science investigatory project research paper pdf

Advertisement

Investigative Research Projects for Students in Science: The State of the Field and a Research Agenda

• Open access
• Published: 16 March 2023
• Volume 23 , pages 80–95, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Michael J. Reiss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1207-4229 1 ,
• Richard Sheldrake   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2909-6478 1 &
• Wilton Lodge   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9219-8880 1  

3400 Accesses

2 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

One of the ways in which students can be taught science is by doing science, the intention being to help students understand the nature, processes, and methods of science. Investigative research projects may be used in an attempt to reflect some aspects of science more authentically than other teaching and learning approaches, such as confirmatory practical activities and teacher demonstrations. In this article, we are interested in the affordances of investigative research projects where students, either individually or collaboratively, undertake original research. We provide a critical rather than a systematic review of the field. We begin by examining the literature on the aims of science education, and how science is taught in schools, before specifically turning to investigative research projects. We examine how such projects are typically undertaken before reviewing their aims and, in more detail, the consequences for students of undertaking such projects. We conclude that we need social science research studies that make explicit the possible benefits of investigative research projects in science. Such studies should have adequate control groups that look at the long-term consequences of such projects not only by collecting delayed data from participants, but by following them longitudinally to see whether such projects make any difference to participants’ subsequent education and career destinations. We also conclude that there is too often a tendency for investigative research projects for students in science to ignore the reasons why scientists work in particular areas and to assume that once a written report of the research has been authored, the work is done. We therefore, while being positive about the potential for investigative research projects, make specific recommendations as to how greater authenticity might result from students undertaking such projects.

L’une des façons d’enseigner les sciences aux étudiants est de leur faire faire des activités scientifiques, l’objectif étant de les aider à comprendre la nature, les processus et les méthodes de la science. On peut avoir recours à des projets de recherche et d’enquête afin de refléter plus fidèlement certains éléments relevant de la science qu’en utilisant d’autres approches d’enseignement et d’apprentissage, telles que les activités pratiques de confirmation et les démonstrations faites par l’enseignant. Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons aux possibilités offertes par les projets de recherche dans lesquels les étudiants, individuellement ou en collaboration, entreprennent des recherches novatrices. Nous proposons un examen critique du domaine plutôt que d’y porter un regard systématique. Nous commençons par examiner la documentation portant sur les objectifs de l’enseignement des sciences et la manière dont les sciences sont enseignées dans les écoles, avant de nous intéresser plus particulièrement aux projets de recherche et d’enquête. Nous analysons la manière dont ces projets sont généralement menés avant d’examiner leurs buts et d’évaluer de façon plus approfondie quelles sont les conséquences pour les élèves de réaliser de tels projets. Nous constatons que nous avons besoin d’études de recherche en sciences sociales qui rendent explicites les avantages potentiels des projets de recherche et d’enquête scientifiques. Ces études devraient comporter des groupes de contrôle adéquats qui examinent les conséquences à long terme de ces projets, non seulement en recueillant des données différées auprès des participants, mais aussi en suivant ceux-ci de manière longitudinale de façon à voir si ces projets font une quelconque différence dans l’éducation subséquente et les destinations professionnelles ultérieures des participants. Nous concluons également que les projets de recherche et d’enquête des étudiants en sciences ont trop souvent tendance à ignorer les raisons pour lesquelles les scientifiques travaillent dans des domaines particuliers et à supposer qu’une fois que le rapport de recherche a été rédigé, le travail est terminé. Par conséquent, tout en demeurant optimistes quant au potentiel que représentent les projets de recherche et d’enquête, nous formulons des recommandations particulières en ce qui a trait à la manière dont une plus grande authenticité pourrait résulter de la réalisation de tels projets par les étudiants.

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigative School Research Projects in Biology: Effects on Students

Moving Research into the Classroom: Synergy in Collaboration

Reintroducing “the” Scientific Method to Introduce Scientific Inquiry in Schools?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Many young people are interested in science but do not necessarily see themselves as able to become scientists (Archer & DeWitt, 2017 ; Archer et al., 2015 ). Others may not want to become scientists even though they may see themselves as succeeding in science (Gokpinar & Reiss, 2016 ). At the same time, in many countries, governments and industry want more young people to continue with science, primarily in the hope that they will go into science or science-related careers (including engineering and technology), but also because of the benefits to society that are presumed to flow from having a scientifically literate population. Making science more inclusive and accessible to everyone may need endeavours and support from across education, employers, and society (Royal Society, 2014 ; Institute of Physics, 2020 ).

However, getting more people to continue with science, once it is no longer compulsory, is only one purpose of school science (Mansfield & Reiss, 2020 ). Much of school science is focused on getting students to understand core content of science—things like the particulate theory of matter, and the causes of disease in humans and other organisms. Another strand in school science is on getting students to understand something of the practices of science, particularly through undertaking practical work. A further, recently emerging, position is that science education should help students to use their knowledge and critical understanding of the content and practices of science to strive for social and environmental justice (Sjöström & Eilks, 2018 ).

In this article, we are interested in the affordances of investigative research projects—discussed in more detail below but essentially pieces of work undertaken by students either individually or collaboratively in which they undertake original research. We provide a critical rather than a systematic review of the field and suggest how future research might be undertaken to explore in more detail the possible contribution of such projects. We begin by examining the literature on the aims of science education, and how science is taught in schools, before specifically turning to investigative research projects. We examine how such projects are typically undertaken before reviewing their aims and, in more detail, the consequences for students of undertaking such projects. We make recommendations as to how investigative research projects might more fruitfully be undertaken and conclude by proposing a research agenda.

Aims of Science Education

School science education typically aims to prepare some students to become scientists, while concurrently educating all students in science and about science (Claussen & Osborne, 2013 ; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 ; Osborne & Dillon, 2008 ). For example, in England, especially for older students, the current science National Curriculum for 5–16-year-olds is framed as providing a platform for future studies and careers in science for some students, and providing knowledge and skills so that all students can understand and engage with the natural world within their everyday lives (Department for Education, 2014 ). Accordingly, science education within the National Curriculum in England broadly aims to develop students’ scientific knowledge and conceptual understanding; develop students’ understanding of the nature, processes, and methods of science (aspects of ‘working scientifically’, including experimental, analytical, and other related skills); and ensure that students understand the relevance, uses, and implications of science within everyday life (Department for Education, 2014 ). Comparable aims are typically found in other countries (Coll & Taylor, 2012 ; Hollins & Reiss, 2016 ).

Science education often involves practical work, which is generally intended to help students gain conceptual understanding, practical and wider skills, and understanding of how science and scientists work (Abrahams & Reiss, 2017 ; Cukurova et al., 2015 ; Hodson, 1993 ; Millar, 1998 ). Essentially, the thinking behind much practical work is that students would learn about science by doing science. Practical work has often been orientated towards confirming and illustrating scientific knowledge, although it is increasingly orientated around reflecting the processes of investigation and inquiry used within the field of science, and providing understanding of the nature of science (Abrahams & Reiss, 2017 ; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 ).

In many countries, especially those with the resources to have school laboratories, practical work in science is undertaken at secondary level relatively frequently, although this is less the case with older students (Hamlyn et al., 2020 , 2017 ). Practical work is more frequent in schools within more advantaged regions (Hamlyn et al., 2020 ) and many students report that they would have preferred to do more practical work (Cerini et al., 2003 ; Hamlyn et al., 2020 ).

The impact of practical work remains less clear (Cukurova et al., 2015 ; Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017 ). Society broadly expects that students in any one country will experience practical work to similar extents, so it is unfeasible, for more than a handful of lessons (e.g. Shana & Abulibdeh, 2020 ), to apply experimental designs where some students undertake practical work while others do not. One study, where students were assigned to one of four different groups, concluded that while conventional practical work led to more student learning than did either watching videos or reading textbooks, it was no more effective than when students watched a teacher demonstration (Moore et al., 2020 ).

The study by Moore et al. ( 2020 ) illustrates an important point, namely, that students can acquire conceptual knowledge and theoretical understanding by ways other than engagement in practical work. Indeed, there are some countries where less practical work is undertaken than in others, yet students score well, on average, on international measures of attainment. Some, but relatively few, studies have focused on whether the extent of practical work, and/or whether practical work undertaken in particular ways, associates with any educational or other outcomes. There are some indications that more frequent practical work associates with benefits (Cukurova et al., 2015 ). For example, students in higher-performing secondary schools have reported that they undertake more frequent practical work than pupils in lower-performing schools, although this does not reflect the impact of practical work alone (Hamlyn et al., 2017 ). In a more recent study, Oliver et al. ( 2021a , b ), in their analysis of the science scores in the six Anglophone countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) that participated in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) 2015, found that “Of particular note is that the highest level of student achievement is associated with doing practical work in some lessons (rather than all or most) and this patterning is consistent across all six countries” (p. 35).

Students often appreciate and enjoy practical work in science (Hamlyn et al., 2020 ; National Foundation for Educational Research, 2011 ). Nevertheless, students do not necessarily understand the purposes of practical work, some feel that practical work may not necessarily be the best way to understand some aspects of science, and some highlight that practical work does not necessarily give them what they need for examinations (Abrahams & Reiss, 2012 ; Sharpe & Abrahams, 2020 ). Teachers have also spoken about the challenges of devising and delivering practical work, and often value practical work for being motivational for students rather than for helping them to understand science concepts (Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017 ; National Foundation for Educational Research, 2011 ).

Teaching Approaches

Educational research has examined how teaching and learning could best be undertaken. Many teaching and learning approaches have been found to associate with students’ learning outcomes, such as their achievement (Bennett et al., 2007 ; Furtak et al., 2012 ; Hattie et al., 2020 ; Savelsbergh et al., 2016 ; Schroeder et al., 2007 ) and interest (e.g. Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016 ; Swarat et al., 2012 ), both in science and more generally. However, considering different teaching and learning approaches is complicated by terminology (where the definitions of terms can vary and/or terms can be applied in various ways) and wider aspects of generalisation (where it can be difficult to determine trends across studies undertaken in diverse ways across diverse contexts).

Inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning generally involve students having more initiative to direct and undertake activities to develop their understanding (although not necessarily without guidance and support from teachers), such as working scientifically to devise and undertake investigations. However, it is important to emphasise that inquiry-based approaches do not necessitate practical work. Indeed, there are many subjects where no practical work takes place and yet students can undertake inquiries. In science, examples of non-practical-based inquiries that could fruitfully be undertaken collaboratively or individually and using the internet and/or libraries include the sort of research that students might undertake to investigate a socio-scientific issue. An example of such research includes what the effects of reintroducing an extinct or endangered species might be on an ecosystem, such as the reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver ( Castor fiber ) into the UK, or the barn owl ( Tyto alba ) into Canada. Inquiry-based learning in school science has often been found to associate with greater achievement (Furtak et al., 2012 ; Savelsbergh et al., 2016 ; Schroeder et al., 2007 ), though too much time spent on inquiry can result in reduced achievement (Oliver et al., 2021a ).

Allied to inquiry-based approaches is project-based learning. Here, students take initiative, manifest autonomy, and exercise responsibility for addressing an issue (often attempting to solve a problem) that usually results in an end product (such as a report or model), with teachers as facilitators and guides. The project occurs over a relatively long duration of time (Helle et al., 2006 ), to allow time for planning, revising, undertaking, and writing up the study. Project-based learning tends to associate positively with achievement (Chen & Yang, 2019 ).

Context-based approaches to teaching and learning use specific contexts and applications as starting points for the development of scientific ideas, rather than more traditional approaches that typically cover scientific ideas before moving on to consider their applications and contexts (Bennett et al., 2007 ). Context-based approaches have been found to be broadly equivalent to other teaching and learning approaches in developing students’ understanding, with some evidence for helping foster positive attitudes to science to a greater extent than traditional approaches (Bennett et al., 2007 ). Specifically relating learning to students’ experiences or context (referred to as ‘enhanced context strategies’) often associates positively with achievement (Schroeder et al., 2007 ). The literature on context-based approaches overlaps with that on the use of socio-scientific issues in science education, where students develop their scientific knowledge and understanding by considering complicated issues where science plays a role but on its own is not sufficient to produce solutions (e.g. Dawson, 2015 ; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008 ). To date, the literature on context-based approaches and/or socio-scientific issues has remained distinct from that on investigative research projects but, as we will argue below, there might be benefit in considering their intersection.

Various other teaching and learning approaches have been found to be beneficial in science, including collaborative work, computer-based work, and the provision of extra-curricular activities (Savelsbergh et al., 2016 ). Similarly, but specifically focusing on chemistry, various teaching and learning practices have been found to associate positively with academic outcomes, including (most strongly) collaborative learning and problem-based learning (Rahman & Lewis, 2019 ).

Most attention has focused on achievement-related outcomes. Nevertheless, inquiry-based learning, context-based learning, computer-based learning, collaborative learning, and extra-curricular activities have often also been found to associate positively with students’ interests and aspirations towards science (Savelsbergh et al., 2016 ). While many teaching and learning approaches associate with benefits, it remains difficult definitively to establish whether any particular approach is optimal and/or whether particular approaches are better than others. Teaching and learning time are limited, so applying a particular approach may mean not applying another approach.

Investigative Research Projects

Science education has often (implicitly or explicitly) been orientated around students learning science by doing science, intending to help students understand the nature, processes, and methods of science. An early critique of pedagogical approaches that saw students as scientists was provided by Driver ( 1983 ) who, while not dismissing the value of the approach, cautioned against over-enthusiastic adoption on the grounds that, unsurprisingly, school students, compared to actual scientists, manifest a range of misconceptions about how scientific research is undertaken. Contemporary recommendations for practical work include schools delivering frequent and varied practical activities (in at least half of all science lessons), and students also having the opportunity to undertake open-ended and extended investigative projects (Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017 ).

Investigative research projects may be intended to reflect some aspects of science more accurately or authentically than other teaching and learning approaches, such as confirmatory practical activities and teacher demonstrations. Nevertheless, authenticity in science and science education can be approached and/or defined in various ways (Braund & Reiss, 2006 ), and the issue raises wider questions such as whether only (adult) scientists can authentically experience science, and who determines what science is and what authentic experiences of science are (Kapon et al., 2018 ; Martin et al., 1990 ).

Although too tight a definition can be unhelpful, investigative research projects in science typically involve students determining a research question (where the outcome is unknown) and approaches to answer it, undertaking the investigation, analysing the data, and reporting the findings. The project may be undertaken alone or in groups, with support from teachers and/or others such as scientists and researchers (Bennett et al., 2018 ; Gatsby Charitable Foundation, 2017 ). Students may have varying degrees of autonomy—but then that is true of scientists too.

Independent research projects in science for students have often been framed around providing students with authentic experiences of scientific research and with the potential for wider benefits around scientific knowledge and skills, attitudes, and motivations around science, and ultimately helping science to become more inclusive and accessible to everyone (Bennett et al., 2018 ; Milner-Bolotin, 2012 ). Considered in review across numerous studies, independent research projects for secondary school students (aged 11–19) have often (but not necessarily always) resulted in benefits, including the following:

Acquisition of science-related knowledge (Burgin et al., 2012 ; Charney et al., 2007 ; Dijkstra & Goedhart, 2011 ; Houseal et al., 2014 ; Sousa-Silva et al., 2018 ; Ward et al., 2016 );

Enhancement of knowledge and/or skills around aspects of research and working scientifically (Bulte et al., 2006 ; Charney et al., 2007 ; Ebenezer et al., 2011 ; Etkina et al., 2003 ; Hsu & Espinoza, 2018 ; Ward et al., 2016 );

Greater confidence in undertaking various aspects of science, including applying knowledge and skills (Abraham, 2002 ; Carsten Conner et al., 2021 ; Hsu & Espinoza, 2018 ; Stake & Mares, 2001 , 2005 );

Aspirations towards science-related studies and/or careers (Abraham, 2002 ; Stake & Mares, 2001 ), although students in other studies have reported unchanged and already high aspirations towards science-related studies and/or careers (Burgin et al., 2015 , 2012 );

Subsequently entering science-related careers (Roberts & Wassersug, 2009 );

Development of science and/or research identities and/or identification as a scientist or researcher (Carsten Conner et al., 2021 ; Deemer et al., 2021 );

Feelings and experiences of real science and doing science (Barab & Hay, 2001 ; Burgin et al., 2015 ; Chapman & Feldman, 2017 );

Wider awareness and/or understanding of science, scientists, and/or positive attitudes towards science (Abraham, 2002 ; Houseal et al., 2014 ; Stake & Mares, 2005 );

Benefits akin to induction into scientific or research communities of practice (Carsten Conner et al., 2018 );

Development of wider personal, studying, and/or social skills, including working with others and independent work (Abraham, 2002 ; Moote, 2019 ; Moote et al., 2013 ; Sousa-Silva et al., 2018 ).

Positive experiences of projects and programmes are often conveyed by students (Dijkstra & Goedhart, 2011 ; Rushton et al., 2019 ; Williams et al., 2018 ). For example, students have reported appreciating the greater freedom and independence to discover things, and that they felt they were undertaking real experiments with a purpose, and a greater sense of meaning (Bulte et al., 2006 ).

Nevertheless, it remains difficult to determine the extent of generalisation from diverse research studies undertaken in various ways and across various contexts: benefits have been observed across studies involving different foci (determining what was measured and/or reported), projects for students, and contexts and countries. Essentially, each individual research study did not cover and/or evidence the whole range of benefits. Many benefits have been self-reported, and only some studies have considered changes over time (Moote, 2019 ; Moote et al., 2013 ).

Investigative science research projects for students are delivered in various ways. For example, some projects are undertaken through formal programmes that provide introductions and induction, learning modules, equipment, and the opportunity to present findings (Ward et al., 2016 ). Some programmes put a particular emphasis on the presentation and dissemination of findings (Bell et al., 2003 ; Ebenezer et al., 2011 ; Stake & Mares, 2005 ). Some projects are undertaken through schools (Ebenezer et al., 2011 ; Ward et al., 2016 ); others entail students working at universities, sometimes undertaking and/or assisting with existing projects (Bell et al., 2003 ; Burgin et al., 2015 , 2012 ; Charney et al., 2007 ; Stake & Mares, 2001 , 2005 ) or in competitions (e.g. Liao et al., 2017 ). While many projects are undertaken in laboratory settings, some are undertaken outdoors, in the field (Carsten Conner et al., 2018 ; Houseal et al., 2014 ; Young et al., 2020 ).

Primary School

While much of the school literature on investigative research projects in science concentrates on secondary or university students, some such projects are undertaken with students in primary school. These projects are often perceived as enjoyable and considered to benefit scientific skills and knowledge and/or confidence in doing science (Forbes & Skamp, 2019 ; Liljeström et al., 2013 ; Maiorca et al., 2021 ; Tyler-Wood et al., 2012 ). Such projects often help students feel that they are scientists and doing science (Forbes & Skamp, 2019 ; Reveles et al., 2004 ).

For example, one programme for primary school students in Australia intended students to develop and apply skills in thinking and working scientifically with support by scientist mentors over 10 weeks. It involved the students identifying areas of interest and testable questions within a wider scientific theme, collaboratively investigating their area of interest through collecting and analysing data, and then presenting their findings. Data on the programme’s outcomes were obtained through interviews with students and by studying the reports that they wrote (Forbes & Skamp, 2016 , 2019 ). Participating students said that they appreciated the autonomy and practical aspects, and enjoyed the experiences. The students showed developments in thinking scientifically and around the nature of science, where science often became seen as something that could be interesting, enjoyable, student-led, collaborative, creative, challenging, and a way to understand how things work within the world (Forbes & Skamp, 2019 ). The experiences of thinking and working scientifically, and aspects such as collaborative working and learning from each other, were broadly considered to help develop students’ scientific identities and include them within a scientific community of practice. Some students felt that they were doing authentic (‘real’) science, in contrast to some of their earlier or other experiences of science at school, which had not involved an emphasis on working scientifically and/or specific activities within working scientifically, such as collecting and analysing data (Forbes & Skamp, 2019 ).

CREST Awards

CREST Awards are intended to give young people (aged 5–19) in the UK the opportunity to explore real STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) projects, providing the experience of ‘being a scientist’ (British Science Association, 2018 ). The scheme has been running since the 1980s and some 30,000 Awards are given each year. They exist at three levels (Bronze, Silver, and Gold), reflecting the necessary time commitment and level of independence and originality expected. The Awards are presented as offering the potential for participants to experience the process of engaging in a project, and developing investigation, problem-solving, and communication skills. They are also presented as something that can contribute to further awards (such as Duke of Edinburgh Awards) and/or competition entries (such as The Big Bang Competition). CREST Gold Awards can be used to enhance applications to university and employment. At Gold level, arranging for a STEM professional in a field related to the student’s work to act as a mentor is recommended, though not formally required. CREST Awards are assessed by teachers and/or assessors from industry or academia, depending on the Award level.

Classes of secondary school students in Scotland undertaking CREST Awards projects appeared to show some benefits around motivational and studying strategies, but less clearly than would be ideal (Moote, 2019 ; Moote et al, 2013 ). Students undertaking CREST Silver Awards between 2010 and 2013 gained better qualifications at age 16 and were more likely to study science subjects for 16–19-year-olds than other comparable students (matched on prior attainment and certain personal characteristics), although the students may have differed on unmeasured aspects, such as attitudes and motivations towards science and studying (Stock Jones et al., 2016 ). A subsequent randomised controlled trial found that year 9 students (aged 13–14) undertaking CREST Silver Awards and other comparable students ultimately showed similar science test scores, attitudes towards school work, confidence in undertaking various aspects of life (not covering school work), attitudes towards science careers (inaccurately referred to as self-efficacy), and aspirations towards science careers (Husain et al., 2019 ). Nevertheless, teachers and students perceived benefits, including students acquiring transferable skills such as time management, problem-solving, and team working, and that science topics were made more interesting and relevant for students (Husain et al., 2019 ). Overall, it remains difficult to form any definitive conclusions about impacts, given the diverse scope of CREST Awards but limited research. For example, whether and/or how CREST Awards projects are independent of or integrated with curricula areas may determine the extent of (curricula-based) knowledge gains.

Nuffield Research Placements

Nuffield Research Placements involve students in the UK undertaking STEM research placements during the summer between years 12 and 13, and presenting their findings at a celebration event (Nuffield Foundation, 2020 ). The scheme has been running since 1996 and a little over 1000 students participate each year. The programme is variously framed as an opportunity for students to undertake real research and develop scientific and other skills, and an initiative to enhance access/inclusion and assist the progression of students into STEM studies at university (Cilauro & Paull, 2019 ; Nuffield Foundation, 2020 ).

The application process is competitive, and requires a personal statement where students explain their interest in completing the placement. Students need to be studying at least one STEM subject in year 12, be in full-time education at a state school (i.e. not a private school that requires fees), and have reached a certain academic level at year 11. The scheme historically aimed to support and prioritise students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and is now only available for students from disadvantaged backgrounds based on family income, living or having lived in care, and/or being the first person in their immediate family who will study in higher education (Nuffield Foundation, 2020 ).

There have been indications that students who undertake Nuffield Research Placements are, on average, more likely to enrol on STEM subjects at top (Russell Group) UK universities and complete a higher number of STEM qualifications for 16–19-year-olds than other students (Cilauro & Paull, 2019 ). Nevertheless, it remains difficult to isolate independent impacts of the placements, given that (for example) students commence their 16–19 education prior to the placements.

Following their Nuffield Research Placements, students have reported increased understanding of what STEM researchers do in their daily work and unchanging (already high) enjoyment of STEM and interest in STEM job opportunities (Bowes et al., 2017 ; Cilauro & Paull, 2019 ). Wider benefits have been attributed to the placement, including skills in writing reports, working independently, confidence in their own abilities in general, and team working (Bowes et al., 2017 ). Students also often report that they feel they have contributed to an authentic research study in an area of STEM in which they are interested (Bowes et al., 2021 ).

Institute for Research in Schools Projects

The Institute for Research in Schools (IRIS) started in 2016 and has about 1000 or more participating students in the UK annually. It facilitates students to undertake a range of investigative research projects from a varied portfolio of options. For example, these projects have included CERN@School (Whyntie, 2016 ; Whyntie et al., 2015 , 2016 ), where students have been found to have positive experiences, developing research and data analysis skills, and developing wider skills such as collaboration and communication (Hatfield et al., 2019 ; Parker et al., 2019 ). Teachers who have facilitated projects for their students (Rushton & Reiss, 2019 ) report that the experiences produced personal and wider benefits around:

Appreciating the freedom to teach and engage in the research projects;

Connecting or reconnecting with science and research, including interest and enthusiasm (in science as well as teaching it) and with a role as a scientist, including being able to share past experiences or work as a scientist with students;

Collaborating with students and scientists, researchers, and others in different and/or new ways via doing research (including facilitating students and providing support);

Professional and skills development (refreshing/revitalising teaching and interest), including recognition by colleagues/others (strengthening recognition as a teacher/scientist, as having skills, as someone who provides opportunities/support for students).

The teachers felt that their students developed a range of specific and transferable benefits, including around research, communication, teamwork, planning, leadership, interest and enthusiasm, confidence, and awareness of the realities of science and science careers. Some benefits could follow and/or be enhanced by the topics that the students were studying, such as interest and enthusiasm linking with personal and wider/real-life relevance, for example, for topics like biodiversity (Rushton & Reiss, 2019 ).

Students in England who completed IRIS projects and presented their findings at conferences reported that the experiences were beneficial through developing skills (including communication, confidence, and managing anxiety); gaining awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the processes of research and careers in research; collaboration and sharing with students and teachers; developing networks and contacts; and doing something that may benefit their university applications (Rushton et al., 2019 ). Presenting and disseminating findings at conferences were considered to be inspirational and validating (including experiencing the impressive scientific and historical context of the conference venue), although also challenging, given limited time, competing demands, anxiety and nervousness, and uncertainty about how to engage with others and undertake networking (Rushton et al., 2019 ).

Although our principal interest is in investigative research projects in science at school, it is worth briefly surveying the literature on such projects at university level. This is because while such projects are rare at school level, normally resulting from special initiatives, there is a long tradition in a number of countries of investigative research projects in science being undertaken at university level, alongside other types of practical work.

Unsurprisingly, university science students typically report having little to no prior experience with authentic research, although they may have had laboratory or fieldwork experience on their pre-university courses (Cartrette & Melroe-Lehrman, 2012 ; John & Creighton, 2011 ). University students still perceive non-investigative-based laboratory work as meaningful experiences of scientific laboratory work, even if these might be less authentic experiences of (some aspects of) scientific research (Goodwin et al., 2021 ; Rowland et al., 2016 ).

Research experiences for university science students are often framed around providing students with authentic experiences of scientific research, with more explicit foci towards developing research skills and practices, developing conceptual understanding, conveying the nature of science, and fostering science identities (Linn et al., 2015 ). Considered in review across numerous studies, research experiences for university science students have often (but not necessarily always) resulted in benefits, including to research skills and practices and confidence in applying them, enhanced understanding of the reality of scientific research and careers, and higher likelihood of persisting or progressing within science education and/or careers (Linn et al., 2015 ).

For example, in one study, university students of science in England reported having no experience of ‘real’ research before undertaking a summer research placement programme (John & Creighton, 2011 ). After the programme, the majority of students agreed that they had discovered that they liked research and that they had gained an understanding of the everyday realities of research. Most of the students reported that their placement confirmed or increased their intentions towards postgraduate study and research careers (John & Creighton, 2011 ).

Implications and Future Directions

Investigative research projects in science have the potential for various benefits, given the findings from wider research into inquiry-based learning (Furtak et al., 2012 ; Savelsbergh et al., 2016 ; Schroeder et al., 2007 ), context-based learning (Bennett et al., 2007 ; Schroeder et al., 2007 ), and project-based learning (Chen & Yang, 2019 ). However, the potential for benefits involves broad generalisations, where inquiry-based learning (for example) covers a diverse range of approaches that may or may not be similar to those encountered within investigative research projects. Furthermore, we do not see investigative research projects as a universal panacea. It is, for example, unrealistic to expect that students can simultaneously learn scientific knowledge, learn about scientific practice, and engage skillfully and appropriately in aspects of scientific practice. Indeed, careful scaffolding from teachers is likely to be required for any, let alone all, of these benefits to result.

We are conscious that enabling students to undertake investigative research projects in science places particular burdens on teachers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that if teachers themselves have had a university education in which they undertook one or more such projects themselves (e.g. because they undertook a research masters or doctorate in science), they are more likely both to be enthused about the benefits of this way of working and to be able to help their students undertake research. It would be good to have this hypothesis investigated rigorously and, more importantly, to have data on effective professional development for teachers to help their students undertake investigative research projects in science. It is known that school teachers of science can benefit from undertaking small-scale research projects as professional development (e.g. Bevins et al., 2011 ; Koomen et al., 2014 ), but such studies do not seem rigorously to have followed individual teachers through into their subsequent day-to-day work with their students to determine the long-term consequences for the students.

Benefits accruing from investigative research projects are likely to be enhanced if there is an alignment between the form of the assessment and the intended outcomes of the investigative research project (cf. Molefe, 2011 ). The first author recalls how advanced level biology projects (for 16–18-year-olds) were assessed in England by one of the Examination Boards back in the 1980s. At the end of the course, each student who had submitted such a project had a 15-min viva with an external examiner. The mark scheme rewarded not only the sorts of things that any advanced level biology mark scheme would credit (use of literature, appropriate research design, care in data collection, thorough analysis, etc.) but originality too. There was therefore an emphasis on novel research. Indeed, occasionally students published sole- or co-authored accounts of their work in biology or biology education journals.

We mentioned above Driver’s ( 1983 ) caution about the extent to which it is realistic to envisage high school students undertaking investigative research projects that have more than superficial resemblance to those undertaken by actual scientists. Nevertheless, as the above review indicates, there is a strong strand within school science education of advocating the benefits of students designing and undertaking open-ended research projects (cf. Albone et al., 1995 ). Roth ( 1995 ) argued that for school science to be authentic, students need to:

(1) learn in contexts constituted in part by ill-defined problems; (2) experience uncertainties and ambiguities and the social nature of scientific work and knowledge; (3) learning is predicated on, and driven by, their current knowledge state; (4) experience themselves as parts of communities of inquiry in which knowledge, practices, resources and discourse are shared; (5) in these communities, members can draw on the expertise of more knowledgeable others whether they are peers, advisors or teachers. (p. 1)

Investigative research projects in science allow learners to learn about science by doing science, and therefore might help foster science identities. Science identities can involve someone recognising themselves and also being recognised by others as being a science person, and also with having various experiences, knowledge, and skills that are valued and recognised within the wider fields of science.

However, the evidence base, as indicated above and in the systematic review of practical independent research projects in high school science undertaken by Bennett et al. ( 2018 ), is still not robust. We need research studies that make explicit the putative benefits of investigative research projects in science, that have adequate control groups, and that look at the long-term consequences of such projects not only by collecting delayed data from participants (whether by surveys or interviews) but by following them longitudinally to see whether such projects make any difference to their subsequent education and career destinations. We also know very little about the significance of students’ home circumstances for their enthusiasm and capacity to undertake investigative research projects in science, though it seems likely that students with high science capital (DeWitt et al., 2016 ) are more likely to receive familial support in undertaking such projects (cf. Lissitsa & Chachashvili‐Bolotin, 2019 ).

We also need studies that consider more carefully what it is to engage in scientific practices. It is notable that the existing literature on investigative research projects for students in science makes no use of the literature on ethnographic studies of scientists at work—neither the foundational texts (e.g. Latour & Woolgar, 1979 ; Knorr-Cetina, 1983 ) nor more recent studies (e.g. Silvast et al., 2020 ). Too often there is a tendency for investigative research projects for students in science to ignore the reasons why scientists work in particular areas and to assume that once a written report of the research has been authored, the work is done. There can also be a somewhat simplistic belief that the sine qua non of an investigative research project is experimental science. Keen as we are on experimental science, there is more to being a scientist than undertaking experiments. For example, computer simulations (Winsberg, 2019 ) and other approaches that take advantage of advances in digital technologies are of increasing importance to the work of many scientists. It would be good to see such approaches reflected in more school student investigative projects (cf. Staacks et al., 2018 ).

More generally, greater authenticity would be likely to result if the following three issues were explicitly considered with students:

How should the particular focus of the research be identified? Students should be helped to realise that virtually all scientific research requires substantial funding. It may not be enough, therefore, for students to identify the focus for their work on the grounds of personal interest alone if they wish to understand how science is undertaken in reality. Here, such activities as participating in well-designed citizen science projects that still enable student autonomy (e.g. Curtis, 2018 ) can help.

Students should be encouraged, once their written report has been completed, to present it at a conference (as happens, for instance, with many IRIS projects) and to write it up for publication. Writing for publication is more feasible now that publication can be via blogs or on the internet, compared to the days when the only possible outlets were hard-copy journals or monographs.

What change in the world does the research wish to effect? Much student research in science seems implicitly to presume that science is neutral. The reality—back to funding again—is that most scientific research is undertaken with specific ends in mind (for instance, the development of medical treatments, the location of valuable mineral ores, the manufacture of new products for which desire can also be manufactured). It is not, of course, that we are calling for students unquestioningly to adopt the same values as those of professional scientists. Rather, we would encourage students to be enabled to reflect on such ends and values.

Abraham, L. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75 (5), 229–232.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. (2012). Practical work: its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (8), 1035–1055.

Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (Eds) (2017). Enhancing learning with effective practical science 11-16 . London: Bloomsbury.

Google Scholar  

Albone, E., Collins, N., & Hill, T. (Eds) (1995). Scientific research in schools: a compendium of practical experience. Bristol: Clifton Scientific Trust.

Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (7), 922–948.

Archer, L., & DeWitt, J. (2017). Understanding young people’s science aspirations: How students form ideas about ‘becoming a scientist’. Abingdon: Routledge.

Barab, S., & Hay, K. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (1), 70–102.

Bell, R., Blair, L., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 487–509.

Bennett, J., Dunlop, L., Knox, K., Reiss, M. J., & Torrance Jenkins, R. (2018). Practical independent research projects in science: a synthesis and evaluation of the evidence of impact on high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (14), 1755–1773.

Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91 (3), 347–370.

Bevins, S., Jordan, J., & Perry, E. (2011). Reflecting on professional development. Educational Action Research, 19 (3), 399–411.

Bowes, L., Birkin, G., & Tazzyman, S. (2017). Nuffield research placements evaluation: final report on waves 1 to 3 of the longitudinal survey of 2016 applicants. Leicester: CFE Research.

Bowes, L., Tazzyman, S., Stutz, A., & Birkin, G. (2021). Evaluation of Nuffield future researchers. London: Nuffield Foundation.

Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education , 28 , 1373–1388.

British Science Association. (2018). CREST Awards: getting started guide, primary. London: British Science Association.

Bulte, A., Westbroek, H., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (9), 1063–1086.

Burgin, S., McConnell, W., & Flowers, A. (2015). ‘I actually contributed to their research’: the influence of an abbreviated summer apprenticeship program in science and engineering for diverse high-school learners. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (3), 411–445.

Burgin, S., Sadler, T., & Koroly, M. J. (2012). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research in Science Education, 42 , 439–467.

Carsten Conner, L., Oxtoby, L., & Perin, S. (2021). Power and positionality shape identity work during a science research apprenticeship for girls. International Journal of Science Education , 1–14.

Carsten Conner, L., Perin, S., & Pettit, E. (2018). Tacit knowledge and girls’ notions about a field science community of practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8 (2), 164–177.

Cartrette, D., & Melroe-Lehrman, B. (2012). Describing changes in undergraduate students’ preconceptions of research activities. Research in Science Education, 42 , 1073–1100.

Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum: major findings . London: Planet Science.

Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education , 38 (3), 366–390.

Chapman, A., & Feldman, A. (2017). Cultivation of science identity through authentic science in an urban high school classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12 , 469–491.

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

Chen, C.-H., & Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26 , 71–81.

Cilauro, F., & Paull, G. (2019). Evaluation of Nuffield research placements: interim report. London: Nuffield Foundation.

Claussen, S., & Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education, 97 (1), 58–79.

Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2012). An international perspective on science curriculum development and implementation. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 771–782). Springer, Dordrecht.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cukurova, M., Hanley, P., & Lewis, A. (2015). Rapid evidence review of good practical science. London: Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

Curtis, V. (2018). Online citizen science and the widening of academia: distributed engagement with research and knowledge production . Cham: Palgrave.

Dawson, V. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific issue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education , 37 (7), 1024–1043.

Deemer, E., Ogas, J., Barr, A., Bowdon, R., Hall, M., Paula, S., … Lim, S. (2021). Scientific research identity development need not wait until college: examining the motivational impact of a pre-college authentic research experience. Research in Science Education , 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09994-6

Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: framework document. London: Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 . Accessed 1 July 1 2017.

DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38 , 2431–2449.

Dijkstra, E., & Goedhart, M. (2011). Evaluation of authentic science projects on climate change in secondary schools: a focus on gender differences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29 (2), 131–146.

Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (1), 94–116.

Etkina, E., Matilsky, T., & Lawrence, M. (2003). Pushing to the edge: Rutgers Astrophysics Institute motivates talented high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (10), 958–985.

Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2016). Secondary science teachers’ and students’ involvement in a primary school community of science practice: how it changed their practices and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 46 , 91–112.

Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2019). ‘You actually feel like you’re actually doing some science’: primary students’ perspectives of their involvement in the MyScience initiative. Research in Science Education, 49 , 465–498.

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82 (3), 300–329.

Gatsby Charitable Foundation. (2017). Good practical science. London: Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

Gokpinar, T., & Reiss, M. (2016). The role of outside-school factors in science education: a two-stage theoretical model linking Bourdieu and Sen, with a case study. International Journal of Science Education , 38 , 1278–1303.

Goodwin, E., Anokhin, V., Gray, M., Zajic, D., Podrabsky, J., & Shortlidge, E. (2021). Is this science? Students’ experiences of failure make a research-based course feel authentic. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 20 (1), 1–15.

Hamlyn, B., Hanson, T., Malam, S., Man, C., Smith, K., & Williams, L. (2020). Young people’s views on science education: science education tracker 2019: wave 2. London: Wellcome Trust.

Hamlyn, R., Matthews, P., & Shanahan, M. (2017). Young people’s views on science education: science education tracker research report February 2017. London: Wellcome Trust.

Hatfield, P., Furnell, W., Shenoy, A., Fox, E., Parker, B., Thomas, L., & Rushton, E. (2019). IRIS opens pupils’ eyes to real space research. Astronomy & Geophysics, 60 (1), 1.22–1.24.

Hattie, J., Bustamante, V., Almarode, J. T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2020). Great teaching by design: from intention to implementation in the visible learning classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education – theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51 , 287–314.

Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22 (1), 85–142.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28–54.

Hollins, M. & Reiss, M. J. (2016) A review of the school science curricula in eleven high achieving jurisdictions. The Curriculum Journal , 27 , 80-94.

Houseal, A., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Destefano, L. (2014). Impact of a student-teacher-scientist partnership on students’ and teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (1), 84–115.

Hsu, P.-L., & Espinoza, P. (2018). Cultivating constructivist science internships for high school students through a community of practice with cogenerative dialogues. Learning Environments Research, 21 , 267–283.

Husain, F., Wishart, R., Attygalle, K., Averill, P., Ilic, N., & Mayer, M. (2019). CREST Silver evaluation report. London: Education Endowment Foundation.

Institute of Physics. (2020). Limit Less: Support young people to change the world. London: Institute of Physics.

John, J., & Creighton, J. (2011). Researcher development: the impact of undergraduate research opportunity programmes on students in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (7), 781–797.

Kapon, S., Laherto, A., & Levrini, O. (2018). Disciplinary authenticity and personal relevance in school science. Science Education, 102 (5), 1077–1106.

Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1983). New developments in science studies: the ethnographic challenge. The Canadian Journal of Sociology 8 (2), 153–177.

Koomen, M. H., Blair, R., Young-Isebrand, E., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2014). Science professional development with teachers: nurturing the scientist within. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education , 18 (6).

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Liao, T., McKenna, J., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). Four decades of High School Physics Olympics Competitions at the University of British Columbia. Physics in Canada , 73 (3), 127–129.

Liljeström, A., Enkenberg, J., & Pöllänen, S. (2013). Making learning whole: an instructional approach for mediating the practices of authentic science inquiries. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8 , 51–86.

Linn, M., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunities. Science, 347 (6222), 1261757.

Lissitsa, S., & Chachashvili‐Bolotin, S. (2019). Enrolment in mathematics and physics at the advanced level in secondary school among two generations of highly skilled immigrants. International Migration , 57 (5), 216–234.

Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Bush, S., Delaney, A., Mohr-Schroeder, M., & Soledad, S. Y. (2021). Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 , 45–64.

Mansfield J., & Reiss M. J. (2020). The place of values in the aims of school science education. In D. Corrigan, C. Buntting, A. Fitzgerald, & A. Jones (Eds), Values in science education (pp. 191–209), Cham: Springer.

Martin, B., Kass, H., & Brouwer, W. (1990). Authentic science: a diversity of meanings. Science Education, 74 (5), 541–554.

Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science. Which way now? (pp. 16–31). London: Routledge.

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education , 89 (4), 477–481.

Molefe, M. L. (2011). A study of life sciences projects in science talent quest competitions in the Western Cape, South Africa, with special reference to scientific skills and knowledge . Unpublished PhD thesis.

Moore, A. M., Fairhurst, P., Correia, C. F., Harrison, C., & Bennett, J. M. (2020). Science practical work in a COVID-19 world: are teacher demonstrations, videos and textbooks effective replacements for hands-on practical activities? School Science Review , 102 (378), 7–12.

Moote, J. (2019). Investigating the longer-term impact of the CREST inquiry-based learning programme on student self-regulated processes and related motivations: views of students and teachers. Research in Science Education, 49 (1), 265–294.

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

National Foundation for Educational Research. (2011). Exploring young people’s views on science education. London: Wellcome Trust.

Nuffield Foundation. (2020). Nuffield research placements: guide for student applicants. London: Nuffield Foundation.

Oliver, M. C., Jerrim, J., & Adkins, M. J. (2021a). PISA: Engagement Attainment and interest in Science (PEAS) – Final Report. Available at https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/lsri/documents/peas-report.pdf .

Oliver, M., McConney, A., & Woods-McConney, A. (2021b). The efficacy of inquiry-based instruction in science: a comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015. Research in Science Education , 51 , 595–616.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.

Parker, B., Thomas, L., Rushton, E., & Hatfield, P. (2019). Transforming education with the Timepix detector – Ten years of CERN@school. Radiation Measurements, 127 (106090), 1–7.

Rahman, M. T., & Lewis, S. (2019). Evaluating the evidence base for evidence‐based instructional practices in chemistry through meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21610

Reveles, J., Cordova, R., & Kelly, G. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity formulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 1111–1144.

Roberts, L., & Wassersug, R. (2009). Does doing scientific research in high school correlate with students staying in science? A half-century retrospective study. Research in Science Education, 39 , 251–256.

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Rowland, S., Pedwell, R., Lawrie, G., Lovie-Toon, J., & Hung, Y. (2016). Do we need to design course-based undergraduate research experiences for authenticity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15 (4), 1–16.

Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London: The Royal Society.

Rushton, E., & Reiss, M. J. (2019). From science teacher to ‘teacher scientist’: exploring the experiences of research-active science teachers in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (11), 1541–1561.

Rushton, E., Charters, L., & Reiss, M. J. (2019). The experiences of active participation in academic conferences for high school science students. Research in Science & Technological Education , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1657395

Savelsbergh, E., Prins, G., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B., Draijer, J., & Bakker, A. (2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: a meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19 , 158–172.

Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (10), 1436–1460.

Shana, Z., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on high students’ academic achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education , 10 (2), 199–215.

Sharpe, R., & Abrahams, I. (2020). Secondary school students’ attitudes to practical work in biology, chemistry and physics in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38 (1), 84–104.

Silvast, A., Laes, E., Abram, S., & Bombaerts, G. (2020). What do energy modellers know? An ethnography of epistemic values and knowledge models. Energy Research & Social Science , 66 , 101495.

Sjöström, J. & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung . In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65–88). Cham: Springer.

Sousa-Silva, C., McKemmish, L., Chubb, K., Gorman, M., Baker, J., Barton, E., … Tennyson, J. (2018). Original Research by Young Twinkle Students (ORBYTS): when can students start performing original research? Physics Education, 53 (1), 1–12.

Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2018). Advanced tools for smartphone-based experiments: phyphox. Physics Education , 53 (4), 045009.

Stake, J., & Mares, K. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (10), 1065–1088.

Stake, J., & Mares, K. (2005). Evaluating the impact of science-enrichment programs on adolescents’ science motivation and confidence: the splashdown effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (4), 359–375.

Stock Jones, R., Annable, T., Billingham, Z., & MacDonald, C. (2016). Quantifying CREST: what impact does the Silver CREST Award have on science scores and STEM subject selection? London: British Science Association.

Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 (4), 515–537.

Tyler-Wood, T., Ellison, A., Lim, O., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2012). Bringing up girls in science (BUGS): the effectiveness of an afterschool environmental science program for increasing female students’ interest in science careers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21 , 46–55.

Ward, T., Delaloye, N., Adams, E. R., Ware, D., Vanek, D., Knuth, R., … Holian, A. (2016). Air toxics under the big sky: examining the effectiveness of authentic scientific research on high school students’ science skills and interest. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (6), 905–921.

Whyntie, T. (2016). CERN@School: forming nationwide collaborations for physics research in schools. Nuclear Physics News, 26 (1), 16–19.

Whyntie, T., Bithray, H., Cook, J., Coupe, A., Eddy, D., Fickling, R., … Shearer, N. (2015). CERN@school: demonstrating physics with the Timepix detector. Contemporary Physics, 56 (4), 451–467.

Whyntie, T., Cook, J., Coupe, A., Fickling, R., Parker, B., & Shearer, N. (2016). CERN@school: bringing CERN into the classroom. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 273-275 , 1265–1270.

Williams, D., Brule, H., Kelley, S., & Skinner, E. (2018). Science in the learning gardens (SciLG): a study of students’ motivation, achievement, and science identity in low-income middle schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (8), 1–14.

Winsberg, E. (2019). Computer simulations in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/simulations-science/ .

Young, J., Carsten Conner, L., & Pettit, E. (2020). ‘You really see it’: environmental identity shifts through interacting with a climate change-impacted glacier landscape. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (18), 3049–3070.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: a prelude to action. Science & Education , 17 , 799–803.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to The Institute of Research in Schools for funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

Michael J. Reiss, Richard Sheldrake & Wilton Lodge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Reiss .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Reiss, M.J., Sheldrake, R. & Lodge, W. Investigative Research Projects for Students in Science: The State of the Field and a Research Agenda. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 23 , 80–95 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00263-4

Download citation

Accepted : 01 February 2023

Published : 16 March 2023

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00263-4

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

• Science investigative research projects
• Student autonomy
• Student engagement
• Authenticity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

Science Investigatory Project

Related Papers

Jang Sarvida

This study is a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of extracting ethanol from corn (Zea maize) stalks mostly left by the farmers in the field after harvest through mechanical extraction, filtration, fermentation and distillation.

Arridina Susan Silitonga , Masjuki Haji Hassan , A. H. Sebayang

The increasing consumption of fossil fuels has led to the development of alternative fuels for the future. Domestic biofuel production and the utilization of alternative fuels can decrease dependency on petroleum oil, reduce trade deficits, reduce air pollution and reduce carbon dioxide emission. Bioethanol is a renewable fuel produced by the fermentation of sugar which is derived from plants such as sugarcane or beet, maize, or cassava etc. However, bioethanol consumption in an engine is approximately 51% higher than gasoline since the energy per unit volume of ethanol is 34% lower than for gasoline. Bioethanol is an oxygenated fuel that contains 35% oxygen, which can reduce particulate matter and NO x emissions caused by combustion of the fuel. Therefore, bioethanol–gasoline blends can significantly reduce petroleum use and GHG emission. In addition, utilization of lignocellulosic materials in bioethanol production is the most viable pathway from an environmental point of view. This paper reviews the current status and technologies involved in bioethanol production and the properties and engine performance from various biomass feedstocks which are the recommended sustainable alternative fuel in the future.

Energy for Sustainable Development

Carlos Rolz , Rolando Cifuentes

Mhlengi Nqoba

Livestock Research for Rural Development

Cristina Chuck

ISBN 978-953-51-0008-9

Cesar M Moreira , Cesar Moreira

M Reza Hadi

Abas Almodares

Innovative Research Publications

present research is focus to synthesis water based silver nanofluids by chemical reduction which increase the thermal conductivity to enhance the rate of heat transfer also to characterize the thermal properties and heat transfer performance of nanofluids over heat exchangers to enhance the efficiency and overall heat transfer coefficient of heat exchanger with simultaneous reduction in the area of heat exchanger. As noted above the basic concept of dispersing solids in fluids to enhance thermal conductivity. Solid particles are added because they conduct heat much better than do liquids. Compared with micro particles, nanoparticles stay suspended much longer and possess a much higher surface area. The surface/volume

RELATED PAPERS

Biomass and Bioenergy

Caleb Dalley

Hazrat Ali , Fazal Haq

Bioresource Technology

Edgard Gnansounou

The Scientific World Journal

Mohd Sofian Azirun

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Thiruvengadam S

Abdullahi Mohammed

José Monteiro

Felix Takim

SHC120107 Student

Asmamaw Tesfaw

Jitendra Saini

Mohan Jain , Vivek Kumar

Honey Sweet

IJAERS Journal

Ratnavathi Chamarthy

Gheorghe M Stoian

Dr. Pinaki Dey

Justice Rono

Rani Ran Jeeva

Sachin Kumar

Yu-Chung Chiang

abebe alemu

Parvati Rijal

Bioresource technology

Nwabuebo Okem Romanus

Farhan Ramadhan

Dominik Rutz

Plant Breeding

Antonio Figueira

Applied Energy

Yanna Liang

Maria Joan Montemayor

Keith Chapman

Muhammad Nasidi , Yusuf Deeni

ignatius Nzom

Agronomy Journal

IAEME Publication

PROCEEDING OF INDONESIAN STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC MEETING, DELFT, THE NETHERLANDS, MAY 2008

Daniel Sondakh

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