Coaching a high school Science Olympiad team.

Abstract

Each year thousands of high school science teachers serve as Science Olympiad coaches. These teacher-coaches mentor and assist students who compete in biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and technology events at this extra curricular academic competition. Why do teachers serve as coaches? What are their rewards and challenges? What levels of competition and cooperation exist among students engaging in this endeavor? What is the relationship of coaching a Science Olympiad team and teaching high school science? Nine science teachers who served as coaches at a regional high school Science Olympiad in 2002 were interviewed to answer these questions. Their insights are reported here.

**********

The Science Olympiad [SCIO] is "an international nonprofit organization devoted to improving the quality of science education by generating student interest in science and providing recognition for outstanding achievement in science education by both students and teachers" (Putz, 2002, p. CC1). According to Gerald Putz, SCIO National Director, roughly 13,500 elementary and secondary teams involving 200,000 individuals from all 50 states and Canada take part in this extra curricular academic competition each year. In New York alone, 275 high school teams with 550 high school teacher-coaches and 4000 students (grades 9-12) participated in 2002. Of this total, 25 teams involving 50 teacher-coaches and 375 high school students, with nearly equal numbers of girls and boys, took part in the regional tournament in Rochester, New York, on a Saturday in February of that year. On the day of the tournament, students in groups of two or three per school competed against their peers from other schools in 18 science and engineering events.

The events required students to apply their scientific content knowledge and laboratory skills during 50-minute sessions addressing such topics as bird identification, chemistry laboratory investigation, topographical map reading, and physics experimentation. They also used their engineering and technical know-how in constructing remote controlled robots, balsa wood boomilevers, catapults, energy transfer devices, and musical instruments based on precise design specifications and performance criteria. Students who finished in the first three places for each event received gold, silver, and bronze medals to recognize their accomplishments. All participants in each event earned points for their teams based on their results. The top finishing teams received trophies as well as invitations to the state level high school SCIO to compete against other regional qualifiers in March. The top two teams from the state tournament participated in the national SCIO in May. The SCIO evolved out of a "concern over dwindling science enrollments both in high school and college and waning student interest in science fairs (Macbeth, 1977, p. 22). A SCIO and a science fair are similar in that they are extracurricular science competitions. They differ in that the SCIO involves collaborative group competitions on a variety of science and technology events whereas a science fair tends to be an individual scientific research project on a particular problem (Jones, 1991). There has been a belief among many secondary and post secondary science teachers and science teacher educators that the SCIO generates student interest in science (Cairns, 1984; Fletcher, 1981; McGee-Brown, Martin, Monsaas, & Stombler, 2002; Wilson, 1981). The authors of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) wrote that the SCIO enhanced scientific literacy as students "display their understanding and ability in science" (p. 39). In light of this published support, what can be learned about teachers who served as coaches at a regional tournament?

Goals and Methods

The goal of this study was to investigate the nature of coaching a high school SCIO team. What were the beliefs and needs of high school science teachers who served as coaches? What rewards and challenges did they face? What was the relationship between coaching and teaching? To learn more, nine high school science teachers who served as coaches in the 2002 Rochester Regional High School SCIO volunteered to take part in the study. The teacher-coaches represented 7 of the 25 teams involved in the competition. Each coach read and signed a statement of informed consent outlining the potential benefits and risks of their involvement in the study. A one-hour audio-recorded interview was conducted with each coach. The recordings were then transcribed and analyzed for significant patterns according to a constant comparative method identifying similarities and dissimilarities among the transcriptions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).

An interview guide was constructed in advance of the interviews. The guide focused the conversations with the coaches "to explore, probe, and ask questions that would elucidate and illuminate the particular subject" (Patton, 1990, p. 283). The guide contained questions on coaching roles, rewards and challenges, cooperation and competition, and the relationship of coaching and teaching. This qualitative study was designed to create credible, authentic conclusions and recommendations based on the insights of coaches. Findings and recommendations from this research may encourage reflection among those who conduct research in informal educational settings as wen as those involved or interested in coaching a SCIO team. Salient patterns constructed from the interviews do not suggest reliability or validity. Rather, the patterns illustrate the coaches' authentic beliefs from which readers can determine credibility and authenticity as well as the transferability of the study to their own particular contexts.

Findings

Rewards and Challenges

One coach commented that "just getting to see the kids working together, and enjoying themselves while studying science" rewarded him. Three coaches noted that they felt satisfaction in making it possible for their students to engage in an extra curricular science activity that students enjoyed while learning science. A coach said: "It's exciting to be part of the lives of these students who love science. It's a chance to share our interest in science. That's why we're science teachers--to work with students who want to learn science." The coaches believed that it was important to recognize students for their knowledge and skills in science. One of the coaches summed it up by suggesting that each aspect of the SCIO (practice, tournament, and assembly at the home school) was fun for him as well as his students. The perspective that this extracurricular activity was enjoyable for both students and coaches was consistent with previous research (Abernathy & Vineyard, 2001; McGee-Brown et al., 2002). Although all of the coaches said more academically oriented students often joined the team. Coaches were rewarded when a student with less interest or aptitude for formal classroom study joined and excelled in this endeavor. One coach noted:

   It is really surprising how smart some of these kids are and how
   rarely they get to show that, because it is so mundane in the
   classroom. In the SCIO, you can say to the kids show me what you've
   got. One kid built the Scrambler and our robot, but he failed
   biology twice. Put him in a tech room and watch what he can do. The
   vision he has is amazing. (interview transcript)

Limited school funds needed for purchasing necessary materials and equipment for the students was seen as a constraint. Four of the coaches had out-of-pocket expenses to assist their team in preparing and competing in the SCIO. Budget concerns also related to registration fees. A team registration fee of $175 was paid to the New York State SCIO organization by the school districts sponsoring teams. Registration fees were used for publication of coaches and student manuals as well as purchasing medals and trophies for the regional, state, and national tournaments. One coach said that there were fewer than 30 students interested at his school and, since there were less than 30, the school district would not fund a second team. Another coach overcame this challenge by convincing school administrators that having a second team was similar to having a junior varsity team in sports. The second team could serve as a back-up to allow more students to participate. This enabled younger, less experienced students to compete with the anticipation that they might qualify for the "varsity" team in future years. Another budget related issue was salary for coaching. Only 5 of the 9 coaches were paid for coaching. Payment was equivalent to a stipend for sponsoring a club or other student group. Pay was modest compared to the time and effort expended by coaches.

A challenge reported by five of the coaches was that some of the students were often busy with other after-school activities involving sports and music. This made it difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified students. Other challenges were building a SCIO presence in the school, understanding the rules for the events, and convincing students to prepare adequately in advance of the tournament. One way to overcome the challenge of building a presence was to have coaches and possibly students attend a regional tournament as guests so they could see the excitement and enthusiasm generated at the tournament. This would also help impress the importance of preparing for future competitions since students could observe and speak with competitors from other schools. Another suggestion was to begin a middle school SCIO team within the school that would serve as a feeder for the high school team. One of the coaches said that he would like to have a list of events and rules at the start of the school year. Event manuals are mailed to coaches after registration fees are paid which can be problematic since some school business offices can be slow in making payment. This coach mentioned that it would be helpful to have a specific curriculum in addition to the event descriptions and rules listed in the manual. The curriculum guide could facilitate integration of the events into the high school science classroom.

Competition and Cooperation

Competition may exist within a team as students try-out for positions. The size of a team may range from 1-15 students. Thus, a school with 27 interested students but only one team would have to cut 12 students from the roster. Some coaches invite all interested students to the practices and the tournament but only 15 are allowed to compete. Permitting all interested students to practice and attend the competition is designed to motivate students, especially younger students who may make the team the following year. Additionally, a few schools sponsor two teams thus increasing the total number of eligible students from 15 to 30. In comparing the competitive nature of the SCIO with the regular science class, each coach noted that the science classes were more individualistic since students earned grades that had little bearing on others. In the words of one coach, "there is some working together in the science class, but students all get their own grade and they all take their own tests. Science standings in the class are individual, for the SCIO standings--it's the group." Even those students who earn medals do so in groups of two or three. The collaborative nature of the SCIO promoted the development of effective communication among students who worked together to achieve a common goal. Coaches reported that students held leadership positions on the teams. These students served as captains or co-captains and assisted in identifying students for individual events and assigned responsibilities for other team members. The development of student leaders on a team enhanced communication as students organized practice sessions, identified resources, and competed.

Relationship of coaching and teaching

Each of the nine coaches who took part in the study taught a high school level science subject that incorporated New York State Science Learning Standards for earth science, biology/living environment, chemistry, or physics. These courses had a 1200-minute minimum laboratory component and a mandatory end-of-the-year examination that must be passed to obtain science course credit for graduation. One of the teachers also taught College Board AP Biology that had a high-stakes assessment. Therefore, due to challenging curriculum and assessment requirements, coaches did not directly include the SCIO events in their science classes although one coach expressed the desire to do so. In this case, the constraints of the curriculum and high stakes testing may have limited the coaches' ability to integrate events in their teaching. Yet, topics and issues related to science content and processes in the events reinforced the teaching and learning of the science standards in the classroom. For example, standards regarding the interpretation of topographical maps in earth science class related to the mapping skills needed to successfully complete the From a Distance event. The chemistry and physics laboratory events were likewise consistent with the chemistry and physics learning standards that were included in the curricula of the high school courses. There were concerns over curriculum sequencing since the regional tournament was held in February and some of the science content, skills, and processes required in some events was not introduced until later in the school year for many students.

A prime example of the overlap of science teaching in the classroom and the SCIO was the Experimental Design event that required students to set up an experiment that illustrated a science concept when given a diverse set of materials. This event addressed the inquiry learning standard for science courses offered in New York State. In the event, students had to form a hypothesis regarding some kind of physical phenomenon as it related to the materials on hand. They then had to collect data while controlling for variables and offer valid conclusions based on the results. Students had to not only engage in a scientific investigation but also devise an experiment from scratch. This event required a deep understanding of inquiry that is central to scientific literacy (NRC, 2000).

A pattern emerging from the interview was that students were much more self-directed in preparing for events than they were in the regular science classroom. "In the SCIO, students have to read the material and come back to ask you specific questions and when they run into problems you are there to help them solve those problems" was how one coach put it. Another coach noted, "in the classroom, you have to make some students believe they can do science. Its just motivating kids who aren't motivated. Some students are not motivated. In the SCIO they are motivated." The power of science and the significance of science teaching was a common belief among coaches who suggested that their involvement in the SCIO enabled students to pursue science at a deeper, more personally relevant level based on their own intrinsic interests in science. One coach suggested, "the whole idea is to get kids to understand that science is a process, and it is constantly changing, and as the world gets more sophisticated, you need to understand what is going on because there are so many things the process has shown us." The coaches believed that students gained a sense of accomplishment in this activity regardless of whether they won medals for events or a team trophy. According to one coach with few medal winners, "kids who finish high in the SCIO deserve it. They put a lot of effort into it and not only do our kids feel their own sense of achievement but also see kids who do medal." In this way, students learn that they must be dedicated and diligent to earn success.

Recommendations

Rather than assign students to a classroom to achieve specified learning outcomes, the SCIO challenged students with scientific problems in the form of events encouraging their creativity, ingenuity, and expertise in a science discipline. This kind of alternative learning outcome allows students to research their own questions in a manner that is not often possible in a traditional classroom. Due to the multiple events with diverse science and technology applications, coaches did not feel knowledgeable in all of the sciences to prepare students for all events. Coaches had to reach out to other science and technology teachers to assist with preparing students for the tournament. This could be problematic since it required other teachers to volunteer their time to assist students after school. However, this form of joint support benefits students who seek out the teachers and resources they need within the school. Four of the coaches pointed out that the regular science classroom could look more like the SCIO practice sessions in that students could be more self directed in solving scientific problems with the teacher serving as a resource guide and mentor. This idea was not held as a practical suggestion later in the interview, however, due to the lack of motivation found among the general population of students in regular science classes. This perception may relate to the compulsory nature of the regular class as compared to the elective nature of the extra curricular SCIO. In addition to the level of student motivation, the regular classroom setting and the daily schedule of classes would make it difficult for many students to seek help from teachers during the school day.

Another point dealing with motivation is getting students interested in participating in the SCIO. In general, students can not be motivated in something in which they know nothing about. The regular science classroom can be seen as a place where students are introduced to a broad range of science concepts while engaging in inquiry and investigation. Regular science classroom experiences enable students to learn science concepts and acquire scientific ways of thinking that may apply to the SCIO events. This finding was consistent with the research of McGee-Brown et al. (2002) who recently conducted a three-year research project to understand the nature of the SCIO by surveying and interviewing teacher-coaches, students, parents, and building administrators. They reported: The vast majority of teachers who have provided perspectives about the nature of the SCIO over the past three years assert that it is a fun way to have students apply the science concepts and skills that they learn in regular science classes. (McGee-Brown et al., p. 4)

According to the coaches, students benefit from their social interactions associated with the SCIO. For younger students, this meant communicating effectively with juniors and seniors even though this may be beyond their regular school experience. Students also had to learn how to delegate and share responsibilities on the team. This can be a challenge for many motivated self-starters who have traditionally performed well within the context of individualistic classroom learning environments. Some of the high achievers on the SCIO teams have learned to rely upon themselves, and they have been successful at earning top grades in their classroom and laboratory assessments. In the SCIO, some of these students cooperate with others to adjust their tournament schedules to achieve the best overall team outcome. They learn to work with others since the events call for 2 or 3 participants per team. This kind of collaboration exemplifies the social nature of the scientific enterprise.

If our goal as science teachers and science teacher educators is for students to become lifelong learners in science (National Research Council, 1996), then students need opportunities to begin a pattern of using science to solve problems relevant to their lives. The SCIO can provide such opportunities for students since it allows them to collaborate in learning and applying science. How can the classroom be made as relevant, interesting, and exciting to students as the SCIO? One way is to have students gain recognition for what they have learned through some kind of school or community event showcasing their scientific knowledge and skills. Some aspects of the regular classroom could be modeled after extra curricular science competitions. Perhaps elective science courses could be offered where students engaged in events like those found in the SCIO. Another proposal would be to set aside one day each week to allow students to explore scientific phenomena related to an event.

Final Remarks

Seven of the nine coaches noted that some students form a strong emotional bond with the SCIO. These former students returned to the school years after graduating and asked about the progress of this year's team. They inquired about the nature of the events. Some described how they displayed their medals and ribbons prominently in their homes and dorm rooms. Could this sense of connection be made among students in the regular science class? Could students develop an emotional bond so some day they too might return to their former school to inquire how the science class is progressing? For this to happen, the regular classroom must involve the application of scientific concepts, principles, and ways of thinking enabling students to achieve success for their classroom accomplishments. The science teachers who participated in this study were key players in the SCIO. Although they did not directly incorporate events in their regular classroom instruction, they did mentor, tutor, and assist students who were willing to compete and stretch their understanding of science beyond the finish line of the science curricula. Coaching a SCIO team made it possible for these teachers to facilitate student learning of science in ways that were fun, hands-on, and inquiry oriented. The satisfaction that these teachers derived from coaching was their gold medal.

References

Abernathy, T. V., & Vineyard, R. N. (2001). Academic competitions in science: What are the rewards for students? The Clearing House, 74(5), 269-276.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boson, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cairns, J. C. (1984). Delaware Science Olympiad. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(2), 156-157. Fletcher, C. W. (1981). Science Olympics: Or science for the sport of it. The Science Teacher, 48(9), 16-18.

Jones, G. (1991). Gender differences in science competitions. Science Education 75(2), 159-167.

Macbeth, D. R. (1977). Delaware Science Olympiad. The Science Teacher 44(9), 22-23.

McGee-Brown, M. J., Martin, C., Monsaas, J., & Stombler, M. (2002, March). How do things fly? Teacher Perspectives about outcomes of the facilitating a Science Olympiad program. Paper presented at the Annual National Science Teachers Association Meeting, San Diego, CA.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Putz, G. (2002). Science Olympiad coaches manual and rules: Division C (Gr. 9-12). Rochester Hills, MI: Science Olympiad, Inc.

Wilson, J. D. (1981). The Science Olympiad: Promoting interest in science education. Journal of College Science Teaching 10(3), 171-174.

Scott Robinson, SUNY Brockport

Scott Robinson is an associate professor of science education who supervises student teachers, teaches methods classes, and coordinates a regional high school Science Olympiad in New York.