Academic Competitions in Science: What Are the ...

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas

ISSN: 0009-8655 (Print) 1939-912X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20

Academic Competitions in Science: What Are the Rewards for Students? Tammy V. Abernathy & Richard N. Vineyard To cite this article: Tammy V. Abernathy & Richard N. Vineyard (2001) Academic Competitions in Science: What Are the Rewards for Students?, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74:5, 269-276, DOI: 10.1080/00098650109599206 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098650109599206

Published online: 03 Apr 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 164

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vtch20 Download by: [University of Michigan]

Date: 28 February 2016, At: 16:59

Academic Competitions in Science What Are the Rewards for Students?

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 16:59 28 February 2016

T

~ V. ABERNATHY Y and RICHARD N. VINEYARD

A

ccording to Grote (1995) and Mann (1984), many educators encourage participation in extracurricular science activities, such as science fairs and Science Olympiads, as a way for students to further develop science content knowledge, process skills, and interest. Bellipanni and Lilly state that "if students follow the scientific method as they carry out experiments for their science fair projects, it will help them understand scientific concepts" (1999, 46). Encouraging students to participate in science activities may also prove fruitful in the long run. For example, Huler (1991) found that Westinghouse Talent Search participants frequently pursued careers in the sciences, and according to Olson (1985), adults working in the sciences indicated that science fair experiences had influenced their career choice. Even though thousands of students participate in them every year, very little research has been conducted on science fairs and even less on Science Olympiads. Researchers have examined teacher and preservice teacher perceptions of the value of science fairs for students (Carlisle and Deeter 1989; Grote 1995; Bunderson and Anderson 199G), the rules and awards structure (Carlisle and Deeter 1989), and predictors of students' participation in science fairs (Czemiak and Lumpe 1996). Most of the research has shown that the science fair experience is not as positive for students as proponents of the competitions suggest. Despite what some see as problems with judging, the lack of clarity in the rules, too much teacher control, too much parent control, required participation, and an overemphasis on individual participation, educators continue to perceive science fairs as beneficial to students of all ages; therefore, science fairs remain popular among educators.

Science Fair and Science Olympiad One of the fundamental ideas of the National Science Education Standards is that students should be actively engaged in activities that help them construct new knowledge by using the skills and processes of science (National Research Council 1996). Both the science fair and the Science Olympiad involve students in developing and using science skills and scientific reasoning to build new content knowledge and increase their interest in science. The difference between a science fair and a Science Olympiad is that the science fair focuses on a single student's experiment, whereas the Science Olympiad emphasizes teamwork and covers a wide range of content areas. Both science fairs and Science Olympiads operate under the auspices of national organizations that provide rules and support for national-level competitions; for instance, the International Science and Engineering Fair provides rules for science fairs. Science fair judges are generally recruited from the local community where the fair is being held. Often they are teachers, college/university faculty, physicians, engineers, or others with an interest in the program. Their role at the fair is to interview the students at their respective presentations and to score the presentations according to a rubric provided by the science fair organizers. Students at the state science fair usually have presented at their local school or district fair before entering the state science fair, although in some states there is not a requirement for the project to have been presented at another science fair prior to the state fair. Science Olympiad competitors typically volunteer to be on the team at their schools. Coaches match competitors with specific events, such as "Don't Bug Me" or

Tammy V. Abernathy is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Nevada, Reno, and Richard N . Vineyard is a K-12 science consultant for the Nevada Department of Education, in Carson City. 269


270

The Clearing House

"Write It/Do It." For the "Write It/Do It" competition, two students compete for each team. First, one member of the team is presented with an object that neither student has seen before. The first team member has twenty minutes to write a description of the object, disassemble it, and leave the pieces and the description for the teammate. The second team member then has twenty minutes to reconstruct the original object using only the directions provided by his or her teammate. Judges score each team on how successful they are at reconstructing the original object and on how quickly they accomplished the task. In "Don't Bug Me," two students from each team go to a series of stations where they must identify and answer questions about an insect specimen or specimens. For example, at one station participants might find two specimens, a Viceroy butterfly and a Monarch butterfly. First, the students would have to correctly identify the two specimens as members of two distinct families of butterflies, Danaidae and Nympahlidae. The next questions would ask why the two look so much alike and what advantages there might be to one or the other species for both to look similar. For teams to compete at the national Science Olympiad tournament, they must have won the state tournament for their respective division (middle school or high school). In many states, teams represented at the state Science Olympiad have advanced from local, district, and regional competitions. In other states where fewer teams compete, there is only a state competition. Judges (event supervisors) for the Science Olympiad are responsible for organizing one of the events in the competition, which involves following the national rules, setting up the task(s) for the competition, running the event, and providing final scores. The primary goal of a science fair is to complement school curricula by encouraging students to use and understand the scientific method in designing and performing experiments. Students identify problems, propose solutions, conduct fair tests, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Science fairs also help students build communication skills, learn the nature of science, and potentially prepare for science careers. Although the focus of a Science Olympiad is different, its academic goals are much the same as a science fair's. The olympiad encourages students to use science process skills to solve problems, and it emphasizes a broad range of both general and specific content knowledge. Both the science fair and the Science Olympiad also recognize science achievement independent of the classroom, What is unclear from the research on science competitions is the value they have for students, as reported by the students who participate. As is often the case in educational research, we rarely hear the students' point of view. Because science fairs and Science Olympiads

May/June 2001

continue to flourish despite occasional criticism, with this project we attempted to understand why students participate in such academic competitions and what they perceive as the rewards for their efforts. We were also interested in the difference between students' experiences with the two events. Two research questions guided this project: Who are the participants competing in the science fair and Science Olympiad? And what do students perceive as the rewards for participating in each?

Method Participants The subjects of our study competed in either the state science fair or the state Science Olympiad toumament in Utah and attended junior high and high schools throughout the state. Utah has a combination of rural and suburban schools, with only three high schools and five junior high or middle schools considered urban schools. School districts in this geographical area predominately include junior high schools rather than middle schools; students attend junior high school for grades 7-9 and high school for grades 10- 12. School size varies depending on the location, but suburban high schools have an average student body of 2,500, and suburban junior high schools average 1,200 students. In total, 490 science fair participants completed surveys. ?trpically, students were recruited for the fair in their science classes. Junior high students composed 80.9 percent of the science fair participants (n = 396). Within the science fair group, 251 of the participants (51.2 percent) were female and 224 were male. (Fifteen respondents declined to indicate their gender.) A total of 453 Science Olympiad competitors participated in our project. Sixty-twopercent (n = 284) of the participants were junior high school students. Within the Science Olympiad sample, 254 males (56.1 percent) and 184 females (40.1 percent) competed. (Again, fifteen students didn't indicate their gender.) lnstrumentation We constructed a survey to learn about the experiences of students who participate in science fair and Science Olympiad competitions. One survey was constructed for both groups of participants; however, to accommodate both competitions we revised the survey title specifically for each group (e.g., "Tell Us about Your Science Fair Experience" or "Tell Us about Your Science Olympiad Experience"). We also altered the context of the questions to match the competition that the students were involved in, and we added two items to the Science Olympiad survey-an item about teamwork and another about competing on a university campus.


Vol. 74, No. 5

Academic Competitions in Science

We collaboratively constructed the survey, generating ideas from two sources. First, students’ responses to questions during the interview phase of a local science fair competition were used to generate items. We hypothesized that because science fair is a celebratov event where students share their research with students, teachers, parents, scientists, and others in the community, the students commented favorably about their experiences. The students who were interviewed talked about the fun they had doing the project, their interactions with parents and teachers, and their enjoyment in doing new things. Few students spoke directly about the scientific process or the science content they learned. The second set of sources we consulted during survey development was the science fair and Science Olympiad mission statements, which provided insight into the expected outcomes for students who participate in each event. Given that adolescents are not typically surveyed, the instrument was direct, with no negatively phrased items or scaling that asked students to differentiate between levels of satisfaction or quality. Three response modes were used in the survey. First, four items required a fill-in-the-blank response. Those items asked students about the number of years they have participated in the competition, time involved in participating, resources used to prepare for the competition, and the quality of their projects. Two yes-or-no response items were constructed to examine whether a teacher required participation and/or offered extra credit. One item on the survey asked students to check all that apply to describe the type of help they received from parents and teachers. Another item asked students to choose three items from a list of possible rewards they received for participating in the Science Olympiad or science fair. Given students’ responses during the science fair interviews and each competition‘s mission statement, we focused the survey items on the rewards of participating rather than on any punishing aspects of participation. An example of one of these items follows: Check the three best rewards for participating in Science Olympiad. working with my coach competing against other students learning new things learning the scientific process fun meeting students from other schools sharing my ideas with others preparing for my future pleasing my teachers winning prizes pleasing my parents getting my name in the paper working with my friends being on a team spending the day at the university

271

On the science fair survey, ”being on a team” and “spending the day at the university” were omitted. The last survey item presented students with a list of eleven academic competitions with instructions to select the one that they would most like to participate in.

Procedure We collected data at the regional science fair and the state Science Olympiad during the scheduled break before the announcement of the winners. At the science fair event, students were hand-delivered a survey and a pencil at their exhibit stations. All students were given the option of not completing the survey. Fifteen minutes after the survey was delivered a research assistant gathered completed surveys and thanked the students for their time. Because Science Olympiad is a team event, the procedure varied slightly from the one described for the science fair. Surveys were included with each team’s instructions provided at the beginning of the day. Coaches passed out the survey to each team member during the break before the awards ceremony and provided time to complete the survey. Students were given the option not to participate. Coaches collected completed surveys, along with their own evaluations of the event, and returned the completed surveys to event headquarters. ResuIts Who are the competitors in the state science fair and state Science Olympiad? Descriptive data revealed that students who participated in the science fair were approaching their third year of competition (M = 2.25; SD = 3.84) and had taken an average of 3.73 science classes (SD = 2.25). In the study 51.2 percent (n = 251) of the science fair participants were female. At the high school level, the number of science fair participants (n = 94) decreased markedly compared to the number of participants at the junior high school level (n = 396). The decline in participation from junior high to high school-a 75 percent drop-was proportionate for males and females. At the junior high level more girls than boys competed (n = 208 females; n = 178 males). Students surveyed said they’d rather participate in the science fair than in any other type of academic competition. Their second choice was a music festival. Science fair participants ranked Science Olympiad eighth (8.0) among other academic competitions. Many science fair participants either were required to participate or received extra credit. Of the high school participants, 15.05 percent (n = 14) were required to complete a science fair project and 48.4 percent (n = 45) received extra credit in their science class for participating. In the junior high sample those numbers increased, with 35.4 percent of the students required to

272

The Clearing House

TABLE 1 Descriptive Data for the Sample of Science Fair and Science Olympiad Participants Science fair Percent n oftotal


Participants Total Males Females Not reported High school Males Females Required Extra credit Juniorhigh Males Females Required Extra credit

490 224 251 15 94 46 43 14 45 396 178 208 138 223

45.7 51.2

48.9 45.7 15.05 48.4 44.9 52.55 35.4 65.7

Science Olympiad Percent n oftotal 453 254 184 15 154 98 56 18 25 284 156 128 15 172

56.1 40.1

63.6 32.5 11.8 16.1 54.6 45.1 5.1 59.0

participate and 65.97 percent receiving extra credit (see table 1 for a description of participants). In addition to student participation, the creation of science fair projects also involved parents and teachers. Overall, students reported that their parents spent an average of 10.88 hours (SD = 14.60) working with them. The parents of junior high school students contributed slightly more hours than the parents of high school students (junior high parents M = 11.13; SD = 23.65 and high school parents M = 10.21; SD = 28.44).

May/June 2001

Parents of female students also spent more time on science fair projects than parents of males (parents of female students M = 14.26; SD = 26.73 and parents of male students M = 7.51; SD = 23.15). Students overall indicated that their teachers spent an average of 3.07 hours preparing them for competition. Junior high school students reported their teachers’ working an average of 3.47 hours compared to high school students’ reports of an average of 1.57 hours. Students competing in the Science Olympiad tournament were approaching their second year of competition (M = 1.46; SD = .54) and had taken or were completing their fourth science class (M = 4.07; SD = 2.24). Overall, more males (56 percent; n = 254) than females (40 percent; n = 184) participated in Science Olympiad. Participation at the high school level was 54.22 percent less than participation at the junior high level. At the high school level 63.6 percent of the participants were males, compared to 54.5 percent at the junior high school level. Fewer female students participated in the high school Science Olympiad (32.5 percent) than in the junior high olympiad (45.1 percent). Students who participated in Science Olympiad also selected the event as their first choice among twelve possible academic competitions, with music festivals as their second choice. Participation in a science fair ranked 8.0 for these students (see table 2 for percentage of students who selected each competition and their rankings). Among Science Olympiad participants, 11.8 percent (n = 18) of the high school students were required by their teachers to participate and 16.1 percent ( n = 25) received extra credit. Only 5.1 percent of the junior

I

TABLE 2 Student Preferences for Academic Competitions

I

Science fair

Science Olympiad (n = 453)

(n = 490)

Competition

Percent of students selecting competition as first choice

Rank

Percent of students selecting competition as first choice

14.02 4.52 2.71 1.80 7.69 10.40 26.24 7.69 .45 3.62 7.69 13.12

2 8 10 11 6 4 1 6 12 9 6 3

14.88 35.71 2.97 2.97 7.14 6.55 3.57 2.97 6.55 1.78 5.95 8.29

Rank 2 1 10 10 4 5.5 8 10 5.5 12 7 3

I Music festival Science Olympiad Geography fair History fair Math contest Speechldebate Science fair Foreign language fair Academic decathalon Read-a-thon Art contest None of these

Vol. 74, No. 5

high school students were required by their teachers to participate in Science Olympiad, and 59 percent ( n = 172) were awarded extra credit. Students participating in Science Olympiad indicated that their teachers spent more time preparing them for the competition than their parents did. Students reported teachers spending an average of 29.23 (SD = 44.27) hours in preparation and their parents spending an average of 4.26 (SD = 5.7) hours. High school students indicated their teachers worked an average of 20.71 hours while junior high school competitors noted their teachers’ spending an average of 33.63 hours. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 16:59 28 February 2016

273


Relationships between Competitions We obtained a similar sample size from both competitions. Overall, there was a significant difference between competitions in the gender of the students participating (x’ = 10.79; p c .05), with significantly more girls choosing to participate in the science fair. There was also a significant difference between the competitions in the size of the junior high school and high school sample (x’ = 30.1; p c .05). Given the reduction in the number of schools available to compete at the high school level (i.e., three to five junior high schools feed into one high school), that drop may be significant, yet not meaningful. There was a significant difference between the two competitions in terms of teachers’ requiring students to compete (x’ = 38.97; p c .05). Although teachers more

frequently required participation in the science fair, predominately at the junior high school level, no significant difference was found between the two competitions on the availability of extra credit (x’ = 1.57; p < .05).

Rewards for Participating in Science Fair and Science Olympiad The survey asked students to mark three items that reflected the rewards they received for participating in either the science fair or Science Olympiad. Categorical items marked by students were coded as 1.0. Unmarked items were coded zero. We summed student responses to each item across the sample, then ranked items indicating the most frequently selected rewards for participating in the competition. We presented data in ranks because frequency counts or percentages are difficult to interpret when respondents are encouraged to mark more than one choice. Spearman rank order coefficients (rs)were calculated to determine whether data should be reported by school level and/or gender or whether data could be aggregated. Spearman rank order coefficients revealed there was a strong positive relationship, nearly a oneto-one correspondence, between junior high school and high school students who competed in science fair (rs = .98; p c .05) and Science Olympiad (rs = 3 5 ; p c .05). Further, male and female students reported similar rewards for participating in the science fair (rs = .95; p c .05) and Science Olympiad (rs = .80; p c .05). Overall there was not a strong relationship between

TABLE 3 Student Rankings of Rewards for Participants in Science Fair and Science Olympiad

Reasons for participating Fun Learning new things Competing against other students Learning the scientific process Sharing ideas with others Working with my coach Pleasing my teachers Working with my friends Pleasing my parents Winning prizes Meeting students from other schools Preparing for my future Getting my name in the newspaper Spending day at the university“ Being on a teama

Science fair Total F M 1 2 3 4 5 6.5 6.5 8 9 10 11.5 11.5 13

1 2 3 4 5

G 7 8 9 10.5 10.5 12 13

1

2 3 4 5 8 7

G 9 11 12 10 13

Science Olympiad Total F M 1 2

G 10 12 8 15 3 14 4 13 5 11 9 7

1 2 8 11.5 11.5 7 15 3 13

G 9 5 14 10 4

1 2 3 10 11.5 11.5 14.5 4 14.5 5 13 G 8 9 7

Nore: F = females. M = males.

These two items were on the Science Olympiad survey only and are not included in Spearman rank order analyses.


274

The Clearing House

the rewards students reported from participating in science fair and Science Olympiad (rs = .20; p < .05). In both competitions students ranked “fun” 1.O as the reason they participate. “Learning new things” was ranked 2.0 in both samples. After the first two rankings notable differences emerged. Science fair participants ranked “competing against other students” as 3.0; however, students competing in Science Olympiad ranked “workingwith friends” as third. Interestingly, “learning the scientific process” ranked 4.0 among science fair students but 10.0 among Science Olympiad competitors. “Winning prizes” was ranked 4.0 among olympiad participants. Science fair participants ranked the “pleasing” items higher than Science Olympiad students. Specifically, “pleasing teachers” ranked 6.5 among science fair students and 15.0 among Science Olympiad students. Similarly, ”pleasing parents” had a 9.0 ranking among science fair respondents and 14.0 for Science Olympiad students (see table 3). Although there was a strong positive correlation between males and females in both competitions, the analysis may have masked some important gender differences worth highlighting, particularly in the Science Olympiad competition. Males and females agreed that they participated for “fun” and to ”learn new things,” but males ranked ”competing against others” 3.0 and female students ranked the item 10.0. Also, female students ranked “being on a team” 4.0 compared to 7.0 for that item among males. Discussion

Our project suggests that there is good news for educators who promote, encourage, and may even sometimes coerce students into participating in science fair and Science Olympiad. Students report enjoying their science fair or Science Olympiad experience. Although teachers put significant external incentives in place, and many students were required to participate, once engaged students had fun. More telling may be the fact that students chose either science fair or Science Olympiad as their competition of choice when given several alternatives. Some educators and parents may be concerned about the large number of students who are given external incentives to participate (e.g., course requirement or extra credit); however, there may be good news in those numbers. More teachers require students to participate in the science fair than in the Science Olympiad. Because the science fair is an individual activity emphasizing science process skills, it makes sense that teachers would want to incorporate the activity into their programs. Within a classroom it is easy to monitor, provide work time, and give assistance. In that instance, what appears to be coercion may really be an opportunity, as part of a course of study, for students to demonstrate their ability to con-

May/June 2001

duct scientific investigations. Also, the larger percentage of students who receive external incentives at the junior high school level may reflect developmentally appropriate practice. As motivational theory suggests, at that developmental stage many young adolescents experience a decline in motivation (Anderman and Maehr 1994) and may need external motivators to help them engage in activities. If their experiences are positive and enjoyable, then students may later choose to participate for more intrinsically motivated reasons (Petri 1986). Student participation in Science Olympiad appears to be more voluntary. Because Science Olympiad is a team activity, teachers may view it more as an option for an extracurricular activity rather than as a potential course requirement. Unless a Science Olympiad team is composed of students from only one class, requiring participation may be too much of a management problem for the teacher. Educators should also be encouraged to discover that students perceived “learning something new“ as rewarding, a finding that supports work by Czerniak and Lumpe (1996). The events may be tapping into students’ natural curiosity and providing a new context for them to learn in, without rigid curriculum or grading constraints. Although, according to Covington (2000), the competitive aspect of science fair and Science Olympiad serves to promote performance goals over learning goals, the students’ responses would suggest that they value learning goals despite the embedded competition. Students may be telling teachers that it is fun to be a scientist and learn new things outside of a classroom structure. Further, although they may become bored with typical instruction, they like learning and think it is fun. The differences between science fair and Science Olympiad experiences may be beneficial to students. Students clearly liked the activity they chose to participate in over the other science competition option. Hence, there may be characteristics inherent in each competition that appeal to different students, thus encouraging a more diverse group of students to participate in science activities. Also, there were differences in the time demands on participants and particularly on teachers/coaches and parents. Another notable difference between competitions was students’ reports of rewards. Science fair participants were rewarded by learning the scientific process, whereas Science Olympiad students enjoyed being part of a team and thought the experience prepared them for their future. Understanding and promoting those differences may help students select the science competition that is most suitable for them. When these two competitions are available to all students, the results may be increased student participation in science. Students who can select events that meet their individual goals


Vol. 74, No. 5


275

and learning styles may expand their science knowledge and skills and thrive on the experience. Finally, the large number of young women who participate at the junior high school level is encouraging. That more females than males participated in the science fair is a positive sign that efforts directed at encouraging girls in science may be paying off. Also, the number of females who competed at the high school level was nearly equivalent to the number of male participants. Therefore, although fewer students are participating in high school science fairs, there remains a gender balance. Science Olympiad, on the other hand, had more males participating at both levels, with a significant discrepancy between genders at the high school level. Whether the difference is related to fewer young women being enrolled in upper-level science courses at the high school level is unclear and may be an area that requires further research.

ers" above "working with friends," and "pleasing parents" above "preparing for my future." Those data may suggest that students need approval from those around them and that they prefer more immediate rewards to long-term ones. They may also be interpreted to mean that students want to please others to avoid a negative consequence. Either interpretation does not negate the students' preference for immediacy. That said, there were no indications in the interviews used to generate the survey that would suggest that students participated to avoid punishment. That finding may also be developmentally appropriate and of concern only because students may not perceive participation as a self-improvement activity that has future implications. Experimenting with ideas to improve students' ability to reward themselves and relate their efforts to future goals may be an important contribution to students' overall experience.

Considerations for Improvement We found a significant decrease in participation at the high school level compared to the junior high school level. The reasons for the decline can only be speculative at this time and will require further study. One explanation may be that at the high school level the amount of content knowledge and effort required to compete increases, so that students who were successful at the introductory levels may not be prepared for the higher level of competition. Again, borrowing from achievement goal theory, students may retreat from participating as a form of self-protection. According to Anderman and Maehr (1994), as students mature they learn that participation cames risks to one's self-esteem and that only some risks are worth taking. Covington (1992) notes that a risky situation, such as publicly sharing one's work and ability, is likely to cause motivational problems for students who perceive themselves as unable to compete against other students. However, high school participation may also reflect students' commitment to science. Further, as opportunities for social activities and extracurricular activities increase at the high school level, students may seek other fun activities to engage in. Also, students who participated in the project have a history of competing in these events; over time, some may tire of participation. The ranking of "preparing for my future" by Science Olympiad participants may be key for keeping university-bound students interested in these competitions. Unlike Czemiak and Lumpe (1996), we were not overly concerned about the number of students who reported being required to participate because students reported enjoying the experience. However, the "pleasing" items are two rewards that warrant discussion. Students involved in science fair ranked "pleasing teach-

Limitations of the Project Our project relied solely on the responses of students. The reliability of student responses to survey items can always be questioned; however, the large number of participants in the project improves the likelihood that the responses are reflective of students who competed. Also, the simplicity of the instrument allows for only descriptive analysis, but that was appropriate for the type of data collected. Giving students a menu of items and a number of choices to respond to was not as problematic as we initially feared. The students who participated were strong readers and took care to follow the instructions carefully. Surveys that were not completed according to the instructions were omitted from the data set. Conclusion On the surface the science fair and Science Olympiad are competitive events. However, proponents of each event perceive learning science process skills and science content as the true purpose. Oddly, it is the offering of rewards that opens each event to criticism. Current thinking about motivation suggests that students suffer in competitive climates and lose motivation (Covington 2000; Hagtvet 1984). Research on motivation and achievement goal theory has focused on classroom practices that promote competition among students for a scant few rewards (Ames 1990; Covington and Tee1 1996). Although this line of research is convincing, extracurricular competitions conducted outside of classroom instruction have yet to be fully investigated. Therefore, criticism couched in achievement goal theory and directed toward those competitions (Czerniak and Lumpe 1996; Grobman 1993) may be unwarranted. Future research on the impact of extracurricular competitions on motivation and goals should be conducted.


276

May/June 2001

The Clearing House

The purpose of this project was to describe the students who participate in science competitions and what they perceive as the rewards for participating. Research on these events has focused on participants’ recall of past experiences rather than on the experiences of students as they participate. The differences in the two science competition events, as shown by our project, should not promote one event over another but rather serve as an indication that diversified opportunities are essential to including more students. As the data show, students participate in these events for different reasons and see them as very distinct. Therefore, the data may be used as a means of helping students to select the type of event that suits their interests, goals, and learning style. Although in this project we focused solely on science fair and Science Olympiad, our data suggest that promoting other science events and activities may be beneficial in drawing more students into science. Teachers may want to promote service-learning projects or community service as another opportunity for students to participate in science, therefore encouraging more and different types of students to participate. With the technological changes of the past ten years and the world’s increasing reliance on new technoiogies, educators must find ways to motivate, reward, and encourage all students to develop their science literacy skills. Science fair and Science Olympiad are just two examples of activities that appeal to different types of students. Thus, the challenge becomes creating new opportunities for improving students’ science literacy that will entice the greatest number of students while maintaining the level of participation observed in the science fair and Science Olympiad.

REFERENCES Ames, C. 1990. Achievement goals and classroom structure: Developing a learning orientation. Paper presentated at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Anderman, E. M., and M. L. Maehr. 1994. Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research 64:287-309. Bellipanni, L. J., and 1. E. Lilly. 1999. What have researchers been saying about science fairs? Science and Children 36:46-50. Bunderson, E. D., and T. Anderson. 1996. Preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes toward their past experience with science fairs. School Science and Mathematics 96:371-77. Carlisle, R. W., and B. C. Deeter. 1989. A research study of science fairs. Science and Children 26:24-26. Covington, M. V. 1992. Making the grade:A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New Yolk Cambridge University Press. -. 2000. Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology 51:171-200. Covington, M. V., and K. M. Teel. 1996. Overcoming student failure: Changing motives and incentives for learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Czemiak, C. M., and A. T. Lumpe. 1996. Predictors of science fair participation using the theory of planned behavior. School Science and Mathematics 96:355-61. Grobman, A. 1993. A fair proposition? Science Teacher 6040-41. Grote, M. G. 1995. Science teacher educators’ opinions about science projects and science fairs. Journal of Science Teacher Education 6:48-52.

Hagtvet, K. A. 1984. Fear of failure, worry and emotionality: Their suggestive causal relationship to mathematical performance and test anxiety. Advanced Test Anxiety Research 3:211-24. Huler, S. 1991. Nurturing science’s young elite: Westinghouse Talent Search. Science 5:20. Mann, 1. Z. 1984. Science day guide. Columbus: Ohio Academy of Science. McDevitt, T. M., H. W. Heikkinen, 1. K. Acorn, A. L. Ambrosio. and A. L. Gardner. 1993. Evaluation of the preparation of teachers in science and mathematics: Assessment of preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Science Education 77:593-610. National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Olson, L. 1985. The North Dakota science and engineering fair-Its history and a survey of participants. Unpublished manuscript, North Dakota State University, Fargo. Petri, H. L. 1986. Motivation: Theory and research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .