62 teachers
There were three principal contexts in which students engaged in IRPs. In some cases, undertaking IRPs was linked to national policies/agendas. For instance, several USA studies reported on interventions that had secured funding for local initiatives through linking them to policy statements by organisations such as the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) or the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) (Adams et al., 2009 ; Dolan, Lally, Brooks, & Tax, 2008 ; Gibson & Chase, 2002 ; Sahin, 2013 ). Secondly, as noted earlier, IRPs were very often associated with wider initiatives, including: authentic science, for instance in Israel (Zion et al., 2004 ), The Netherlands (Bulte, Westbroek, de Jong, & Pilot, 2006 ) and the USA (Burgin, Sadler, & Koroly, 2012 ; Dolan et al., 2008 ; Rivera Maulucci, Brown, Grey, & Sullivan, 2014 ); problem-based learning, for instance in Qatar (Faris, 2008 ) and Singapore (Chin & Chia, 2004 ); and project-based learning, for instance in the USA (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Schneider, Blenis, Marx, & Soloway, 2002 ).
Thirdly, a number of IRP activities were linked to non-governmental groups with a specific interest in promoting IRPs as a way of providing young people with authentic experiences of working as a scientist. Such initiatives typically involved school-university partnerships and included the CREST awards which are run in several countries, including the UK and Australia (British Science Association, 2014 ; Grant, 2007 ; Moote, Williams, & Sproule, 2013 ) and, in the UK, the Nuffield Research Placements scheme (Nuffield Foundation, 2013 ), The Royal Society Partnerships Grants scheme (Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ) and the Authentic Biology Project funded by the Wellcome Trust (Colthurst et al., 2015 ; Finegold, 2015 ).
Just over half of the IRPs (20) involved people outside schools. The largest group of these groups comprised university science staff or students, acting as advisers/mentors. Examples in the USA include O’Neill and Polman ( 2004 ), Burgin et al. ( 2012 ), Charney et al. ( 2007 ), Campbell and Neilson ( 2009 ) and Schneider et al . (2013). Other examples include Symington and Tytler ( 2011 ) in Australia, Diaz-de-Mera et al. ( 2011 ) in Spain, and one IRP programme taking place across six European countries (Dijkstra & Goedhart, 2011 ). Around a quarter of the IRPs included industrial partners and employers, e.g. Welch ( 2010 ) and Duran, Höft, Lawson, Medjahed, and Orady ( 2014 ). Less frequently, local voluntary groups and parents were involved, e.g. Adams et al. ( 2009 ).
A small number of publications reported on IRPs undertaken by groups of schools or individual teachers in their own school and not involving any partners: Chin and Chia ( 2004 ), Zion et al. ( 2004 ), Chien and Karlich ( 2007 ), Haigh ( 2007 ), Faris ( 2008 ), and Balmer ( 2014 ).
IRPs were most prevalent at upper high school level, i.e. for ages 16–19 (17 studies), as shown in Table 3 .
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 |
Of the 16 studies focusing on one of the science disciplines, rather than simply being ‘science’, biology IRPs (7) were more common than chemistry (2) or physics (2). Even within a specific science discipline, there was considerable diversity in the topic focus. Biology-related IRPs, for example, explored diet, food and nutrition (Chin & Chia, 2004 ; Faris, 2008 ), genetics (Charney et al., 2007 ), plant biology (Dolan et al., 2008 ), environmental science (Faris, 2008 ), pharmacology (Sikes & Schwartz-Bloom, 2009 ), the carbon cycle (Dijkstra & Goedhart, 2011 ), and biomedical science (Colthurst et al., 2015 ; Finegold, 2015 ).
Two models predominated for the creation of time for IRPs. Most commonly, they were undertaken during normal school hours, sometimes supplemented with time in after-school clubs (e.g. Brand, Collver, & Kasarda, 2008 ; Hong, Chen, & Hwang, 2013 ; Sahin, 2013 ). Typically, such IRPs were of six weeks to a year’s duration (e.g. Chin & Chia, 2004 ; Dijkstra and Goedhart, 2011 ; Faris, 2008 ; Hong et al ., 2013 ; O’Neill & Polman, 2004 ). Occasionally, time was created within schools through ‘intensive pull-outs’ whereby students were taken off their normal timetable for a period to be dedicated to IRP work (e.g. Rivera Maulucci et al., 2014 ). Five of the IRPs were associated with dedicated out-of-school events such as one- or two-week summer schools and camps (e.g. Akinoglu, 2008 ; Burgin et al., 2012 ; Gibson & Chase, 2002 ; Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011 ). In two cases (Brand et al., 2008 ; Yasar & Baker, 2003 ), the IRPs were linked to participation in science competitions or fairs.
There was only one country, Ireland, where the IRP work was a compulsory component of a national end-of-course science examination (Kennedy, 2014 ). In England, the IRPs could, for students aged 16 or over, optionally be entered for a national qualification (Daly & Pinot de Moira, 2010 ).
In just under one third of the cases (12), participation in the IRP was compulsory. In around half the IRPs (20), students participated as part of a team, with around a quarter (10) requiring individual participation. In a small number of instances, students could choose between team or individual participation.
The majority of the IRPs required the generation of one or more products, as shown in Table 4 . Written reports (19) and presentations (17) predominated, with many any IRPs requiring both. Occasionally, students were asked to produce a physical artefact or write a reflective diary.
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 |
Fifteen of the IRP programmes were supported by external funding. Characteristically, this was associated with work involving partnerships with universities, employers or other groups. Where work was required for external examination or specific to one school, it was unfunded. Typically, funding for IRPs came from grants secured from national funding organisations such as government, research councils and charitable bodies with an interest in science education, or from industrial sponsors. Examples included funding from BHP Billiton, a global mining company based in Australia (Symington & Tytler, 2011 ), the Cosmos Foundation in Texas (Sahin, 2013 ), the US NSF (National Science Foundation) (O’Neill & Polman, 2004 ) and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011 ).
Most of the funding supported regional or local initiatives, though there were examples of national initiatives including, in Australia, the BHP Billiton funding, and, in the UK, the CREST awards 1 , the Nuffield Partnerships scheme 2 and the Royal Society’s Partnership Grants scheme 3 .
Some studies reported data on traditionally under-represented groups in science, focusing on gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status, for example, in the USA, Yasar and Baker ( 2003 ), Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( 2009 ) and Sonnert, Michaels, and Sadler ( 2013 ), and in the UK, the Nuffield Foundation ( 2013 ) and the British Science Association ( 2014 ). In two cases in the USA (Duran et al., 2014 ; Rivera Maulucci et al., 2014 ), the IRP work formed part of a programme intentionally developed for students with backgrounds typically under-represented in science.
In evaluating the quality of the evidence, some notes of caution need to be sounded in relation to factors that could result in bias in the evidence base. The review revealed that research into impact of IRPs was most often conducted by those associated with the funding agencies and with the development and/or running of the IRP, risking confirmation bias in the findings. Very few of the studies in this review had commissioned external evaluations, with Grant ( 2007 ) and Jenkins and Jeavans ( 2015 ) being exceptions.
Another source of potential bias concerns the nature of the data collected. Frequent use is made of data provided by the people involved in IRP work. Many of the adults who can provide data (teachers, employers, and university-based scientists) are already likely to be very sympathetic to the aims of IRPs.
A challenge in synthesising the evidence arises from the diversity in provision and execution of IRPs, which is reflected in a corresponding diversity in the aims and range of measures used to assess impact.
The main sources of data were students and their teachers, with the most of the work focusing on the impacts on students. Impacts on understanding of concepts, practical skills, cross-disciplinary skills (e.g. working collaboratively in teams), attitudes towards science and motivation to continue with science after it was no longer compulsory were explored. There was also a cluster of studies focusing on impacts on traditionally under-represented groups in relation to gender, socio-economic status and ethnic background. Studies that focused on teachers and others involved (e.g. IRP providers, university scientists/mentors, employers, state/regional organisers) explored views of the impact of IRPs on students together with views on the potential benefits and drawbacks of their own participation in IRPs.
Table 5 summarises the principal foci of research into the impact of IRPs in cognitive and affective dimensions.
Focus | Examples of studies including this focus | Country |
---|---|---|
Students’ conceptual understanding | Burgin et al. ( ) | USA |
Krajcik and Blumenfeld ( ) | USA | |
Sahin ( ) | USA | |
Schneider et al. ( ) | USA | |
Students’ views of the nature of science | Metin and Leblebicioglu ( ) | Turkey |
Development of students’ scientific literacy | O’Neill and Polman ( ) | USA, Canada |
Development of students practical and experimental skills | Chien and Karlich ( ) | USA |
Grant ( ) | UK | |
Yasar and Baker ( ) | USA | |
Zion et al. ( ) | Israel | |
Development of students’ use of technology | Duran et al. ( ) | USA |
Development of students’ more general skills, such as collaborative/team working | Charney et al. ( ) | USA |
Faris ( ) | Qatar | |
Grant ( ) | UK | |
Students’ attitudes to science | Faris ( ) | Qatar |
Gibson and Chase ( ) | USA | |
Welch ( ) | USA | |
Yasar and Baker ( ) | USA | |
Students’ creativity | Haigh ( ) | New Zealand |
Hong et al. ( ) | Taiwan | |
Student motivation | Moote et al. ( ) | UK |
Student self-efficacy | Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA |
More general student responses to IRPs | Diaz-de-Mera et al. ( ) | Spain |
Finegold ( ) | UK | |
Barriers to student participation | Nuffield Foundation ( ) | UK |
Teachers’ view of IRPs | Finegold ( ) | UK |
Chin and Chia ( ) | Singapore | |
Kennedy ( ) | Ireland | |
Views of other people (e.g. science mentors, employers) about their participation in IRPs | Symington and Tytler ( ) | Australia |
Exploration of effects of participation in IRPs of traditionally under-represented groups | Duran et al. ( ) | USA |
Rivera Maulucci et al. ( ) | USA | |
Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA | |
Sonnert et al. ( ) | USA | |
Yasar and Baker ( ) | USA |
None of the studies employed randomised controlled trials; nine adopted some form of experimental design which involved making comparison between participants and non-participants in IRP activities (Finegold, 2015 ; Gibson & Chase, 2002 ; Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Moote et al., 2013 ; Sahin, 2013 ; Schneider et al., 2002 ; Welch, 2010 ; Yasar & Baker, 2003 ).
The predominant techniques used for gathering data from students were questionnaires, tests of understanding, inventories on affective aspects, and interviews and focus groups to explore students’ views of IRPs. Occasionally, data were drawn from student presentations, student reports on their IRP work, student reflective diaries, observations of students undertaking IRP work, and datasets such as external test and examination results. Where quantitative data were gathered, it was very rare for the reports of studies to report details of any checks on reliability and validity with research instruments or data analysis.
Table 6 summarises the impact outcome measures and the nature of the data gathered in the studies.
Data | Examples of studies collecting such data | Country |
---|---|---|
Measures of conceptual understanding | *Charney et al. ( ) | USA |
*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA | |
Measures of views of nature of science | *Charney et al. ( ) | USA |
Practical abilities | *Yasser and Baker, ( ) | USA |
Attitude inventory | *Krajcik and Blumenfeld ( ) | USA |
*Grant ( ) | UK | |
Motivation inventory | *Moote et al. ( ) | UK |
Self-efficacy inventory | *Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA |
Student self-report data (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, diaries) | Akinoglu ( ) | Turkey |
*Bulte et al. ( ) | The Netherlands | |
Daly and Pinot de Moira ( ) | UK | |
*Gibson and Chase ( ) | USA | |
*Grant ( ) | UK | |
*Haigh ( ) | New Zealand | |
*Jenkins and Jeavans ( ) | UK | |
*Nuffield Foundation ( ) | UK | |
*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA | |
Sonnert et al. ( ) | USA | |
Student presentations | *Faris ( ) | Qatar |
*Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( ) | USA | |
Teacher self-report data (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, diaries) | *Grant ( ) | UK |
*Jenkins and Jeavans ( ) | UK | |
Kennedy ( ) | Ireland | |
*Rivera Maulucci et al. ( ) | USA | |
Researcher involved in IRP self-report data (questionnaires, interviews) | *Jenkins and Jeavans ( ) | UK |
*Nuffield Foundation (2015) | UK | |
Interview with others (IRP providers, IRP regional/state organisers, employers, parents, key informants) | *Grant ( ) | UK |
*Hubber et al. ( ) | Australia | |
*Jenkins and Jeavans ( ) | UK | |
*Symington and Tytler ( ) | Australia | |
Assessment of student report on IRP | *Bulte et al. ( ) | The Netherlands |
External examination result | Kennedy ( ) | Ireland |
Observation of IRP activity | *Bulte et al. ( ) | The Netherlands |
Document study | *Nuffield Research Placements, ( ) | UK |
Use of external datasets | *Krajcik and Blumenfeld ( ) | USA |
Sahin ( ) | USA |
* = more than one data source gathered in study.
The wide variety of outcome measures points to one of the most prominent features of research into the impact of IRPs, which is the very disparate approach to judging the impact of IRPs.
Studies gathering data on cognitive impacts include those of Krajcik and Blumenfeld ( 2006 ), Burgin et al. ( 2012 ) and Sahin ( 2013 ) in the USA. Studies gathering data on the impact of IRPs on students’ attitudes to science include Faris ( 2008 ) in Qatar, and Gibson and Chase ( 2002 ), Yasar and Baker ( 2003 ) and Welch ( 2010 ) in the USA. Other studies on affective responses include students’ motivation (Moote et al., 2013 ), and students’ self-efficacy (Sikes & Schwartz-Bloom, 2009 ). Other aspects explored include views of the nature of science (Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011 ), development of students’ practical and experimental skills (Chien & Karlich, 2007 ; Grant, 2007 ; Yasar & Baker, 2003 ; Zion et al., 2004 ), and development of more general skills in students, most often related to as collaborative working in teams (Charney et al., 2007 ; Faris, 2008 ; Grant, 2007 ).
Studies contained varying amounts of detail on the techniques employed to gather data on the impact of IRPs. As might be anticipated, full reports contained more detail than journal papers, particularly on instrument design. There were no examples of replication studies and virtually all the studies gathered data using specifically-designed instruments, though a few used state or national test instruments of subject knowledge (Daly & Pinot de Moira, 2010 ; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Schneider et al., 2002 ) or existing, validated instruments to measure student characteristics such as motivation (Moote et al., 2013 ). Most studies drew on at least two sources of data.
In order to evaluate the quality of the evidence base as a whole, the criteria widely employed in making such judgements about systematic reviews were used (see, for example, Gough et al., 2012 ). These take into account the declared aims of the studies, the hypotheses and research questions, strategies employed for identifying the sample, the nature and extent of the data gathered, the appropriateness of how the data were collected and the methods employed to analyse the data (including information on reliability and validity checks) and the extent to which the conclusions appear sound in relation to the data gathered.
With the exception of an over-reliance on self-reported data in some cases, the studies included in the review appeared to have adequate or good designs, with no obvious adverse effects arising from researcher involvement in the design and undertaking of studies. However, the quality of individual studies is offset by the diversity in focus and in the instruments used, with one of the most prominent features of the work as a whole being the comparatively uncoordinated and unsystematic approach to gathering evidence on, and judging the impact of, IRPs. This diversity poses a challenge for the synthesis of data, and the current evidence base would not permit a meta-analysis of data (i.e. an analysis that quantitatively aggregates data across studies, as is common in medical studies, leading to an overall conclusion as to the effects of IRPs with effect sizes or odds ratios).
A wide range of potential impacts of IRPs are reported, particularly on students, with studies reporting on students’ responses to undertaking IRPs, effects on students’ learning and effects on students’ attitudes to science, including attitudes towards pursuing a career in science. Within this, some studies explore elements to do with widening participation issues. Some studies also report on impacts on teachers and, less frequently, impacts on other participating adults such as university scientists and employers.
Gains in students’ learning are reported (e.g. Burgin et al., 2012 ; Daly & Pinot de Moira, 2010 ; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Rivera Maulucci et al., 2014 ; Sahin, 2013 ). Whilst most studies take their data from instruments devised specifically for the study being reported, three studies report on gains in students’ learning based on data from external state or national instruments (Daly & Pinot de Moira, 2010 ; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Schneider et al., 2002 ).
Improvements in students’ attitudes to science and motivation in science are also reported (British Science Association, 2014 ; Faris, 2008 ; Gibson & Chase, 2002 ; Hubber, Darby, & Tytler, 2010 ; Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ; Moote et al., 2013 ; Welch, 2010 ; Yasar & Baker, 2003 ). As with student learning, most studies draw on instruments designed specifically for the study, with the exception of Moote et al. ( 2013 ), where an existing instrument for motivation was used.
All the studies exploring the impact of IRPs on students’ interest in pursuing careers in science/science-related areas report increased numbers of students indicating that their participation in IRPs meant they were more likely to consider careers in science (e.g. Adams et al., 2009 ; Hubber et al., 2010 ; Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ). Students indicated that this was primarily due to increased awareness of the range of careers and the varied nature of work in which people with science qualifications engage. Improved practical skills and abilities are also reported (e.g. Adams, 2009 in the USA; British Science Association, 2014 in the UK).
One finding of particular interest to emerge from some studies in the USA and the UK was potential benefits to traditionally under-represented groups in science in relation to ethnicity and socio-economic status. In the USA, four studies report improved engagement for such students (Duran et al., 2014 ; Rivera Maulucci et al., 2014 ; Sonnert et al., 2013 ; Yasar & Baker, 2003 ), with Sikes and Schwartz-Bloom ( 2009 ) noting interest declining slightly. In the UK, the British Science Association ( 2014 ) found that uptake of IRPs was higher than average for students from lower socio-economic groups. The Nuffield Foundation ( 2013 ) reports particular benefits in engagement for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Where negative notes about involvement in IRPs were sounded in the studies, the focus was often on practical matters. These included teachers reporting that IRPs were unduly time-consuming (Faris, 2008 ), had a negative effect on the time available for teaching other aspects of science (Kennedy, 2014 ), or adversely affected the school’s ability to deal with external inspections (British Science Association, 2014 ; Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ). Additionally, some teachers reported lacking the confidence to run IRPs (British Science Association, 2014 ; Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ) and problems with the identification of external partners (Jenkins & Jeavans, 2015 ). One study (Kennedy, 2014 ) reported that teachers felt IRPs discouraged students from considering further study of science subjects.
Very few details on assessment criteria for IRPs are reported in the studies, making it difficult to judge the evidence on assessment and hence measures of validity. This absence also hinders comparisons between the impact of more traditional approaches to practical work with that of IRPs, with none of the studies reporting on this aspect.
IRPs are often associated with country-wide policy initiatives in science education. Generally, they are perceived as valuable and important by a range of groups with interests or involvement in science education. Such groups include teachers, scientific researchers, industrial employers, charitable foundations, professional societies and learned bodies. The notion of allowing students to find out what it is like to be a scientist is seen as particularly attractive. In addition to the benefits reported for students, benefits are also claimed for other people involved, including the links built between students, teachers, schools and employers. However, the review shows that only a minority of students in any country are normally offered the opportunity to undertake an IRP.
The review reveals a diversity in the conceptualisation and implementation of IRPs, posing challenges for synthesising the evidence and making judgments about the impact and effectiveness. The review points to more work being needed to establish that the potential benefits of IRPs are such that they should definitely be used more widely in the school curriculum. A key element of such additional work would be focusing on improving the quality of the available evidence. This could be achieved by some relatively straightforward steps. First, the rigour of studies could be enhanced by making more use of experimental or quasi-experimental study designs. As IRPs are optional in most cases, this facilitates the gathering of data from control and intervention groups. Where such designs are not feasible, there are examples in this review (e.g. Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006 ) where good use has been made of existing data sets on student performance to enable comparisons to be made between students who have undertaken IRPs and wider populations. Secondly, there is an over-reliance in some studies on self-report data. More rigour would be introduced through the gathering of more than one source of data. Thirdly, and whilst recognising that methods of evaluation will need to vary in order to accommodate the particular features of specific IRPs types and programmes, those undertaking research on impact need to make greater use of previous work, particularly in relation to focus and methods employed to gather data. Considerable benefits would be conferred through greater agreement about the areas in which to collect data: increased use of existing, validated instruments, rather than excessive development of new instruments, would facilitate the building up of a more coherent evidence base. Areas of particular importance in which to gather data are students’ learning of science concepts, students’ views of the nature of science, and students’ affective responses to participation in IRPs. In the second and third of these areas, a number of instruments already exist and could be utilised. The learning of science concepts is likely to require more work, given that many IRPs involve an in-depth study of a relatively narrow area.
While this review has focused on the impact of IRPs on students, the studies have pointed to a number of other practical factors that would need to be considered were schools to be given more encouragement to offer IRPs. IRPs place particular demands on students, teachers, universities and employers that are not associated with more standard school provision. The demands relate to resource (time and money), skills required by teachers and other adults involved in IRPs, and supporting infrastructure. External funding to support IRPs currently comes from a range of sources, including government agencies, charitable bodies, industrial sponsors and other groups that fund research. There are some examples of co-ordinating bodies being established that could play a useful role in supporting IRP work (e.g. the Institute for Research In Schools [IRIS] in the UK), through identifying funding opportunities, training opportunities, and interested external partners.
In addition to the need for improvement in the quality of the evidence base, the review findings point to three particular areas that would benefit from further research to inform any decision on making more widespread use of IRPs. The first of these is the assessment of IRPs, where there is a dearth of information in the studies in the review. As noted earlier, one of the motives for undertaking IRPs is to give students the opportunity to ‘be like a scientist’. Given this, it would be useful to involve practising scientists in discussions about what being like a scientist means in operational terms, and a consideration of what this means for assessment of IRPs. One avenue of potential utility is that of threshold concepts (Land, Meyer, & Smith, 2008 ; Meyer & Land, 2003 ), namely concepts that substantially change how students view their discipline and which change the learner’s approach to, and perception of, learning in their subject. In the context of IRPs, threshold concepts are those concepts that are central to being able to think and act like a research scientist, which result in students seeing science in a new light, and may alter their feelings towards science. The second area of work relates to the emerging evidence of the possible benefits of IRPs for increasing engagement with science in students from traditionally under-represented groups. Here, there would be merit in undertaking case studies of particular groups of students in order to characterise the features of IRPs that appear to have a positive impact on views of science and engagement with science. Finally, given the range of short-term potential benefits reported for IRPs, it is important to explore possible longer-term benefits through looking at the impact of IRPs on subsequent subject and career choices.
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust.
1. http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/crest-awards .
2. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/nuffield-research-placements .
3. https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/grants/partnership-grants/ .
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Judith Bennett http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5033-0804
Lynda Dunlop http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0936-8149
Kerry J. Knox http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3530-6117
Michael J. Reiss http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1207-4229
Rebecca Torrance Jenkins http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8359-4574
In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Us grade 9 - 12, aligned with next generation science standards (ngss) .css-1gf0lzu{-webkit-user-select:none;-moz-user-select:none;-ms-user-select:none;user-select:none;width:1em;height:1em;display:inline-block;fill:currentcolor;-webkit-flex-shrink:0;-ms-flex-negative:0;flex-shrink:0;-webkit-transition:fill 200ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1) 0ms;transition:fill 200ms cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1) 0ms;font-size:inherit;vertical-align:-0.125em;color:#380596;margin-left:0.4rem;}.
Group class, financial assistance , outschool international , get the app .
Classes by age , classes by grade .
What are some good ideas for an independent research project for a high school senior.
This is quite a different question than is usually asked here, so if this is the wrong place to ask this, I can delete the post, but this was the best place I could think of.
I'm a senior in high school who hopes to major in physics in college. My high school offers seniors the opportunity to take their last quarter off and do an independent research project instead, that just has to be approved by the proper department. We'll have faculty mentors making sure we're on track, but they don't have to have intimate knowledge about what we're researching, they just have to make sure we've actually done something. I would love to do a research project in physics, but I don't know exactly what to do. I'm especially interested in things like quantum theory, relativity, particle physics, and similar fields, but I'm willing to branch out from that if a better idea comes along that doesn't fall directly in one of those fields.
For context, I've taken AP Physics 1, 2, C: Mechanics, and C: E&M, as well as Calc 1 and 2, and I'm currently taking Calc 3. That being said, from reading textbooks and watching lectures online, I've learned a bit of math and physics past that.
I'm also perfectly happy to clarify things if I need to; I know this is kind of a weird question to ask.
Edit: The original post was a tad too vague, so to be more clear, I’d like to do a sort of deep-dive into a topic and study it, and I suppose my question is truly what that topic might be.
By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .
You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.
Create your username and password.
Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.
Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password
An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account
Exploratory research teaches skills that have lifelong use..
Updated August 1, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer
This post is the fourth in a series.
When helping students become researchers, the goal is not only to equip students to tackle a current research project but also to ensure the learned skills will stay with them for future endeavors. Students must understand which research staples must be applied under any circumstances (like critically evaluating sources or following ethical guidelines) while maintaining the flexibility to try different approaches and make new connections. Students at Laguna Beach High School (LBHS) are learning to do just that.
In Part I of this series I spoke to Jun Shen, the passionate teacher and ed-tech coordinator who runs LBHS’s Authentic Exploratory Research (AER) program . AER is an independent research course inspired by Palo Alto Unified School District’s Advanced Authentic Research program . The program pairs students with adult mentors (such as LBUSD staff, industry experts, and academics) who assist the teens in researching their big questions in fields of their choice.
Former LBHS student Carter Ghere was the third teenager to give us an account of his experience in AER and the findings that his AER research produced. A benefit to meeting with Ghere was that he has since moved on to projects outside the AER program, such as promoting physical and mental health . The research skills Ghere honed in AER, combined with his passion for his new endeavors, show us how students can learn research skills in a way that has lasting benefits.
Jenny Grant Rankin: What can teachers do to help students research effectively, not only for current projects but also for future research endeavors?
Carter Ghere: Teachers can encourage students to think about minor aspects of the project that greatly influence the thesis rather than just the thesis question itself. When I researched car design and why it varies, I had to consider each factor that could help me build a strong argument. What started as research on cars very quickly turned into research into socioeconomics, societal upbringing, and government involvement in diplomatic events and conflict. Automotive design changed because manufacturers were competing against each other to sell more cars or improve efficiency, but mass appeal is the biggest driving aspect of change, so I had to research what changes mass appeal and where interests originate from. Laterally, researching aspects of influence opens up much research to apply to your projects, instead of searching for the answer most people already know. Teachers can teach their students how to see the hidden influences, draw conclusions themselves to strengthen their arguments, and accelerate the research process. Knowing how to do research effectively carries over a lifetime, making every new learning endeavor exciting for students instead of monotonous.
JGR: What was the most significant thing you learned about conducting research?
CG: Relevance and impact. The biggest thing I learned while I was conducting research was keeping in mind how your study affects the current information already available. It’s easy to research and quote what most people know, but genuinely effective research isn’t commonly known or even thought of; the research is supposed to question the current knowledge to create new knowledge.
JGR: What was the most significant thing you learned about communicating research or other work?
CG: Knowing your audience is the biggest thing I learned about communicating my work. Putting myself in the shoes of someone reading my work helped me curate my research to better explain my findings to someone who may need to learn about my topic or why this is important. The last thing you want your audience to feel is confusion; a clear, simple explanation of your findings helps the reader draw their connections and relate them to what they already know.
JGR: What lessons learned in AER do you find yourself applying in your current efforts to promote mental health?
CG: The research experience I have from AER accelerated the work I’ve done beyond high school. In terms of research and the actual information I give out, I know that what I’m discovering isn’t new, but the personal opinion that I have is, and that’s what AER taught me. The thoughts that I have on the subject matter of lifestyle and self-development have more relevance than just plain information.
Learning through apprenticeship and embracing the guidance of a mentor profoundly expanded my understanding. This experience made me realize the vast opportunities I still have to learn and grow. At AER, I had the chance to engage in research, connect with experts in the field, develop personal convictions that I am passionate about, ensure these ideas resonate with others, and communicate them effectively.
Ghere demonstrates what we want students to be able to do with the knowledge and skills we teach: to remember, apply, and develop them perpetually. Ideally, as in Ghere’s case, students also use their research skills to help others and improve our world. To continue reading, look for Part V .
Jenny Grant Rankin, Ph.D., is a Fulbright Specialist for the U.S. Department of State.
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
Step 2: brainstorm details, step 3: clarify your goals, step 4: delete irrelevant details, step 5: organize what remains, the bottom line.
Personal and academic projects can add depth to your resume and are especially useful if you’re a new college graduate or have limited experience. But that doesn’t mean you should include every project you’ve ever done. Having too much project info can clutter your resume and make it less appealing to recruiters and hiring managers. For this reason, you need to take a close look at your projects and include only the ones that support your goals for your job search.
Complete this exercise to select and organize the right project details for your resume.
First, open a new blank document on your computer and save it as “Master Projects List.” In this new document, enter a simple list of all your past projects. Include the basics: project name, dates, location, and school, if applicable.
Under each project you’ve listed, brainstorm and write down any positive details about the experience that immediately come to mind. Consider what you’re most proud of for each project and what the positive outcome was. While brainstorming, don’t worry about the order, relevance, or organization of details yet (we’ll get to that in steps 4 and 5).
Once you’re done brainstorming, scroll back up to the top of your document. Here, type out your goals for your job search, such as your target job title, duties, leadership level, industry, and company size. You may be undecided or indifferent in some areas. If so, write that down as well. For instance, if you’re open to industry, write “Industry: open.”
Save the document, and then save it as “Projects List – [Target Job Title].” (So, if your target job title is Research Assistant, save it as “Projects List – Research Assistant.”) You’ll be working on this new document for the rest of the exercise.
Now, here’s your most important task. Review your project notes in light of the goals you’ve identified and delete any details that don’t hold relevance. Take it one point at a time. For each ask and answer the same critical question: Does this overlap with the type of work you’ll be doing in your next job? Don’t be shy about deleting project details that are recent and/or objectively impressive. If they don’t relate to your goals, they don’t need to go on your resume. (At least, not this one. They may be relevant to a future version of your resume targeting a different goal. Hence the value of drafting and saving your “Master Projects List” document.)
Now that you’ve filtered out all but the most relevant details, you’re in the best position to add projects to your resume. For each project, you can organize the elements similar to a standard job description, with bullets showcasing your key points. Here’s a sample template you can adapt:
Project Name, School / Affiliated Organization, City, ST | dates
Position Title: Description of your role or standard duties.
(If there was no school/organization or position title for a personal project, simply omit those items.)
For any personal projects, create a separate resume section. You can title it “Independent Projects” (or “Independent Project Highlights” if you wound up deleting some in step 4).
For any academic project, you can choose where to add them. Either include them in a separate section titled “Academic Projects” (or “Academic Project Highlights”) or include them in the Education section of your resume.
The right choice for you will depend on how relevant your college degree is in relation to your projects. If your degree is about equally applicable, combining your projects with your Education section details usually makes sense. But you may find your college degree is less relevant than the school projects you’ve listed. Perhaps you’re moving in a different direction than your major, but through the overall degree program you did some other projects that now speak strongly to your goals. In this case, it makes more sense to put these projects in their own “Academic Projects” section. You can place them above your Education section, making the projects more prominent on your resume.
Another strategic choice you can make has to do with project dates. You can either list them as you do a regular job description (e.g., “January 2022 to May 2022”) or as a general time span (e.g., “Duration: 4 months”).
If listing the dates regularly lets you account for your recent experience , use that option. But if you’re already accounting for your recent experience through your work history, you can list project dates as a general time span. This option often has a tidier look, especially when you have many different projects that only lasted a few weeks or months. More importantly, it allows you the flexibility to reorder the projects by relevance to your goal. Reordering by relevance can be especially helpful when your most recent projects are less applicable than the ones you did earlier on.
If you would like to include personal or academic projects on your resume, you should select those that are most relevant to the job you are seeking. You’ll avoid putting off recruiters and hiring managers with details that don’t speak to their needs through a strict focus on relevancy. Follow this exercise, and you can be sure your projects section adds a welcome new dimension to your overall resume.
Get 2x more interviews with Resume Builder. Access Pro Plan features for a limited time!
Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW, ACRW)
Jacob Meade is a resume writer and editor with nearly a decade of experience. His writing method centers on understanding and then expressing each person’s unique work history and strengths toward their career goal. Jacob has enjoyed working with jobseekers of all ages and career levels, finding that a clear and focused resume can help people from any walk of life. He is an Academy Certified Resume Writer (ACRW) with the Resume Writing Academy, and a Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW) with the Professional Association of Resume Writers & Career Coaches.
More than 5,000 organizations count on our digital courses and more to help their teams learn the tools and technologies that drive business outcomes. We can help yours too.
O’Reilly president Laura Baldwin shares the company’s ethical approach to leveraging GenAI tools and ensuring O’Reilly experts are compensated for their work.
LLMs aren’t just the future of work—they’re the now. Every employee needs to learn how to utilize them for your organization to stay ahead. We have all the resources your team needs.
Jose, a principal software engineer, trusts our learning platform to filter what his teams need to know to stay ahead.
Addison always appreciated O’Reilly books, but the learning platform helped take her skills to the next level.
For over eight years Amir has counted on our learning platform whether he needs proven methods to learn new technologies or the latest management tips.
Mark credits the O’Reilly learning platform with helping him to stay ahead at every turn throughout his tech career.
Learn who best put the O’Reilly learning platform to work for their organization and what the judges were looking for in winning submissions.
O’Reilly Experts
From books to leading tech conferences to a groundbreaking online learning platform, we’ve focused on creating the best technical learning content for more than four decades. Your teams can benefit from that experience.
Get in the virtual room with an expert instructor who’ll take questions and guide you through today’s most important tools and technologies.
Get step-by-step guidance in a secure coding environment to learn fundamental concepts, practice a use case, prepare for a certification, or explore a new tool.
Pick the role you have (or the role you want) and we’ll guide you to the top live and on-demand courses to learn the technologies and skills you need to succeed.
A certification means you can trust they’ve mastered the skills your organization needs. We help your people prep for their exams with direct paths to the official materials and interactive practice tests.
Our live and on-demand courses are organized by skill and role, and team members get verifiable and sharable badges that use the Open Badges 2.0 standard to show off what they’ve learned.
Your teams have access to nearly 1,000 live online courses and events every year, led by top experts in AI, software architecture, cloud, data, programming, and more. And they can ask questions along the way.
Kai Holnes, Thoughtworks
Trust that they’ve mastered the skills your organization needs. Help your people prep for their certification exams with direct paths to the official materials and interactive practice tests.
UPDATED Aug. 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM
Check out our popular polling averages
Do Americans Have A Favorable Opinion Of Kamala Harris?
Favorability polling average
Do Americans Have A Favorable Opinion Of Donald Trump?
Do Voters Want Republicans Or Democrats In Congress?
Generic ballot polling average
Do Americans Approve Or Disapprove Of Joe Biden?
Approval polling average
Updating average for each candidate in 2024 presidential polls, accounting for each poll's recency, sample size, methodology and house effects..
95% OF AVERAGES PROJECTED TO FALL IN THIS RANGE
Polling averages are adjusted based on state and national polls, which means candidates’ averages can shift even if no new polls have been added to this page. Read the full methodology here .
Dates | Samplei | Pollster | Sponsor | Result | Net result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Datesi | Pollster | Result |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +5 | Harris Trump Kennedy |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +2 | Harris Trump Kennedy West Stein | ||
RV | RVis a partisan sponsor for the Democratic Party. | Harris | Trump | +4 |
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +2 | Harris Trump Kennedy Oliver Stein | ||
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy Stein West Oliver |
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +3 | LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy West Stein Oliver |
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +2 |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | LV | LVHarris | Trump | +7 | Harris Trump Kennedy West Stein |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | RV | RVHarris | Trump | +4 | Harris Trump Kennedy Stein West |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +3 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +4 | LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy West Oliver Stein |
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy West Oliver Stein | ||
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 |
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
RV | RVHarris | Trump | +1 | Harris Trump Kennedy | ||
LV | LVHarris | Trump | +2 | RV | RVHarris | Trump | Even |
Indicates a polling average for this poll type
Candidate is an incumbent
Democratic-funded
Republican-funded
Other party-funded
Campaign poll
The position of the flag indicates whether the organization is partisan. Organizations are considered partisan if they operate on behalf of a candidate, party, campaign committee, PAC, super PAC, hybrid PAC , 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) organization that conducts a large majority of its political activity on behalf of one political party.
No matching polls
Download the data.
When the dates of tracking polls from the same pollster overlap, only the most recent version is shown.
Data for FiveThirtyEight's previous favorability, presidential approval and national 2024 Republican primary averages is available for download here .
Notice any bugs or missing polls? Send us an email .
Design and development by Ryan Best , Aaron Bycoffe , Holly Fuong , Christopher Groskopf , Ritchie King , Ella Koeze , Dhrumil Mehta , Jasmine Mithani , Mary Radcliffe , Anna Wiederkehr and Julia Wolfe . Polling averages by G. Elliott Morris . Cooper Burton , Holly Fuong , Andrea Jones-Rooy , Irena Li , Dhrumil Mehta , Mary Radcliffe , Nathaniel Rakich , Derek Shan , Geoffrey Skelley and Julia Wolfe contributed research. Editing by Sarah Frostenson , Nathaniel Rakich , Kaleigh Rogers and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux . Copy editing by Cooper Burton , Holly Fuong , Alex Kimball , Jennifer Mason , Andrew Mangan , Maya Sweedler and Curtis Yee .
Comments .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Step #2: Find a mentor (if you can) After identifying a broad area of interest, invest time in finding a mentor. Certainly, you do not need to work with a mentor to conduct research. But, in my experience, it's hard to get started on a research project without some guidance.
March 13, 2024. If you want to get into top universities, an independent research project will give your application the competitive edge it needs. Writing and publishing independent research during high school lets you demonstrate to top colleges and universities that you can deeply inquire into a topic, think critically, and produce original ...
NHSJS is a free, online, student-run and peer-reviewed research journal that is targeted towards high school students. To be published in this journal, students don't have to do independent ...
Set goals for completing the introduction, various sections of the body, and your conclusion. 6. Edit Your Paper. There will be multiple stages of editing that need to happen. First, you will self-edit your first draft. Then, you will likely turn a draft of your paper in to your mentor for another round of editing.
Independent research is an educational activity done by students who wish to fully investigate a topic they are interested in. If you are wondering if a high school student can do independent research, the answer is a BIG YES!In fact, high school students can benefit the most from conducting independent research.. Aside from fostering critical thinking skills, research projects can deliver ...
Step by step guide to starting research in high school. This process has helped me win awards at ISEF, NJSHS, and several other top science fairs. Let me kno...
Develop a list of future education and career interests. Brainstorm potential research topics relating to your passion or interest. Look up ongoing research studies by professors or doctoral degree-seeking students with a local college or university. Ask family members if they know any researchers who they could connect you with.
In high school, I published three research papers an... Today, I will show you how to do research in high school independently and through research internships.
Step 2: Gather information. This may be self-explanatory, but it's time to research! Have a variety of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Good places to find sources are your local library, school databases, or Google Scholar . Since not everything on the internet is true, vetting your source is crucial.
It's great that you're interested in pursuing independent research in high school! Independent research can be an excellent way to explore your interests in-depth and demonstrate curiosity and initiative to colleges. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you get started: 1. Identify your research area: Start by brainstorming topics that interest you, either within a specific academic subject or ...
Research can be a life-changing experience for a high schooler. It gives them a chance to gain hands-on instruction beyond the classroom and be exposed to the dynamics of a lab environment. In ...
Innovative findings can have a more significant impact on the scientific community and may open up new avenues of exploration. Personal growth and development: Tackling an original research topic encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. These skills are invaluable for researchers and can be applied to various aspects of ...
Length: 2-6 months. Cost: $495-$3,695. Eligibility: No age restrictions. For high school students who want to showcase authentic passion on their college applications, Polygence offers the most personalized and flexible online research program that helps students turn their interests into unique research projects.
1. Conduct your own independent research project. This one is the easiest to start out with, and it's what I recommend most students start out doing to get a feel of what research is and what the scientific process is like in a low-stakes environment.
Drawing from our perspectives as an education researcher and a secondary school chemistry teacher, here are three ideas we recommend you try out in your own classroom. 1. Build a research community. Research is a team endeavour that brings together different skills and experiences to establish research communities involving a variety of key ...
Founded by Harvard & Oxford researchers, the Lumiere Research Scholar Program is a rigorous research program tailored for high school students. The program pairs high-school students with PhD mentors to work 1-on-1 on an independent research project. At the end of the 12-week program, you'll have written an independent research paper!
Independent Research Project Ideas for High School. Grace attended James Madison University has a bachelor's degree in history and a master's degree in teaching. She previously taught 2 years of ...
Back in high school, my research endeavors were predominantly solitary. I would conceive a project idea, gather the data, write a research paper, and even compete in science competitions, all largely on my own. However, once I became an undergrad at UConn, I quickly realized that the normal approach to research was notably different ...
Introduction and context. This paper presents the findings of a systematic review of the nature and impact of practical independent research projects (IRPs) in high school science, covering their chief characteristics, organisation and assessment, and impact on high school students' learning of science and affective responses to science.
Autonomous Learning. Independent research is a form of student-centered instruction that focuses on developing autonomy with minimal teacher support. However, before students are ready to work on ...
Step-by-Step Research Plan Creation- Learn to Develop Effective Plans from Start to Finish. Students will work with a scientific researcher to understand the thought process in designing a research project while learning innovative research frameworks, critical thinking skills, and systematic problem-solving approaches that they typically need in order to create a compelling science project in ...
Search universities' websites with those departments and contact them for research internship possibilities. 5. Email College Professors. Now that you have the list of labs, one way to find and secure research program opportunities are to draft a compelling email and send it to the professors on your list.
My high school offers seniors the opportunity to take their last quarter off and do an independent research project instead, that just has to be approved by the proper department. We'll have faculty mentors making sure we're on track, but they don't have to have intimate knowledge about what we're researching, they just have to make sure we've ...
CG: The research experience I have from AER accelerated the work I've done beyond high school. In terms of research and the actual information I give out, I know that what I'm discovering isn ...
Introduction and context. This paper presents the findings of a systematic review of the nature and impact of practical independent research projects (IRPs) in high school science, covering their chief characteristics, organisation and assessment, and impact on high school students' learning of science and affective responses to science.
Include the basics: project name, dates, location, and school, if applicable. Step 2: Brainstorm Details . Under each project you've listed, brainstorm and write down any positive details about the experience that immediately come to mind. Consider what you're most proud of for each project and what the positive outcome was.
Gain technology and business knowledge and hone your skills with learning resources created and curated by O'Reilly's experts: live online training, video, books, our platform has content from 200+ of the world's best publishers.
The position of the flag indicates whether the organization is partisan. Organizations are considered partisan if they operate on behalf of a candidate, party, campaign committee, PAC, super PAC, hybrid PAC, 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) organization that conducts a large majority of its political activity on behalf of one political party.