To help students develop successful strategies for learning how to learn and communicate complex information in cell biology, we developed a quarter-long cell biology class based on team projects. Each team researches a particular human disease and presents information about the cellular structure or process affected by the disease, the cellular and molecular biology of the disease, and recent research focused on understanding the cellular mechanisms of the disease process. To support effective teamwork and to help students develop collaboration skills useful for their future careers, we provide training in working in small groups. A final poster presentation, held in a public forum, summarizes what students have learned throughout the quarter. Although student satisfaction with the course is similar to that of standard lecture-based classes, a project-based class offers unique benefits to both the student and the instructor.

Facilitating not only the mastery of sophisticated subject matter, but also the development of process skills is an ongoing challenge in teaching any introductory undergraduate course. To accomplish this goal in a sophomore-level introductory cell biology course, I require students to work in groups and complete several mock experiential research projects that imitate the professional activities of the scientific community. I designed these projects as a way to promote process skill development within content-rich pedagogy and to connect text-based and laboratory-based learning with the world of contemporary research. First, students become familiar with one primary article from a leading peer-reviewed journal, which they discuss by means of PowerPoint-based journal clubs and journalism reports highlighting public relevance. Second, relying mostly on primary articles, they investigate the molecular basis of a disease, compose reviews for an in-house journal, and present seminars in a public symposium. Last, students author primary articles detailing investigative experiments conducted in the lab. This curriculum has been successful in both quarter-based and semester-based institutions. Student attitudes toward their learning were assessed quantitatively with course surveys. Students consistently reported that these projects significantly lowered barriers to primary literature, improved research-associated skills, strengthened traditional pedagogy, and helped accomplish course objectives. Such approaches are widely suited for instructors seeking to integrate process with content in their courses.

Cries for increased accountability through additional assessment are heard throughout the educational arena. However, as demonstrated in this study, to make a valid assessment of teaching and learning effectiveness, educators must determine not only what students do, but also why they do it, as the latter significantly affects the former. This study describes and analyzes 14- to 16-year-old students' explanations for their choices and performances during science data handling tasks. The study draws heavily on case-study methods for the purpose of seeking an in-depth understanding of classroom processes in an English comprehensive school. During semistructured scheduled and impromptu interviews, students were asked to describe, explain, and justify the work they did with data during their science classes. These student explanations fall within six categories, labeled 1) implementing correct procedures, 2) following instructions, 3) earning marks, 4) doing what is easy, 5) acting automatically, and 6) working within limits. Each category is associated with distinct outcomes for learning and assessment, with some motivations resulting in inflated performances while others mean that learning was underrepresented. These findings illuminate the complexity of student academic choices and behaviors as mediated by an array of motivations, casting doubt on the current understanding of student performance.

We describe an assessment of the collective impact of 35 grants that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) made to biomedical research institutions in 1999 to support precollege science education outreach programs. Data collected from funded institutions were compared with data from a control group of institutions that had advanced to the last stage of review but had not been funded. The survey instrument and the results reveal outcomes and impacts that HHMI considers relevant for these programs. The following attributes are considered: ability to secure additional, non-HHMI funding; institution buy-in as measured by gains in dedicated space and staff; enhancement of the program director's career; number and adoption of educational products developed; number of related publications and awards; percentage of programs for which teachers received course credit; increase in science content knowledge; and increase in student motivation to study science.