Taking science projects beyond the laboratory

At my school, Grade 11 students in the maths-science programme are required to work in small groups to undertake year-long science projects. Often these projects are laboratory-based, experimental-type projects, which are obviously important since science is a very practical subject. However, as the coordinator of these projects, I am also keen for students to engage in other types of projects that may not be quite so lab-based. This year provided a good example of how much learning may be achieved via a project that was not a lab-based experiment. 

The group prepares for their project presentation.

The group in question came to see me at the beginning of the year to ask me if they could do a project based around the Ebola and MERS viruses, both of which were very much in the news at the time. Obviously, this would not make for a suitable lab-based project for high school students! However, I was keen to let them pursue the topic of their choosing, and spent some time thinking of a way for them to undertake a suitable project. I then proposed to the students that they should carry out the following:

• Background research into the aetiology and epidemiology of Ebola and MERS viruses
• Develop a questionnaire to investigate the knowledge, awareness, and attitudes around these diseases
• Undertake a pilot study to test their questionnaire
• Revise their questionnaire based on the findings of the pilot study
• Carry out a larger survey of other students, as well as members of the general public
• Develop a website, based on their research, in order to publicise their findings and raise awareness, as well as providing them with a tangible product at the end of their project

Overall I was extremely pleased with the students' effort and attention to detail during this project. They worked hard on it throughout the school year, and consulted with me regularly for advice. I was pleasantly surprised when I asked them how many individuals they planned to interview for their main survey, and they told me 300 people. In the end they actually interviewed over 500 people, an impressive undertaking!

At the beginning of the project, when I suggested that they design a website to display their results, the group was initially sceptical since none of them had any web design experience. However, they took the plunge and, using Google Sites, created a very nice website which can be found here. 

A screenshot from the students' website.

Towards the end of their project, the group was very happy to be selected to display their work for a visit by the Royal School Award committee. To top things off, following the end of year project presentations their group was declared joint winners! 

The group's display for the Royal School Award visitors.

My feeling is that this project was a great success and has reinforced my view that science projects need not be lab-based in order to provide students with a valuable science learning experience. Additionally, the students themselves gave very positive feedback regarding the project. I would be happy to supervise similar projects in the future. 

Six findings from students' evaluation of their science projects

This year's Grade 11 science projects have come to an end, and once again I asked the students to complete an anonymous evaluation questionnaire to assist me with improving the projects next time around. Here are six key points arising from this evaluation.

Happy students having finished their final project presentations!

1. Scientific understanding

In terms of improving their general understanding of science, the majority of students agreed that this was the case. However, a significant minority reported they had no opinion about this, which is something I hope to improve with next year's projects.

2. Enjoyment and teamwork

More students reported that they enjoyed the science projects this time around, which may in part be due to the fact that they chose their own groups. There was also a big improvement in the number of students reporting that their group worked well as a team this year, compared with last. Again, this may reflect the fact that the groups self-selected their members. 

3. Project advisor

Each project group has a science teacher who acts as their advisor throughout the year. Groups overwhelmingly reported that their advisor had been helpful. This is encouraging because students and their advisor must work together closely for these projects, and a good relationship between them is important for the projects to be a success. 

4. Laboratory facilities

For those students who carried out a laboratory-based project, they reported that the time after school and at lunchtimes allotted for this had been useful. 

5. Project resources

Project resources, such as guidelines and templates, are made available to students via our school's LMS, Moodle, and increasingly through Google Classroom. The majority of students reported that these resources were useful, although 30% had no opinion about this, so there is definitely room for improvement here. 

6. Areas of concern

As in previous years, one of the main criticisms from students was the lack of dedicated class time for the projects. Unfortunately, given the already packed curriculum, there is little scope for this to change in the future. A number of students also commented that there was too much pressure towards the very end of the projects, with a number of deadlines occurring simultaneously across different subjects. Again, there are limited options for addressing this. However, one of the changes planned for next time is for clearer delineation of project milestones throughout the school year, which will hopefully go some way to distributing the workload more evenly.

Overall then, it would appear that students were generally satisfied with the science projects and what they learned from them. However, as always, there is scope for refining the projects and their administration, in an on-going cycle of improvement, based on the students' own thoughts and opinions. 

Project-based learning at my school

A recent blog post by Scott Mcleod at Dangerously Irrelevant (http://bit.ly/1s75REQ), in which he highlighted the importance of meaningful student projects, inspired this post of mine. He suggested that in many cases student projects are little more than busy work, which fail to promote higher level thinking skills. A gold standard of project-based learning (PBL) has been suggested by the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) as a good way to promote higher-level thinking, involving, for example, in-depth, real-world problems that are more meaningful and engaging for learners (http://bit.ly/1aHgVdo). 

However, in my school, as in many others, there are limitations of time and curriculum-driven outcomes, which can be obstacles for implementing effective PBL. Despite these limitations we do have a number of long-term projects with which students are engaged. Here I will outline the positive features of the Grade 11 science projects that I coordinate, and also the challenges faced both by the learners and the teachers, as the project supervisors.

These projects are interdisciplinary science projects of at least one school year in length carried by small groups of students (four or five per group). In the past I have selected groups to ensure a range of abilities and a gender mix. This year I plan to let students self-select their groups to see if this has any noticeable effect on how they progress with their projects.

One of the key features identified by BIE for effective PBL was student voice and choice. The science projects facilitate this, since students are able to come up with a project idea and research question of their own, or choose a project from a range of suggestions supplied by the science team. Previous examples of student-chosen projects have included an attempt to create a chlorophyll battery, and an investigation into which brand of diapers was most efficient.

The projects are open-ended, and often involve real-world problems, for example another group investigated water pollution in Bangkok canal water. Their results showed an improvement in water quality following the 2011 floods, which they concluded was a dilution effect.

Students sometimes get the opportunity to engage with outside experts, for example one group had a member whose sibling worked in a research lab, so they were able to access equipment and expertise not normally available in a high school lab. Finally, the projects offer great opportunities for collaboration, communication, and creativity, all key 21^st Century competencies.

So there we have the positives.  What are the key challenges we face as teachers and learners involved in these projects? Well, as mentioned earlier, time and curriculum constraints are the main limiting factors for these projects. We have no class or lab time specifically dedicated to these projects. They are carried out during lunchtimes, after school, at the weekends, and over school holidays. Many of the students already have a number of extracurricular commitments, such as music classes, sports, and additional tutoring classes. Project supervisors can be available at lunchtime and after school, but only to a limited extent at weekends and over holidays. However, the value added by the projects for learners is, I feel, worth the extra investment in time and effort. Student feedback upon completion of the projects is also overwhelmingly positive.

At a recent STEM education conference in Bangkok, Karl Frearson, Head of Science at Eton College in the UK, suggested another good way to motivate students – cash! So, in a few weeks time this year's project students will be making their final presentations. The students in the year below will attend the presentations to get some ideas for when they come to do the projects themselves. They will also vote for their favourite project, and the winning group will receive a cash prize. Even if we fail to motivate them scientifically, at least they will be able to go and buy some new textbooks!