AnInvestigatioo ioto the Sources for IdeasandResearch
of StudentsParticipating at the Regional ScienceFairLevel
by JohnJoseph Barron
Athesis
submittedinpartialfulfilment of'the requirementsfor thedegreeof Master of Educationinthe FacultyofEducation
Memorial Universityof Newfoundland April 199 7
1+1
NationaloI<:anadaLibtaty Acquisitionsard BibliognlphicServices... _-
oaa-ON K1A0N4
e:.-
BibIiotMclue nationale ducanada Acquisibonse1 sel'\riceSbibiographique5 3liI$, ...w...
= O N K1A0N4
Theauthorbas granted a non- exclusivelicenceallowin gthe National LibraryofCanada to reprod uce.loan, distribute orsell copiesoflhis thesisin microform, paperorelectroni c form ats.
The author retains ownership ofthe copyright
in
thisthesis.Neither the thesis norsubstantialextractsfromit may beprintedor otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.L'auteur a accordeune licencenon exclusivepermettant
a
la Bibliothequenationaledu Canada de reproduce, preter,distnbuerau vendee descop iesdecettetheseSOllS la formedemicrofiche/film..de reproduction sur papier au sur forma t electronique.L'auteurconservefaproprietedu droitd'auteurquiprotegecette
these.
NiIa
these
nidesextraitssubstantiels decelle-ciDCdoiven t etre imprim es ou autrementreproduitssansson autorisation.0-612-3416 1-5
Canada
Themainarea of studyinthisthesisdealswithrelating student sourcesofideas and researchtothe outcomesofthesciencefair.Therewas noliteratureavailablethat dealt with an experimentalapproach to studying thesequestions. Thisthesisuses a questionnaire administeredatthe EasternNewfoundland Regional ScienceFair to supplytheinfonnation onwherestudentsgettheir ideas, and where theydotheir research.
Themostprevalentsource forideaswas self-generation.Surprisingly alarge number ofstudents,includingalargenumberof medalwinners.obtain theirideas from texts.defined as a low-levelsourcewithinthe literature.Few of the students used anyresearchbeyond what they foundin theirschooland publiclibrary,andinallbutafewcases, easeof access was the most quoted reason.The Internetas a research sourceincreasedin popularity over the past year,mirroringan increase in the access to thisresource within the school system.
AcIcnowiedgements
Mysinc:er'esttbanksgoesto Dr.GIem(]ark,my supervisor,forallhissupport andguidance inthecompletionofthiswork.
Tomyparatts,WiIliamand MaIy,fortheir quiet confidenceinmewhichbasbelpedmeand willcontimae to aid meinthefuture.
Specialthanksto mywife,Valerie, fornevergivingupon me.Without herconstant inspiration and endurance,thiswork would have never been completed.
iii
Tableoreoments Chapter1-Introduction
TheNature of Science Fairs. Goals of Science and the ScienceFair
Goals:attitudeslcorrununicationfmquiry Goals;Learningprocessskills. Goals:Cooperation
Goals -Motivation (extrinsicand intrinsic).
....2 ...3 ...3
. 5
Goals - Scienceworkand interestout side theclassroom. .. .. ... ..6 Goals-other
History oftheScienceFairMovement. The USAandUK. Canada.
Newfoundlandand Labrador Present Structure
Reasonfor the Study. Outline of the Study.
Chapte r2 - AReview of the Literature. Definitionand Project Types forDiscussion.. ProjectIdea; Sources and Concerns. ResearchMethods and Concerns.
iv
...7 ... ..S
. 9
....10 ...12 13 ....19
...20 ..20
..27
. ...36
ThoExperimeo1.. . . .40 OtherImportant Issues. ... • . • . . •• . .. . _ 42 MaodaloryversusVoluntarylnvolvement. . ... . ..••....42
Fairs orooFairs?.. . 44
Summa<y• . 41
Chapter3-Designoftbe Study. SurveySitesand Scheduling. SurveyDesign. The Survey Pilot..
TheSurvey~AttheFair. JudgingValidity and Reliability. DataAnalysisand Reporting.
. 47
. 47
..48 ..48
. so
. 50
. 57
... _ 60
. 60
... . ... ... . . ...79
. 81
Chapter4-DataAnalysis.•. . ...•.
ResultsoftbcSurveys. E.sta.blisIunc:ofR.eliabili ty Establishmentof Validity.
Chapter5 -Conclusionsand Implications Summaryof Data. IdeaSources.
'3
'3
... . .. 85
... Soerees. Non-determining Factors. UrbanIR.un1Difference . Judging Reliability. Sumnwy .
Suggestions for Further Research.
References.
AppendixA -ExampleSurveyandCoverLetter.
Appendix B-ENSFC Judging Sheet
AppendixC - BoardPermission Request Letter.
AppendixD·TableofCompleteDataSet Gathered
AppendixE·Table ofPearso n Results .
vi
. 87
. _ 90
. 91
. 92
...93 . ... ..94
. 9S
. 103
... .106
. 107
.... .109
. .. . . •...•LI9
Figure1-
Figure2 - Figure 3-
Figure4- figure S-
ListofFigures Wdlingtoo'sTopology ofInve:stigarions. Noo-medali5r:IdeaSources _.._ . Medal WmnerIdea Sources. WhySelfusedasanIdeaSource
MedalWmners. Non-medal wianers
..22 ..61
. 62
. ....63
.. . . .64 WhyTextsusedasIdea Source
Figure 6~ Medal winners. Figure7 - Non -medalwinners. Figure8-Non-medalistResearch Sources. Figure9- Medal Wumers'ResearchSources.
WhySchoolLibrariesUsedas Source
..6S .....6S ..66
. 66
Figure10- FigureII-
Non-medalWumen. MedalWmners.
. ... _67 ... .68
WhyPublic LibrariesforResearch Figure12 - Non-medalwinners . Figure 13 - Medal Wmners. Figure14 -Non-medalist AgeLevel Figur e 1S - Medal winners 'byAge. Figure 16-Non-medalist Category. Figure 17-Medalwinners'byCategory.
.68 ..69 .70
. ..70
. 71
.71
Figure 18 - Noo-medalistProject Type Figu.re 19-Medal Wmncn'by Project T ype. Figure 20- MedalistsbyInternetAvailability. Figure 21 -InternetAvailabilityNon-medalist s. Figur e 22-1996Idea SourceBreakd o wn. figure 23 • 1997Idea SourceBreakdo wn.
r'8UJ'e
24-InternetAvailability 1996.Figure 25-Internet Availability1997. figure 26-Non-medalists· Urban vsRural. Figure 27• Medal Wumers- UrbanvsRural.
... . n . n . n
. ..74
..74
. 75
. 76
. 76
. 77
. n
listofTables TableI•StudentbooB of projectWo rk . Table2•PeanonResults Table.
. 78
.••.79
Chapter I Introduction
Thisthesiswill discuss the goals and potential outcomes of sciencefairsand present qualitative aitiques ofthesegoals. As
wen.
abriefhistory offair structuresinvarious locales anda detailedtreatmenJ:of the current structureinCanadawillbepresented. Structuresand usagesofsciencem
can vary accordingto educational outcomes desired,whilethecentral idea,ameeting of people interestedinsciencefor the purposes of display and perhaps competition.remainsthe same.Whether the end productisanexposition,a showcase night, a noncompetitivefairor the classic sciencefair,the central focus is the student and the student'swork.Thistheme alongwithaquantitative treatment dealingwithstudents will be explored as the discussion continues.TheNature of ScienceFairs
Thefirststepinexamining the nature of sciencefairsistoestablisha viable definition. Onecommonideathroughmostoftheliteratureisthata sciencefairis aplace where students come to display their wares of scientific thought, problem solving and innovation. Galen agreeswiththis definition, statingthata science fair-maybedefinedasagroup ofexhibits madebystudents below college age"(Galen, 1993). Other definitions broaden this common theme, such as McBurney's(1978) which statesthata sciencefairis"an opportunity for a student to receive professional assessmentandrecognition for somepersonalscientific
endeavourofinlenst tothatstudent." AsimovandFredericks (1990) concurstating that a sciencefair offers" ..studentsa showcase for their scientific investigations and discoveries"(p.
v:iil.l
TheOhioAcademyof Scienceseesthe sciencefairas"enoccasion for thedisplayand evaluationof student:researchprojects-(Why?StudentResearch.p. 3,1987).Then onecansay that a sciencefairisa showcase or exhibitionof student science invcstigatiomthatwillbejudgedbypro fessionalsineachparticularscientific lidd.This will sufficeasabroad definitionthataddressesmanyofthe ideaspresented in the literature.
Goals of Science and theScienceFair
Thissection willattemptto establishacomparison between the goals of science,the goals oCthe sciencefair,andbow eachmaybe attained.In thisdiscussionpossiblelearning outcomes,anddirectgoals ofthefairitself will beexamined.Manycriticsofthe science fair movement,stipulatethatmanyof thelearnin g outcomesafairproducescanbeaddressed in othe r,simplerways. Thisideawill beexaminedalong with contraryarguments. Slisz (1989)didextensiveresearchintheareaofgoais forthe science fairs.Shebased ber research on those studies that she thought employed sound research methodsandended up withthe foUowing goals:I)inquiryas a goal, based on promotingpositive attitudestoward science and promotingsharing and communication, 2) learning process skills, 3) cooperation,4) motivation(extrinsicandintrinsic),and5)practice working outside the classroomor develo pingindependent workhabits.Slisz'sgoalsprovide the framework to continuethe discussion.
Goals- attitudeslcommunicatiorVmquiry
There are manygoalsthat are not exclusively goals of science but aregeneral goals of education.Theability towork:ina group, to expressoneself clearly, tospeakinpublic, and to organize and present thoughts logically can improve the possibility of thestudent's beinghiredandretainingajob in thefuture (Lankard, 1987)as well asbeing more effective scientists in thepresent.Asimov and Fredericks(1990)see the sciencefairas not only improving the students' skills, but theirattitudes and interestsas well. They continue to explicitly state what theysee the point of science fairs actually is,"to encouragethemto understand scienceandpossiblybecome a scientist or engineer"(Asimcv and Fredericks,vii, 1990).Inthediscussionofinquiry,theeverpopuIarrealmof critical thinkingskills must also be considered.Criticalthinkingisan importantpartofinquirybut is not limited to the attainment of science related goals,
The fundamental purpose of children'ssciencefairprojectsis to develop critical thin.lcing that canbeapplied not only to science but also to other subject areas including, ultimately, reality (Blume.p.19,1985).
Woolnougb (1994) talkedofwhatindustrialistswanted in a student and they essentially agree with Blume's purpose, helping to develop"the autonomy,creativity,problem-solving, teamwork, communication and entrepreneurial skillsthatarcso important intheworld of work-(p.49).From asocietalpointof view, science projects are important.Asscience fairs form part of the motivation for doing the project, then they too are important.
Goabr Learning process skills
An important goal of any science curriculum includes acquisition of science process
skills.Therearc many classroom andlabactivities specifically designed for thisacquisition.
Asciencefairprojectisanother one. Rivard seesthesciencefairprojectas-8great way of showingstudents ho w scientists wor k"(Rivard.1989). Asimov andFredericks within their broaddefinition, statethe sciencefairoffers students the chance to "learnabouttheprocesses ofscieocethemselves'"andsee "bowscientistsinvestigate and learn about the worldinwhich welive"(Asimovand Fredericks,viii.1990 ).Knapp(1975) discussesthe importanceof the fairinpromotingprocess skillswithinthe elementarygrades.Frequentlyinthese grades process skillsaregivenless than optimalemphasis.Generally processskills would include observation,inference.measurement, and classification.Clearly8sciencefairproject, no matterwhattype,sbouIdbeaneffective waytogainproficiencywiththese skills. Other skills thatcan be distinctly addressedina science fair project would includecontrolling variables andreporting,whichare alsoaddressedthroughlaboratory and classroom activities.
Goals:Cooperation
Many whoargueagainstthe sciencefairmovementstate that the competitive aspect oftbefairremovesanychanceof cooperation being practised.Withinthe scienceclassroom cooperationistaughtbyutilizinggroupworkinlabsandclassprojects. Cooperation can take onmany forms, such as the cooperation betweenagroupentering a sciencefair,the cooperationbetweensciencefairparticipantsfromthe sameschool.,andthe sharingthattakes placewhenthese studentshave a chance to sit andtalktogether. Within the Eastern Newfoundland RegionalFair, a Science Olympicsisheld as part oftbe festivities.This should inspirecooperation amongst the 'teams'of participantsthatcompete against oneanoth erin
thescience'games'.ThewayitaccompIisbesthisistoarbitrarilyassign teams, sothatinter- sc:booland~rivalriesan:DOtinevidence.AIthe elementary Ievd sharingis.big partofthecurriculumaDdisone ofthe goalsofanye1emenwysciencefair (Knapp,1975).
nusthesceecefaircanbeaneffectivewayto engendercooperationamongstparticipants, contraty totheviewsofWolfe (1994)and Smith(198 1)whocriticizethehigbcompetitive nature ofthe event.
Goals - Motiva tion(extrin sic andintrinsic)
Motivating studentsintheclassroommayprovetobeoneof tb.emostdifficulttask5 fora scienceteacher.Unless.swdenthasatrueinterestin allaspects ofthe coursematerial, thismotivationmayfluctuat e.Thescience fair,becauseofit'snature and the natureofthe students'participatinginit, hasabuilt inmotivator.Fainwhichdependuponvoluntary participationwill attract students addressingaresearchareatheyareinterestedin,andthis motivatesthesestudentstodo the work.Inthecaseof . mandatoryfair,generallystudents wiD. stiIIchoosetopicsthattheyare interestedin.Thisinterestmotivates students todothe work.ThisisDOttrueinaU
cases.
butstudentinterestinthetopicmayplay animportant filctorinthequalityof thec:ndproducts.Thebenefitstobothgroupsare thesame,by bolding a sciencefair we help stimulate interest inthe area of science.Olsen (1985)stipulatesthat competiti onsofthistypemay buildself-confidenceandincreasemotivatio ntoworkin science.Edelman(1988) statesdirectly that there is some evidencethat students whodo sciencefairprojectswillcontinueoninthe sciencefield.Rao specifies that"'The::greatest value oftbe sciencefair isthe recognitionand encouragementthatitgives tothe stUdentparticipants"(p.85, 1985).Thisisonsidethenormal goalsfor scienceactivities,but thefair offersthisandmuchmore.
"...alargepan oftheirmotivation isthehope of achieving recognition fromentryof their projects in the various science competitions.The feeling of accomplishment derived.fromcarefuUyplannedandexecutedexperiments is another important source ofmotivation"(Liebermann, p.1067). 1988)
Theseforms of extrinsicandintrinsicmotivations serveasetof purposes which contnbute to theimportanceofthescience fairand are frequentlylackingwithinthe regular classroom.
Goals - Science work and interestoutside theclassroom
This goal is one area wheretheclassroom aspect of science learning is not equal to thescience fair.Homework may in some cases promotelearning, butrarely promotes interest.Scienceteachers have few resources thatwould allow them to affect a student's interest outside theregularclasstime.A science fair,though, byitsnature is intendedto be separatefromand outsidetheclassroom. Promotionofthisworkandinterest isthen inherent ina sciencefairstructure.Manyauthorsoffertheiropinions,such asJones (1991)who states
"science competitions are one mechanism for students to develop their science interests outside the traditionalclassroom setting."Asimov and Fredericks concur as they see a science fair offering,.... .students [the chance]to see how science worksoutside the classroom"(viii,1990).Infact one of thereaso ns for science fairs'organizationalstartwas theUS governmentincreasing their supportto spark students' interestinscience outsidethe classroom (Science Fair Guide, 1990).To promoteindependentstudentresearchis the ultimate goal of any sciencefairproject.
~
Knapp (1975) identifiessomeof the goals [orthescience fairinthe elementary grades. including stimulationof creativity and imagination and expression ofindividual differences. Streng (1966) also saw sciencefairsinthe elementary schoolasaway to capitalize:onthe naturalcuriosityofstudentsinthe upper elementary grades.These are goals thatshouldbestrivedforandwhichare attainableinthejuniorand seniorhighgrades as well Intheregular scienceclassroom,these goals are possible,butmustbespecifically sough tafter andmaybedifficulttoattain.Otherinterestinghiddeneducationaloutcomes for sciencefairs are identifiedbyMann(1984) and includedevelopmentof reading skills,langu age, logical andformal thought,writingskills.scientificliteracy,self-confidence.,andcreativity.
Althoughmanyofthegoalslistedare as possiblewithin the science classroomas they arewithinthe sciencefair,some are net.Aswell,withina classroom context, sciencefairs can give purpose to practicalwork and support the importanceof practicalwork:inthe curriculum. The British Associationonthe Advancement of Science (Science and TechnologyFairs, 1983) concurwiththis point.Sciencefairstake manyof thegoals of science teaching andencapsulatetheminto one event.Insummarythen.thesciencefairis an extrinsicmotivatorforstudentsto do scienceandpursue careersinscience,a method of buildingconfidenceandcreatingscientists,awayoftakingscienceoutof theclassroom but alsopromotingnon-scienceskills,andawayofcreatingwell-roundedemployablegraduates.
Inconclusion.thescience fair isnotincompetitionwiththescienceclassroom, since they share many goals.Thefairisanimponant extension of the science classroomand avibrant fairstructureis importantto the currenteducationalsystemandthefuture scientificone.
Hjstory oftheSciencefAirMoyement TheUSAandUK
TheYCRJtbSOcx:eFowdarioo(YSF)ScieoceFair Programhandbook(1990)claims thaiscimc:efilirsorigioalcdintheUnited States.essentially a culmination ofthe
scieoce
club movemenIfrom. theschoollevel.AsimovandFred ericks (1990)putme
starting date as[he"late192I1s"(p.viii)ahboughthemovementdidnot receive national recognitionand support
untiltheadve:or:of tbcspaceraceagainst:theSovietUnion Duringthat time,school sciences curricula wererevam ped. steps weretaken to reco gnize scientific talentcartyon.and ecracarricularactivitiesinsciencewere encouraged . The ChicagoPublic School' sScience andMathematics conferencebeganin1950(Danilo v,1975).This time frame helps usto zeroie cc eeCKaddateforthebirthoftbc science fair movement.Withinthe literaturethis isone ofthcfewstartup datesthatarcmentio ned.Othermention of thc science fair history wasfoundwrthinarticlcsdc:alingwiththeNonbCaroIioaFair.TheNorthCarolinaState Fair cameintobeinginthe19SO's,.thewlminatiODof work startingattheklcaJlevel.Whhinthat strueD.Jl"e,students competed loca1Iy,moving upthroughRegjonals and then ontothe State Fair (NorthCarolina,1988).BothoCthescreferencesmakedirec:tmentionoftbclocal school fair,and thelocalschoolsciencedub.Although in the caseofNOM Carolina'sfairthereare no allusionsmade,the YSF history seems to credit the start of sciencefairstoagroupof individualswho wererunning anationalfair.Thefactisthat there is no specificdate asto whenthefirstteacher heldthefirst:science competiti oninhis/her classroo m.The only data to befoundODdateswere those concerned with majo r events,suchas Chicago'sCity Fair, NorthCarolina'sStat e FairandtheInternati onal ScienceandEngineering Fair (ISEF).A
summaryofthehistoryintheUSshows thata systemstartedinthelate1920's.,evolved nationaJIyinsmallways,slowly overthenextfew yean..andlinaIJyculminated inadecent size NationalScicoceFairinthemiddletolate1950's.
TheUnitedKingdom(UK)also laysclaimto developing the sciencefairidea.The British AssociationfortheAdvancementofScience (1983)claimsthat sciencefainwere originallyimeodedtosparkimereszinpnctic:a1workwithinschools.Theyinevitablyevolved toaforumfordisplayand presentati o nforthoseinvolved.Nospecificdateismentioned, although refemlces to"twentyyearsago"placesthe startinthe 1960 's, some fortyyean after theAmerican.
Untikeotherc::owmies..thehistory ofthe Natiooal Science fairinCanadaisquit ewdl documented.Thiswascausedinpartbytheuse of a single continuous organizatioo00a aatiooalscaleadninistering science&insinceneartheirinceptionhere.Thefirstcities tosee thescieocefair,oamdy Wumipcg.Edmonton. Toro nto. Montreal. Hamilton.and Vancouver didsoin1959 (YSF,1990).Withintwoyeanpartnenhipsamong..national,professi onal scientificandtechnicalsocieties"(YSF,p.2- 1, 1990) createdthe Canadian Science Fairs ' Counc il. which beld thefirstCanada -Wide ScienceFair (CWS F)in Ottawain196 2.The Youth Science Foundatio n evolved fromtheCanada Science Fairs'Councilin1966.This evolutionleadtomoreprogram sbeing added tothe YSF'spurview,but theystillremained thechieforganiza tionforsciencefair activityinCanada(YSF,1990).Atits inception.the YSFsupported30Rt:gionaiScienceFairs, but they werenotrepresentativeof allprovinces
10
ofCanada.Nowthirtyyears later- there are 109 Regional Science Fairs., representing every province andterri tory which sendrepresen tatives tothe CWSF.There are some notable exceptionstothe Regional Science Fair structure suchasQuebec whichoperates itsown provincial fair sendingstudents to the Cana da Wideasabodyrather than through regions.
The Quebec-Wide ScienceFair (Paa-Quebeccis),asitiscalled,has a structure that'sbased on philosophyratherthangeography. The groupwhichoverseesthefair,Conseil de developpemectdulo isir scientifique (CDLS),isactuallyseenon a parwiththeYSF for funding purposes althoughaffiliatedwithitduringthe Canada WideScienceFair.It' s importance to thesciencefairmovement cannotbeunderstatedalthou ghithaslittle meaning forthis study.Thestructure of the YSF makes theboardof directorstheoverseenofall programs,withsome power of decisions being left inthebands oftheregions.Althoughmany important decisionsmustbepassedbythe board, theCanada Wide SciencefairConunittee, elected byregi onal delegatesistheprimaryorganizingbodyofthefairitself:The regional faircouncils,which arc made upofloca1fairorganiz ers. elect the delegateswhich elect the CWSFcommittee.
Aswas the casewiththe United States.itiseasytosee thatfairsexisted at the local.
school-basedlevelbefore the national body.This history thenencompasses theorg aniza tio n that lead tosciencefairsbeinga"Cana da-Wide"affair.
Newfoundland and Labrador
Stayingwithinthelargeorganizati o nalgenre,the topicof bo wtheregionalfairs came into being in NewfoundlandwillDOWbediscussed.Thesewere not thefirstfairs, just thefirst
II
thatwereprovincially-based.Thefirstregionalscience fairinNewfoundlandwasbeldon AprilIt,1981(Smith" 1981 ).organized by agroupof secondary and pest-secondary educators as well asinterested~oftbescientific coDUllWlity.They beganbalding regionalfairsthatencompassedthe entire province.In 19&4.Labradorbecameaseparate region undertheYSFguidelines (ScienceFairGuide. 19(0),andwithinthe nextfouryean theisland splittothethreeregions.Eastern.Central andWestern.Each regionI'WlSit!'air organizationina differentway.The eastern council relies on a purevolunteerstructure, whichisalsopartiallythe casewiththewesterncouncil. The centralcouncilconsists of subject coordinatorsfromthevariousschoolboardsinthatregion.Westerncouncil alsohas thissupport. Labradorbecauseafitsisolationandlargegeographicalarea,runstheircouncil onaschoolboardbasis,switcbinsbetweenboardsevery few years.Throughouttheseyears NewfoundlandparticipatedintheCanadaWideScienceFair atvarious centresaroundthe country.In1989,theCWSFwas held inNewfoundland.hosted bytheEastern Regional ScienceFairCommittee(ENSFC).ItstillboIdstherecord for numberof participams,and continues toelicitpositivecomments from therestofthe Canadian FairCouncils.
Asonecanplainlysee,theuseoffairsinCanadahas astrongcontinuity,anda beaJthy base00whichtobuild.Still with signsofdecliningseniorhighschoo l participation (Wells.
1995,1996),areductio ninfunding atalllevel s,areductio ninthenumberof science coordinators, andanincreaseinthenumberofdifferent science andengineeringeventsin directcompetitionwiththefair, Newfoundland's placeas oneoftheleadersinscience fair organizationandparticipatio nisinjeopard y.Sustaining aquali typrogramandexcellent participationisbecomingmore difficulteachyear.
12
Present Structure
Thestructure of sciencefairsis quitewellestablishedinNewfoundland . Currently fairsat the scbool levd
an
aroundtheprovincefeedinto theregio nal fairs, cf'which there are fourinNewfoundland; Eastern,Central, Western. and Labrador.These are run by their own individualcouncilsactingas separate bodies.Although auto nomousin manyways,eachof thesecouncilsfoDow guidelinesestablishedby theNational Science Fair Committeeand the youthScience Foundation The Projea categories, including life Science,Physical Science, Computer Science andEngineering,as wellas age groupings,namelyJunior,Intermediate, and Senior arejustsome ofthecommonalities.Another isthetimingafthefairswithallthe Regionalsbeingheldneartheendof Marcheach year,sothatentry deadlinesforthe Canada WideScienceFair may bemet. The winners from these regional fairs then are eligible to attendtheCanada Wide Science Fair,whichisheldindifferent Canadian centres each year.Nominally under the controlafthe regional fair delegates aswellas the Youth Sciences Foundation(YSF)anditsboard of directors,thisfairis always held theweekbefore theMay 24weekend.Theoutstandingparticipantsatthis levelare chosento attendtheInt erna tio nal Scienceand EngineeringFair(lSEF).usua1lyheldinthe continental US supportingsome 416 affiliated fairsand some831 participants worldwide(Galen 1993).This fair isheldinMay as well. withCanadian studentschosen 10 attend the following year'sfair.Over the period of the year theswdentswork on their projectswithheJp from a mentoringscientist, refining their workto thehighestdegree possible. The students areimmersed intheir projectfor upwards oftwoyears,makingita refined pieceofhighschoolscience research.This shows a dedicationtotheirscience.whethermotivatedbytheextrinsic accolades,prizes and awards
13 orthein1:rinsic "worthandenjoymentoftbe scienceactivityitself"(Woolnough,p.I09,1994)
Reason forthe Study
ThesciencefairstructureinNewfoundlandwas one of the most vibrantinthe country.Thisfactwas most probably adirectresultot'thetimeandeffort of many of this province's scienceteachers. Atpresentthis time and effort seem to bedecreasing. The evidence isfoundbyexaminingrecentyears'participation information. Thisdata shows an increasing numberof senior-bighschoolshave stoppedhavingannualsciencefairs.During informaldiscussionswithschoolpersonnel, teachers broacheda numberof issues. Someof themclaimthatthe time and effortrequiredinholdinga local fair take too muchaway from the prescribedauriculum, andinevitablymost put completing the course"require ments"
ahead of whatisseen as an extraelJJT'icularactivity.Others say thatthey arefindingittoo difficult to comeup withnewideas fortheir students.and that there is alack ofstudent interest overall.Thus a decreaseinthe number of seniorhighstudentsparticipatingin sciencefilirsattheregional(eve!basbeenobserved.Onceagain, the evidence is foundinthe registration records.Inthe late1980 '5andearly1990'stheratioof seniorhighparticipants to juniorhighwassomewherearound2:I,withapproximately200senior participants present atthefair.This pastyear sawthatratioat1:Iwithlessthan150 seniorparticipantsanda trendtowardsman:participation by thejunior grades(Wells.19963). Thisdecreaseinsenior participation,andincreaseinjuniorparticipationisalsoevidentinotheryears.In1995,for instance,theEasternRegionalFair sentmore juniorhighstudentsthanseniortotheCanada WideScienceFair(Barron,1995) whilejusttwo yearsbefore onlyseniorhighstudentswere
14 sent.Othersupporting facts includethe size cfthe relative judging groups.Junio r Physical Scienceisthe largest group of any at thefair.Constituting close to onethird of the participants, this grouponly includes grades seven and eight.That this increase maybea result afthefactthatthe Junior High Science Curriculumlends itself moreto the practical sciencethanSeniorHigh,isinmany ways true.TheJunior High course is an activity-bascd offering, less content driven thanitsseniorhighcounterparts.Along with aheavy practical componentitrequires a sciencefairproject as pan of its assessment (Grade g Science Cwricu1umGuide,199 5). The problemisthatthis requirement is notpresentinthe Senior High course descriptions.
Thehighschool Physics curriculum guides (Physics 2204Curriallum.Guide, 1992 and Physics3204 CurriculumGuide., 1992), forbothseniorhighcourses,stipulatethata science fairproject may be done,but canbere placed by a written research report. TheChemistry guides (Chemistry 2202 Curriculum Guide.,1988 and Chemistry 3202 Curriculum Guide, 1988) perfunctorily mention science projects as a form of evaluation, butdo notmake the project a requirement."Students may" do a sciencefairproject (p.4S and p.62) .The BiologyGuides(Biology2201 CurricuJum Guide.,1994 and Biology 3201Curriculum Guide, 1994) suggest the sciencefairproject as a way to provide certaintypesof learning
experiences,
namelyinquirylearning and independent study.They also do not make them a requirement. nor do they mention theminthe evaluation section.Clearly these curriculum.guides arenetmakinga sciencefairprojectmandatory althoughgenerally they arepro moting the science fairmovementina small way.
Withineachof the juniorhigh curriculum guides,. (Grade 7,Grade g,andGrade 9
"
ScieoceCurriwh.unGuide,1995) thereis direct5Upportandarequirementforthescieoce project. A sectioofoundinthe grade eight guide(1995).states the following:
Owingc:acb.~ofthe program, students arerequiredtodoan independent science projectof the typethatwould besuitablefor entJyintoasciencefair.Atthegrade sevenlevel.students arcgiven extensive instructioninthevario us aspects involved inprep aring the project Threeweeks bas beenallocat ed forthis in thecurriculum..
Attbe grade eight and ninelevels,need for instructionaltime shouldbelessened. ApprOlomatelytwo weekshavebeenallocated at these gradelevels.(GradeEight Science Curriculum Guide.,p.12,1995 )
Notonlyisthe projecta pan ofthepcescribedcurrieulum,butitisrecommended thattime actuallybe givenintheclassfurthedew:lopmeotof the projectitself.Clearlythe juniorhigh prognmbas•truecommitmentto the sciencefairpnx:es.s.
Thislack.ofarequiredsciencefairprojectin
me
seniorgradescould be partaCthe causeof thedecliningparticipation ofthatagegroup.Ofcourseifthesciencefairproject were requiredthereprobably would notbea participa tionprob lem.Kingand Peart (1992), intheirstudiesdealingwithteachers from acrossCanada, showedthat inthescience classroomsinthejuniorhightherewasahigherincidenceof smallgroupwork(53%'IS 48% )andlessseat:work(46%V$52010)thanwuobservedintheseniorhighgrades. Althoughnotspe:ci6ca.Dy dealingwiththeareaof sciencefairprojects,the propensity ofseat work.andahighcrincidenceofteachc:rjecaaesin the highschoolgrades (60% vs 58%).may showlessopportunityfortheundenalringofsciencefairprojects .Inthe areaofevaluation, this same studyfound manystark differences betweenthe seniorandjuniorhighgrades.Effortinthejuniorhighscience classroomplays a muchlargerrolethanthatof achievement on test sandexams.Sixtyonepercent of teacherssurveyedstipulatedeffortbeing mo re impo rtantthanachievc:meut. Theseniorhighgrades were theexactopposi te.Sixtyfive
I.
percent of teachers surveyed feltthatachievement on exams and tests was the most important factorinevaluation (Kingand Peart.1992).Thissupports many of theclaims madeinthe previous section, including the reasons for schoolsnot holding sciencefairs.It also supports theclaims thattheteacheror theschool maybelargely atfault.The focuswill nowtumto the commonexcuses used to justify notbavinga sciencefair.
Thefirstarguments gleaned from theinformaldiscussions.stipulated that a science fairwould take too muchoutofregularclass time and adverselyaffectthe completion ofthe prescribedcurriculum.The&.ctisthatwithproperplanningtbefairand much af the student's work.can be outside school and classtime.Aswell,although the seniorhighcurriculum guides do not assigna sciencefilirproject as mandatory theystillsupport theidea of'thefair, seeingitas a means to utilize anddevelopcritical skillswithin the curriculum. Lackof studentinterest also may notbea validexcuse.Students from threeaf the school swho did Dotholdfairsentered theregionalfairontheirown (Wells,1996a). These students independentlychose.researched,andpresented their projects,althoughparental involvement mayhave played afactor. As wellmanyofthehighschoolsintheSt. John's areahave voluntary participationwithintheirfairsandstillmanage to get enough studentstohold them. That(eaves the lackof newideas from teachers astheonly remaining excuseofferedby individual schoo ls.Dub(1988)found the most important causeofa lackof sciencefair participation tobea lackof teacher interest and enthusiasmtowards thefairidea, while Knapp(1975)publishedalistof commonteach er excusesfornot holding a fair.Teachers who have panicipatedinthefaitinthe past mayhavelosttheir enthusiasm and may no longer be interestedindevotingmuch timeandeffort towards a fair.Several linesof reasoning
11 supportthisidea,
NUIItlerone.theseteac:hen have beenbdpingstudents withprojectsandproviding ideasforyears,50it iseasyto see whytheymaybegetting tired.Theranksoftbe ENSFC, showthistrendaD.toowell Apastc:hairpcnonofthecoUDcilisone oftheteacbc:r'swhose schooldocs rotbold.
scecce
fAir.Numbertwo.Juniorhighscience teachers have students at the beginning oftheirfaircareers,arxIthusoldtriedandtrueideaswillstillbefreshto thes e students.Also.Junior Highteachin gmaterialshavemanyinterestingandrewarding scienceprojectsa1readyprepared.Thetimesetasideinthecurriculumfor thesciencefairin thejuniorbighisanoth erdefinitefactor.This explains theadvance smadein tbejuniorhigh area.Fmally,theaverage seniorscienceteacherinmany schoolsisverysenior,inmost cases inthelasthalfof tbeirteacbing careers, andtlwtheyhave donealloflhis manytimesbefore. HolyHeart HighScboolbas13scienceteacherson~withallbut fiveabletoretirewithin fiveyeatS-Althoughthismay be anaberrarioo.penonalexperience showsthatthisisclose totheDOm1.Amorerigorousproof mayDOtbepossibleas no specificagedataisavailable forthisarea.yet:somesupportisfoundinother areas.KingandPeart (1992)foundthatthe juniorhighgrades ofteachers.althoughbeingsubjectspecialists. were morelikelyto undc:rta.k:eandbeimerested ina career move.ThJs.withthe posSIbilityofhighturnoverfresh teachersareprobablyinjectedintothe system.Suchisnoc: thecaseinthe senior high grades.wherethecareermovepcssibilirywasconsiderably less(KingandPeart,1992) . Otherevidencethatsuppo ns this hypothesis comesfrom suc h places as the Youth ScienceFoundationand Stem-Net.TheYouth ScienceFound ationanDualIypublisheslists andabstra cts ofwiMingprojects fromtheCanadaWide Science Fair.Aswell,tberhave
"
published a list of possibleproject ideasforallgrade levels, to aid teachersintheirjdt (Science Fair ProjectIdeas, 1979,and RegionalScience Fair Guidelines.1995).This was pan of theirfairhandbook.,included to giveteachers'a head stanon givingstudentsideas.
Stem-Net,whichis theInternet providerfor all ofNewfoun dlan d and Labrador' seducation system,hasalso respondedtosuch requestsfrom scienceteachers.The organizationitself wasput into place to suppon teachers within Newfoundland and Labrador.withthe name Stem-Net,actuallystandingforScience, TechnologyEducationand Mathematicsteachers' Network .In1993 Harvey Weir.then directorof Stem-Net, solicited and supportedthe creation oraScic:nc:cFairs Gopher that wouldgiveteachersaccessto new projectideasand information.Itproved tobe among themost popuJar gopher sites(Weir,1994 ).FoUowing the changeintechnologyand the adventof theWorld WideWeb,the Science Fairs Gopher became the Science Fair Home Page.Thecontent remained the same,withidea lisa as its focus.whileitssuccess became measurablethrough theuseof accesscounters.Between the months ofJamuuy andMay1996,more thanthreethousandaccesses weremadetothispage FromMayof 1996toMayof199 7,an additionalthirtyseven-tho usan d accesses weremade.
This marked increase in accessmay be due to several factors, one being an increase in availabilityof the Internet to students.Insuppo rt of thishypothesis,the increasein accessescouldmeanthat more studentscanseekthehelptheyneedfortheirsciencefair projects orthat therewas anincreasedneedforthe heJpitself Either would support the hypothesisthatstudents need heJpinobtaining ideas for science fair projects. The evidence iscontrovertible,butweighs heavilyinfavourof the point that projectideas are amongthe mostimportant factorsofaScience Fair's success. Sothen,teachersmaybe the mainreason
19
forthe declineinsciencefairs.justas they were themainreason fortheirinception. The question10asknowishowtohelp them? lfideasandresearchare thestumblingblocksfor theseteachers, thenidentifyingthe waysinwhich students obtaintheirideas and research, andmakingthesepathwayseasier to access forall involvedwould seemthesolution.
Outlineoftbe Study
Thisresearchwill beaddressingtwomainquestions.wheredo studentsgettheirideas for science fair projects.and where do students dotheirresearch for sciencefairprojects.
Withinthese questionsseveral comparisons are possible.Oneisto viewthe differences betweenwherehighachievers at thefair,namelythose who win a medal. andother students get theirideas and dotheirresearch. The literature supports suchadifference,soitcanbe expectedtobesignificant. The secondistoviewthereasons why such sources are used.
Thiswillallowinsightinto whatdrivesa student towardsone source ratherthananother.
This insightwillhave practical significancewithinthe educational system andwilladdress some aftheproblems discussed earlier.
Thebasis ofansweringthese questions and observing these comparisonsis thefinal standingof thestudentat the fair. A concern wouldbewhetheror notthe instruments used wouldbecapableof answeringthese questions. Is the differencebetween a medal winnerand non-medal winner statisticallysound? Can it bereproducedwitha certain degree of certainty?A check of reliabilityand validity of thisprocess isneededto insure this.
Othercomparisonsandquestions canberaisedfromtheinstrumentsprovided, butthe mainpurpose of this researchisto answerthesequestions first.
Chapter 2 A Revie woftheLiterature
Withinany literature review the criteriaforselecting the articles mustbespecified. This reviewwilldeal specifically witharticles thatare withinthe science fair genre, namely allarticlesdealingwiththefairitself:its structure,itspurpose,the projectsthemselves. and allpartsofthefaiTdeemedtop ical. This discussionwillformalizethe definitio nand establish thetypes of projects,reviewresearch onproject idea sourcesand concerns., andresearch methods and concerns.
DefinitionandProject Types forDiscu ssion
Tobeginthis discussion,the positionthat differentpeopleholdonthe issueofthe natureofscieocefairswill be examined.Intheprevio uschapter asciencefairwas defined as a sciencecompetition, involvingjudging byscientists,students workingas scientists would., undertakinga scienceproject.Butthisundertakingmust also be defined.The high school sciencecourses'curriculumguides inNewfotmdlandand Labrador includea science-fair-type scienceproject among suggested featuresbutno ne makeitarequiredelement.The physics curri culum guidescometheclosest(Physics2204 and Physics3204Curri culum Guides.
1992 ), butallows teachers andstudentstochoose this required project to meanawritten researchpaper passed into the teachers themselves.Although thisconstitutespart ofwhat a science project is,itmisses the cruxofthe matter. Asimovand Fredericks (p.l,1990) supplyuswithawell-ro undeddefinitio n:
21 A sciencefairprojectisa presentation of anexperiment.a demonstration, a research effort. a collection ofscientific items, or a display of scientific apparatus.
Theyare supported by Pushkin (1987)whostipulatesthat"researchis the process of studying a scientific problemwiththe intent of solvingitand/or learning aboutit"(p.962).These definitionsare quitecomplete and encompassallpossible avenues that a sciencefairproject can follow.However,as some people may object toallthat is includedinthis list, it opens up a controversial issue.which is the debate between experimental and non-experimental types of projects.
Theccerrcversy revolvesaroundwhetherthetwomain typesof sciencefair projects, experimental and non..experimental,should bothbeacceptable. The Youth Sciences Foundation (YSF).intheirScience Fair Project Ideas publication (1979) originally gave an expansive definition of what a non-experimcntaltype of project entails.According tothis guide thenon-experirnental project, or display as theycallit.isone of the two following things:
Adisplay ofscientificinformation alreadyavailable inprintedand non-printed form:
usuallycopies ofdiagrams,moodsassembledfrom kits.summariesof reports and books.
Achart.illustration, model. collection, specimen or report based on first hand investigationbythe student;the display must show evidence of the students own thought.(p.I)
Theseguidelineshave since changedon the national scene,and the classification ofprojeas becomesmore complex (Science Fair Guide, 1995).The original definition presented a clear divisionbetweenexperimental and non-experimentai projects. Italso classified nOD- experimental projects as being of lower level educationally andwithinthejudging structure.
Now therearethreecategories of projects., experimental, irmovation, andstudy. The
12 experime:ntaIprojectis.as the name suggests,theundertakingof an experiment toaddress orsolveaproblc::m io sceece.lnDovations.dearlywithinthe realmofthe noIH:Xperimc:mal project. involve:
the developmentandevaluationofinnovativedevices,modelsor techniques or approa.cbesinfieldssuchasteclmology,engineering.or computcn(bothhardware and",ftwue).(Goulding. 1997)
Thestudy typeofproject. another oon-c:xpcrimentaJtype.involves:
acollectionandanalysisofda1atorevealevidence of a fact ora situation of scientific interest. Itcouldincludeastudyof cause andeffectreJationships involving ecological,social.politicaloreconomicconsiderations;indepthstudies;theo retical investigations.Variables.,ifidentified.arebytheirnaturenot feasibleto control.
(Goulding,1997)
Onceagain.thesetypesofinvestigatioasare not experimentalinnature, butwouldfallmore intoPushkin's (1987) learningaboutascientific problem whileclearlyexisting withinthe demo nstr ati o n, coUect:ionordisplaysof A$imov and Fredericks (1990).Some authorsfed thattbe~typeofprojectisootatrue·science·cxpcrience.Stedman ( I97S) views non-experimemaltypesas "valuableesperieece, but...notthebest.reflection of science"(p.20),whileMcBwney (1978) views them. as DODscience,"giving students a misleading view of sciencc"(p.420). These authors are supportedbyFredricksonand Mikkdson(1979).whosee theooo-c:xperimeoltypeofprojectashavinga "legitimateplace in theteaching of science.buta clear-cutdistinctionshouldbemade between these efforts and actualscientific experimentation" (p .499). They clearlysee non-experimentaltype projectsas lessthantheirexperimentalbrethren.Knapp(1915) ,although recognizin gthat many typesofnon-experimental projectscouldbepartof the sciencefair,labels them as projects foryoungchildren,whileencouragingevensixthgraders10undertake the more
2J
difficult(m biscycs)experimem.a1project.Daab(1988)fouodthatthere wasaparticipation problemwithlbefifthgradenwithinbetdistrict. Thisproblem wasinpartcaused by unreaso nabledemandsmade uponthefifthgraders,oamdynotaUowingthemtodo non- experimentaltypeprojects.Thiscouldbeviewed as an exampleofwhereholdingthe idea of non -experimentaltype projects notbeing~real~science couldverywellbehurtingthe sciencefairmovement.However,the author didnotseeit thatway.butratherchoseto deviseamc:tOOdtomaketbisexperimc:ntatioeasier
ror
the6fth gradestudent (Dabb.1988).Perhapsc:xpaDding.or-c:nbaocingthewaysstudents doooo-experimentalprojects. aswdlas enforcingcertainstricturesuPJDwhattopics maybe addressedwouldsolvetheproblem.
Theproblemorquestionextendsbeyondtherealmof classroomfaintomajorfain held oationally and internationally.The IllinoisBoard of Educationseestheexperimental project asthehigherlevel of thetwo,withitsadvantages including fostering scientific thinkingandothereducationalskills. Theyspecifically statethatthis type maybemore applicab leto upper-level.and upper-abilitysmdems, whiletheonly advantage for the dc:monstratiooof~typeworkisthatiscouldbemoresuccessful forandmore applicabletoIower-level.students (Riggins.1985a).Thatthe presentationofany topicis usefuleducationallyorthateven a non-experimental type of projectwhendo ne wd1 can display scientificthinkingisDOtpresentintheirreasoning.Furtherproofof thisisfoundin Riggins(1985b)asthey take students through theprocess ofdesigning experimentswithin thestudent'shandbook.yet makeno mentionofdiscovery/displaytypesofprojects.Riggins (1985b)isusedasascience 6lir guide.Othersuchguides were perusedandinthemthesame narrowdefinitionwasdiscovered.
"
NonhCarolina's State Science Fair Guide(1988)definesa-tru e · science praiect as an-invesliga:lioo.of.question,.involvingresearch.planningandapplication ofthe5cientific methodto seekananswertotbc~·(p.4).Ofa:useiftbcauthorsbadSloppedbefore theapplicationofthescieutific:method.it wouldhaveincluded1lO~type projects. NewfuuodIand'sf4ir guide.whidJ.isthe YSFsfairguide(199 5), assumes that noD- experimentaltypeprojectsareDOtofhigh enoughlevdfortheCanadaWKl.e Fair.aview sbaredbytheISEF.Infact, withinthe ScienceFairProjectIdeas Guide(1979)publishedby theYSF,theysuggestthattheno n-experimentaItypeprojectis oflower educationall cvel and deservingoffewerpointswithin the judging process.
The NorthCarolinaGuide (1988)also callsanexperimental projecta·succes.sful project"It appearsthatthelairguideisattemptingtofunndstudents intoaproject type that wouldbemoresucoessfulata higherbelThisispossible.as theYSFguide (1995) and the ruJesoftbclSEFstipuJatethatano~typeproject'slevdisnot appropriatefor theCanada WideScicoceFair or theInternationalScienceandEnfJneeriogFair.Who then canblame!he teacherforguidingtheirstudents awayfromthelegitimateyetquitemaligned noo-experimentalprojectswhen success lies upon anotherpath?
Propooemsoftheooo-expcrimemaItypeSof projectsare,.forthe mostpart,intenton includingasmanystudents15possible,andthus do not want tolose thelower-levelstudents suchatypeofprojectwouldusuallydraw.ChiapenaandFoots (1984)on theotherhand see non--cxpcrimentaltypeprojectsina differeotlight. Theysaythat notallresearchis empirical innature andin filetsome of themost notedscientistsbasedtheir workon the work of others (Cbiapetta andFoots,1984).TheygiveEinsteinandbistheoriesasanexample(Chiapena
"
and FOOlS,1984). Atthispoint.it isinterestingto note,thatEinstein'swork and thought experiment.wouldfall withintheInnovation type of project at the Eastern Newfoundland ScienceFair.Inevitably,anywellresearchedandinquisitiveproject addressing today'sissues canbeaninfurmative,problem-solving based,criticalthinking enhanced, learning experience withoutbeingempiricalinnature orbasedalong the lines of the scientific method.
McNay (1985) suggests that science projects"are supposed to be experimental, to deecescate that the young scientistcanformulateandtest ahypothesis,gatherdata, interpret results and draw conclusion- (p.I7).Thisposition has left non-experimental types out ofthe top fair projects'picture.McNay (1985) goes on to stipulatethat the nonn has been:
Fairprojectsthatdisplayinformationor demonstrate a principle or process have often been considered insufficiently scientific and have even been described as not only missingtheessence of science but alsobeinginconsistentwiththe goals ofteaching science(Smitb, 1980)(McNaY,P.17.19 8 5)
ConsideringMcNay's(1985)view-that:science"meansquestioningthe world.wondering bow itworks, and, while delightinginitsmysteries.raisinghopeabout the possibility of coming to understandingsome of them- (p. 18) itisobvious why she feelsthatnon-experimental projectsare just as important as experimental projects. Wellington's (1994)topology of investigations wouldlistmost non-experimentaltypesof projectsasinvestigations. A graphicalrepresentationofthistopologyisfoundinthe next section.Somenon-experimental typesof investigationswouldbeclosed-endedintheir scope,withanansweralreadydecided, butitcould reasonablybeconcluded thataquestion and answer about how somethingworks isa legitimateundertaking. Theseviewsnotonly support McNay's standpoint of non- experimentaltypeprojects being legitimate science,but alsoblend weU with the ideasof science investigations discussed before.Her viewpointon the non experimental approaches
26
have been encapsulatedbelow:
I. Presentingthree-dimensional displaysbased onliteraturesearches.
2. Buildingworking models or presenting technical demonstrations 3. Demonstrating a basic scientificprinciple.
4. Observingthe environment.
5. CollectingandAnalysingdata.(McNay.p.IS, 1985)
Anotherproponent,KevinCollins(1981),offen a unique perspective onindependent nonexperimentalprojects,takingus fromwhatheusedto do, to a moreeffective strategy he basdeveloped.EssentiallyCollins(198 1)original strategy of suggesting"repo rts on various topics related toclasswork being coveredatthe time"(p.463),lead to thetypeof
"cookbook"experimentsand plagiarized work Woolnough(1994) predicted.His present systemof explanationofgoals.suggested topics.andsignifican t student -teac her int era ctio n, hasleadto "not only writtenpapers (in thestudents' own words),butalso toplantcollections, photography projects.andotherproj ect soffering something foreveryone'sintere stsand talents"(Collins, p.463.1981).ThusCollinsstartedwiththestructuredandmoved on toward the moreeffective(inhis case)unstructured research.
As statedat the beginning of this discussion.this is a controversial issue,one which cannotberesolvedwithina single literature review.Earlier there was established a series of goals.somebased onthe presentationof the project., dealing withthejudges and pu blic, turning students ontoscience.teaching themabou t competition, teaching them aboutbow scienceworks,to challenge the student, etc.Althougbthese arenot allofthe goalsfor sciencefairs.the goals mentionedhere seemingly canbe addressed byanon-experimental typeof project.Bombaugh(I987) doesn't actually comment ontheexperimentalversus the non-experimental, but ratherinthe needto chaUenge the student, whileDub (1988)admits
27 thatnoo-experimental project couldform the basis of an"entry -lev el" forstudents intothe science fair. Insununary, both the non-experimentaltypeandexperimental project are legitimate depenc:liDg on,(l)the age of participants,(2)the nature of the student work on display,and(3) the proviso that thenon-experim entaltypeof project actuallymeets moreof the stated goals ofsciencefairs.Withinthisdiscussionconsiderationwillbegiven to both the non-experimentaland experimentaltypeof sciencefair projects.
ProjectIdea; SourcesandConcerns
Obtaininganidea is consistentlymentioned within thelite ratur e as the firststepof creating ascience fair project.A common question heard byteachers fromtheir studentis
"Wh at willIdo my projecton?" WhileStud ents also ask"W hatwillbetheoverri ding questionthatwill leadtomyhypothesisandthusinto my research?" Leibennann(1988) sees this as"the biggest obstacleto overco me in doinga project"(p.I067)while Bombaugh (1987)stipulatedthat30"10ofanyproject time wouldbe spentondetermining what thetop ic wouldbe.To differentiatebetweenthemainareas of where studentprojectideas comefrom, Wellington's
"topology of investigations" will
be used. A
representation shown to theright.
~-==)
FIGURE I: Wellington,1994-Topologyof Investigation
'"
Basically.thereisaspecttumof investigationsleading fromdirected/structuredto undirectedfunsain research;franclosedtoopelinthe questioning;&ndfromteacher- ledinvestigationstostudent-ledinvestigations.Thecontinuum.dealingwithwhoposes the questions.and what typeof questions they arcwillprovide the structure for the discussion on ideas.Thecontirnnundealingwiththe:typeof researchtakin gplacewillbe usedinalater section.
Twoof thc mostprevaIeDr:mctbodsofstartingan investigati onareusinglists created byindividualscienceteaeben, andusingsciencete:xuintheacquisitionof afairprojectidea Tbcsewouklfanclosetotheteaeber-ledsideof the spec:ttum. Hansen(1983),organizedhis elementaryfairaroundalist using."suggestedtopics fromthestudents'science teltts·(p.IO).Pushkin(1987) concurs,recommending"that the students lookthrough their textbooks forideas"(p.962).VanDeman andParfitt (1985) agreethatselectin g the topic is
"perhaps themostdifficultpanof da ing a scienceproject"(p.14)and goon to suggestthe use ofteaeberintroduced topicsearlierintheyear.TwopopularNuBieidscience texts.used inEnglandduringthe1970's.listprojectsuggestions (Tawney,1975).L,factthebasic premiseis thesame,.insuringthattheproj ect undertakenisrelevant sceoce;relevantto the subjectarea athandatleast(Hansen.1983;PushIcin,1987).ItisinterestingtoDOtethat Asimovand Fredericks (1990)bookcontainsaListofpossib le experiments.This wouJdlead ODCto believethattheysupponDotonlythe studentcreated projects,buttheteacherlists as weD.Theriskis thatthesequestions, alreadyhavingbeenansweredto somedegree,mayalso fallalongthecJosed..endedside ofttlespectrum,and theireducational worth maybeindoubt.
Detractorsofthisprocessarenotdifficult tofind.Woolnough (1994)disagrees
29 stronglywiththispracticestating."too oftenpmdicaI.workbasbeendominated and distorted by anaimto elucidate or discover some piece of scientific theory"(PA9). He further goes ontosaythatthis-cookerybook"typeof investigationisunproductive.,tightlystructured and leadsto"unsucx:essfulcomprehension" (Woolnough,1994,p.49). To lend credence to these statements,Woolnough(l994) reJates that many industrialistsand educationalists advocate the more studentcent:ered"individual...researchproject"(P.49). and their reasons arethat thisproduces therightperson for industry,and itfitsinwithwhateducators theorise about howchildrenlearn. Asecondcontrary view tothe1istJte:xtpractice is foundinFoster (1983), who labels such as "cookbook experiments."basically"artificial" approaches (p.20),which do notaddressthe true sense of what a studentisinterestedin.Foster (1983) suggeststhat the science project be ayear -lo ngaffair.andthat teachersbeginby "introd ucing students. to the idea of asking questionsaboutthe world aroundthem"(p.20).This thenis supportedbythe introduction ofexperimentsto answer certain questions, and inevitablyto the students own question and experiment design (Fester,1983).From Wellington'spoint ofview,Foster (l983)isattempting to movealong the continuum, from the teacher-led end of question posing,andworkingtowards the student side whileengendering open-ended questions about"the world around-hisstudents.Essentially the amountof open-endedness of the experiment dependson the student. theteacher'sinstructions, and the amount of copying of experimentsthattake place.
Rivard's (1989) work: in developinga model of idea developmentis quite similar to Foster's, and includes, the students listing their interests. teacher involvement by identifying thoseinterests whichwould lend themselvesto scientificinvestigation and instruction on how
JO toformu1ale properresearchquestions,studenu writingproper research questions fromtheir interesc1ists,thenevaluatingandchoosing from thistheirresearc h topic.Rivardstartsmuch closer tothestudent-led side of thespectrum,and attemptsto insure an open-ended questioning.A representation is given below:
I.[student]listshislberinterests
2.[teacher]studiestheinten:stsand seeks toidentify those whichlend themselves to active research
3.[Intheclassroom]teacher gives examplesof bow to identify a researchproblem . Generaldiscussion. Instructs studentsto fbrmulare a number ofquestions based on tbe lnteresrsHsred
4.[student]drawsup a series of questions based on hislher interests,particularly thoseidentifiedbytheteacher as having research potential
5.[student]evaluateseach question(or problem) according to its relevance, originalityandvalidity
6.[student] selects one problem and gathersinfonnation..
Rivard., p.202, 1989 Inallthese casesitisthe intent that theteacher acts as facilitator.not adjudicatoror list maker. and the projects havereal relevance for the student involved.Asimovand Fredericks (1990) who also see the act of choosing a topic the mostdifficultpartof the science fair process, suggestthatalistof questionsthatwould bring out the student'sinterests could sparksomeideas.Theyarepresuming that students'interests are guiding theirresearch,but insomecasesstudents do projectsthat theythinktheir teacher wants to see. or thatwilldo well in the competition. Essentially the problemsinthesecases aretime, classroom commitment,teacher quality.ability,andinterest.Much ofa scienceclass'allocated time wouldbetaken upinthe development of these projectformulas, and theteacherin question wouldhaveto totallyagreewith thestrategy and supportit throughout for it to haveany chance of succeeding.
31
There are many reasons why a teacherlist should not be used, buthere are some variationsonthatideawhichpresent the argument froma different perspective. One way to insurethat:thesciencetakingplaceisrelevant, while also decreasing the amount of teacher- led questionposing,is the thematic sciencefilir introducedbyWmicur(1989). Essentially "all projectswithina grade level must conform to the theme, yet the themes are so general as to not really restrict the choices of topics"(p.27).Wmicur.though, does notrestrictthe creativity beyond thisproviso,andinfact uses the commontheme to engender cooperation amongall thestudents.Thelackof restrictionsalsoallowsthe possibilityof more open-ended questions. Keller and Holden (1994) also support the idea ofa thematicfair.Intheir case though the themeisthe same year to year. specificallydealingwithconsumer issues.Their consumerfairstillpromotes sciencefairsingeneral, but channels the students problem- solving skills and creativity into areas that not only make them better scientists. butbetter consumers as well(Keller and Holden, 1994)
Chioouth (1994)channels her students'ideas in a different direction. She suggests project ideas and supplies a teacher list for projects that are inexpensive.Washingthatall studentscompeteon a levelfield, and thatsomenotbeleftoutdue to sociol-eeooomicstatus, Chinoutb(1994) developedsolutionsthatcost little yet pay off big in the sciencelearnin g arena.Suchthingsaslearningaboutrecyclablesaround the houseandcreating projects from everyday household materials are just someofthepossibilities.
Liebermann (1988) meanwhile.,getsaroundtheproblemof cookbook experimentation by pushinghisstudents beyond the norm. He uses a list developed from experiments presentedin thepages oftheJournalof ChemicalEducation. His case is special amongstthe
l2
teacher provided experiments, as seen below:
Itmayconcern some readers that these experiments, the outcomes ofwbich are more or lessknownaretreatedas research projects.However. these experiments are new to mystudents, and intheirhands no outcome is certain. .They realize they are reproducing previous work, butwiththe intention of modifyingand extending itin somewaybeyondwhat was presentedin[the Journal ofChemical Education]and in some oftheoriginalliteraturc.(Liebermann.P.l067.1988)
Thusalthoughteacher-led, these investigations move towards being open-ended. There are others whofee!the same way and suggest movinginthe same directions as Liebennann.
Giese andhiscolleagues(etaL1992) think that theact of perusing lists of past student experiments willassist studentsintheir search for a topic. Tawney (1975) concurs.
suggestingeventhattexts,"intend ed for younger pupils, may stimulate ideas for the A level student"(p.78).Field,dealingwithyoungerchildren.hasaddressed this problem as wen,"of course. studentswillneed guidance at every phase, including theinitialone-selecting a problem to be studied"(Field, p.IS,1987). Yetinhis case, even though the logical course is presenting the studentswithalist of project ideas to choose from. Fields uses "a little promptinganda few examples tostart."allowing the students to ask their own research questions, questionsto whichtheydo not know the answer.Here thenis apartiallyteacher- led investigation with moderateopen-endedness. This mirrors Liebermann (1988) to some extent,stressingtheneedfor the student to search out answers to questions they themselves do not know the answer to.One of the ways togelthe most out ofa sciencefairisto use morethanone methodinhelpingstudents come upwiththeir project idea. Asimov and Fredericks(1990) suggest that students should peruse variousresearchsources to find a topic.Specificallytheschoollibrary,auniversitylibrary,governmentagencies,local scientific laboratories, newspaper ormagazineoffices,cityor countyagenciesor evenmailorder.
J3 Romjue and Clementson (1992) provide a resourcelist withtheir sciencefairset-upguide.
Thislistincludes thehbrary,newspapersand magazines. oldsciencetextbooks.profess io nal journalsandcommunityresourcesallofwbichcan beused to"inspire sciencefairprojects"
(RomjueandClementson,P.24,1992).Itis interestingto notethatallofthescresources can be used tohelpinthe research ofaproject aswell.
Galen(1993)tellsusthat the "choice of atopic forscientificresearchis very important,"and then continueswith the ways andmeanshehimselfusesinthe classroom.
Essentiallythese amountto ISEF abstracts (a form cftist), the student's own creativity,the student'sprevious year's project(givingthestudenttwo years toresearch andbuild up a project]and his own personal experience, yet he does not commentontheireffecti veness beyondcommenting onthe success oChis program,whichincludes 23[SEFfaircompetitors (Galen 1993).ThereisDOmention as to whe ther his tutelageisthe cause of these winning projects, althoughitisimplied.InGalen'scase.heallowsthe studentsability todetennine wberethequestionl3llsonthe continuum.Goodman (1975)has his seniorstudentsnarrow theirtopic choicesbasedon their fieldof inter est, choo sing a topic from Biology, Physic s or Chemistry.Thcycouldthenrefinetheirchoicesinto somesubsetofthatparticul ar discipline, suchas mology.Healsosuggeststhatgood ideas are available fromsuch sourcesas articles injoumalsandabstracts.Goodmangoes onto counsel theuse of teacherdirected whole- class projects as an alternative(Goodman,1975).
Giese,Cothron,andRezba(l992) suggest "a simple questionnaireasking studentsto identifYtheir hobbies,part-timejobs. talents,science articles they read, or any science-related interestscan helpidentify topics·(p.32). As well, books on science tricks, demonstrations.
l4
popular magazines.. science course-related materials, or lab manuals are other suggestions, onceagainallowingthe studentthemselves to choose whethertolead or followinposing a question(Giese etaL.1992). They submitthatby~alteringthe variables- such activities could become unique, meaningful studentinvestigations,essentiaUy opening a c1osed-encled investigation.
orcourse the students own creativity on comingupwithaprojectidea cannotbe discounted. This wouldseem to be the highest fonn of student-led investigation and creativity.Somewould suggest that the student's ultimate motivation fordoing the science fairis"an intrinsicinterestinfindinganswers-(Giese. Cothron. andRezba,p.32.1992 ).Not only that butthe studentinexperiencing the world is able to ask such questions themselves:
Ideas for projects can befoundeverywhere.I frequently recall Gerd Scmercf's story of a boywho, during a schooltripto Broadcasting House, foundinspiration for a projectinthe controls of the completely ordinaryliftused toreachthe studios.
(Tawney, P.78,1975)
Fields(1987) also supports the idea of spontaneous project idea generation.Wondering aloud about anything couldbea research topic.As well,presenting a"discr epant event"
(p.19)tostudentscould spark the choice ofa topic.Pearson(1976) stipulatesquiteclearly that there need to"be more ways to help teachers tum student ideas into projects"(p.30).
Althoughtheonusis on the teacher throughout the research processinthiscase.the onusis on the student forthe topic. Wolfe (1994) also leaves his project idea choiceopen-ended, omy stipulating that the students "explainor describe a scientific or mathematical principle or concept"(p.I7). Knapp (1975) whiledealingwiththeissue offairs in the elementary grades addresses issues of relevance toallsciencefairs.He suggests that each child must
as selecttheirown project idea,because"Childr enresistbaving to make forcedchoices from lists"(p.12)
Foster(1983) suggests that students contributing to a classroomresource centre on science maystimulatetheidea process.Another approach taken by VanDemanand Parfitt (1985)isallowing students tohavepracticeinasking questions.muchassuggestedbyboth Blume(I985)andFoster(l983).Fields(1987)presentsan interesting viewpoint ontheto pic choosing. Wnhin hisfairthe researchtakingplaceisgroupwork,and the studentsactually shareideasandthenchoose the topictogether.Thisform couldadd tothe excitementaswell asintroducecooperation andde-empbasisethecompetitionissue (Fields.198 7).It could also involve guidance fromtheteacher involved and serve tostresstheimportanceof teacher intervention. Butbyfar themost innovative strategy involvesa mentorshipprogram, involvinglocal scientists,giving studentsa chanceto investigate"a wide varietyoCtopics under the guidance ofinterestedcommunity members"(DeBruin,Bceuner,F1askramp and Sigler,p.20,1993).Inthiscase thevarietyis chosenbytheresearchers, yetthe studenthas thefinalchoice ofwhichprojecttodo fromthatvariety.Alternativemethodsof projectidea generation changedependingonthe situations athand,yet these methods seem tobeamong themost effective.
Onethingthatismissingfrom most ifnotallof these anicles is discussionof research onwherestudents believetheirideas come from. Thisepitomizesthe problems with mostof the literaturedealingwith science fairs.The literature mainlyconsistsof hypothetical help manualsdealingwiththeories oflearnin g yet comaining very littlein the way of research results.Student:comments found on this study'squestionnaire showthat the idea processis
36 DOtas easy ordearISwasoriPJalIytbougbr.. Somestudems were unclear as tocxaetfybow they finally came upwiththeirideas. Inseveral case more thanone sccrcewufisted, poSSIblyshowingthatideaswerediscardedand new sourcesused.orthatthe originalidea wasmodifiedby thesecondsource. InScir:oceandOtiIdren (Sebeck, Goergen,Loftus.and l.arison.l976),studett:swen:gMn adwx:e towriteonrheirexperience.These students also foundthey<:bangedtheirproject'sfocus.thatdifficultyinobtaininginformationandmaterials changedtopics,andthatinevitablytheirinterests,orsuggestions from parents decidedwhat they would do.All four ofthc::sechildrenattendedthe districtfair(Scheck,Goer gen. Loftus, andl.arison,1976).Thequestionofbowandwherestudenudotheirresearch isthenext area of discussion
R.esqrchMethods andCo ncqns
ThissectioniINolvesthe discussionoftbevariousresearchmethodsusedbysrudents Wbctbertheprojeaisexperimemalor~theyaUrequireasubswttia.Iamount ofresearchResearchforthe purposesof sciencefairprojects canencompasslibraryWOR:
(Galen, 1993),textbook searches(Foster,1993),teacher questioning (Galen 1993;Puskin.
19 87 ),parentalinvolvement (whether intended or not)(Burtch.1983),magazine.andAV materials(Foster,1993).Other materialstoinvestigateare: "encyclo paedi as., dictionaries.
biographicaldictionaries,atlases,pamp hlets,records,news pa per files.maps, bibliographies, librarycardcatalo gues.,audioandvideorecordings.almanacs.text boo ks. graphs. brochures, magazinesandprofessionaljoumals,historicalstories, photographs andart, charts., magazine indexes,public documents"(Rae, p.3S-36.198 5).Infiletalmostanywherethatcouldhave
J7 any infonnationinthe student'stopicisapotentiallyusefulplace. Asimovand Fredericks(I990)CODaJr.makingvaried5UggestiOns fordoingresearchoutsidetheschool library.Theyalsosuggesta[I.JIJ]I;)erofindividualsthatthestudentcantalk10.Thissuggests that studentsuscmanydifferentsources
Foster(l993) seesresearchin severn!stages.with"few investigationsbecause most answers to simple questionscanbefoundin books-(p.22).Usingbooksoralibraryasa beginningtoanyresearchprojectis supportedbyGalea(1993)whofindsthat-localschool ID'ariesaDdpublicfibnricsIRthebestbeginningsources ofup-to-date infonnation-(p.46S).
SomeadvocateDOtonlythatthescboollibrariesbeused.butinsistonit.Suchisthecase withHanscn(I 98J ),whosescic:nc:elairsctsupwor1careas attheschoolwherealltheproject work.[WSl:bedone.Thereasonissimple,"tc makesun:thatstudents (rather than parents) didtheprojects-(Hansen,198 3,p.IO).Giffordand W[)'8Ul(1992)disagreewith this method sayingthatthisactionwouldputsome studentsata disadvantage.andremovetheir"equal andfAircbanccofwinnioginsciencefaircompetition"(p.I17).Theybackthisstatementup withempiricalevidence thatshowsthat "accesstoacoIIcgcoruniversityandresource dollan appeartobethemostimportant factors"(GiffordandW[}'gUl.1992., p.lI7)forstudent c:hanoc:sofwirring.A(X)QCfw;ionthalcouJdreasonabI.ybedrawnisthatbyinsistingon local researchmethods,thechancesthatthestudentwill be competitiveathigherlevelsare lessened.
Thefearoftoomuch parental involvementisarealone.The questionwhicharises isbow mucbofthisprojectisthe student 'sandbowmuchistheparent's.Pryorand Pugh (1987)Sdestepthisproblemby makingsuggestions as to bowparens canbeofassistanee,.
