April 2011 TST2

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


Lessons on Caring (contd.)

wenty Ways to each Vocbulary (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


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


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.cfm

8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2

6/33


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





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






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






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



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



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



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

[email protected].

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



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


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





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


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


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).





8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2

19/33


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/


DAY FOUR

1. Access Prior

Knowledge

2. Individually Work the

Text



DAY ONE

1. Access Prior

Knowledge

2. Present Problem toSolve

3. Field Investigation

Using Scientific Method



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


8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2

20/33






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




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



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



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



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.htm

8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2

25/33


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





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



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



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




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


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


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


8/7/2019 April 2011 TST2

32/33



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=2008016

8/7/2019 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=

April 2011 TST2

Documents

Transcript of April 2011 TST2