High school students and the Science Olympiad.

Abstract

The qualitative study examines student involvement in Science Olympiad. Five high school students participating in Science Olympiad are interviewed both before and after a regional tournament. Interviews address student motivation and interest as well as challenges and rewards. Findings suggest a link between student involvement in Science Olympiad and musical talent, out-of-school science activities, and college science major/career aspirations. Recommendations for teachers and researchers conclude the paper.

Introduction

"The purpose of the Science Olympiad is to challenge students, to increase their interest in science and technology, to encourage them to find out more about scientific and technological careers, and to improve the quality of science instruction throughout the nation" according to founders and national directors, Jack Cairns and Gerald Putz (1990). Students and science teachers consider Science Olympiad to be an outstanding competitive activity-based team competition promoting critical thinking and problem solving (Baird & Shaw, 1996; Johnson, Maruyana, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; McGee-Brown, Martin, Monsaas, & Stombler, 2002). In 2004, "over 14,000 K-12 schools participated from all 50 states and Ontario" (Putz, 2004, p. CC6). Now in its twenty-first year, Science Olympiad is credited for promoting science literacy within the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) as students conduct laboratory investigations, content inquiries in the life and physical sciences, and technology projects. Students also apply their scientific knowledge and technology skills in constructing and operating musical instruments, robots, rubber-band-powered airplanes, catapults, and balsa wood structures based on precise design criteria and performance specifications.

A recent issue of Academic Exchange contained an article on high school science teachers serving as Science Olympiad coaches (Robinson, 2003). In that article, nine coaches commented on rewards and challenges, competition and cooperation, and the relationship between coaching a team and teaching science in the classroom. The current article shifts focus from science teachers serving as coaches to high school students who take part in Science Olympiad. The article is a descriptive qualitative study reporting what students say about their own involvement in Science Olympiad, and it amplifies the voices of students who are often seen but not heard as educational researchers either direct their attention elsewhere or examine student learning outcomes without listening to what students say about the purpose and intent of their actions (Abernathy & Vineyard, 2001; Corbett & Wilson, 1995; Robinson, 1995).

Goals & Methods

This study centered on what motivates high school students to engage in Science Olympiad [SCIO], how their participation relates to their academic and career goals, and what they learn from their involvement in this academic competition. Findings are meant to be credible and authentic (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) to the experiences of the students involved in the study rather than generalized to the larger population of SCIO participants. Recommendations are offered for three purposes. One is to encourage the recruitment and retention of qualified students in the SCIO by teachers and administrators who coach and sponsor teams in their schools. Two is to help science teachers, science education policy makers, and researchers understand why students choose to participate in this voluntary activity. And three is to invite further research into this and other science competitions.

Late in 2003, high school science teachers serving as SCIO coaches from western New York were asked if any of their students would volunteer for this research. Soon, a coach identified five students who agreed. These five students were on a team of 12 including 7-seniors, 4-juniors, and 1-sophomore. The school also sponsored a second team of 13 students none of whom took part in the study. (Fifteen is the maximum number of students allowed per team.) Students attended a suburban high school in western NY enrolling 1350 students in grades 9-12. Three of students were in grade 12 and two were in grade 11. Each student had taken four or more high school credits in science including New York State Regents or Advance Placement courses in earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics. Three of the students earned no lower than a 90% average for each of their science courses. The other two students had a total of 3 course averages in the 83-88% range with the remainder of their grades above 90. Each student had participated in the SCIO since they were in middle school (Division B) for a combined total of 30 years of SCIO experience. Eighteen years were at the high school level (Division C). Two students had participated in the SCIO each year from grade six through grade twelve. Two of the students were female which reflects the male/female ratio of all SCIO participants in the region. In the 2004 Rochester high school regional, 109 or 41% of the 263 student participants were female. (There were 24 teams representing 21 schools at this regional tournament.) Finally, students received no form of compensation or extra course credit for their involvement in the research.

Each student attended 2 one-hour audio-recorded interviews. One interview was held before the regional SCIO, and one was held afterwards. Interviews were semi-structured with an interview guide serving to initiate conversation on specific topics. Interviews addressed student background and interest in science and technology, motivation for trying out for SCIO, preparation for the tournament, and the benefits and challenges of the SCIO. The interview guide was open-ended in that emerging questions/concerns/issues could be raised based on student input. This flexibility allowed students to speak at length on issues they felt were relevant to their own involvement in SCIO. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed to text and analyzed to determine patterns and anomalies. Follow-up interviews served to confirm and elaborate issues and trends noted in the initial interviews.

The students' individual event and overall team results were superior consistently. They earned many gold, silver, and bronze medals for first, second, and third place finishes in events at both regional and state tournaments. The combined results of the students in this study as well as the other students who made up their team qualified them for the state SCIO in each of the past five years. In 2001, their team took third out of 43 at the state tournament narrowly failing to qualify for the national tournament.

Findings

While discussing their backgrounds in science and involvement in extracurricular activities, it was discovered that four of the five students played musical instruments. These four students were members of the school symphonic band and two played instruments in the school jazz band. One student played the piano, baritone, and trombone as well as sang in the school choir and in a community choir. Two others played trombone, another trumpet. Another student, not in the band or choir, led 6 other teammates (including two from the study) in singing the National Anthem during the opening ceremony of the SCIO before 300 students, coaches, and college administrators from the host facility.

Musical talent may relate to the creative problem solving abilities of students in SCIO. Root-Bernstein (2001) notes that both musical and scientific abilities are correlative talents that may be useful in solving problems. "Skills associated with music-pattern-forming and pattern recognition, kinesthetic ability, imaging, aesthetic sensibility, analogizing and analysis-and indeed an understanding of music itself-have often been important components of the correlative talents of many famous scientists" (Root-Bernstein, p. 63). It would be unwarranted, however, based on this anecdotal evidence, to assert that students in the study are destined to become famous scientists. It would also be an error claiming a positive correlation between musical talent and proficiency in math and science (Manzo, 2004). Yet, it is notable that four of the five research participants expressed a high degree of enjoyment and pride in their musical abilities as well as their scientific accomplishments in SCIO.

To achieve success in SCIO, each of the five students engaged in events requiring perseverance and creativity (their words) in analyzing questions and problems while applying scientific process skills such as "stating and revising hypotheses, identifying and controlling variables, operationally defining critical terms, graphing and interpreting data, and designing an experiment" (Baird & Shaw, 1996). Many events like Experimental Design and Practical Data Gathering require students solve problems through creative scientific reasoning. The engineering events, for example, involve an integration of technology skills in constructing devices (e.g. catapults, robots, model planes, balsa wood towers, and energy transfer gismos) that perform specified tasks under given conditions. When asked about the scientific process and SCIO, one student said "By scientific process I am talking about unexpected tribulations, and this happens in any genre of science from biology to physics. When performing an experiment one cannot know every variable that one will encounter. You have to have an ability to think quickly to overcome the problems that come up at the spur of the moment, which is an ability that you gain only through practice" (interview transcript). Rather than consider musical talent as an independent intelligence separate from logical reasoning as advanced in Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983), it is conceivable that students correlated their musical creativeness and their science process skills in finding elegant solutions in SCIO. Contrarily, it is also possible that these motivated, hard working, science-minded teenagers would become highly proficient in music or other pursuits regardless of the degree of correlation (Manzo, 2004).

Musical talent did have a direct application in Sounds of Music event as two students, including one from the study, built two musical instruments, played a major scale, performed a given melody, and explained the underlying physics of the instruments. There are other similarities in SCIO and music competitions beyond Sounds of Music. Both require preparation (study) and practice (rehearsal). Music competitions are based on the ability of a student to master a piece of music with an instrument. They may also involve collaborations as students play together in duets or larger arrangements in music and work together in groups of two or three for events in SCIO. Both music and SCIO competitions give students opportunities to be recognized by their parents, teachers, and peers for knowledge and skills beyond the context of the regular classroom. In some cases, jazz competitions require students to improvise in much the same way students adapt materials and methods that are both functional and aesthetic in SCIO.

A second pattern among the five students who volunteered for the study was their out-of-school science activities relating to science and SCIO events. One student was involved in a yearlong internship in chemical laboratories at a film company. In relating the internship to SCIO, the student said, "I know from the way that my boss conducts experiments, it is almost the same process that we are doing for Robot Ramble. It's okay, what is the problem? The problem is the paper is coalescing and blue ink is not dissolving into the green. So how do we fix that? Then it is all about changing one variable at a time. If it's not that, and it's not this, eventually you are going to come up with a solution. Which is kind of how you have to approach SCIO, especially the technology events" (interview transcript). Another student devoted eight 40-hour weeks of study one summer assisting senior scientists with X-ray microscopy at a nearby university. Also, this student worked at a planetarium and participated in the SCIO event--Astronomy. The student earned a third place bronze medal in the regional SCIO. A third student spent a few weeks over two summers at state conservation camps. The student learned environmental conservation while nurturing a budding appreciation for nature. This student finished fourth in Forestry at the SCIO. The student also raised money to attend a weeklong conference for young birdwatchers in Arizona. In 2001 and 2002 when birding events were offered at SCIO, the student and a partner earned gold medals for both years. A fourth student was involved in Boy Scouts where he earned a merit badge for astronomy. This student assisted with the Astronomy event mentioned above. The fifth student had been involved in elementary level science fairs from Kindergarten through grade 4. This student had played with science construction toys throughout childhood. In 2004, the student participated in three technology and two earth science events at the SCIO.

A third pattern emerging from the interviews was that four of the students had selected a science major for college and a possible career in a scientific field. A fifth student who wanted to major in mathematics in college was undecided about a career. The listed majors were astrophysics, conservation or wildlife biology, and engineering. Students stated that SCIO positively contributed to their decisions to major in science. The satisfaction they derived from participating in SCIO solidified their plans to pursue science. One student said, "After doing the SCIO and doing more with birds and trees, I've decided just this year that I want to go into a more environmental career path. I've already decided my school, based on that decision--my college. The SCIO has really made a huge difference for me anyway" (interview transcript). Another student said, "The SCIO continues to increase my interest in science and desire to go into scientific fields" (interview transcript).

Related to the decision to continue studying science after high school was the shared belief that SCIO was fun. This finding is consistent with the results of a survey of middle and high school students (n=453) involved in the state SCIO in Utah. Those students listed "fun" as the primary reason for participating in SCIO (Abernathy & Vineyard, 2001). Fun applies to both learning new things that was an intrinsic goal of these students and the enjoyment of developing friendships by working together to achieve common goals. "I like working on the events with other people. You are part of a team working for something," said one of the students (interview transcripts). The current study further confirms Abernathy and Vineyard's results since the following additional reasons for participating were given high priority by the five students: learning new things, working with friends, winning prizes, and preparing for the future. For these students, the goal was to work hard and earn medals in events and an overall team trophy that coincided with qualifying for the state SCIO. Students gained a sense of belonging to the school by building new friendships and by representing the school in interscholastic competitions. One student noted the importance of the SCIO in easing the transition into the high school. As a freshman in the 9-12 high school, this student made friendships with junior and senior students in SCIO that made him feel more welcomed into the new school. The students said that it was satisfying knowing that other students shared similar interests in science and engineering. This bond of social acceptance enhanced the self-esteem of these students who took pride in their scientific accomplishments. Students said it was especially satisfying and reaffirming meeting students from other schools during the competitions who shared similar interests.

Recommendations

One of the few recommendations offered to improve SCIO was to have mandatory after-school practices. Although one of the students felt that coaches at times might provide too much guidance, students wanted coaches to assign events and scheduled preparation/study sessions. Students admitted to waiting too long to prepare for events. For technology events like Mission Possible and Robot Ramble students worked into the early morning hours on the days leading up to the competition. Even though some students may work best under the pressure of an approaching deadline, coaches could hold intramural competitions a few weeks before the actual tournament to minimize procrastination.

When asked whether any of the science classes at the high school involved applying scientific thinking to solve unknown conclusions, a student replied: "I would like to say yes, but unfortunately no. I can't say any of the high school science courses gear their lab sessions towards research projects that involve an unknown. We have had a few in physics that are more project-related, but real research with unknown conclusions is not generally done at the high school level. I suppose they are reserved for undergraduates and graduates at colleges, but I would say that it would be good to solve for unknown conclusions in high school too" (interview transcript). However, the consensus among the students was that the exploratory nature of SCIO would not easily transfer to a regular classroom since most, or many, students lacked the internal motivation to pursue science in a more independent kind of learning environment. This view was shared by science teachers who coach students (Robinson, 2003).

It may be problematic adapting SCIO into the regular classroom; however, it is possible that more students could become involved in SCIO if schools sponsored additional teams. Just less than 2% of the student body was involved in SCIO at the high school the research participants attended. Since each of the research participants got involved in the SCIO at the middle school level and remained committed through high school, it would be worthwhile for schools to sponsor additional teams at the middle school level to generate student involvement. This would expose more students to the excitement, challenge, and potential of science to enrich their lives. It would also generate more active scientific inquiry recommended within the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).

The University of California campuses now consider "other factors--from overcoming hardship to musical talent" when reviewing college applicants (Sappenfield, 2001). This recognition of musical talent illustrates how the commitment and persistence needed in playing a musical instrument may overlap into academic endeavors. Further research examining the relationship, if any, of musical talent and science process skills is needed. For the students who took part in this study, participation in SCIO coincided with their musical talent, out-of-classroom science activities, and selection of science (and math) majors and career fields. Longitudinal studies of participants in SCIO could provide fresh insights into the college and career trajectories of inquisitive and motivated individuals, like those in this study, who pursue excellence in science.

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.

Baird, W. E., & Shaw Jr., E. L. (1996). Predicting success in selected events of the Science Olympiad. School Science & Mathematics 96(2), 85-93.

Cairns, J. C., & Putz, G. J. (1990). What is the Science Olympiad? Science Activities 27(2).

Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher 24(5), 12-17.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). The effects of cooperative competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A recta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.

Putz, G. (2004). Science Olympiad coaches manual and rules: Division C (Gr. 9-12). Rochester Hills, MI: Science Olympiad, Inc.

Manzo, K. K. (2004). The science of music. Education Week, 23(42), 18.

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.

Robinson, S. D. (1995). Stories of two high school physics students in the context of their classroom learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 11A.

Robinson, S. (2003). Coaching a high school Science Olympiad team: Roles, rewards, & relevance for science teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly 7(2), 272-277.

Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2001). Music, creativity, and scientific thinking. Leonardo 34(1), 63-68.

Sappenfield, M. (2001). New scale to weigh college applicants. Christian Science Monitor, 93(249), 1.

Scott Robinson, SUNY Brockport

Robinson, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Science Education in the Department of Education and Human Development. He coordinates a regional high school Science Olympiad.