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.

Question-asking is a basic skill, required for the development of scientific thinking. However, the way in which science lessons are conducted does not usually stimulate question-asking by students. To make students more familiar with the scientific inquiry process, we developed a curriculum in developmental biology based on research papers suitable for high-school students. Since a scientific paper poses a research question, demonstrates the events that led to the answer, and poses new questions, we attempted to examine the effect of studying through research papers on students' ability to pose questions. Students were asked before, during, and after instruction what they found interesting to know about embryonic development. In addition, we monitored students' questions, which were asked orally during the lessons. Questions were scored according to three categories: properties, comparisons, and causal relationships. We found that before learning through research papers, students tend to ask only questions of the properties category. In contrast, students tend to pose questions that reveal a higher level of thinking and uniqueness during or following instruction with research papers. This change was not observed during or following instruction with a textbook. We suggest that learning through research papers may be one way to provide a stimulus for question-asking by high-school students and results in higher thinking levels and uniqueness.

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.

This article describes and assesses the effectiveness of a 3-yr, laboratory-based summer science program to improve the academic performance of inner-city high school students. The program was designed to gradually introduce such students to increasingly more rigorous laboratory experiences in an attempt to interest them in and model what “real” science is like. The students are also exposed to scientific seminars and university tours as well as English and mathematics workshops designed to help them analyze their laboratory data and prepare for their closing ceremony presentations. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of student performance in these programs indicates that participants not only learn the vocabulary, facts, and concepts of science, but also develop a better appreciation of what it is like to be a “real” scientist. In addition, the college-bound 3-yr graduates of this program appear to be better prepared to successfully academically compete with graduates of other high schools; they also report learning useful job-related life skills. Finally, the critical conceptual components of this program are discussed so that science educators interested in using this model can modify it to fit the individual resources and strengths of their particular setting.

The National Institutes of Health publishes a series of science curriculum supplements for K-12 education that are available from their Web site free of charge (http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements). In this feature, we review two of the high school supplements, Human Genetic Variation and Cell Biology and Cancer. Overall, we find that they are both excellent resources that engage students in learning science content while emphasizing the impact of scientific breakthroughs on personal and public health. In this review, we highlight the many strong features of the curricula and point out instances in which teachers may wish to seek out supplemental, updated information.

The potential for personalized cancer management has long intrigued experienced researchers as well as the naïve student intern. Personalized cancer treatments based on a tumor's genetic profile are now feasible and can reveal both the cells' susceptibility and resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. In a weeklong laboratory investigation that mirrors current cancer research, undergraduate and advanced high school students determine the efficacy of common pharmacological agents through in vitro testing. Using mouse mammary tumor cell cultures treated with “unknown” drugs historically recommended for breast cancer treatment, students are introduced to common molecular biology techniques from in vitro cell culture to fluorescence microscopy. Student understanding is assessed through laboratory reports and the successful identification of the unknown drug. The sequence of doing the experiment, applying logic, and constructing a hypothesis gives the students time to discover the rationale behind the cellular drug resistance assay. The breast cancer experiment has been field tested during the past 5 yr with more than 200 precollege/undergraduate interns through the Gains in the Education of Mathematics and Science program hosted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.