research topics for senior high school stem students

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

STEM as the most preferred strand of Senior High School Student's

2020, STEM as the most preferred strand of Senior High School Student's

Related Papers

Kieran Bentley

Participatory Educational Research

Danilo V . Rogayan Jr. , Clarisse Yimyr De Guzman

This qualitative descriptive research explored the perspectives of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) senior high school students in a public secondary school in Zambales, Philippines on their reasons why they enrolled in STEM and their intent to pursue relevant career. A total of 20 Grade 12 students were purposively selected as participants of the research. The participants were interviewed using a validated structured interview guide. The recorded interviews were individually transcribed to arrive at an extended text. The extended texts were reviewed to generate themes and significant statements. The paper found out that senior high school students are generally interested in the field related to biology. The alignment to the preferred course in college is the primary reason of the participants for enrolling in STEM. Almost all the students wanted to pursue STEM-related careers after their university graduation. Further, personal aspiration is the main reason for the participants to pursue STEM-related professions. The study recommends that senior high schools may design various activities during the career week. These activities may include possible career paths in STEM-related courses, students' career and motivation, and their career aptitude. Teachers may also infuse innovative pedagogies for better STEM instruction. For the students to have more interest in science, it is recommended that STEM teachers undergo retooling or pursue advanced studies. Senior high schools may conduct career guidance seminars for the students to guide them on what strands they should take. The Department of Education (DepEd) may support the implementation of different programs regarding students’ career preparation. This program will help the students to be more aware on what career path they wanted to pursue, and to avoid pressures from peers. Schools may advocate a collaborative, authentic and goal-oriented learning environment with respect to the demand of Industrial Revolution 4.0.

Clifford Anderson

This study uses data collected at two National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI) programs in Connecticut and Mississippi to investigate high school students’ perceptions and preferences about education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Family background has a significant impact on a high school student's interest in STEM, as shown during the student recruitment stage and by the analysis of the students' college education plans prepared upon graduation from the two NSTI programs. The building exercise and competition instrument is the most effective among the few examined, while passive learning is not what young people prefer when briefly introduced in the two NSTI programs.

STEM is a curriculum which is based on the idea of education the students in four specific disciplines -science, technology, engineering and mathematics, in an approach which it is based on real-life applications.

Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education

Hersh C. Waxman

This study was grounded in the social cognitive career theoretical framework (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). The purpose of this four-year longitudinal study was to examine the factors that may have contributed to students’ motivation to develop STEM interest during secondary school years. The participants in our study were 9th- 11th grade high school students from a large K-12 college preparatory charter school system, Harmony Public Schools (HPS) in Texas. We utilized descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses to carry out the study. The results revealed that three-year survey takers’ STEM major interest seemed to decrease steadily each year. Although there was a significant gender gap between males and females in STEM selection in 9th and 10th grade, this difference was not significant at the end of 11th grade. White and Asian students were significantly more likely to be interested in STEM careers. We also found that students who were most likely to choose a STEM ma...

Steve Alsop

Paul Canlas

Canadian Public Policy

Mitchell Steffler

Zahra Hazari

Alana Unfried , Latricia Townsend

The national economy is in need of more engineers and skilled workers in science, technology, and mathematics (STEM) fields who also possess competencies in critical-thinking, communication, and collaboration – also known as 21st century skills. In response to this need, educational organizations across the country are implementing innovative STEM education programs designed in part to increase student attitudes toward STEM subjects and careers. This paper describes how a team of researchers at The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University developed the Upper Elementary School and Middle/High School Student Attitudes toward STEM (S-STEM) Surveys to measure those attitudes. The surveys each consist of four, validated constructs which use Likert-scale items to measure student attitudes toward science, mathematics, engineering and technology, 21st century skills. The surveys also contain a comprehensive section measuring student interest in STEM car...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

maeve liston

Jim Morgan , Alpaslan Sahin

Colby Tofel-Grehl

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• DOI: 10.17275/per.20.34.7.3
• Corpus ID: 224982486

Pursuing STEM Careers: Perspectives of Senior High School Students

• Renzo Jay L Rafanan , Clarisse Yimyr De Guzman , Danilo Jr. V. Rogayan
• Published in Participatory Educational… 1 December 2020
• Engineering, Education

Figures and Tables from this paper

20 Citations

Graduate perspectives on the delivery of the senior high school – science, technology, engineering and mathematics program, challenges in stem learning: a case of filipino high school students, understanding stem career choices: a systematic mapping, college academic performance in science-related programs and senior high school strands: a basis for higher education admission policy, does senior high school strand matter in nursing students’ academic self-regulated learning and academic performance, agreeableness of stem students to the indicators of academic performance, analysis of barriers, supports and gender gap in the choice of stem studies in secondary education, challenges encountered by junior high school students in learning science: basis for action plan, teachers’ experiences and self-assessment in teaching biology in senior high school in the philippines, reflections beyond implementation: evaluation of the project-based learning in the research curriculum of the philippine science high school - luzon campuses, 89 references, the factors motivating students' stem career aspirations: personal and societal contexts, exploring students' perspectives of college stem: an analysis of course rating websites., developing middle school students' interests in stem via summer learning experiences: see blue stem camp, development of a senior high school career decision tool based on social cognitive career theory, growing the roots of stem majors: female math and science high school faculty and the participation of students in stem, how high school students envision their stem career pathways, why young filipino teachers teach, factors influencing on grade 12 students chosen courses in jagobiao national high school – senior high school department, performing a choice-narrative: a qualitative study of the patterns in stem students’ higher education choices, a model of factors contributing to stem learning and career orientation, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

The senior high school students’ learning behavioral model of STEM in PBL

• Published: 24 February 2010
• Volume 21 , pages 161–183, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Shi Jer Lou 1 ,
• Yi Hui Liu 2 ,
• Ru Chu Shih 3 &
• Kuo Hung Tseng 4  

2368 Accesses

57 Citations

Explore all metrics

The purpose of the study was to explore a learning behavioral model of project-based learning (PBL) for senior high school students in the context of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Using “audio speakers” as the project theme, a series of tasks were designed to be solved using STEM knowledge via an online platform and student group discussions. A total of 84 volunteer students from a senior high school and a vocational school in Pingtung, Taiwan, were divided into 21 groups. Text analysis and questionnaire survey were administered. Data sources were the participants’ information collected via the STEM online platform and the questionnaire survey regarding STEM in PBL. The findings of the study are as follows: (1) the learning behavioral model for STEM in PBL showed a positive influence on students’ behavior in the form of cognition and behavioral intentions. In addition, cognition and behavioral intentions were positively influenced by attitude. The overall model fit was positive and could effectively explain senior high school and vocational school students’ learning behavior as related to STEM in PBL; (2) according to the results of the analysis of STEM from the online platform, students displayed a positive attitude, attained integrated conceptual and procedural knowledge, and demonstrated active behavioral intentions through STEM in PBL. In addition, the students’ creative and organized project outcomes revealed the effects of their behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Developing and Validating a Scale of STEM Project-Based Learning Experience

Investigating the role of self-selected STEM projects in fostering student autonomy and self-directed learning

The Challenge and Opportunities of STEM Learning Efficacy for Living Technology Through a Transdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning Activity

American Society for Engineering Education. (2004). Goals & srategies. http://www.engineeringk12.org/about/goals_strategies.htm2 . Accessed 24 May 2007.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84 , 191–215.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education doi: 10.1007/s10798-007-9028-2 .

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1998). Integrated science and mathematics education: Evolution and implication of theoretical model. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 499–512). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319–339.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theorical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.

Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 5 (2), 281–290.

Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intentions and behavior: An introduction to theory and research . Boston, MA: Addition-Wesley.

Hassard, J. (2000). Science as inquiry . New Jersey: Good Year Books.

Huang, F. M. (2004). Statistical approach of social science-SEM . Taipei City: Wu Nan.

Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Book   Google Scholar  

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications . Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Kesidou, S., & Koppal, M. (2004). Supporting goals-based learning with STEM outreach. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5 (3–4), 5–16.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Press.

Li, B. H. (2006). Current development of T&E (technology & engineering) courses in STEM education. Living Technology Education, 39 (7), 108–109.

Liao, K. L. (1982). Master of social learning theory—Albert Bandura . High-rank SEM application-guide of workshop of high-rank application in structural model . Taipei City: Asian Culture. Held by Taiwanese Association of Statistical Methodology.

Lin, K. Y. (2000). Primary study on the construction of technology learning website by the integration of MST orientation. Living Technology Education, 33 (2), 10–15.

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001). Science and technology/engineering framework. http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/ . Accessed 4 May 2007.

MIT STEM: Curriculum. (n.d.). http://web.mit.edu/stem/program/Curriculum.html . Accessed 7 March 2007.

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology . Eugene, OR: International society for technology in education.

Murphy, K. L., & Yakut, G. D. (2001). Role plays, panel discussions, and case studies: Project-based learning in a web-based course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, 10–14 April 2001 Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 809).

Robert, J. S. (2004). Introduction to psychology (Y. J. Chen, Trans.). Taipei City: Yeh Yeh Book Gallery. (Original work published 2000).

Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Society and personality development (C. M. Lin, Trans.). Taipei: Psychology Publishing. (Original work published 1994).

Shyu, S. Y. (2001). How to turn the students into research masters by internet-online project learning and instructional innovation. Taiwan Education, 607 , 25–34.

Shyu, S. Y. (2004). Study on types of E-learning knowledge and information design. Journal of Education Research, 125 , 5–16.

Sung, D. Y. (1983). Albert Bandura’s social learning theory. Chinese Talk, 15 (11), 59–65.

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers . Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.

Tzou, H. Y. (2001). Curriculum, instruction and evaluation based project instruction. Journal of National University of Tainan, 34 , 155–194.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Graduate Institute of Vocational and Technological Education, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, No. 1, Xue Fu Road, Lao Bei Village, Nei-Pu Township, Pingtung County, Taiwan, ROC

Shi Jer Lou

Department of Industrial Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, No. 116, Heping 1st Rd., Lingya District, Kaohsiung City, 802, Taiwan, ROC

Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, No. 1, Xue Fu Road, Lao Bei Village, Nei-Pu Township, Pingtung County, Taiwan, ROC

Ru Chu Shih

Department of Business Administration, Meiho Institution of Technology, No. 23, Ping-Guan Road, Meiho Village, Nei-Pu Township, Pingtung County, Taiwan, ROC

Kuo Hung Tseng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ru Chu Shih .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lou, S.J., Liu, Y.H., Shih, R.C. et al. The senior high school students’ learning behavioral model of STEM in PBL. Int J Technol Des Educ 21 , 161–183 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9112-x

Download citation

Published : 24 February 2010

Issue Date : May 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9112-x

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

• STEM integrated knowledge
• Senior high school and vocational school students
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Educators: Start Early to Keep Students Engaged in STEM

• Share article

A majority of students ages 12-18 are interested in careers in science, technology, engineering, or math, finds a 2023 survey sponsored by the Walton Family Foundation. But the survey also found that students, parents, and teachers say schools are not doing a good job preparing kids to pursue careers in those fields.

That is a problem, because recent technological advances—especially in the field of artificial intelligence—are poised to bring big changes to future jobs, particularly in the STEM fields. STEM occupations are projected to grow by almost 11 percent by 2031, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Many schools—at the elementary, middle, and high school levels—are integrating STEM learning into regular classroom instruction in some creative and relevant ways. Many are simultaneously figuring out how to encourage more girls and students of color to pursue studies in STEM areas, showing the kids how their participation could lead to lucrative careers down the road.

For this special report on STEM, the EdWeek Research Center asked this open-ended question: “How do schools get more students interested in STEM in elementary school and then maintain that interest throughout middle school and high school?” The EdWeek Research Center received nearly 800 responses from teachers, principals, and district leaders, and Education Week identified 25 of those responses that represented the major themes.

One big theme that emerged was that schools need to start earlier—in elementary school—and give young kids opportunities to do safe, hands-on science and solve developmentally appropriate, real-world problems. In other words, encourage children to investigate how the world works and how to fix its problems. Challenges around lack of time and resources, standardized testing, and professional development were common.

Following are the 25 responses, in the alphabetical order of the states where the educators work:

1    “We have a vertical plan for K-12, starting with weekly STEM classes in elementary, visiting the STEM festival in the spring, then in middle school hands-on STEM and Project Lead the Way classes with competitions and fairs, and in high school job shadowing and STEM career pathway courses .”

—District-level administrator | Arkansas

2    “ Science is often treated as a secondary subject in elementary schools due to students having deficits in English/language arts and math. We need to prevent that from happening and use science as a gateway to improving student performance in all subjects.”

—Middle school teacher | Science | California

3    “Stop teaching math *problems* and instead teach mathematical *techniques* to answer real-world questions . Do this with a diverse collection of media; yes, word problems but also problems with a picture of a real-life usage of the math problem, videos, in-class experiments, hands-on activities, etc. Use many representations of the underlying *meaning* of the math, not just shuffling digits around a paper.”

—High school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | California

4    “In a Title I school, all the emphasis is on catching students up to read at grade level. Our schools are graded based on standardized-test scores, so our curriculum is narrow and based on testing. The only way we can move toward more STEM is to move away from the focus on standardized testing .”

—Elementary school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | Colorado

5    “We barely have time to teach science.”

—Elementary school teacher | Florida

6    “This has been very difficult to maintain at my middle school. Science is always the last thing on the list, and not much importance is placed on it until 8th grade. This is when students have to take a science test that affects the school grade.”

—Middle school teacher | Science | Florida

7    “We have many elementary, middle, and high schools that are STEM-certified. The school I work at is one of them. We get students interested because we focus on the hands-on approach as well as emphasizing the attitude of not giving up but finding a different solution and trying again and again.”

—Elementary school teacher | Georgia

8    “There should be a program to retain women in STEM classes , as interest tends to drop off after middle school.”

—High school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | Illinois

9    “Students are interested in elementary, but maintaining interest is hard with the current school setup. The entire system would need to change.”

—High school teacher | Bilingual education/English as a second language | Iowa

10    “In order to attract students into STEM, it is important for students to experience ample opportunities to engage in STEM-centered project-based learning at the elementary level and throughout middle and high school. Traditional instruction and assessment do not foster interest in STEM or other 21st-century careers.”

—High school teacher | Fine arts | Kentucky

11    “They could do it by not simply teaching STEM but by teaching why these subjects are important and exploring their methods to developing knowledge. Kind of a zoomed-out explanation of how and why they should learn these subjects .”

—High school teacher | Louisiana

12    “For some of our schools like mine, due to the loss of Title I funding, we will no longer offer a full STEM class to all or any students for 2025-26. We try to integrate STEM into the general math, science, social studies, and language arts curricula.”

—Elementary school principal | Maryland

13    “They should include more labs and experiments , but many districts, like mine, now seem to rely on videos. This doesn't do much to stoke students’ interest in STEM. Also, we have a lack of teachers in areas of technology and computer science, which are the scientific fields many students are interested in.”

—High school teacher | Bilingual education/English as a second language | Massachusetts

14    “If you are integrating hands-on, project-based learning in elementary school, the curiosity will be there. My school has a dedicated class in middle school for STEM, which I teach, and over the course of a semester, we cover multiple areas of project-based learning that integrates science, math, technology, engineering, and design. The interest in that type of class was high enough that I was asked to teach a high school class based on hands-on learning, and it has become a forensic science class that everyone wants to take!”

—Middle school teacher | Missouri

15    “Our district needs to invest in science curriculum that interests students and gets them curious. Currently, 95 percent of our students say they hate science.”

—Middle school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | New Hampshire

16    “Introduce science early and have young students focus on experimentation. Ask questions , try to come up with ways to discover the answer. Seeing science as a tool and not just another subject can be inspiring and engaging.”

—High school teacher | Science | New York

17    “Stronger elementary programs .”

—District superintendent | New York

18    “There needs to be a focus on STEM curriculum in elementary. Testing needs to change. It impedes the problem-based learning that many STEM curricula utilize.”

—Elementary school teacher | Bilingual education/English as a second language | Ohio

19    “Prioritize STEM professional development for elementary and middle school teachers. Provide paid time for STEM teachers across the K-12 spectrum to meet and discuss/plan. Adopt and provide training for research-based methods of teaching STEM subjects (modeling, argument-driven inquiry, etc.).”

—High school teacher | Science | Ohio

20    “ Many STEM classes are offered after school . This is difficult for students who do not have any other transportation besides school buses.”

—Middle school teacher | English-language arts/literacy/reading | Oklahoma

21    “We have a solid K-5 STEM program that reaches every student. At the middle school level, we have STEM classes that reach about 66 percent of the students in 6th and 7th grade and we have a coding elective at the 8th grade level. Our high school is in the process of developing a solid STEM program.”

—Elementary school teacher | Pennsylvania

22    “We are a STEM-certified school and district. Integration of STEM education is how we have successfully built and maintained interest. Students in our district can fly a plane through our aeronautics program , before they can drive a car. There are so many STEM opportunities here!”

—Elementary school principal | Tennessee

23    “We have STEM as a special rotation, so students get STEM class every five days. Last year, we also had a bimonthly STEM club, which was well attended. Finally, we have a family STEM night each school year, and that is a big hit.”

—Elementary school teacher | Utah

24    “Raise teacher pay so that people with STEM skills are more willing to teach instead of making significantly more in the private sector.”

—High school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | Virginia

25    “ Show a passion for these subjects while teaching them and help students see the importance of learning these subjects, beyond the 'you will need this later.'”

—Elementary school teacher | Math/computer science/data science | Washington

Coverage of problem solving and student motivation is supported in part by a grant from The Lemelson Foundation, at www.lemelson.org . Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Strand

Overview of the stem strand.

Designed to prepare students who express keen interest in taking college degrees focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), senior high school students will be exposed to learning activities that will hone their knowledge and skills in analyzing data, understanding real-world impacts, and conducting research.

The Objectives of the STEM Strand

The STEM strand is designed to nurture senior high school students’ curiosity, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills. With the STEM strand, graduates will:

• Have developed a keener sense of creativity and ingenuity which is essential in coming up with new ideas and innovations
• Be more inclined to experiment and be more open to risks
• Be able to apply the knowledge they’ve learned in class in everyday scenarios, most especially in their future courses
• Have the foundational competencies that will allow them to excel in their chosen courses and, eventually, help them qualify for jobs in the STEM strand

Advantages of the STEM Strand

The STEM strand gives senior high school students exposure to the intertwining disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) to see how they work in real life. The STEM strand:

• Builds resilience in a safe environment by allowing students to experiment and to naturally experience failures as part of the learning process
• Encourages teamwork so students can find solutions to problems, record data, write reports, give presentations, and prepare them for STEM strand jobs
• Teaches kids about the power and importance of technology, especially in today’s digital age
• Fosters a habit of adaption when things don’t go as planned

Possible College Courses Under the STEM Strand

Senior High School Students that pursue the STEM strand are more inclined towards complex scientific advancements and the future of modern technology. Many of our STEM students go on to apply for undergraduate programs and explore their preferred specialized fields. Through the courses under the STEM strands, these students continue to grow into the country’s future scientists, engineers, programmers, and trailblazers within their niche. The STEM strand course list can include the following degree programs:

• Bachelor of Science in Engineering
• Bachelor of Science in Computer Science / Data Science
• Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Information Systems
• Bachelor of Science in Mathematics / Applied Mathematics
• Bachelor of Science in Statistics
• Bachelor of Science in Architecture
• Bachelor of Science in Health Sciences / Life Sciences
• Bachelor of Science in Applied Physics
• Bachelor of Science in Food Technology
• Bachelor of Science in Biology / Biochemistry / Chemistry

Possible Jobs in the STEM Strand

Our senior high school students go on to find relevant STEM strand jobs that match the skills and knowledge they’ve acquired from our curriculum. They will find plenty of opportunities, both in employment and in further studies in higher education. Senior high school graduates have found fulfilling and successful careers in the following jobs in the STEM strand:

• Astrophysicist
• Industrial Engineer
• Chemical Engineer
• Nutritionist
• Marine Engineer

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Strand Curriculum

The senior high school STEM strand provides a deep dive into hard sciences including Earth Science, Pre-Calculus and Basic Calculus, and Physics. These subjects will serve as preparation for students’ future undergraduate programs.

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics strand. Through the STEM strand, senior high school students are exposed to complex mathematical and science theories and concepts which will serve as a foundation for their college courses.

It’s important to remember that there is no right or wrong strand or track. When it comes to choosing a strand, students just have to choose one that they are genuinely interested in or would like to pursue in the future, as the strand they choose will provide them with the knowledge and skills they’ll need in college or future employment.

Graduates can take on jobs in the STEM strand, such as IT professionals, architects, agricultural engineers, food technologists, civil engineers, chemical engineers, industrial engineers, nurses, chemists, biologists, doctors, and pilots.

STEM graduates are very much in demand these days, due to the many infrastructure developments going on around the country and the opening of many foreign plants and companies.

No, you do not need to answer an entrance test to apply to OEd Senior High School. Senior high school applicants only need to fill out the application form online and submit their requirements via email. Once we have received all your requirements, we will evaluate your application before informing you of our decision. Please take note that this may take anywhere between 24 to 48 hours.

New K11 students are expected to submit the following:

• Successful Online Registration;
• Form 138/ Grade 10 Card;
• Certificate of Completion;
• Certificate of Good Moral;
• NSO Certified Birth Certificate;
• Form 137 or the Transcript of Records (School-to-School Transaction)

The tuition fee and other fees vary per program. Course Fee is charged on a per-course basis. To learn more about OED fees, please register at oedportal.amauonline.com or chat with us on facebook.com/OEducPh

AMA University Online Education (AMAOEd) is an online SHS education platform in the Philippines.

Quick Links

• Social Highlights

Academic Programs

• Online Basic Education
• Online Junior High School
• Online Senior High School

Academic Tracks

• Junior High Requirements
• Senior High Requirements

Contact Information

• [email protected]
• Mizheal +639171901136
• Stefany +639171803256

AMA GROUP OFFICIAL WEBSITES | OEd.com.ph | OnlinePostGrad.com 2021 © OEd Senior High School. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Sitemap

Nation’s Oldest and Most Prestigious High School STEM Competition Names Top 300 High School Scientists, Selected for Achievements in Innovation and Leadership

$1.2 Million Awarded to Nation’s Most Promising Teen Scientists and Their Schools at Regeneron Science Talent Search 2024, Marking the Largest Number of Entrants Since 1960s

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 10, 2024) – Society for Science (the Society) today announced the top 300 scholars in the Regeneron Science Talent Search 2024, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious science and math competition for high school seniors. The 300 scholars will be awarded $2,000 each and their schools will be awarded $2,000 for each enrolled scholar.

The Regeneron Science Talent Search scholars were selected from 2,162 entrants from 712 high schools across 46 states, Puerto Rico and 10 other countries – the highest number of entrants since 1969 and an increase of over 200 from 2023. Scholars were chosen based on their outstanding research, leadership skills, community involvement, commitment to academics, creativity in asking scientific questions and demonstration of exceptional promise as leaders in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) through original, independent research projects, essays, and recommendations. The 300 scholars hail from 196 American and international high schools in 36 states and China.

The full list of scholars can be viewed here .

“Congratulations to the top 300 scholars in this year’s Regeneron Science Talent Search,” said Maya Ajmera, President and CEO, Society for Science and Executive Publisher, Science News. “We received a record-breaking number of applications this year; interest in this prestigious competition is at an all-time high. I am truly impressed by the quality of the projects and the ingenuity that each student brings to the competition. Their diligence, passion, and perseverance should be celebrated.”

The Regeneron Science Talent Search recognizes and empowers our nation’s most promising young scientists who are generating innovative solutions to solve significant global challenges through rigorous research and discoveries. The competition provides students with a national stage to present new ideas and challenge conventional ways of thinking.

Now in its 102nd year, The Society has played a significant role in educating the public about scientific discoveries as well as in identifying future leaders in STEM. Regeneron has sponsored the Science Talent Search since 2017 as part of its deep commitment to supporting young scientists and future scientific innovation.

This year, research projects cover topics from artificial intelligence/machine learning assistance and detection to climate change prevention for wildfires, floods to drug discovery and more. Other students chose to focus on ways to tackle other pressing societal issues like teen mental health, anxiety, and suicide. With a total of 19 research categories, the top 5 categories among scholars’ projects this year include: Environmental Science, Medicine & Health, Cellular & Molecular Biology, Computational Biology and Behavioral and Social Sciences.

“Congratulations to the Regeneron Science Talent Search 2024 scholars, whose exceptional projects demonstrate their ability to use science to improve the world,” said Christina Chan, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs at Regeneron. “In partnership with the Society, we are proud to provide this prestigious national platform that recognizes, celebrates, and rewards students for their curiosity and innovation and encourages them to push the boundaries of science to tackle society’s most pressing issues.”

On January 24, 40 of the 300 scholars will be named Regeneron Science Talent Search finalists. The finalists will then compete for more than $1.8 million in awards during a week-long competition in Washington, D.C., taking place March 6-13, 2024.

For over eight decades the Science Talent Search has rewarded talented high school seniors who dedicate countless hours to original research projects and present their results in rigorous reports that resemble graduate school theses. Collectively, Science Talent Search alumni have received millions of dollars in scholarships and won Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals, MacArthur Fellowships, and many other accolades.

Important Dates for 202 4:

• Top 40 Finalists Announced : January 24, 2024
• Regeneron STS Finals Week : March 7-13, 2024
• Public Exhibition of Projects : March 10, 2024
• Winners Announced at Awards Ceremony : March 12, 2024
• Top 300 Scholars
• Notable STS Alumni
• STS 2023 Video Highlights

About the Regeneron Science Talent Search

The Regeneron Science Talent Search, a program of Society for Science since 1942, is the nation’s oldest and most prestigious science and math competition for high school seniors. Each year, more than 2,000 student entrants submit original research in critically important scientific fields of study and are judged by leading experts in their fields. Unique among high school competitions in the U.S. and around the world, the Regeneron Science Talent Search focuses on identifying, inspiring and engaging the nation’s most promising young scientists who are creating the ideas that could solve society’s most urgent challenges.

In 2017,  Regeneron  became only the third sponsor of the Science Talent Search to help reward and celebrate the best and brightest young minds and encourage them to pursue careers in STEM as a way to positively impact the world. Through its 10-year, $100 million commitment, Regeneron nearly doubled the overall award distribution to $3.1 million annually, increasing the top award to $250,000 and doubling the awards for the top 300 scholars to $2,000 and their schools to $2,000 for each enrolled scholar to inspire more young people to engage in science.

Learn more at  https://www.societyforscience.org/regeneron-sts/ .

About Society for Science

Society for Science is a champion for science, dedicated to promoting the understanding and appreciation of science and the vital role it plays in human advancement. Established in 1921, Society for Science is best known for its award-winning journalism through Science News and Science News Explores, its world-class science research competitions for students, including the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair and the Thermo Fisher Scientific Junior Innovators Challenge, and its outreach and equity programming that seeks to ensure that all students have an opportunity to pursue a career in STEM. A 501(c)(3) membership organization, Society for Science is committed to inform, educate and inspire. Learn more at www.societyforscience.org and follow us on Facebook , Twitter , Instagram and Snapchat (Society4Science).

Media Contact Gayle Kansagor, Society for Science 703-489-1131, [email protected]

Tackling STEM Courses

• Categories: Strategies for Learning , Transitioning to Harvard

The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) journey at Harvard is unique to each student and can involve several different interests, concentrations, and pathways. Whether you are probing your interest in STEM for the first time or have already explored STEM deeply here or in high school, there are strategies you can implement to help you succeed in your courses. 

What can be challenging about STEM courses at Harvard?

College STEM courses often cover a broader range of topics at an increased level of detail in comparison to many high school courses. Here are some of the challenges students may encounter as a result: 

• STEM coursework requires the development of new study skills and course preparation techniques. 
• Students are sometimes surprised by the amount of time needed to understand the material fully. 
• Assignments often involve work beyond practicing what was explicitly taught in class, which means students must apply the material to less familiar contexts and combine ideas in novel ways. 
• Assessments may be less frequent and cover a substantial amount of material. 

One step towards overcoming these challenges is to adjust your approach to learning to reflect the differences between STEM coursework in college and STEM coursework in high school. 

Learning approaches for STEM coursework:

• Preview textbook readings or course slides before class to familiarize yourself with upcoming terms and topics. 
• Previewing the material will help you stay engaged in lecture and engage in class by asking clarification questions.  
• Review lecture slides or notes after class to practice recalling the big ideas and to guess what might be asked of you on a problem set or exam. 
• Review or self-test in the hours after class or section to improve recall and prepare questions for office hours.  
• Create a list of tasks, steps or problems needed to complete the assignment. 
• Starting early can help prevent memory loss from class and allow you to take advantage of all the resources available in your courses, such as question centers, instructor office hours, or ARC Peer Tutoring . 
• Spread the work over multiple sessions to allow time for you to try different approaches and avoid burnout.  
• Engaging with other learners is important, but do so after you have attempted the assigned problems to ensure that you fully understand the work you are submitting. Be sure to adhere to the course collaboration policies. 
• Start early. Give yourself time to get help if the problems seem too unfamiliar. It will be helpful to prepare questions that focus on connections between problems.  
• Sometimes the problems look different on the surface, so it’s important to practice identifying structural similarities between the problems you’ve seen so far and what’s being asked on a particular assignment. 
• Course office hours and question centers are a great way to get help with finding these connections. 
• Talking through practice problems with an ARC Peer Tutor can help you discover structural similarities. 
• Start studying for exams early – as early as the first homework assignment. By completing your homework in ways that help you construct robust memories of the concepts, you will already be studying for exams. 
• When you complete an assignment, summarize the topics covered in each problem to synthesize the key takeaways. 
• Review key topics regularly and continue to add to the list as the semester passes. Frequent review makes studying for exams easier because you will have thought about these big ideas relatively recently and you can then prioritize what you study based on your comfort with them. 
• Experiment with self-testing and spaced repetition of various topics over multiple days to prevent yourself from cramming the night before the exam. 
• Practice exactly what you’ll be asked to do. Many courses will offer practice exams with their solutions; however, you need to work out the answers to problems before you review the solutions. Experience generating your own solutions is what you need to succeed on exams. You can then prioritize your studying based on your performance on the practice exam.    

Additional strategies to help tackle your STEM coursework:

• Recognize that success in STEM requires moving away from passive learning practices, where your instructor gives you information that you write down and then replicate on exams. 
• By contrast, active learning means paying attention to points of confusion in lecture and following up with peers, tutors, teaching staff, and question centers to have them clarified. 
• Start P-Set assignments early, so you have time to ask questions and to get help. 
• Find a P-Set buddy or form a P-Set study group to review assignments after individual completion. 
• The key is not to struggle alone: reach out to get the support you need!  
• Academic coaching at the ARC is one piece of your STEM support system. Academic coaching focuses on skills such as time management, reading and note-taking, exam preparation, and other study strategies. Use the ARC Scheduler to make an appointment with one of the Academic Coaches to learn more. 
• Peer tutoring at the ARC provides course specific support. Students can schedule appointments with peer tutors on the ARC Scheduler , where they will find tutoring support for most introductory STEM courses (and many other courses). Students can also request to be matched with a tutor through the ARC Matcher. 
• Accountability Hours at the ARC are a great way to get started on assignments in the company of your peers. 
• The ARC also offers Workshops specifically geared towards STEM students, including topics like effective study strategies for math and science, note-taking and class preparedness, and course correcting after exam results. 
• Students should reach out to their academic adviser or course faculty with questions about STEM courses, sequencing courses, and balancing workload. 
• Departmental Directors of Undergraduate Studies (DUSs) and Assistant Directors of Undergraduate Studies (ADUSs) are excellent sources of information about specific concentrations and courses. 

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

NEW: Classroom Clean-Up/Set-Up Email Course! 🧽

The Big List of Essay Topics for High School (120+ Ideas!)

Ideas to inspire every young writer!

High school students generally do a lot of writing, learning to use language clearly, concisely, and persuasively. When it’s time to choose an essay topic, though, it’s easy to come up blank. If that’s the case, check out this huge round-up of essay topics for high school. You’ll find choices for every subject and writing style.

• Argumentative Essay Topics
• Cause-and-Effect Essay Topics
• Compare-Contrast Essay Topics
• Descriptive Essay Topics
• Expository and Informative Essay Topics
• Humorous Essay Topics

Literary Essay Topics

• Narrative and Personal Essay Topics
• Personal Essay Topics
• Persuasive Essay Topics

Research Essay Topics

Argumentative essay topics for high school.

When writing an argumentative essay, remember to do the research and lay out the facts clearly. Your goal is not necessarily to persuade someone to agree with you, but to encourage your reader to accept your point of view as valid. Here are some possible argumentative topics to try. ( Here are 100 more compelling argumentative essay topics. )

• The most important challenge our country is currently facing is … (e.g., immigration, gun control, economy)
• The government should provide free internet access for every citizen.
• All drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.
• Vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco.
• The best country in the world is …
• Parents should be punished for their minor children’s crimes.
• Should all students have the ability to attend college for free?
• Should physical education be part of the standard high school curriculum?

WeAreTeachers

• Schools should require recommended vaccines for all students, with very limited exceptions.
• Is it acceptable to use animals for experiments and research?
• Does social media do more harm than good?
• Capital punishment does/does not deter crime.
• What one class should all high schools students be required to take and pass in order to graduate?
• Do we really learn anything from history, or does it just repeat itself over and over?
• Are men and women treated equally?

Cause-and-Effect Essay Topics for High School

A cause-and-effect essay is a type of argumentative essay. Your goal is to show how one specific thing directly influences another specific thing. You’ll likely need to do some research to make your point. Here are some ideas for cause-and-effect essays. ( Get a big list of 100 cause-and-effect essay topics here. )

• Humans are causing accelerated climate change.
• Fast-food restaurants have made human health worse over the decades.
• What caused World War II? (Choose any conflict for this one.)
• Describe the effects social media has on young adults.

• How does playing sports affect people?
• What are the effects of loving to read?
• Being an only/oldest/youngest/middle child makes you …
• What effect does violence in movies or video games have on kids?
• Traveling to new places opens people’s minds to new ideas.
• Racism is caused by …

Compare-Contrast Essay Topics for High School

As the name indicates, in compare-and-contrast essays, writers show the similarities and differences between two things. They combine descriptive writing with analysis, making connections and showing dissimilarities. The following ideas work well for compare-contrast essays. ( Find 80+ compare-contrast essay topics for all ages here. )

• Public and private schools
• Capitalism vs. communism
• Monarchy or democracy
• Dogs vs. cats as pets

• Paper books or e-books
• Two political candidates in a current race
• Going to college vs. starting work full-time
• Working your way through college as you go or taking out student loans
• iPhone or Android
• Instagram vs. Twitter (or choose any other two social media platforms)

Descriptive Essay Topics for High School

Bring on the adjectives! Descriptive writing is all about creating a rich picture for the reader. Take readers on a journey to far-off places, help them understand an experience, or introduce them to a new person. Remember: Show, don’t tell. These topics make excellent descriptive essays.

• Who is the funniest person you know?
• What is your happiest memory?
• Tell about the most inspirational person in your life.
• Write about your favorite place.
• When you were little, what was your favorite thing to do?
• Choose a piece of art or music and explain how it makes you feel.
• What is your earliest memory?

• What’s the best/worst vacation you’ve ever taken?
• Describe your favorite pet.
• What is the most important item in the world to you?
• Give a tour of your bedroom (or another favorite room in your home).
• Describe yourself to someone who has never met you.
• Lay out your perfect day from start to finish.
• Explain what it’s like to move to a new town or start a new school.
• Tell what it would be like to live on the moon.

Expository and Informative Essay Topics for High School

Expository essays set out clear explanations of a particular topic. You might be defining a word or phrase or explaining how something works. Expository or informative essays are based on facts, and while you might explore different points of view, you won’t necessarily say which one is “better” or “right.” Remember: Expository essays educate the reader. Here are some expository and informative essay topics to explore. ( See 70+ expository and informative essay topics here. )

• What makes a good leader?
• Explain why a given school subject (math, history, science, etc.) is important for students to learn.
• What is the “glass ceiling” and how does it affect society?
• Describe how the internet changed the world.
• What does it mean to be a good teacher?

• Explain how we could colonize the moon or another planet.
• Discuss why mental health is just as important as physical health.
• Describe a healthy lifestyle for a teenager.
• Choose an American president and explain how their time in office affected the country.
• What does “financial responsibility” mean?

Humorous Essay Topics for High School

Humorous essays can take on any form, like narrative, persuasive, or expository. You might employ sarcasm or satire, or simply tell a story about a funny person or event. Even though these essay topics are lighthearted, they still take some skill to tackle well. Give these ideas a try.

• What would happen if cats (or any other animal) ruled the world?
• What do newborn babies wish their parents knew?
• Explain the best ways to be annoying on social media.
• Invent a wacky new sport, explain the rules, and describe a game or match.

• Imagine a discussion between two historic figures from very different times, like Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth I.
• Retell a familiar story in tweets or other social media posts.
• Describe present-day Earth from an alien’s point of view.
• Choose a fictional character and explain why they should be the next president.
• Describe a day when kids are in charge of everything, at school and at home.

Literary essays analyze a piece of writing, like a book or a play. In high school, students usually write literary essays about the works they study in class. These literary essay topic ideas focus on books students often read in high school, but many of them can be tweaked to fit other works as well.

• Discuss the portrayal of women in Shakespeare’s Othello .
• Explore the symbolism used in The Scarlet Letter .
• Explain the importance of dreams in Of Mice and Men .
• Compare and contrast the romantic relationships in Pride and Prejudice .

• Dissect the allegory of Animal Farm and its relation to contemporary events.
• Interpret the author’s take on society and class structure in The Great Gatsby .
• Explore the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia.
• Discuss whether Shakespeare’s portrayal of young love in Romeo and Juliet is accurate.
• Explain the imagery used in Beowulf .

Narrative and Personal Essay Topics for High School

Think of a narrative essay like telling a story. Use some of the same techniques that you would for a descriptive essay, but be sure you have a beginning, middle, and end. A narrative essay doesn’t necessarily need to be personal, but they often are. Take inspiration from these narrative and personal essay topics.

• Describe a performance or sporting event you took part in.
• Explain the process of cooking and eating your favorite meal.
• Write about meeting your best friend for the first time and how your relationship developed.
• Tell about learning to ride a bike or drive a car.
• Describe a time in your life when you’ve been scared.

• Share the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you.
• Tell about a time when you overcame a big challenge.
• Tell the story of how you learned an important life lesson.
• Describe a time when you or someone you know experienced prejudice or oppression.
• Explain a family tradition, how it developed, and its importance today.
• What is your favorite holiday? How does your family celebrate it?
• Retell a familiar story from the point of view of a different character.
• Describe a time when you had to make a difficult decision.
• Tell about your proudest moment.

Persuasive Essay Topics for High School

Persuasive essays are similar to argumentative , but they rely less on facts and more on emotion to sway the reader. It’s important to know your audience, so you can anticipate any counterarguments they might make and try to overcome them. Try these topics to persuade someone to come around to your point of view. ( Discover 60 more intriguing persuasive essay topics here. )

• Do you think homework should be required, optional, or not given at all?
• Everyone should be vegetarian or vegan.
• What animal makes the best pet?
• Visit an animal shelter, choose an animal that needs a home, and write an essay persuading someone to adopt that animal.
• Who is the world’s best athlete, present or past?
• Should little kids be allowed to play competitive sports?
• Are professional athletes/musicians/actors overpaid?
• The best music genre is …

• Is democracy the best form of government?
• Is capitalism the best form of economy?
• Students should/should not be able to use their phones during the school day.
• Should schools have dress codes?
• If I could change one school rule, it would be …
• Is year-round school a good idea?

A research essay is a classic high school assignment. These papers require deep research into primary source documents, with lots of supporting facts and evidence that’s properly cited. Research essays can be in any of the styles shown above. Here are some possible topics, across a variety of subjects.

• Which country’s style of government is best for the people who live there?
• Choose a country and analyze its development from founding to present day.
• Describe the causes and effects of a specific war.
• Formulate an ideal economic plan for our country.
• What scientific discovery has had the biggest impact on life today?

• Analyze the way mental health is viewed and treated in this country.
• Explore the ways systemic racism impacts people in all walks of life.
• Defend the importance of teaching music and the arts in public schools.
• Choose one animal from the endangered species list, and propose a realistic plan to protect it.

What are some of your favorite essay topics for high school? Come share your prompts on the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook .

Plus, check out the ultimate guide to student writing contests .

We Are Teachers

You Might Also Like

100 Thought-Provoking Argumentative Writing Prompts for Kids and Teens

Practice making well-reasoned arguments using research and facts. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• NPJ Sci Learn

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

Locke davenport huyer.

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

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

Neal I. Callaghan

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

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

Edward Scherer

Andrey i. shukalyuk, margaret jou, dawn m. kilkenny.

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

Associated Data

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.

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.

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 – 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. ​ (Fig.1). 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. ​ (Fig.1). 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. ​ (Fig.2a). 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. ​ (Fig.2d), 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. ​ Fig.2e), 2e ), but did show a significant increase in their Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0011, Fig. ​ Fig.2f). 2f ). Finally, students demonstrated excellent Discovery attendance; at least 91% of participants attended all Discovery sessions in a given term (Fig. ​ (Fig.2g). 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. ​ (Fig.2h 2h ).

Discovery EE students (Fig. ​ (Fig.3), 3 ), roughly by definition, obtained lower course grades ( p  < 0.0001, Fig. ​ Fig.3a) 3a ) and higher final Discovery grades ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. ​ Fig.3b) 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. ​ Fig.3c). 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. ​ (Fig.4), 4 ), although not receiving significantly higher grades in class than students participating in the program only one time ( p  = 0.29, Fig. ​ Fig.4a), 4a ), were observed to obtain higher final Discovery grades than single-term students ( p  = 0.0067, Fig. ​ Fig.4b). 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. ​ Fig.4f). 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. ​ (Fig.5) 5 ) further highlights trend in improvement (Fig. ​ (Fig.2f). 2f ). Greater performance over terms of participation was observed for essay ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. ​ Fig.5a), 5a ), client meeting ( p  = 0.0003, Fig. ​ Fig.5b), 5b ), proposal ( p  = 0.0004, Fig. ​ Fig.5c), 5c ), progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. ​ Fig.5d), 5d ), poster ( p  = 0.0005, Fig. ​ Fig.5e), 5e ), and presentation ( p  = 0.0295, Fig. ​ Fig.5f) 5f ) deliverable grades; these trends were all significant with the exception of the progress report ( p  = 0.16, Fig. ​ Fig.5d) 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. ​ (Fig.6a 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. ​ (Fig.6b). 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. ​ (Fig.6c). 6c ). When surveyed at the end of term, 84.9% of students indicated they would participate in the program again (Fig. ​ (Fig.6d 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. ​ (Fig.2a), 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. ​ (Fig.2d). 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. ​ (Fig.3). 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. ​ (Fig.6a). 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 ​ Table1). 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.

Summary of cohort participants in each term offering of Discovery ( N  = 268 instances of student participation).

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. ​ (Fig.1). 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. ​ (Fig.1; 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. ​ (Fig.1). 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.

Supplementary information

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 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.

Data availability

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

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

Supplementary information is available for this paper at 10.1038/s41539-020-00076-2.

• Future Students
• Parents/Families
• Alumni/Friends
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff
• MyOHIO Student Center
• Visit Athens Campus
• Regional Campuses
• OHIO Online
• Faculty/Staff Directory
• University Community
• Research & Impact
• Alumni & Friends
• Search All News
• OHIO Today Magazine
• Colleges & Campuses
• For the Media

Helpful Links

Navigate OHIO

Connect With Us

Tech Savvy program bridges the gap in STEM exploration for area youth, highlights women in STEM fields

Students in grades fifth through ninth from around the southeastern Ohio and West Virginia area had the opportunity to hear from OHIO experts and explore areas in STEM during the Tech Savvy program on May 11.

The one-day event provided an opportunity for youth in the area to come to Ohio University’s Athens campus to participate in a variety of workshops and engage with peers and experts in different STEM fields. In addition to introducing middle school students to different areas, the program also highlighted the women working in STEM fields with most of the presenters being women discussing their area of expertise and sharing their experiences.

Several esteemed OHIO faculty members, Ph.D. candidates and local scientists spearheaded workshops and presentations, sharing their expertise and igniting curiosity among the budding scientists in areas such as environmental research, psychology, human and plant biology, computer programming and more.

According to Dr. Sarah Wyatt, who gave opening and closing remarks for the program and who was the chair of the planning committee, programming like this is incredibly important for students in this area to ignite the spark of curiosity and innovation and for them to know working in these fields is possible regardless of their background.

“I walked in and saw engaged students,” John McCarthy, dean of the College of Health Sciences and Professions, said. “The Kids on Campus team knows kids and what motivates them. People like Sarah Wyatt have the knowledge to inspire them. Along with the supportive community, it was a winning combination and I’m thrilled that the College of Health Sciences and Professions could open our doors for the Tech Savvy event.”

Throughout the day, students choose from a variety of workshops focused on different subjects, such as Decoding DNA, Plants in Space, Measuring Your Mind, and more, while working in labs across campus. These workshops allowed for young students to get hands-on experience and a taste of what it could be like researching in a lab someday.

Following the workshops, students got to learn important soft skills through hands-on experiments that taught collaboration, attention to detail, how to resolve conflict and the importance of listening and understanding to others.

There was also an optional parent program for the guardians of the students participating that provided them with the tools to help their youth explore STEM careers, learn about college readiness and take part in STEM workshops themselves.

“We are grateful to the Paula Tolliver Appalachian OHIO STEM Fund who has helped make the Tech Savvy program possible,” Jo Ellen Sherow, program manager for Kids on Campus, said. “The program is a wonderful complement to our Kids on Campus offerings and allows us to provide students with a unique opportunity to explore, and be interested in, STEM fields. This year's event was a lot of fun, and we were thrilled to see so many students and parents excited to learn new things!”

Every year, Tech Savvy also has a keynote speaker that presents on a topic within their expertise. This year, the keynote speaker was Dr. Andrea Richard, an assistant professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at Ohio University. Dr. Richard’s work is primarily related to indirect neutron-capture constraints for the astrophysical processes, and her research aims to answer the question of where everything we see around us comes from. She is actively involved in mentoring, policy advocacy, outreach, and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Tech Savvy is sponsored by Ohio University, Kids on Campus, the College of Health Sciences and Professions, Undergraduate Admissions, the Academic Achievement Center, Student Financial Aid and Scholarships, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Department of Environmental and Plant Biology, the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, the Department of Physics and Astronomy, the Department of Psychology and the American Association of University Women (AAUW).

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Internet & Technology

6 facts about americans and tiktok.

62% of U.S. adults under 30 say they use TikTok, compared with 39% of those ages 30 to 49, 24% of those 50 to 64, and 10% of those 65 and older.

Many Americans think generative AI programs should credit the sources they rely on

Americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, sign up for our internet, science, and tech newsletter.

New findings, delivered monthly

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.

64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a public electric vehicle charging station, and those who live closest to chargers view EVs more positively.

When Online Content Disappears

A quarter of all webpages that existed at one point between 2013 and 2023 are no longer accessible.

A quarter of U.S. teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in K-12 education

High school teachers are more likely than elementary and middle school teachers to hold negative views about AI tools in education.

Teens and Video Games Today

85% of U.S. teens say they play video games. They see both positive and negative sides, from making friends to harassment and sleep loss.

Americans’ Views of Technology Companies

Most Americans are wary of social media’s role in politics and its overall impact on the country, and these concerns are ticking up among Democrats. Still, Republicans stand out on several measures, with a majority believing major technology companies are biased toward liberals.

22% of Americans say they interact with artificial intelligence almost constantly or several times a day. 27% say they do this about once a day or several times a week.

About one-in-five U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to learn something new (17%) or for entertainment (17%).

Across eight countries surveyed in Latin America, Africa and South Asia, a median of 73% of adults say they use WhatsApp and 62% say they use Facebook.

5 facts about Americans and sports

About half of Americans (48%) say they took part in organized, competitive sports in high school or college.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams, signature reports.

The State of Online Harassment

Roughly four-in-ten Americans have experienced online harassment, with half of this group citing politics as the reason they think they were targeted. Growing shares face more severe online abuse such as sexual harassment or stalking

Parenting Children in the Age of Screens

Two-thirds of parents in the U.S. say parenting is harder today than it was 20 years ago, with many citing technologies – like social media or smartphones – as a reason.

Dating and Relationships in the Digital Age

From distractions to jealousy, how Americans navigate cellphones and social media in their romantic relationships.

Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information

Majorities of U.S. adults believe their personal data is less secure now, that data collection poses more risks than benefits, and that it is not possible to go through daily life without being tracked.

Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

Social media fact sheet, digital knowledge quiz, video: how do americans define online harassment.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center