Practical independent research projects in science: a synthesis and evaluation of the evidence of impact on high school students

Figures & data

Table 1. Country of study.

Country	Publications
Australia	2
Ireland	1
Israel	1
Netherlands	1
New Zealand	1
Qatar	1
Singapore	1
Spain	1
Taiwan	1
Turkey	2
UK	8
USA	19
More than one country	2
TOTAL	39

Table 2. Details of five of the IRPs.

Publication	Burgin et al. (2012)	Charney et al. (2007)	Chin and Chia (2004)	Grant (2007)	Hubber et al. (2010)
Source	Research in Science Education	International Journal of Science Education	Journal of Biological Education	http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/crest-evaluation	Teaching Science
Name of IRP	Student Science Training Programme (SSTP)	Waksman Student Scholars Programme (WSSP)	No specific name	CREST (CREativity in Science and Technology	BHP Billiton Science Awards (Commonwealth programme linked to CREST awards)
Country where IRP carried out	USA (Florida)	USA (New Jersey)	Singapore	UK	Australia
Student age (years)	16–17	15–17	14–15	11–19	11–15
Subject area	Chemistry	Biology (genetics)	Biology (food and nutrition)	Science	Science
External groups involved	University (mentor scientists)	University (mentor scientist)	None	Some projects involve employers and universities	‘External professionals’ mentioned
Nature of student participation	Individuals	Teams	Teams	Teams	Individuals
When undertaken	Summer residential school (seven weeks)	Summer school (four weeks) plus 25 hours in-school follow-up	18 weeks during school time	During and outside school time over several weeks	During and outside school time over several weeks
Linked events	None	None	None	Locally organised events	Can be presented at science fairs
External funding	Charitable grant	National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, industrial funding and funding from partner university	None	Charitable and government grants	BHP Billiton (industrial sponsor)
Number of participating students	18 (including seven females and seven from ethnic minority groups)	30 (including 17 females and 18 from ethnic minority groups);	39	512 students 62 teachers	65
Student product	Research report and presentation	Poster presentation	Team report and presentation	Report and presentation	Not explicitly stated
Impact measures / data collection approaches	Student interviews Mentor (scientist) interviews Concept maps prepared by students	Student diaries Assessment of conceptual knowledge Assessment of views of nature of science	Student questionnaire Student interviews Observation, audio and videotapes of group work	Student questionnaire Teacher questionnaire Student focus groups Teacher focus groups	Student questionnaire Teacher interviews Student interviews State organiser interviews
Links to wider initiatives	Authentic science	Authentic science	Problem-based learning	None stated	Authentic science
IRP focus	Projects on ‘genuine unanswered questions’ in chemistry	Open-ended projects linked to genetics research	Projects based on newspaper reports of food and nutrition issues	A variety of open-ended science projects	A variety of open-ended science projects
Reported outcomes	Students reported improved scientific knowledge; this was supported by data from concept maps Four students reported increased interest in pursuing a career in research science	Improved student knowledge, broader awareness of nature of science, promotion of collaborative learning environment	Most students viewed IRP work positively and enjoyed freedom to work in new ways Students not very confident about making presentations PBL approaches are time-consuming	78% of students rated CREST as good or very good 16% reported increased likelihood of undertaking further study in STEM subjects Teachers reported improved post-compulsory uptake of science subjects	Most students reported increased interest in science Anecdotal data from teachers indicated increased post-compulsory uptake of sciences Teachers felt IRP provided a positive experience for students normally less successful in science

Table 3. Student age range.

Age of students	Publications
Lower high school (age 11–14)	7
Middle high school (age 14–16)	6
Senior high school (age 16–18)	11
High school (ages 11–16)	1
High school (ages 11–19)	7
High school (age not specified)	7
TOTAL	39

Table 4. Student products (39 studies, some had more than one product).

Student products	Publications
Written report	19
Presentation	17
Artefact	1
Student reflective diary	2
Report for external examination	1
No product required (explicit statement)	1
Not specified	14
TOTAL	54

Table 5. Focus of study.

Focus	Examples of studies including this focus	Country
Students’ conceptual understanding	Burgin et al. (2012)	USA
	Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006)	USA
	Sahin (2013)	USA
	Schneider et al. (2002)	USA
Students’ views of the nature of science	Metin and Leblebicioglu (2011)	Turkey
Development of students’ scientific literacy	O’Neill and Polman (2004)	USA, Canada
Development of students practical and experimental skills	Chien and Karlich (2007)	USA
	Grant (2007)	UK
	Yasar and Baker (2003)	USA
	Zion et al. (2004)	Israel
Development of students’ use of technology	Duran et al. (2014)	USA
Development of students’ more general skills, such as collaborative/team working	Charney et al. (2007)	USA
	Faris (2008)	Qatar
	Grant (2007)	UK
Students’ attitudes to science	Faris (2008)	Qatar
	Gibson and Chase (2002)	USA
	Welch (2010)	USA
	Yasar and Baker (2003)	USA
Students’ creativity	Haigh (2007)	New Zealand
	Hong et al. (2013)	Taiwan
Student motivation	Moote et al. (2013)	UK
Student self-efficacy	Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
More general student responses to IRPs	Diaz-de-Mera et al. (2011)	Spain
	Finegold (2015)	UK
Barriers to student participation	Nuffield Foundation (2013)	UK
Teachers’ view of IRPs	Finegold (2015)	UK
	Chin and Chia (2004)	Singapore
	Kennedy (2014)	Ireland
Views of other people (e.g. science mentors, employers) about their participation in IRPs	Symington and Tytler (2011)	Australia
Exploration of effects of participation in IRPs of traditionally under-represented groups	Duran et al. (2014)	USA
	Rivera Maulucci et al. (2014)	USA
	Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
	Sonnert et al. (2013)	USA
	Yasar and Baker (2003)	USA

Table 6. Impact outcome measures: examples of data collected.

Data	Examples of studies collecting such data	Country
From students
Measures of conceptual understanding	*Charney et al. (2007)	USA
	*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
Measures of views of nature of science	*Charney et al. (2007)	USA
Practical abilities	*Yasser and Baker, (2003)	USA
Attitude inventory	*Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006)	USA
	*Grant (2007)	UK
Motivation inventory	*Moote et al. (2013)	UK
Self-efficacy inventory	*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
Student self-report data (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, diaries)	Akinoglu (2008)	Turkey
	*Bulte et al. (2006)	The Netherlands
	Daly and Pinot de Moira (2010)	UK
	*Gibson and Chase (2002)	USA
	*Grant (2007)	UK
	*Haigh (2007)	New Zealand
	*Jenkins and Jeavans (2015)	UK
	*Nuffield Foundation (2013)	UK
	*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
	Sonnert et al. (2013)	USA
Student presentations	*Faris (2008)	Qatar
	*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom (2009)	USA
From teachers
Teacher self-report data (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, diaries)	*Grant (2007)	UK
	*Jenkins and Jeavans (2015)	UK
	Kennedy (2014)	Ireland
	*Rivera Maulucci et al. (2014)	USA
From other people
Researcher involved in IRP self-report data (questionnaires, interviews)	*Jenkins and Jeavans (2015)	UK
	*Nuffield Foundation (2015)	UK
Interview with others (IRP providers, IRP regional/state organisers, employers, parents, key informants)	*Grant (2007)	UK
	*Hubber et al. (2010)	Australia
	*Jenkins and Jeavans (2015)	UK
	*Symington and Tytler (2011)	Australia
Other data sources
Assessment of student report on IRP	*Bulte et al. (2006)	The Netherlands
External examination result	Kennedy (2014)	Ireland
Observation of IRP activity	*Bulte et al. (2006)	The Netherlands
Document study	*Nuffield Research Placements, (2013)	UK
Use of external datasets	*Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006)	USA
	Sahin (2013)	USA

* = more than one data source gathered in study.

*Burgin, S. R., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. J. (2012). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 439–467. doi: 10.1007/s11165-010-9205-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213. doi: 10.1080/09500690600560985

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004). Implementing project work in biology through problem-based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 69–75. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2004.9655904

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Grant, L. (2007). CREST award evaluation: Impact study. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/crest-evaluation.

 Google Scholar

*Hubber, P., Darby, L., & Tytler, R. (2010). Student outcomes from engaging in open science investigations. Teaching Science, 56(4), 8–12.

 Google Scholar

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

*Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 5–11.

 Google Scholar

*Schneider, R. M., Blenis, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422. doi: 10.1002/tea.10029

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Metin, D., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2011). How did a science camp affect children’s conceptions of science? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 18–37. Article 2.

 Google Scholar

*O’Neill, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists”? examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234–266. doi: 10.1002/tea.20001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chien, A., & Karlich, L. (2007). Frameworks for making science research accessible for all. Horace, 23(1), 1–5.

 Google Scholar

*Yasar, S., & Baker, D. (2003). Impact of involvement in a science fair on seventh grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

 Google Scholar

*Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., … Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88(5), 728–753. doi: 10.1002/sce.10145

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Duran, M., Höft, M., Lawson, D. B., Medjahed, B., & Orady, E. A. (2014). Urban high school students’ IT/STEM learning: Findings from a collaborative inquiry- and design-based afterschool program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 116–137. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9457-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Faris, A. (2008). The impact of PBL on the students’ attitudes towards science among nine graders in Hamza Independent School. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502097.pdf.

 Google Scholar

*Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705. doi: 10.1002/sce.10039

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Welch, A. G. (2010). Using the TOSRA to assess high school students’ attitudes toward science after competing in the FIRST robotics competition: An exploratory study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(3), 187–197. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75239

 Google Scholar

*Haigh, M. (2007). Can investigative practical work in high school biology foster creativity? Research in Science Education, 37(2), 123–140. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9018-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hong, J.-C., Chen, M.-Y., & Hwang, M.-Y. (2013). Vitalizing creative learning in science and technology through an extracurricular club: A perspective based on activity theory. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.06.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Moote, J. K., Williams, J. M., & Sproule, J. (2013). When students take control: Investigating the impact of the CREST inquiry-based learning program on self-regulated processes and related motivations in young science students. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(2), 178–196. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.12.2.178

 Google Scholar

*Sikes, S. S., & Schwartz-Bloom, R. D. (2009). Direction discovery: A science enrichment program for high school students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 77–83. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20254

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Diaz-de-Mera, Y., Notario, A., Aranda, A., Adame, J. A., Parra, A., Romero, E., … Munoz, F. (2011). A research study of tropospheric ozone and meteorological parameters to introduce high school students to scientific procedures. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(4), 392–396. doi: 10.1021/ed1002515

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Finegold, P. (2015). Authentic biology evaluation update. Unpublished internal document, Isinglass Consultancy.

 Google Scholar

*Nuffield Foundation. (2013). Evaluation of the science bursaries for schools and colleges programme*: Final report. (*Now the Nuffield Research Placements scheme) Unpublished internal document.

 Google Scholar

*Kennedy, D. (2014). The role of investigations in promoting inquiry-based science education in Ireland. Science Education International, 24(3), 282–305.

 Google Scholar

*Symington, D., & Tytler, R. (2011). Schools and teachers supporting student open investigations. Teaching Science, 57(1), 8–12.

 Google Scholar

*Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students’ reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119–1149. doi: 10.1002/tea.21167

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sonnert, G., Michaels, M., & Sadler, P. (2013). Gender aspects of participation, support, and success in a state science fair. School Science and Mathematics, 113(3), 135–143. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12007

 Google Scholar

*Akinoglu, O. (2008). Assessment of the inquiry-based project application in science education upon Turkish science teachers’ perspectives. Education, 129(2), 202–215.

 Google Scholar

*Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063–1086. doi: 10.1080/09500690600702520

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daly, A. L., & Pinot de Moira, A. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their performance in the extended project pilot. The Curriculum Journal, 21(2), 179–200. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2010.480839

 Google Scholar

Jenkins, S., & Jeavans, E. (2015). Evaluation of the royal society partnership grants scheme: Full report. Unpublished internal document, The Royal Society/Jenesys Associates.

 Google Scholar