what is research subject in high school

Upcoming Summer 2024 Application Deadline is May 12, 2024.  

Click here to apply.

Featured Posts

Pace University's Pre-College Program: Our Honest Review

Building a College Portfolio? Here are 8 Things You Should Know

Should You Apply to Catapult Incubator as a High Schooler?

8 Criminal Justice Internships for High School Students

10 Reasons to Apply to Scripps' Research Internship for High School Students

10 Free Business Programs for High School Students

Spike Lab - Is It a Worthwhile Incubator Program for High School Students?

10 Business Programs for High School Students in NYC

11 Summer Film Programs for High School Students

10 Photography Internships for High School Students

How to do Research in High School: Everything You Need to Know

If you are passionate about a certain subject, doing research in that field is a fantastic way to explore your interests, set the building blocks for a future career, and stand out on college applications. However, for many students, the idea of conducting research seems daunting and inaccessible while in high school and the question of where to start remains a mystery. This guide’s goal is to provide a starter for any students interested in high school research.

Research experience for high school students: Why do research?

Research is a fantastic way to delve into a field of interest. Research students at Lumiere have investigated everything, from ways to detect ocean health, new machine learning algorithms, and the artists of the 19th century. Engaging in research means you can familiarize yourself with a professional environment and develop high-level research skills early on; working with experts means you might discover things you may have never dreamed of before. You are given a valuable opportunity to think ahead and ask yourself foundational questions:

“Is this what I want in a future career?”

“What do I like and dislike about this process?”

As a huge plus (and do not underestimate the value of this!), you will likely gain extremely valuable connections, mentors, and recommenders in working closely with your team.

Let’s face it, the college selection process is becoming more and more competitive each year and admission teams are always looking for new ways to distinguish strong candidates. Doing a research project shows that you are someone with passions and, more importantly, someone with a willingness to take the extra step and explore those passions. You showcase your abilities, ambition, work ethic, eagerness to learn, and professionalism, all at the same time. This will no doubt help you when the time for college applications rolls around.

How to do research in high school: finding opportunities

Now that we’ve covered the ‘why’, let’s cover the ‘how’! There are two ways you can go about this, and it’s a great idea to run these in parallel so that one can serve as a backup for the other.

1. Identify research opportunities and apply strategically: Some opportunities are recurring programs. Usually, these are advertised. These can be structured research programs or internships run by universities, non-profits or government departments.

Organization and preparation were key to my own application processes, so be sure to start thinking ahead. Note that most research programs take place in the summer and require applications that are due by January or February. Make a spreadsheet of programs you’d be interested in and take note of their application deadlines, cost, required materials, etc. Applications often have you write essays and submit recommendation letters, so you want to think about those in advance as well.

2. Cold email to find research opportunities that are not advertised: Another way to pursue research outside of the programs is to try contacting people directly and get involved in their research projects. This would mainly involve university faculty, but you might also find a mentor elsewhere; for instance, if you are interested in medical work, you could contact someone at your local hospital. If you are interested in government, you might reach out to your local representative. If you don’t have any personal connections with faculty members in your field, cold emailing them is the way to go. You’ll need to email a lot of researchers; chances are some are busy, some aren’t in need of interns, and some simply don’t check their emails. To up your chances, you should try reaching out to at least 25 people of interest.

For cold emailing, you’ll be asking for opportunities that may not be advertised. You’ll need to prepare an “email template” of sorts that you’ll be sending out to everyone. It should start with an introduction—who are you, where are you from, how do you know this person—and include a set of your skills and interests that you could bring to the table. Keep this email short, friendly and to the point. Don’t be afraid to follow-up if they don’t respond within the first two weeks! Your message might have just gotten lost in their inbox. You’ll also want to update your resumé to attach to the email be sure to include any relevant coursework, accomplishments, and experience in the field.

Types of research opportunities for high school students

1. do a structured research program in high school.

Structured research programs are excellent ways to gain experience under some top researchers and university faculty, and often include stays at actual labs or college campuses with a wide variety of peers, mentors, and faculty. Examples of some competitive research programs include Research Science Institute (RSI) hosted by MIT, the Summer Academy for Math and Science (SAMS) offered by Carnegie Mellon, and a program hosted by the Baker Institute at Rice University for students interested in political science. For more options, here’s a list of 24 programs for this upcoming summer that we’ve compiled for you!

Another great way of deep-diving into an area of your interest and doing university-level research is through 1-1 mentorship.

Lumiere Research Scholar Program

Founded by Harvard and Oxford researchers, Lumiere offers its own structured research programs in which ambitious high school students work 1-1 with top PhDs and develop and independent research paper.

Students have had the opportunity to work on customized research projects across STEM, social sciences, AI and business. Lumiere’s growing network of mentors currently has over 700, carefully selected PhDs from top universities who are passionate about leading the next generation of researchers. The program is fully virtual! You can find the application form here .

Also check out the Lumiere Research inclusion Foundation , a non-profit research program for talented, low-income students.

Veritas AI’s Summer Fellowship Program

Veritas AI has a range of AI programs for ambitious high school students , starting from close-group, collaborative learning to customized project pathways with 1:1 mentorship . The programs have been designed and run by Harvard graduate students & alumni.

In the AI Fellowship, you will create a novel AI project independently with the support of a mentor over 12-15 weeks. Examples of past projects can be found here .

Apply now !

2. Work with a professor in high school

Research typically asks for an advisor, professional, or mentor. So how does someone end up doing research with a researcher in high school? The very first thing you need to do is identify an area of interest. If you really enjoy biology at school, perfect. If you find history fascinating, you’ve found your topic. The important thing is that you’re truly interested in this area; any discipline is fair game!

3. Participate in competitions and fairs

There are many research competitions and fairs available for high school students to participate in. For example, the Davidson Institute offers cash scholarships for student projects in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, literature, music, or philosophy. The Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair is a particularly well-known competition for students who have completed independent research projects. Research fairs are a great way to motivate students in pursuing their own interests, showing initiative and drive. Winning a competition also looks great on a resumé! Check out Lumiere’s guide to research competitions here .

4. Pursue your own passion projects

A passion project can mean more than just a presentation made for competition. For example, a student I know created an app to track music trends at our school and then analyzed the data on his own—just for fun! It was a great story to include on his future internship applications. Take a look at Lumiere’s guide for passion projects here .

5. Write a research paper

Once you’ve pursued your own research project, writing a research paper is a next great step. This way, you have a writing sample you’ll be able to send to colleges as an additional supplement, or to labs and researchers for future opportunities. It’s also a fantastic exercise in writing. We know that many high school students might struggle with learning how to write a research paper on their own. This is something you might work with your high school science teacher on, or with the guidance of a Lumiere mentor.

6. Research internships

These can be standalone or part of a research program. In looking for a more structured research experience, a research internship can be particularly valuable in building strong foundations in research. There are always tons of internship opportunities available in all different fields, some as specific as medical research . If you are wondering how to get a research internship in high school, then check out our blog posts and apply!

Things to keep in mind when working with a researcher.

You’ve gotten into a research program! Now you want to do the best job possible. There are a few things to keep in mind while conducting research.

1. Maintain a professional and friendly demeanor

Chances are, there are many things you don’t know or haven’t learned about this field. The important thing is to keep an open mind and remain eager to learn. Don’t be afraid to ask questions or to offer to help with anything, even if it’s not in your job description. Your mentor will appreciate your willingness to adapt, follow procedures, and engage with challenging material.

2. Keep track of what’s happening

Open up your notes app or get a small journal to remember what has happened in each step of the process. I remember the hardest part of writing my college essays was the very beginning: trying to come up with a list of memorable moments to talk about. If you’re looking to write about your research experience in your college application, you need to remember the moments where you struggled, where you learned, where you almost gave up but didn’t, where you realized something, even the moment you first stepped into the lab! If you are given feedback: write that down! If you are asked to reflect on everything you learned: write that down! This will be incredibly important for now and for later.

3. Ask questions

Not only is your mentor there as a potential future recommender, but they are also there to help you learn as much as possible. Absorb as much as you can from them! Ask as many questions as you can about their career, their previous research, their education, their own moments of realization, etc. This will help you discover what this career really entails and what you might look for in navigating your own future career.

Making the most out of your research: How to publish a research paper in high school

A question we often get is whether or not you need to publish your research for you to mention it in your college application. While the answer is no, the experience is a great one to have and definitely allows your work to stand out amongst your peers. Lumiere has published a complete guide to publishing research in high school here . What’s important to keep in mind is that there are various journals that specifically accept high school research reports and papers, such as the Concord Review or the Journal of Emerging Investigators. In our articles below, we go through a detailed guide of what these journals are and how a student might best approach the submission process.

Useful guides for publishing a research paper in high school

The Concord Review: The Complete Guide To Getting In (lumiere-education.com)

The John Locke Essay Competition

The Complete Guide to the Journal of Emerging Investigators (lumiere-education.com)

Research is an incredibly rewarding learning experience for everyone. While high school may seem early, it’s always better to start sooner rather than later, both for your college applications and for your own personal progress. Although the process may seem daunting at first, we hope we’ve broken it down in a way that’s simple and digestible. And if you want extra support, the Lumiere Research Scholar Program is always here to help!

Amelia is a current junior at Harvard College studying art history with a minor in economics. She’s enthusiastic about music, movies, and writing, and is excited to help Lumiere’s students as much as she can!

Research Basics

• What Is Research?
• Types of Research
• Secondary Research | Literature Review
• Developing Your Topic
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Evaluating Sources
• Responsible Conduct of Research
• Additional Help

A good working definition of research might be:

Research is the deliberate, purposeful, and systematic gathering of data, information, facts, and/or opinions for the advancement of personal, societal, or overall human knowledge.

Based on this definition, we all do research all the time. Most of this research is casual research. Asking friends what they think of different restaurants, looking up reviews of various products online, learning more about celebrities; these are all research.

Formal research includes the type of research most people think of when they hear the term “research”: scientists in white coats working in a fully equipped laboratory. But formal research is a much broader category that just this. Most people will never do laboratory research after graduating from college, but almost everybody will have to do some sort of formal research at some point in their careers.

So What Do We Mean By “Formal Research?”

Casual research is inward facing: it’s done to satisfy our own curiosity or meet our own needs, whether that’s choosing a reliable car or figuring out what to watch on TV. Formal research is outward facing. While it may satisfy our own curiosity, it’s primarily intended to be shared in order to achieve some purpose. That purpose could be anything: finding a cure for cancer, securing funding for a new business, improving some process at your workplace, proving the latest theory in quantum physics, or even just getting a good grade in your Humanities 200 class.

What sets formal research apart from casual research is the documentation of where you gathered your information from. This is done in the form of “citations” and “bibliographies.” Citing sources is covered in the section "Citing Your Sources."

Formal research also follows certain common patterns depending on what the research is trying to show or prove. These are covered in the section “Types of Research.”

• Next: Types of Research >>
• Last Updated: Dec 21, 2023 3:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.iit.edu/research_basics

• Research Skills

50 Mini-Lessons For Teaching Students Research Skills

Please note, I am no longer blogging and this post hasn’t updated since April 2020.

For a number of years, Seth Godin has been talking about the need to “ connect the dots” rather than “collect the dots” . That is, rather than memorising information, students must be able to learn how to solve new problems, see patterns, and combine multiple perspectives.

Solid research skills underpin this. Having the fluency to find and use information successfully is an essential skill for life and work.

Today’s students have more information at their fingertips than ever before and this means the role of the teacher as a guide is more important than ever.

You might be wondering how you can fit teaching research skills into a busy curriculum? There aren’t enough hours in the day! The good news is, there are so many mini-lessons you can do to build students’ skills over time.

This post outlines 50 ideas for activities that could be done in just a few minutes (or stretched out to a longer lesson if you have the time!).

Learn More About The Research Process

I have a popular post called Teach Students How To Research Online In 5 Steps. It outlines a five-step approach to break down the research process into manageable chunks.

This post shares ideas for mini-lessons that could be carried out in the classroom throughout the year to help build students’ skills in the five areas of: clarify, search, delve, evaluate , and cite . It also includes ideas for learning about staying organised throughout the research process.

Notes about the 50 research activities:

• These ideas can be adapted for different age groups from middle primary/elementary to senior high school.
• Many of these ideas can be repeated throughout the year.
• Depending on the age of your students, you can decide whether the activity will be more teacher or student led. Some activities suggest coming up with a list of words, questions, or phrases. Teachers of younger students could generate these themselves.
• Depending on how much time you have, many of the activities can be either quickly modelled by the teacher, or extended to an hour-long lesson.
• Some of the activities could fit into more than one category.
• Looking for simple articles for younger students for some of the activities? Try DOGO News or Time for Kids . Newsela is also a great resource but you do need to sign up for free account.
• Why not try a few activities in a staff meeting? Everyone can always brush up on their own research skills!

• Choose a topic (e.g. koalas, basketball, Mount Everest) . Write as many questions as you can think of relating to that topic.
• Make a mindmap of a topic you’re currently learning about. This could be either on paper or using an online tool like Bubbl.us .
• Read a short book or article. Make a list of 5 words from the text that you don’t totally understand. Look up the meaning of the words in a dictionary (online or paper).
• Look at a printed or digital copy of a short article with the title removed. Come up with as many different titles as possible that would fit the article.
• Come up with a list of 5 different questions you could type into Google (e.g. Which country in Asia has the largest population?) Circle the keywords in each question.
• Write down 10 words to describe a person, place, or topic. Come up with synonyms for these words using a tool like  Thesaurus.com .
• Write pairs of synonyms on post-it notes (this could be done by the teacher or students). Each student in the class has one post-it note and walks around the classroom to find the person with the synonym to their word.

• Explore how to search Google using your voice (i.e. click/tap on the microphone in the Google search box or on your phone/tablet keyboard) . List the pros and cons of using voice and text to search.
• Open two different search engines in your browser such as Google and Bing. Type in a query and compare the results. Do all search engines work exactly the same?
• Have students work in pairs to try out a different search engine (there are 11 listed here ). Report back to the class on the pros and cons.
• Think of something you’re curious about, (e.g. What endangered animals live in the Amazon Rainforest?). Open Google in two tabs. In one search, type in one or two keywords ( e.g. Amazon Rainforest) . In the other search type in multiple relevant keywords (e.g. endangered animals Amazon rainforest).  Compare the results. Discuss the importance of being specific.
• Similar to above, try two different searches where one phrase is in quotation marks and the other is not. For example, Origin of “raining cats and dogs” and Origin of raining cats and dogs . Discuss the difference that using quotation marks makes (It tells Google to search for the precise keywords in order.)
• Try writing a question in Google with a few minor spelling mistakes. What happens? What happens if you add or leave out punctuation ?
• Try the AGoogleADay.com daily search challenges from Google. The questions help older students learn about choosing keywords, deconstructing questions, and altering keywords.
• Explore how Google uses autocomplete to suggest searches quickly. Try it out by typing in various queries (e.g. How to draw… or What is the tallest…). Discuss how these suggestions come about, how to use them, and whether they’re usually helpful.
• Watch this video  from Code.org to learn more about how search works .
• Take a look at  20 Instant Google Searches your Students Need to Know  by Eric Curts to learn about “ instant searches ”. Try one to try out. Perhaps each student could be assigned one to try and share with the class.
• Experiment with typing some questions into Google that have a clear answer (e.g. “What is a parallelogram?” or “What is the highest mountain in the world?” or “What is the population of Australia?”). Look at the different ways the answers are displayed instantly within the search results — dictionary definitions, image cards, graphs etc.

• Watch the video How Does Google Know Everything About Me?  by Scientific American. Discuss the PageRank algorithm and how Google uses your data to customise search results.
• Brainstorm a list of popular domains   (e.g. .com, .com.au, or your country’s domain) . Discuss if any domains might be more reliable than others and why (e.g. .gov or .edu) .
• Discuss (or research) ways to open Google search results in a new tab to save your original search results  (i.e. right-click > open link in new tab or press control/command and click the link).
• Try out a few Google searches (perhaps start with things like “car service” “cat food” or “fresh flowers”). A re there advertisements within the results? Discuss where these appear and how to spot them.
• Look at ways to filter search results by using the tabs at the top of the page in Google (i.e. news, images, shopping, maps, videos etc.). Do the same filters appear for all Google searches? Try out a few different searches and see.
• Type a question into Google and look for the “People also ask” and “Searches related to…” sections. Discuss how these could be useful. When should you use them or ignore them so you don’t go off on an irrelevant tangent? Is the information in the drop-down section under “People also ask” always the best?
• Often, more current search results are more useful. Click on “tools” under the Google search box and then “any time” and your time frame of choice such as “Past month” or “Past year”.
• Have students annotate their own “anatomy of a search result” example like the one I made below. Explore the different ways search results display; some have more details like sitelinks and some do not.

• Find two articles on a news topic from different publications. Or find a news article and an opinion piece on the same topic. Make a Venn diagram comparing the similarities and differences.
• Choose a graph, map, or chart from The New York Times’ What’s Going On In This Graph series . Have a whole class or small group discussion about the data.
• Look at images stripped of their captions on What’s Going On In This Picture? by The New York Times. Discuss the images in pairs or small groups. What can you tell?
• Explore a website together as a class or in pairs — perhaps a news website. Identify all the advertisements .
• Have a look at a fake website either as a whole class or in pairs/small groups. See if students can spot that these sites are not real. Discuss the fact that you can’t believe everything that’s online. Get started with these four examples of fake websites from Eric Curts.
• Give students a copy of my website evaluation flowchart to analyse and then discuss as a class. Read more about the flowchart in this post.
• As a class, look at a prompt from Mike Caulfield’s Four Moves . Either together or in small groups, have students fact check the prompts on the site. This resource explains more about the fact checking process. Note: some of these prompts are not suitable for younger students.
• Practice skim reading — give students one minute to read a short article. Ask them to discuss what stood out to them. Headings? Bold words? Quotes? Then give students ten minutes to read the same article and discuss deep reading.

All students can benefit from learning about plagiarism, copyright, how to write information in their own words, and how to acknowledge the source. However, the formality of this process will depend on your students’ age and your curriculum guidelines.

• Watch the video Citation for Beginners for an introduction to citation. Discuss the key points to remember.
• Look up the definition of plagiarism using a variety of sources (dictionary, video, Wikipedia etc.). Create a definition as a class.
• Find an interesting video on YouTube (perhaps a “life hack” video) and write a brief summary in your own words.
• Have students pair up and tell each other about their weekend. Then have the listener try to verbalise or write their friend’s recount in their own words. Discuss how accurate this was.
• Read the class a copy of a well known fairy tale. Have them write a short summary in their own words. Compare the versions that different students come up with.
• Try out MyBib — a handy free online tool without ads that helps you create citations quickly and easily.
• Give primary/elementary students a copy of Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Citation that matches their grade level (the guide covers grades 1 to 6). Choose one form of citation and create some examples as a class (e.g. a website or a book).
• Make a list of things that are okay and not okay to do when researching, e.g. copy text from a website, use any image from Google images, paraphrase in your own words and cite your source, add a short quote and cite the source. 
• Have students read a short article and then come up with a summary that would be considered plagiarism and one that would not be considered plagiarism. These could be shared with the class and the students asked to decide which one shows an example of plagiarism .
• Older students could investigate the difference between paraphrasing and summarising . They could create a Venn diagram that compares the two.
• Write a list of statements on the board that might be true or false ( e.g. The 1956 Olympics were held in Melbourne, Australia. The rhinoceros is the largest land animal in the world. The current marathon world record is 2 hours, 7 minutes). Have students research these statements and decide whether they’re true or false by sharing their citations.

Staying Organised

• Make a list of different ways you can take notes while researching — Google Docs, Google Keep, pen and paper etc. Discuss the pros and cons of each method.
• Learn the keyboard shortcuts to help manage tabs (e.g. open new tab, reopen closed tab, go to next tab etc.). Perhaps students could all try out the shortcuts and share their favourite one with the class.
• Find a collection of resources on a topic and add them to a Wakelet .
• Listen to a short podcast or watch a brief video on a certain topic and sketchnote ideas. Sylvia Duckworth has some great tips about live sketchnoting
• Learn how to use split screen to have one window open with your research, and another open with your notes (e.g. a Google spreadsheet, Google Doc, Microsoft Word or OneNote etc.) .

All teachers know it’s important to teach students to research well. Investing time in this process will also pay off throughout the year and the years to come. Students will be able to focus on analysing and synthesizing information, rather than the mechanics of the research process.

By trying out as many of these mini-lessons as possible throughout the year, you’ll be really helping your students to thrive in all areas of school, work, and life.

Also remember to model your own searches explicitly during class time. Talk out loud as you look things up and ask students for input. Learning together is the way to go!

You Might Also Enjoy Reading:

How To Evaluate Websites: A Guide For Teachers And Students

Five Tips for Teaching Students How to Research and Filter Information

Typing Tips: The How and Why of Teaching Students Keyboarding Skills

8 Ways Teachers And Schools Can Communicate With Parents

10 Replies to “50 Mini-Lessons For Teaching Students Research Skills”

Loving these ideas, thank you

This list is amazing. Thank you so much!

So glad it’s helpful, Alex! 🙂

Hi I am a student who really needed some help on how to reasearch thanks for the help.

So glad it helped! 🙂

seriously seriously grateful for your post. 🙂

So glad it’s helpful! Makes my day 🙂

How do you get the 50 mini lessons. I got the free one but am interested in the full version.

Hi Tracey, The link to the PDF with the 50 mini lessons is in the post. Here it is . Check out this post if you need more advice on teaching students how to research online. Hope that helps! Kathleen

Best wishes to you as you face your health battler. Hoping you’ve come out stronger and healthier from it. Your website is so helpful.

Comments are closed.

Pathways to Science Research

Any everyday occurrence can spark an interest in science, which is why Regeneron Science Talent Search Finalists and Scholars are an extremely diverse group.  They come from all walks of life, from schools that are large and small, rural and urban, public and private.  Some are just naturally drawn to science of their own accord, some have families with scientists, and some simply see a problem and use science to fix it.  Some students jump in as early as middle school, while others complete research in as little as a month, just before their last year in high school.  No single path is the right one for every student, but one thing always holds true – no matter which path you take, you have an equal chance of winning the Regeneron Science Talent Search.

Not sure where to begin?  Here are some of the pathways you might choose:

Pathway #1 – Complete Research at Your High School

Some high schools have science research classes in which you can enroll and complete a science research project over the course of a semester.  If an official course isn’t offered at your school, some teachers have research programs where students meet during lunch or on weekends to complete research right in the school.  If that isn’t established yet, try talking to your teacher or the sponsor of the science, engineering, math, or robotics club to see if you could work on some research during lunch, after school, or whenever their club meets.

• Science News Explores – “Pathways to Research: Pursuing a Passion”

Pathway #2 – High School Science Research Programs Outside of School

Across the country there are established research programs for high school students.  Most of these programs are through universities and companies who employ scientists.  Many summer programs have applications due in January, so start searching early.

Pathway #3 – Connect with a Scientist One-on-One

If you have an interest in a specific area of science, or you weren’t able to join an established research program, you can get permission from your parents to contact scientists on your own and ask if they would accept a high school student into their lab.  First you should decide what subject area interests you – see the section below entitled “Deciding on a Subject Area.”  Then look online at local colleges and universities to find professors in that subject area.  To increase your chances, it is best to read about the research each scientist does, then call or email the scientist explaining why you are interested in that particular topic.  Sometimes friends, family members, or teachers know scientists who might enjoy working with you.  Try to be as independent as possible in contacting those scientists and selecting a research question.

• Science News Explores – “Pathways to Research: Connecting with Scientists”

Pathway #4 – Solve a Problem in Your Community

Do you have a question about the world that you could investigate on your own?  Can you build a model to test a scientific question?  Is there a problem in your community that could be solved using science?  If any of these are true for you, you might be able to complete your research outside of any program or research institution.  If you live in an area that is not near research institutions, this might be a great option for you.

• Science News Explores – “Pathways to Research: Problem-Solving”

Pathway #5 – Theoretical Research

Some students choose to skip the lab bench and do some theoretical research.  Some mathematics research can be performed without any special equipment and without leaving your home (except for a few trips to the library).  You can read journal articles in the subject area of your choice and initiate your own exploration using your own ideas.

• Science News Explores – “Pathways to Research: Young Scientists Tackle Abtract Problems”

Deciding on a Subject Area

Sometimes a particular topic or subject area really stands out and gets you thinking.  If you’re not sure what subject areas you like, one good idea is to look at the topics in Science News and Science News Explores .  On the landing page, you’ll see articles divided by subject area.  Here are the subject areas of science that might match up with those topics:

There is a consensus that a hands-on approach to teaching science helps students learn better. 1,2 But how much do teaching labs reflect what scientists do every day? Many teaching labs have recipe-like directions with a known output. This is great for teaching methods and concepts, and fits well into class time. Students can, however, distinguish “school science” of rote experiments from real science where the results are unknown. 3,4 Authentic science engages students by not using a recipe, forcing them to plan, think critically, and analyze data in a way that many instructional labs do not. Students find unexpected hurdles and learn that results are sometimes not as expected, but find themselves inspired because they have learned persistence, critical thinking, and the truth that answers in science always produce more questions. A retrospective study found students exposed to scientific research in high school are more likely to have and keep a STEM career than those who do not experience research until college. 5

As the Senior Scientist for the New Hampshire Academy of Science (NHAS), I manage a STEM lab that operates solely for middle and high school students and teachers. The NHAS is a nonprofit state academy affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). We support all facets of STEM, although many of our projects have been in biology (thankfully, for this cell biologist). In summer and after-school programs, we enable students to explore novel research questions, guiding them through literature searches to formulate testable hypotheses, experimental design, data analysis, and presentation of results.

A Lab with a Twist Our lab is run like a graduate research lab with a twist. Because students pursue individual interests, the range of topics became quite broad. As the program has grown, we have started establishing topic areas with available projects both to help students focus and to help us keep up as mentors. Since each project is unique in its techniques and hurdles, it can be difficult to assess progress (like grad school). Students take a multiple-choice quiz upon entering and leaving the program to assess competence in statistics, equipment, unit measurements, etc., so we can get a sense of knowledge gained, and surveys gather information about how we can improve. We track students through school and help them prepare for their next steps.

As expected, projects undertaken by sixth graders are simpler and more observational than projects pursued by high schoolers. All students go through initial safety, instrument, and ethics training. Communication and collaboration are also emphasized. We start most days with a roundtable lab meeting to discuss progress and troubles. Our lab has a hierarchy of experience seen in many research labs that enables newer students to learn from those who have used techniques before and the experienced students to reinforce their knowledge by teaching.

At the end of each research program, students present findings to their peers and a panel of local experts. Any student who makes substantial progress in his or her work submits a summary paper for NHAS peer review. If approved, students can submit an abstract for the AAAS annual meeting. There, students present posters, are inducted into the Junior Academy, and are introduced to the wider scientific community. Peer review, presentations, and publications (even at the level of an AAAS abstract) are milestones. We focus on the scientific merit of the experimental process, even if the result is negative. This is another valuable lesson that research instills: You will sometimes fail. It is how you continue on that is important.

Training Teachers, Too Last year, we piloted a program to train local teachers to bring this type of science education to their institutions. Teachers got a crash course in research techniques and the types of questions those techniques could answer. Afterwards, they returned to their school as research mentors with ongoing equipment and scientific support from the NHAS. This produced independent study programs at two high schools and a lab program at a museum. The teachers have reached out to local experts for additional support and we started a database of mentors for students and teachers. Going forward, we will provide teachers with a project that they can take with them (like postdocs leaving a lab).

The shift from recipe-based teaching to true experiment-based science is not easy. Even in the best of circumstances and with robust support, research is challenging. It asks more of teachers than we already ask, both time-wise and intellectually. Teachers must move from their comfort zones as distributors of knowledge to become collaborators in the scientific process. 6,7 It requires access to equipment and extensive background knowledge and/or the advice of STEM professionals to ensure projects are attainable.

The NHAS’s guiding light is the understanding that students should be encouraged in their curiosity and know how to pursue questions in a scientific manner, whether they intend to go to college or not, and whether they intend to pursue STEM or not. Though we do want more people in STEM careers, it is also important that all citizens are scientifically literate, thinking critically and seeking out factual sources. Regardless of his or her career path, every person should be trained as a scientist, and hands-on research is the way to make that happen.

References 1 National Research Council (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2 National Research Council (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 3 Archer L et al. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education , 94, 617–639. 4 Zhai J, Jocz JA, Tan A-L (2014). “Am I like a scientist?” Primary children’s image of doing science in school. International Journal of Science Education 36, 553–576. 5 Roberts LF, Wassersug RJ (2009). Does doing scientific research in high school correlate with students staying in science? A half-century retrospective study. Research in Science Education , 39, 251–256. 6 Anderson RD (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 13, 1–12. 7 Crawford BA (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44, 613–642.

About the Author:

Recommended articles.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 December 2020

Enhancing senior high school student engagement and academic performance using an inclusive and scalable inquiry-based program

• Locke Davenport Huyer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-7122 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Neal I. Callaghan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-3395 1 , 3   na1 ,
• Sara Dicks 4 ,
• Edward Scherer 4 ,
• Andrey I. Shukalyuk 1 ,
• Margaret Jou 4 &
• Dawn M. Kilkenny   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3899-9767 1 , 5  

npj Science of Learning volume  5 , Article number:  17 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

4 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

The multi-disciplinary nature of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers often renders difficulty for high school students navigating from classroom knowledge to post-secondary pursuits. Discrepancies between the knowledge-based high school learning approach and the experiential approach of future studies leaves some students disillusioned by STEM. We present Discovery , a term-long inquiry-focused learning model delivered by STEM graduate students in collaboration with high school teachers, in the context of biomedical engineering. Entire classes of high school STEM students representing diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds engaged in iterative, problem-based learning designed to emphasize critical thinking concomitantly within the secondary school and university environments. Assessment of grades and survey data suggested positive impact of this learning model on students’ STEM interests and engagement, notably in under-performing cohorts, as well as repeating cohorts that engage in the program on more than one occasion. Discovery presents a scalable platform that stimulates persistence in STEM learning, providing valuable learning opportunities and capturing cohorts of students that might otherwise be under-engaged in STEM.

Similar content being viewed by others

Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research

Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States

Academic ecosystems must evolve to support a sustainable postdoc workforce

Introduction.

High school students with diverse STEM interests often struggle to understand the STEM experience outside the classroom 1 . The multi-disciplinary nature of many career fields can foster a challenge for students in their decision to enroll in appropriate high school courses while maintaining persistence in study, particularly when these courses are not mandatory 2 . Furthermore, this challenge is amplified by the known discrepancy between the knowledge-based learning approach common in high schools and the experiential, mastery-based approaches afforded by the subsequent undergraduate model 3 . In the latter, focused classes, interdisciplinary concepts, and laboratory experiences allow for the application of accumulated knowledge, practice in problem solving, and development of both general and technical skills 4 . Such immersive cooperative learning environments are difficult to establish in the secondary school setting and high school teachers often struggle to implement within their classroom 5 . As such, high school students may become disillusioned before graduation and never experience an enriched learning environment, despite their inherent interests in STEM 6 .

It cannot be argued that early introduction to varied math and science disciplines throughout high school is vital if students are to pursue STEM fields, especially within engineering 7 . However, the majority of literature focused on student interest and retention in STEM highlights outcomes in US high school learning environments, where the sciences are often subject-specific from the onset of enrollment 8 . In contrast, students in the Ontario (Canada) high school system are required to complete Level 1 and 2 core courses in science and math during Grades 9 and 10; these courses are offered as ‘applied’ or ‘academic’ versions and present broad topics of content 9 . It is not until Levels 3 and 4 (generally Grades 11 and 12, respectively) that STEM classes become subject-specific (i.e., Biology, Chemistry, and/or Physics) and are offered as “university”, “college”, or “mixed” versions, designed to best prepare students for their desired post-secondary pursuits 9 . Given that Levels 3 and 4 science courses are not mandatory for graduation, enrollment identifies an innate student interest in continued learning. Furthermore, engagement in these post-secondary preparatory courses is also dependent upon achieving successful grades in preceding courses, but as curriculum becomes more subject-specific, students often yield lower degrees of success in achieving course credit 2 . Therefore, it is imperative that learning supports are best focused on ensuring that those students with an innate interest are able to achieve success in learning.

When given opportunity and focused support, high school students are capable of successfully completing rigorous programs at STEM-focused schools 10 . Specialized STEM schools have existed in the US for over 100 years; generally, students are admitted after their sophomore year of high school experience (equivalent to Grade 10) based on standardized test scores, essays, portfolios, references, and/or interviews 11 . Common elements to this learning framework include a diverse array of advanced STEM courses, paired with opportunities to engage in and disseminate cutting-edge research 12 . Therein, said research experience is inherently based in the processes of critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. This learning framework supports translation of core curricular concepts to practice and is fundamental in allowing students to develop better understanding and appreciation of STEM career fields.

Despite the described positive attributes, many students do not have the ability or resources to engage within STEM-focused schools, particularly given that they are not prevalent across Canada, and other countries across the world. Consequently, many public institutions support the idea that post-secondary led engineering education programs are effective ways to expose high school students to engineering education and relevant career options, and also increase engineering awareness 13 . Although singular class field trips are used extensively to accomplish such programs, these may not allow immersive experiences for application of knowledge and practice of skills that are proven to impact long-term learning and influence career choices 14 , 15 . Longer-term immersive research experiences, such as after-school programs or summer camps, have shown successful at recruiting students into STEM degree programs and careers, where longevity of experience helps foster self-determination and interest-led, inquiry-based projects 4 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 .

Such activities convey the elements that are suggested to make a post-secondary led high school education programs successful: hands-on experience, self-motivated learning, real-life application, immediate feedback, and problem-based projects 20 , 21 . In combination with immersion in university teaching facilities, learning is authentic and relevant, similar to the STEM school-focused framework, and consequently representative of an experience found in actual STEM practice 22 . These outcomes may further be a consequence of student engagement and attitude: Brown et al. studied the relationships between STEM curriculum and student attitudes, and found the latter played a more important role in intention to persist in STEM when compared to self-efficacy 23 . This is interesting given that student self-efficacy has been identified to influence ‘motivation, persistence, and determination’ in overcoming challenges in a career pathway 24 . Taken together, this suggests that creation and delivery of modern, exciting curriculum that supports positive student attitudes is fundamental to engage and retain students in STEM programs.

Supported by the outcomes of identified effective learning strategies, University of Toronto (U of T) graduate trainees created a novel high school education program Discovery , to develop a comfortable yet stimulating environment of inquiry-focused iterative learning for senior high school students (Grades 11 & 12; Levels 3 & 4) at non-specialized schools. Built in strong collaboration with science teachers from George Harvey Collegiate Institute (Toronto District School Board), Discovery stimulates application of STEM concepts within a unique term-long applied curriculum delivered iteratively within both U of T undergraduate teaching facilities and collaborating high school classrooms 25 . Based on the volume of medically-themed news and entertainment that is communicated to the population at large, the rapidly-growing and diverse field of biomedical engineering (BME) were considered an ideal program context 26 . In its definition, BME necessitates cross-disciplinary STEM knowledge focused on the betterment of human health, wherein Discovery facilitates broadening student perspective through engaging inquiry-based projects. Importantly, Discovery allows all students within a class cohort to work together with their classroom teacher, stimulating continued development of a relevant learning community that is deemed essential for meaningful context and important for transforming student perspectives and understandings 27 , 28 . Multiple studies support the concept that relevant learning communities improve student attitudes towards learning, significantly increasing student motivation in STEM courses, and consequently improving the overall learning experience 29 . Learning communities, such as that provided by Discovery , also promote the formation of self-supporting groups, greater active involvement in class, and higher persistence rates for participating students 30 .

The objective of Discovery , through structure and dissemination, is to engage senior high school science students in challenging, inquiry-based practical BME activities as a mechanism to stimulate comprehension of STEM curriculum application to real-world concepts. Consequent focus is placed on critical thinking skill development through an atmosphere of perseverance in ambiguity, something not common in a secondary school knowledge-focused delivery but highly relevant in post-secondary STEM education strategies. Herein, we describe the observed impact of the differential project-based learning environment of Discovery on student performance and engagement. We identify the value of an inquiry-focused learning model that is tangible for students who struggle in a knowledge-focused delivery structure, where engagement in conceptual critical thinking in the relevant subject area stimulates student interest, attitudes, and resulting academic performance. Assessment of study outcomes suggests that when provided with a differential learning opportunity, student performance and interest in STEM increased. Consequently, Discovery provides an effective teaching and learning framework within a non-specialized school that motivates students, provides opportunity for critical thinking and problem-solving practice, and better prepares them for persistence in future STEM programs.

Program delivery

The outcomes of the current study result from execution of Discovery over five independent academic terms as a collaboration between Institute of Biomedical Engineering (graduate students, faculty, and support staff) and George Harvey Collegiate Institute (science teachers and administration) stakeholders. Each term, the program allowed senior secondary STEM students (Grades 11 and 12) opportunity to engage in a novel project-based learning environment. The program structure uses the problem-based engineering capstone framework as a tool of inquiry-focused learning objectives, motivated by a central BME global research topic, with research questions that are inter-related but specific to the curriculum of each STEM course subject (Fig. 1 ). Over each 12-week term, students worked in teams (3–4 students) within their class cohorts to execute projects with the guidance of U of T trainees ( Discovery instructors) and their own high school teacher(s). Student experimental work was conducted in U of T teaching facilities relevant to the research study of interest (i.e., Biology and Chemistry-based projects executed within Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories; Physics projects executed within Undergraduate Design Studios). Students were introduced to relevant techniques and safety procedures in advance of iterative experimentation. Importantly, this experience served as a course term project for students, who were assessed at several points throughout the program for performance in an inquiry-focused environment as well as within the regular classroom (Fig. 1 ). To instill the atmosphere of STEM, student teams delivered their outcomes in research poster format at a final symposium, sharing their results and recommendations with other post-secondary students, faculty, and community in an open environment.

The general program concept (blue background; top left ) highlights a global research topic examined through student dissemination of subject-specific research questions, yielding multifaceted student outcomes (orange background; top right ). Each program term (term workflow, yellow background; bottom panel ), students work on program deliverables in class (blue), iterate experimental outcomes within university facilities (orange), and are assessed accordingly at numerous deliverables in an inquiry-focused learning model.

Over the course of five terms there were 268 instances of tracked student participation, representing 170 individual students. Specifically, 94 students participated during only one term of programming, 57 students participated in two terms, 16 students participated in three terms, and 3 students participated in four terms. Multiple instances of participation represent students that enrol in more than one STEM class during their senior years of high school, or who participated in Grade 11 and subsequently Grade 12. Students were surveyed before and after each term to assess program effects on STEM interest and engagement. All grade-based assessments were performed by high school teachers for their respective STEM class cohorts using consistent grading rubrics and assignment structure. Here, we discuss the outcomes of student involvement in this experiential curriculum model.

Student performance and engagement

Student grades were assigned, collected, and anonymized by teachers for each Discovery deliverable (background essay, client meeting, proposal, progress report, poster, and final presentation). Teachers anonymized collective Discovery grades, the component deliverable grades thereof, final course grades, attendance in class and during programming, as well as incomplete classroom assignments, for comparative study purposes. Students performed significantly higher in their cumulative Discovery grade than in their cumulative classroom grade (final course grade less the Discovery contribution; p  < 0.0001). Nevertheless, there was a highly significant correlation ( p  < 0.0001) observed between the grade representing combined Discovery deliverables and the final course grade (Fig. 2a ). Further examination of the full dataset revealed two student cohorts of interest: the “Exceeds Expectations” (EE) subset (defined as those students who achieved ≥1 SD [18.0%] grade differential in Discovery over their final course grade; N  = 99 instances), and the “Multiple Term” (MT) subset (defined as those students who participated in Discovery more than once; 76 individual students that collectively accounted for 174 single terms of assessment out of the 268 total student-terms delivered) (Fig. 2b, c ). These subsets were not unrelated; 46 individual students who had multiple experiences (60.5% of total MTs) exhibited at least one occasion in achieving a ≥18.0% grade differential. As students participated in group work, there was concern that lower-performing students might negatively influence the Discovery grade of higher-performing students (or vice versa). However, students were observed to self-organize into groups where all individuals received similar final overall course grades (Fig. 2d ), thereby alleviating these concerns.

a Linear regression of student grades reveals a significant correlation ( p  = 0.0009) between Discovery performance and final course grade less the Discovery contribution to grade, as assessed by teachers. The dashed red line and intervals represent the theoretical 1:1 correlation between Discovery and course grades and standard deviation of the Discovery -course grade differential, respectively. b , c Identification of subgroups of interest, Exceeds Expectations (EE; N  = 99, orange ) who were ≥+1 SD in Discovery -course grade differential and Multi-Term (MT; N  = 174, teal ), of which N  = 65 students were present in both subgroups. d Students tended to self-assemble in working groups according to their final course performance; data presented as mean ± SEM. e For MT students participating at least 3 terms in Discovery , there was no significant correlation between course grade and time, while ( f ) there was a significant correlation between Discovery grade and cumulative terms in the program. Histograms of total absences per student in ( g ) Discovery and ( h ) class (binned by 4 days to be equivalent in time to a single Discovery absence).

The benefits experienced by MT students seemed progressive; MT students that participated in 3 or 4 terms ( N  = 16 and 3, respectively ) showed no significant increase by linear regression in their course grade over time ( p  = 0.15, Fig. 2e ), but did show a significant increase in their Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0011, Fig. 2f ). Finally, students demonstrated excellent Discovery attendance; at least 91% of participants attended all Discovery sessions in a given term (Fig. 2g ). In contrast, class attendance rates reveal a much wider distribution where 60.8% (163 out of 268 students) missed more than 4 classes (equivalent in learning time to one Discovery session) and 14.6% (39 out of 268 students) missed 16 or more classes (equivalent in learning time to an entire program of Discovery ) in a term (Fig. 2h ).

Discovery EE students (Fig. 3 ), roughly by definition, obtained lower course grades ( p  < 0.0001, Fig. 3a ) and higher final Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. 3b ) than non-EE students. This cohort of students exhibited program grades higher than classmates (Fig. 3c–h ); these differences were significant in every category with the exception of essays, where they outperformed to a significantly lesser degree ( p  = 0.097; Fig. 3c ). There was no statistically significant difference in EE vs. non-EE student classroom attendance ( p  = 0.85; Fig. 3i, j ). There were only four single day absences in Discovery within the EE subset; however, this difference was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.074).

The “Exceeds Expectations” (EE) subset of students (defined as those who received a combined Discovery grade ≥1 SD (18.0%) higher than their final course grade) performed ( a ) lower on their final course grade and ( b ) higher in the Discovery program as a whole when compared to their classmates. d – h EE students received significantly higher grades on each Discovery deliverable than their classmates, except for their ( c ) introductory essays and ( h ) final presentations. The EE subset also tended ( i ) to have a higher relative rate of attendance during Discovery sessions but no difference in ( j ) classroom attendance. N  = 99 EE students and 169 non-EE students (268 total). Grade data expressed as mean ± SEM.

Discovery MT students (Fig. 4 ), although not receiving significantly higher grades in class than students participating in the program only one time ( p  = 0.29, Fig. 4a ), were observed to obtain higher final Discovery grades than single-term students ( p  = 0.0067, Fig. 4b ). Although trends were less pronounced for individual MT student deliverables (Fig. 4c–h ), this student group performed significantly better on the progress report ( p  = 0.0021; Fig. 4f ). Trends of higher performance were observed for initial proposals and final presentations ( p  = 0.081 and 0.056, respectively; Fig. 4e, h ); all other deliverables were not significantly different between MT and non-MT students (Fig. 4c, d, g ). Attendance in Discovery ( p  = 0.22) was also not significantly different between MT and non-MT students, although MT students did miss significantly less class time ( p  = 0.010) (Fig. 4i, j ). Longitudinal assessment of individual deliverables for MT students that participated in three or more Discovery terms (Fig. 5 ) further highlights trend in improvement (Fig. 2f ). Greater performance over terms of participation was observed for essay ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. 5a ), client meeting ( p  = 0.0003, Fig. 5b ), proposal ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. 5c ), progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. 5d ), poster ( p  = 0.0005, Fig. 5e ), and presentation ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. 5f ) deliverable grades; these trends were all significant with the exception of the progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. 5d ) owing to strong performance in this deliverable in all terms.

The “multi-term” (MT) subset of students (defined as having attended more than one term of Discovery ) demonstrated favorable performance in Discovery , ( a ) showing no difference in course grade compared to single-term students, but ( b outperforming them in final Discovery grade. Independent of the number of times participating in Discovery , MT students did not score significantly differently on their ( c ) essay, ( d ) client meeting, or ( g ) poster. They tended to outperform their single-term classmates on the ( e ) proposal and ( h ) final presentation and scored significantly higher on their ( f ) progress report. MT students showed no statistical difference in ( i ) Discovery attendance but did show ( j ) higher rates of classroom attendance than single-term students. N  = 174 MT instances of student participation (76 individual students) and 94 single-term students. Grade data expressed as mean ± SEM.

Longitudinal assessment of a subset of MT student participants that participated in three ( N  = 16) or four ( N  = 3) terms presents a significant trend of improvement in their ( a ) essay, ( b ) client meeting, ( c ) proposal, ( e ) poster, and ( f ) presentation grade. d Progress report grades present a trend in improvement but demonstrate strong performance in all terms, limiting potential for student improvement. Grade data are presented as individual student performance; each student is represented by one color; data is fitted with a linear trendline (black).

Finally, the expansion of Discovery to a second school of lower LOI (i.e., nominally higher aggregate SES) allowed for the assessment of program impact in a new population over 2 terms of programming. A significant ( p  = 0.040) divergence in Discovery vs. course grade distribution from the theoretical 1:1 relationship was found in the new cohort (S 1 Appendix , Fig. S 1 ), in keeping with the pattern established in this study.

Teacher perceptions

Qualitative observation in the classroom by high school teachers emphasized the value students independently placed on program participation and deliverables. Throughout the term, students often prioritized Discovery group assignments over other tasks for their STEM courses, regardless of academic weight and/or due date. Comparing within this student population, teachers spoke of difficulties with late and incomplete assignments in the regular curriculum but found very few such instances with respect to Discovery -associated deliverables. Further, teachers speculated on the good behavior and focus of students in Discovery programming in contrast to attentiveness and behavior issues in their school classrooms. Multiple anecdotal examples were shared of renewed perception of student potential; students that exhibited poor academic performance in the classroom often engaged with high performance in this inquiry-focused atmosphere. Students appeared to take a sense of ownership, excitement, and pride in the setting of group projects oriented around scientific inquiry, discovery, and dissemination.

Student perceptions

Students were asked to consider and rank the academic difficulty (scale of 1–5, with 1 = not challenging and 5 = highly challenging) of the work they conducted within the Discovery learning model. Considering individual Discovery terms, at least 91% of students felt the curriculum to be sufficiently challenging with a 3/5 or higher ranking (Term 1: 87.5%, Term 2: 93.4%, Term 3: 85%, Term 4: 93.3%, Term 5: 100%), and a minimum of 58% of students indicating a 4/5 or higher ranking (Term 1: 58.3%, Term 2: 70.5%, Term 3: 67.5%, Term 4: 69.1%, Term 5: 86.4%) (Fig. 6a ).

a Histogram of relative frequency of perceived Discovery programming academic difficulty ranked from not challenging (1) to highly challenging (5) for each session demonstrated the consistently perceived high degree of difficulty for Discovery programming (total responses: 223). b Program participation increased student comfort (94.6%) with navigating lab work in a university or college setting (total responses: 220). c Considering participation in Discovery programming, students indicated their increased (72.4%) or decreased (10.1%) likelihood to pursue future experiences in STEM as a measure of program impact (total responses: 217). d Large majority of participating students (84.9%) indicated their interest for future participation in Discovery (total responses: 212). Students were given the opportunity to opt out of individual survey questions, partially completed surveys were included in totals.

The majority of students (94.6%) indicated they felt more comfortable with the idea of performing future work in a university STEM laboratory environment given exposure to university teaching facilities throughout the program (Fig. 6b ). Students were also queried whether they were (i) more likely, (ii) less likely, or (iii) not impacted by their experience in the pursuit of STEM in the future. The majority of participants (>82%) perceived impact on STEM interests, with 72.4% indicating they were more likely to pursue these interests in the future (Fig. 6c ). When surveyed at the end of term, 84.9% of students indicated they would participate in the program again (Fig. 6d ).

We have described an inquiry-based framework for implementing experiential STEM education in a BME setting. Using this model, we engaged 268 instances of student participation (170 individual students who participated 1–4 times) over five terms in project-based learning wherein students worked in peer-based teams under the mentorship of U of T trainees to design and execute the scientific method in answering a relevant research question. Collaboration between high school teachers and Discovery instructors allowed for high school student exposure to cutting-edge BME research topics, participation in facilitated inquiry, and acquisition of knowledge through scientific discovery. All assessments were conducted by high school teachers and constituted a fraction (10–15%) of the overall course grade, instilling academic value for participating students. As such, students exhibited excitement to learn as well as commitment to their studies in the program.

Through our observations and analysis, we suggest there is value in differential learning environments for students that struggle in a knowledge acquisition-focused classroom setting. In general, we observed a high level of academic performance in Discovery programming (Fig. 2a ), which was highlighted exceptionally in EE students who exhibited greater academic performance in Discovery deliverables compared to normal coursework (>18% grade improvement in relevant deliverables). We initially considered whether this was the result of strong students influencing weaker students; however, group organization within each course suggests this is not the case (Fig. 2d ). With the exception of one class in one term (24 participants assigned by their teacher), students were allowed to self-organize into working groups and they chose to work with other students of relatively similar academic performance (as indicated by course grade), a trend observed in other studies 31 , 32 . Remarkably, EE students not only excelled during Discovery when compared to their own performance in class, but this cohort also achieved significantly higher average grades in each of the deliverables throughout the program when compared to the remaining Discovery cohort (Fig. 3 ). This data demonstrates the value of an inquiry-based learning environment compared to knowledge-focused delivery in the classroom in allowing students to excel. We expect that part of this engagement was resultant of student excitement with a novel learning opportunity. It is however a well-supported concept that students who struggle in traditional settings tend to demonstrate improved interest and motivation in STEM when given opportunity to interact in a hands-on fashion, which supports our outcomes 4 , 33 . Furthermore, these outcomes clearly represent variable student learning styles, where some students benefit from a greater exchange of information, knowledge and skills in a cooperative learning environment 34 . The performance of the EE group may not be by itself surprising, as the identification of the subset by definition required high performers in Discovery who did not have exceptionally high course grades; in addition, the final Discovery grade is dependent on the component assignment grades. However, the discrepancies between EE and non-EE groups attendance suggests that students were engaged by Discovery in a way that they were not by regular classroom curriculum.

In addition to quantified engagement in Discovery observed in academic performance, we believe remarkable attendance rates are indicative of the value students place in the differential learning structure. Given the differences in number of Discovery days and implications of missing one day of regular class compared to this immersive program, we acknowledge it is challenging to directly compare attendance data and therefore approximate this comparison with consideration of learning time equivalence. When combined with other subjective data including student focus, requests to work on Discovery during class time, and lack of discipline/behavior issues, the attendance data importantly suggests that students were especially engaged by the Discovery model. Further, we believe the increased commute time to the university campus (students are responsible for independent transit to campus, a much longer endeavour than the normal school commute), early program start time, and students’ lack of familiarity with the location are non-trivial considerations when determining the propensity of students to participate enthusiastically in Discovery . We feel this suggests the students place value on this team-focused learning and find it to be more applicable and meaningful to their interests.

Given post-secondary admission requirements for STEM programs, it would be prudent to think that students participating in multiple STEM classes across terms are the ones with the most inherent interest in post-secondary STEM programs. The MT subset, representing students who participated in Discovery for more than one term, averaged significantly higher final Discovery grades. The increase in the final Discovery grade was observed to result from a general confluence of improved performance over multiple deliverables and a continuous effort to improve in a STEM curriculum. This was reflected in longitudinal tracking of Discovery performance, where we observed a significant trend of improved performance. Interestingly, the high number of MT students who were included in the EE group suggests that students who had a keen interest in science enrolled in more than one course and in general responded well to the inquiry-based teaching method of Discovery , where scientific method was put into action. It stands to reason that students interested in science will continue to take STEM courses and will respond favorably to opportunities to put classroom theory to practical application.

The true value of an inquiry-based program such as Discovery may not be based in inspiring students to perform at a higher standard in STEM within the high school setting, as skills in critical thinking do not necessarily translate to knowledge-based assessment. Notably, students found the programming equally challenging throughout each of the sequential sessions, perhaps somewhat surprising considering the increasing number of repeat attendees in successive sessions (Fig. 6a ). Regardless of sub-discipline, there was an emphasis of perceived value demonstrated through student surveys where we observed indicated interest in STEM and comfort with laboratory work environments, and desire to engage in future iterations given the opportunity. Although non-quantitative, we perceive this as an indicator of significant student engagement, even though some participants did not yield academic success in the program and found it highly challenging given its ambiguity.

Although we observed that students become more certain of their direction in STEM, further longitudinal study is warranted to make claim of this outcome. Additionally, at this point in our assessment we cannot effectively assess the practical outcomes of participation, understanding that the immediate effects observed are subject to a number of factors associated with performance in the high school learning environment. Future studies that track graduates from this program will be prudent, in conjunction with an ever-growing dataset of assessment as well as surveys designed to better elucidate underlying perceptions and attitudes, to continue to understand the expected benefits of this inquiry-focused and partnered approach. Altogether, a multifaceted assessment of our early outcomes suggests significant value of an immersive and iterative interaction with STEM as part of the high school experience. A well-defined divergence from knowledge-based learning, focused on engagement in critical thinking development framed in the cutting-edge of STEM, may be an important step to broadening student perspectives.

In this study, we describe the short-term effects of an inquiry-based STEM educational experience on a cohort of secondary students attending a non-specialized school, and suggest that the framework can be widely applied across virtually all subjects where inquiry-driven and mentored projects can be undertaken. Although we have demonstrated replication in a second cohort of nominally higher SES (S 1 Appendix , Supplementary Fig. 1 ), a larger collection period with more students will be necessary to conclusively determine impact independent of both SES and specific cohort effects. Teachers may also find this framework difficult to implement depending on resources and/or institutional investment and support, particularly if post-secondary collaboration is inaccessible. Offerings to a specific subject (e.g., physics) where experiments yielding empirical data are logistically or financially simpler to perform may be valid routes of adoption as opposed to the current study where all subject cohorts were included.

As we consider Discovery in a bigger picture context, expansion and implementation of this model is translatable. Execution of the scientific method is an important aspect of citizen science, as the concepts of critical thing become ever-more important in a landscape of changing technological landscapes. Giving students critical thinking and problem-solving skills in their primary and secondary education provides value in the context of any career path. Further, we feel that this model is scalable across disciplines, STEM or otherwise, as a means of building the tools of inquiry. We have observed here the value of differential inclusive student engagement and critical thinking through an inquiry-focused model for a subset of students, but further to this an engagement, interest, and excitement across the body of student participants. As we educate the leaders of tomorrow, we suggest that use of an inquiry-focused model such as Discovery could facilitate growth of a data-driven critical thinking framework.

In conclusion, we have presented a model of inquiry-based STEM education for secondary students that emphasizes inclusion, quantitative analysis, and critical thinking. Student grades suggest significant performance benefits, and engagement data suggests positive student attitude despite the perceived challenges of the program. We also note a particular performance benefit to students who repeatedly engage in the program. This framework may carry benefits in a wide variety of settings and disciplines for enhancing student engagement and performance, particularly in non-specialized school environments.

Study design and implementation

Participants in Discovery include all students enrolled in university-stream Grade 11 or 12 biology, chemistry, or physics at the participating school over five consecutive terms (cohort summary shown in Table 1 ). Although student participation in educational content was mandatory, student grades and survey responses (administered by high school teachers) were collected from only those students with parent or guardian consent. Teachers replaced each student name with a unique coded identifier to preserve anonymity but enable individual student tracking over multiple terms. All data collected were analyzed without any exclusions save for missing survey responses; no power analysis was performed prior to data collection.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Protocol # 34825) and the Toronto District School Board External Research Review Committee (Protocol # 2017-2018-20). Written informed consent was collected from parents or guardians of participating students prior to the acquisition of student data (both post-hoc academic data and survey administration). Data were anonymized by high school teachers for maintenance of academic confidentiality of individual students prior to release to U of T researchers.

Educational program overview

Students enrolled in university-preparatory STEM classes at the participating school completed a term-long project under the guidance of graduate student instructors and undergraduate student mentors as a mandatory component of their respective course. Project curriculum developed collaboratively between graduate students and participating high school teachers was delivered within U of T Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering (FASE) teaching facilities. Participation allows high school students to garner a better understanding as to how undergraduate learning and career workflows in STEM vary from traditional high school classroom learning, meanwhile reinforcing the benefits of problem solving, perseverance, teamwork, and creative thinking competencies. Given that Discovery was a mandatory component of course curriculum, students participated as class cohorts and addressed questions specific to their course subject knowledge base but related to the defined global health research topic (Fig. 1 ). Assessment of program deliverables was collectively assigned to represent 10–15% of the final course grade for each subject at the discretion of the respective STEM teacher.

The Discovery program framework was developed, prior to initiation of student assessment, in collaboration with one high school selected from the local public school board over a 1.5 year period of time. This partner school consistently scores highly (top decile) in the school board’s Learning Opportunities Index (LOI). The LOI ranks each school based on measures of external challenges affecting its student population therefore schools with the greatest level of external challenge receive a higher ranking 35 . A high LOI ranking is inversely correlated with socioeconomic status (SES); therefore, participating students are identified as having a significant number of external challenges that may affect their academic success. The mandatory nature of program participation was established to reach highly capable students who may be reluctant to engage on their own initiative, as a means of enhancing the inclusivity and impact of the program. The selected school partner is located within a reasonable geographical radius of our campus (i.e., ~40 min transit time from school to campus). This is relevant as participating students are required to independently commute to campus for Discovery hands-on experiences.

Each program term of Discovery corresponds with a five-month high school term. Lead university trainee instructors (3–6 each term) engaged with high school teachers 1–2 months in advance of high school student engagement to discern a relevant overarching global healthcare theme. Each theme was selected with consideration of (a) topics that university faculty identify as cutting-edge biomedical research, (b) expertise that Discovery instructors provide, and (c) capacity to showcase the diversity of BME. Each theme was sub-divided into STEM subject-specific research questions aligning with provincial Ministry of Education curriculum concepts for university-preparatory Biology, Chemistry, and Physics 9 that students worked to address, both on-campus and in-class, during a term-long project. The Discovery framework therefore provides students a problem-based learning experience reflective of an engineering capstone design project, including a motivating scientific problem (i.e., global topic), subject-specific research question, and systematic determination of a professional recommendation addressing the needs of the presented problem.

Discovery instructors were volunteers recruited primarily from graduate and undergraduate BME programs in the FASE. Instructors were organized into subject-specific instructional teams based on laboratory skills, teaching experience, and research expertise. The lead instructors of each subject (the identified 1–2 trainees that built curriculum with high school teachers) were responsible to organize the remaining team members as mentors for specific student groups over the course of the program term (~1:8 mentor to student ratio).

All Discovery instructors were familiarized with program expectations and trained in relevant workspace safety, in addition to engagement at a teaching workshop delivered by the Faculty Advisor (a Teaching Stream faculty member) at the onset of term. This workshop was designed to provide practical information on teaching and was co-developed with high school teachers based on their extensive training and experience in fundamental teaching methods. In addition, group mentors received hands-on training and guidance from lead instructors regarding the specific activities outlined for their respective subject programming (an exemplary term of student programming is available in S 2 Appendix) .

Discovery instructors were responsible for introducing relevant STEM skills and mentoring high school students for the duration of their projects, with support and mentorship from the Faculty Mentor. Each instructor worked exclusively throughout the term with the student groups to which they had been assigned, ensuring consistent mentorship across all disciplinary components of the project. In addition to further supporting university trainees in on-campus mentorship, high school teachers were responsible for academic assessment of all student program deliverables (Fig. 1 ; the standardized grade distribution available in S 3 Appendix ). Importantly, trainees never engaged in deliverable assessment; for continuity of overall course assessment, this remained the responsibility of the relevant teacher for each student cohort.

Throughout each term, students engaged within the university facilities four times. The first three sessions included hands-on lab sessions while the fourth visit included a culminating symposium for students to present their scientific findings (Fig. 1 ). On average, there were 4–5 groups of students per subject (3–4 students per group; ~20 students/class). Discovery instructors worked exclusively with 1–2 groups each term in the capacity of mentor to monitor and guide student progress in all project deliverables.

After introducing the selected global research topic in class, teachers led students in completion of background research essays. Students subsequently engaged in a subject-relevant skill-building protocol during their first visit to university teaching laboratory facilities, allowing opportunity to understand analysis techniques and equipment relevant for their assessment projects. At completion of this session, student groups were presented with a subject-specific research question as well as the relevant laboratory inventory available for use during their projects. Armed with this information, student groups continued to work in their classroom setting to develop group-specific experimental plans. Teachers and Discovery instructors provided written and oral feedback, respectively , allowing students an opportunity to revise their plans in class prior to on-campus experimental execution.

Once at the relevant laboratory environment, student groups executed their protocols in an effort to collect experimental data. Data analysis was performed in the classroom and students learned by trial & error to optimize their protocols before returning to the university lab for a second opportunity of data collection. All methods and data were re-analyzed in class in order for students to create a scientific poster for the purpose of study/experience dissemination. During a final visit to campus, all groups presented their findings at a research symposium, allowing students to verbally defend their process, analyses, interpretations, and design recommendations to a diverse audience including peers, STEM teachers, undergraduate and graduate university students, postdoctoral fellows and U of T faculty.

Data collection

Teachers evaluated their students on the following associated deliverables: (i) global theme background research essay; (ii) experimental plan; (iii) progress report; (iv) final poster content and presentation; and (v) attendance. For research purposes, these grades were examined individually and also as a collective Discovery program grade for each student. For students consenting to participation in the research study, all Discovery grades were anonymized by the classroom teacher before being shared with study authors. Each student was assigned a code by the teacher for direct comparison of deliverable outcomes and survey responses. All instances of “Final course grade” represent the prorated course grade without the Discovery component, to prevent confounding of quantitative analyses.

Survey instruments were used to gain insight into student attitudes and perceptions of STEM and post-secondary study, as well as Discovery program experience and impact (S 4 Appendix ). High school teachers administered surveys in the classroom only to students supported by parental permission. Pre-program surveys were completed at minimum 1 week prior to program initiation each term and exit surveys were completed at maximum 2 weeks post- Discovery term completion. Surveys results were validated using a principal component analysis (S 1 Appendix , Supplementary Fig. 2 ).

Identification and comparison of population subsets

From initial analysis, we identified two student subpopulations of particular interest: students who performed ≥1 SD [18.0%] or greater in the collective Discovery components of the course compared to their final course grade (“EE”), and students who participated in Discovery more than once (“MT”). These groups were compared individually against the rest of the respective Discovery population (“non-EE” and “non-MT”, respectively ). Additionally, MT students who participated in three or four (the maximum observed) terms of Discovery were assessed for longitudinal changes to performance in their course and Discovery grades. Comparisons were made for all Discovery deliverables (introductory essay, client meeting, proposal, progress report, poster, and presentation), final Discovery grade, final course grade, Discovery attendance, and overall attendance.

Statistical analysis

Student course grades were analyzed in all instances without the Discovery contribution (calculated from all deliverable component grades and ranging from 10 to 15% of final course grade depending on class and year) to prevent correlation. Aggregate course grades and Discovery grades were first compared by paired t-test, matching each student’s course grade to their Discovery grade for the term. Student performance in Discovery ( N  = 268 instances of student participation, comprising 170 individual students that participated 1–4 times) was initially assessed in a linear regression of Discovery grade vs. final course grade. Trends in course and Discovery performance over time for students participating 3 or 4 terms ( N  = 16 and 3 individuals, respectively ) were also assessed by linear regression. For subpopulation analysis (EE and MT, N  = 99 instances from 81 individuals and 174 instances from 76 individuals, respectively ), each dataset was tested for normality using the D’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test. All subgroup comparisons vs. the remaining population were performed by Mann–Whitney U -test. Data are plotted as individual points with mean ± SEM overlaid (grades), or in histogram bins of 1 and 4 days, respectively , for Discovery and class attendance. Significance was set at α ≤ 0.05.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author DMK. These data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns of personal data according to the ethical research agreements supporting this study.

Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M. & Lloyd, A. An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 16 , 655–675 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dooley, M., Payne, A., Steffler, M. & Wagner, J. Understanding the STEM path through high school and into university programs. Can. Public Policy 43 , 1–16 (2017).

Gilmore, M. W. Improvement of STEM education: experiential learning is the key. Mod. Chem. Appl. 1, e109. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6798.1000e109 (2013).

Roberts, T. et al. Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. Int. J. STEM Educ. 5 , 35 (2018).

Gillies, R. M. & Boyle, M. Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 , 933–940 (2010).

Nasir, M., Seta, J. & Meyer, E.G. Introducing high school students to biomedical engineering through summer camps. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-20701 (2014).

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z. & Tai, R. Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study. Sci. Educ. 96 , 411–427 (2012).

Sarikas, C. The High School Science Classes You Should Take . https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-high-school-science-classes-you-should-take (2020).

Ontario, G. o. The ontario curriculum grades 11 and 12. Science http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/2009science11_12.pdf (2008).

Scott, C. An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the US. J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res. 13 , 30 (2012).

Google Scholar  

Erdogan, N. & Stuessy, C. L. Modeling successful STEM high schools in the United States: an ecology framework. Int. J. Educ. Math., Sci. Technol. 3 , 77–92 (2015).

Pfeiffer, S. I., Overstreet, J. M. & Park, A. The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: a nationwide survey. Roeper Rev. 32 , 25–31 (2009).

Anthony, A. B., Greene, H., Post, P. E., Parkhurst, A. & Zhan, X. Preparing university students to lead K-12 engineering outreach programmes: a design experiment. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 41 , 623–637 (2016).

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. researcher 18 , 32–42 (1989).

Reveles, J. M. & Brown, B. A. Contextual shifting: teachers emphasizing students’ academic identity to promote scientific literacy. Sci. Educ. 92 , 1015–1041 (2008).

Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L. & Burgess, W. D. Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: mediating effects of research self-efficacy. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50 , 940–951 (2013).

Boekaerts, M. Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learn. Instr. 7 , 161–186 (1997).

Honey, M., Pearson, G. & Schweingruber, H. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and An Agenda for Research . (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014).

Moote, J. K., Williams, J. M. & Sproule, J. 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. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 12 , 178–196 (2013).

Fantz, T. D., Siller, T. J. & Demiranda, M. A. Pre-collegiate factors influencing the self-efficacy of engineering students. J. Eng. Educ. 100 , 604–623 (2011).

Ralston, P. A., Hieb, J. L. & Rivoli, G. Partnerships and experience in building STEM pipelines. J. Professional Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 139 , 156–162 (2012).

Kelley, T. R. & Knowles, J. G. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 3 , 11 (2016).

Brown, P. L., Concannon, J. P., Marx, D., Donaldson, C. W. & Black, A. An examination of middle school students’ STEM self-efficacy with relation to interest and perceptions of STEM. J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res. 17 , 27–38 (2016).

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. & Pastorelli, C. Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Dev. 72 , 187–206 (2001).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davenport Huyer, L. et al. IBBME discovery: biomedical engineering-based iterative learning in a high school STEM curriculum (evaluation). Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-30591 (2018).

Abu-Faraj, Ziad O., ed. Handbook of research on biomedical engineering education and advanced bioengineering learning: interdisciplinary concepts: interdisciplinary concepts. Vol. 2. IGI Global (2012).

Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. Situated engineering learning: bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. J. Eng. Educ. 100 , 151–185 (2011).

O’Connell, K. B., Keys, B. & Storksdieck, M. Taking stock of oregon STEM hubs: accomplishments and challenges. Corvallis: Oregon State University https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/hq37vt23t (2017).

Freeman, K. E., Alston, S. T. & Winborne, D. G. Do learning communities enhance the quality of students’ learning and motivation in STEM? J. Negro Educ. 77 , 227–240 (2008).

Weaver, R. R. & Qi, J. Classroom organization and participation: college students’ perceptions. J. High. Educ. 76 , 570–601 (2005).

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. & Wright, L. Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. J. Manag. Educ. 30 , 557–569 (2006).

Hassaskhah, J. & Mozaffari, H. The impact of group formation method (student-selected vs. teacher-assigned) on group dynamics and group outcome in EFL creative writing. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 6 , 147–156 (2015).

Ma, V. J. & Ma, X. A comparative analysis of the relationship between learning styles and mathematics performance. Int. J. STEM Educ. 1 , 3 (2014).

Weinstein, C. E. & Hume, L. M. Study Strategies for Lifelong Learning . (American Psychological Association, 1998).

Toronto District School Board. The 2017 Learning Opportunities Index: Questions and Answers. https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/research/docs/reports/LOI2017v2.pdf (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been possible due to the support of many University of Toronto trainee volunteers, including Genevieve Conant, Sherif Ramadan, Daniel Smieja, Rami Saab, Andrew Effat, Serena Mandla, Cindy Bui, Janice Wong, Dawn Bannerman, Allison Clement, Shouka Parvin Nejad, Nicolas Ivanov, Jose Cardenas, Huntley Chang, Romario Regeenes, Dr. Henrik Persson, Ali Mojdeh, Nhien Tran-Nguyen, Ileana Co, and Jonathan Rubianto. We further acknowledge the staff and administration of George Harvey Collegiate Institute and the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), as well as Benjamin Rocheleau and Madeleine Rocheleau for contributions to data collation. Discovery has grown with continued support of Dean Christopher Yip (Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, U of T), and the financial support of the IBME and the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) PromoScience program (PROSC 515876-2017; IBME “Igniting Youth Curiosity in STEM” initiative co-directed by DMK and Dr. Penney Gilbert). LDH and NIC were supported by Vanier Canada graduate scholarships from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and NSERC, respectively . DMK holds a Dean’s Emerging Innovation in Teaching Professorship in the Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science, U of T.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Locke Davenport Huyer, Neal I. Callaghan.

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Locke Davenport Huyer, Neal I. Callaghan, Andrey I. Shukalyuk & Dawn M. Kilkenny

Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Locke Davenport Huyer

Translational Biology and Engineering Program, Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Neal I. Callaghan

George Harvey Collegiate Institute, Toronto District School Board, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sara Dicks, Edward Scherer & Margaret Jou

Institute for Studies in Transdisciplinary Engineering Education & Practice, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Dawn M. Kilkenny

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LDH, NIC and DMK conceived the program structure, designed the study, and interpreted the data. LDH and NIC ideated programming, coordinated execution, and performed all data analysis. SD, ES, and MJ designed and assessed student deliverables, collected data, and anonymized data for assessment. SD assisted in data interpretation. AIS assisted in programming ideation and design. All authors provided feedback and approved the manuscript that was written by LDH, NIC and DMK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn M. Kilkenny .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental material, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Davenport Huyer, L., Callaghan, N.I., Dicks, S. et al. Enhancing senior high school student engagement and academic performance using an inclusive and scalable inquiry-based program. npj Sci. Learn. 5 , 17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00076-2

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2019

Accepted : 08 October 2020

Published : 02 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00076-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
• Resource Guides

High School vs. College Research

• Welcome New Students

Welcome to College-Level Research

• What is ...?
• What about Wikipedia?
• Meet Your Librarians & Get 24/7 Help

Quick Links

• Penfield Library
• Research Guides
• A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Research at the college level requires good time management, planning, sharpened critical thinking, and consulting with librarians to locate scholarly sources of information.   

This guide includes some of the basic tools to help with your research. 

• Use the "What is...?" tab to find definitions of key research-related terms. 
• Use the "How to...?" tab for video tutorials and explanations with detailed steps and explanations.

If you're new to college-level research, be prepared to experience differences in the research process, the library experience, and the assignments and projects you will encounter.

Head, A.J. (2013). Learning the ropes: How freshmen conduct course research once they enter college. Project Information Literacy Research Report. Retrieved from  https://projectinfolit.org/publications/first-year-experience-study/

• Next: What is ...? >>

• Our Mission

Here’s What the Science of Reading Looks Like in My High School Classroom

Teachers can design lessons around these five components to deepen student understanding of and engagement with reading material.

Middle and high school literacy scores declined on the most recent Nation’s Report Card , showing that too many students are reading below grade level across both age groups. The science of reading, often discussed in the context of elementary ELA curriculum, offers practical, concrete, and proven instructional skills and essential elements—even for older students.

When literacy instruction aligns with reading science, adolescents routinely engage with rich, knowledge-building text sets about compelling topics. Teachers lean into text complexity through modeling and carefully crafted questions , lifting students to the text and guiding them toward deep comprehension. Evidence-based discussions and reasoning create a social, collaborative learning environment. Relevant culminating tasks motivate students to think critically and creatively and invest in discovery.

One common myth is that the science of reading is just about phonics. Decoding is just the beginning. Yes, students need the skills to crack the phonics code to decode words independently and fluently, but the goal of reading is not just developing word recognition. It is comprehension—the ability to read deeply and joyfully and understand what you read.  The Reading League defines the science of reading as “a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.”

In my high school English classroom, I ensure that students have direct, explicit instruction related to the language comprehension components needed to become increasingly strategic at comprehending complex texts. These components, based on the science of reading, are not individual strategies designed to be implemented in isolation. Rather, they intertwine and work together for a powerful approach to reading comprehension. They involve building background knowledge, acquiring new vocabulary, understanding language structures, developing verbal reasoning, and gaining literacy knowledge ( Scarborough’s Reading Rope ).

Embedding the Science of Reading into Daily Instruction

My small school benefits from a diverse population, including a wide range of language diversity. This brings beautiful variety to my classroom! Employing sound, scientific research on how the brain learns to read is essential to teaching my students lifelong literacy skills.

1. Background knowledge. I center my planning around a thought-provoking topic or theme. For example, in 11th grade, we study the Great Migration and explore the power of a single decision to migrate to the North or West. Topic-based units are essential for embedding other language comprehension elements. Think about rich and interesting topics your students will enjoy. When students are captivated by content, motivation and engagement soar.

2. Literacy knowledge. Since my units are centered around a topic and not a single text, this creates amazing opportunities to read and analyze various text types. In our anchor text, The Warmth of Other Suns , we explore three powerful narratives, insightful expository text, and beautiful epigraphs that range from newspaper clips to poems to song lyrics. While all students read this rich, complex text, I differentiate by offering choice in supplemental reading material.

In addition, we study maps of migratory routes, statistics of cities in the North and West, video clips explaining Jim Crow and other push factors from the PBS documentary Slavery by Another Name , Claude McKay and Langston Hughes’ poetry, John Coltrane’s jazz, and Jacob Lawrence’s Great Migration panels.

3. Vocabulary. I mostly rely on students to select words and phrases from our texts. You can try this in your classroom by having students circle new or interesting words and phrases. During our study of the Great Migration, we defined student-selected words like beleaguer , bourgeois , caste , asylum , and indignity .

We once encountered the word lumber . Based on the context, students knew it didn’t mean a piece of wood. After we defined the word, we had some fun acting out labored and slow walking. Another time, students selected the word mercurial . We talked about words that sounded similar, like mercury , which presented a great opportunity to study the etymology of mercurial. Students enjoyed learning the connection to the Roman god Mercury and his moody, unpredictable temperament.

4. Language structures. We engage in close reading of texts from the paragraph level to the sentence, phrase, and word levels to deepen comprehension. We look for “ juicy sentences ,” which are rich in meaning or craft. One sentence in our anchor text became essential to our understanding of push factors behind migration: “An invisible hand ruled their lives and the lives of all the colored people in Chickasaw County,” wrote Isabel Wilkerson in the book The Warmth of Other Suns. I’ll never forget the first time I saw the phrase “invisible hand” circled and annotated in a student’s book. He was so moved by this imagery that he frequently used this phrase and inspired others with his insight to understand the unseen yet powerful hand of Jim Crow.

5. Verbal reasoning. I like a classroom buzzing with student talk. My students routinely engage in text- and topic-based discussions. Students share powerful text passages, ask questions, posit ideas, and challenge opinions. Background knowledge, vocabulary, and complex texts serve as the foundation for these discussions, which deepen student learning and oral language development.

Routines and protocols are instrumental in supporting student discourse. My students meet in focus groups dedicated to each of the three narratives in our anchor text. These groups are flexible and provide an opportunity for students to discuss developments in each individual’s story, seek clarification from peers, collaboratively determine the meaning of unknown words and phrases, make connections among the three individuals, and analyze the literary beauty of the epigraphs and their relationship to each individual.

You can try having students meet in small groups to share the gist of the reading and discuss a response to a focus question. This supports foundational comprehension. Discussion protocols that deepen comprehension and involve movement are engaging. I like “mix and mingle,” which involves moving around the classroom and exchanging ideas, or using chart paper and markers to capture discussion points.

Literacy skills are the currency of the information age, opening opportunities for life choices, career options, and quality of life. The science of reading is essential to developing skilled readers across grade levels while preparing students for the world beyond the classroom. Both struggling and advanced readers benefit from this approach, since students initially engage with texts at their level of understanding. These interconnected components provide multiple opportunities to deepen comprehension from a variety of angles. Educators can enhance student engagement, discourse, and depth of understanding by strategically embedding these five language comprehension components to move students toward success.

Education | New Vista High School students have bilingual…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Boulder Area
• University of Colorado
• Business Spotlight
• Science & Environment

Education | New Vista High School students have bilingual education ideas

The students plan to share their recommendations with the Boulder Valley school board at its Tuesday meeting. They also presented at this year’s Colorado Association of Bilingual Education and the American Education Research Association’s annual meeting held in Philadelphia.

“Our recommendations could benefit a lot of people,” New Vista sophomore Reese Fusman said. “It’s cool to do something in school that gives you a feeling of accomplishment. It has led to so many amazing things.”

The students, 27 in total, took the class as part of New Vista’s community experience program. Some stayed with the class all year, while others took the class for a quarter or a semester.

“Community experiences are for passion projects,” New Vista Principal John McCluskey said. “You can really dive in on something that gives you a sense of purpose, to ask how can I solve a problem, how can I be of service. It’s a chance for people to get out in the real world. We can get kids to engage with the community.”

The weekly class was taught by Laura Meinzen, a doctoral student in CU Boulder’s School of Education, and overseen by Michelle Renée Valladares, National Education Policy Center associate director .

Valladares said students learned research skills; learned about bilingual education and its implementation in Boulder Valley; collected data at elementary, middle and high schools and at universities inside and outside of the school district, attended class on the CU Boulder campus; and developed their own biliteracy skills by using both Spanish and English throughout their work.

“We wanted to get a lot of different perspectives,” New Vista junior Patrick Martin said.

The teaching assistant for the class, CU Boulder undergraduate student Maya Milan, is a Centaurus High School graduate. She said she is passionate about the research topic and was impressed by how hard the New Vista students worked.

“The heavy lifting was done by them,” Milan said.

The class started by looking at research that shows multilingual students could benefit from continuing to develop their biliteracy skills through high school. But, in Colorado and nationally, most bilingual education programs end after elementary school. While there are some districts that offer middle school options, very few programs continue through high school.

Kristin Nelson-Steinhoff, Boulder Valley’s Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education director, said Boulder Valley is working to create a K-12 bilingual pathway and appreciates the opportunity to work with the New Vista students.

“The fact that they are engaged in thinking about what that (high school pathway) might look like is super exciting,” she said.

The district started with expanding its middle school options , adding classes for sixth graders at three middle schools last fall. More bilingual classes, for seventh and eighth graders, will be added over the next two years. Boulder Valley also introduced a “bilingual and proud” campaign this school year.

“We’re really taking a systems approach,” Nelson-Steinhoff said, adding that the goal is to create high-quality, sustainable programs.

New Vista students developed a range of recommendations that include translating announcements and fliers for clubs into Spanish, providing class tests in a student’s native language, hiring more bilingual staff members, adding bilingual high school classes and providing summer school classes in Spanish.

“It would help create schools where all students have equal opportunities to learn,”  said New Vista sophomore Hamilton Dunn, adding that he especially wants to see high schools build a sense of belonging for their Spanish-speaking students.

Junior Lily Thoresen said there’s a large Spanish-speaking population in Boulder, including students at New Vista who are native Spanish speakers. The high school students they interviewed who don’t have bilingual options also reported feeling behind as they tried to learn a second language, she said.

“We want there to be more of an opportunity for people who don’t speak English,” she said. “It will help the community and the schools.”

More in Education

Education | Photos: Front Range Community College Combined Graduation

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Education | st. vrain valley students to perform at shakespeare in the park.

Education | Skyline High to host annual spring music festival

Education | St. Vrain Valley hosts annual Unified Day of Champions

Greenwood Village, nestled in the heart of Colorado, offers a unique blend of suburban tranquility and modern amenities, making it...

When it comes to finding the freshest, most high-quality meats in Longmont, savvy locals choose Your Butcher Frank. Nestled at...

Discover Excellence in Boulder Real Estate with RE/MAX Patrick Dolan Choosing the Best Real Estate Agent Boulder is crucial whether...

High Plains Bank: A Trusted Partner for Local Farmers Farming is a challenging yet vital part of the Wiggins community,...

Longmont, Colorado, is a city with a vibrant spirit and a community that loves good spirits just as much! At...

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.