkj

At MSU

nmlkj

At home

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj

RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 20113. List 24 goals you have for yourself and your RET work this year. We will follow up with you about these goals at the conclusion of the RET Summer Institute.

4. Based on your feedback from last year's RET Institute, some changes have been made to the weekly schedule. Rate your perception of this year's weekly schedule. We will follow up with you on this rating at the end of the Institute.

5. If you rated the revised schedule as Fair, Poor or No Improvement, please provide feedback.

6. Are you working with the same faculty and grad student this summer?

7. Based on your research experience last year, do you hope or plan to make changes (e.g., research project, contact with faculty)?

8. Based on your experience last year, do you hope or plan any changes to your work on curriculum (and your working with Jennifer)?

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Excellent improvement

nmlkj

Good improvement

nmlkj

Fair improvement

nmlkj

Poor improvement

nmlkj

No improvement

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Same faculty, different graduate student(s)

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj

RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 2011RET Second Year 20119. Rate the 2day orientation.

10. Please tell us why you rated the orientation the way you did.

11. Based on your involvement last year, please provide recommendations for helping others prepare for the RET Summer Institute that were not covered before or during the orientation.

12. Is there anything else you want to comment on before beginning the Institute?

55

66

55

66

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey

Hello, Teachers: This is the weekly evaluation form that you will complete while you are at MSU for the next several weeks. You will notice that the majority of questions will be the same each week so I can analyze your experience over the course of the program. Each week there may be 12 extra questions depending on what you did during the week. Again, you are being asked to reflect upon your experiences with the NSFfunded Research Experience for Teachers (RET). I also want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920. Best Patricia

1. Type in the first two letters of your last name.

2. Rate your engagement with research this past week.

3. Please tell us more about your engagement in research for this past week.

4. Rate mentoring by faculty or graduate student for this past week.

5. Please tell us more about your mentoring by faculty or a graduate student this week.

1. RET Teacher Weekly Evaluation

2.

*55

66

*55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey2011 RET Weekly Survey6. Rate your professional development for this past week (outside of the lab).

7. Tell us more about your professional development experience for the week (please skip if not applicable).

8. Rate how well your curriculum development came along this week.

9. If you worked on curriculum development this week, please tell us more what occurred and what you accomplished (please skip if not applicable).

10. Overall, how was your RET experience this week?

11. Please tell us about your RET experience for the week.

12. Any additional comments you would like us to know about?

55

66

55

66

*55

66

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Did not participate in professional development this week.

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Did not work on it

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey

Hello, First Year Teachers: As mentioned at the RET orientation, you are to complete a postRET Summer Institute survey. We ask that you take time to reflect upon your weekly and overall RET experiences and provide us insight into whether or not the program is worthwhile. We will be obtaining feedback from all participants – teachers, faculty, graduate students, and administrators – to understand the effectiveness and impact of the program, and to make improvements based on the worthiness of the program. Your feedback is critical to the future of the program (and to NSF). I want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920 . Best wishes on a great and successful academic year. We will see you in December at Design Day ... we will be holding a focus group with you and your colleagues to discuss more in depth several of the questions posed in this survey. Thank you! Patricia

1. The first four letters of your last name (this is only used by the evaluators to track responses):

The goals for the MSU NSF funded RET Program are the following: (1) To train High School and Middle School STEM teachers in developing student confidence and skills to succeed in a global market. (2) To form a strong partnership between MSU, NSF ERC for WIMS, school districts, and industry on advanced precollege science and engineering education. (3) To develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the University into classrooms.

1. Please rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET Program are being met.

1. RET FirstYear Teacher PostProgram Survey

*

2. RET Program Goals

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey2. How well has the RET Institute prepared you to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.

3. Please tell us more on why you rated Goal #1 the way you did.

4. Goal number 3 is to develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the university into classrooms. Please rate this statement as it relates to your learning and creation of your curriculum plan.

5. Please tell us why you rated Goal #3 the way you did.

1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET Program.

2. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with the RET Program the way you did on Question #1.

55

66

55

66

3.

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

1 = Completely satisfied

nmlkj

2 = Mostly satisfied

nmlkj

3 = Mixedequally satisfied and dissatisfied

nmlkj

4 = Most dissatisfied

nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatisfied

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey3. In the PreRET Survey we asked you to explain your goals for the program. Were these goals met?

4. If you answered "Somewhat" or "No" to Question #9, please explain (be specific).

5. Please rate the mentoring provided by the professor and/or graduate student.

6. Please tell us more about your mentoring experience (be specific and provide examples, if needed).

7. Please rate your satisfaction of working with Jennifer Doherty on curriculum development.

8. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with curriculum development the way you did on Question #7.

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Yes

nmlkj

2 = Somewhat

nmlkj

3 = No

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

4 = Mostly dissatisfied

nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatsfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey9. Please rate your curriculum plan as of right now.

10. Do you perceive any issues in successfully completing, submitting and implementing your curriculum plan?

11. What are the tangible skills and abilities you now have after working with the faculty/graduate students on your research and Jennifer on your curriculum plan?

12. Please rate your satisfaction with the professional development opportunities offered through the RET Program.

13. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with the RET professional development opportunities the way you did on Question #12.

14. By participating in the RET Institute, are there other knowledge, skills and abilities that you obtained and can now take back and use in the classroom?

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Done: it is complete and I am ready to implement it in my classroom.

nmlkj

2 = Almost: it is almost complete but it needs tweaking before I submit or use it in the classroom.

nmlkj

3 = On target: the plan needs quite a bit more work before I submit or use it in the classroom.

nmlkj

4 = Not on target: the plan needs quite a bit more work and I am not feeling comfortable with it.

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

3 = Mixed=equally satisfied and dissatisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey15. Rate how well the management team (e.g., Xiaobo Tan, Andrew Kim) carried out their role and responsibilities.

16. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with management of the program the way you did on Question #15.

17. Did you feel prepared for your RET experience?

18. Please explain if you felt "somewhat" or "not" prepared for your RET experience.

19. Please tell us about what you learned about yourself while participating in the RET Institute.

20. Recommendations for improving the program for next year?

21. The program continues through this academic year. What assistance or opportunities do you want the RET Program to offer in assisting you in your teaching and the students' learning.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

Somewhat

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey22. Other comments.

55

66

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey

Hello, Second Year Teachers: I hope the RET Summer Institute was well worth your time. As mentioned at the RET orientation, you are to complete a postRET Summer Institute survey. We ask that you take time to reflect upon your weekly and overall RET experiences and provide us insight into the program. We will be obtaining feedback from all participants – teachers, faculty, graduate students, and administrators – to understand the effectiveness and impact of the program, and to make improvements based on the worthiness of the program. Your feedback is critical to the future of the program (and to NSF). I want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920. Best wishes on a great and successful academic year. We will see you at Design Day in December we plan on holding a focus group to obtain further insight into the RET program with you and your colleagues. Thank you! Patricia

1. The first four letters of your last name (this is only used by the evaluators to track responses):

The goals for the MSU NSF funded RET Program are the following: (1) To train High School and Middle School STEM teachers in developing student confidence and skills to succeed in a global market. (2) To form a strong partnership between MSU, NSF ERC for WIMS, school districts, and industry on advanced precollege science and engineering education. (3) To develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the University into classrooms.

1. Please rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET Program are being met.

1. RET SecondYear Teacher PostProgram Survey

*

2. RET Program Goals

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey2. How well has the RET Institute prepared you to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.


4. Goal number 3 is to develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the University into classrooms. Please rate this statement as it relates to your learning and creation of your curriculum plan.

5. Please tell us why you rated Goal #3 the way you did.

1. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET Program.

2. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with the RET Program the way you did on Question #1.

55

66

55

66

3.

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

4 = Most dissatisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey3. Rate your perception of participating in the RET Institute for a second year.

4. In comparing your second year RET Institute experience to your first year, how would you rate the second year?

5. Please explain your comparison of the second year RET Institute experience to your first year RET Institute experience.

6. Based on your response in Question #5, do you have recommendations for the management team (Tan, Kim) on insuring a successful experience for all who participate (e.g., teachers, grad students, faculty)?

7. In the PreRET Survey we asked you to explain your goals for the program. Were these goals met?

8. If you answered "Somewhat" or "No" to Question #7, please explain (be specific).

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = I am glad that I participated again. I want to participate in the Institute next year.

nmlkj

2 = I am glad that I participated again, but I do not want to participate in the Institute next year.

nmlkj

3 = I wish I had not participated in the second year RET Institute.

nmlkj

4 = Other

nmlkj

1 = Better compared to the first year

nmlkj

2 = Similar compared to the first year

nmlkj

3 = Poor compared to the first year

nmlkj

1 = Yes

nmlkj

2 = Somewhat

nmlkj

3 = No

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey9. Please rate the mentoring provided by the professor and/or graduate student.

10. Please tell us more about your mentoring experience, especially if you worked with a new faculty and/or graduate student (be specific and provide examples, if needed).

11. Please rate your satisfaction of working with Jennifer Doherty on curriculum development.

12. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with curriculum development the way you did on Question #11.

13. Please rate your curriculum plan as of right now.

14. Do you perceive any issues in successfully completing, submitting and implementing your curriculum plan?

55

66

55

66

55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatsfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

1 = Done: it is complete and I am ready to be implement in my classroom.

nmlkj

2 = Almost: it is almost complete but it needs tweaking before I submit or use it in the classroom.

nmlkj

3 = On target: the plan needs quite a bit more work before I submit or use it in the classroom.

nmlkj

4 = Not on target: the plan needs quite a bit more work and I am not feeling comfortable with it.

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey15. What are the tangible skills and abilities you now have after working with the faculty/graduate students on your research and Jennifer on your curriculum plan?

16. Please rate your satisfaction with the professional development opportunities offered through the RET Program.

17. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with the RET professional development opportunities the way you did on Question #16.

18. By participating in the RET Institute, are there other knowledge, skills and abilities that you obtained and can now take back and use in the classroom?

19. Rate how well the management team (e.g., Xiaobo Tan, Andrew Kim) carried out their role and responsibilities.

20. Please explain why your rated your satisfaction with management of the program the way you did on Question #19.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj

3 = Mixed=equally satisfied and dissatisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-SurveyRET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey21. As mentioned in the presurvey, changes to the RET Institute weekly schedule were made based on your feedback from year one. Rate this year's schedule.

22. Please provide any feedback regarding the weekly schedule.

23. Please provide any recommendations for improving the RET Institute for next year.

24. The program continues through this academic year. What assistance or opportunities do you want the RET Program to offer in assisting you in your teaching and the students' learning.


26. Other comments.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey

Hello, RET Faculty and Graduate Students: The 2011 RET Summer Institute is coming to an end. As mentioned at the RET orientation dinner, you are to complete a postRET Summer Institute survey. We ask that you take time to reflect upon the RET program and provide us insight into the program. We will be obtaining feedback from all participants – teachers, faculty, graduate students, and administrators – to understand the effectiveness and impact of the program, and to make improvements based on the worthiness of the program. Your feedback is critical to the future of the program (and to NSF). I want to remind you that participation is voluntary and please contact me if you have any questions. You can contact me at [email protected] or 5178990920. Thank you! Patricia

1. What are your initials (first and last name)? This information will only be used by the evaluators for tracking purposes.

The goals for the MSU NSF funded RET Program are the following? (1) To train High School and Middle School STEM teachers in developing student confidence and skills to succeed in a global market. (2) To form a strong partnership between MSU, NSF ERC for WIMS, school districts, and industry on advanced precollege science and engineering education. (3) To develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the University into classrooms.

1. Overall, please rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET Program are being met.

1. RET Faculty/Graduate Student Post Survey

2. RET Goals

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2. How well has the RET Institute prepared teachers to develop student confidence and skills so they can succeed in a global market.


4. From your perspective of being involved in the RET program, how well is the program forming a strong partnership between MSU, school districts, and industry on advanced precollege science and engineering education.


6. Goal number 3 is for teachers to develop and implement innovative curriculum by translating cuttingedge curriculum education from the university into the classrooms. Please rate this statement as it relates to the teacher assigned to you and their work.


55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

5 = I am not sure.

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

5 = I am not sure.

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

5 = Not sure.

nmlkj

2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey

1. Please rate your satisfaction with your participation in the RET program?

2. Please tell us why you rated your satisfaction with your participation in the program the way you did (Question #1).

3. Rate how well the teacher assigned to you meet your expectations.

4. Please tell us why you rated the teacher the way you did on the previous question (Question #3).

5. Please rate your satisfaction with your mentoring with the teacher assigned to you and your lab.

3.

55

66

55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

1 = Completely Satisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey6. Please explain how you mentored the teacher that worked in your lab with you and changes you would make next year (please provide examples).

7. Rate your satisfaction with the RET weekly schedule.

8. Do you have any recommendations for improving the schedule for next year? Based on feedback last year, the schedule was changed this year. If you participated last year, please provide insight into whether or not the schedule worked better this year.

9. Were you involved with the teacher in creating their curriculum?

10. If you were involved in helping the teacher create their curriculum, rate your perception of the curriculum based on their work in your lab.

11. Please provide your input on the curriculum development piece of the Institute.

12. Did you encounter any issues or problems during the program?

55

66

55

66

55

66


nmlkj

2 = Satisfied

nmlkj

3 = Mixed

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey2011 RET Faculty/Grad Student Post Survey13. If you said yes to encountering problems or issues, please explain (please be specific).

14. Rate how well the management team (e.g., Xiaobo Tan, Andrew Kim) carried out their role and responsibilities.

15. Please tell us why you rated the management team the way you did (Question #14). Please be specific.

16. What changes would you recommend for next year's program? Please be specific.


18. Other comments.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

research experience for teachers (ret) · 2013-08-12 · broader impacts—the msu ret site project...

Documents