Research Experience for Teachers (RET) · 2013-08-12 · participate in a research experience or for professional development: Chance to do research, learn more about bioengineering

Research Experience for Teachers (RET)

at

Michigan State University A NSF Funded Program

Shannon Lynn Burton, Ph.D. [email protected]

Patricia L. Farrell, Ph.D.

[email protected]

RET Evaluation 2011-12 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

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

FIRST-YEAR AND SECOND-YEAR SATISFACTION COMPARISON ...................................................................... 8

FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS ................................................................................................................................................. 10

TEACHER PRE-SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 TEACHER POST-SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................... 10

SECOND-YEAR TEACHERS ............................................................................................................................................ 15

TEACHER PRE-SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 TEACHER POST-SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................... 16

WEEKLY SURVEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 22

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 36


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 final of a three year NSF funded RET program grant. During the summer 2012, eight teachers attended a 6-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 development specialist from www.teachengineering.org, teachers worked on developing innovative, standards-compliant curriculum modules and participate in a number of professional development activities: workshops, seminars, and field trips to industry and national labs. This evaluation report encompasses the findings from summer Institute. 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 third and final year of the MSU RET program and of the eight teacher participants, five were returning for their second or third 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 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 a teachengineering.org consultant, who worked with them on curriculum development.

They rated their curriculum plan as of the beginning of August (they had until October 1 to submit it to teachengineering.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.

They were also asked to rate their experience with using the I Pad in the development of their curriculum and in their research.

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.” This survey included Likert scale and open-ended questions and again, the weekly survey instrument was tailored for the first- and second-year teachers.

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. The last section is the conclusion, which includes some high level recommendations based on the teachers’ feedback.

First-Year and Second-Year Satisfaction Comparison Both sets of teachers were asked the same satisfaction questions at the end of the Institute. All five of the second year teachers (n = 5 of N = 5) were completely satisfied with the RET Summer Institute, while two of the three first year teaches (n = 2 and N = 3) were completely satisfied. On the other side, four of the five second year teachers were completely satisfied with the mentoring provided by the faculty and/or graduate student(s), while two of the three first-year teachers were completely satisfied as well. While the first year teachers were completely satisfied with the curriculum development consultant from teachengineering.org, the second year teachers had mixed responses, but all in all, were either completely satisfied or mostly satisfied with the assistance provided whereas last year there was more of a mixed response about the assistance in working with the curriculum development specialist from the university. Curriculum development is a topic that is discussed many times in this evaluation report. Lastly, the professional development received higher satisfaction ratings than in previous years – all of the first year teachers and most of the second year teachers were either completely satisfied or mostly satisfied.

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 100 100

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

100 80 20

Please rate your satisfaction with working with the consultant from teachengineering.org on curriculum development.

100 20 60 20

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

100 60 40

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, 100% of the first-year teachers and 80% of the second-year teachers stated yes or excellent. However, the goal that garnered the most criticism was that of how well the program assisted in developing and implementing the curriculum from the second-year teachers. 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.


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.

100 80 20

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

100 80 20

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

100 40 60

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

100 100

First-Year Teachers All three first-year teachers completed pre-surveys and at least six weekly surveys during the summer Institute/institute. Only two of the three first-year teachers completed the post-survey.

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. Only two of the three first-year teachers completed the pre-survey. One taught at a middle school and the other at a high school. Both had taught for over ten years. 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:

Chance to do research, learn more about bioengineering in order share with my students; To learn new ideas that would benefit my students and my teaching.

The teachers were next asked to describe their goals for participating in the program, and they both 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 complete a rough draft of curriculum piece by the beginning of August; To complete enough of a research project to make preliminary findings; Learn more about biosensors; Become more expert in lab techniques; Develop valuable curriculum materials; Have a better understanding of engineering design.

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

Would like to incorporate an energy unit into my curriculum, using what I learn this summer; I’m starting my outline this week and will focus on food safety evaluation techniques.

Teacher Post-Survey Overall, the teachers were completely satisfied with their summer research experience at MSU. As shown in the table below, 100% of the teachers stated that they were completely satisfied with the Institute. They also stated that they met their goals (100%) and were completely satisfied with the professional development opportunities that were offered to them.

First–Year Teachers Post-RET Satisfaction (n = 2) Completely

SatisfiedMostly

SatisfiedMixed

Response


Please rate your overall satisfaction with the RET program 100% 0% 0%


100% 0% 0%


100% 0% 0%


100% 0% 0%

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. The scale included four-points and the teachers rated all statements Excellent (100%). First-Year Teacher Post-Institute Input (n = 2)

Excellent Good

Rate your perception on how well the goals for the MSU RET program are being met. 100% 0%


100% 0%

Rate how well the RET program is assisting in developing and implementing innovative curriculum. 100% 0%

Rate how well the management team (e.g. Xiabao Tan, Andrew Kim) carried out their role and responsibilities 100% 0%

Rate how satisfied you were in utilizing the I Pad in curriculum development

100% 0%

Satisfaction with RET Institute One hundred 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.

I learned so much and the people that I worked with were great!

This experience went beyond my expectations. I have grown so much as a teacher by participating.

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 (100%). Their open-ended comments indicate their positive responses:

I felt very prepared when going into my RET session from orientation. The experience of working with experts in bioengineering gave me so much to share with my

students, and made me more credible in their eyes. To get to work with people who are studying this everyday really helps you to learn about what

is happening “now” rather than reading about it later. The curriculum that I developed for teachengineering.org was probably the best work that I

have ever done, thanks to my mentors, peers and access to resources. Mentoring The first-year teachers were asked in the post-survey about their mentoring experience. Here again, they were completely satisfied with their mentoring as the open-ended responses show:

The grad students were as excited as I was about the project. They are excited about teaching their subject matter to high school students!

Dr. Alocilja, Hanna Miller and all of the lab staff were incredible mentors. They helped me at every turn, and taught me so much about bioengineering.

Curriculum Development Again, the first-year teachers were completely satisfied with the curriculum development assistance from teachengineering.org.

Very helpful and always there for support They provided so much support and constructive feedback.

In terms of completing, submitting, and implementing their planned curriculum, only one teacher commented:

It just takes time. I hope to implement it second semester. 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:


That working with a local university gets you in touch with the now and you can take that

information back to the classroom and it gets students interested! I can incorporate the engineering design process into my work. I understand the links between

engineering, science education, and real world applications. I can culture bacteria, and also use a biosensor to identify food contamination. I learned to use many pieces of lab equipment. I can explain the practical applications of this work.

The first-year teachers also commented on their use of the I Pad in curriculum development.

Used the Prezi App as a way to communicate my research to people. Used it as a research and note taking tool.

I used it for note taking, creation of presentation materials, communication, reading texts, trying out new science apps, and on the road updates.

Professional Development Again, the first-year teachers were completely satisfied with the professional development portion of the Institute. The open-ended responses illustrate the teachers’ satisfaction and excitement for the Institute.

The professional development was targeted, relevant and interesting. In relation to their skill development, after participating in the RET program, only one first-year teacher remarked in terms of their tangible skills and abilities:

Lab, communication, design and writing skills The first-year teachers were also asked what they learned about themselves through participation in the RET Institute:

That I can take a complicated topic and simplify it down so that students can understand it. I learned that I can still learn new things fairly quickly, and also that I have the abilities it takes

to do this kind of work well. Management The teachers next rated the management team. What more can be said from the glowing remarks from the teachers about the management team:

They were very informative and involved in making sure you know what was expected. The management team was well organized, helpful, knowledgeable, and dedicated to the

program. I could see that they believed that this program is important.

Some final comments from the first-year teachers included:

This is a terrific program because it allows teachers to do something that may be totally new to them, but treats them as professionals and fully functioning scientists. I worked in an incredible lab, and would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Alocilja and her team.


Second-Year Teachers All five second-year teachers completed the pre-survey, while only three of the four completed the post-survey. All five 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. Four of the five returning teachers teach in the high school while one teaches K-8. 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:

Last summer was a great experience. I learned a lot about science and teaching, and hope for more of the same this year.

Excellent experience last year. I learned so much last year, and it had a profound effect on how and what I teach in the

classroom. I felt the experience gave me a lot of information on present day achievements in science.

Aside from being an awesome summer job, it gave me a lot of real world experience to share. The learning experience is wonderful.

Next, the teachers were asked what aspects of the Institute they looked forward to the most having been through it the previous year. All five were enthusiastic about learning new techniques, developing the curriculum and conducting research.

Learning new techniques and approaches I can translate into classroom experiences for my students.

Developing new curriculum to use in my classroom. Working with the same people again this year, seeing where the research has taken them and

finding a new, more specific focal point for my research. Completing my actual personal research so I can present it to my classes. Learning even more about what research is going on.

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.

Learn new lab techniques to use in my classes. Gain experience placing scientific methods into real world contexts, including economic influences.

Learn more about engineering principles and apply that to my lessons.

Publish an activity to teachengineering.org, and begin or complete writing a paper for publication.

I’d like to have the skeleton of my curriculum done by the end of the second week. I’d also like to complete a few experiments so I can work on a paper with my lab.

Develop a new curricular unit and discover a couple of new teaching techniques.

Teacher Post-Survey Overall, the teachers were completely satisfied with their summer research experience at MSU. As shown in the table below, the second-year teachers tended to be more critical of program components than the first-year teachers. Although they were more critical about the aspects of the program, 100% of the teachers stated that they were completely satisfied with the Institute. They also stated that they met their goals (80%) and were either completely or mostly satisfied with the professional development opportunities that were offered to them. The discrepancy in satisfaction for professional development seems to stem from a repetition of tours and activities from the previous year. They were also asked to rate their satisfaction with the use of the I Pad in their curriculum development. This piece received mixed reviews from the second-year teachers.

Second – Year Teachers Post-RET Survey = 5 of 5 teachers responded Completely

SatisfiedMostly

SatisfiedMixed

Response Mostly

DissatisfiedPlease rate your overall satisfaction with the RET program 100% 0% 0% 0%


80% 20% 0% 0%


20% 60% 20% 0%


60% 40% 0% 0%

Excellent Good Average

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

80% 20% 0%


80% 20% 0%

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

40% 60% 0%

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

100% 0% 0%

Rate how satisfied you were in utilizing the I Pad in curriculum development

25% 25% 50%


Rate this year’s schedule. 40% 60% 0% Satisfaction with RET Institute 100% 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.

It was beyond anything I could have imagined and has made me a much better teacher. I learned a tremendous amount of scientific information as well as about engineering fields. I

developed new curriculum that I am happy with and my students enjoy and learn from. The stipend for classroom materials (so that I could actually implement my lessons) was awesome.

Lots of work, but worth it. I love it! It’s an opportunity to learn and grow as an educator and as a person. The material

and experiences that I bring back to my classes are awesome and really help round out the curriculum. I feel I am more successful now at getting my students excited about engineering because I can speak the language.

This has been one of the best experiences for my professional development. 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. 40% felt that the program helped them to develop and implement innovative curriculum at an excellent rating and 60% felt that it helped at a good rating. Their open-ended comments indicate their mixed responses:

The exposure that I was provided to MSU College of Engineering programs and departments has given me the knowledge to direct students in their life goals and provide information on engineering careers that I couldn’t have in the past.

I am better able to introduce engineering career options to my students and I have a better understanding of the types of engineering available.

A well run program that generally met its goals. This is my second year with RET and I can see that they really took our suggestions to heart

and sort of “filled in the gaps”. Things are running much more smoothly and went excellent this year!

I have gotten so many good examples to use in class. Neat things that make my physics students go “ooh” and get engaged.

My lessons are excellent, but I’ve been running into trouble implementing a low cost method for the lesson to be used in classrooms across the nation.

I developed curriculum during the RET that I would not have had the time and support to do otherwise. The curriculum is engaging and helps students learn better than more traditional methods (I have actually collected data to verify the learning gains).

I used the lesson I made last year and plan to again this year. Writing curriculum for teachengineering.org is intensive. I am still putting the finishing

touches on my lessons to resubmit and I wish I was further along with it by now than I am. The fact that we have to develop curriculum in a certain format to be uploaded makes it

difficult to plan large scale lessons. The teachengineering.org requirement ends up feeling like a hoop unless we are lucky enough to have an idea that suits itself well. Sometimes the combination of lab and teaching subject make it difficult to create a lesson that relates based on our lab experience so when we produce curriculum that doesn’t relate we feel like we are being “cheap” producing lessons that are good, but not necessarily correlating to our RET work.

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

Dr. Li and her grad student Xiaopeng Bi were more than accommodating and there for me every step of the way.

They were out of town a lot. They were not always familiar with the RET expectations. My grad was excellent, encouraging and helpful. They are both so helpful and understanding! Both my mentor and grad student seemed

genuinely excited to have me there and treated me like an equal! I learned so much from them both, and look forward to continuing collaboration!

I felt like more of the team this year. I didn’t have to spend time getting to know the staff or project so we were able to jump right in (especially since we talked periodically about our goals throughout the school year).

Curriculum Development The only area that the teachers showed variation in their responses was the curriculum development portion of the Institute. The second-year teachers had mixed reviews about the assistance they received and issues with communication.

They’re very helpful in every aspect of the curriculum development and there for you when you need them.

Leyf was very helpful. The lessons look great once posted online. The first submission took almost a year to get published, but this time around it seems to be going much faster.

Well, it’s not exactly fun so it’s hard to give it a top rating. The required format is very meticulous.

The lesson format isn’t what teachers are used to. It’s kind of hard to navigate, and even harder to get right. Having a consultant helped but it still takes a lot of work. I feel it could be made easier to use.

I LOVED having Leyf there to help us but it is just difficult to fit my teaching style into that format. It was nice to have someone to help.


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

Students are never as “into it” as I hope they will be. It will just take time. After spending most of the summer looking for parts, I feel like my goal is beyond the scope of

teachengineering.org. I could make it work in my classroom but the amount of background work and materials development necessary might be too much. On top of that I started finding toward the end of the time some premade kits that were similar to what I wanted to do (these didn’t come up in previous web searches due to my lack of jargon in early searches. I’m considering scrapping that curriculum for teachengineering.org (though I’ll probably still do it in my classroom) and develop something else during the school year which is more online friendly.

The second-year teachers also commented on their use of the I Pad in curriculum development.

Because the I Pad is not compatible with any of the software used for this lesson and because our school has yet to make the leap, I only used it when looking up information when I was away from my desk.

I did not use the iPad very much this summer, but I enjoyed the session on how to implement the iPad in the classroom.

Lots of time training on a device for something many of us will never have access to. The session that we had where we shared free apps was great! It is a wonderful educational

tool for the classroom. As of yet, I have not found an effective way to use it for anything new in my classroom.

Professional Development Next, the second-year teachers either were completely or mostly satisfied with their professional development opportunities. The open-ended responses illustrate the teachers’ satisfaction and excitement for the Institute.

They provide as much as I can handle with my schedule and then some. Everything was interesting and helpful. Definitely improved my teaching. They were good, but I wish we had more field trips.

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:

Clean room experience making pdms channels (I believe this can be used for several different applications). Experience with Comsul Multi-Physics simulator as well.

I am better able to develop curriculum for use outside of my classroom. Lots more microbiology and biochem skills. Improved excel programming. Research skills, mimics software skills, conference presentation skills.

I have certainly gotten a plethora of good language that engineers use that I hadn’t been familiar with before. I also now focus on the engineering design cycle when doing labs and “hands on” assignments. My focus in developing projects is more on the process of engineering than the final product.

Information about different engineering careers, comfortable using engineering vocabulary, comfortable explaining engineering careers to students.

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

I work too much!!! I love science! I already knew that. My science chops are fundamentally sound, but dulled from years of use without maintenance. That I am creative, I never thought I was. I am a logical thinker who loves science and math

and I always thought that I wasn’t creative, but engineering gives me the ability to be both! It has really helped me explore creativity in other aspects of my life that I never knew I had.

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

They make the program flow smoothly and pay attention to every possible detail. Drew was always accessible and helpful. Got the job done. Excellent, went off without a hitch! They provided support when asked for, checked in to insure we were on task, and tried to find

opportunities to improve our experience. Comparisons The second-year teachers were also asked to compare their experience this year to their previous year(s) of the program. Here are their comments:

Second years are better because once you know what to expect, things go smoother and progression is faster.

I knew more of what to expect and how to make the most of my time during the second year. Both years were great, but being in different labs teaches you different things. Although first year was great, there were some things that were a little disorganized or difficult.

The RET program took all of our suggestions and provided us with more resources and it was very successful.

I feel like the structure of the RET program this year is a great improvement on last year. Having a full day to work is beneficial although not really necessary until later on. I missed the collaborating with my colleagues in the morning.

They also made recommendations based on their comparisons:


Keep doing what you’re doing! Clearer expectations communicated to faculty and grad students would be helpful. We spent an awful lot of time on our posters, would that time have been better spent on our

teachengineering.org lessons? Although having a teachengineering.org correspondent was helpful, I really feel we need

someone on site at least once a week that we can work with. It would make our conversations richer.

At the beginning of the program it might be beneficial to have short on-site work periods for curriculum while at the end of the program work at home time is beneficial. I’m not sure if there’s any way to do that effectively or not. I just had very little work on that day for the first two weeks, but used the time frantically the last two.

Some final comments from the second-year teachers included:

This was an amazing experience. It could be an even stronger program with some emphasis on best practices for classroom teaching and assessment.

I felt really fortunate to be part of this program last year and was excited to do so again. One of the best experiences I have had in terms of improving how I teach, both in the techniques used and the attitude I present. Many things to everyone involved for the opportunity and all their hard work in making this happen. You the man, Drew!

Thank You!

Weekly Survey Findings Each week both groups of teachers were asked to complete a survey on SurveyMonkey.com. They answered four questions: 1) engagement in research, 2) mentoring, 3) curriculum development, and 4) overall weekly experience. 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, conducting literature reviews and gathering materials. Overall, the responses are positive and indicate that the teachers were very engaged in their research.

6/25/2012 I met with my mentor and the lab staff to learn about their work. We also established parameters for my work and how we could work together to get my project accomplished within the time constraints of the RET program.

6/25/2012 Spent the week learning to use Comsol Multiphysics simulator software. 6/25/2012 I have started. By rehashing some of my mistakes from last year. Having the

summer to think about how I’d like to continue I was able to hit the ground running rather than spending the first week and a half deciding on what to do.

6/25/2012 A lot of reading, catching up and meeting with the new students in the lab to establish their research initiatives. I felt discouraged when I noticed that the lesson I was excited to do for teachengineering.org was already one published on their site. Time for a new direction.

6/25/2012 I was not engaged in research this week (at a conference). 6/26/2012 Pretty much from the moment I got there my prof and grad were ready to go. I

was doing lab activities within an hour of walking through the door. 6/27/2012 It took a couple of days to get rolling because of logistical issues, but now

understand what I need to do, and have begun the project. 7/02/2012 Continued to work with lab staff to observe and understand experiment on

biosensors currently in progress, and research my project. 7/02/2012 Rated: excellent. Made a lot of progress with my research and learning this

week. Very excited! 7/02/2012 Still climbing that learning curve, lots of protocols to learn. 7/06/2012 Spent more time learning how to use Comsol Multiphysics simulator and began

the creation of our simulator. 7/08/2012 Spent time in the lab learning how to prepare corn stover for evaluation. 7/08/2012 It continues to be a good experience. I usually work by myself in the morning

which is nice for me. We are getting very close to doing the experiment as we intended.

7/09/2012 Learned more about the biodetection process. 7/09/2012 Started to get my information organized and am presenting my research findings

in the lab next week. 7/11/2012 I was able to setup the experiment I will be running next week. It takes longer


than I anticipated but I am still hopeful I can meet my goals. 7/13/2012 I was out of town for part of it. I have been reading articles about quorum

sensing to design my experiment using Vibrio fischeri. 7/13/2012 In the planning stages for my project. 7/13/2012 Understood better what I was doing and was able to process quite a few

samples. 7/16/2012 Under pressure now to get something, anything done, but nothing is working.

Going to be an interesting poster presentation if something doesn’t happen soon, and by interesting I mean uneven and a little vacuous.

7/16/2012 I spent a lot of time digging into specifics of the processes than I want to focus on my activity.

7/16/2012 We spent the majority of the week figuring out the equations for our surface tension to control our valve.

7/16/2012 We solved our equation dilemma and now that the simulator is close to functional, we’re moving to make a prototype in the clean room.

7/16/2012 Making progress with my research! I gave a presentation in my lab on Tuesday to present my findings. I was pleased to find that my research helped/tied into the research of what a few other people were doing too and we have gotten into some good conversations about it. They have asked some great questions that I was able to answer, and I feel like I am truly contributing in the lab, as well as forming some great work friendships.

7/16/2012 We are still in the planning stages and I’m getting a little frustrated since we haven’t done anything the lab yet.

7/16/2012 Last week went well. 7/20/2012 Spent most of the week working in the lab, and have a better handle on how to

perform procedures. 7/23/2012 Honestly, I didn’t get a lot of stuff done this week. It feels like we have reached

the point where research has kind of stopped and now we are trying to produce our “products”.

7/23/2012 We spent a lot of time in the Keck’s lab creating a few prototype channels with which to run our experiments.

7/23/2012 Competition experiments between different strains of bacteria. 7/24/2012 Hurrying to collect last minute data. 7/24/2012 We have been collating all of the data that we have gathered, and using excel to

turn it into graphs. 7/24/2012 I’ve almost completed the project and am looking forward to coming back in the

next few weeks to gather data. 7/30/2012 I worked with my lab to perfect my poster for my final presentation on

Thursday. 7/31/2012 Little actual research, lots of preparing data to be presented. 7/31/2012 Most of the research was wrapped up, and a lot of time was spent putting it

together for the poster presentation. 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. 6/25/2012 Vangie and all the lab staff have been extremely accessible and helpful. 6/25/2012 Dr. Li was helpful in getting me started, however her graduate student was at a

conference, so there was no interaction there yet. 6/25/2012 My faculty has checked in twice now to ask if I need help. H is very

approachable and we are comfortable communicating through e-mail making the personal communications nice, but not necessary.

6/25/2012 Awesome. We had a great meeting where we identified individual research offshoots that I could take and how each might be incorporated into a lesson. We came out of the meeting with many questions to ask our lab leader, and we will meet with him tomorrow.

6/26/2012 Graduate student is awesome. He is very encouraging and really pushes me to get involved.

6/27/2012 My graduate student has been very patient with explaining the topic to me. Would have liked a couple more articles for reference.

7/02/2012 Worked in lab, discussed work, was provided with research materials. 7/02/2012 Rated: excellent. My grad student has been really helpful both in directing my

research and also answering questions. He has also given me ideas for further research and writing.

7/02/2012 He keeps me learning and working. 7/06/2012 The grad student has a genuine interest in working with me to accomplish our

goal. 7/08/2012 Although I learned a lot, I was somewhat frustrated by scheduling issues that

seemed to result in less productive time. This was, of course, partially due to the fact that I had to wait to be shown what to do.

7/08/2012 They give feedback when needed and space when needed. I feel comfortable going to them when I need help but I don’t feel like I have to run decisions past them.

7/09/2012 Had several lengthy discussions about their work and how it relates to my project.

7/09/2012 Did an excellent job assisting me with my work (as always). We communicate well and often. I don’t foresee any problems.

7/11/2012 Weekly meetings with prof and working every day closely with grad. Prof gave me a good idea for applying some of the ideas from the lab in a real world setting I can use for my lesson.

7/13/2012 We were both out of town for much of it, but we have been in contact via e-mail sharing journal articles.

7/13/2012 Meet to discuss possible project topics. 7/13/2012 Mostly worked with two undergrads.

7/16/2012 Grad pretty much stopped what he was working on to try and help me get this first step done, we are still trying to determine what is going on.

7/16/2012 Hanna Miller spent a lot of time with me and reviewed all my work to date. 7/16/2012 We’re moving pretty slow this week. I’m not sure if there is something else on


their plate or not. 7/16/2012 He is very knowledgeable in his field, but I sometimes think he might be doing

too much. 7/16/2012 Excellent as always. Alex does such a great job helping out and checking up on

me to make sure everything is going well. He goes out of his way to include me in the research and asks my opinion about things in the lab. It really makes me feel not only welcomed, but that my input is worthwhile.

7/16/2012 I’ve been reading papers and discussing them with my graduate student. We’ve gone to talks about the project we want to do.

7/16/2012 We get together to discuss ideas when necessary. It’s a good balanced relationship. I get a lot of leeway to do as I want with the project.

7/20/2012 I spend most of my time working on stuff by myself or with an undergrad student. A grad student is available if I have questions.

7/23/2012 Excellent as always! 7/23/2012 Xiaopeng spent the week teaching me about everything involved in making

photoresist models and the two ways of achieving it through negative and positive photo resistance.

7/23/2012 My graduate student was pretty busy with conferences going on on campus. My faculty mentor was very responsive to helping me out though.

7/24/2012 Working hard to help me finish. 7/24/2012 Dr. Liao took myself and two students on a tour of the Biofuels facilities – very

impressive! Two undergrads were very helpful with collating data. 7/24/2012 My faculty mentor is excellent to work with. He answers questions when asked

and makes himself available. I feel comfortable with my place in the lab. 7/30/2012 Helped me make the necessary changes to my presentation to make it flow

nicely and deliver all the information. 7/31/2012 Helped me edit my presentation. 7/31/2012 Graduate student and faculty really helped with structure of poster and

explaining how to put together research. Professional Development In the professional development components of the Institute, the teachers were fairly positive. They seemed to gain much from the brown bag sessions and enjoyed the opportunity to develop presentations skills and to present. 6/25/2012 Orientation was great. 6/25/2012 I guess I am not sure what is meant by this. The orientation seems separate from

professional development. Does this mean a conference? 6/25/2012 I presented last year’s RET work at a conference and it was a great experience.

I think all the RET teachers should be encouraged and supported in doing this. It helped me to develop skills as a presenter and the interaction with other professionals was very beneficial. It also helped me disseminate my work as well as promote our RET site and teachengineering.org.

6/27/2012 Good to review information about the teachengineering.org program. Also really appreciate the talk about making a poster, about which I know very little.

7/02/2012 We met as a group to learn about presentations, and teachengineering.org requirements for publication of our lessons.

7/02/2012 Rated: excellent. The presentation that we had with Leyf via webinar was extremely helpful in organizing my thoughts about my prospective lesson for teachengineering.org.

7/02/2012 Mostly things I saw as part of the program last year, but helpful nonetheless. 7/08/2012 Have enjoyed and found useful all the professional development we have had. 7/08/2012 The professional development is pretty good. I feel like a lot of it is very

informal which is nice with our group. I feel like have gotten a lot of useful material.

7/09/2012 We met as a group and participated in a presentation about I Pad apps which was useful. The PBL information was less useful since this is something that I already do.

7/09/2012 The I Pad seminar was very helpful, it really helped me to maximize my use of this technology and I am using it more and it’s making my life easier (yay!).

7/11/2012 I had seen the presentation previously but still got some good ideas from it. 7/13/2012 I was able to present my work from last summer at a scientific conference. IT

was a great experience that I wish all teachers got a chance to do. 7/13/2012 Jon Sticklen’s I Pad seminar was very useful. 7/13/2012 Enjoyed the I Pad workshop! 7/16/2012 Fine. 7/16/2012 It was very useful and informative to visit the MSU Cyclotron and see the work

that they have done, and preparation for the new FRIB. 7/16/2012 I loved the Cyclotron tour! It was so awesome and so amazing to see what they

are doing over there! I have even been on a few tours before, but every time I go there is something new to see and learn. This is a tour I would recommend doing every year, even if people have already been on the tour.

7/16/2012 I was able to attend a professional scientific meeting and present my RET work from last year. It was an amazing experience.

7/16/2012 I MISSED the cyclotron tour. I’m pretty disappointed about it but I was preparing with another faculty for an “away trip” to Detroit Youth Day and while working I just forgot to do it!

7/20/2012 Cyclotron tour was great! 7/23/2012 BEACON Congress was a good experience. Curriculum Development As in previous years, 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.org.

6/25/2012 I completed the review of teachengineering.com lessons to make sure that my proposed work was not duplicating anything already posted. I also completed the review of ITEA standards and GLCEs and HSCEs to align with Michigan state science standards.


6/25/2012 I’ve already come up with multiple ideas for new lessons and started the lesson plans.

6/25/2012 I’m still struggling to find an idea that will work for a high school physics class room. I spent Friday mostly brainstorming and starting to develop a few ideas, none of which “have wings” yet.

6/25/2012 I got very geeked about a particular idea, and that was sort of shot down when I noticed a similar lesson was already published to teachengineering.org. I feel that if I do a similar lesson, it will seem like a copy and so I am trying to find another path to follow.

6/26/2012 I revised last summer’s to accommodate the relatively minor changes they requested.

6/27/2012 I have thought of several topics, looked through the teachengineering.org website, and have identified the engineering objectives, but am having trouble finding a way to make it accessible for my students with the lab equipment we have.

7/02/2012 Completed review of literature, completed standards review, started working on lesson.

7/02/2012 Did not work on it. I’m stuck! I am waiting to actually meet with Leyf one on one next week to discuss. I have tried going over some ideas with some of my RET colleagues, but nothing seems to work. I am hoping she can help me flush out an idea that I can go with.

7/02/2012 Just reviewed the existing items on TE to make sure I wasn’t thinking of an idea that someone had already done. Also got the confirmation that last year’s submission is finally being proofread.

7/06/2012 Lesson has been completely figured out. Found parts to order to create model for activity as well.

7/08/2012 Had several ideas for a topic submitted to Leyf, for which she gave me feedback. Getting a clearer idea of what needs to be included in the lesson plan.

7/08/2012 The hardest part is always determining what I want to do. This year I’m going to struggle to make it cost effective for teachers to use practically. I love having the extended period of time to work on curriculum though I have a hard time working on solely curriculum for the full 8 hours. I find that I naturally split my days using half a day for curriculum twice a week and doing some of my lab work at home. I hope it’s okay that I do my own time management in this way.

7/09/2012 Reviewed progress with teachengineering.org consultant Leyf, and clarified a number of ideas and questions. I have the first part of my lesson finished except for the worksheets/assessment and am starting on the activity.

7/09/2012 I was really stuck until Friday when I finally got a chance to meet with Leyf. She was helpful though and I am hoping to start next week. However, I am nervous because we do not have much time left.

7/11/2012 I had a helpful conversation with Leyf. I’ll start sending her docs next week. 7/13/2012 Narrowed down my topic and established the difference between lesson and

activity. 7/16/2012 Trying to get the lesson done. The activity should be easier. Lots to do, still

need to work on assessment.

7/16/2012 I completed the draft of the lesson and associated materials and made good progress on the associated lesson.

7/16/2012 After speaking with Leyf from teachengineering.org we immediately came up with a new idea for my lesson presentation.

7/16/2012 Slowed a bit this week because of a few other obligations. Currently researching GLCE’s to add to the lesson plan.

7/16/2012 I made a lot of progress, but there is still a LOT of work to do, and not a lot of time left. I am getting nervous at the amount of things we have to do with regard to the time. I am excited that next week I will get to test my lesson with some students here at some sort of day camp. Should be fun!

7/16/2012 Leyf is fantastic to have. She’s done a great job helping me get things together and answer my questions about TE.

7/20/2012 I got a fair amount done and received some good feedback from Leyf. 7/23/2012 I was so busy making sure my lesson was prepared for the international students

that I didn’t get anything done. I will probably work on it after I finish my poster next week.

7/23/2012 The curriculum is a great plan, however I’m finding myself stuck when it comes to creating a cheap and easy to make device (has to have an area that objects or liquid could be added to and a valve that the robots could open when the pressure reaches a certain level) that an average teacher could assemble in the classroom by themselves. I’m considering an all LEGO model now, but I would not have time to assemble it until RET is over. I’d have to put it together a piece at a time documenting the procedure with LEGO Digital Designer so the directions could be uploaded with the lesson plans.

7/23/2012 I tested out an idea for an AVida-ED lesson comparing engineered (hand coded) organisms with evolved organisms with the International High School Engineering Program. It was a success so I am moving forward with writing it up. I made a powerpoint and I am figuring out how to make a video tutorial of the software.

7/24/2012 Phone conference went well. A lesson AND activity are a lot to ask for in less time than we had last year. Feels very rushed.

7/24/2012 Made changes suggested by Leyf, got a good beginning on the activity portion. 7/24/2012 I’m still looking for supplies. The idea is solid and I know how the class will

work but implementation that is both cost effective and dispersable is a struggle. 7/31/2012 Mainly worked on tweaking last year’s submission. 7/31/2012 Spent most of the time working on wrapping up research piece. Did talk to Leyf

and got suggestions for additional changes to curriculum. 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 negative comments really centered on a shorter time frame to develop curriculum and finding the appropriate balance of time to work on curriculum along with the additional requirements of this year’s program.


6/25/2012 I did have to spend a fair amount of time getting administrative details completed – calling HR for an ID, sorting out lab access, printing, etc.

6/25/2012 My experience this week was very interesting and is definitely pushing me to my limits, so it is exactly what I was looking for!

6/25/2012 I love it. I think that ordering protocols should be spelled out as part of the orientation. I am familiar with it from last year, but I had to teach some of the newbies how to do it through the ece shop. Knowing how much we have to spend for research and classroom right from the beginning is very helpful.

6/25/2012 Had a great time getting set up and am excited for the session to continue! 6/26/2012 Learning lots of new stuff, both info and lab procedures. Trying to get a handle

on some of the approaches different researchers have towards their fields of study.

6/27/2012 I am concerned about getting my curriculum topic identified and fleshed out. 7/02/2012 I learned a lot about my topic, and made good progress on my project. 7/02/2012 Excellent! The only thing I would change is that I wish Leyf would have had

time to start our meeting sessions this week. We are on a pretty limited timeline and I am feeling stressed.

7/02/2012 First full week in the lab, I am somewhat overwhelmed but very positive. Still looking for the best way to bring these ideas into my classroom effectively.

7/06/2012 The RET experience always has tons of information and provides a great learning experience for teachers. This week was no exception.

7/08/2012 Only major concerns are 1) the lack of air conditioning in the lab and 2) not having a netID yet, which means I cannot access the computers in Farrell. Neither of these are things RET can control.

7/08/2012 There’s not much I haven’t already said, I feel like six weeks is just not enough time to get everything done I’d like to get done. It would be nice if there were a way to do some form of part time extension.

7/09/2012 We had a sad experience with a lab staff member this week which impacted everyone’s work.

7/09/2012 … nothing more to report. 7/11/2012 So far it hasn’t been too time consuming, but as we near the end of the month, I

am worried that so many things are going on at once (Teachengineering.org lessons and activities, the final poster presentation, the lessons we are teaching next week, the all-day field trip to Ann Arbor, etc.) some of the quality may suffer. Still loving it.

7/13/2012 The interaction with faculty and other scientists is really exciting and informative.

7/13/2012 Still in the early stages of my project which is always tough, but I know from my experience last year that it will all come together soon enough.

7/13/2012 Always enjoy talking to other teachers about their research and ideas. Angie was especially helpful when I had a lot of questions.

7/16/2012 This week I will really do my last bit of research. If I don’t get any results I have to change the focus of my time here from doing basic research to explaining what we learned from five weeks of failure. Either way I am learning a lot.

7/16/2012 It was a lot of work but I feel the quality of the materials produced is going to be good.

7/16/2012 As always, it is very enjoyable learning new things. There’s no other way to put it. They’ve given me so many ideas for the classroom I don’t know where to start.

7/16/2012 The cyclotron tour always provides better insight as to what’s available in nuclear physics at MSU. Other than that, we started coming up with the plans for our prototype and continued working with the simulation software.

7/16/2012 Once more thing I want to add is that this week myself and another teacher worked a table at Metro Youth Day and I LOVED it! I had so much fun interacting with students from all over the Detroit area and getting them interested in robotics! We had one out for demonstration that the students could drive and it was a blast! Our table was a huge hit and the event was wonderful. I would definitely do it again, and I hope to.

7/16/2012 My mentor did not have any experiments currently running when I started, so it has been slow going. I am keeping busy with reading papers and attending talks (and I know that this is all part of the scientific process), but I am anxious to get into the lab.

7/16/2012 I like it still. I wish parts were easier to purchase online. There are so many parameters and I’m never sure if I can get what I’m looking for.

7/20/2012 I am learning a lot! Lab is still REALLY hot though. 7/23/2012 Am feeling stressed, although my lesson with the international students went

well, and they enjoyed the tour in my lab… I feel that we have a lot to accomplish in a short amount of time. I would recommend extending the RET time next year or cutting some of the required activities.

7/23/2012 The clean room in the Keck’s facility was definitely a new experience for me and it topped off the week. Everything is going great as far as the research goes!

7/23/2012 This program is amazing for bringing teachers into contact with cutting edge science and the resources they need to bring that into the classroom.

7/24/2012 It’s exciting to finally get results as the deadline nears. 7/24/2012 Got a lot accomplished in research, learning how to make a scientific poster. 7/24/2012 As said before I am excited to finally finish my project and get it working. 7/30/2012 Good. I still feel like I have a lot to finish with regards to my TE lesson though.

I will be working on that next week. 7/31/2012 Last week. Busy wrapping it all up. 7/31/2012 It was great to hear about the work that everyone did. I learned a lot! Final comments The teachers were finally asked to provide any additional comments. 7/08/2012 I have gotten some great ideas from the other RET teachers! 7/16/2012 One thing I am struggling with is that there seems to be a lot more required of us

this year and less time to do it in. With preparing a lesson and an activity, a poster for presentation, preparing a lesson for the high school students next week, and attending all of the tours… and we really only had five weeks to do it


(we spent most of the first at KBS – which was awesome by the way… don’t cut it out). It really isn’t giving me any time to pursue other lab interests, like preparing a paper for publication with my lab group and I am a little disappointed about that. I understand that we are being funded through NSF and they want to make sure we are busy… but a little free time to allow us to explore other academic interest would be good too. A little time management here and there, it should be fine though.

7/16/2012 I like having Fridays for curriculum. Due to the nature of my lab, I often do curriculum during lab time (when necessary) and lab work at home (because of the materials I have to use).

7/23/2012 I am missing the time that we had last year to collaborate with other teachers. Although some of us meet for lunch once in a while, it’s not the same and not as rewarding.

7/23/2012 Thanks for the opportunity! 7/31/2012 We had 3-4 hours of PD about using the I Pads as educational tools and then we

do not get to use them during the school year, despite Drew telling us more than once we would have them until December. In hindsight this appears to be an instance of MSU being used as an advertising platform for Apple, even if that wasn’t the intention. It has the feel of a time share condo presentation and I thought it called into question the integrity of an otherwise excellent program. Full disclosure, my spouse thinks I am just grumpy because someone took my toy away.

7/31/2012 A terrific experience. It was enjoyable to learn and be exposed to the wonderful research going on at MSU. I am very grateful for the opportunity!

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

I was very lucky to have had a very productive and enjoyable experience. I do not have anything that I would wish to change.

First-Year Teacher Suggestions. The first-year teachers were asked to provide suggestions for possible assistance or opportunities they want to see in assisting them in their teaching and the students' learning.

Support. It would be useful to have some ongoing communication with the team and our peers to see

how the work is going, and if we need additional resources or have questions. 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, and more seminar and time devoted to curriculum development.

More teachers, structured time for teachers to compare what they might take away from this lab. I think more cooperative efforts between the teachers could be useful, perhaps in sub-groups?

Maybe slightly shorter day and longer duration? It felt a little crunched this year. I’d love to have shorter times each day on site for curriculum the first two weeks (this

brainstorming time and it’s difficult to do that effectively in large stretches). I feel this sentiment would extend to my experience in my first year as well.

Second-Year Teacher Recommendations on Weekly Schedule.

Teachers should be allowed to adjust daily schedules to the schedule of the grad students they’re working with. Most don’t get out of bed until 10am. This usually leads to sitting in labs waiting for a while each morning for people to arrive.

Having a full day to focus on curriculum was very helpful and much more efficient than spending a couple hours each day.

Why have us in the labs at 8:00am when no one is in there? I missed the time to collaborate with other teachers that we had last year. While it was nice

having Fridays to work all day, I did miss that collaboration. However, it did allow for continuous work on lesson plans which was really helpful.

I LOVE the full day of curriculum but had difficulty using the full day until about two weeks into my lab.

This year with the truncated time table, I felt very rushed and didn’t get to complete some things to my satisfaction.

Second-Year Teacher Suggestions.


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.

Assistance in assessing the effectiveness of our new curriculum. Support for student field trips would be great! Having a guest speaker would be great too. Materials and possibly having faculty come in to the classroom to present on a certain subject.

Conclusion All in all, the final year of the RET Institute was a success. As exhibited by the teacher responses, all thought it was a worthwhile endeavor for themselves and their work. The teachers stated that the research and professional development opportunities were beneficial and that the weeks were well worth their time and effort. In this section, I want to provide recommendations for improving the summer Institute along with improving the connection with the teachers during the academic year. Preparation for the Institute Teachers felt like they were prepared for the Institute. The first-year teachers felt that they had indeed met their goals as they had outlined in the pre-survey and they were either almost done or done with their curriculum. As for the second-year teachers, they were again glad that they had participated and want to participate yet again. For many (4 of the 5 returning), the second year of participation was much better than their first year as they knew what to expect and could continue to build on the research conducted in the previous year. The second-year teachers indicated that they have their curriculum either all the way or almost done (80%). Only one second-year teacher indicated that they were not on target at all. However, these comments are reflected in the report. The orientation this year seemed to really outline the expectations of the program to the teachers and the collaboration between them also assisted in their preparation. I would encourage opportunities for the teachers to collaborate not only at orientation, but throughout the program as it would enhance the outcomes of the RET institute. Additionally, it would allow for informal mentoring between the first and second year teachers and help move the first-year teachers along in their research more readily. Research The teachers’ reflection on the research component of the program was very positive. They all stated that they had learned quite a bit not only on conducting research, but in terms of language and other components to working in the science field. Their only concern was the shortened length of the program as they would have liked an additional week or two to work on their research, as well as their curriculum. Additionally, they had mixed feelings about the support from faculty and graduate students. A few of the teachers had concerns with faculty traveling during the program and a perception of lack of access. They also expressed concerns that the faculty were not as well versed in the goals of the RET Institute as they could have been. Curriculum Development Overall, the teachers enjoyed having a space to develop curriculum for their classroom. However, as last year, they found writing for teachengineering.org to be limiting and difficult despite having the connection to a consultant. They also stated that having to place their curriculum into a specific format limits what they can do in that they cannot do large-scale lessons. In the future, I would recommend utilizing both a consultant from teachengineering.org, as well as having a curriculum development specialist available to the teachers during the program on-campus. This way, when they feel that they


are facing difficulty, they have another person to reflect on their lesson design with who would be able to offer suggestions. They also would like more opportunities to dialogue and interact with one another over curriculum development. This year the teachers also had the opportunity to use an I Pad in their curriculum development. They indicated that they liked the opportunity to test it out and that they used it for note-taking and for presentation development. However, as it was not something that they could keep beyond the time of the summer institute that they felt its use to be limited. While they learned to use the I Pad, having the opportunity to continue its use in the course of the academic year with students would improve their ability to use it in curriculum design. Professional Development All participants felt that they have a greater connection to Michigan State University and its resources, as well as the field of engineering. They have more knowledge to take back to their students. Additionally, the teachers commented on how their knowledge of science and its language greatly improved. Finally, they indicated that their skills in presenting and research had progressed. In the future, I would recommend building more opportunities for presenting research and talking with students about engineering into the program as it seems to increase the connection to the field of engineering. Continued Involvement All participants indicated a willingness and eagerness to continue their participation in the RET program. They all found it incredibly valuable to both themselves and to their students. All of the teachers, both first and second year, were incredibly grateful to have been given the opportunity to be involved for this third and final year of the RET program.

Survey Instruments

RET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year Teachers

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 6162831771. Best wishes on your RET experience. Shannon Lynn Burton, Ph.D.

1.


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:

2. RET Teacher PreSurvey

*

Less than 3 years

nmlkj

36 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

More than 10 years

nmlkj

At MSU

nmlkj

At home

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj


1. How did you learn about the RET program?

2. Why did you want to participate in RET?

3. 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?

3. RET PreProgram Survey

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Somewhat

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for First-Year Teachers8. Rate the 2day orientation.

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

10. 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

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year Teachers

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 6162831771. Best wishes on your RET experience. Shannon Lynn Burton, Ph.D.

1.


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:

2. RET Teacher PreSurvey

*

Less than 3 years

nmlkj

36 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

More than 10 years

nmlkj

At MSU

nmlkj

At home

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj


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?

3. 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?

3. RET PreProgram Survey

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 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year TeachersRET 2012 Pre-Evaluation for Second-Year Teachers7. 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)?

9. 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

55

66

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Fair

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012

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 msuburton or 6162831771 . Best wishes on a great and successful academic year. Thank you! Shannon

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

1. RET FirstYear Teacher PostProgram Survey

*


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.

2. 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.

2. RET Program Goals

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Average

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 20125. Please tell us why you rated Goal #3 the way you did.

55

66


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.

3. 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).

3.

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Completely satisfied

nmlkj

2 = Mostly satisfied

nmlkj

3 = Mixedequally satisfied and dissatisfied

nmlkj

4 = Most dissatisfied

nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatisfied

nmlkj

1 = Yes

nmlkj

2 = Somewhat

nmlkj

3 = No

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

4 = Mostly dissatisfied

nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatsfied

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 20127. Please rate your satisfaction of working with teachengineering.org on curriculum development.

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

9. 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 teachengineering.org on your curriculum plan?

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

55

66

55

66

55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

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


13. Please rate your overall satisfaction with using the Ipad provided in the development of your curriculum.

14. In what ways did use utilize the Ipad in the development of your curriculum and throughout the program?

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

16. 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?

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

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

*

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Overly Dissatsified

nmlkj

Dissatisfied

nmlkj

No opinion

nmlkj

Satisfied

nmlkj

Very Satisfied

nmlkj

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 1st Year Teacher Post-Survey 201219. Did you feel prepared for your RET experience?

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

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

22. Recommendations for improving the program for next year?

23. 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.

24. Other comments.

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

Somewhat

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012

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 6162831771. Best wishes on a great and successful academic year. Thank you! Shannon

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

1. RET SecondYear Teacher PostProgram Survey

*


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.

2. 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.

2. RET Program Goals

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 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 20125. Please tell us why you rated Goal #3 the way you did.

55

66


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.

3. 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)?

3.

55

66

55

66

55

66


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

4 = Most dissatisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj

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

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 20127. 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).

9. 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 teachengineering.org on curriculum development.

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

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Yes

nmlkj

2 = Somewhat

nmlkj

3 = No

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

5 = Completely dissatsfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 201213. Please rate your curriculum plan as of right now.

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

15. What are the tangible skills and abilities you now have after working with the faculty/graduate students on your research and teachengineering.org 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. How satisfied were you in utilzing the Ipad in your curriculum development?

55

66

55

66

55

66

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


nmlkj


nmlkj

3 = Mixed=equally satisfied and dissatisfied

nmlkj


nmlkj


nmlkj

Overly dissatisfied

gfedc

Dissatisfied

gfedc

No opinion

gfedc

Satisfied

gfedc

Very Satisfied

gfedc


19. Please comment on how you used the Ipad throughout the RET program in your curriculum development.

20. 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?

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

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

23. 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.

24. Please provide any feedback regarding the weekly schedule.

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

*

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

55

66

1 = Excellent

nmlkj

2 = Good

nmlkj

3 = Fair

nmlkj

4 = Poor

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 2012RET 2nd Year Teacher Post-Survey 201226. 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.

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

28. Other comments.

55

66

55

66

55

66

RET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 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 6162831771. Best Wishes, Shannon Lynn Burton, Ph.D.

1. RET Teacher Weekly Evaluation

RET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly Survey

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.

6. 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).

2.

*55

66

*55

66

55

66

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Did not participate in professional development this week.

nmlkj

RET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly SurveyRET 2012 Weekly Survey8. 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

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Did not work on it

nmlkj

Excellent

nmlkj

Good

nmlkj

Average

nmlkj

Poor

nmlkj

Documents

Research Experience for Teachers (RET) · 2013-08-12 · participate in a research experience or for professional development: Chance to do research, learn more about bioengineering