Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.4, 287-297
Published Online April 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) DOI:10.4236/ce.2013.44043
Relevance, Rigor, and Relationships: Student Perceptions
Following Participation in an Integrated Experiential
Zoo-Based Academic High School Science Program
Elizabeth A. Mulkerrin1, John W. Hill2
1Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha, USA
2University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA
Received February 26th, 2013; revised March 28th, 2013; accepted April 10th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Elizabeth A. Mulkerrin, John W. Hill. This is an open access article distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The purpose of this survey study was to compare students’ measured Likert scale perceptions of posttest
school climate survey, relevance, rigor, and relationships domain scores following 11th- and 12th-grade
participation in either an integrated experiential zoo-based academic high school science program (n = 18)
or a same school district integrated experiential school-based academic high school science program (n =
18). Science coursework delivery site served as the study’s independent variable. ACT composite scores
and science grade point average scores were equivalent for students participating in both science pro-
grams. Students participating in the zoo-based experiential academic high school science program com-
pleted real world, hands-on projects on-site at a nationally recognized zoo while same school district con-
trol group students participating in the integrated experiential school-based academic high school science
program completed matched curriculum, real world, simulated projects in their classrooms. Students who
completed the integrated experiential zoo-based academic high school science program compared to con-
trol group students had statistically greater posttest Likert scale perceptions of program relevance where
independent t(34) = 4.13, p = .0002 (two-tailed), ES = 1.410; program rigor t(34) = 3.66, p = .0008
(two-tailed), ES = 1.237; and program relationships t(34) = 4.98, p < .0001 (two-tailed), ES = 1.690. The
importance of these powerfully held beliefs for students’ successful participation in their future science
studies is discussed.
Keywords: Zoo-Based; Experiential; High School Science Program; Relevance; Rigor; Relationships
Introduction
America’s students are neither mastering nor are they being
adequately taught science and mathematics content as demon-
strated by their Third International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) scores, National Assessment of Educational
Programs (NAEP) scores, or Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) test scores (Conley, 2001; Gonzales, Wil-
liams, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg, & Brenwald, 2008; Grigg,
Lauko, & Brockway, 2006; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber,
2010; Peterson, 2010; Pittman, 2005) which ranks them aver-
age compared to students from other participating countries.
International and national assessments are designed to test
mastery of content, knowledge, reasoning, and understanding of
science and mathematics at grades four, eight, and eleven
(Gonzales et al., 2008; Grigg et al., 2006; Mourshed et al., 2010;
Sawchuk, 2010). It has been asserted that students’ average
scores on these high stakes assessments are unfortunate predic-
tors of why the United States may be falling behind in its com-
petitive edge in math and science careers-made all the more
poignant when the goal is for America’s students to score and
be ranked in the top five globally (National Academies, 2007;
Peterson, 2010).
TIMSS Achievement Scores
Of significant concern to educators, policy makers, and poli-
ticians alike is that TIMSS math achievement test scores trend
lower over time as students are evaluated in the fourth-grade
and eighth-grade. For example, in the most recent TIMSS
(2007) math report, students in the fourth-grade scored 11th out
of 36 countries with an average score of 529, and students in
the eighth-grade scored 9th out of 48 countries on math with an
average score of 508. Furthermore, both males and females at
all evaluated grade levels scored within the intermediate level
of math knowledge where male students’ scores were margin-
ally higher than female students’ math scores. For example,
fourth-grade males on average scored 532, which is 32 points
above the average TIMSS scale of 500 where fourth-grade
females on average scored 526, which is 26 points above the
average TIMSS scale of 500. Eighth-grade males on average
scored 510, which is 10 points above the average TIMSS scale
of 500 where eighth-grade females on average scored 507,
which is 7 points above the average TIMSS scale of 500.
The math TIMSS results for fourth-grade students’ show
how both males and females on average are scoring at the in-
termediate level of the international benchmark, and only 10%

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
are scoring at or above the advanced international benchmark
level. The TIMSS results for eighth-grade students show a
similar picture, where both males and females on average are
scoring at the intermediate level of the international benchmark,
and only 6% are scoring at or above the international bench-
mark advance level (Gonzales et al., 2008; Peterson, 2010).
When comparing the math results of US students to other coun-
tries, in both cases, seven countries had a higher percentage of
students at or above advanced international benchmark level.
The results show US students are not mastering mathematical
content and are falling further behind as they progress through
the educational system.
Science Achievement
Of even greater concern to educators, policy makers, and
politicians is that TIMSS science achievement test scores also
follow the math achievement scores and trend lower over time
as students are evaluated in the fourth-grade and eighth-grade.
For example, in the most recent TIMSS (2007) science report,
students in the fourth-grade scored 8th out of 36 countries with
an average score of 539, and students in the eighth- grade
scored 11th out of 48 countries on science with an average
score of 520. Furthermore, both males and females at all evalu-
ated grade levels scored within the intermediate level of science
knowledge where male students’ scores were marginally higher
than female students’ science scores. For example, fourth-grade
males on average scored 541, which is 41 points above the
average TIMSS scale of 500 where fourth-grade females on
average scored 536, which is 36 points above the average
TIMSS scale of 500. Eighth-grade males on average scored 526,
which is 26 points above the average TIMSS scale of 500
where eighth-grade females on average scored 514, which is 14
points above the average TIMSS scale of 500.
The science TIMSS results for fourth-grade students show
both males and females on average are scoring at the interme-
diate level of the international benchmark and only 15% of US
fourth-graders are scoring at or above the advance international
bench mark level. The TIMSS results for eighth-grade students
show both males and females on average are scoring at the
intermediate level of the international benchmark and only 10%
of US eighth-graders are scoring at or above the advance inter-
national benchmark level (Gonzales et al., 2008; Peterson,
2010). The science test results indicate US students are not
mastering science content and are falling behind students from
other nations at all grade levels.
The TIMSS assessment is one of many indicators demon-
strating how our students are either not mastering math and
science curriculum or are not receiving a level of math and
science instruction and activities sufficient to raise their knowl-
edge base and therefore test scores. The apparent trend extent in
international and national assessments is the fact that as our
students progress through the US education system they fare
worse on these assessments over time. Instead of our students
moving ahead in math and science by the time they are in the
12th-grade, they lag behind students from many countries with
fewer advantages and opportunities for learning. Moreover, de-
creasing math and science National Assessment of Educational
Programs (NAEP) assessment scores are observed through high
school. For example, by the time students have completed the
11th-grade, their science NAEP (2009) test scores on average
have decreased 13 percentage points compared to their fourth-
grade scores. The same holds true in math scores where by the
time students have completed the 11th-grade, their math NAEP
(2009) test scores on average have decreased 13 percentage
points compared to their fourth-grade scores (National Center
for Education, 2011a, 2011b, & 2011c). Alarming trends like
the decrease of math and science proficiency in content knowl-
edge from fourth-grade to the 12th-grade sends a message that
the US educational system needs to find a solution to the prob-
lem so our country can keep its competitive edge in math and
science careers.
Seeking Math and Science Education Reform
Recent education reforms call for addressing the math and
science instructional needs of high school students in order to
better prepare them for math and science examinations as well
as true success in and beyond the classroom (Achieve, Inc.,
2009; Silverstein, Dubner, Miller, Glied, & Loike, 2009). For
example, academy reform models are designing specialized
programs and schools that focus on the rigor and relevance of
math and science curriculum where students are completing
their core curricular courses during their freshman and sopho-
more years and opening up science and math electives and
unique opportunities for students to explore a variety of career
pathways (Achieve, Inc., 2005). It is theorized that creating an
educational environment that has a balanced and rigorous cur-
riculum while providing experiential learning in real-world
relationship driven science and math environments will better
prepare students to be competitive in today’s global work force
which demands these skills (Achieve, Inc., 2009; Kemple, 2004;
Kemple & Willner, 2008; Pittman, 2005).
Review of Literature
Recent findings of how students in the United States rank on
international math and science exams suggest that our students,
while receiving a breadth of content knowledge, may not be
receiving the depth of knowledge they need to keep a competi-
tive edge in math and science careers (Bybee, 2010; Grigg et al.,
2006; Mourshed et al., 2010; Sawchuk, 2010). The main, edu-
cational systems throughout the country are working to develop
programs that will inspire students to be innovative, creative,
active learners able to think critically and envision a future
filled with success and service to others (Bybee, 2010).
To better prepare our students for success in the global
economy, several innovative high school reforms have been
established to increase the number of students who graduate
and successfully transition into postsecondary education or the
global work force (Achieve, Inc., 2005; Kemple, 2004; Kemple
& Willner, 2008; Quint, 2006). For over a decade, educators
have seen the impact of school reform changes in high schools
across the country decrease the number of students dropping
out, improving school climate, strengthening curriculum and
instruction, decreasing the achievement gap between majority
and minority students, and preparing students for transition to
postsecondary programs or employment after graduation (Kem-
ple, 2004; Kemple & Willner, 2008; Quint, 2006).
The goal of high school has changed from only preparing a
few students for postsecondary education to preparing all stu-
dents for living successfully in an interdependent world
(Conley, 2001; Pittman, 2005). To prepare students with 21st
century skills needed to be both college and career ready, high
schools are creating educational environments filled with rigor,
288

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
relevance, and relationships; these conditions are needed to
ensure that all students may be economically and personally
successful (Achieve, Inc., 2009; Conley, 2001; Hawkins, Oest-
erle, & Hill, 2004; Johnson & McElroy, 2010; Manning &
Saddlemire, 1996; Quint, 2006). In order to ensure rigor, rele-
vance, and relationships, school goals now clearly focus on
components of change capacity such as improved school cli-
mate, a strengthened curriculum, hands-on active experiential
learning opportunities, and personalized relationships (Breunlin,
Mann, Kelly, Cimmarusti, Dunne, & Lieber, 2005; Dryer, 1996;
Toch, Jerald, & Dillon, 2007). Thus, developing student com-
petencies, skills, and social behaviors are all thought to be
beneficial to self and society (Hawkins et al., 2004).
Nationally, the trend in science education is to move away
from general to more in-depth content knowledge. Leaders in
science education are creating standards, guidelines, and as-
sessments to prepare our students to become more competitive
globally. The National Science Education Standards (NSES)
were established in 1996 to be used as guidelines by educators
to create rigorous and relevant curriculum that will be used to
improve our students’ understanding of and ability to master
science and math concepts (National Research Council, 1996).
Instead of United States educators utilizing standards and as-
sessments as guidelines and tools to determine the mastery of
science and math in our students, they are using standards to
create prescriptive curricula and pedagogical methods to ensure
consistency in all classrooms and for all students to achieve
basic mastery of content knowledge (Sawchuk, 2010). In reality,
current science and math learning activities are more likely to
reflect local learning goals that not only adhere to NSES stan-
dards (1996) but go beyond a prescribed curriculum to a crea-
tive curriculum that gives teachers and local schools more lati-
tude over pedagogy and curricula and greater accountability for
student content mastery and success (Mourshed et al., 2010;
National Academies, 2007; Sawchuk, 2010).
Leaders in science education are demanding school systems
to require students to spend more time doing science as the best
way to understand science (National Academies, 2007). Taking
active learning into account, educators must evaluate how to
incorporate more in-depth content rigor into a curriculum that is
already overwhelming in its scope and sequence. For example,
recommendations by the National Academies of Science Com-
mittee, as set forth in their blueprint for science education, Ris-
ing Above the Gathering Storm (2007), suggests education
systems should establish specialty schools to immerse students
in science, technology, and mathematical education as a way to
test the relevance and rigor of science curriculum (Mourshed et
al., 2010; National Academies, 2007; Sawchuk, 2010). The rich
combination of specialty schools and rigorous curriculum that
is relevant may create a nation of students who are competitive
in today’s global market (Achieve Inc., 2009; Conley, 2001;
Mourshed et al., 2010; National Academies, 2007; Sawchuk,
2010).
Learning Environment
Positive learning environments where educators know their
students, develop a concern for their wellbeing, and provide a
curriculum that is both rigorous and relevant remain the keys to
motivating adolescents (Cleary & English, 2005; Keefe, Kelley,
& Miller, 1985; Quint, 2006). To create positive learning envi-
ronments, the school and the community must establish a new
culture of personalized learning where students feel confident
to become effective team players and intellectual decision-
makers (Conley, 2001; Dryer, 1996; Hugh, Taylor, Chin, &
Hutchinson, 2006; Mackin, 1996). To effectively establish
positive learning environments within schools is to develop a
culture for learning. In order for a school to develop a culture
for learning, it must develop new content knowledge and skills,
establish small learning communities, have access to new re-
sources, and develop leadership (Dryer, 1996; Fullan, 2006;
Manning & Saddlemire, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994). Effective
science and math learning activities create an environment
where teachers can freely guide students through experiential
curriculum supported by ready access to professional resources
that will place students in environments where they may dem-
onstrate leadership, collaboration, communication, and self-
governance in real-world situations (Hugh et al., 2006).
Finally, the business community must come together with the
school to complete the new culture of learning needed to raise
academic standards and connect students to their lives outside
of school (Toch et al., 2007). Together, business leaders and
educators must develop an understanding of the educational
experiences that occur in all community organizations (Senge,
Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000) and
establish alternative learning environments where students can
explore careers. Establishing these partnerships will give stu-
dents the opportunity to learn the necessary workplace skills
and knowledge needed to transition between school and work
(Hugh et al., 2006). Everyone working together as a commu-
nity-business leaders, teachers, scientists, and students-are more
likely to create successful change that better prepares students
for successful transition into global careers (Achieve Inc., 2009;
Kemple, 2004; Quint, 2006). Science classrooms often empha-
size the kind of collaborative practices found in the workplace.
The social learning environments found in science classrooms
are very similar to the communities of practice found in science
(Hugh et al., 2006).
Creating a sense of community within schools where all stu-
dents know that they are valued, belong, and can succeed is an
essential ingredient of implementing communities of practice
found in science environments and brought to life in schools
both large and small (Breunlin et al., 2005; Manning & Sad-
dlemire, 1996). The development of communities in schools
gives administrators, teachers, and students the ability to share
ideas and leadership roles forming authentic relationships,
wanting to better know oneself and community members, and
being receptive to new ideas (Cleary & English, 2005; Sergio-
vanni, 1994). The basic human need is to belong and feel part
of a group that works towards common goals, common inter-
ests, shared values, conceptions, and ideas (Graves, 1992; Hugh
et al., 2006; Manning & Saddlemire, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994).
Small Learning Communities
The most common reform we see today is implementing
small learning communities within high schools, such as the
creation of career academies. The philosophy behind small
learning communities, schools-within-schools, or career acad-
emies is to develop relationships between the students and
teachers, increase rigor, and increase relevance (Cleary & Eng-
lish, 2005; Conley, 2001). Rigor, relevance, and relationships
reform efforts focus on raising academic standards, connecting
student studies to their lives outside of school, and preparing
students for the ever-changing global workforce. Research
shows students who participate in small learning communities

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
feel more accepted and part of the school culture. Students who
feel they belong and are safe are likely to succeed academically
and move into postsecondary degree programs or professions
(Conley, 2001; Dryer, 1996).
The rational for establishing small learning communities is to
satisfy the basic human need to feel part of a group that works
towards a common goal, common interests, shared values, and
ideas, for schools and classrooms to be interdependent, coop-
erative communities where students and teachers learn and
work in more comfortable and inspiring environments (Cleary
& English, 2005; Dryer, 1996; Graves, 1992; Manning & Sad-
dlemire, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994). The development of com-
munities in schools give administrators, teachers and students
the ability to share ideas and leadership roles forming authentic
relationships, wanting to better know oneself and community
members, and being receptive to new ideas (Dryer, 1996; Keefe
et al., 1985; Sergiovanni, 1994). School programs that empha-
size small learning communities develop personalized envi-
ronments where student-teacher relationships develop to in-
crease the academic and social needs of the students (Adelman
& Taylor, 2009; Breunlin et al., 2005; Dryer, 1996).
Small learning communities take on several different formats
in high schools across the country. When establishing small
learning communities, school leaders need to make sure profes-
sional learning communities are established where the focus is
on what will successfully support every student in their high
school experience, provide every student with meaningful adult
relationships, and insure a personalized learning experience
where students are able to see the relevance in their learning
task (Cleary & English, 2005; National Association of Secon-
dary School Principals, 2005). It is very important that these
key points are well established in order for the school climate to
become successful.
Small learning communities come in a variety of forms
within a high school, such as career academies, theme-based
academies, or schools-within-schools. All three types of small
learning communities have shown positive educational benefits
for the students who they serve (Cleary & English, 2005; Kem-
ple, 2004; Quint, 2008).
The talent development small learning communities’ model
is made up of the positive components seen in learning com-
munities around the country. This model provides a personal-
ized and orderly learning environment, assists students who
enter with poor academic skills, improves instructional content
and practice through professional learning communities, and
prepares students for the world beyond high school (Cleary &
English, 2005; Quint, 2008). The talent development model
creates small learning community components starting with a
9th-grade success academy that becomes 10th-grade through
12th-grade career academies (Quint, 2008).
Ninth-graders enter into a success academy where they are
guided through the transition into high school, provided the
extra academic assistance needed to succeed in high school, and
are part of a small community made up of students and educa-
tors working together as a family unit (Quint, 2008). Tenth-
grade through 12th-grade students are provided with multiple
career academies or pathways to keep them engaged through
career exploration that creates a linkage to the world they will
enter after graduation (Conley, 2001; Hoachlander, 2008).
These career academies are community partnerships where
students and educators are given the opportunity to work with
local professionals to continue to develop integrated problem-
based curriculum, critical thinking skills, and communication
skills.
Career Academy High School Science Models
Currently there are over 2500 career academies nationally
that are operating as a single program, such as Omaha’s Henry
Doorly Zoo’s Zoo Academy program that operates inclusively
on the zoo property (Kemple, 2004; Quint, 2006). Career
academies are geared to blend academic rigor, specialized col-
lege preparatory curriculum, workplace knowledge, and rele-
vant engaging experience within the workplace (Cleary & Eng-
lish, 2005; Smith, 2008). Across the nation, career academies
have different structures and learning environments. Some
academies are housed within the high school, where students
take a series of career themed courses. Other academies are
located outside of the high school within partnering businesses.
These academies provide very authentic learning environments
where the school and partnering businesses work together to
provide rigorous curriculum and relevant experiences. All ca-
reer academies have three distinguishing characteristics: 1)
develops personalized learning environments through small
learning communities; 2) combines the relevance and rigor of
academic and career curricula around a career related theme; 3)
establishes partnerships with local community businesses to
provide work-based learning opportunities for students (Hugh
et al., 2006; Kemple, 2004; Smith, 2008).
Findings show the rigor incorporated into the career acad-
emies demonstrates the feasibility of accomplishing goals of
school-to-career without compromising academic goals. Career
academy and business partners provide students with a broad
array of career awareness and development experiences both in
and outside of school including multiple pathways and work-
based learning experiences (Hoachlander, 2008; Kemple, 2004;
Pittman, 2005; Quint, 2006). The basic model used in career
academies is composed of a team of teachers who are linked
with a group of students, block scheduling of classes, common
planning time for teachers, and an occupational focus. In this
model, the teachers, students, and business partners work to-
gether as a cohesive group to create a learning environment that
provides a safe place for students to explore and experience the
relevance of courses through the workplace (Elliott, Hanser, &
Gilroy, 2002).
Career academies provide students with explicit introduc-
tions to the world of work and furnish them with skills and
connections to help them transition from high school to suc-
cessful employment (Kemple, 2004). Students commonly be-
lieve and feel school is irrelevant to the real world. The intent
of career academies is to affiliate career-related education with
local businesses so students can see the connection between
school and work (Elliott et al., 2002).
Exemplary Z oo Academy High School Models
Exemplary models of successful zoo academies in the coun-
try are Asheboro High School Zoo School, Cabrillo High
School Aquarium, Cincinnati Zoo Academy, Lincoln Zoo School,
Millbrook School, Minnesota Zoo School, Omaha’s Henry
Doorly Zoo’s Zoo Academy, and Zoo Magnet Center. All of
these models have a unique structure that provides various ex-
periences based on the commitment and partnerships developed
between the school districts and the zoos.
For example, the Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo’s Zoo Acad-
290

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
emy—serving as the research academy for this study—is one
example of an effective career academy model for science edu-
cation. The academy has become an excellent work-based
learning model and demonstrates how to successfully collabo-
rate and form partnerships between school districts and infor-
mal science education organizations.
The zoo academy model is a prime example of science edu-
cation reform in action. This program places both teachers and
students into a non-traditional science-learning environment
where all participants observe, learn, and apply scientific
knowledge to real-world situations. The zoo academy becomes
a safe environment where the teacher is given the opportunity
to freely guide students through active scientific inquiry, estab-
lish a community-learning environment, and emphasize student
understanding. The combination of these components leads to
the establishment of a perfect learning environment for students
to demonstrate their understanding of scientific concepts, and to
freely investigate, to research, analyze, and communicate sci-
ence explanations to peers and professionals. Selected zoo
academy teachers spent three months interning at the zoo to
develop current curriculum, develop conceptual connections
between science, math, social studies, and English courses, and
zoo business. Teachers strive to develop an understanding of
conservation issues facing zoos and the community while es-
tablishing a working relationship with zoo employees. By fos-
tering this small learning community goal, learning will take
place in an atmosphere of adult cohesion and acceptance.
Building this relationship with animal area supervisors and
animal curators is a key component to assure the experiences
the students receive are positive, educational, and relevant.
The academy teachers teaming up with the expertise of the
zoo staff provides a very rich inquiry-based learning environ-
ment for students. The teachers plan the curriculum goals
around inquiry problem-based experiences. In doing this, the
teachers constantly evaluate their own knowledge and expertise,
and determine where they need assistants to meet the needs of
the students. The zoo staff becomes the resource needed to help
the teacher guide the students through scientific investigations
and experiences with zoo conservation scientists. This experi-
ence establishes a relationship between the students and zoo
staff by giving everyone the opportunity to communicate their
findings and discuss the impact of new discoveries and how it
relates to current conservation issues.
The zoo academy model is a combination of three major
educational components: career exploration, classroom experi-
ences, and scientific research opportunities. Career exploration
allows for students to freely explore their career goals through
internships. The internships give students the opportunity to
work directly with horticulturists, nutritionists, veterinarian
staff, and animal management teams, giving the students a
chance to discover new scientific careers and start the career
decision process.
The zoo academy course work is developed to give students
a variety of learning opportunities and daily experiences by
taking advantage of access to zoo professionals, research labo-
ratories, animal exhibits, and behind-the-scenes areas. All of
these opportunities are used to establish a living laboratory
setting. This concept of a living laboratory is very successful
and important to the whole concept of the program. The inter-
action between the teachers and zoo staff allows for more op-
portunities to apply scientific concepts and to see real-world
examples.
Experiential Learning
There are many terms to describe high school students’ prac-
tical, hands-on learning experiences in sciences. School pro-
grams that emphasize practical experienced-based science cur-
riculum are referred to as focus schools, schools-within-a-
school, career academies, work-based experiences, and co-op
learning programs (Breunlin et al., 2005; Conley, 2001; Kem-
ple, 2004; Quint, 2006). However, all of these programs rely on
a connected learning theory where students complete assign-
ments that are hands-on, applied, and relevant (Breunlin et al.,
2005; Conley, 2001; Hoachlander, 2008; Silverstein et al., 2009)
and are thought to be of greater learning value than co-occur-
ring traditional classroom activities. The goal of many pro-
grams that emphasize practical experienced-based connected
science curriculum is to assist students in becoming good sci-
ence consumers. From the students’ perspective, these pro-
grams are dynamic, relevant, and not only popular, but suc-
cessful.
Experiential learning instructional models centers students
learning about real-world problems that can have multiple solu-
tions (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Visconti, 2010). Experiential cur-
riculum is designed to have several integrated theme-based
units for the students to develop the skills they need to com-
plete real-world experiences in the community through projects
and internships (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Visconti, 2010). This
approach to experiential learning helps students develop life-
long learning skills (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Each curriculum
framework leads to the same outcome—to create rigorous and
relevant opportunities for students to apply their knowledge.
Experiential learning instruction can be called problem-based,
challenge-based, or project-based learning. All three experien-
tial learning styles are composed of the same basic framework
including a big idea, essential questions, the challenge, solu-
tions-action, and finally an assessment of outcomes (Johnson,
Smith, Smythe, & Varon, 2009). The process starts with a big
idea of local or global importance. The teacher can come up
with this big idea or work in collaboration with a community
partner to find a relevant global idea that affects the workplace.
The students proceed to research the big idea by bringing in the
concepts and processes learned through course work that starts
to strengthen the connections between what students are learn-
ing in the classroom and what they perceive to be the problem
in the real world (Downing, Kwong, Chan, Lam, & Downing,
2009; Johnson et al., 2009). Once the students develop an un-
derstanding of the scope of the big idea, they are challenged to
solve the problem. At this point in time, the teacher becomes
the facilitator and guides the students to work as a collaborative
team. It is important for the students to have access to business
partners and community members to work with professionals
and gain the information and knowledge needed to complete
the challenge. The final product and assessment is presented to
the community involved in the problem. This community con-
sists of the business partners, teachers, students, and commu-
nity members (Johnson et al., 2009).
The experiential learning process provides opportunities for
students to learn content and thinking strategies through the
experience of solving real-world problems (Hmelo-Silver,
2004). Together, community leaders and educators work to
provide the necessary guidance and experiences needed for the
students to master the skills they need to become successful
post high-school-educated citizenry (Hawkins et al., 2004).

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
Relevance, Rigor, and Relationships in Science and
Math Programs
The key to motivate and engage students in science and math
programs is to establish a positive atmosphere for teachers to
build student relationships and focus on taking rigorous cur-
riculum and making it relevant. When students are engaged in
the learning process, real achievement takes place and their
chances to excel in the global world increases (Daggett, 2005).
Evidence shows low-achieving students who are taking a com-
bination of college prep courses filled with rigor, relevance, and
good instruction leads to high student achievement (Conley,
2001; Toch et al., 2007). The students’ ability to apply high-
rigor knowledge in relevant, real-world situations is the true
assessment of achieving academic excellence (Daggett, 2005).
Relevance
Quality relevant learning experiences deepen the under-
standing and the connections students make between content
knowledge gained in an academic setting and the knowledge
needed to solve real-world problems (Conley, 2001; Daggett,
2005; Hugh et al., 2006; Hirsch, 2001). Engaging students in
relevant community service projects, internships, and academy
programs help students understand why the content learned in
core classes is important (Conley, 2001; Hugh et al., 2006;
Hoachlander, 2008). These students are able to make in-depth
connections between the curriculum and relevant experience
needed to become a scientifically literate community member.
Students who are engaged in the learning process are less dis-
tracted and spend more time focused on the learning process
that leads to active participation and academic success (Deutsch,
2003). The goal of many programs that emphasize experi-
enced-based science curriculum is to assist students in becom-
ing responsible and scientifically literate citizens. To achieve
this goal, schools are increasing diversifying programs to ex-
pand new and interesting ways for students to explore their
interest through the 11th-grade and 12th-grade years by col-
laborating with community organizations (Conley, 2001). Edu-
cators and organizations are sharing content information the
students must learn and the opportunities that naturally occur in
daily work routines. This joint collaboration helps students
make the connections needed to dig deeper into the knowledge
and skills they gained from their experiences (Hugh et al.,
2006).
Rigor
Challenging rigorous curriculum that provides a balance in
content breadth and depth in order for students to gain under-
standing and knowledge is necessary to create an environment
of academic excellence (Daggett, 2005; Hirsch, 2001; Hoach-
lander, 2008; Mehan, 2006). The development of rigorous cur-
riculum is very exacting and requires balancing the correct
breadth and relevance of content areas to enter into a deep
knowledge of the subject (Daggett, 2005; Hirsch, 2001). The
best way to learn and build upon general principles is through
multiple examples and hands-on experiences solving real-world
problems (Hirsch, 2001). For example, the 11th-grade students
entering the Zoo Academy are required to complete the follow-
ing science courses: zoology, zoo orientation, and comparative
anatomy to gain the knowledge and experiences needed to de-
velop a deep understanding of life science concepts. These
students take their learning process deeper by applying knowl-
edge and prior experiences to real-world situations in animal
management, one of many careers at the research Zoo Academy.
By the 12th grade, students continue to build on and expand
their breadth and depth of knowledge of life science content by
applying content knowledge from multiple disciplines, math,
English, and social studies, to the scientific process of develop-
ing and conducting a scientific research project. This rigorous
scope and sequence of science courses is a nice balance be-
tween breadth, depth, and relevance of the science curriculum.
The true indicator of academic excellence through rigorous
curriculum is the ability of the students to apply what they learn
in school to a variety of situations in the real world (Daggett,
2005; Hugh et al., 2006).
Relationships
Personalized relationships and a positive school climate
where the students and adults are able to express care and con-
cern for students’ well-being, intellectual growth, and educa-
tional success (Cleary & English, 2005; Dryer, 1996; McLeod
& Kilpatrick, 2001; Quint, 2006) is essential for creating a ho-
listic environment where students are developing the basic
knowledge, strong personal and interpersonal skills, and ability
required to compete globally in the 21st century (Mackin, 1996).
Personalizing the school environment to establish positive rela-
tionships between students and teachers requires establishing
personal adult advocates, personal learning plans, differentiated
teaching, and the creation of small learning communities
(Cleary & English, 2005; Dryer, 1996). The development of the
student-teacher relationship becomes apparent when instruc-
tional learning styles are incorporated into lesson plans. Re-
search clearly shows it is important to organize lessons to meet
the needs of various learning styles (Dryer, 1996; Mackin,
1996). From the students’ perspective, the attitude towards
students and presentation style are as important as class content
(Dryer, 1996).
These findings demonstrate teachers must understand differ-
ent student learning styles, build rapport, develop mutual re-
spect, and effectively communicate in order to convey their
subject matter (Dryer, 1996). It is believed that teachers should
act as personal adult advocates serving in the role of supporting
students academically, able to adapt and teach to all types of
learning styles, deal with the social tribulations of adolescence,
and assist students as needed (Cleary & English, 2005; Cesswell
& Rasmussen, 1996). Through the advice and direction of the
teacher, the students will have individualized personal learning
plans to make sure that their individual goals and expectations
of high school are clearly defined and understood (Dryer, 1996);
this is key to the motivational element in the learning process of
adolescents (Quint, 2006). Establishing a learning environment
where students feel trusted, respected, and encouraged leads to
students learning how to think, try out ideas, express their
views, interact in teams, and become part of a dynamic learning
process within an environment (Cesswell & Rasmussen, 1996;
Mackin, 1996). Research shows that students in academies
report high levels of interpersonal support and high expecta-
tions from teachers and peers (Breunlin et al., 2005; Kemple,
2004). Career academies provide students with explicit intro-
ductions to the world of work and furnish them with skills and
connections to help them transition from high school to suc-
cessful employment (Kemple, 2004).
292

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
Structure of Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo’s Zoo
Academy
In this study 11th- and 12th-grade students complete all of
the core curricular courses required for graduation in the re-
search project zoo academy. The zoo academy course work was
developed to give students a variety of learning opportunities
and daily experiences by taking advantage of access to zoo
professionals, research laboratories, animal exhibits, and be-
hind-the-scenes areas. All of these opportunities were used to
establish a living laboratory setting. This concept of a living
laboratory is very successful and important to the whole con-
cept of the program. The interaction between the teachers and
zoo staff allows for multiple opportunities to apply content
knowledge to daily real-world situations.
The students followed a four-hour academic block schedule
which had the flexibility for the teachers (science, math, Eng-
lish, and social studies) and students to work as a collaborative
team and complete problem-based experiences throughout the
school year including:
Science. Science coursework included: (a) Zoology, (b)
Comparative Anatomy, (c) Honors Research, (d) Animal Ex-
ternship, (e) Zoo Orientation, and (f) Horticulture.
Math. Math coursework included: (a) Algebra 1, (b) Algebra
2, (c) Honors Algebra 2, (d) Pre-Calculus, (e) Trigonometry,
and (f) Geometry.
English. English coursework included: (a) English 11, (b)
Honors English 11, (c) Contemporary Literature, and (d) Hon-
ors World Literature.
Social Studies. Social Studies coursework included: (a) So-
ciology, (b) Psychology, (c) US Foreign Relations, (d) Ameri-
can Government, (e) Honors American Government, and (f)
Issues in Geography.
Courses were offered during a four-hour academic block A
(Monday and Wednesday) and B (Tuesday and Thursday)
schedule. Friday of each week was a service-learning day. The
service-learning day was designed to give students the flexibil-
ity to continue their individual projects with zoo staff, make up
classes missed during the week, work in teams on challenge-
based projects or work with science mentors on research pro-
jects. During the week, students were also pulled out of classes
to participate in a variety of unique educational experiences that
occur at the zoo on a daily basis including planning meetings
for new exhibits, witnessing the birth of newborn animals, and
participating in animal nutrition and feeding activities.
Unique Learning Opportunities
Theoretically, the flexibility to purposefully pull students out
of classes for unique learning opportunities may result in prior
knowledge through hands-on science experiences, deepening
their understanding of the curriculum content even before its
introduction later in class—thus outside of the traditional class-
room learning promotes skills that simultaneously renew aca-
demic value (Hugh et al., 2006). Educators, community part-
ners, and business leaders know we need to address the issue of
better preparing our students for success if they are to become
globally competitive on science and math examinations, suc-
cessful in science classrooms, and competitive in tomorrow’s
science careers (Achieve, Inc., 2009). Science classroom com-
munities of practice and science workplace communities of
practice focused on the key elements of rigor, relevance, and
relationships provide a key element in the equation for im-
proved and sustained student success in the classroom and the
development of a scientifically literate citizenry (Achieve, Inc.,
2009).
Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to compare students’ measured
Likert scale perceptions of posttest school climate survey, rele-
vance, rigor, and relationships domain scores following 11th-
and 12th-grade participation in either an integrated experiential
zoo-based academic high school science program (n = 18) or a
same school district control group integrated experiential school-
based academic high school science program (n = 18).
Student Participant Demographics
The maximum accrual for this study was (N = 36) including
a naturally formed group of 11th-grade and 12th-grade students
who participated in a zoo-based experiential academic high
school science program (n = 18) and a randomly selected con-
trol group of 11th-grade and 12th-grade students who partici-
pated in a school-based experiential academic high school sci-
ence program (n = 18). Students who attended the zoo-based
experiential academic high school science program spent the
school day at the zoo immersed in experiential science oppor-
tunities and academic course work for 11th-grade and 12th-
grade school year. Students who attended the same school dis-
tricts’ school-based experiential academic high school science
program spent the school day at their home high school im-
mersed in experiential science opportunities and academic
course work for 11th-grade and 12th-grade school year. ACT
composite scores were equivalent for students participating in
both science programs where zoo-based experiential academic
high school science program students ACT, M = 20.83, school-
based experiential academic high school science program stu-
dents ACT, M = 20.72, and independent t(34) = .08, p = .936
(two-tailed), ns. Furthermore, science GPA composite scores
were equivalent for students participating in both science pro-
grams where zoo-based experiential academic high school sci-
ence program students science GPA, M = 3.25, school-based
experiential academic high school science program students
science GPA, M = 3.27, and independent t(34) = −.12, p = .905
(two-tailed), ns. The gender ratio of students participating in a
zoo-based experiential academic high school science program
was 6 males (33%) and 12 females (67%) and the gender ratio
of students participating in a school-based experiential aca-
demic high school science program was 14 males (78%) and 4
females (22%). The age range for all study participants was
from 16 years to 18 years. Finally, the ethnic and racial origin
of students who participated in the zoo-based experiential aca-
demic high school science program was 18 Caucasian (100%)
while the ethnic and racial origin of students who participated
in the school-based experiential academic high school science
program was 16 Caucasian (89%), 1 African American (5.5%),
and 1 Asian (5.5%). The racial and ethnic origin of the study
participants was congruent with the research school districts
racial and ethnic demographics of 11th-grade and 12th-grade
students.

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
Description of Procedures
Research design. The posttest-only control-group compara-
tive survey study design is displayed in the following notation:
Group 1 X1 Y
1 O 1
Group 2 X1 Y
2 O 1
Group 1 = study participants #1. Naturally formed group
of students (n = 18) completing the 11th-grade and 12th-grade.
Group 2 = study participants #2. Randomly selected group
of students (n = 18) completing the 11th-grade and 12th-grade.
X1 = study constant. All research study students (N = 36)
were enrolled in the same public school district and completed
the 11th-grade and 12th-grade school years science curriculum.
Y1 = study inde pendent varia ble, zoo-ba sed scienc e course-
work delivery site, condition #1. Experimental group students
completed an integrated experiential zoo-based academic high
school science program.
Y2 = study independent variable, school-based science
coursework delivery site, condition #2. Control group stu-
dents completed an integrated experiential school-based aca-
demic high school science program.
O1 = study posttest dependent measur es. Students’ percep-
tions of end of program posttest relevance (28 items), rigor (14
items), and relationships (29 items) were measured using a five
point Likert scale survey instrument-1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree—devel-
oped and validated by the participating research school district
(Papillion-La Vista School District Student Climate Survey,
2009; Bernhardt, 2004; Easton, 2008). Sample survey relevance
questions included: I have opportunities to choose my own
projects; I understand how to apply what I learn at school to
real-life situations; and doing well in school makes me feel
good about myself. Sample survey rigor questions included: I
feel challenged at this school; my teachers expect me to do my
best; and the work at this school is challenging. Sample survey
relationship questions included: I feel like I belong at this
school; Teachers encourage me to assess the quality of my own
work; and I am treated with respect by teachers.
Research Questions
The following research question and three sub-questions
guided the study. Research Question #1: Did experimental
group students who completed an integrated experiential zoo-
based academic high school science program compared to con-
trol group students who completed an integrated experiential
school-based academic high school science program have con-
gruent or different Likert scale perceptions of school climate
domains for: (a) relevance, (b) rigor, and (c) relationships?
Research sub-question 1a: Were posttest (a) relevance Likert
scale school climate perceptions results congruent or different
for students who completed a zoo-based academic high school
experiential science program compared to students who com-
pleted a school-based academic high school experiential sci-
ence program?
Research sub-question 1b: Were posttest (b) rigor Likert
scale school climate perceptions results congruent or different
for students who completed a zoo-based academic high school
experiential science program compared to students who com-
pleted a school-based academic high school experiential sci-
ence program?
Research sub-question 1c: Were posttest (c) relationships
Likert scale school climate perceptions results congruent or
different for students who completed a zoo-based academic
high school experiential science program compared to students
who completed a school-based academic high school experien-
tial science program?
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
The design of this study had several strong features including
a standard science curriculum developed by curriculum experts,
teachers, and administrators to have equivalent rigor and rele-
vance so only the science curriculum delivery sites, the zoo
academy or the traditional high school, differ in this study.
Students were matched for ACT composite scores and science
grade point average scores. Furthermore, the research school
district equally supported the zoo-based academic high school
experiential science program and the school-based academic
high school experiential science program financially and
through teacher assignment. Finally, all students participating
in the naturally formed zoo-school group and all students, ran-
domly selected, for participation in the control group were re-
quired to be on track for graduation. Data on student percep-
tions were routinely collected at the end of the 2010, school
year and included in the study. Study findings were limited to
the students participating in the zoo-based academic high
school experiential science program and the school-based aca-
demic high school experiential science program. The small
sample size and newly developed academic program may limit
the utility and generalizing of the study results and findings.
Finally, participating school district and University of Nebraska
Medical Center/University of Nebraska at Omaha Joint Institu-
tional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects
approval was granted for this study before data were analyzed.
Results
The purpose of this study was to compare students’ measured
Likert scale perceptions of posttest school climate survey, rele-
vance, rigor, and relationships domains following 11th- and
12th-grade participation in either an integrated experiential
zoo-based academic high school science program (n = 18) or a
same school district integrated experiential school-based aca-
demic high school science program (n = 18). Science course-
work delivery site served as the study’s independent variable.
Research sub-question 1a results indicate that 11th- and 12th-
grade students who attended the integrated experiential zoo-
based academic high school science program had statistically
greater posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean per-
ceived relevance domain scores (M = 4.16, SD = .35) compared
to 11th- and 12th-grade students who attended the integrated
experiential school-based academic high school science program
posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean perceived
relevance domain scores (M = 3.54, SD = .53) where inde-
pendent t(34) = 4.13, p = .0002 (two-tailed), ES = 1.410. Fur-
thermore, research sub-question 1a results indicate that 11th- and
12th-grade students who attended the integrated experiential
zoo-based academic high school science program had statisti-
cally greater posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean
perceived rigor domain scores (M = 4.26, SD = .36) compared to
11th- and 12th-grade students who attended the integrated ex-
periential school-based academic high school science program
posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean perceived
294

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
rigor domain scores (M = 3.72, SD = .51) where independent
t(34) = 3.66, p = .0008 (two-tailed), ES = 1.237. Finally, re-
search sub-question 1c results indicate that 11th- and 12th-
grade students who attended the integrated experiential zoo-
based academic high school science program had statistically
greater posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean per-
ceived relationships domain scores (M = 4.40, SD = .37) com-
pared to 11th- and 12th-grade students who attended the inte-
grated experiential school-based academic high school science
program posttest Likert scale school climate survey, mean per-
ceived relevance domain scores (M = 3.61, SD = .56) where
independent t(34) = 4.98, p < .0001 (two-tailed), ES = 1.690.
Conclusion
Inspecting the overall, results indicated that students who
completed the zoo-based academic high school experiential
science program compared to students who completed the
school-based academic high school experiential science pro-
gram had statistically greater ending of school year Likert scale
perceptions (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4
= Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree) of program relevance meas-
ured within the Agreed range where students in the school-
based academic high school experiential science program had
overall program relevance perceptions measured within the
Neutral range. Based on this finding it may be asserted that
students completing the zoo-based academic high school expe-
riential science program believed that overall program rele-
vance in their school setting was more apparent to them than to
their peers who completed the school-based academic high
school experiential science program. Furthermore, students who
completed the zoo-based academic high school experiential
science program compared to students who completed the
school-based academic high school experiential science pro-
gram had statistically greater ending of school year Likert scale
perceptions of program rigor measured within the Agreed range
where students in the school-based academic high school expe-
riential science program had overall program rigor perceptions
measured within the Neutral range. Based on this finding it
may be asserted that students completing the zoo-based aca-
demic high school experiential science program believed that
overall program rigor in their school setting was more apparent
to them than to their peers who completed the school-based
academic high school experiential science program. Finally,
results indicated that students’ who completed the zoo-based
academic high school experiential science program compared
to students’ who completed the school-based academic high
school experiential science program had statistically greater
ending of school year Likert scale perceptions of program rela-
tionships measured within the Agreed range where students in
the school-based academic high school experiential science
program had overall program relationships perceptions meas-
ured within the Neutral range. Based on this finding it may also
be asserted that students completing the zoo-based academic
high school experiential science program believed that overall
program relationships in their school setting was more apparent
to them than to their peers who completed the school-based
academic high school experiential science program.
Discussion
The students’ overall perception of relevance, rigor and rela-
tionships in their school setting was more apparent to the stu-
dents who completed the Zoo-Based Academic High School
Experiential Science Program than their peers who completed
the School-Based Academic High School Experiential Science
Program. The students’ overall perception of relevance, rigor,
and relationships in both learning environments sets these two
academically equivalent programs apart giving the research
school district more options to successfully prepare students to
be competitive in today’s global workforce. The average rank-
ing of students in the United States on international math and
science exams suggest that our students, while receiving a
breadth of content knowledge, may not be receiving the depth
of knowledge they need to be competitive in math and science
careers (Bybee, 2010; Grigg et al., 2006; Mourshed et al., 2010;
Sawchuk, 2010). Creating educational environments that have a
balanced, rigorous curriculum, experiential learning in real-
world science and math environments, while providing a sense
of belonging is better preparing students to be competitive in
today’s global work force (Achieve, Inc., 2009; Kemple, 2004;
Kemple & Willner, 2008; Pittman, 2005). In order to establish
positive learning environments and create a culture of learning;
a school district must develop new content knowledge and
skills, establish small learning communities, and have access to
new resources (Dryer, 1996; Fullan, 2006; Manning & Sad-
dlemire, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994). Effective science and math
learning environments where teachers can freely guide students
through experiential curriculum, supported by access to profes-
sional resources, and the establishment of alternative learning
environments in the business community, empowers students to
more freely explore careers and make a connection to their lives
outside of school.
Educators, community partners, and business leaders know
we need to address the issue of better preparing our students to
be globally competitive on science and math examinations and
success in the classroom, thus preparing them for the careers of
tomorrow (Achieve, Inc., 2009; Wagner, 2010). The educa-
tional system must address the instructional needs of students
while preparing them for work experiences of the future.
Changes in both the classroom and the workplace are necessary
in order to penetrate the barriers between classroom community
of practice and the workplace community of practice (Hugh et
al., 2006). To better prepare our students for success in the
global economy innovative high school programs must be es-
tablished to increase the number of students who graduate and
successfully transition into postsecondary education or the
global work force (Achieve, Inc., 2005; Jones, Yonezawa,
Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Kemple, 2004; Kemple & Willner,
2008; Quint, 2006). Educators have seen the impact and benefit
of innovative high school programs, similar to Omaha’s Henry
Doorly Zoo’s Zoo Academy, across the country decrease the
number of students dropping out, improving school climate,
strengthening curriculum and instruction, decreasing the
achievement gap between majority and minority students, and
preparing students for transition to postsecondary programs or
employment after graduation (Kemple, 2004; Kemple & Will-
ner, 2008; Quint, 2006). Innovative high school programs must
be established with the rigor to allow students to complete their
core curricular courses during their freshman and sophomore
years, opening up science and math electives and unique
non-traditional education opportunities for students to explore a
variety of career pathways during their junior and senior high
school years (Achieve, Inc., 2005).

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
Finally, if students can graduate from innovative high school
programs, such as this study’s zoo-based academic high school
experiential science program, with strong math and science
achievement and elevated perceptions of the relevance, rigor,
and relationships inherent in their science studies we may hold
out hope that these perceptions will motivate and inspire them
to pursue university studies leading them on—as scientifically
literate citizens—to tomorrow’s absolutely essential scientific
discoveries.
REFERENCES
Achieve, Inc. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school gradu-
ates prepared for college and work? Washington DC: Peter D. Hart
Research Associates.
Achieve, Inc. (2009). Taking root: Lesson learned for sustaining the
college and career ready agenda. Washington DC: America Di-
ploma Project Network.
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2009). Learning supports and small schools.
Los Angeles, CA: School Mental Health Project, Department of Psy-
chology, UCLA.
Bernhardt, V. (2004). Continuous improvement: It takes more than test
scores. Leadership, 34, 16-19.
Breunlin, D. C., Mann, B. J., Kelly, D., Cimmarusti, R. A., Dunne, L.,
& Lieber, C. (2005). Personalizing a large comprehensive high school.
NASSP Bulletin, 89, 24-42. doi:10.1177/019263650508964503
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspec-
tives. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Cesswell, R. A., & Rasmussen, P. (1996). Developing a structure for
personalization in the high school. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 27-30.
doi:10.1177/019263659608058406
Cleary, M., & English, G. (2005). The small schools movement: Impli-
cations for health education. Journal of Schoo l H e a lth, 75, 243.
Conley, D. T. (2001). Rethinking the senior year. NASSP Bulletin, 85,
26-41. doi:10.1177/019263650108562504
Daggett, W. R. (2005). Achieving academic excellence through rigor
and relevance. Rexford, NY: International Center for Leadership in
Education.
Deutsch, F. M. (2003). How small classes benefit high school students.
NASSP Bulletin, 87, 35-44. doi:10.1177/019263650308763504
Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S.-W., Lam, T.-F., & Downing, W.-K.
(2009). Problem-based learning and the development of metacogni-
tion. Higher Education, 57, 609-621.
doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9165-x
Dryer, T. J. (1996). Personalization: If schools don’t implement this
one, there will be no reform. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 1-8.
doi:10.1177/019263659608058402
Easton, L. (2008). Mix it up. Journal of Staff Development, 29, 21-24.
Elliott, M. N., Hanser, L. M., & Gilroy, C. L. (2002). Career academies:
Additional evidence of positive student outcomes. Journal of Educa-
tion for Students Plac ed a t Risk (JESPAR), 7, 71-90.
doi:10.1207/S15327671ESPR0701_5
Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement.
Center for Strategic Education, 157, 3-14.
Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., &
Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and
science achievement of US fourth and eighth-grade students in an
international context. URL (last checked 9 December 2008).
http//:www.nces.ed.gov
Graves, L. N. (1992). Cooperative learning communities: Context for a
new vision of education and society. Journal of Education, 2, 57-79.
Grigg, W., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). Nation’s report
card: science 2005. Washington DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., & Hill, K. G. (2004). Successful young
adult development. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-
tion, Social Development Research Group, University of Washington.
Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 59, 22-25.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do
students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hoachlander, G. (2008). Bringing industry to the classroom. Educa-
tional Leadership, 65, 22-27.
Hugh, M., Taylor, J., Chin, P., Hutchinson, N. L. (2006). Co-op stu-
dents’ access to shared knowledge in science-rich workplaces. Sci-
ence Education, 91, 115-132.
Johnson, B., & McElroy, T. M. (2010). The changing role of the
teacher in the 21st century. Teachers.net Gazette, 7.
http://www.teachers.net/gazette
Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009).
Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time. Austin, TX:
The New Media Consortium.
Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping
pathways to higher education. Educational Res ea r c he r , 31, 3-11.
doi:10.3102/0013189X031002003A
Keefe, J. W., Kelly, E. A., & Miller, S. K. (1985). School climate:
Clear definitions and a model for a larger setting. NASSP Bulletin, 69,
70-77. doi:10.1177/019263658506948416
Kemple, J. J. (2004). Career academies: Impacts on labor market out-
comes and educational attainment. New York: Manpower Demon-
stration Research Corporation.
Kemple, J. J., & Willner, C. J. (2008). Career academies: Long-term
impacts on labor market outcomes and educational attainment, and
transitions to adulthood. New York: Manpower Demonstration Re-
search Corporation.
Mackin, R. A. (1996). Hey, Dr. Bob, can we talk? Toward the creation
of a personalized high school. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 9-16.
doi:10.1177/019263659608058403
Manning, M. L., & Saddlemire, R. (1996). Developing a sense of
community in secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin, 80, 41-48.
doi:10.1177/019263659608058409
McLeod, J., & Kilpatrick, K. (2001). Exploring science at the museum.
Educational Leadership , 58, 59-63.
Mehan, H. (2006). Restructuring and reculturing schools to provide
students with multiple pathways to college and career. San Diego,
CA: University of California.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s
most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey
& Company.
National Academies (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Ener-
gizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
National Center for Education Statistics (2011a). Comparing TIMSS
with NAEP and PISA in mathematics and science. Washington DC:
US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011b). The nation’s report
card: Mathematics 2009. (NCES 2010-451). Washington DC: US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011c). The nation’s report
card: Science 2009. (NCES 2011-451). Washington DC: US De-
partment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education
standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (2005). Breaking
ranks II: An executive summary.
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sslc/institutes_2005/documents/Ollarvia_
executive-summary.pdf
Peterson, P.E. (2010). US students advancing in math trails most in-
dustrialized nations. http://www.physorg.com
Pittman, K. (2005). Blurring the lines for learning: Youth and commu-
nity centered responses to the challenges of high school reform.
Louisville, KY: CCSSO Summer Institute.
Quint, J. (2006). Meeting five critical challenges of high school reform.
New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Quint, J. (2008). Implementation study of smaller learning communities:
Final report. US Department of Education.
http://www.edpubs.org
Quint, J. (2008). Lessons from leading models. Educational Leadership,
65, 64-68.
296

E. A. MULKERRIN, J. W. HILL
Sawchuk, S. (2010). Global study tracks common paths to improving
schooling. Educatio n Week, 30, 10.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., &
Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Inc.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the
metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly,
30, 214-226. doi:10.1177/0013161X94030002007
Silverstein, S. S., Dubner, J., Miller, J., Glied, S., & Loike, J. D. (2009).
Teachers’ participation in research programs improves their students’
achievement in science. Science, 326, 440-442.
doi:10.1126/science.1177344
Smith, T. J. (2008). Striking the balance: Career academies combine
academic rigor and workplace relevance. National High School
Center, Washington DC: American Institutes for Research.
http://www.betterhighschools.org
Toch, T., Jerald, C. D., & Dillon, E. (2007). Surprise: High school reform
is working. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 433-437.
Visconti, C. F. (2010). Problem-based learning: Teaching skills for evi-
dence-based practice. Perspectives on Issues in Higher Education, 13,
27-31. doi:10.1044/ihe13.1.27
Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best
schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need and
what we can do about it. New York: Perseus Books Group.