Texas Science Teacher

Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

The

Enhancing Science Knowledge...

Discover Proven Instructional Strategies Utilizing Different Disciplines.

Budget Crisis Brings Tumult Over Education in Texas.

STAT Presidents Message

Confusing Language for Science and Math Students

How Vocabulary Can Influence Your Students Performance

A Study of How Participation Can Be a Predictor of Later Science Success.

Science-Fair Scorecard of DFW ISDs

ASSOCI ATION
HE RS

OF

TE

AC

IEN

CE

STAT

Official Publication of the Science Teachers Association of Texas

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

TE XA

SC

www.hmheducation.com/tx/science

Holt McDougal onE-STop

solutions
Enter the digital classroom and try our one-stop solutions for Texas Science at www.hmheducation.com/tx/science.

Lessons on Caring (contd.) Texas Supplemental Science

DigiTAl ClASSRoom

EngAgE
all learners
Resources include virtual labs, animations, and other rich media to meet the learning needs of all students.
DiffeRenTiATion

ExploRE
material for all TEKS
Search by TEKS to locate comprehensive instruction over all science concepts, as well as connections to current science issues through SciLinks, and correlations to current science programs.
new TeKS

Equip

students for success on STAAR

Prepare for STAAR with instruction, review, and practice assessments.

STAAR

The Texas Science Teacher Volume Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 03/11 40, Number 1 April 2011 Houghton Mifflin

Get LOOPY with LoopWriter Software Lessons on Caring (contd.)

TwentyA New Pandemic (contd.) Ways to Teach Vocbulary (contd.)

Collaboration, small group problem solving, higher order thinking AND vocabulary review - all wrapped into one, fun activity.
Wrap up your vocabulary review in an easy to use, fun package. Just $24.95 e-distribution; 1. Type in questions & answers; $29.95 CD. Multi-user version 2. Shuffle the cards to ensure the game is challenging; also available. 3. Select font, card layout and graphics, and; 4. Print and play. Thats it! When each question has been answered correctly, the final card placed will close the loop.
I bought LoopWriter for my classroom and have suggested it to my district head to buy for TAKS tutoring and classroom use for all teachers in my district. Thank you for helping me make learning fun! Mini-Cast participant 2010 I enjoyed the training so much I immediately bought LoopWriter and got a few of my educator friends on board too. This is wonderful for our students. Mesquite High School teacher

Be sure to drop by our booth, #442, at CAST 2011 in November, in Dallas; or give us a call before that for more information. Visit our website to download a free trial version, try it for 10 days and we know youll be back to buy.

Switch to Spanish, French or German; add jpg images, adjust font & card size, print in color.

800.867.9067 LoopWriter.com CurriculumProject.com

3 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher

Volume 40, Number 1
Contents

April 2011

STAT Presidents Message

by Joel Palmer, Ed.D.

Confusing Language for Science and Mathematics Students

by Sandra S. West and Sandra T. Browning

Cover Story: Enhancing Science Knowledge through Proven Instructional Strategies

by Gloria Gresham, et. al.

Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth Area Independent School Districts

by Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.

Cover Photo: Asexual Reproduction. Photo of a Kalanchoe plant. All Rights Reserved. Image Credit: STAT Member Susan Broz, IPC Teacher. Pershing Middle School.
The Texas Science Teacher, official journal of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, is published semiannually in April and October. Enumeration of each volume begins with the April issue. Editorial contents are copyrighted. All material appearing in The Texas Science Teacher (including editorials, articles, letters, etc.) reflects the views of the author(s) and/or advertisers, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT) or its Board of Directors. Announcements and advertisements for products published in this journal do not imply endorsement by the Science Teachers Association of Texas. STAT reserves the right to refuse any announcement or advertisement that appears to be in conflict with the mission or positions of the Science Teachers Association of Texas. Permission is granted by STAT for libraries and other users to make single reproductions of The Texas Science Teacher for their personal, noncommercial, or internal use. Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use. This permission does not extend to any commercial, advertising, promotional, or any other work, including new collective work, which may reasonably be considered to generate a profit.

For more information regarding permissions, contact the Editor: jpalmer59@gmail.com

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

STAT Presidents Message

by Joel Palmer, Ed.D.

s I sit down at my computer to write this message, education in Texas is in tumult. According to The Legislative Reference Library there are fifty-three bills that affect the Texas Education Code that have cience Division been engrossed. I did not know what that cience Teacher so I looked it up and this is what I meant, 11 found: 4 A legislative proposal that has been prepared in a final form for its submission to a vote of the law-making body after it has undergone discussion and been approved by the appropriate committees. (Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale)
TST1104

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, certification, or graduation requirements, but there is one thing we know for sure: we will have students in our classes that need instruction, and it is our job to provide the best possible education. This issue has some information to help you do that. Confusing Language for Science and Mathematics Students focuses on the differing and, at times, confusing language used in math and science and how it impacts students learning. Enhancing Science Knowledge through Proven Instructional Strategies, as the name suggests, looks at reading and writing strategies that can help students learn. The final article analyzes how participation in local science fairs in the North Dallas area impacts the levels of student interest in scientific fields. 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.
In addition to teaching in Texas classrooms for more than twenty years, Joel Palmer serves as the Curriculum Coordinator for Mesquite ISD. He is also an adjunct professor for Texas A&M Commerce. He has been the editor of the Texas Science Teacher for fourteen years, and is the President of the Science Teachers Association of Texas.

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Confusing Language for Science and Mathematics Students

by Sandra S. West and Sandra T. Browning

nglish is one of the more difficult languages in the world to learn partly because 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. Specifically for science and mathematics, there are discipline-specific homophones and homonyms. Bearing this in mind, the English language can be a bear for students. A Discovery! The issue of confusing language first arose in 2006 when planning a professional development session for the project, Mix It Up: Correlated Science & Math (CSM). In preparation for the first correlated physics and mathematics lessons, the university physics instructor noticed that the university mathematics instructor was using the word motion differently. When asked what motion meant, the mathematics instructor said, You know, movement while waving 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 instructors 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 discovery led to the realization that science and mathematics use several of the same words, but many with very different meanings. More Discoveries through Rich Conversations Since that discovery in 2006, the Mix It Up projects: CSM projects have continued to provide professional development to 6

science and mathematics teachers. When training grades 5-8 science and mathematics teachers to integrate science and mathematics, the CSM science and mathematics university specialists generally make classroom 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 detectors 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 and range 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 range a less complex concept. That night the science specialist was discussing and debriefing the algebra lesson with the mathematics specialist and asked her why the teacher did not teach range before domain. The mathematics specialist asked the science specialist to define 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 science specialist was not what range meant in this algebra lesson. In algebra, range typically 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).

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary d.) d.) Confusing Language (cont(cont

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
x or domain 1 2 3 4 5 f(x) or range 3 4 5 6 7 If the function f(x) = x+2 is given the values x = {1, 2, 3 ,...} then its range will be {3,4,5, ...}

x x+2 Figure 1. Example of 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 of a statistical range. 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 distance to which a projectile can be propelled, (d) the horizontal distance between a weapon and target, (e) a sequence, series, or scale between limits as in a wide range of 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 Mathematics Dictionary As the CSM team plans ongoing professional development, confusing words continue to be identified by both instructors and participating grades 5-8 science and mathematics teacher teams. Collecting those words and compiling a CSM Identifying Confusing Science and Mathematics Words Dictionary seemed a logical endeavor to help both teachers and students clarify the meaning of terms. Following is a sample of synonyms and homophones/homonyms that have been identified in the CSM research. Sample words that have the same or comparable meaning in science and mathematics, called shared vocabulary, are also included. 7 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary d.) d.) Confusing Language (cont(cont

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Synonyms Synonyms are defined as words that have the same or similar meaning. MerriamWebster Dictionary (n.d.) defines them formally as one of two or more words or expressions of 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 identified (see Figure 3). Meaning the length and direction of a straight line drawn from the start to finish having the same value or elements on both sides of the process or equation the result when values in a list are added and the sum is divided by the number of values added an object cannot be folded or rotated in such a way that it overlays itself an object may be folded along a line such that the shapes on either side of the line exactly overlay each other an object may be rotated such that it exactly overlays itself Science displacement equilibrium average Mathematics distance balanced mean

asymmetry bilateral

no symmetry reflective/line symmetry rotational symmetry

radial symmetry

Figure 3. Sample of synonyms in science and mathematics. Homophones/Homonyms Homophones, or homonyms, are generally thought of as words that sound alike, but have a different meaning. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n. d.) defines 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 identified include the following (see Figure 4):

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary d.) d.) Confusing Language (cont(cont

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Word/Term Arrow symbol () constant vector

Science Ray or vector

Mathematics

variable that is kept the same throughout the types of investigations called comparative or experimental actual length measured of a particular path taken, may consist of several line segments a formula can be used to determine area or volume, such as finding the volume of a triangular prism or a cylinder something that is not difficult to work or understand

value that does not change, but can be represented by a letter

distance

shortest length between two points

regular shaped object (Ex cube)

a polygon with all sides congruent and angles congruent or a three dimensional solid with faces that are all congruent regular polygons and all angles congruent direct 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 angles opposite one another at the intersection of two lines 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 fixed interval (period) of the independent variable

simple relationship

vertical / vertical up and down, as opposed to angles horizontal period

Figure 4. Sample of homophones in science and mathematics.

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Confusing Language (contd.)

Shared Vocabulary While 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 definition in both science and mathematics. For example, co-linear means lying on the same line in both science and mathematics. Word/Term co-linear order of operations perpendicular radian square Meaning is the same in both Science & Mathematics lying on the same line Rules that determine the order in which operations should be performed Meeting at or forming a 90o angle A unit for measuring angles a parallelogram with all sides congruent and all angles congruent or value with an exponent of two, n2 statement that can be mathematically proven (not to be confused with a theory)

theorem

Figure 5. Sample of words with common meanings in science and mathematics. Recognition of Confusing Language by National Mathematics Standards The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) realizes the difficulty that students have deciphering between everyday or natural language and content specific language in mathematics. To address this difficulty, NCTM suggests that teachers make a conscious effort to help students with confusing words. According to NCTM: Teachers can help students see that some words that are used in everyday language, such as similar, factor, area, or function, are used in mathematics with different or more-precise meanings. This observation is the foundation for understanding the concepts of mathematical definitions. It is important to give students experiences that help them appreciate the power and precision of mathematical language. (NCTM, 2000, p. 63) This disconnect between natural language and content specific language is especially apparent in an algebra class. Driscoll (1999) identifies 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 10 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Confusing Language (contd.)

bridge this disconnect requires each teacher to have a depth of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the content to enable students to build their academic vocabulary. dominant medium through which these subjects are taught (p. 81).

Implications The implications for not identifying Recommendations for Academic Vocabuand addressing this problem of confusing lary Building language in science and mathematics are Marzano and Pickering (2005) supenormous. Students in the United States port the need for background knowledge and have historically not scored as well as declaim that intensive vocabulary development sired on international tests such as Trends is critical for all learners, especially in sciin International Mathematics and Science ence and mathematics. They also support Study (TIMSS) (National Center for Educathe need to focus on the different meanings tion Statistics [NCES], 2009) and the Proof the words, such as in science and gram for International Student Assessment mathematics: (NCES, 2009). Making sense of science and mathematics vocabulary is an important Teaching specific terms in a specific way is piece of the puzzle to which science and probably the strongest action a teacher can mathematics educators and students must take to ensure that students have the academic attend since improving academic vocabulary background knowledge they need to underis such a critical component of improving stand the content they will encounter in school. student performance. Without a clear unWhen all the teachers in a school focus on the derstanding of the meanings of words when same academic vocabulary and teach it in the in class, students understandings of the same way, the school has a powerful comprecontent being taught can be very different hensive approach. When all teachers in a disfrom what the teacher intended. Students trict embrace and use the approach, it becomes initial ideas and beliefs must be identified even more powerful. and clarified rather than ignored (National (Marzano & Pickering, 2005, p. 1) Research Council, 2000, p. 10). Marzano (2003) also proposes that students ability to learn specific content can be profoundly affected by the use of direct instruction in teaching vocabulary that is specific to the academic content. However, this does not mean that teachers should emphasize rote memorization of definitions. Instead, students should elaborate on the meanings of words. Likewise, Lemke (1988) emphasizes the role that language plays in the understanding of specific content. He states educators have begun to realize that the mastery of academic subjects is the mastery of their specialized patterns of language use, and that language is the 11 A Caveat We are not suggesting a focus on building unnecessary vocabulary instruction. The national science standards, National Science Education Standards, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (BSL) are clear about the proper place for vocabulary in science and mathematics education. For example, the AAAS explicitly focuses on deemphasizing memorizing technical vocabulary. According to the AAAS:

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Confusing Language (contd.)

Understanding rather than vocabulary should be the main purpose of science teaching. However, unambiguous terminology is also important in scientific communication and ultimatelyfor understanding. If teachers introduce technical terms only as needed to clarify thinking and promote effective communication, then students will gradually build a functional vocabulary that will survive beyond the next test. For teachers to concentrate on vocabulary, however, is to detract from science as a process, to put learning for understanding in jeopardy, and to risk being misled about what students have learned. (AAAS, 1989, p. 203) We are not suggesting drilling on vocabulary definitions. Many recommendations focus on conceptual understanding instead of rote memorization of definitions. 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 forgotten. 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 recommended by AAAS in Science for All Americans (SFAA) and referred to in (BSL), rather than a laundry list of vocabulary words: SFAA uses only those technical terms that scientists believed ought to be part of every adults vocabulary. The clear purpose was to free teachers from spending most of their time and energy teaching science vocabulary and let them concentrate on teaching meaningful sci12 ence. The pressure to cover the curriculum and test the students often leads people teachers, administrators, test makers and parents to be willing to accept the glib use of technical terms as evidence of understanding. Students will soon forget all of those technical words anyway. Few adults can confidently distinguish between revolve and rotate, reflect and refract, meiosis and mitosis, mass and weight, orders and families, igneous and metamorphic rocks, nimbus and cumulus clouds, mitochrondria and ribosomes. (AAAS, 1993, p. 312) Yet, a problem with emphasizing unnecessary academic vocabulary still exists, particularly with state and district assessments that focus on vocabulary. Instead, the CSM team is encouraging district science and mathematics teachers, instructional specialists, coordinators and administrators to become aware of this issue of confusing language between science and mathematics and to address this serious problem for our students. Equally important is that state and national assessment leaders and policymakers have a similar understanding of this issue and the ramifications for our nations quest to improve STEM education. Our Purpose The 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 understanding of each discipline. However, the value is not in identifying and sharing what the CSM team and others have discovered. More importantly, science and mathematics teachers and their students should discover and clarify confusing language for themselves through rich conversations. Teachers can have these rich conversations only if April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

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 invite you to share any confusing words that you identify with us, and we will make them available to everyone. Please send the words you identify as confusing to Dr. Sandra West at sw04@txstate.edu. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Author. (2006). The Texas Science Teacher. Barber, J., Parizeau, N., & Bergman, L. (2002). Spark your childs success in math and science. Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the University of California. Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers grades 6-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Homophone. (n. d.). In Merriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved from 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 for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teachers manual. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2009). Comparing TIMSS with NAEP and PISA in mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard National Council of Teachers of 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. 13 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Confusing Language (contd.)

Range. (n. d.). In Merriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/range Synonym. (n. d.). In Merriam-Websters online dictionary. Retrieved from 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 and instruction. Her research interests include integrated science and mathematics, teacher efficacy, and classroom questioning strategies.

Authors Note This research was support in part by grants from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Space Grant Consortium and the Fund for Improvement of Undergraduate Education with additional funding from Texas State University- San Marcos and the University of Houston Clear Lake. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sandra S. West, Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 78666. E-mail: sw04@txstate.edu

14

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge Through Proven Instructional Strategies

by Gloria Gresham, et. al.

any elementary teachers are challenged to fit science into their daily schedules partially due to reading and math expectations reiterated in the No Child Left Behind Acts goal of all students performing at or above grade level by the year 2014 (ED.gov, 2008). Oftentimes, in an effort to meet accountability expectations, elementary teachers concentrate on reading and math instruction and find 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 vocabulary of science is more specialized with new words being frequently introduced throughout the text (Baer & Nourie, 1993; Ediger, 2002). The faculty of an elementary campus in East Texas was no different in that teachers found the teaching of science a constant challenge. For these instructors, a consequence of their reading and math focus was that their state standardized test scores in science, 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 engaging the assistance of three local university professors. First, the professors facilitated a review of current literature relating to effective instructional strategies and the teaching of science. Through the review, teachers gained knowledge of the importance of inquiry learning, of using vocabulary and comprehension strategies to boost reading, 15

of employing a method for releasing cognitive responsibility to students, and of how to engage students in science learning in a meaningful way. In examining research on inquiry learning, the teachers discovered that inquiry 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 explanations, clarifications, and examinations (Hammerman, 2006. p. xxv). Teachers also found that Teaching Standard A of the National 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 planning model was analyzed, the 5 E Learning Cycle Model, which included a five-step lesson delivery approach: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Evaluation (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. Finally, Evaluation included students assessing their own knowledge as well as the teacher assessing knowledge gained. In their review of vocabulary and reading instructional strategies, teachers discovered that since reading capacity affects students grasp of science content, systematic April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary(contdd.) Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont .)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
and explicit vocabulary instruction is one of the most important instructional interventions teachers can employ to aide student understanding (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2006). In a similar manner, comprehension is enhanced through implementing modeling strategies and graphic organizers. Shared reading, echo reading, choral reading, and paired reading are modeling strategies teachers can employ to assist readers with challenging material (Carbo, 1997). Shared reading involves the teacher placing 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 fluent 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 using non-linguistic organizers and identifying similarities and differences increases student performance. Reading and then writing about what one reads also promotes criticalthinking and conceptual understanding (Baker, et al., 2004; Wallace, Hand, & Prain, 2004). More importantly for this study in particular, the teachers found that requiring students to complete various writing exercises, such as exploratory writing, field notes, description, and written discussion of experiments, are critical elements of inquiry learning and science instruction (Ryan and Walking-Woman 2000). 16 The next review of literature involved examining the concept of releasing or transferring cognitive responsibility for learning from teacher to student. According to the Pearson and Gallagher model, the responsibility for completing a task follows this sequence: (1) teacher responsibility, (2) joint responsibility between the teacher and students, and (3) student responsibility (1983). Diehl (2008) defined this release of responsibility, 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 physical engagement is critical to learning, teachers 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 interpsychological; meaning is gained through interaction with others. Schlechty (2001) described this collaboration or affiliation as displayed by interaction from instructor to student, 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 responsibility. 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 finally to the individual. Small group interaction, in particular, provides an avenue for greater participation, feedback, and mutual construction of meaning when compared to whole-group participation (Evertson & Emmer, 2009). ...Continued on Page 18. April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Region 4s Gateways to Biology is a year-long instructional program utilizing a less-is-more approach that maximizes opportunity 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-on experiences, 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.

The included Gateways to Biology teacher resource CD features

Reproducible masters for classroom activities and laboratory investigations Microscope slide jpeg files Lesson plan calendar TEKS correlation chart Five curriculum-based assessments EOC simulation

Teacher comments from the pilot testing of Gateways to Biology:

Gateways to Biology engages students and keeps them active. It makes them more responsible for their own learning. Gateways to Biology gives students lifelong skills to help throughout high school. I like what it offers. I like the hands-on spiraling approach. Its what science needs to be . . .

For customized professional development and large-quantity orders, contact science@esc4.net or order online at www.region4store.com. Teacher Edition: 460-1505 Student Edition: 460-1506

Aligned to the 2010 TE KS!

STAAR versions of Gateways to Science for grades 38 are now available for preorder by contacting science@esc4.net. Chemistry and Physics editions are currently in development.
17 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011
707154

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary(contdd.) Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont .)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
As the teachers synthesized findings 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 curriculum and focus on a structured planning approach that included information from the literature review. Their solution was to create and employ a five-day planning and instruction model titled the Science Content Weekly Planning Model (see Figure 1), reminiscent of the 5 E Learning Cycle Model. This new model would include specific reading and writing strategies, a schedule to implement the concept of the gradual release of responsibility, and specially designed formative and summative assessments. For example, each week of instruction ended with a short, TAKS-formatted practice and eliminated the test preparation drill and kill activities that had revealed little success in the past. In addition, a new type of assessment was added that required students to reflect upon their findings and synthesize results. Weekly, teachers focused on one particular standard of the TEKS outlined in the districts aligned curriculum four to five week unit of study. Each day of the week had specific 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, students would gradually learn the purpose for each days instruction as well as how that day was an important part of the overall plan. Day One This days intent was setting the weeks objective, engaging attention, con18 ducting a field investigation, debriefing, and transferring learning. The objective was stated in student-friendly terms, formally written, 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 field investigation by implementing a graphic organizer such as a Circle Map. A Circle Map is one of eight Thinking Maps used to define what students know (Hyerle, 1996). Next, an inquiry-based field investigation 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 then composed 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 filings in a closed, glass tube. Students actively engaged in solving this problem and were thrown into the content, the field investigation, prior to formal instruction over vocabulary. The science class ended with teachers questioning students about their learning as a formative assessment providing a foundation for the transfer of learning to the next day (Sousa, 2006).

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)

Figure 1. Science Content Weekly Planning Model

Science Content Weekly Planning Model

Set the Weeks Objective/ Purpose

DAY ONE 1. Access Prior Knowledge 2. Present Problem to Solve 3. Field Investigation Using Scientific Method 4. Reflection/Transfer/ Formative Assessment

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 FIVE 1. Summative Assessment a. TAKSformatted 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

19

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary(contdd.) Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont .)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Day Two First, teachers used graphic organizers or posed questions to access and review content learned from the previous day (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2006). Next was a text connection to the previous days field investigation. Students would spend time in learning the meanings of the vocabulary introduced during the previous days field 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 definitions, define 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 field investigation content. Since not all students were instructionally ready to read grade level text, teachers 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, fluent readers worked alone. Teachers met individually and in small groups with readers requiring more reading support. Moving from strategy one, shared reading, to strategy five, 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 following 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 structure determined which type of thinking was required and which type of organizer was appropriate. Eight different organizers called Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 1996) plus Venn Diagrams were used during the year (see Figure 2).

20

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Figure 2. Responding to Text Through Graphic Organizers The first graphic organizer shown in this photograph is a Venn Diagram. The student responded to text and compared and contrasted a conductor to an insulator. In the second graphic organizer, a Circle Map, the student defined an electric circuit.

After students completed the graphic organizer, they reflected 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 reflection provided daily formative assessment of student understanding. Finally, the days lesson closed by previewing the next days content.

Figure 3. Displaying Learning Through a Tree Map Shown is a Tree Map. The student constructed her interpretation of this graphic organizer as needed to display what she learned during the lesson.

21

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)

Day Three Teachers opened Day Three with instruction that purposefully activated knowledge acquired in Day One and Day Two, explicitly filling in needed content or clearing up any misconceptions. PowerPoint presentations, 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 cognitive 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 such activity 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 students to individually reflect upon what was learned, thus providing formative assessment. As a result of these activities on Day Three, students rehearsed content through whole group, small group, partner format, and finally individual reflection, thereby following the process of gradually releasing cognitive responsibility from whole group instruction by the teacher to individual student reflection. Day Four The cognitive shift of responsibility continued on Day Four. After activating students knowledge of the previous days content, students responded orally to questions that required closed (one-answer) and open-ended responses (more than one answer). Individually, students engaged with text passages that were previously read on Tuesday and supported answers with evi22 dence from the text. The intent was to provide students with rehearsal so they would have additional opportunities to retain content (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. Teachers assigned one of the following as a writing activity, summary, gist, main idea, or three facts learned, and charged students with the task of reflecting upon the weeks content in their science journal. These opportunities 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 Five The final step in the Science content Model Planning Model was a formal, summative assessment involving two types of assessment items: application-level, multiplechoice questions and a written assessment (Khatri, Reeve, & Kane, 1998). The short, multi-choice questions were developed to mirror the format of the state standardized, fifth grade science exam (TAKS). The short answer written assessment consisted of a scenario that required students to think critically and synthesize what they had learned during the week. Evidence of Success The Science Content Weekly Planning Model was instrumental in focusing instruction on science at the elementary level and in implementing proven instructional strategies that led to academic success 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 April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

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, students were actively engaged, responsible for their learning, and worked cooperatively. One example of this success in science was shown by a student identified for special education services. 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 assessment results were received, this student passed! In addition, responses by the teachers involved in The Science Content Weekly Planning Model revealed that the model was easy to implement because it provided more a consistent structure of daily activities and simplified planning. Students and teachers knew what was expected and focused learning on identified state curriculum standards. Included in the Model are proven instructional strategies that emphasize students constructing science knowledge through an inquiry approach. Authors Biographical Information Gloria Gresham is an associate professor in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University. She has served as a teacher, administrator, and university professor. Linda Black is an assistant professor in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University. She is very involved in Advanced Placement in Texas. Alan Sowards is a professor in the Department of Elementary Education at Stephen F. Austin State University. He is a well-known and utilized consultant in the area of elementary science instruction. Kimberly Welsh is an assistant professor in the Department of Elementary Education at Stephen F. Austin State University. Her area of expertise is reading. Ken Dickerson is presently an assistant principal at McMichael Middle School in Nacogdoches Independent School District (NISD). He has served as a fourth and fifth grade teacher in NISD. 23 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge (contd.)

References
Baker, W. P., Barstack, R., Clark, D., Hull, E., & Goodman, B. et al. (2008). Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: Effective strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. Clearing House, 81(3), 105-108. Baer, G. T., & 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). The 5 E learning cycle model. Retrieved from http://faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/inquire/inquiry.htm Ediger, M. (20020. Factors which make reading expository text difficult. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 312-317. ED.gov. (2008). Differentiated accountability: A more nuanced system to better target resources. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet.html Evertson, C. M. & Emmer, E. T. (2009). Classroom management for elementary teachers (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hamerman, E. (2006). Eight essentials of inquiry-based science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Khattri, N., Reeve, A. L., & Kane, M. B. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (20060. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for 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). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317344. Ryan, P., & Walking-Woman, I. (2000). Linking writing to the process of scientific inquiry: Strategies from writing teachers in the disciplines. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education. ERIC Doc. Rep. No. ED458655. Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Thinking Maps. (2009) Thinking Maps, Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htm Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. , and Prain. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.

24

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth Area Independent School Districts

by Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.
Abstract In an effort to glean insights into the Dallas Region Science and Engineering Fair (DRSEF) participation from Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area independent school districts (ISDs) as a measure of student interest and competitiveness in Secondary Science Education (grades 7 12), a research analysis of 12 years of DRSEF data (1999 - 2010) was undertaken, with specific focus on the most recent 4-year data (2007 - 2010). Plano ISD, with 11.7% of the total annual student enrollment share of the area ISDs, leads the pack with 46.9% share of the total projects participating at the DRSEF and a participation index (PI) of 402, indicating a more-than-four-times the average likelihood of participation at the competitive event. Coppell ISD with only 2.3% of the student enrollment share had a participation index of 322. Among the 13 major ISDs included in the analysis, Dallas ISD with the largest student enrollment (30% of total) ranked a distant 8th (PI = 60) and Garland ISD with the second-largest (12.6%) student enrollment ranked 7th (PI = 70) in DRSEF participation index. Interestingly, 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 significant number of participating projects, had more projects in Life sciences category than in Physical sciences. The findings reported here have significant educational (science education, in particular) and community implications in the DFW metropolis. Introduction Another year of Elementary and Secondary 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, first. The winners then advance to the dis25 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 at this event is intense and at the highest level can be termed as Science Olympiad for preteens 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 international exam Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2006 - that is supposed to assess the ability of 15-yearolds 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 Cooperation 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 literacy (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 deteriorating. Another report (3) also provides supporting evidence that even though overall enrollment in Science and Technology (S&T) fields increased in the last 15 years, the relative share of S&T enrollment has declined. The policy report also pointed out that the April 2011

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary (contd.) Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
existing statistical data are not adequate for measuring and analyzing the levels of student interest. With this backdrop, the current study was undertaken with the following objectives: To analyze the recent trends in Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair (DRSEF) participation, as a measure of interest/competitiveness in science education, at the junior (grades 7 & 8) and senior (grades 9 12) divisions of DFW area ISDs of public-school system, charter schools and other private institutions To share the case-study analytical findings 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 education 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 (wherever ISDs have an edge over others) and/or improving Science education in ISDs Participation Index (PI) = (share of science-fair participation as % total/share of student enrollment as % of total)*100. Indexing is a data normalization technique that helps make apples-to-apples comparison 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 <100 is below-average participation (under-indexing).

Definitions 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 application of a mathematical or statistical operation so that the data can be compared and valid conclusions drawn. Participation per thousand (PPT) = (number of participating projects/students enrolled)*1000.

Data and Analytical Methodology DRSEF comprises 20 Dallas-area cities registered to exhibit projects (http://www.dallassciencefair.org/about/). Data from DRSEF at the individual and science-category level were obtained from the Fair President, Dr. Simon Dalley of Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX (4). Using the data at this stage of the sciencefair competitions allows us to compare the participation from and competitiveness of different independent school districts, charter schools and other private schools from 20 cities of DFW Metroplex that make up the Dallas regional-level competition. DRSEF data collected were aggregated to three levels - ISD, division and sciencecategory - for comparative purposes. Longer-horizon participation data (1999 2010, 12-year period) was available only for senior-division; junior-division participation data was available for only the last four years (2007 2010). Most of the trend analyses and ISD comparisons (junior vs. senior divisions and physical vs. life categories), therefore, were focused on 2007 2010 data. Annual student-enrollment data were obtained from Texas Education Agency (TEA), Austin, TX (5). The two data elements science-fair participation data and student-enrollment data were used in April 2011

26

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
the computation of metrics (see metrics definitions 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 presented 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.
Fig. 1. Total Senior Division (Grades 9-12) Projects Participating in Dallas Regional Science Fair, 1999 - 2010
500

Number of Projects Participating

450 400 350 300 250 200

150

y = 1.5382x2 - 28.853x + 460.98 R = 0.6153

100 Total Projects

1999 432

2000 392

2001 396

2002 375

2003 404

2004 307

2005 329

2006 357

2007 291

2008 294

2009 372

2010 332

Fig. 2. Total Students Enrolled in ISDs around D/FW Metroplex, Grades 9 - 12, 1999 - 2009
Senior Division Students Enrolled

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total Students 103,18 101,88 112,10 113,27 118,54 126,75 126,88 132,39 134,56 136,93 137,12 Enrolled

NB: DRSEF data for 2010 in Fig 1 above corresponds to academic-year student enrollment data for 2009 in Fig 2 and so on. 27 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)

The declining numbers of senior-level projects observed above can be explained, at least in part, by the significant reduction in DRSEF participation from two large ISDs, Richardson 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 declining trend. Evidently, the decline in participation at DRSEF is even steeper at the juniorlevel (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 projects at DRSEF over the last four years, surpassing Garland ISD in the last two years. Also significant 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 of Science Project Entries by Division at the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair (2007 - 2010).
2007 School District Allen ISD Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Cedar Hill ISD Coppell ISD Dallas Diocese Dallas ISD De Soto ISD Frisco ISD Garland ISD Harmony Science Academy (Charter) Irving ISD Kemp ISD Lancaster ISD McKinney ISD Mesquite ISD Plano ISD Richardson ISD Waxahachie ISD Other* Grand Total Junior 6 20 0 12 9 69 0 0 39 19 0 0 0 0 22 137 0 0 7 340 Senior 1 14 0 15 21 51 0 0 21 20 0 1 8 0 9 126 0 0 4 291 Total2007 7 34 0 27 30 120 0 0 60 39 0 1 8 0 31 263 0 0 11 631 Junior 11 12 3 24 0 58 0 11 27 12 0 0 0 0 12 119 0 0 3 292 2008 Senior 2 16 2 14 21 49 0 0 24 19 0 0 13 0 0 118 9 0 7 294 Total2008 13 28 5 38 21 107 0 11 51 31 0 0 13 0 12 237 9 0 10 586 Junior 10 4 6 29 4 38 0 10 17 18 0 0 2 47 9 130 0 0 4 328 2009 Senior 1 17 11 27 16 40 9 1 33 28 2 0 5 0 0 170 3 2 7 372 Total2009 11 21 17 56 20 78 9 11 50 46 2 0 7 47 9 300 3 2 11 700 Junior 6 4 8 27 0 73 0 9 16 13 0 0 8 57 4 134 0 0 17 376 2010 Senior 1 21 9 23 0 40 0 1 26 18 0 0 8 0 2 149 10 2 22 332 Total2010 7 25 17 50 0 113 0 10 42 31 0 0 16 57 6 283 10 2 39 708

* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specific or otherwise)

28

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (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 Physical 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 significant number of participating projects had more projects in Life sciences category than in Physical sciences. Coppell ISD participation was more evenly spread between the two science categories, except in 2009.

Table 2. Number of Science Project Entries by Category at the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair (2007 - 2010).
2007 School District Allen ISD Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Cedar Hill ISD Coppell ISD Dallas Diocese Dallas ISD De Soto ISD Frisco ISD Garland ISD Harmony Science Academy (Charter) Irving ISD Kemp ISD Lancaster ISD McKinney ISD Mesquite ISD Plano ISD Richardson ISD Waxahachie ISD Other* Grand Total Life 3 14 0 13 16 84 0 0 38 19 0 1 4 0 14 119 0 0 5 330 Physical 4 20 0 14 14 36 0 0 22 20 0 0 4 0 17 144 0 0 6 301 Total2007 7 34 0 27 30 120 0 0 60 39 0 1 8 0 31 263 0 0 11 631 Life 6 6 2 19 19 69 0 6 31 12 0 0 11 0 5 108 5 0 5 304 2008 Physical 7 22 3 19 2 38 0 5 20 19 0 0 2 0 7 129 4 0 5 282 Total2008 13 28 5 38 21 107 0 11 51 31 0 0 13 0 12 237 9 0 10 586 Life 5 9 11 31 9 46 5 2 29 17 1 0 3 30 2 135 3 0 10 348 2009 Physical 6 12 6 25 11 32 4 9 21 29 1 0 4 17 7 165 0 2 1 352 Total2009 11 21 17 56 20 78 9 11 50 46 2 0 7 47 9 300 3 2 11 700 Life 3 9 13 23 0 68 0 4 29 16 0 0 9 32 3 126 7 1 21 364 2010 Physical 4 16 4 27 0 45 0 6 13 15 0 0 7 25 3 157 3 1 18 344 Total2010 7 25 17 50 0 113 0 10 42 31 0 0 16 57 6 283 10 2 39 708

* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specific or otherwise)

29

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

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 participating at the DRSEF (46.9% of total) but also the highest number of participation per 1000 students enrolled (11.61 PPT) in grades 7 12 that make up the combined junior and senior divisions of the Dallas regional-level competition. Dallas ISD accounted for 2nd highest number of participating projects, on an average, but ranks 8th in PPT, although it ranks first (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 participation data with the student enrollment data (see definition above), allows us to compare the DRSEF participation of various ISDs on the same scale. Therefore, PI is a true reflection of ISD participation at the competitive DRSEF. Note that PI of 100 is an average participation; >100 is above-average, whereas <100 is below-average. Comparing the ISDs on this metric, it is evident that Plano ISD had the highest PI of 402 (over four times more likely than average in science-fair participation) followed by Coppell ISD (PI = 322, with 2.3% of the student-enrollment share), Lancaster ISD (PI = 143, with 1.3% of the student-enrollment share) and McKinney ISD (PI = 103 with 4.3% of total student enrollment) the only four ISDs with above-average likelihood of DRSEF participation (Table 3). Among the 13 major ISDs included in the analysis, Dallas ISD with the largest student enrollment share - nearly a third of the total - ranked a distant 8th (PI = 60) and Garland ISD with the second-largest (12.6%) student enrollment ranked 7th (PI = 70), both with a below-average DRSEF participation. Table 3. Comparison of Major ISDs in DFW Metroplex on Student Enrollment and Science-fair Participation Metrics (Combined Junior & Senior Division) over 2007 2010 period
Average Annual Student Enrollment 23,320 4,594 2,656 8,635 3,817 11,223 25,117 59,858 7,299 16,507 8,814 14,651 13,336 Share of Student Enrollment 11.7% 2.3% 1.3% 4.3% 1.9% 5.6% 12.6% 30.0% 3.7% 8.3% 4.4% 7.3% 6.7% Average Project Entries Per Year 271 43 11 26 10 27 51 104 10 15 5 6 1 % Total Participating Projects 46.9% 7.4% 1.9% 4.5% 1.7% 4.7% 8.8% 18.1% 1.6% 2.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.1% Projects per 1000 Students Enrolled 11.61 9.31 4.14 2.98 2.55 2.41 2.02 1.74 1.30 0.88 0.60 0.38 0.04 Participation Index 402 322 143 103 88 83 70 60 45 30 21 13 1

School District Plano ISD Coppell ISD Lancaster ISD McKinney ISD Cedar Hill ISD Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Garland ISD Dallas ISD Allen ISD Mesquite ISD Frisco ISD Richardson ISD Irving ISD

30

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

Science-Fair Scorecard (contd.)

Conclusion If this study provides some supporting evidence to the widely prevailing perception that student-interest in science education in the United States may be declining, then there is a need to explore the subject further and understand what factors might be contributing 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 factors demographic, cultural and/or social - contributing either directly or acting in concert with other factors, may be responsible 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 education relative to other priorities Value placed by the general public on education vs. athletics

in Nov 2009 to inspire boys and girls to excel in math and science. This is a welcome step, however symbolic it may be, in the Federal governments efforts to accord science the respect and the place it deserves and in boosting the morale of all those who are interested in working towards the betterment of science education in the United States. In addition to the immediate implications of this study to the science education of DFW-area ISDs, what are the benefits of this study to society at large? An increased participation in science fair not only stimulates student interest in scientific inquiry and experimentation, but it also promotes (a) public awareness about current science issues and (b) a two-way dialogue and debate between scientists and society at the local level (6). What can we do to promote DRSEF participation? Schools (science teachers) need to publicize better and reinforce the importance of student participation in science fairs, especially at the high-school level Make participation in science fairs or science research projects mandatory Offer extra credit to students for participation in science fairs or science research projects Have award winners at the science fair share their project findings and participation experiences at school general assembly 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 scientific activities and/or act as mentors to budding scientists at schools April 2011

In spite of the prior evidence (1, 2, 3) and findings 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 education, in general, and science education, in particular. 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 first ever, on Oct 18, 2010, that fulfills his promise of Educate to Innovate campaign he launched 31

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

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 scientific investigation at school level

Acknowledgments The 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. References Dr. Simon Dalley, DRSEF Chair Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX. Participating Junior and Senior Division Projects data. Personal Communication, 2009 and 2010. National Center for Education Statistics, 2007. Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of 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 from a workshop on Improving the Dialogue with Society on Scientific Issues, September 17-18, 2008 Paris, France. Retrieved February 10th, 2011 from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/1/41019441.pdf OECD, 2006. Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies - Policy Report. Retrieved February 10th, 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf OECD, 2009. Top of the Class High Performers in Science in PISA 2006. Retrieved February 10th, 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdf Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX. 2009. ISDs Student Enrollment Data, 1999 - 2009. Ramesh Hegde has a Ph.D. in Crop Science from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MBA in Marketing from the University of Texas at Dallas. He has 15 years of research experience in the area of Plant and Environmental Sciences. He has been actively involved in judging for over 10 years in Plano District and Dallas Regional science fairs.

32

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011

The Publication of the Science Teachers Association of Texas Solicits Manuscripts

The Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT) publishes two periodicals: TheStatellite and The Texas Science Teacher. Statellite is the associations newsletter with information and news from the STAT officers, as well as STAT Affiliates and Regional Directors. It contains continuing educational opportunites for science teachers, innovative science activites, and other items of interest.
The

The Texas Science Teacher is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers pertinent to science education from all fields of science and science teaching. Contributions can be research articles, research notes, book reviews, and essays of general scientific interest. For Both Publications: All submitted material must be a significant original contribution not being considered elsewhere for publication. Inform the editor if material included in the article is published on the web, as excessive duplication should be avoided and adequate links must be established. All manuscripts must be written in English. Send an electronic copy of your manuscript to: The Statellite Editor at stat@bizaustin.rr.com Dr. Joel Palmer, The Texas Science Teacher Editor at jpalmer59@gmail.com Include in the e-mail the author name(s), current e-mail and physical address(es), and a contact phone number. Indicate the publication for which the manuscript is submitted. Two referees (reviewers) and the editor review all manuscripts. You will receive communication of original receipt and then of completed reviews. Submissions for both publications should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition. Guidelines - The submission guidelines on-line: http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/tst-guidelines Upon Acceptance - Return the edited manuscript as soon as possible as an e-mail attachment to the editor. The manuscript must be returned in strict adherence to the instructions you receive with your manuscript. Tables and Figures - All tables must be separate files in Microsoft Word format. All images must be separate files in .jpg, .psd, .ai, or other standard format. The file name of each table or figure must relate to its place in the document (e.g. Figure 1.jpg). If submitting picture, they must be accompanied by a separate file, including a caption and the source (i.e. the name of the photographer and/or the image copyright owner) for each image.

33

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1

April 2011