Upload
stat
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
1/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20111Ocial Publication o the Science eachers Association o exasSTAT
ASSOCIATION
TEACHERS
OF
TEXAS
S
CIE
NCE
Texas Science TeacherThe
Volume 40, Number1 April 2011
Enhancing Science Knowledge...Discover Proven Instructional Strategies Utilizing Dierent Disciplines.
SA Presidents MessageBudget Crisis Brings umult Over Education in exas.
Conusing Language or Science and Math StudentsHow Vocabulary Can Infuence Your Students Perormance
Science-Fair Scorecard o DFW ISDsA Study o How Participation Can Be a Predictor o Later Science Success
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
2/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20112
Lessons on Caring (contd.)Lessons on Caring (contd.)www.hmheducaon.com/tx/science
Texas Supplemental Science
STAAR
Equipstdets fr sccess STAAR
DiffeRenTiATion
EngAgEa earers
new TeKS
ExploREmatera fr a TEKS
Holt McDougal
onE-STopsts
DigiTAl
ClASSRoom
Enter the digital classroom and try our
one-stop solutions for Texas Science at
www.hmheducation.com/tx/science.
Resources include virtual labs, animations,
and other rich media to meet the learning
needs of all students.
Search by TEKS to locate comprehensive instruction over
all science concepts, as well as connections to current
science issues throughSciLinks, and correlations to
current science programs.
Prepare for STAAR with instruction, review, and
practice assessments.
Houghton Mifin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 03/11
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
3/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20113
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
A New Pandemic (contd.)
800.867.9067 LoopWriter.com CurriculumProject.com
I bought LoopWriter for my classroom and havesuggested it to my district head to buy for TAKStutoring and classroom use for all teachers in mydistrict. Thank you for helping me make learning fun!Mini-Cast participant 2010
I enjoyed the training so much Iimmediately bought LoopWriter and gota few of my educator friends on boardtoo. This is wonderful for our students.Mesquite High School teacher
Be sure to drop by our booth,#442, at CAST 2011 inNovember, in Dallas; orgiveus a callbefore that for moreinformation.
Get LOOPYwith LoopWriter Software
Wrap up your vocabulary review in an easy to use, fun package.1. Type in questions & answers;2. Shufe the cards to ensure the game is challenging;3. Select font, card layout and graphics, and;4. Print and play. Thats it!
When each question has been answered correctly, the nal card placed will close the loop.
Visit our website to downloada free trial version, try it for10 days and we know youll beback to buy.
Collaboration, small group problemsolving, higher order thinkingAND vocabulary review - all
wrapped into one, fun activity.
Switch to Spanish, French orGerman; add jpg images, adjust
font & card size, print in color.
Just $24.95 e-distribution;$29.95 CD. Multi-user version
also available.
http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/http://www.curriculumproject.com/8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
4/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20114
The Texas Science TeacherVolume 40, Number 1 April 2011
Te exas Science eacher, ocial journal o the Science eachers Association o exas, is published semiannually in Apriland October. Enumeration o each volume begins with the April issue.
Editorial contents are copyrighted. All material appearing in Te exas Science eacher(including editorials, articles, letters,etc.) reects the views o the author(s) and/or advertisers, and does not necessarily reect the views o the Science eachers
Association o exas (SA) or its Board o Directors. Announcements and advertisements or products published in thisjournal do not imply endorsement by the Science eachers Association o exas. SA reserves the right to reuse any
announcement or advertisement that appears to be in conict with the mission or positions o theScience eachers Association o exas.
Permission is granted by SA or libraries and other users to make single reproductions o Te exas Science eacherortheir personal, noncommercial, or internal use. Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use. Tis permission does
not extend to any commercial, advertising, promotional, or any other work, including new collective work, which mayreasonably be considered to generate a prot.
For more inormation regarding permissions, contact the Editor:[email protected]
Cover Photo:Asexual Reproduction. Photo o a Kalanchoe plant. All Rights Reserved.
Image Credit:SA Member Susan Broz, IPC eacher. Pershing Middle School.
STAT Presidents Messageby Joel Palmer, Ed.D.
Confusing Language for Science and
Mathematics Studentsby Sandra S. West and Sandra T. Browning
Cover Story: Enhancing Science Knowledgethrough Proven Instructional Strategies
by Gloria Gresham, et. al.
Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort WorthArea Independent School Districtsby Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.
Contents
mailto:jpalmer59%40gmail.com?subject=mailto:jpalmer59%40gmail.com?subject=8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
5/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20115
As I sit down at my computer to writethis message, education in Texas is intumult. According toThe Legislative Refer-
ence Library there are fty-three bills that
affect the Texas Education Code that have
been engrossed. I did not know what that
meant, so I looked it up and this is what I
found:
A legislative proposal that has been preparedin a nal orm or its submission to a vote othe law-making body ater it has undergone
discussion and been approved by the appropri-ate committees. (Wests Encyclopedia of AmericanLaw, published by Tomson Gale)
Fifty-three: what a daunting number.
Regardless of what happens in the rest of
this session, it is safe to say that education
will be different when we reconvene next
fall. We do not know what will happen with
funding, testing, class size, certication, or
graduation requirements, but there is one
thing we know for sure: we will have stu-
dents in our classes that need instruction,
and it is our job to provide the best possible
education.
This issue has some information tohelp you do that. Confusing Language for
Science and Mathematics Studentsfocuses
on the differing and, at times, confusing
language used in math and science and
how it impacts students learning. Enhanc-
ing Science Knowledge through Proven In-
structional Strategies, as the name suggests,
looks at reading and writing strategies that
can help students learn. The nal article
analyzes how participation in local science
fairs in the North Dallas area impacts thelevels of student interest in scientic elds.
This has implications for the United States
competitiveness in a global economy.
It is my hope that this issue can give
you something to take your mind off all the
issues surrounding education in Texas, at
least for a little while.
STAT Presidents Messageby Joel Palmer, Ed.D.
TST1104
In addition to teaching in exas classroomsor more than twenty years,Joel Palmerserves as the Curriculum Coordinator orMesquite ISD. He is also an adjunctproessor or exas A&M Commerce. Hehas been the editor o the exas Science
eacher or ourteen years, and is thePresident o the Science eachersAssociation o exas.
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/isaf/searchCode.cfmhttp://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/isaf/searchCode.cfmhttp://www.enasco.com/sciencehttp://www.enasco.com/sciencehttp://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/isaf/searchCode.cfmhttp://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/isaf/searchCode.cfm8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
6/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20116
Confusing Language for Science and Mathematics Studentsby Sandra S. West and Sandra . Browning
English is one of the more difcultlanguages in the world to learn partlybecause it is full of homonyms/homophones
and synonyms. Words have several different
meanings depending upon the context of the
sentence and the audience being addressed.
Specically for science and mathematics,
there are discipline-specic homophones
and homonyms. Bearing this in mind, the
English language can be a bear for students.
A Discovery!The issue of confusing language rst
arose in 2006 when planning a professional
development session for the project, Mix It
Up: Correlated Science & Math(CSM). In
preparation for the rst correlated physics
and mathematics lessons, the university
physics instructor noticed that the univer-
sity mathematics instructor was using the
word motion differently. When asked what
motion meant, the mathematics instruc-
tor said, You know, movement while wav-ing both hands. The science instructor
said, That is not what we mean by motion
in physics. We mean moving from point
A to point B (Author, 2006). The instruc-
tors then realized that while both science
and mathematics use the word distance, the
meaning of the word in science, while
related to the meaning in mathematics, is
not the same as in mathematics. This dis-
covery led to the realization that science and
mathematics use several of the same words,but many with very different meanings.
More Discoveries through RichConversations
Since that discovery in 2006, the Mix
It Up projects: CSMprojects have contin-
ued to provide professional development to
science and mathematics teachers. When
training grades 5-8 science and mathemat-
ics teachers to integrate science and math-ematics, the CSMscience and mathematics
university specialists generally make class-
room observations as a team. However one
day, the science specialist conducted an
observation alone in an eighth grade Algebra
I class. The mathematics lesson that was
integrated with science used motion detec-
tors that had previously been used in the
eighth grade science class. The students
used the probes to gather and analyze the
data on time and distance. The domain andrange of the data set were then determined.
As the science specialist observed the
lesson, she wondered why the teacher did
not teach range before domain since she
considered rangea less complex concept.
That night the science specialist was dis-
cussing and debrieng the algebra lesson
with the mathematics specialist and asked
her why the teacher did not teach range
before domain. The mathematics specialistasked the science specialist to dene range.
The science specialist said that, in this
instance, it means the span of numbers
from the highest number or value to the
lowest number or value or vice versa.
For example, considering the
numbers 1, 2, , 9, the range would be 1 to
9. The mathematics specialist realized that
the meaning of range described by the sci-
ence specialist was not what range meant inthis algebra lesson. In algebra, range typi-
cally means the set of y-values of a function
(see Figure 1). In statistics, range generally
means the difference between the highest
and lowest value of a set of data (see Figure
2).
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
7/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20117
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Confusing Language (contd.)
If the function f(x) = x+2 is given the values x = {1, 2, 3 ,...} then its range will be {3,4,5, ...}
In science, range also has several meanings, such as (a) an open region over which
animals (as livestock) may roam and feed, (b) a series of mountains, (c) the horizontal dis-
tance to which a projectile can be propelled, (d) the horizontal distance between a weaponand target, (e) a sequence, series, or scale between limits as in a wide rangeof patterns in
nature, as well as (f) the difference between the least and greatest values of an attribute
or of the variable of a frequency distribution (Merriam-Webster, n. d.). It is no wonder
that students are confused. Of course, the word range has a number of meanings in areas
other than science or mathematics to further confuse students such as in music (distance
between the lowest and highest notes of an instrument or voice) or the culinary arts (the
kitchen range). This must be especially confusing for English Language Learner (ELL)
students. What is a student to do? What is a teacher to do?
Correlated Science and MathematicsDictionary
As the CSMteam plans ongoing professional development, confusing words continueto be identied by both instructors and participating grades 5-8 science and mathemat-
ics teacher teams. Collecting those words and compiling a CSM Identifying Confusing Sci-
ence and Mathematics Words Dictionaryseemed a logical endeavor to help both teachers
and students clarify the meaning of terms. Following is a sample of synonyms and homo-
phones/homonyms that have been identied in the CSMresearch. Sample words that have
the same or comparable meaning in science and mathematics, called shared vocabulary,
are also included.
x
ordomain
f(x)
orrange
1 32 4
3 5
4 6
5 7
x x+2Figure 1. Example o an algebraic range.Sandra took 7 mathematics tests. Her scores are listed below What is the range of her test scores?89, 73, 84, 91, 87, 77, 94
Ordering the test scores from greatest to least, we get: 94, 91, 89, 87, 84, 77, 73
The difference between the highest and lowest score: 94 - 73 = 21
The range of these test scores is 21 points.
Figure 2. Example o a statistical range.
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
8/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20118
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Confusing Language (contd.)
SynonymsSynonyms are dened as words that have the same or similar meaning. Merriam-
Webster Dictionary(n.d.) denes them formally as one of two or more words or expressionsof the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
or a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (n.p.). A sample of
synonyms from the CSM planning and teaching sessions has been identied (see Figure 3).
Homophones/Homonyms
Homophones, or homonyms, are generally thought of as words that sound alike, buthave a different meaning. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n. d.) denes them as one of two
or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning (n. p.). Some of the
homophones that the CSM team has identied include the following (see Figure 4):
Figure 3. Sample o synonyms in science and mathematics.
Meaning Science Mathematicsthe length and direction of a straight line
drawn from the start to finish
displacement distance
having the same value or elements onboth sides of the process or equation
equilibrium balanced
the result when values in a list are added
and the sum is divided by the number of
values added
average mean
an object cannot be folded or rotated insuch a way that it overlays itself
asymmetry no symmetry
an object may be folded along a line such
that the shapes on either side of the line
exactly overlay each other
bilateral reflective/line
symmetry
an object may be rotated such that itexactly overlays itself
radialsymmetry
rotationalsymmetry
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
9/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 20119
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Confusing Language (contd.)
Word/Term
Science Mathematics
Arrow symbol()
vector Ray or vector
constant variable that is kept the same
throughout the types of
investigations calledcomparative or experimental
value that does not change, but can be
represented by a letter
distance actual length measured of a
particular path taken, may
consist of several line
segments
shortest length between two points
regular shaped
object (Ex cube)
a formula can be used to
determine area or volume,
such as finding the volume of
a triangular prism or acylinder
a polygon with all sides congruent and
angles congruent or a three dimensional
solid with faces that are all congruent
regular polygons and all anglescongruent
simple
relationship
something that is not difficult
to work or understanddirect variation, or a relationship
between two variables in which one is a
constant multiple of the other, i. e. there
is a constant ratio between 2 quantities, y= kx
vertical / vertical
angles
up and down, as opposed to
horizontalangles opposite one another at the
intersection of two lines
period 3 numbers in place value between
commas in a list of whole numbers, such
as in 123,456,789, the numbers 456 are
in the thousands period
or
having a graph that repeats after a fixedinterval (period) of the independent
variable
Figure 4. Sample o homophones in science and mathematics.
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
10/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201110
Confusing Language (contd.)
Shared VocabularyWhile many words are used differently in mathematics and science, science and
mathematics also share a common vocabulary (see Figure 5). That is, several words have
the same or similar denition in both science and mathematics. For example, co-linear
means lying on the same line in both science and mathematics.
Recognition of Confusing Language by National Mathematics StandardsThe National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) realizes the difculty that
students have deciphering between everyday or natural language and content specic
language in mathematics. To address this difculty, NCTM suggests that teachers make a
conscious effort to help students with confusing words. According to NCTM:
eachers can help students see that some words that are used in everyday language, such as similar,actor, area, or unction, are used in mathematics with diferent or more-precise meanings. Tis
observation is the oundation or understanding the concepts o mathematical denitions. It isimportant to give students experiences that help them appreciate the power and precision omathematical language. (NCM, 2000, p. 63)
This disconnect between natural language and content specic language is especially
apparent in an algebra class. Driscoll (1999) identies the ability to model real situations
mathematically as one of the central purposes for algebra. Therefore, the capacity to
translate from natural language to algebraic expression is crucial. Helping students to
Figure 5. Sample o words with common meanings in science and mathematics.
Word/Term
Meaning is the same in both Science & Mathematics
co-linear lying on the same line
order of operations Rules that determine the order in which operations should be
performed
perpendicular Meeting at or forming a 90o
angle
radian A unit for measuring angles
square a parallelogram with all sides congruent and all angles
congruent
or
value with an exponent of two, n2
theorem statement that can be mathematically proven (not to beconfused with a theory)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
11/33
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
12/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201112
Confusing Language (contd.)
Understanding rather than vocabulary shouldbe the main purpose o science teaching.However, unambiguous terminology is alsoimportant in scientic communication and
ultimatelyor understanding. I teachersintroduce technical terms only as needed toclariy thinking and promote efective commu-nication, then students will gradually build aunctional vocabulary that will survive beyondthe next test. For teachers to concentrate onvocabulary, however, is to detract rom scienceas a process, to put learning or understand-ing in jeopardy, and to risk being misled aboutwhat students have learned.(AAAS, 1989, p. 203)
We are not suggesting drilling on
vocabulary denitions. Many recommen-
dations focus on conceptual understand-
ing instead of rote memorization of deni-
tions. Facts and formulas are important in
mathematics and science, but memorizing
vocabulary or mathematics tables does little
to explain or make sense of the concepts
behind them. Without a deep cognitive
understanding, knowledge is easily forgot-ten. True understanding involves a much
deeper approach to learning about concepts,
and this takes time. Effective teachers teach
topics in greater depth in order to deepen
student understanding (Barber, Parizeau,
& Bergman, 2002). This requires a careful
review of materials to ensure that important
knowledge is selected and taught as recom-
mended by AAAS in Science for All Ameri-
cans(SFAA) and referred to in (BSL), rather
than a laundry list of vocabulary words:
SFAA uses only those technical terms thatscientists believed ought to be part o everyadults vocabulary. Te clear purpose was toree teachers rom spending most o their timeand energy teaching science vocabulary and letthem concentrate on teaching meaningul sci-
ence. Te pressure to cover the curriculum andtest the students oten leads people teachers,administrators, test makers and parents tobe willing to accept the glib use o technical
terms as evidence o understanding. Studentswill soon orget all o those technical wordsanyway. Few adults can condently distinguishbetween revolve and rotate, reect and reract,meiosis and mitosis, mass and weight, ordersand amilies, igneous and metamorphic rocks,nimbus and cumulus clouds, mitochrondriaand ribosomes. (AAAS, 1993, p. 312)
Yet, a problem with emphasizing un-
necessary academic vocabulary still exists,
particularly with state and district assess-
ments that focus on vocabulary. Instead,
the CSM team is encouraging district sci-
ence and mathematics teachers, instruc-
tional specialists, coordinators and admin-
istrators to become aware of this issue of
confusing language between science and
mathematics and to address this serious
problem for our students. Equally impor-
tant is that state and national assessment
leaders and policymakers have a similarunderstanding of this issue and the rami-
cations for our nations quest to improve
STEM education.
Our PurposeThe purpose of this article is to alert
science and mathematics teachers and other
STEM stakeholders to the profound effect
that confusing language between science
and mathematics has on students under-
standing of each discipline. However, thevalue is not in identifying and sharing what
the CSMteam and others have discovered.
More importantly, science and mathematics
teachers and their students should discover
and clarify confusing language for them-
selves through rich conversations. Teach-
ers can have these rich conversations only if
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
13/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201113
Confusing Language (contd.)
the administration provides adequate daily team planning time. Subsequently, similar rich
conversations should occur in classrooms among students and teachers.
An Invitation to Contribute
We will continue to compile a list of confusing words as we discover them. We inviteyou to share any confusing words that you identify with us, and we will make them avail-
able to everyone. Please send the words you identify as confusing to Dr. Sandra West at
Reerences
American Association or the Advancement o Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. NewYork, NY: Oxord University Press.
American Association or the Advancement o Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York, NY: Oxord University Press.
Author. (2006). e Texas Science Teacher.
Barber, J., Parizeau, N., & Bergman, L. (2002). Spark your childs success in math and science. Berkeley, CA: TeRegents o the University o Caliornia.
Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers grades 6-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Homophone. (n. d.). InMerriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved rom
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophone
Lemke, J. (1988). Genres, semantics, and classroom education. Linguistics and Education 1, 81-99.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association orSupervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teachers manual. Alexandria, VA:Association or Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Center or Education Statistics (NCES, 2009). Comparing TIMSS with NAEP and PISA in
mathematics and science. Retrieved rom http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
National Council o eachers o Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
mailto:sw04%40txstate.edu?subject=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophonehttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcardhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcardhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophonemailto:sw04%40txstate.edu?subject=8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
14/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201114
Confusing Language (contd.)
Authors Note
Tis research was support in part by grants rom the exas Higher Education Coordinating Board, exas SpaceGrant Consortium and the Fund or Improvement o Undergraduate Education with additional unding romexas State University- San Marcos and the University o Houston Clear Lake.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sandra S. West, Department o Biology, exasState University, San Marcos, X, 78666.E-mail: [email protected]
Range. (n. d.). InMerriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved romhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/range
Synonym. (n. d.). InMerriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved rom
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym
Sandra S. West is an Associate Professor of Biology at Texas
State University San Marcos who teaches science and science
methods courses for teachers, supervises science and mathematics
student teachers, and whose research interests include integrated
science and mathematics, safety and inquiry.
Sandra T. Browning is an Assistant Professor at the University of
Houston-Clear Lake. She teaches mathematics methods courses for
teachers and is the coordinator of graduate interns in curriculum andinstruction. Her research interests include integrated science and
mathematics, teacher efcacy, and classroom questioning strategies.
mailto:sw04%40txstate.edu?subject=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rangehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonymhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonymhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rangemailto:sw04%40txstate.edu?subject=8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
15/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201115
Enhancing Science Knowledge Trough ProvenInstructional Strategies
by Gloria Gresham, et. al.
Many elementary teachers arechallenged to t science into their dailyschedules partially due to reading and math
expectations reiterated in the No Child Left
Behind Acts goal of all students perform-
ing at or above grade level by the year 2014
(ED.gov, 2008). Oftentimes, in an effort to
meet accountability expectations, elemen-
tary teachers concentrate on reading and
math instruction and nd that they are left
with precious little time to devote to science.
Moreover, numerous teachers in elementary
schools discover learning science content
challenging for students because the vocab-
ulary of science is more specialized with new
words being frequently introduced through-
out the text (Baer & Nourie, 1993; Ediger,
2002). The faculty of an elementary campus
in East Texas was no different in that teach-
ers found the teaching of science a constant
challenge. For these instructors, a conse-
quence of their reading and math focus was
that their state standardized test scores inscience, the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAKS), were lower than reading and
mathematics scores. In fact, science TAKS
scores had prevented the campus from
performing above the Acceptable level on
the Texas accountability ranking system for
several years.
After much discussion, the teachers
decided to attack this concern by engag-
ing the assistance of three local universityprofessors. First, the professors facilitated a
review of current literature relating to effec-
tive instructional strategies and the teach-
ing of science. Through the review, teach-
ers gained knowledge of the importance of
inquiry learning, of using vocabulary and
comprehension strategies to boost reading,
of employing a method for releasing cogni-
tive responsibility to students, and of how
to engage students in science learning in ameaningful way.
In examining research on inquiry
learning, the teachers discovered that in-
quiry is the foundation of science instruction
because learning science requires students
to intellectually and physically interact with
and question content while the instructor
moderates the process through explana-
tions, clarications, and examinations
(Hammerman, 2006. p. xxv). Teachers alsofound that Teaching Standard A of the Na-
tional Science Education Standards (1996)
expected them to deliver an inquiry-based
science program and assess the learning
strategies to ascertain student development
of science knowledge. A proven inquiry plan-
ning model was analyzed, the 5 E Learn-
ing Cycle Model, which included a ve-step
lesson delivery approach: Engagement,
Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, andEvaluation (Coe, 2001). Engagement referred
to an object, event, or question to engage
students and connecting to what students
know and can do. Exploration employed
hands-on activities with teacher guidance.
The Explanation phase consisted of students
explaining concepts learned in Exploration,
and the teacher introducing new concepts
and clarifying concepts. Elaboration was the
step where students applied learning. Final-
ly, Evaluation included students assessingtheir own knowledge as well as the teacher
assessing knowledge gained.
In their review of vocabulary and read-
ing instructional strategies, teachers discov-
ered that since reading capacity affects stu-
dents grasp of science content, systematic
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
16/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201116
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
and explicit vocabulary instruction is one of
the most important instructional interven-
tions teachers can employ to aide student
understanding (Marzano, Pickering, & Pol-
lock, 2006). In a similar manner, compre-hension is enhanced through implementing
modeling strategies and graphic organizers.
Shared reading, echo reading, choral read-
ing, and paired reading are modeling strate-
gies teachers can employ to assist readers
with challenging material (Carbo, 1997).
Shared reading involves the teacher plac-
ing text in front of students, reading while
pointing to the words, and pausing to ask
questions. Echo reading, according to Carbo(1997), is when the teacher discusses a
passage and reads the text aloud while the
students follow along in the text. Then, the
teacher reads a small portion of the text,
and students read it back. Choral reading
includes reading a passage in unison, and
paired reading is when two students take
turns reading a passage. When students are
uent and can read with little support, they
engage in independent or silent reading.
It was discovered that responding to
reading assists students in constructing
meaning and comprehending text. Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock (2006) found that us-
ing non-linguistic organizers and identifying
similarities and differences increases stu-
dent performance. Reading and then writing
about what one reads also promotes critical-
thinking and conceptual understanding
(Baker, et al., 2004; Wallace, Hand, & Prain,
2004). More importantly for this study in
particular, the teachers found that requir-
ing students to complete various writing
exercises, such as exploratory writing, eld
notes, description, and written discussion of
experiments, are critical elements of inquiry
learning and science instruction (Ryan and
Walking-Woman 2000).
The next review of literature involved
examining the concept of releasing or trans-
ferring cognitive responsibility for learning
from teacher to student. According to the
Pearson and Gallagher model, the respon-sibility for completing a task follows this
sequence: (1) teacher responsibility, (2) joint
responsibility between the teacher and stu-
dents, and (3) student responsibility (1983).
Diehl (2008) dened this release of respon-
sibility, from outer control to inner control
(p. 1). It is the outer control to inner control
that allows students to become independent
learners.
Because active intellectual and physi-
cal engagement is critical to learning, teach-
ers also reviewed what experts said about
social interaction and learning. They found
that Vygotskys (1978) theory of learning is
embedded in social interaction. Vygotsky
believed that a students learning is inter-
psychological; meaning is gained through
interaction with others. Schlechty (2001)
described this collaboration or afliation as
displayed by interaction from instructor tostudent, student to instructor, and student
to student (2001). When considering both
the importance of social learning and the
Gradual Release of Responsibility Model,
teachers detected that collaborative work is
a method of gradually releasing responsi-
bility. To release responsibility was viewed
by the teachers as a process, moving from
a teacher-directed whole group lesson, to
small group participation, to partner work,
and nally to the individual. Small group
interaction, in particular, provides an av-
enue for greater participation, feedback, and
mutual construction of meaning when com-
pared to whole-group participation (Evertson
& Emmer, 2009).
...Continued on Page 18.
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
17/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201117
Lessons on Caring (contd.)Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Region 4s Gateways to Biologyis a year-long instructionalprogram utilizing a less-is-more approach that maximizesopportunity for student learning of the specific concepts and
processes mandated by the 2010 TEKS for Biology. This
instructional resource features a full-color student edition
organized around thematic units within a spiraling curriculum.
More than 50% of the instructional time is hands-onexperiences, making learning fun and interesting for todays
students. In addition, research-based literacy strategies are
embedded to help meet the needs of the struggling reader.
STAAR versions of Gateways to Sciencefor grades 38 are now available for preorder bycontacting [email protected]. Chemistry and Physics editions are currently in development.
Teacher comments from the pilot
testing of Gateways to Biology:
Gateways to Biologyengages studentsand keeps them active. It makes them moreresponsible for their own learning.
Gateways to Biologygives students lifelongskills to help throughout high school.
I like what it offers. I like the hands-onspiraling approach. Its what scienceneeds to be . . .
For customized professional development andlarge-quantity orders, contact [email protected]
or order online at www.region4store.com.Teacher Edition: 460-1505 Student Edition: 460-1506
Reproducible masters forclassroom activities andlaboratory investigations
Microscope slide jpeg files
Lesson plan calendar
TEKS correlation chart
Five curriculum-basedassessments
EOC simulation
The included Gateways to Biologyteacher resource CD features
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
18/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201118
As the teachers synthesized ndings
from the literature review, they crafted a
plan of attack. Since the district required
implementation of a curriculum aligned to
the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills(TEKS) that outlined units of study, the
teachers decided to build on this curricu-
lum and focus on a structured planning
approach that included information from
the literature review. Their solution was to
create and employ a ve-day planning and
instruction model titled the Science Con-
tent Weekly Planning Model (see Figure 1),
reminiscent of the 5 E Learning Cycle Model.
This new model would include specic read-ing and writing strategies, a schedule to im-
plement the concept of the gradual release of
responsibility, and specially designed forma-
tive and summative assessments. For ex-
ample, each week of instruction ended with
a short, TAKS-formatted practice and elimi-
nated the test preparation drill and kill ac-
tivities that had revealed little success in the
past. In addition, a new type of assessment
was added that required students to reect
upon their ndings and synthesize results.
Weekly, teachers focused on one par-
ticular standard of the TEKS outlined in
the districts aligned curriculum four to ve
week unit of study. Each day of the week
had specic purposes and instructional
strategies intended to foster inquiry learning
and comprehension of science knowledge.
Teachers believed this consistency would
provide structure, and, that over time, stu-
dents would gradually learn the purpose for
each days instruction as well as how that
day was an important part of the overall
plan.
Day OneThis days intent was setting the
weeks objective, engaging attention, con-
ducting a eld investigation, debrieng, and
transferring learning. The objective was stat-
ed in student-friendly terms, formally writ-
ten, and posted for the week. For example,
the objective for the fourth grade TEKS, 5 (C)compare and contrast a variety of mixtures
and solutions such as rocks in sand, sand
in water, or sugar in water might look like
this, You will learn what the word mixture
means and tell how a variety of mixtures are
alike and how they are different. Following
the discussion of the weeks purpose, the
teachers assessed student prior knowledge
relating to the upcoming eld investigation
by implementing a graphic organizer suchas a Circle Map. A Circle Map is one of eight
Thinking Maps used to dene what stu-
dents know (Hyerle, 1996).
Next, an inquiry-based eld investiga-
tion relating to the content was introduced
to students as a problem to solve (National
Science Education Standards, 1996). In
teams, students noted the stated problem in
their science journals, crafted and applied
their hypotheses, recorded results, and thencomposed conclusions. Teachers served as
guides to assist and clarify understanding
as small groups of students completed their
investigation. For example, when students
studied mixtures, the stated problem was
to determine how to separate sand from
iron lings in a closed, glass tube. Students
actively engaged in solving this problem and
were thrown into the content, the eld in-
vestigation, prior to formal instruction over
vocabulary. The science class ended with
teachers questioning students about their
learning as a formative assessment provid-
ing a foundation for the transfer of learning
to the next day (Sousa, 2006).
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
19/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201119
Figure 1. Science Content Weekly Planning Model
Science Content Weekly Planning Model
S
Set the
Weeks
Objective/
Purpose
DAY TWO
1. Access Prior
Knowledge
2. Vocabulary Instruction
3. Content Reading
(Shared, Echo, Choral,
Paired, Independent)
4. Responding to Text
with Graphic Organizers
5.Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment
DAY THREE
1. Access Prior
Knowledge
2. Explicit, Engaging
Instruction
3. Team Inquiry
Activities
4. Partner Application
Activities
5. Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment
DAY FOUR
1. Access Prior
Knowledge
2. Individually Work the
Text
3. Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment
DAY ONE
1. Access Prior
Knowledge
2. Present Problem toSolve
3. Field Investigation
Using Scientific Method
4. Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment
DAY FIVE
1. SummativeAssessment
a. TAKS-
formatted
questions
(5 to 10)
b. Scenario Essay
Gloria Gresham
Work: PO Box 13018, SFA Station
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
936 468 1751
Home: 3919 Timberwood Drive
Nacogdoches, TX 75965
936 560 9221
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
20/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201120
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
Day TwoFirst, teachers used graphic organizers or posed questions to access and review con-
tent learned from the previous day (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2006). Next was a text
connection to the previous days eld investigation. Students would spend time in learningthe meanings of the vocabulary introduced during the previous days eld investigation.
During vocabulary instruction, teachers implemented strategies for vocabulary building,
as well as content reading and writing connections. Vocabulary strategies implemented
such as Word Charts required students to craft denitions, dene characteristics, and list
examples and non-examples of each term. Then, content reading strategies were employed
to provide a way for students to work expository text relating to the eld investigation
content. Since not all students were instructionally ready to read grade level text, teach-
ers provided opportunities for less able readers to see effective reading being modeled. The
strategies were chosen were based on the needs of the students.
Students who needed some support worked in pairs while independent, uent read-
ers worked alone. Teachers met individually and in small groups with readers requiring
more reading support. Moving from strategy one, shared reading, to strategy ve, silent/
independent reading, each strategy required increasingly more reading independence of
students and less modeling by teachers (Carbo, 1997). As the year progressed, all of the fol-
lowing strategies were utilized.
1. Shared Reading The teacher read the story while pointing out key words and pausing
to ask questions.
2. Echo Reading The teacher read aloud a small portion of the text, and the students
read the same portion back to the teacher.3. Choral Reading The teacher and students read a passage in unison.
4. Paired Reading Two students alternated reading a passage. The teacher paired a more
able reader with a less able reader.
5. Silent/Independent Reading Each student read alone.
Two types of formative assessment of student work were employed. First, students
completed graphic organizers in their science journals in response to readings. Text struc-
ture determined which type of thinking was required and which type of organizer was ap-
propriate. Eight different organizers called Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 1996) plus Venn Dia-
grams were used during the year (see Figure 2).
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
21/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201121
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
Figure 2. Responding to ext Trough Graphic Organizer
Te rst graphic organizer shown in this photograph is a VenDiagram. Te student responded to text and compared andcontrasted a conductor to an insulator. In the second graphicorganizer, a Circle Map, the student dened an electric circu
After students completed the graphic organizer, they reected on their learning for
the day by answering questions such as, What was learned? and writing in their science
journals (see Figure 3).
The graphic organizer and reection provided daily formative assessment of student
understanding. Finally, the days lesson closed by previewing the next days content.
Figure 3. Displaying Learning Trough a ree Ma
Shown is a ree Map. Te student constructed herinterpretation o this graphic organizer as needed tdisplay what she learned during the lesson.
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
22/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201122
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
Day ThreeTeachers opened Day Three with in-
struction that purposefully activated knowl-
edge acquired in Day One and Day Two,
explicitly lling in needed content or clearing
up any misconceptions. PowerPoint pre-
sentations, demonstrations, and video clips
were utilized for instructional input as well
as reinforcement. On Day Three, the focus
of the lesson was on the concept of cogni-
tive responsibility gradually shifting from
teacher to students (Pearson and Gallagher,
1983). First, students worked in teams to
construct knowledge through engaging in,
inquiry-based group activities. One suchactivity was learning the difference between
inherited and learned behaviors through a
scenario concerning horse behaviors and
physical traits. Next, to continue the process
of releasing more cognitive responsibility,
students were paired and engaged in other
application activities to rehearse content.
The class ended with teachers asking stu-
dents to individually reect upon what was
learned, thus providing formative assess-
ment. As a result of these activities on DayThree, students rehearsed content through
whole group, small group, partner format,
and nally individual reection, thereby
following the process of gradually releasing
cognitive responsibility from whole group
instruction by the teacher to individual stu-
dent reection.
Day FourThe cognitive shift of responsibil-
ity continued on Day Four. After activating
students knowledge of the previous days
content, students responded orally to ques-
tions that required closed (one-answer) and
open-ended responses (more than one an-
swer). Individually, students engaged with
text passages that were previously read on
Tuesday and supported answers with evi-
dence from the text. The intent was to pro-
vide students with rehearsal so they would
have additional opportunities to retain con-
tent (Sousa, 2006). The role of the teachers
in this strategy was to guide and support.
Next, students engaged in a writing activity
that provided connection to content. Teach-
ers assigned one of the following as a writing
activity, summary, gist, main idea, or three
facts learned, and charged students with the
task of reecting upon the weeks content
in their science journal. These opportuni-
ties provided the teachers with an additional
means of formative assessment prior to the
next days formal, summative assessment.The class concluded with students reviewing
the days learning and teachers previewing
the events of the next day.
Day FiveThe nal step in the Science content
Model Planning Model was a formal, sum-
mative assessment involving two types of as-
sessment items: application-level, multiple-
choice questions and a written assessment
(Khatri, Reeve, & Kane, 1998). The short,multi-choice questions were developed to
mirror the format of the state standardized,
fth grade science exam (TAKS). The short
answer written assessment consisted of a
scenario that required students to think crit-
ically and synthesize what they had learned
during the week.
Evidence of SuccessThe Science Content Weekly Plan-
ning Model was instrumental in focusing
instruction on science at the elementary
level and in implementing proven instruc-
tional strategies that led to academic suc-
cess and science knowledge gain. At the end
of the second year of implementation, the
campus achieved the rating of Recognized,
the intended goal. Even more exciting was
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
23/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201123
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
the change in attitude toward science that students exhibited. The teachers reported that
students were eager to walk into the room; You could see it in their eyes when they graced
the door, exclaimed one teacher. Observations revealed that during science class, stu-
dents were actively engaged, responsible for their learning, and worked cooperatively. One
example of this success in science was shown by a student identied for special educationservices. Previously, the student had never passed any state examination. Over the course
of the year, the student began to raise his hand to answer questions and participated in
all group and individual work. His special education teacher asked his teacher what he
was doing to inspire the student. The special education teacher noticed a marked, positive
change in the students retention capacity and learning attitude. When the state science as-
sessment results were received, this student passed!
In addition, responses by the teachers involved in The Science Content Weekly Plan-
ning Model revealed that the model was easy to implement because it provided more a
consistent structure of daily activities and simplied planning. Students and teachers knewwhat was expected and focused learning on identied state curriculum standards. Included
in the Model are proven instructional strategies that emphasize students constructing sci-
ence knowledge through an inquiry approach.
Gloria Gresham is an associate proessor in the Department o SecondaryEducation and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University.She has served as a teacher, administrator, and university proessor.
Linda Blackis an assistant proessor in the Department o Secondary Educa-tion and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University. She isvery involved in Advanced Placement in Texas.
Alan Sowards is a proessor in the Department o Elementary Education atStephen F. Austin State University. He is a well-known and utilized consultantin the area o elementary science instruction.
Kimberly Welsh is an assistant proessor in the Department o ElementaryEducation at Stephen F. Austin State University. Her area o expertise is read-ing.
Ken Dickerson is presently an assistant principal at McMichael MiddleSchool in Nacogdoches Independent School District (NISD). He has servedas a ourth and fth grade teacher in NISD.
Authors Biographical Information
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
24/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201124
Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)
Reerences
Baker, W. P., Barstack, R., Clark, D., Hull, E., & Goodman, B. et al. (2008). Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: Eective
strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. Clearing House, 81(3), 105-108.
Baer, G. ., & Nourie, B. L. (1993). Strategies for teaching reading in the content areas. Clearing House, 67(2), 121-122.
Carbo, M. (1997). What every principal should know about teaching reading. New York: National Reading Institute.
Coe, M. A. (2001). Te 5 E learning cycle model. Retrieved rom http://faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/inquire/inquiry.htm
Ediger, M. (20020. Factors which make reading expository text dicult. Journal o Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 312-317.
ED.gov. (2008). Dierentiated accountability: A more nuanced system to better target resources. Retrieved romhttp://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet.html
Evertson, C. M. & Emmer, E. . (2009). Classroom management for elementary teachers (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hamerman, E. (2006).Eight essentials of inquiry-based science. Tousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association or Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Khattri, N., Reeve, A. L., & Kane, M. B. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (20060. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing studentachievement. Alexandria, VA: Association or Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Research Council. (1996).National science education standards: Standard A. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. (1983). e instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317344.
Ryan, P., & Walking-Woman, I. (2000). Linking writing to the process of scientic inquiry: Strategies from writing teachers in the disciplines.Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department o Education. ERIC Doc. Rep. No. ED458655.
Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns (2nd Ed.). Tousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tinking Maps. (2009) Tinking Maps, Incorporated. Retrieved rom http://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htm
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. , and Prain. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
http://%20http//faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/inquire/inquiry.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet.htmlhttp://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htmhttp://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htmhttp://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet.htmlhttp://%20http//faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/inquire/inquiry.htm8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
25/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201125
Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth Area IndependentSchool Districts
by Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.
AbstractIn an efort to glean insights into the Dal-
las Region Science and Engineering Fair (DRSEF)
participation rom Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) areaindependent school districts (ISDs) as a measure ostudent interest and competitiveness in Secondary Sci-ence Education (grades 7 12), a research analysis o12 years o DRSEF data (1999 - 2010) was undertak-en, with specic ocus on the most recent 4-year data(2007 - 2010). Plano ISD, with 11.7% o the total an-nual student enrollment share o the area ISDs, leadsthe pack with 46.9% share o the total projects partici-pating at the DRSEF and a participation index (PI)o 402, indicating a more-than-our-times the averagelikelihood o participation at the competitive event.Coppell ISD with only 2.3% o the student enroll-ment share had a participation index o 322. Amongthe 13 major ISDs included in the analysis, DallasISD with the largest student enrollment (30% o total)ranked a distant 8th (PI = 60) and Garland ISD withthe second-largest (12.6%) student enrollment ranked7th (PI = 70) in DRSEF participation index. Interest-ingly, Plano ISD, with the highest number o projectsentering DRSEF in both Physical and Lie sciences
categories, had higher number o project entries in thePhysical sciences category than in Lie sciences cat-egory. By contrast, Dallas, Garland and McKinney,three other ISDs with signicant number o partici-pating projects, had more projects in Lie sciences cat-egory than in Physical sciences. Te ndings reportedhere have signicant educational (science education, inparticular) and community implications in the DFWmetropolis.
Introduction
Another year of Elementary and Sec-ondary Schools Science Fair competitions
has gone by for the Independent School
Districts (ISDs) in DFW metroplex. As is
well known, participants compete in several
science-subject categories at their schools,
rst. The winners then advance to the dis-
trict level and from there go to regional, state
and international level competitions. With
hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake in
scholarships and awards, the competition atthis event is intense and at the highest level
can be termed as Science Olympiad for pre-
teens and teens.
Speaking of teens competing in
Science, let us look at some facts as they
relate to Science literacy of U.S. students in
the international context. In a recent inter-
national exam Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA), 2006 - that is
supposed to assess the ability of 15-year-
olds to apply Math and Science knowledge in
real-life situation, students from the United
states ranked 21st among the 30 countries
of the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD) that were part
of this competitive assessment (1). Results
from the study showed that U.S. students
scored lower than the OECD average and
that they lagged behind their peers in 6 of
the 27 non-OECD countries in Science lit-eracy (1, 2). Although there are differing
opinions among experts on the validity of
this study, results nevertheless support the
notion that all is not well with the Science
Education in the United States; perhaps
there is either a declining interest in Science
education among U.S. students or quality of
Science education in the nation, something
which is not easy to measure, has been de-
teriorating.
Another report (3) also provides sup-
porting evidence that even though overall
enrollment in Science and Technology (S&T)
elds increased in the last 15 years, the rel-
ative share of S&T enrollment has declined.
The policy report also pointed out that the
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
26/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201126
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (contd.)
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)
existing statistical data are not adequate for
measuring and analyzing the levels of stu-
dent interest. With this backdrop, the cur-
rent study was undertaken with the follow-
ing objectives:
To analyze the recent trends in Dallas
Regional Science and Engineering Fair
(DRSEF) participation, as a measure of
interest/competitiveness in science edu-
cation, at the junior (grades 7 & 8) and
senior (grades 9 12) divisions of DFW
area ISDs of public-school system, char-
ter schools and other private institutions
To share the case-study analytical nd-
ings with the science coordinators and/
or administrators of ISDs so that with the
supporting evidence they have of their
level of Science-fair participation vis--vis
their peers they can make an informed
decision on improving their science edu-
cation
To publicize the results of the case study
so that legislators and policy makers at
the State-level and administrators of ISDs
devise ways for maintaining (whereverISDs have an edge over others) and/or
improving Science education in ISDs
Denitions of Metrics/Analytical
Techniques
Average or Mean arithmetic average of
the data included in the study or analysis
Data normalization is a technique
that allows data in different scales to be
brought to a common scale with the ap-plication of a mathematical or statistical
operation so that the data can be com-
pared and valid conclusions drawn.
Participation per thousand (PPT) = (num-
ber of participating projects/students
enrolled)*1000.
Participation Index (PI) = (share of sci-
ence-fair participation as % total/share
of student enrollment as % of total)*100.
Indexing is a data normalization tech-
nique that helps make apples-to-applescomparison of various ISDs on their level
of participation. An index of 100 indicates
average participation. Participation index
of >100 (over-indexing) is above-average
participation and
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
27/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201127
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Science-Fair Scorecard(contd.)
the computation of metrics (see metrics denitions above) so that valid comparisons of ISDs
could be made both at the division level and science-category level.
Analytical Findings
Overall senior-division science-fair participation trends (1999 2010)The long-term trend on science-fair participation at the senior-division level is pre-
sented in Fig. 1. Although substantial year-to-year variation is discernible (blue line), there
is a declining trend (red trend line) in general. Average number of project entries in the
DRSEF senior division in the last six years (2005-2010) was 14% lower than that in the
prior six years (1999-2004), while the average student enrollment increased 17% (Fig. 2)
between 1999 and 2009 academic years.
NB: DRSEF data or 2010 in Fig 1 above corresponds to academic-year studentenrollment data or 2009 in Fig 2 and so on.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
Projects432 392 396 375 404 307 329 357 291 294 372 332
y = 1.5382x2 - 28.853x + 460.98
R = 0.6153
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
NumberofProjectsParticipating
Fig. 1. Total Senior Division (Grades 9-12) Projects Participating in Dallas
Regional Science Fair, 1999 - 2010
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Students
Enrolled103,18 101,88 112,10 113,27 118,54 126,75 126,88 132,39 134,56 136,93 137,12
Senior
Division
StudentsEnrolled
Fig. 2. Total Students Enrolled in ISDs around D/FW Metroplex,
Grades 9 - 12, 1999 - 2009
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
28/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201128
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)
The declining numbers of senior-level projects observed above can be explained, at
least in part, by the signicant reduction in DRSEF participation from two large ISDs, Rich-
ardson and Irving. Participation from other new ISDs such as Coppell, McKinney, Frisco,
Cedar Hill, De Soto and Lancaster in the last four years was not enough to offset the declin-ing trend. Evidently, the decline in participation at DRSEF is even steeper at the junior-
level (trend data not available; Dr. S. Dalley, personal communication).
ISDs participation trends by division in the last four years (2007 2010)Plano ISD has consistently had the lions share of projects participating in DRSEF in
both junior and senior divisions, followed by Dallas ISD (Table 1). It is important to note
that Coppell and McKinney ISDs have steadily increased their share of participating proj-
ects at DRSEF over the last four years, surpassing Garland ISD in the last two years. Also
signicant to note is that Dallas ISD whose participation at the fair has been decreasing
since 2007 has rebounded back in 2010, with a total of 113 projects, majority of which
(65%) was at the junior-division.
Table 1. Number o Science Project Entries by Division at the Dallas Regional Science and EngineeringFair (2007 - 2010).
School District
2007 2008 2009 2010
Junior Senior
Total-
2007 Junior Senior
Total-
2008 Junior Senior
Total-
2009 Junior Senior
Total-
2010
Allen ISD 6 1 7 11 2 13 10 1 11 6 1 7
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 20 14 34 12 16 28 4 17 21 4 21 25
Cedar Hill ISD 0 0 0 3 2 5 6 11 17 8 9 17
Coppell ISD 12 15 27 24 14 38 29 27 56 27 23 50
Dallas Diocese 9 21 30 0 21 21 4 16 20 0 0 0
Dallas ISD 69 51 120 58 49 107 38 40 78 73 40 113
De Soto ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0
Frisco ISD 0 0 0 11 0 11 10 1 11 9 1 10
Garland ISD 39 21 60 27 24 51 17 33 50 16 26 42
Harmony Science Academy (Charter) 19 20 39 12 19 31 18 28 46 13 18 31
Irving ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
Kemp ISD 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancaster ISD 0 8 8 0 13 13 2 5 7 8 8 16
McKinney ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 57 0 57
Mesquite ISD 22 9 31 12 0 12 9 0 9 4 2 6
Plano ISD 137 126 263 119 118 237 130 170 300 134 149 283Richardson ISD 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 3 3 0 10 10
Waxahachie ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2
Other* 7 4 11 3 7 10 4 7 11 17 22 39
Grand Total 340 291 631 292 294 586 328 372 700 376 332 708
* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specifc or otherwise)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
29/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201129
Lessons on Caring (contd.)
Science-Fair Scorecard(contd.)
ISDs participation trends by science-category in the last three years (2007 2010)Table 2 shows the most recent 4-year DFW area-ISDs participation trend in Physi-
cal vs. Life Sciences categories. Plano ISD, with the highest number of projects entering
DRSEF in both Physical and Life sciences categories, had higher number of project entries
in the Physical sciences category than in Life sciences category. By contrast, Dallas,
Garland and McKinney, three other ISDs with signicant number of participating projects
had more projects in Life sciences category than in Physical sciences. Coppell ISD partici-
pation was more evenly spread between the two science categories, except in 2009.
Table 2. Number o Science Project Entries by Category at the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair(2007 - 2010).
School District
2007 2008 2009 2010
Life Physical
Total-
2007 Life Physical
Total-
2008 Life Physical
Total-
2009 Life Physical
Total
2010
Allen ISD 3 4 7 6 7 13 5 6 11 3 4 7
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 14 20 34 6 22 28 9 12 21 9 16 25
Cedar Hill ISD 0 0 0 2 3 5 11 6 17 13 4 17
Coppell ISD 13 14 27 19 19 38 31 25 56 23 27 50
Dallas Diocese 16 14 30 19 2 21 9 11 20 0 0 0
Dallas ISD 84 36 120 69 38 107 46 32 78 68 45 113
De Soto ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 0
Frisco ISD 0 0 0 6 5 11 2 9 11 4 6 10
Garland ISD 38 22 60 31 20 51 29 21 50 29 13 42
Harmony Science Academy (Charter) 19 20 39 12 19 31 17 29 46 16 15 31
Irving ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
Kemp ISD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancaster ISD 4 4 8 11 2 13 3 4 7 9 7 16
McKinney ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 17 47 32 25 57
Mesquite ISD 14 17 31 5 7 12 2 7 9 3 3 6
Plano ISD 119 144 263 108 129 237 135 165 300 126 157 283
Richardson ISD 0 0 0 5 4 9 3 0 3 7 3 10
Waxahachie ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2
Other* 5 6 11 5 5 10 10 1 11 21 18 39
Grand Total 330 301 631 304 282 586 348 352 700 364 344 708
* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specifc or otherwise)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
30/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201130
ISDs participation relative to student enrollment in the last four years (2007 2010)Among the major ISDs in the DFW Metroplex (Table 3), Plano ISD, with a share of
11.7% of the student enrollment had not only had the highest number of projects partici-
pating at the DRSEF (46.9% of total) but also the highest number of participation per 1000students enrolled (11.61 PPT) in grades 7 12 that make up the combined junior and se-
nior divisions of the Dallas regional-level competition. Dallas ISD accounted for 2nd high-
est number of participating projects, on an average, but ranks 8th in PPT, although it ranks
rst (30.0%) among the DFW area ISDs in the percent share of student enrollment.
Computation of a metric called Participation Index (PI) by normalizing the participa-
tion data with the student enrollment data (see denition above), allows us to compare the
DRSEF participation of various ISDs on the same scale. Therefore, PI is a true reection of
ISD participation at the competitive DRSEF. Note that PI of 100 is an average participation
>100 is above-average, whereas
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
31/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201131
ConclusionIf this study provides some supporting
evidence to the widely prevailing perception
that student-interest in science educationin the United States may be declining, then
there is a need to explore the subject further
and understand what factors might be con-
tributing to this decline. Based on the body
of knowledge available to us so far (1, 2, 3)
and current public and policy discussions/
debate happening on Science issues around
the country, it appears that a variety of fac-
tors demographic, cultural and/or social
- contributing either directly or acting in
concert with other factors, may be responsi-ble for the not-so-good state of affairs in the
nations science education today:
Science curriculum
An environment where the teaching of
Science and Math may be perceived as
burdensome
Quality of teachers and science teaching
Challenges in federal funding of educa-
tion relative to other priorities
Value placed by the general public on
education vs. athletics
In spite of the prior evidence (1, 2, 3)
and ndings of this study suggesting that
there has been a declining interest among
U.S. students in science education, it is
heartening to note that at least one of the
contributing factors listed above may be
changing for the better funding for educa-
tion, in general, and science education, inparticular. President Obama has promised
to increase funding for Science education.
Similar to honoring winning athletes at the
White House, President Obama hosted a
White House Science Fair, the rst ever,
on Oct 18, 2010, that fullls his promise of
Educate to Innovate campaign he launched
in Nov 2009 to inspire boys and girls to exce
in math and science. This is a welcome step,
however symbolic it may be, in the Federal
governments efforts to accord science therespect and the place it deserves and in
boosting the morale of all those who are in-
terested in working towards the betterment
of science education in the United States.
In addition to the immediate implica-
tions of this study to the science education
of DFW-area ISDs, what are the benets of
this study to society at large? An increased
participation in science fair not only stimu-
lates student interest in scientic inquiryand experimentation, but it also promotes
(a) public awareness about current science
issues and (b) a two-way dialogue and de-
bate between scientists and society at the
local level (6).
What can we do to promote DRSEFparticipation?
Schools (science teachers) need to publi-
cize better and reinforce the importance
of student participation in science fairs,
especially at the high-school level
Make participation in science fairs or sci-
ence research projects mandatory
Offer extra credit to students for partici-
pation in science fairs or science research
projects
Have award winners at the science fair
share their project ndings and participa-
tion experiences at school general assem-bly at their own schools as well as other
area schools
Encourage scientists engaged in research
at the local universities and/or research
institutes to share their scientic activi-
ties and/or act as mentors to budding
scientists at schools
Science-Fair Scorecard(contd.)
8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
32/33
e Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 201132
Science-Fair Scorecard(contd.)
Build and facilitate a culture of shared learning and interaction among area ISDs as
it relates to science-fair competition, science education and scientic investigation at
school level
AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Simon Dalley of SMU and Texas
Education Agency for providing the DRSEF data and student enrollment data respectively.
Reerences
Dr. Simon Dalley, DRSEF Chair Southern Methodist University, Dallas, X. Participating Junior and SeniorDivision Projects data. Personal Communication, 2009 and 2010.
National Center or Education Statistics, 2007. Highlights rom PISA 2006: Perormance o U.S. 15-Year-Old
Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context.http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016 [Web release Dec 4,2007; accessed 1/15/2010].
OECD Global Science Forum. 2008. Report rom a workshop onImproving the Dialogue with Society onScientic Issues, September 17-18, 2008 Paris, France. Retrieved February 10th, 2011 romwww.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/1/41019441.pdf
OECD, 2006. Evolution o Student Interest in Science and echnology Studies - Policy Report. RetrievedFebruary 10th, 2011 rom http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf
OECD, 2009. op o the Class High Perormers in Science in PISA 2006. Retrieved February 10th, 2011rom http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdf
exas Education Agency, Austin, X. 2009. ISDs Student Enrollment Data, 1999 - 2009.
Ramesh Hegde has a Ph.D. in Crop Science rom University oIllinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MBA in Marketing romthe University o exas at Dallas. He has 15 years o researchexperience in the area o Plant and Environmental Sciences. He
has been actively involved in judging or over 10 years in PlanoDistrict and Dallas Regional science airs.
http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/1/41019441.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/1/41019441.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=20080168/7/2019 April 2011 TST2
33/33
The Publication of the
Science Teachers Association of Texas
Solicits Manuscripts
Te Science eachers Association o exas (SA) publishes two periodicals: TeStatellite and
Te exas Science eacher.
TeStatellite is the associations newsletter with inormation and news rom the SA ocers, as well as SAAliates and Regional Directors. It contains continuing educational opportunites or science teachers, in-novative science activites, and other items o interest.
Te exas Science eacheris a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers pertinent to science education romall elds o science and science teaching. Contributions can be research articles, research notes, book reviewsand essays o general scientic interest.
For Both Publications:
All submitted material must be a signicant original contribution not being considered elsewhere or publi-cation. Inorm the editor i material included in the article is published on the web, as excessive duplicationshould be avoided and adequate links must be established. All manuscripts must be written in English.
Send an electronic copy o your manuscript to:
TeStatellite Editor at [email protected]
Dr. Joel Palmer, Te exas Science eacherEditor [email protected]
Include in the e-mail the author name(s), current e-mail and physical address(es), and a contact phonenumber. Indicate the publication or which the manuscript is submitted. wo reerees (reviewers) and the edi-
tor review all manuscripts. You will receive communication o original receipt and then o completed reviews.Submissions or both publications should ollow the Publication Manual o the American Psychological Asso-ciation, Fith Edition.
Guidelines - Te submission guidelines on-line: http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teach-er/tst-guidelines
Upon Acceptance - Return the edited manuscript as soon as possible as an e-mail attachment to the editor.Te manuscript must be returned in strict adherence to the instructions you receive with your manuscript.
Tables and Figures - All tables must be separate les in Microsot Word ormat. All images must be
separate les in .jpg, .psd, .ai, or other standard ormat. Te le name o each table or gure must relate toits place in the document (e.g. Figure 1.jpg). I submitting picture, they must be accompanied by a sepa-rate le, including a caption and the source (i.e. the name o the photographer and/or the image copyrightowner) or each image.
mailto:jpalmer59%40gmail.com?subject=http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/tst-guidelineshttp://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/tst-guidelineshttp://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/tst-guidelineshttp://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/tst-guidelinesmailto:jpalmer59%40gmail.com?subject=