An Engineering Research Program For High School Science Teachers Feedback And Lessons Learned From The Pilot Implementation

A Engineering Research Program for High School Science Teachers: Feedback and Lessons Learned from the Pilot
Implementation
A Engineering Research Program for High School
Science Teachers: Feedback and Lessons Learned
from the Pilot Implementation
Kumar Yelamarthi, Central Michigan University; Tolga Kaya, Central Michigan University; Brian DeJong, Central Michigan University;
Daniel Chen, Central Michigan University; Qin Hu, Central Michigan University; Frank Cheng, Central Michigan University
Abstract
The engineering research program for high school science
teachers at Central Michigan University was created through
the National Science Foundation’s Research Experience for
Teachers program with the goals of providing the high-
school teachers a broad overview of engineering, enhancing
their engineering skills through research experience, and
assisting them to take their learning’s back to their
respective high-schools for curriculum development. Seven
in-service teachers, and five pre-service teachers participated
in a six-week research program during which they
completed a research project with an underlying theme of
smart-vehicles. Through the numerous feedback surveys,
reflection sessions, and lessons learned during the program,
it was found that all participants were able to engage in a
meaningful research experience that allowed them to
understand and practice the engineering research process,
and enhance their teaching effectiveness. The overall
combination of research and professional coaching sessions
has created an effective professional development program
for high-school teachers, thus contributing towards the
enhancement of K-12 education. In addition to presenting
details on the program, this paper includes lessons learned
by the engineering faculty with the hope that, this
information will help others who are planning to initiate a
similar program at their respective institutions.
Introduction
In the recent years, Science Technology Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) educators, professionals, business
leaders, and policymakers have recognized and highlighted
the requirement to build a strong and technologically trained
workforce. This requires a strong K-16 education system
with qualified and trained educators. While the American
college level educators are willing to train this workforce,
the K-12 education system is currently suffering from a
crisis of inadequate teacher preparation in STEM disciplines
leading to low student preparation and performance [1]. On
the top of this limited opportunities available for K-12
teachers, soon the K-12 science teachers will be required to
follow the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with
a strong overarching focus on engineering [2].
As most K-12 science teachers do not have any training in
engineering concepts, there is a lack of high quality
curricular materials, and professional development programs
in this area [3]. So, new inclusive professional development
programs for K-12 teachers are required to address the new
education standards for improved classroom teaching and
learning [4-7]. These professional development programs are
a catalyst for K-12 educational reform, and should include
technological content and resources that expand their
knowledge and ability to apply it in their classroom. Some of
the key factors for these professional development programs
include: 1) active engagement with hands-on activity related
to the new science standards; 2) collaboration, sharing, and
exchange of ideas and practices; 3) interaction with college
level educators; and 4) active participation in pedagogy
workshops.
Based on these key factors and information available in
the Council of Chief State School Officers report [8], the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Experience for
Teachers (RET) program at Central Michigan University
(CMU) has been designed with the following features: 1)
Active Learning: High-school science teachers were actively
involved in a engineering research project with focus on
smart-vehicles; 2) Coherence: Activities built on what they
learned, and led to more advanced work; 3) Content Focus:
Content was designed to help prepare teachers for the new
science standards [2] by enhancing their knowledge and
skills; 4) Duration: Professional development for teachers
extended over six weeks during the summer, and follow up
for lesson plan development during the school year; 5)
Collaboration: In-service teachers (IST) work with pre-
service teachers (PST), undergraduate engineering students
(ES), and engineering faculty to learn from each other; and
6) Collective Participation: All participants worked together
in teams, met with the entire participant group to discuss
strategies, and also published their findings at a premier
technical conference or archival journal.
Previous Work
Identifying the needs and challenges of preparing K-12
teachers, several universities has initiated professional
development programs. With the primary theme of
biomedical engineering, Vanderbilt University has
implemented the RET program [9, 10], where participants

The Technology Interface International Journal
followed a legacy model of designing instructional resources
while in the program, and taught them in the following year
in their respective classrooms. Similarly, Georgia Institute of
Technology’s Physics RET program presented that teacher
improved their ability to encourage students to pursue a
science or engineering degree [11]. Also, the Texas A&M
RET program focused on improving teachers’ knowledge
about careers in engineering [12]. In addition, Tennessee
Tech University (TTU) proposed a research program
involving IST, PST, ES, and a faculty member to work on a
research project for 5 weeks [13]. One other similar RET site
present in the literature is from University of Pittsburgh [14],
where ISTs are required to work for 8-weeks during the
summer on a research project, implement 6-8 week design
based learning modules in their classes, conduct design
competition for students in classes of the RET teachers, and
offer summer internships at the university for the winning
high school students.
While all the above state programs and others published
[15-19] differ by their unique goals and activities, they share
the same goal of professional development of K-12 teachers
to better prepare the future workforce. Successful
implementations of these professional development
programs require significant contributions from engineering
faculty and the university administration. While the IST,
PST, and ES typically have financial incentives to
participate in these programs, that is usually not the case for
engineering faculty. These faculty members participate in-
part because preparing K-12 teachers helps better prepare
incoming freshman, and increase student recruitment
through publicity at schools of participating teachers.
While evaluating these objectives requires a longitudinal
study of the program over an extended period of time, it is
the authors’ belief that sharing the initial reflections of all
participants (engineering faculty, IST, PST) will be
beneficial for the engineering education community.
Although substantial literature exists to highlight
significance of other RET programs, very few, if any,
present participant reflections and qualitative assessment of
respective programs. Identifying this limitation, this paper
presents an overview of the CMU – NSF RET program,
initial reflections of all participants, qualitative assessment
of initial implementation, lessons learned, and improvements
planned for next year.
RET Program Goals and Hypothesis
The National Science Foundation supports the
professional development of K-12 teachers through several
programs, including but not limited to the RET [20]. The
NSF’s stated primary objective for the RET program is to
support the active involvement of K-12 science, technology,
engineering, computer and information science, and
mathematics (STEM) teachers and community college
faculty in engineering and computer science research in
order to bring knowledge of engineering, computer
science, and technological innovation into their classrooms.
Identifying the limited professional development opportunity
available for K-12 teachers in the Michigan rural areas, in
the fall of 2011 CMU proposed an RET site to engage K-12
teachers of rural Michigan in a six week research program
with the underlying theme of ‘Smart-Vehicles,’ and was
awarded support of this program for three years.
In the summer of 2012, CMU initiated the RET program
with the following key aspects: active learning, coherence,
content focus, duration, collaboration, and collective
participation. The primary goals of the NSF CMU RET
program are: 1) establish a collaborative partnership between
the various entities of the university, high school STEM IST
and PST, and assessment leaders at an external organization;
2) provide a STEM based platform through which the IST
and PST can gain exposure to several engineering concepts
with a focus on smart vehicles; and 3) facilitate the
development of high school STEM based classroom
instructional materials with IST and PST who serve rural
Michigan areas.
In order to evaluate the program goals, the following
questions were asked:
a) Could IST and PST engage in an engineering research
project that would allow them to both do and understand
the research process?
b) Could teachers develop and implement K-12 level
instructional materials based on research experience?
c) Could this program positively affect teachers’ opinions
and attitudes towards engineering and the use of
challenge-based instructional materials?
d) How do teachers develop as scientific researchers when
immersed in a research project?
e) How well do IST and PST understand the research
process after participation in this program?
Several hypotheses were established prior to beginning of
this program. IST would have the skills necessary to engage
in an engineering research project. IST and PST would
understand the methodology of conducting research to help
translate their research experience into classroom
instructional resources. All participants would gain an
understanding of research process after participating in this
program, and also assist the engineering faculty in advancing
their respective research projects.
Program Description
Participant recruitment and program efforts have started
right after receipt of the RET site award notification in April
2012. Initially, the principal investigator (PI) worked with
the faculty members to develop diverse projects with the
underlying theme of Smart-Vehicles. Also during the same
time, the PI and Co-PI drafted the application material for
participant recruitment, and informed schools in the

Implementation
Intermediate School Districts (ISD) of the opportunity
available. From the pool of applications received, 12 (7 IST
and 5 PST) were chosen for the pilot program in summer
2012. Based on the number of participants recruited, it was
identified that six teams would be formed with each team
comprising of one IST, one PST, one undergraduate ES, and
one engineering faculty. This model would bring forward
strengths (teaching experience of basic sciences from IST,
enthusiasm and willingness to try new strategies from the
PST, hands-on experience and motivation to engage in
research from an undergraduate ES, and mentoring skills and
technical expertise of an engineering faculty member) of
each participant to reinforce learning and teaching
environment within each team.
The CMU RET program was a six-week program that
began with a one-week orientation session for all IST and
PST participants. This orientation week started with
welcome and participant introductions, followed by
explaining the rationale behind chosen team model, and
engineering faculty members presenting their respective
projects. Upon completion of these project presentations, all
ISTs’ and PSTs’ were requested to write short descriptions
of a few projects and how they could translate each project
to their classrooms to improve the basic science classes.
Accordingly, teams were formed by end of week-1 based on
this statement and optional professor’s ratings of the
participant’s interest in the project. In addition, other
sessions attended by the participants include obtaining
identification cards, parking permits, CMU campus tour,
engineering and technology building tour, coaching sessions
on team building, classroom flipping techniques, and
engineering programs at CMU [21].
Beginning week-2, participants spent 20 hours on
research, 8 hours on coaching (teacher training), 4 hours on
group reflections and team planning, and 3 hours visiting
other research labs and attending talks of various
individuals. Some of the research projects that participants
were involved in are i) semi-autonomous tour guide robot
[22-24] ii) automated waste sorter, iii) sensor development
for unmanned vehicles [25-26], and iv) robot teleoperation
as shown in fig. 1. During the research portion of the
program, each participant worked closely with the respective
engineering faculty to clearly articulate the goals and
expectations, monitor the daily and weekly progress, and
seek assistance as necessary. To accomplish the tasks set
forth, ISTs and PSTs were provided extensive assistance not
just by the engineering faculty, but also by the ESs. Once the
initial research training of the participants was completed
(mostly week-2), teams focused on their own research
projects through project based modules [27] and problem-
based learning [28] for higher knowledge retention.
Although each project had its own challenges, participants
dealt with several engineering related researching problems
that can be listed as 1) process optimization, 2) circuit design
and testing, 3) manufacturing tolerances, 4) literature
reading and surveying, and 5) advanced engineering
software usage for material characterization.
During the coaching sessions, participants were introduced
to various effective classroom teaching activities, critical
thinking skills, review of next generation science standards
(NGSS), and hands-on learning activities. During the group
reflections and team planning time, all participants gathered
and discussed what they have accomplished that respective
day/week, and how they could to infuse these
accomplishments into their classroom teaching. These group
reflections provided many advantages such as an opportunity
to learn about other projects, sharing strategies to solve
similar problems, and increased rapport among all
participants. In addition to participating in research,
coaching sessions, and group reflections, participants were
also introduced to different research activities through other
engineering and science faculty presentations and visitation
to their respective research labs.
The CMU RET program concluded with a poster
presentation session detailing the research accomplished.
During the post academic year, trained academic and
leadership coaches from Science, Mathematics, Technology
Center (SMTC) carried out the professional development
activities through class visits, coaching, and curricular
activity development. With one of the challenges faced by
IST being translating their summer research into high-school
science classes per the new common core standards adopted
by Michigan, these coaches worked with IST and provided
guidance to design the necessary lesson plans. Several
engineering related classroom activities were planned and
executed with these coaches through the high school visits.
IST and PST worked together on these activities.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 1. Prototype of projects: (a) semi-autonomous tour
guide robot; (b) autonomous waste sorter; (c) sensors
fabricated for unmanned vehicles; (d) teleoperation robot
testing different alignments

In addition, for broader dissemination of knowledge
gained, all participants were required to publish their
findings and experiences at a premier conference or journal.
Through technical guidance, five papers have been accepted
for publication at two international engineering education
conferences, and two poster presentation sessions have also
been delivered for the Michigan Science Teachers
Association annual meeting [29-33].
Participant Reflections
In-service and Pre-Service Teachers
IST participants were recruited from local Intermediate
School Districts (ISD) in the following rural Michigan
counties: Clare, Gladwin, Gratiot, Isabella, Iona, and
Montcalm. PST participants on the other hand were recruited
from the highly renowned teacher education program at
CMU. All IST and PST applicants were required to submit
an application packet with the following information: 1)
professional statement addressing their career goals and
expectations regarding the project; 2) career milestones; 3)
active participation in student science activities such as
science fairs; 4) teaching and research awards received; 5)
previous related experience; 6) courses taught; 7) grade
point average for PSTs’; and 8) name and contact
information of two references. From the applications
received, the ‘RET administrators’ recruited all participants
through a rigorous selection process. Criteria used to select
the participants include: skills or attitude towards teamwork,
motivation for professional development, evidence of
knowledge in science and education, willingness to share the
knowledge at their home schools through instructional
resources, geographic diversity, and support from the
participants’ home institution.
From the numerous applications received, seven IST and
five PST were selected for participation during the first year
of RET program. Overall, the following summary statistics
are found for all participants:
• 7 (58%) IST, 5 (42%) PST
• 12 (100%) Whites
• 8 (67%) Males and 4 (33%) Females
The classroom teaching experience of IST ranged from 4
to 19 years, where they have taught a range of high school
subjects including, but not limited to: physics, physical
science, chemistry, mathematics, wildlife agri-science,
biology, biotechnology, anatomy, geology, and
environmental science. All the IST participants had a college
degree in science or mathematics. In addition, the amount of
STEM related professional development activities they were
involved over the past three years varied from 80 to 250
hours. Some of them had master’s degree in education
technology or sciences. Few of them had also several years
of industry experience. As all PST participants are students
pursuing teacher education programs in Integrated Sciences,
most participants were recruited from CMU (One student
was from Western Michigan University) during the first year
of offering the RET program. The amount of STEM related
professional development activities they were involved in
over the past three years varied from 10 hours to 150 days.
To evaluate the program goals, participants (IST and PST)
were asked about their experiences during the program. The
questions and their respective responses are categorized in
the following manner:
1) Were you able to establish a relationship with a university
faculty member, CEIE to assist in improving your teaching
and interpersonal abilities,
- learned new approaches in pedagogy through
collaboration
- gained networking opportunities
2) Were you able to engage in meaningful STEM based
research project and understand the research process behind?
- gained exposure to engineering product development
- challenges in engineering research
3) Did you gain new skills that would help in the
development of STEM based classroom instructional
materials?
- learned ways to incorporate engineering into high-school
classroom
- exposure to clear expectations from a high-school teacher.
Paraphrased sample responses and feedback obtained
from ISTs are presented in Table 1, demonstrating that they
have increased their network by establishing relationships
with fellow educators, were able to engage in STEM based
research and appreciate the intricacies behind it, and
Table 1. Paraphrased reflections of In-Service Teachers
Ques
tion
Reflections
1
• Learned a lot
• Learned new approaches to manage my class as
well as my life as a teacher
• Networking with fellow teachers, and working
together to learn and solve technical problems
• Gained an appreciation for the hard work of the
design team behind the technological
advancements
2
• Learned the engineering design process, and how
to integrated the same into classroom
• Was able to conduct research and enhance
technical skills
• Learned the intricacies in engineering research
3
• How to integrate scientific research elements into
middle and high school classroom
• How to incorporate engineering design process
into my classroom curriculum
• Gained new ideas to promote engineering in high-
school classroom

Implementation
Table 2. Paraphrased reflections of Pre-Service Teachers
Ques
tion
Reflections
1
• Able to better plan my future in classroom
teaching
• Gained networking opportunities with ISTs for
potential collaboration in the future
• Learned new teaching strategies for effective
student learning
• Learned how to solve problems from an
engineering stand point
2
• Gained exposure and appreciation for intricacies
involved in engineering research
• Learned the engineering design process, and how
to incorporate it into K-12 curriculum
3
• Gained familiarity with NGGS and an exposure to
what will be expected from school teachers in the
near future
• More prepared to teach engineering process and
encourage students to pursue engineering as a
career choice
• Gained technical knowledge that would help me
design engineering based lessons in middle and
high school curriculum
primarily gain new technical skills that foster their ability to
improve the STEM based curriculum in their respective
high-schools. Similarly, paraphrased sample responses and
feedback obtained from PSTs are presented in Table 2,
demonstrating that they have learned the challenges faced by
practicing teachers and engineers, gained an understanding
of engineering research, and mostly importantly feel more
prepared to teach engineering to high school students, and
encourage them to pursue engineering as a career.
Undergraduate Engineering Students
The rationale behind involving undergraduate ES in this
project is based on two factors: assist the IST and PST in
conducting engineering research, and engage them in
engineering research through teamwork [34]. Reflections of
IST and PST participants clearly show that ES were able to
successfully assist them in conducting engineering research.
In order to assess how participation in this program helped
these engineering students, the following questions were
asked: 1) were you able to engaged in engineering research
project and gain an understanding of process behind, 2) did
you develop any new skills that would help in your
education, 3) did this program nourish your motivation to
pursue further research. Feedback obtained from these
undergraduate ES demonstrated that through teamwork, they
were able to conceptualize an idea, identify the problem, and
solve it accordingly. Most importantly, undergraduate ES
feel more prepared in solving problems.
Program Assessment
With the primary goals of establishing a collaborative
partnership, providing a STEM based platform for science
teachers, and facilitating the development of high school
classroom instructional resources, it is crucial to focus on
continuous improvement. Accordingly, prior to the
beginning of the RET program, a pre-survey was conducted.
Some of the aspects assessed during this pre-survey are
reasons for participation, expected benefits, expected
challenges, perceived benefit for high-school students, and
their perceptions on science and engineering principles as
presented in Tables 3,4,5,6,7.
Table 3. Pre-Survey-Reasons for Participation
Reasons for Participation
IST PST ES
No. No. No.
Opportunity to engage in
engineering research
2 - 2
Learn how to teach engineering
concepts
2 2 -
Network with fellow educators
with similar interests
- 2 1
Learn new teaching strategies 2 2 -
Gain an edge on my resume or job
search
- 2 -
Learning experience 2 1 3
Others (Financial, NGGS) 3 1 1
Table 4. Pre-Survey-Expected Benefits
Expected Benefits
IST PST ES
No. No. No.
Enhance research skills - - 5
Implementation of engineering
into my curriculum or classroom
4 1 -
Updated lessons based on NGGS 3 1 -
Gain exposure to engineering
and related challenges
2 5 2
Learn effective teaching
strategies
- 2 -
Networking - 2 -
Others - 1 1
Table 5. Pre-Survey of Expected Challenges
Expected Challenges
IST PST ES
No. No. No.
Limited exposure to engineering
research
3 3 2
Working with teachers - - 3
Translate engineering research
into high school curriculum
- 2 -
Others (Lack of funding, not sure) 4 1 1

Table 6. Pre-Survey of expected benefits for high school
students
Ways This Program Will Benefit High
School Students
IST PST ES
No. No. No.
Prepare them for future careers and
college
3 2 4
They will benefit from a well-
informed teacher
- 4 -
It will expose them to engineering
concepts
3 1 2
Others 2 - -
For the common reason to participate, while majority of
IST stated opportunity to learn and participate in engineering
research to design new lesson plans are the primary reasons,
PST stated that networking, and professional development
are the primary reasons. While there is a difference in
reasons to participate, it is clear that the program could serve
not only practicing teachers, but also prospective
schoolteachers. Per the expected benefits, as the ISTs have
prior teaching experience, their responses focused more on
making connections between their experiences and NGSS,
updating lessons plans, and implementing the same in their
classroom, and less on networking. Due to the limited
teaching experience of PSTs, their responses focused more
on learning about engineering, networking, and learning
from experienced teachers. Undergraduate ESs who were the
support personnel in this program gained opportunity to
enhance research skills, while at the same time learn about
different engineering perspectives.
Per the expected challenges, all participants stated that
unfamiliarity with engineering concepts and research is the
primary challenge. Due to their limited classroom teaching
experience, the PSTs also stated that finding ways to
incorporate engineering into their respective classrooms
might also be a challenge, which is answered through the
post academic year support provided by CEIE coaches.
When asked how their participation in this program would
benefit high school students, both ISTs and PSTs stated that
this program would provide them information and
knowledge that would be shared with high-school students,
resulting in they being more prepared for future careers and
college. In addition, ISTs stated that the new instructional
resources developed from this program might help expose
high-school students to engineering practice and research,
while PSTs stated that the professional development
experience provided by this program would prepare them
well to be a well-informed teacher.
In addition, all participants were asked to rate the degree
to which they agree or disagree with ten statements about
science and engineering as presented in Table 7. The first
three questions were related to participants’ perceptions of
the nature of engineering, science, and/or mathematics. The
next three questions were related to the participants’
Table 7. Questions in Pre-Survey of Perceptions of science and
engineering
No. Question
1
You have to study engineering for a long time
before you see how useful it is
2
Memorization plays a central role in learning basic
science, math, and engineering concepts
3
A lot of things in science must be simply accepted
as true and remembered
4
It is important to teach students how to think and
communicate scientifically
5
Every student should feel that science is something
he/she can do
6
Every student should feel that engineering is
something he/she can do
7
I understand science concepts well enough to be
effective in teaching them
8
I understand engineering concepts well enough to
be effective in teaching them
9
I am typically able to answer students' questions
related to science
10
I am typically able to answer students' questions
related to engineering
perceptions of the students (or of what students should be
expected to do). The last four questions were related to
assessing the confidence level of participants. Results
obtained from these questions are presented in fig.2. While
the responses of all groups were similar in aspects such as
developing significance of science and engineering in
student through a can-do attitude, and effective
communication, there are some aspects where they differ
statistically. For instance, while ISTs stated that they have an
in-depth understanding of science concepts to be effective in
teaching them and answering students’ questions, PST stated
that they do not. However, when it comes to engineering
concepts, ISTs stated they have a mediocre understanding,
the PSTs stated they have very little understanding to teach
engineering and answer students’ questions, demonstrating
the need for more engineering experiences.
Figure 2. Responses from participants for the pre-survey of
perceptions on science and engineering

Implementation
During the last week of RET program, a post-survey with
the following questions was conducted to evaluate if the
program goals were met. i) Could ISTs and PSTs engage in
an engineering research project? ii) Did ISTs gain skills to
develop high-school level instructional materials based on
the research experience? iii) Did this program positively
affect ISTs and PSTs opinions and attitudes towards
engineering? iv) How do ISTs and PSTs develop as
scientific researchers when immersed in a research project?
v) How well do ISTs and PSTs understand the research
process after participation in this program?
Based on the self-reported scores, it was found that ISTs
and PSTs were able to successfully engage in an engineering
research project, and were able to convey basic engineering
concepts through their respective research projects. In
addition, a few stated that they learned the over-arching
concepts of engineering approaches and problem solving,
demonstrating our successful attempts to engage participants
in research. Per development of skills, majority of
participants stated that this program helped develop their
skills, abilities and attitudes related to curriculum
development and assessment. Furthermore, participants were
asked if the professional development sessions on effective
teaching were helpful. For this, while the PSTs stated that
these sessions were very helpful, there was a mixed response
from ISTs. This diverse response from ISTs might be
attributed to the different teaching experiences and prior
participation in similar projects ahead of time. While, a few
ISTs stated that information in these sessions is not new,
they all agreed that it is a good refresher.
When asked about affect on teachers’ opinion and
attitudes towards engineering, majority stated that the
program has successfully engaged them in engineering
research projects, facilitating the development of high school
STEM-based classroom instructional materials. In addition,
majority participants stated they will redesign lessons and
projects, or implement new lessons and projects, based on
what they have learned, and that they are equipped to teach
engineering principles in high-school classes. As these
participants are working with CEIE staff currently (during
the academic year) to design and implement engineering
based instructional material, further evaluation on this aspect
will be done at end of the academic year.
In addition, to evaluate how well participants understand
the research process and develop as scientific researchers,
reflection sessions were included during weekly activities.
These sessions were tailored for participants to share
information on their learning experiences and how they plan
to incorporate the same in their high-school classroom
teaching. During these sessions, faculty observed that
participants gained an understanding of scientific research,
core-engineering skills, and primarily learned the intricacies
behind engineering research. Overall, participants rated this
reflection session to very useful. Furthermore, to broadly
disseminate participant learning’s, they were required to
publish their work at a premier conference or an archival
journal, and accordingly four papers have been accepted for
publication at two international engineering education
conferences, and two poster presentation sessions have been
planned for the Michigan Science Teachers Association
annual meeting.
Overall, the pilot CMU-RET program has been successful
in meeting the goals set forth for all in-service and PST.
Though all participants (IST and PST) worked in teams on
the same project, the learning experience of each is different.
The unique strength of each group (IST- teaching
experience, PST-enthusiasm to learn, exposure to new
technology) complimented the limitation of the other,
leading to an effective learning experience, and thus
successfully realizing the program goals.
Lessons Learned and Future
Directions
Alongside pilot implementation of the CMU RET
program in summer 2012 and conducting program
assessment, the engineering faculty has learned several
lessons that could be of potential use to other engineering
educators considering a similar program. As the School of
Engineering and Technology at CMU offers only
undergraduate degrees, it has to be noted that these lessons
are feedback from the engineering faculty, who usually work
solely with undergraduate students.
Lesson 1: RET program can help cultivate
a research culture in an undergraduate
institution
The CMU engineering faculty are actively engaged in
personal and undergraduate research, but have struggled in
the past to maintain a research culture in the building,
especially during summer months. Pilot implementation of
the RET program generated an atmosphere of scholarly
activity as experienced by program participants, students,
and faculty. During the course of RET program, faculty
reported that they were able to advance their research, train
their research assistant, improve their leadership and
management skills, thus gaining the momentum required to
sustain research progress in the semesters to follow.
Administration and faculty from other departments
witnessed this nurturing atmosphere, and provided positive
feedback during the poster session at end of the program.
Overall, the RET program can be a useful tool for
stimulating scholarly excitement in departments where
opportunities for scholarly activity are limited.

Lesson 2: RET projects must be carefully
designed for a mix of backgrounds
As initially anticipated, the IST did not have the
engineering background necessary for conducting advanced
engineering design or analysis. However, the engineering
faculty was pleasantly surprised with the motivation of ISTs,
who were very studious in accomplishing the goals
compared to undergraduate students. These ISTs came with
a “Show me what to do; I’m ready to get involved!,” attitude
which is less common in . Accordingly, the RET projects
with significant focus on engineering research, design, and
analysis were not as successful as projects with limited
research and analysis (conducted by the ES and faculty
member) and more hands-on activities (conducted by ISTs
and PSTs). For instance, the teleoperation project involved
integrating the robot and interface, writing the control code,
and designing the human-based experiment, which were
primarily accomplished by the engineering faculty and
student, and the IST and PST focused on proctoring the
experiments and analyzing the results. In a broad sense,
engineering research and engineering implementation
projects worked better than engineering design projects.
Lesson 3: Significant preparation is
needed prior to the RET weeks
During the program, all engineering faculty stated that
they should have done more preparation prior to start of the
RET program. This limited preparation can be attributed to
several factors such as short time span between the initial
RET award notification and program implementation,
limited exposure to knowledge and capabilities of ISTs and
PSTs, and lack of graduate students. As the research goals
had to be accomplished in the six weeks, for the next
summer when this program is offered, the engineering
faculty intends to initiate preparation work the month before
by training the ES. Also, since majority of the preparation is
design-related or technical in nature, and we learned (lesson-
2) that ISTs have limited success in design-related activities,
this initial preparation work might assist towards
accomplishing the research goals set forth. In addition,
faculty also plan to set clear expectations and requirements
for all participants, and provide background reading material
prior to beginning of the program, so that participants can
better allocate their time to conduct quality research work.
Lesson 4: RET program requires a
significant time commitment from the
faculty, or graduate students under the
faculty
The RET program was beneficial for the engineering
faculty: it encouraged their research, encouraged them as
they saw teachers and students getting excited about
engineering, and produced useful research results. But it was
also time-intensive; in many cases, unexpectedly so. The
engineering faculty spent significant time advising the
teachers and students, and often did the design and technical
work themselves. Much of this was due to the lack of a
graduate program, but even with a graduate program
someone (faculty or graduate student) will need to spend
time designing the project, preparing the background
materials, setting expectations, directing the student and
teachers, and disseminating results. The project will have
limited success without this effort. Overall, while this
program is a good platform to cultivate research culture in
an undergraduate program focused institution; it requires a
significant time commitment from participating faculty, and
their respective students.
Based on the results and lessons learned from the pilot
program, the following changes are planned for next year:
1. Applications: all participants will be required to
draft a personal statement of expectations from this
project. This would help the administration identify
candidates that would benefit the most from this program.
In addition, advertisements will be sent to ISD in late Fall
semester to encourage broader participation.
2. Project teams: Engineering faculty members will
meet in early spring semester to discuss the projects, set
the expectations and goals. Engineering undergraduate
students will be notified in advance and will be asked to
initiate the research project in early summer.
3. Lesson plans: All participants will be required to
design a unit plan (4-5 hours long lesson plan for their
respective high-school classes) during the coaching
sessions in summer, and present it to other participants
and faculty members for potential adoption in the same
academic year.
4. Conference Proceeding: To encourage broader
dissemination of knowledge gained and lessons learned,
all participants will be required to identify a conference
they intend to attend, draft the conference prior to
completion of summer program with guidance from the
engineering faculty member.
Conclusion
The pilot implementation of NSF RET program at CMU
has proved to be an effective professional development
program for both in-service and pre-service teachers. Based
on the feedback obtained during the program, it could be
stated that the RET program has been effective for engaging
teachers in meaningful engineering research experiences that
allowed them to gain exposure to engineering concepts, and
the process behind. Participants were able to contribute to
the overall research goals and were able to complete a small
research project. This learning experience combined with the
post academic year coaching helps them enhance their
respective high-school classroom curriculum. The overall

Implementation
combination of research and professional coaching sessions
has created a highly effective professional development
program for high-school teachers, thus contributing towards
the enhancement of K-12 education.
Acknowledgment
This research was conducted under a grant from the National
Science Foundation grant number EEC-1201095. However,
this work does not necessarily represent the policy or views
of the National Science Foundation.
References
[1]. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology. (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
Education for America’s Future.
[2]. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-
12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas.
[3]. Kimmel. H., Carpinelli. J., Burr-Alexander. L.,
Rockland. R. (2006). Bringing Engineering into K-12
Schools: A Problem Looking for Solutions, American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
& Exposition.
[4]. Guskey. T. (1986). Staff Development and the Process
of Teacher Change, Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12.
[5]. Joyce. B, Showers. B. (1988). Student Achievement
through Staff Development, Longman.
[6]. Garet. M. S., Porter. A. C., Desimone. L., Birman. B. F.,
Yoon. K. S. (2001). What Makes Professional
Development Effective? Results from a National
Sample of Teachers, American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
[7]. Bransford. J., Brown. A., Cockings. R. (2000). How
People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School,
National Academy Press.
[8]. Yoon. K. S., Garet. M., Birman. B., Jacobson. R. (2006)
The Effects of Mathematics and Science Professional
Development on Teachers’ Instructional Practice: Using
Professional Development Activity Log, Council of
Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
[9]. Klein-Gardner. S. S., Spolarich. A. C. (2011). Impacts
of the Vanderbilt University Research Experience for
Teachers Program 2008-2010: Analysis of Student
Surveys Regarding Motivational Impact, American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
& Exposition.
[10]. Klein. S. S. (2009). Effective STEM Professional
Development: A Biomedical Engineering RET Site
Project, International Journal of Engineering
Education, 25(3), 523-533.
[11]. Conrad. L., Conrad. E., Auerback. J. (2007). The
Development, Implementation and Assessment of an
Engineering Research Experience for Physics Teachers,
American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition.
[12]. Autenrieth. R., Butler-Purry. K., Page. C., Hurtado.
L.D., Welch. J. (2009). Enrichment Experiences in
Engineering (E3) for Teachers Summer Research
Program, American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition.
[13]. Choate. L. D., Hatipoglu. K., Fidan. I.,
Abdelrahman. M. (2011). RET Project in Additive
Manufacturing, American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
[14]. Landis. A. E., et.al (2011). Development of a High
School Engineering Research Program: Findings from a
Research Experience for Teachers (RET) Site,
[15]. Kapila. V. (2010). Research Experience for
Teachers Site: A Professional Development Project for
Teachers, American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition.
[16]. Benson. L., Medders. E., Cass. C. (2010). Teachers
as Scientists: A Qualitative Study of Outcomes for an
RET Program, American Society for Engineering
[17]. Carpinello. J. (2011). Translating Research
Experiences into Classroom Practice: An RET Project,
[18]. Vallas. C. A., Trail. J. J. (2011). RET Program
Yields Elementary, Middle, and High School Teaching
Innovations, American Society for Engineering
[19]. Medders. E. G., Cass. C. P., Bensonn. L. C. (2010).
Development of Teachers as Scientists in a Research
Experiences for Teachers Program, National
Association for Research in Science Teaching.
[20]. Directorate of Engineering. (2012). Research
Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and
Computer Science, National Science Foundation.
[21]. DeJong. B. P., Langenderfer. J. E. (2012). First-
Year Engineering Students in Newly Accredited
Programs: Enrollment and Persistence Demographics,
International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(3),
534-544.
[22]. Yelamarthi. K. (2012). RFID-Based
Interdisciplinary Educational Platform to Improve the
Engineering and Technology Curriculums, Journal of
STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 46-
51.
[23]. Yelamarthi. K, Sherbrook. S, Beckwith. J.,
Williams. M., Lefief. R. (2012) An RFID based Semi-
Autonomous Indoor Tour Guide Robot, IEEE
International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and
Systems, 562-565.
[24]. J. Beckwith, S. Sherbrook, R. Lefief, M. Williams,
K. Yelamarthi, “CATE: An Indoor Tour Guide Robot,”

IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information
Technology, May 2012.
[25]. Hudspeth. M., Kaya. T. (2012). Collagen as
Dielectric Humidity Sensing Material, Material
Research Society Spring Meeting.
[26]. Hudspeth. M., Kaya. T, MEMS Capacitive Relative
Humidity Sensor Design, Fabrication, and
Characterization,” 2nd
International Advances in
Applied Physics and Materials Science Congress.
[27]. Cai. S., Zhao. Y., (2010). Design Project Based
Modules to Promote Engineering Learning and
Retention, Technology Interface International Journal,
11(1), 21-25.
[28]. Dischino. M., DeLaura. J.A., Donnelly. J., Massa.
N. A., Hanes. F., (2011). Increasing the STEM Pipeline
Through Problem-Based Learning, Technology
Interface International Journal, 12(1), 21-29.
[29]. Maison S. H., Bauer A. J. P., Shapardanis S, White
T. W., Zhang Z., Li B., Hu Q., Kaya T. (2013). Cell Di-
Electrorotation: Studying of Rotation to Characterize
Biological Cells and the Connections in Engineering to
the Next Generation Standards, American Society of
Engineering Education National Meeting.
[30]. Arnold L., Zhang Z., Kaya T., Li B., Hu Q. (2013).
Incorporating Engineering into the High School
Chemistry Classroom, American Society of Engineering
Education National Meeting.
[31]. Kaya T., Yelamarthi K., DeJong B., Hu Q., Cheng
S., Chen D. (2013). Learned Lessons from the First
Year Research Experiences for Teachers Program,
American Society of Engineering Education National
Meeting.
[32]. Koch J., Hancock J. B., Pang F., Chen D. (2013).
Research Experience for Teachers: LEGO
MINDSTORM Waste Sorter. Hawaii International
Conference on Education.
[33]. DeJong B., Duthie M., Hzen J., Jurek A. (2013).
Mental Stress of Camera Viewpoints for Teleoperation-
Research Experiences for Teachers. Hawaii
International Conference on Education
[34]. Stanley. D. L., Sterkenburg. R., Lopp. D., (2011).
Undergraduate Student Participation in Applications-
Based Research, Technology Interface International
Journal, 12(1), 54-59.
Biographies
KUMAR YELAMARTHI received his Ph.D. degree
from Wright State University in 2008. He is currently an
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at Central
Michigan University, Mt Pleasant, MI. His research interest
is in the area of RFID, embedded systems, robotics,
integrated circuit optimization, and engineering education.
He has served as a technical reviewer for several
IEEE/ASME/ASEE international conferences and journals,
and has written over 75 publications in both technical and
educational fields. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi
engineering honor society, and Omicron Delta Kappa
national leadership honor society. He may be reached at
kumar.yelamarthi@cmich.edu
TOLGA KAYA currently holds a joint Assistant
Professor position in the School of Engineering and
Technology and the Science of Advanced Materials program
at Central Michigan University (CMU). Prior to joining
CMU, Dr. Kaya was a post-doctorate associate at Yale
University (2007-2010), a research and teaching assistant at
ITU (1999-2007), a consultant at Brightwell Corp. (2007),
Istanbul, a senior VLSI analog design engineer and project
coordinator at Microelectronics R&D Company, Istanbul
(2000-2006), and a visiting assistant in research at Yale
University (2004-2005). He received BS, MS and PhD
degrees in Electronics Engineering from Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey. His research interests in
electrical engineering and applied sciences are analog VLSI
circuit design, MEMS sensors and energy harvesting
systems. His research is also involved in biomedical
engineering where bacterial hydrodynamics are studied
under various shear flow regimes to enlighten the bacterial
infections in catheterized patients. He is also working in the
Engineering Education research. He may be reached at
kaya2t@cmich.edu
BRIAN P. DEJONG is an Assistant Professor of
mechanical engineering in the School of Engineering and
Technology at Central Michigan University, winner of the
university’s 2010 College of Science & Technology
Outstanding Teaching Award. He received his Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering from Northwestern University in
2007. His research interests include engineering education,
auditory occupancy grids, teleoperation, and human-robot
interfaces. He may be reached at b.dejong@cmich.edu
DANIEL M. CHEN received his Ph.D. degree in
Mechanical Engineering from Kansas State University in
1984. He is currently a Professor and teaches a variety of
courses in both mechanical engineering and mechanical
engineering technology programs. He served as the
chairperson of Department of Engineering and Technology
from 2001 to 2007, and led the departmental efforts in
establishing a number of new undergraduate programs in
engineering. Dr. Chen is a registered Professional Engineer
in the State of Michigan since 1986, and his research
interests include computer-aided design and computer-aided
engineering, with a focus on their applications in kinematics,
dynamics, and machine design. He may be reached at
chen1m@cmich.edu
QIN HU received her Ph.D. degree in Electrical
Engineering from Old Dominion University, Norfolk. She
was a Post Doctoral Research Fellow and lecturer at Old
Dominion University from 2004-2007. She joined the
Department of Engineering and Technology of Central
Michigan University as an assistant professor in 2007. Her

Implementation
main research interests have been in the area of
bioengineering, pulsed power, electrical properties of
materials, and software engineering & development. She has
authored/coauthored more than twenty journal papers on
prestigious, international, peer-reviewed journals and
presented at several international and regional conferences.
She has supervised several graduate students on their
dissertation/thesis and undergraduate students on their
design projects. She may be reached at hu1q@cmich.edu
SHAOPENG (FRANK) CHENG received his Ph.D.
degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1995. He is
currently an associate professor in the School of Engineering
and Technology at Central Michigan University. Dr. Cheng
teaches courses in the areas of robotics and automation for
both engineering and engineering technology programs. He
is the coordinator of the Robotics and Automation
Laboratory in the school. His research interests include
robotics, mechatronics, controls, and industrial automation.
Dr. Cheng has published his research developments in
refereed journals, proceedings, and book chapters. He is a
member of IEEE and IAJC. He may be reached at
cheng1fs@cmich.edu
View publication stats
View publication stats

An Engineering Research Program For High School Science Teachers Feedback And Lessons Learned From The Pilot Implementation

More Related Content

Similar to An Engineering Research Program For High School Science Teachers Feedback And Lessons Learned From The Pilot Implementation (20)

More from Andrew Molina (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An Engineering Research Program For High School Science Teachers Feedback And Lessons Learned From The Pilot Implementation