Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of science fairs in school district 36 (Surrey) Deeter, Burton Charles 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 D43.pdf [ 6.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097260.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097260-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097260-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097260-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097260-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097260-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097260-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097260-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097260.ris

Full Text

A SURVEY OF SCIENCE FAIRS IN SCHOOL DISTRICT 36 (SURREY) By BURTON CHARLES DEETER B.Ed (Elem.), The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1987 ©Burton Charles Deeter, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Mathematics and Science Education The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date 1987-08-10 DF-firVft-n ABSTRACT The Surrey School D i s t r i c t has sponsored a D i s t r i c t elementary s c h o o l s s c i e n c e f a i r (grades 4-7) f o r 21 years and v o l u n t a r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d throughout t h i s time. D e s p i t e t h i s p o p u l a r i t y , no s t u d i e s have been conducted r e g a r d i n g the s c i e n c e f a i r . A survey of the elementary s c h o o l s in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t was conducted. The f o u r areas i d e n t i f i e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n were: (a) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school and d i s t r i c t s c i e n c e f a i r s (b) o r g a n i z a t i o n of school s c i e n c e f a i r s (c) r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n and s c i e n c e f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , <d) teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s c i e n c e f a i r s . Two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were developed. One was d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l elementary t e a c h e r s i n Surrey and the other was d i s t r i b u t e d t o a l l elementary p r i n c i p a l s i n Surrey. Response r a t e s were 77% ( t e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , n=346) and 88% ( p r i n c i p a l ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , n=59). Data a n a l y s i s was i n the form of f r e q u e n c i e s of response expressed i n percentages. Some cro s s t a b u 1 a t o n s were c a l c u l a t e d . The major f i n d i n g s of the study were: (a) most s c h o o l s (95%) p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s c i e n c e f a i r , Page i i <b> most schools <85%> Include primary students in the science f a i r , <c> 4 827 Intermediate students (83%) completed a science f a i r project, (d> a l l schools encourage public viewing of t h e i r science f a i r , <e> teachers do not vary t h e i r science Instructional a c t i v i t i e s , lnstructonal materials, or t h e i r instructonal time, from the f a l l to the spring, <f) teachers provide extra i n s t r u c t i o n a l time and ext r a - c u r r i c u l a r time to a s s i s t students with preparation of science f a i r p r o j e cts, (g> teachers evaluate science f a i r product and not the process of completing a science f a i r p r o j e c t , (h) most teachers (75%) reported a w i l l i n g n e s s to attend science f a i r i n s e r v i c e , <1> teachers and p r i n c i p a l s have very s i m i l a r attitudes toward science f a i r , <j> many teachers (n=89) and p r i n c i p a l s (n=39) made general comments about the science f a i r . The study recommends that the Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r be continued and that further study be conducted regarding the type and amount of assistance that elementary students require to complete a science f a i r project s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . Page 111 TABLE QF CONTENTS Chapter Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v l l l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x 1 1. EXPLANATION OF THE STUDY 1 1.1 Genera] Problem 1 1.2 Science F a i r s in B r i t i s h Columbia and the Surrey School D i s t r i c t 3 1.3 Importance of the Problem 4 1.4 Research Questions 5 1.5 Rationale for the Research Questions 9 1.6 Limitations of the Study 10 2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 13 2.1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Science F a i r s 13 2.2 Science F a i r Organization 15 2.21 Science F a i r Objectives 16 2.22 Competition and Awards 17 2.23 Grade Levels 20 2.3 Science F a i r s and Science Instruction 21 2.31 Science F a i r s and the Goals of Science Instruction 22 2.32 Science F a i r s and Instructional Strategies 25 2.33 Science F a i r s and Science Instructional Time 26 2.34 Science F a i r s and Parental Assistance 27 Page 1v 2.4 Teacher Background 30 2.41 Science F a i r s and Teacher Science Background 30 2.42 Science F a i r s and Teacher A t t i t u d e 31 3. DATA ANALYSIS 33 3.1 Introduction 33 3.2 Rationale for Using a Questionnaire Design 34 3.3 Description of the Questionnaires 36 3.31 P r i n c i p a l ' s Questionnaire 37 3.32 Teacher's Questionnaire 37 3.4 Questionnaire Design 38 3.5 Target Population 41 3.6 Questionnaire Return Rate 41 3.61 Teacher's Questionnaire Return Rate 42 3.62 P r i n c i p a l ' s Questionnaire Return Rate 43 3.7 Analysis of Data 43 4. SUMMARY OF DATA 44 4.1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in School and D i s t r i c t F a i r 45 4.2 Organization of School Science F a i r s 46 4.21 P a r t i c i p a t i o n 46 4.22 Awards 47 4.23 Viewing of School Science F a i r 48 4.3 Relationship Between Science Instruction and Science F a i r s 49 4.31 Science Teaching A c t i v i t i e s / M a t e r i a l s 49 4.32 Science Insructional Time 50 4.33 Extra Time: I n - c l a s s / E x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r 50 Page v 4.34 Student Preparation A c t i v i t i e s for the Science Fair 51 4.35 Evaluation of Science F a i r Projects for Reporting Purposes 52 4.4 Teachers P a r t i c i p a t i n g in Science F a i r s 53 4.41 Total Responses 53 4.42 Teacher Science Background/Interest 54 4.43 Teaching Experience 54 4.44 Teacher Inservice Relating to Science F a i r s 55 4.45 Teacher and Prin c i p a l Attitude Relating to Science F a i r 56 4.46 Teacher's General Comments About Science F a i r s 58 4.47 P r i n c i p a l ' s General Comments About Science F a i r s 61 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63 5.1 Introduction 63 5.2 Conclusions 64 5.21 P a r t i c i p a t i o n ln School and D i s t r i c t Science F a i r 64 5.22 Organization of School Science F a i r s 65 5.23 Relationship Between Science Instruction and Science F a i r P a r t i c i p a t i o n 68 5.24 Teacher P a r t i c i p a t i o n ln Science F a i r s 72 5.3 General Comments 74 5.4 Recommendations 75 5.41 Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r 75 5.42 Science F a i r Objectives 76 Page vi 5.43 Primary Science F a i r s 77 5.44 Awards 77 5.45 Science Instruction 78 5.46 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Science F a i r s 80 5.47 Assistance to Students 82 5.48 Science F a i r Inservice 83 5.5 Concluding Remarks 83 REFERENCES 85 APPENDICES I TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 90 II PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 104 III GENERAL COMMENTS: TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 109 IV GENERAL COMMENTS: PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNIARE 123 V SURREY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SCIENCE FAIR: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 128 VI TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 131 VII PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE 141 VIII FOLLOW-UP LETTERS 146 Page v i 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Projects Entered In the Surrey School D i s t r i c t Elementary Schools Science F a i r 3 1.2 Y.S.F. Regional Science F a i r s in B.C. 4 4.1 Teacher and Pr i n c i p a l Attitude Toward Science F a i r 57 5.1 School Size vs. Project Selection 66 V . l Science F a i r Project Allotment 130 Page v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis i s the r e s u l t of the Investment of expertise and patience of many i n d i v i d u a l s . It i s with sincere gratitude that I acknowledge t h e i r assistance. My wife, Lana, and my c h i l d r e n , T r a v i s , Matthew, and S c o t t , without whose p a t i e n c e , encouragement and understanding I would never have been able to complete t h i s t h e s i s Mrs. Bev. Myers who provided the opportunity to undertake t h i s study and supported i t throughout. Her insight and friendship has grea t l y influenced the author's career. Dr. Bob C a r l i s l e whose expertise and personal i n t e r e s t has shaped t h i s document and al s o the author's commitment to further studies. Dr. Gaalen Erickson whose guidance greatly f a c i l i t a t e d the study throughout. Dr. Alyce Carr who revealed the bugs and p i t f a l l s of SPSS. F i n a l l y , the respondents who so w i l l i n g l y gave of th e i r time to answer the questionnaires. Page 1x CHAPTER 1 EXPLANATION OF THE STUDY l . l General P r o b l e m School D i s t r i c t 36 (Surrey) has sponsored a d i s t r i c t elementary schools science f a i r (grades four to seven) for some twenty years and although school p a r t i c i p a t i o n In the d i s t r i c t science f a i r i s optional, the majority of schools choose to p a r t i c i p a t e . In 1986, 56 schools (95% of those e l i g i b l e ) presented projects at the d i s t r i c t science f a i r making i t the largest science f a i r held by Surrey. Despite the popularity of t h i s science f a i r , and the many Impressions that ex i s t about i t s value and i t s p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s , l i t t l e systematic information has ever been c o l l e c t e d about science f a i r s in Surrey. A b r i e f review of the l i t e r a t u r e showed that t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s typical as very few empirical studies on the topic of science f a i r s were found but many opinions were expressed. The need for a comprehensive study of science f a i r s in Surrey became evident in discussions between the researcher and the Supervisor of Instruction (Curriculum and Instruction), who has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the science f a i r . During the time of these discussions, the researcher was the Curriculum Helping Teacher (Science) and had major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for the organization and support of Page 1 science f a i r s ln the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . In the discussions, four areas were i d e n t i f i e d for i n v e s t i g a t i o n : (a) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school and d i s t r i c t science f a i r s , <b> organization of school science f a i r s , (c) r e l a t i o n s h i p between science i n s t r u c t i o n and science f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , <d) teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s . Background s t a t i s t i c s on student and school p a r t i c i p a t i o n at the d i s t r i c t science f a i r were a v a i l a b l e for the last seven years. However, no Information was available on the following issues: individual school science f a i r s , the preparation of students for the science f a i r , the need for inservice t r a i n i n g for teachers, teacher attitudes towards science f a i r , and f i n a l l y the science background of teachers whose students p a r t i c i p a t e ln science f a i r s . Due to the siz e of the school d i s t r i c t and also the l a r g e number of t e a c h e r s and s c h o o l s i n v o l v e d , questionnaires were chosen as a s u i t a b l e method of gathering t h i s information for the study. The information gathered through the questionnaires, together with the Information made available by the school d i s t r i c t , formed the data base for the study. Page 2 1 .2 Science F a i r s In Br 111sh Columbia and the Surrey School D i s t r i c t Science f a i r s in B.C. have increased In popularity in the 1980's. Within the Surrey School D i s t r i c t , s t a t i s t i c s about p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates are available from 1979 only. Table 2.1 shows the Increased number of projects entered in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t Elementary Schools Science F a i r during the 1980's. Table 1.1 Projects Entered in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t Elementary Schools Science Fair Total P r o j e c t s 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Projects 209 N.A. 226 246 260 266 274 N.A. - Not Available. Unt i l regional science f a i r s , sponsored by the Youth Sciences Foundation (Y.S.F.), gained popularity in B.C., individual schools and school d i s t r i c t s sponsored science f a i r s . As there i s no central r e g i s t r y for school or school d i s t r i c t science f a i r s i t i s d i f f i c u l t to obtain h i s t o r i c a l data regarding the incidence of school and school d i s t r i c t science f a i r s throughout the province. However, regional science f a i r s gained popularity in B.C. in the 1980's. Table 1.2 shows the growth of regional Page 3 science f a i r s throughout the province. In 1982, only one regional science f a i r was held. In 1984, three regional science f a i r s were held, and by 1986, seven regional science f a i r s were held. Table 1.2 Y.S. F. Regional Science F a i r s in B .C. Realon Cltv 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Vancouver Island Victoria yes yes yes yes yes Vancouver Lower Mainland Vancouver no yes yes yes yes East Kootenay Invermere/K1 mber1y no no yes yes yes Central Interior Prince George no no no no yes Central Okanagan Ke1 owna no no no no yes Vancouver Island North Port McNeil no no no no yes West Kootenay/Boundary Trail no no no no yes 1.3 Importance of the Problem This study i s Important for several reasons. It Is anticipated that the School D i s t r i c t and individual schools w i l l be able to use the data c o l l e c t e d to a s s i s t in the Improvement of t h e i r science f a i r s . The D i s t r i c t w i l l be able to use the Information to plan future science f a i r Inservice a c t i v i t i e s and also to i d e n t i f y where more support i s needed for teachers and schools. The study also i d e n t i f i e d the strengths in current l e v e l s of D i s t r i c t support and gave a l l Intermediate teachers and p r i n c i p a l s Page 4 the opportunity to express th e i r opinions about science f a i r s . " The study also provided data about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between science f a i r s and science i n s t r u c t i o n . While some (Benson, Kerby, Wofford, & Biggs, 1981, 49) have assumed that "science f a i r projects provide a reasonably accurate r e f l e c t i o n of current science teaching p r a c t i c e " , the researcher has been unable to f i n d studies which confirm or refute t h i s assumption. Castner (1967) surveyed teachers, p r i n c i p a l s and s c i e n t i s t s who agreed that science f a i r s improve science instruction but she d i d not provide evidence to substantiate t h i s claim. Further searching of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed that despite the popularity of science f a i r s , very few empirical studies have been conducted on t h i s topic. This study provided data on a l i t t l e researched topic. 1.4 Research Questions 1. How many students, classes, grades, and schools p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r s ? The D i s t r i c t provides the opportunity for schools to send representatives to the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . The majority of schools choose to p a r t i c i p a t e in the science f a i r . Information about the p a r t i c i p a t i n g schools in terms of school s i z e , numbers of s t u d e n t s and c l a s s e s Page 5 p a r t i c i p a t i n g , grades of students Involved, and total number of schools p a r t i c i p a t i n g has not previously been tabulated. Data on the number of students Involved was c o l l e c t e d through a questionnaire to every elementary teacher. Data on the number of classes Involved and t h e i r grade l e v e l s was c o l l e c t e d through a questionnaire to every elementary p r i n c i p a l . 2. How are school science f a i r s organ!zied? The organization of the school science f a i r i s a school-based decision. The D i s t r i c t does not provide any written guidelines on the organization of a school science f a i r . Consequently, there are as many v a r i a t i o n s of science f a i r s as there are schools. While t h i s may be desireable, the variety of organizational schemes i s unknown. In p a r t i c u l a r , the researcher wished to know how schools selected representatives to the d i s t r i c t science f a i r , what grades were involved in the school f a i r , what awards were given, and where in the school the f a i r was held. Data to answer t h i s question was c o l l e c t e d through a questionnaire to every elementary school p r i n c i p a l . It was assumed that the p r i n c i p a l would be aware of how his/her school's science f a i r was being organized. Page 6 3. What Is the relationship between science f a i r s and science instruction as determined by the selection of i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , 1 n s t r u c 1 1 o n a 1 / n o n 1 n s t r u c 1 1 o n a 1 time a l l o t t e d , and evaluation procedures? The d i s t r i c t and school science f a i r s are a major event each year as almost a l l schools hold a science f a i r of some kind. No D i s t r i c t Information was available on how teachers a s s i s t their students in the preparation of a science f a i r project and when t h i s assistance, i f any, takes place. It was known that some teachers provided science Instructional time for the preparation of science f a i r p r ojects. This presented a number of Issues which required inves t i g a t i o n . F i r s t , how many teachers used science Instructonal time for the preparation of science f a i r projects? Second, did p a r t i c i p a t i o n ln the school science f a i r have any effect on the amount of time being a l l o t t e d for science instruction? Third, what i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the science f a i r and the teacher's selection of in s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and Instructional materials? F i n a l l y , did teachers use science f a i r project evaluations as part of students' report card marks and i f so, how was t h i s evaluation completed? Page 7 Data to answer t h i s question was c o l l e c t e d through a questionnaire sent to every Intermediate teacher. 4. How do teaching experience, sex, science background, inservlce, and teacher attitude toward science f a i r s influence science f a i r s ? Demographic information about teaching experience, sex of t e a c h e r s / science background and general interest in science was thought to be useful in f i n d i n g patterns within the data. Information about science f a i r Inservlce was also requested from the teachers. The researcher was Interested in determining how many teachers had attended i n s e r v i c e , which topics about science f a i r s were found to be u s e f u l , whether a need existed for further Inservice, and If so, what t o p i c s were d e s i r e d . The r e s e a r c h e r had r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for teacher inservlce in science at the time of the study. Data to answer t h i s question was c o l l e c t e d through questionnaires to every Intermediate teacher and elementary school p r i n c i p a l . Page 8 1.5 Rationale for the Research Questions The data from questions 1 and 2 w i l l a s s i s t schools with the Improvement of their school science f a i r s . For example, many schools involve primary students in t h e i r science f a i r s . P r i o r to t h i s study, however, i t was not known how wide-spread t h i s practice was nor was i t known how the schools organize primary students' involvement. The study found primary students' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school science f a i r s to be very wide-spread and now inservlce t r a i n i n g can be developed and resources acquired to a s s i s t these schools, and also schools who may wish to include primary students in future years. The data from question 3 was c o l l e c t e d to address several issues. One issue was whether the preparation of science f a i r projects influenced science i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. The question of time a l l o t t e d for science in s t r u c t i o n was thought to be important because of the findings of the B.C. Science Assessment (1982) and the Science Council of Canada, Report 36 (1984). Both of these studies found that in a substantial number of classrooms, science i s taught for less than the Ministry of Education recommended time al1otment. Another issue was the use of the support materials which are produced annually by the School D i s t r i c t to a s s i s t teachers and students with the preparation of Page 9 science f a i r projects. The study provided the opportunity to assess the extent to which these materials were being used. The evaluation of science f a i r projects was also a concern. Some teachers were known to be using science f a i r project evaluations to form part of the student's science report card mark. Data regarding the Importance of t h i s evaluation and how i t was conducted was unavailable p r i o r to t h i s study. The data from question 4 was used to examine teacher and p r i n c i p a l a ttitudes towards science f a i r s as suggested by Speece (1978). She suggested that a study be conducted to determine i f sex has any influence on teacher a t t i t u d e s toward science f a i r s . . A Li k e r t scale developed o r i g i n a l l y by Thelan (1964), and modified by Speece, was incorporated into the questionnaires which were sent to a l l Intermediate teachers and elementary school p r i n c i p a l s in the D i s t r i c t . The questionnaire sent to the p r i n c i p a l s provided an opportunity to compare p r i n c i p a l a t t i t u d e s with those of teachers. 1.6 L i m i t a t i o n s of the study Some li m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study have been i d e n t i f i e d . As always, there are l i m i t a t i o n s with the questionnaire format and content. While the researcher i s confident that the responding teachers and p r i n c i p a l s are a representative Page 10 sample of teachers and p r i n c i p a l s in Surrey, factors which are beyond the researcher's control inevitably have an ef f e c t on the outcome. One of these factors i s the period of time from which the researcher asked the respondents to r e c a l l events. Respondents were asked to think about teaching a c t i v i t i e s , time allotments, and materials selection from as long ago as eight months from their occurence. They were also asked to make comparisons between the f a l l and spring terms. Due to the slde-by-side format of the questionnaire used for making t h i s comparison, i t i s possible that teachers d i d not make a comparison but simply repeated t h e i r i n i t i a l assessment from the f a l l term to the spring term. This l i m i t a t i o n would have been minimized by the use of two questionnaires, one d i s t r i b u t e d in the f a l l and a follow-up questionnaire in the spring. The researcher could then have made the comparisons based on the separate data sources. However, asking teachers to complete two questionnaires may have adversly affected response rates. Another l i m i t a t i o n of the study was in the timing of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the questionnaires. The questionnaires could not be d i s t r i b u t e d u n t i l one month a f t e r the d i s t r i c t science f a i r which may have been up to s i x weeks af t e r school science f a i r s . This occurred due to the timing of Spring Break, and the preparation of report cards for the second reporting period. The researcher wished to avoid Page 11 possible c o n f l i c t s with these events. Teachers are c l e a r l y unavailable to respond duing Spring Break and the preparation and issuing of report cards Is very time consuming and was thought to detract from teachers' willingness to reply. Consequently, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the questionnaire was delayed, which may have aff e c t e d teachers' a b i l i t y to remember c l e a r l y what they a c t u a l l y did for the time periods being surveyed. In summary, t h i s study examined the Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r with respect to schools p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r , school science f a i r s , science i n s t r u c t i o n , and teachers p a r t i c i p a t i n g in science. f a i r s . The study gathered data from d i s t r i c t sources, and teacher and p r i n c i p a l questionnaires. Page 12 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Chapter 2 provides a review of relevant l i t e r a t u r e . While the l i t e r a t u r e about science f a i r s i s not extensive, many authors have studied or commented on science f a i r s . The following review i s made with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the research questions d e t a i l e d In Chapter 1. 2.1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Science F a i r s Question 1 r e l a t e s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school and d i s t r i c t science f a i r s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n in the Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r i s voluntary. However, i t i s known that some teachers and schools In Surrey require students to p a r t i c i p a t e in school science f a i r s . Several a u t h o r s have commented on the i s s u e of whether p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be voluntary or mandatory. Castner surveyed seventh grade students and professionals (teachers, administrators, and s c i e n t i s t s ) who had been involved in some way with one of two seventh grade science f a i r s during 1962-1964. Based on statements from students and professionals, Castner concluded that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school science f a i r s should be voluntary. Streng (1966) concurs. She thinks that most elementary children are not capable of independent research without Page 13 constant assistance from adults and consequently, p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be limited to those students who show a genuine inter e s t in science. Foster (1983) thinks that the issue isn't whether elementary chl1dren are capable of Independent research but whether they have been taught the pr e - r e q u i s l t e process s k i l l s necessary to enable them to suc c e s s f u l l y complete a project. Without s u f f i c i e n t practise in these process s k i l l s Foster argues that asking students to complete a science f a i r project Is akin to introducing the alphabet and then expecting children to write a novel. Nash (1985) ln personal correspondence, indicates that secondary students in h i s experience think that teachers do not provide p r a c t i s e in the process s k i l l s . Nash, at the time of the correspondence, was surveying previous science f a i r winners at the Canada Wide Science F a i r s held ln 1984/85. He asked these students to identi f y the people who they had found most helpful through the various stages of completing t h e i r p r o j e c t s . Very few of the students mentioned teachers. Nash commented further that h i s two sons had been involved ln the Canada Wide Science Fair recently. While he f e e l s that the experience was a valuable one for them, h i s perspective as a parent Is that the schools only attend to the organizational aspects of the f a i r and that the assistance to the student happens at home. Page 14 Paldy (1971) states that compulsory p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s incompatible with the creative, self-motivating, and s e l f - d i s c i p l i n i n g nature of science. He admits that students, p a r t i c u l a r l y in elementary school, need motivating to p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r s but f e e l s that students should not be forced to do so. Knapp (1975) indicates that very few ch i l d r e n in the six t h through eighth grades refuse to p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r projects i f the students are encouraged to work i n d i v i d u a l l y Or in p a i r s . In t h i s way the students who are weak in some areas such as reading, w r i t i n g , and researching are supported and encouraged. He also advocates involving students in experiments they f i n d i n t e r e s t i n g . The National Science Teachers Association (1984) in Its position statement on science f a i r s , s t a t e s that student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s should be voluntary. Only one reference was found which advocated mandatory p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s . Pearson (1976) when organizing a science f a i r for the f i r s t time in a school d i s t r i c t made p a r t i c i p a t i o n obligatory. 2.2 Science Fair Organization Question 2 r e l a t e s to the organization of science f a i r s . Several issues have been i d e n t i f i e d in the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the organization of science f a i r s , Page 15 d e f i n i n g o b j e c t i v e s , c o m p e t i t i o n and awards, and grade l e v e l s i n v o l v e d . 2.21 Science F a i r O b j e c t i v e s Some authors (McBurney, 1978; R i e c h a r d , 1976; and Stedman, 1975) i d e n t i f i e d the need f o r s c i e n c e f a i r o r g a n i z e r s to d e f i n e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g with a s c i e n c e f a i r . Stedman o f f e r s some s u g g e s t i o n s on how to e s t a b l i s h the purpose f o r the f a i r . He advocates the development of a working d e f i n i t i o n of s c i e n c e t o h e l p i d e n t i f y some i s s u e s which w i l l need to be c o n s i d e r e d . Once the nature of s c i e n c e i s d e f i n e d , t e a c h e r s w i l l then be able to decide what types of p r o j e c t s w i l l be a l l o w e d . Stedman emphasizes the i n v e s t i g a t i v e nature of s c i e n c e and suggests that p r o j e c t s which demonstrate an i n v e s t i g a t i v e approach should be encouraged and rewarded. McBurney sees s c i e n c e f a i r s as "an o p p o r t u n i t y to f o r a student to r e c e i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l assessment and r e c o g n i t i o n f o r some personal s c i e n t i f i c endeavor of i n t e r e s t to that student" (p. 419). He f u r t h e r argues that the primary goal of a s c i e n c e f a i r must be the l e a r n i n g experience of the student, and i t s h o u l d not be f o r the community, p a r e n t s or other s t u d e n t s . While a s c i e n c e f a i r w i l l i n e v i t a b l y b e n e f i t these other groups, t h i s s h o u l d not be the main o b j e c t i v e of the s c i e n c e f a i r . McBurney a l s o i n d i c a t e s that " c l u e s " r e g a r d i n g the type of j u d g i n g and Page 16 awards w i l l be provided by d e f i n i n g the science f a i r ' s primary objective. In Riechard's opinion, one of the most important and most neglected aspects of planning a science f a i r i s the careful determination of the science f a i r ' s objectives. There are many v a l i d reasons for holding science f a i r s and the structure of the f a i r w i l l change dependant upon the objectives. In determining objectives, Rlechard suggests making them compatible with the school's general philosophy and the general aims of science education and the school's science program. He also suggests taking the nature of the student population into account in terms of t h e i r age, grade, i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , and av a i l a b l e support and resources. 2.22 Competition and Awards Ovian (1971) in h i s survey of Science F a i r D irectors and Supervisors of Science throughout the United States, I d e n t i f i e d competition as an important aspect of secondary school science f a i r organization. He considered that competition was necessary and, therefore, the projects should be judged and pr i z e s awarded. He recommended that at least a c e r t i f i c a t e should be awarded to a l l science f a i r p a r t i c i p a n t s . Fort (1985) agrees that a l l contestants should be awarded something; a c e r t i f i c a t e , a ribbon, a medal, or whatever else seems appropriate. She also Page 17 comments on a recent science f a i r that made Superior, Outstanding, or Noteworthy awards to a l l i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . Fort suggested t h i s as a possible awards structure for those who wanted an alternate to the more t r a d i t i o n a l F i r s t , Second, and Third place awards. McBurney, argues in favor of each student competing against a standard, and not competing against each other. The standard should be based on c r i t e r i a such as the c l a r i t y of the problem, i n t e g r i t y of the experimental method and investigative procedures, accuracy of data interpretation and other s c i e n t i f i c q u a l i t i e s . He would de-emphasize the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of the display and would place a greater emphasis on i t s s c i e n t f i c i n t e g r i t y and student learning. When awards are made, McBurney f e e l s that the students should be present and that the judges should j u s t i f y t h e i r reasons for making each award. Regardless of the award, McBurney f e e l s that each student should receive some recognition, so no one leaves the f a i r with the impression that h i s e f f o r t s were in vain, although some would r e a l i z e that they could have improved upon t h e i r e f f o r t s . Stedman also thinks that students should compete against a standard set of c r i t e r i a . That way a l l students have the opportunity to win a blue ribbon i f the i r e f f o r t s are worthy of i t . He further states that the c r i t e r i a should be published well in advance. Page 18 Goodman (1975) agrees with McBurney in that the a e s t h e t i c a s p e c t s of a d i s p l a y s h o u l d not have a hig h p r i o r i t y . He adds, however, that a judge's r e a c t i o n to a wel l p r e s e n t e d p r o j e c t i s i n t a n g i b l e but important. Goodman f e e l s that an a t t r a c t i v e d i s p l a y conveys to the judge that the student has at t e n d e d c a r e f u l l y to a l l of the d e t a i l s of h i s p r o j e c t , even those that are not n e c e s s a r i l y important from a s c i e n t i f i c v i e w p o i n t . The p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n v o l v e d with C a s t n e r ' s study i n d i c a t e d that awards were v a l u a b l e and s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d to ten percent of the o u t s t a n d i n g p r o j e c t s i n the f a i r . However, no r e f e r e n c e was made to the type of award that s h o u l d be made to these s t u d e n t s . There was no agreement among the p r o f e s s i o n a l s r e g a r d i n g whether or not Honourable Mention c e r t i f i c a t e s s h o u l d be pr e s e n t e d to a l l s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d . C o m petition, however, i s not without i t s c r i t i c s . C hiappeta and Foots (1984) c a u t i o n that an emphasis on com p e t i t i o n can le a d to over-involvement of p a r e n t s in t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t s . T h i s robs the student of the p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i r own c r e a t i v e a b i l i t i e s and s e 1 f - m o t i v a t i o n . Burtch (1983) i s a l s o c r i t i c a l of c o m p e t i t i o n . He s t a t e s that c o m p e t i t i o n may be v a l u a b l e f o r stu d e n t s who are g i f t e d or h i g h l y c o m p e t i t i v e but that i t i s p o t e n t i a l l y harmful to other s t u d e n t s . Burtch advocates Page 19 evaluating students' projects but not d i s c l o s i n g the r e s u l t s p u b l I c a l l y nor having awards. Every student would receive a p a r i c l p a t l o n c e r t i f i c a t e . After nine years of science f a i r s , Burtch states that many of h i s students have been turned on to science but none have been turned off because of losing although he o f f e r s no evidence of t h i s . Lamb and Brown (1984) o f f e r an al t e r n a t i v e structure for science f a i r s to avoid the competition/awards controversy. In organizing a science exposition in Oregon, they included both competitive and non-competltlve s e c t i o n s . O r i g i n a l l y , i t was thought that the non-compet1tve section would appeal mainly to middle grade students, but found that a large number of high school students chose to enter the non-competitive section. The authors f e l t that many of these projects were suit a b l e for competition. Lamb and Brown think that student choice may be one way of encouraging excellence in those who thrive on competition while at the same time allowing for those who wish to be Involved for reasons other than competition. 2.23 Grade Levels Another aspect of s p e c i f i c question 2 r e l a t e s to the grade leve l s involved in the science f a i r . Some schools ln Surrey Include students from Kindergarten to grade three even though no provision i s made for their p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . Only one reference to science Page 20 f a i r s for younger students was found In the l i t e r a t u r e . Resting (1981) discussed a science f a i r for preschool students In which a group of un i v e r s i t y students a s s i s t e d younger students with science a c t i v i t i e s in a shopping mall. Although the event was deemed highly succesful, It should not be thought of as a science f a i r In the tr a d i t i o n a l sense. The uni v e r s i t y students planned the a c t i v i t i e s and set them up in the mall. The children could try as many a c t i v i t i e s as they wished. Many (Burtch; Danllov, 1975; Knapp; Rice, 1983; Streng, and others), have discussed and studied science f a i r s at various grade leve l s from grades f i v e to beyond high school. A l l concluded or stated that science f a i r s were valuable experiences for students providing the objectives to be accomplished and the nature and needs of students were taken into account. 2.3 Science F a i r s and Science Instruction Question 3 r e l a t e s to science f a i r s and science i n s t r u c t i o n . Some (Benson, Kerby, Wofford, & Biggs) have made the assumption that science f a i r projects provide a reasonably accurate r e f l e c t i o n of current science teaching p r a c t i s e s . They thought that by assessing the extent which students used the metric system of measurement in science f a i r projects, they would have a good indication of teacher usage of the metric system In science c l a s s . Page 21 The 1 en suggests that a l l of the a c t i v i t i e s leading up to a science f a i r need to be reappraised. Castner also suggested that the amount and type of guidance which a student requires to complete a science f a i r project requires further investigation. The professionals surveyed by Castner almost unanimously agreed that science f a i r s Improve science teaching. 2.31 Science F a i r s and the Goals of Science Instruct ion Silverman (1985) examined the e f f e c t s of science f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n on attitudes of grades seven to nine students. He found that science f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n increased Interest in science. The anecdotal reports of 56 science f a i r p a rticipants showed that they became aware of basic science process s k i l l s through t h e i r science f a i r projects. Chiappeta and Foots think that science f a i r s help students develop science Inquiry s k i l l s . Students develop s k i l l s such as asking researchable questions, gathering information, and drawing conclusions. This promotes independent learning and encourages students to pursue th e i r own interests. Chiappeta and Foots argue that science f a i r projects should be an Integral part of course requirements because they reinforce what students learn ln a good science program. The professionals surveyed by Page 22 Castner agree that science f a i r projects should be Included in science classes. Castner asked the professionals i f science f a i r projects should be a culmination of classroom studies. 56% reponded yes and 44% responded no. Others (Knapp, 1975; Stedman, 1975; Streng, 1966; and McBurney, 1978) repeat the argument that completing a science f a i r project helps students develop a better understanding of, and competency in the processes of science. They argue that the nature of science i s one of inquiry and that a major goal of a good science program i s to help students understand t h i s . Their discussion centers around the need for students to develop science f a i r projects which emphasize investigation and experimentation. Hodges, Popp, & Robinson (1974) advocate a f i v e - l e v e l system of s c i e n t i f i c investigation where level one i s a display of information already a v a i l a b l e to the student in some form, and increasing in d i f f i c u l t y to level f i v e which i s an experiment with a l l important variables controlled. One reason for suggesting t h i s system i s so students w i l l recognize that projects which are c l a s s i f i e d as a higher level project, are more d i f f i c u l t and hence are more deserving of recognition. While Hodges et al . recognize a range of s c i e n t i f i c investigation, Smith (1981), does not. He argues that most science f a i r projects in elementary school are non-investigative and as such do not help the s t u d e n t s develop c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , i n q u i r y or Page 23 investigative s k i l l s . Consequently, Smith f e e l s that most science f a i r s do not promote the goals of science teaching beyond the acquisition of knowledge and s k i l l in model bui l d l n g . McNay (1985) thinks that nonexperimental science f a i r projects do exhibit the goals of good science teaching. While agreeing that experimental design and the s c i e n t i f i c method, regardless of how the " s c i e n t i f i c method" i s defined, are important, McNay f e e l s that they are but one part of the nature of science. Students can only investigate meaningfully those questions which which have already aroused their c u r i o s i t y . McNay f e e l s that i f science teachers force students to pursue experimental topics too soon, the students w i l l not be afforded the wonder and delight that i s the essential experience of science. McNay also argues that many topics of interest to students do not lend themselves to d i r e c t observation or experimentation. Topics such as the universe and the ocean f l o o r are c i t e d as two examples. Further, she indicates that many students develop a deeper understanding of s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p a l s through model b u i l d i n g and demonstrations. F i n a l l y , McNay reminds the skeptics that much of what i s accepted as s c i e n t i f i c research in some d i s c i p l i n e s , such as descriptive studies of organisms, i s nonexperimental. This kind of research she considers Just as valuable as experimental studies. Page 24 2.32 Science F a i r s and Instructional Strategies Texley (1984) and others (Cramer, 1981; Markle & Clchowskl, 1983) have offered suggestions to teachers regarding how to a s s i s t students in completing a science f a i r project. Texley o f f e r s suggestions on how students can be taught to generate a problem which can be investigated. She claims that t h i s i s the most d i f f i c u l t step for any researcher but that i t i s a teachable s k i l l . F i r s t , she provides a wealth of c l i p p i n g s , abstracts and hypothesis which have caught her eye. She also encourages students to contribute c l i p p i n g s and ideas. Students are then asked to consider topics of interest with, reference to f i v e experimental designs. In t h i s way, students can decide which topics can be investigated according to a s p e c i f i c experimental design. They w i l l then be in a position to decide which problems are within the scope of th e i r own resources or l i m i t a t i o n s . After a topic has been selected, the project i s divided into steps and a timeline i s developed, with s t r i c t deadlines enforced. Cramer o f f e r s suggestions of a more general nature. She suggests that students f i r s t decide which branch of science i n t e r e s t s them and then narrow the topic. Using a l r e a d y a c c e s s i b l e m a t e r i a l s , m o d i f y i n g e x i s t i n g experiments, concentrating on neatness and accuracy, and using colourful displays are also suggested by Cramer. Page 25 Markle and Clchowskl f e e l t h at a t t e n t i o n - g e t t i n g demonstrations can motivate students to do s c i e n t i f i c research. It i s then suggested that teachers set up exploration centres in th e i r classrooms which w i l l continue to provide students with questions to ponder and wonder about. Time Is provided for students to try the a c t i v i t i e s ln the centers. This provides the students with a model of what kinds of a c t i v i t i e s are su i t a b l e for i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Markle and Clchowskl feel that there are three types of projects: experimental, demonstrations, and d i s p l a y s . Students are encouraged to se l e c t a topic within t h i s framework. 2.33 Science F a i r s and Science Instuctlonal Time Knapp i d e n t i f i e s lack of instructonal time as a possible reason for the lack of assistance to students in completing their science f a i r p roject. He admits that some schools have more s t r i c t content requirements than others however, he also states that providing time for students to p a r t i c i p a t e ln science f a i r s i s an excellent way to meet those objectives which are r e l a t e d to developing the science processes ln students. On that basis he can j u s t i f y u t i l i z i n g science Intructional time for a s s i s t i n g students with th e i r science f a i r projects. Texley also recognizes that less content i s covered i f students use science Instructional time for their science f a i r project work. She Page 26 f e e l s that the b e n e f i t s of s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t work f a r outweigh any detriment caused by the l e s s e n i n g of content c o v e r a g e . C a s t n e r f o u n d t h a t a m a j o r i t y of t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( 5 6 % ) , i n her survey, think that c l a s s time s h o u l d not be given to s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t work. Ob v i o u s l y , those who argued that s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t s s h o u l d be p a r t of course requirements support the use of s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n a l time f o r working on those p r o j e c t s . 2.34 Science F a i r s and P a r e n t a l A s s i s t a n c e The d e c i s i o n to use s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n a l time or not i s sometimes dependent upon how te a c h e r s p e r c e i v e the i s s u e of p a r e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e . Some (Bur t c h ; Cramer; Hamrick & Harty, 1983; B e l l l p n n i , Cotten, and Kirkwood, 1984) are advocates of p a r e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e with s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t s . They f e e l that much i s to be gained from the I n t e r a c t i o n between parent and c h i l d . Parents can a s s i s t with t a k i n g s t u d e n t s to p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s , c o n s t r u c t i o n of d i f f i c u l t or dangerous p a r t s of p r o j e c t s , a c t i n g as res o u r c e persons, and t r a n s p o r t i n g p r o j e c t s to and from s c h o o l . Hamrick and Harty argue that there i s no b e t t e r p l a c e f o r l e a r n i n g to occur than at home with a concerned p a r e n t . B e l l i p a n n i et al . suggest that there may be some i n s t a n c e s , such as the use of power saws, where p a r e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e i s very a d v i s e a b l e . They i n d i c a t e that the Page 27 amount of parental assistance Is usually evident when pupil s are explaining t h e i r project. As previously mentioned, parental Involvement i s relat e d to the issue of competition. Chiapetta and Foots caution that over zealous parents can be too Involved with the i r c h i l d ' s science f a i r project to ensure that i t i s a winner. Other parents may be reluctant to help because they feel i t i s inappropriate for them to do so i f the project i s being Judged (Paldy). In eithe r Instance, a s p i r i t of cooperation i s not present and the student i s the ultimate 1oser. Castner found a discrepancy regarding parental assistance between the professionals and the students that she surveyed. 64% of the professionals f e l t that parental help was very evident in the form of assistance to b u i l d some of the equipment used or in gi v i n g advice to the students. 71% of the students surveyed s a i d t h e i r parents did not help them In any way. Various suggestions have been made to help a lev late the problem of parental involvement, i f i t i s viewed as such. Pearson included a note to the parents i n d i c a t i n g that the science f a i r project was to be the work of the student. Hodges et a l . suggest that before the science f a i r project work begins, students should have a clea r understanding of how much and what type of outside assistance i s allowed. Further, they advocate that a Page 28 statement be made by the student and displayed as part of the project, i n d i c a t i n g the amount and type of outside assistance received. Hansen required that a l l work on science f a i r projects take place at school, but during non-instructional time. Parent and teacher volunteers supervised the students in the school c a f e t e r i a and locked the science f a i r projects away in an unused classroom for safe keeping. Attendance was also taken so that students could be reminded when necessary. Henderson (1983) reminds us that parents, and grandparents are well aware of t h i s issue. He received a l e t t e r from a grandfather which detailed the extent of the assistance which was provided to h i s grandson. The r a t i o n a l e for w r i t i n g the l e t t e r was to ensure that the judges did not assume that the level of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the project was beyond that of an eleven year old. The grandfather obviously f e l t that the p o s s i b i l i t y existed that the judges would not give s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i t for h i s grandson's a b i l i t i e s . F i n a l l y , the parts of the NSTA position paper on science f a i r s pertinent to science i n s t r u c t i o n , state that " p a r t i c i p a t i o n (in science f a i r s ) should be guided by the following p r i n c i p l e s : - emphasis should be placed on the learning experience rather than on competition; Page 29 - p a r t i c i p a t i o n In science f a i r s should not be made the basis for course grades; - science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s should supplement other educational experiences and not Jeopardize them; - emphasis should be on s c i e n t i f i c content and method; - the s c i e n t i f i c part of the project must be the work of the student" (cover, 1984). 2.4 Teacher Background 2.41 Science Fa i r s and Teacher Science Background One of the issues i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r was the lack of instruction from teachers in the s k i l l s necessary to complete a project. Knapp i d e n t i f i e s lack of teacher science background as a possible reason for teachers not providing the necessary assistance to students. He argues that science f a i r projects which emphasize process and not content can be overseen by teachers who are non-science majors. Teachers can also ask for assistance from older students, student teachers and other interested adults. However, Knapp f e e l s that students can develop meaningful projects without adult supervision If there i s careful step by step planning by the teacher on how to complete a science f a i r project. Page 30 Smith also I d e n t i f i e s poor science backgrounds, e s p e c i a l l y among elementary teachers, as a reason for not providing assistance to students. He states that due to a lack of understanding about the goals of science teaching, elementary teachers feel more comfortable with a c t i v i t i e s c l o s e l y related to bookwork and the r e s u l t i s a preponderance of non-experimental projects. 2.42 Science F a i r s and Teacher Attitude While the importance of teacher attitude has been researched with respect to other areas of science i n s t r u c t i o n , few references exist regarding teacher attitude toward science f a i r s . Ovlan, in h i s survey of State Supervisors of Science Education and Science F a i r Directors, found that lack of interest on the part of teachers, students, and those associated with school was a common problem. Castner reported that a l l of the professionals that she surveyed indicated that the science f a i r was valuable and should be presented again the following year. Most of the professionals (80%), were elementary teachers. Speece included teacher attitude toward science f a i r as one aspect of her study. She found that elementary teachers had a strongly p o s i t i v e attitude toward science f a i r . Speece also compared teacher attitude to perceived administrators'' attitudes and reports that the perceived Page 31 administrators' a t t i t u d e s do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t teacher a t t i t u d e s toward science f a i r s . Speece suggests that a further study be conducted to determine what e f f e c t teacher preparation, age, and sex may have on teacher attitudes toward science f a i r . The review of the l i t e r a t u r e found references to a l l of the Issues to be examined in t h i s study. While many of the references were opinion, some empirical studies were found. It appears that although science f a i r s continue to be popular, they have not been studied extensively. Page 32 CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION 3.1 Introduction This Chapter w i l l present the methodology of data c o l l e c t i o n used in t h i s study. A discussion of Issues regarding the rationale for and the development of the questlonniares, as well as the analysis of data w i l l be presented. Mall questionnaires were selected for use as the primary method of data c o l l e c t i o n . The questionnaires were developed and prepared for d i s t r i b u t i o n to the teachers Immediately following the d i s t r i c t science f a i r ln March, 1986. Due to the timing of Spring Break for schools and also the issuing of report cards to students, the questonnaires were not d i s t r i b u t e d u n t i l A p r i l 14, 1986. Returns were requested by May 30, 1986. This allowed a month for late returns and also ensured that the returns would be completed before school year-end d e t a i l s occupied teachers' and p r i n c i p a l s ' time and e f f o r t s . A follow-up l e t t e r was sent to non-respondents ln the f i r s t week of June. A further follow-up l e t t e r and a second copy of the questionnaire was sent to non-responding teachers in September, 1986. Page 33 3.2 Rationale for Using a Questionnaire Design The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed discusses the disadvantages and advantages of using questionnaires to gather data. Butts (1983, p. 187) states that "survey research i s a s i g n i f i c a n t way of generating knowledge of what i s . " This study i s p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in determining what i s with respect to science f a i r s in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . As t h i s i s the f i r s t study conducted in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t about science f a i r s , a major focus of the study i s to determine what the current science f a i r p r a c t i c e s are in the D i s t r i c t . Charach (1975) indicates that another advantage of questionnaires i s they permit a wide coverage at a minimal expense. The study was designed to survey a l l intermediate teachers in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . Since there were 356 intermediate teachers at the time of the study, the use of a questionnaire was considered most appropriate. Further, the School D i s t r i c t has an internal mail system and the researcher was given permission to u t i l i z e t h i s system for the sending and returning of the questionniares. This greatly reduced costs involved with the d i s t r i b u t i o n and the return of the questionnaires. The use of the internal mail system was also desireable as i t was anticipated that i t would increase the response rate. This was anticipated because of i t s convenience for the Page 34 teachers. After completing the questionnaire, the teachers only needed to put It ln the mall bag which Is located In the school o f f i c e . Sudman and Bradburn (1982) Indicate that with few exceptions, no differences are observed in the answers given to the same questions asked by mail, phone, or in person. This being the case, they suggest that other c r i t e r i a should be used to determine which method of asking questions should be selected. The issues of cost and time were pertinent to t h i s study. As previously mentioned, costs were greatly reduced through the a b i l t y to use the internal mall system. Time was p a r t i c u l a r l y important as the study was asking teachers to remember events during an eight month period. It was also desirable to have the responses returned as quickly as possible because the summer holidays would interfere with future returns. Given the nature of the informaton being sought, the large number of teachers Involved in the study, the cost advantage, and the time factor, a mail questionniare was selected as a desirable methodology for t h i s study. Page 35 3.3 Description of the Quest 1onn1 ares This study researches four aspects of science f a i r s In Surrey: a) p a r t i c i p a t i o n In school and d i s t r i c t science f a i r s , b> organization of school science f a i r s , c> r e l a t i o n s h i p between science i n s t r u c t i o n and science f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , d) teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s . Information about schools p a r t i c i p a t i n g was a v a i l a b l e from D i s t r i c t sources. Information about individual school science f a i r s was determined through a survey of the elementary school p r i n c i p a l s in Surrey. Informaton about what happens in science classes and about teachers was determined through a survey of a l l intermediate teachers in Surrey. Both the teacher's and the p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaires were designed to enable ease of response yet accurately e l i c i t the information being sought. Answers to a l l questions f i t into a closed response structure but made allowances for other response options where appropriate. Respondents were provided with an "other" response category and asked to specify what the other option was. This was done to reduce possible respondent f r u s t r a t i o n on not fi n d i n g a suitable response category in the closed format. Frustration may lead to a lower return rate (Sudman and Page 36 Bradburn). The last page of both questionnaires provided space for general comments about the science f a i r . 3.31 P r i n c i p a l ' s Questionnaire It was assumed that the p r i n c i p a l was knowledgeable about the organization of the school science f a i r . A questionnaire was developed to determine current p r a c t i c e s of science f a i r organization in Surrey schools and was sent to a l l elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . The questionnaire asked questions about the grades involved, the viewing times, the location of the science f a i r ln the school, the awards given, and the selection procedures for determining the school representatives to the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . An at t i t u d e scale was Included to assess the p r i n c i p a l ' s a t t i t u d e s toward science f a i r s . 3.32 Teacher's Questionnaire Teachers were thought to be best able to answer questions about what they did in the i r science classes and about themselves. A questionnaire was developed and asked questions about teacher background, inservice, science l n t s t r u c t i o n a l time, science instructional materials s e l e c t i o n , s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods, p u p i l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , assistance to pup i l s ln completing t h e i r projects, and project evaluations. An attitude scale was Page 37 a l s o Included to assess the tea c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e s toward s c i e n c e f a i r . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d u p l i c a t e d on both s i d e s of the page to reduce the appearance of i t s length (nine pages). 3.4 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design Sudman and Bradburn o f f e r s u g g e s t i o n s on the design of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Format and content are p a r t i c u l a r l y important to c o n s i d e r in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s in t h i s study were developed o r i g i n a l l y from a content p e r s p e c t i v e and format c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were addressed l a t e r i n the development. The f i r s t d r a f t of the ques t i o n s were submitted to an experienced r e s e a r c h e r f o r comment on the general i s s u e s b e i n g e x p l o r e d and a l s o on the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s b e i n g asked. Based on comments r e c e i v e d , a second d r a f t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were made, c o r r e c t i n g the problems i d e n t i f i e d . T h i s second d r a f t of both Instruments was then resubmitted t o the r e s e a r c h e r f o r f u r t h e r comment. The second d r a f t of the teacher's q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a l s o submitted to a sample of convenience of f i v e t e a c h e r s who were members of the s c i e n c e f a i r committee. These t e a c h e r s were asked to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and to make note of the time r e q u i r e d to complete i t . Time was thought to be important because the teacher's q u e s t i o n n a i r e appeared to be q u i t e long. A personal or phone i n t e r v i e w was h e l d with Page 38 each of these teachers. They were asked about the content of the questionnaire, and which questions were unclear or in need of r e v i s i o n . This sample of teachers was selected because they were representative of the population which was to be surveyed and also because they were knowledgeable about the d i s t r i c t science f a i r and could comment about the general issues which the questionnaire was addressing. Most of the comments received about the questionnaire from t h i s group of teachers r e l a t e d to format and not content. They responded that the content of the questionnaire was accurate with respect to the stated questions, and each was seen as clear and e a s i l y answered. The f i v e teachers were also asked to respond o r a l l y to the questions. These answers were cross checked with t h e i r written responses. The comparison revealed that the responses were consistent both o r a l l y and written. At t h i s time, further r e v i s i o n s were made with respect to format. Care was taken to not a l t e r the content of the teacher's questionniare or of s p e c i f i c questions during these r e v i s i o n s . Several r e v i s i o n s with respect to format were made and each re v i s i o n was submitted to the experienced researcher for comment. The p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaire underwent a less rigorous developmental procedure due to nature of the questions being asked. The p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaire i s much shorter and asks for factual information about science Page 39 f a i r organization and for demographic information about the school. The f i r s t draft of the questions were submitted to the experienced researcher and r e v i s i o n s made based on comments received about the content. The p r i n c i p a l ' s questionniare u t i l i z e d the same format as the teacher's questlonniare. An attitude scale o r i g i n a l l y developed by Thelan, and m o d i f i e d by Speece, was added to the completed questionnaire as a means of assessing teacher and p r i n c i p a l a t titude toward science f a i r . Speece suggested that a comparison of pri n c i p a l and teacher a t t i t u d e s would be a valuable follow-up study to hers. F i n a l l y , both questionnaires were examined by an expert in data entry who suggested appropriate coding for ease of data entry, of the completed questionnaires. A f t e r coding, another sample of convenience of f i v e teachers were asked to complete the questionnlares. These teachers were asked to r e c o r d the time taken to complete the questionnaire and also whether the coding i n t e r f e r e d with t h e i r responses. A l l responded that the coding d i d not i n t e r f e r with their responses and that the questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The issue of time taken to complete the questionniare was important as the teacher's questionnaire was nine pages long and included 24 questions. Many of the questions were multiple part questions. One concern was the amount of time Page 40 that teachers would be w i l l i n g to devote to completing the questionnaire. It was f e l t that 15 minutes was acceptable to most teachers but that the response rate would be adversely affected i f the time required to complete the questonnalre was much longer than 15 minutes. Although the questionnaire was lengthy, i t was designed for ease of completion to meet the 15 minute c r i t e r i a . (See Appendices VI & VII for copies of both questionnaires.) 3.5 Target P o p u l a t i o n The target population of t h i s study comprises a l l intermediate teachers and a l l elementary p r i n c i p a l s ln the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . This population was selected as being the most knowledgable about the items of concern in the study. The names and schools of the teachers and p r i n c i p a l s were made available to the researcher by the School D i s t r i c t . The total accessible population of p r i n c i p a l s was 62 and the tot a l accessible population of intermediate teachers was 356. 3.6 Questionniare Return Rate The question of response rate i s a r e l a t i v e one. Babbie (1973, p. 165) states that i t Is more important to "demonstrate a lack of response bias than a high response rate." He further indicates that a response rate of 60% i s good and a response rate of 70% i s very good although he Page 41 admits there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l basis for t h i s s c ale. A sample of convenience of 10 non-respondents were surveyed as to why they chose not to respond. The non-respondents indicated that four were on leave of absence, one was an exchange teacher, four did not teach science so did not feel that they were supposed to complete the questionnaire and one teacher did not wish to do so. Further, the responses were tabulated by school and returns were received from every school in the D i s t r i c t . Consequently, the researcher f e e l s that the teacher responses received are a representative sample. 3.61 Teacher's Questionnaire Return Rate Of the 356 teacher's questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 10 were returned indicating that the teacher was on leave of absence or was no longer employed in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . Following accepted p r a c t i s e (Babbie), these 10 are subtracted leaving a net sample s i z e of 346 teachers. The number of completed questionnaires was 266. The response rate for the teacher's questionnaires was 77%. Page 42 3.62 P r i n c i p a l ' s Questionnaire Return Rate Of the 59 p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 52 were returned. One of those was returned with only the atti t u d e scale and school s i z e question completed as the school did not p a r t i c i p a t e In the science f a i r . The net sample s i z e was 59 and the response rate for the p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaire was 88%. 3.7 Analysis of Data Since the major purpose of t h i s study Is to determine the current p r a c t i c e s of science Instruction and science f a i r organization ln the Surrey School D i s t r i c t , frequencies of response expressed in the form of percentages were the major method of analysis. In some instances r e l a t i o n s h i p s between and among questions were looked for in the form of cross-tabulations. Rank order tables were generated for the attitude scales ln the teacher's and p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaires for the purpose of compar1 son. Page 43 o CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY Of PftTA This Chapter summarizes the data c o l l e c t e d by the researcher through the questionnaire, and Includes relevant information made available by the School D i s t r i c t . Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s are presented for the following areas: 4.1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in the School and D i s t r i c t Science Fa i r 4.2 Organization of School Science F a i r s 4.3 Relationship between Science Instruction and Science F a i r P a r t i c i p a t i o n 4.4 Teacher P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Science F a i r s Information pertaining to sections 4.1 and 4.2 was d e r i v e d from D i s t r i c t s o u r c e s and the p r i n c i p a l questionnaire. Information pertaining to sections 4.3 and 4.4 was derived from the Teacher questionnaire. Within each section, general categories are l i s t e d . S p e c i f i c findings are noted by underlining a summary statement which i s followed by the more d e t a i l e d information that was c o l l e c t e d . Percentages l i s t e d in the findings have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. Appendices I and II provide a l l the information in d e t a i l which was co l l e c t e d by the researcher, including exact percentage Page 44 responses to each question.and comments received r e l a t i v e to each question. Appendices III and IV contain verbatum responses to the General Comments section of the questionnaires. 4.1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n In School and D i s t r i c t F a i r 4.101 Most Surrey schools p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r s . In Surrey, elementary schools which enroll grades 4-7 can p a r t i c i p a t e in the D i s t r i c t science f a i r . Data c o l l e c t e d by the D i s t r i c t shows that of 59 schools, 56 entered projects (95%). 52 (88%) responded to the survey. 4.102 Schools of a l l sizes p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r s . Almost three quarters of the responding schools (73%), had more than ten classes, while just less than one quarter of the schools (23%), had between f i v e and nine classes. Only one school reported less than f i v e classes in the school. Page 45 4.2 Organisation of School Science F a i r s 4.21 P a r t i c i p a t i o n 4.2H Most s c h o o l s Involve grades K to 7 students i n t h e i r science f a i r s , Almost half (46%) of the schools Involved a l l t h e i r grades (K-7) ln one school science f a i r . A further 25% involved a l l grade levels in two separate science f a i r s , one for primary grades and one for intermediate grades. 15% of schools indicated an Intermediate grade level f a i r only. 11% of schools report a l t e r n a t i v e structures such as single grade f a i r s and e x h i b i t i o n s without Judging for primary grades. 4.212 Few schools require a l l students to p a r t i c i p a t e in  science f a i r s . P r i n c i p a l s reported that 560 classes in total p a r t i c i p a t e d in school science f a i r s . Only 10% of the schools required a l l p u p i l s to p a r t i c i p a t e in the school science f a i r . 40% of schools require only intermediate pupils to p a r t i c i p a t e . In half of the schools, either individual teachers require t h e i r students to p a r t i c i p a t e (27%), or interested p u p i l s decide to p a r t i c i p a t e (26%). Page 46 4.213 Student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r Is high. Intermediate teachers reported having 5 850 p u p i l s in thei r classes. 4 82? students completed a science f a i r project (83%). 85% of schools include primary students in t h e i r school science f a i r so the total student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s i s much higher than reported. 4.214 Most schools enter a l l science f a i r protects in the school science f a i r . In 75% of the schools responding, a l l science f a i r projects were entered in the school science f a i r . In the remaining schools, only the best projects from each c l a s s were selected. 4.22 Awards 4.221 Almost a l l schools present awards for science f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 92% of schools present ribbons, c e r t i f i c a t e s , buttons or s i m i l a r items to students who p a r t i c i p a t e . 4.222 Halt o i the schools present Placement awards bv grade l e v e l . Half of the schools provide awards for F i r s t , Second, Third, or provide 2-5 Excellence awards for each grade l e v e l . 11% of schools provide awards for each category Page 47 but not necessarily for each grade l e v e l . About one t h i r d of the schools (35%), provide awards only to those pupils selected to represent the school at the D i s t r i c t science f a i r . 4.223 School science f a i r winners progress to the D i s t r i c t science f a i r . Winners from the school science f a i r (88%), were selected to represent the school at the D i s t r i c t science f a i r . Teachers made t h i s s e l e c t i o n in 70% of schools. Other groups selected school winners as follows, community members (40%), School D i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s (38%), parents (25%), and secondary students (17%). Most schools used more than one of these groups to make the se l e c t i o n of school winners. 4.23 Viewing of School Science F a i r 4.231 A l l schools encourage viewing of t h e i r science f a i r . Almost half of the schools (48%), encouraged viewing of the science f a i r during both the day and the evening. One quarter of the schools (25%), reported viewing only during the day while the remainder (21%) reported viewing only in the evening. Page 48 4.232 Most schools have a centralized display of e x h i b i t s . The majority of schools (68%) displayed t h e i r projects in one or two large areas within the school. 29% of schools moved the best projects from each c l a s s into one large area and l e f t the remainder in the classroom. 4.3 Relationship Between Science Instruction and Science 4.31 Science Teaching A c t i v i t i e s / M a t e r i a l s 4.311 The Incidence of use of various teaching a c t i v i t i e s does not v a r v t Teachers reported not varying the inst r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s used in the i r science classes from the f a l l to the spring. 4.312 L i b r a r i e s are used more p r i o r to the science f a i r . 12% of teachers indicated using l i b r a r y research weekly in the spring whereas 5% indicated using t h i s a c t i v i t y weekly in the f a l l . Page 49 4.313 The Incidence of use of various teaching materials does not vary. Teachers reported not varying the instuctional materials used in t h e i r science classes from the f a l l to the spring. 4.32 Science Instructional Time 4.321 Teachers do not change the amount of ins t r u c t i o n a l time to accomodate s c i e n c e fa lr t Teachers do not vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y the amount of time for science teaching from the f a l l to the spring. Some teachers do however, provide extra time out of science classes, in the spring to help students prepare for the science f a i r . 4.33 Extra Time; In-class/Extra-curr1cu1ar 4.331 T e a c h e r s ds p r o v 1 de e x t r a i n - c l a s s and e x t r a - c u r r l r c u l a r time to accommodate science f a i r . More than half of the teachers (55%), reported a l l o t t i n g extra i n - c l a s s time to allow students to work on their projects. 20% of the teachers provided 30 minutes per week. More than half of the teachers (52%), reported helping students outside of regular instructional time. 30 minutes per week was the most Page 50 frequent a l l o c a t i o n of time. In t o t a l , teachers helped 1259 students outside of regular in s t r u c t i o n a l time. 4 . 3 4 Student Preparation A c t i v i t i e s for the Science F a i r 4,341 Teachers LL2£ a variety oj a c t i v i t i e s tp. a s s i s t students in preparing for the science f a i r . Of a c t i v i t i e s / r e s o u r c e s used to a s s i s t students in the preparation of a science f a i r project, discussion was the most popular a c t i v i t y (77%), followed c l o s e l y by the use of the pupil information booklet (76%). (The Surrey School D i s t r i c t produces and updates a pupil and a teacher information booklet yearly.) S l i d e s of projects entered in previous D i s t r i c t science f a i r s were used by 58% teachers, while 55% used the teacher information booklet. Many teachers (42%), put up wall displays on how to complete a science f a i r project. 21% of teachers used their own s l i d e s of science f a i r projects, f i l m s t i p s about science f a i r projects or a presentation from the Science Helping Teacher. Presentations by another person, most commonly the teacher-1ibrarian, school science f a i r coordinator, or older students, were used by 18% of the teachers. Other a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d by teachers included public speaking p r a c t i c e , l e t t e r i n g classes, l i b r a r y book and Page 51 magazine displays, displays of science f a i r ribbons, and past projects. 4.342 Teachers would l i k e to have additional resources for the preparation of science f a i r projects. More than 80% of teachers want a video tape on preparation of a science f a i r project. Over 70% want video tapes of pupil presentations while 62% of teachers would use exh i b i t s from previous science f a i r s . 4.35 E v a l u a t i o n Qi Science F a i r Projects for Reporting Purposes 4.351 Science f a i r project evaluations are used for Science report card marks, 70% of teachers use the evaluations as one part of the report card mark in Science. 21% of teachers used the science f a i r assessment to provide 30% of the science report card mark. Teachers r e l i e d mostly on themselves as the evaluator (34%) or together with the Judges' evaluations (33%) in deciding the report card mark. Some of the teachers (10%), used pupil s e l f evaluations. Also used were the teacher, student and cl a s s evaluations following a student presentation to the c l a s s . Page 52 21% of teachers do not use science f a i r project evaluations for report card purposes. 352 Teachers evaluate the science f a i r product rather than the process. 60% of teachers evaluate the display and completion of the project. Pupil presentation to the c l a s s (47%), and the Judging c r i t e r i a suggested by the D i s t r i c t guidelines <34%) were the next most popular options chosen. Teachers used pupil presentations to the teacher (25%) and to the Judge (21%). Only 12% of teachers evaluated each step completing a pro j e c t . Other items l i s t e d were student e f f o r t , s e l e c t i o n for inclusion in the school science f a i r , content, and student perceived benefits i . e . what the student thought they gained from the experience. 4 Teachers P a r t i c i p a t i n g in Science F a i r s 4.41 Total Responses A total of 228 out of 356 teacher questionnaires were returned. As calculated in Chapter 3 t h i s i s a 77% response rate. Male and female teachers responded in equal numbers. Page 53 4.42 Teacher Science Background/Interest 4.421 Responding teachers have a v a r i e d science background, 29% of teachers reported high school courses as the highest level of science course completed while 45% reported that they had completed up to 200 level u n i v e r s i t y courses. The remaining 24% of teachers have completed upper level u n i v e r s i t y courses. 4.422 Responding teachers show an interest in science outside of school. More than one t h i r d of teachers (38%), reported reading about science weekly while a further one f i f t h (21%), read about science monthly. Half of the teachers read about science 3-6 times a year. Only 4% never read about science. T.V. watching p a r a l l e l s reading patterns. 4.43 Teaching Experience 4.431 Most responding teachers have more than 10 years teaching experience. 63% of the teachers had more than 10 years experience, while 26% had between 6 and 10 years experience. Almost 10% had less than six years experience and only Page 54 one teacher responding to the questionnaire was a beginning teacher. 4.44 Teacher Inservice Relating to Science F a i r s 4.441 A malorltv of responding teachers have not attended  inservice programs about science f a i r s . 62% of teachers have never p a r t i c i p a t e d in inservice programs about science f a i r s . Those who had attended a f t e r school workshops were more frequent (21%), than teachers who had attended either a Professional Day workshop (15%), or a workshop at a conference (11%). Other inservice programs attended were l i s t e d as s t a f f meeting presentations, presentations in c l a s s , and discussion groups afte r school. 4.442 Most teachers reported that thev would attend science f a i r i n s e r v i c e t 75% of teachers reported that they would attend science f a i r inservice programs. More than half (56%), preferred to attend a Professional Day workshop, while 44% would attend a workshop at a conference. Just over one t h i r d (36%) would attend an a f t e r school workshop. Page 55 4.45 Teacher and Principal Attitude Toward Science F a i r Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s were asked to respond to 11 statements about science f a i r s on a Llkert-type scale. The response categories were: 1....agree very much 2....agree somewhat 3....agree very l i t t l e 4....di sagree Frequency of response in percentages were calculated in each response category for each statement. <See Appendices I and II for statements and frequencies.) 4.451 Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s have s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s  towards science f a i r . There are very few differences between teachers' and p r i n c i p a l s ' a t t i t u d e s toward science f a i r . Table 4.1 shows a comparison between teachers' and p r i n c i p a l s ' a ttitudes toward the 11 statements. The statements are ranked according to the frequencies of response for the response category 'agree very much' only. The statement with the highest frequency of response was ranked 1 and the remaining statements were ranked in descending order to the least frequently selected statement. If the statements ranked one to four are Page 56 c o n s i d e r e d , both groups r a t e d the same four statements most p o s i t i v e l y . The statements ranked two and f o u r (earned r e c o g n i t i o n , and work independently) were r e v e r s e d between the two groups. If the statements ranked 8 to 11 are c o n s i d e r e d , again both groups r a t e d the same four statements s i m i l a r l y but r e v e r s e d the statements ranked 9 and 11 ( u n d e r s t a n d i n g s c i e n c e , and meet other a d u l t s ) . Table 4.1 Teacher and Principal Attitude Toward Science Fair Question Topic Rankings Teacher's Principal"s Question T O P I C Work beyond class Work independently Practise research Earned recognition Develop poise Work cooperatively 1 2 3 4 5 6 Role of science education 7 Develop thoroughness 8 Meet other adults 9 Meet other students 10 Understand science 11 X; 1 Work beyond class 2 Earned recognition 3 Practise research 4 Work independently 5 Develop poise 6 Role of science education 7 Work cooperatively 8 Develop thoroughness 9 Understand science 0 Meet other students 1 Meet other adults 4.452 There i s s t r o n g to moderate agreement about the b e n e f i t s of s c i e n c e f a i r s If the frequency of responses to the response c a t e g o r i e s 'agree very much' and 'agree somewhat' are t o t a l l e d , the range of agreement with a l l the statements f o r the t e a c h e r s i s 90% to 67%. The range of agreement f o r the p r i n c i p a l s i s almost i d e n t i c a l (90% to 63%). (Example of c a l c u l a t i o n : S c i ence f a i r s s t i m u l a t e students to work beyond what i s covered in Page 57 c l a s s . P r i n c i p a l ' s f r e q u e n c i e s : 'agree very much' = 63.5%, 'agree somewhat' = 26.9%, t o t a l = 90.4%.) Both t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s f e l t most In agreement that s c i e n c e f a i r s s t i m u l a t e students to work beyond what i s covered in c l a s s , s c i e n c e f a i r s a l l o w s t u d e n t s to work independently, s c i e n c e f a i r s p r o v i d e s t u d e n t s with a chance to gain p r a c t i s e in r e s e a r c h , and s c i e n c e f a i r s p r o v i d e s t u d e n t s w i t h e a r n e d r e c o g n i t i o n . Both groups f e l t l e a s t In agreement that s c i e n c e f a i r s promote an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method, s c i e n c e f a i r s h e lp s t u d e n t s meet other s t u d e n t s or a d u l t s with s i m i l a r '" I n t e r e s t s and knowledge, and s c i e n c e f a i r s teach s t u d e n t s to be thorough. 4.46 Teachers' General Comments About Science F a i r . 4.461 Teachers used Lh£ o p p o r t u n i t y to comment about science f a i r s , The l a s t page of the t e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a l i n e d page a s k i n g f o r general comments. Of the 228 respondents, 89 t e a c h e r s (39%) wrote comments. The comments ranged from simple "Keep up the good work" type comments to lengthy s u g g e s t i o n s f o r improvement or reasons f o r not s u p p o r t i n g s c i e n c e f a i r . Page 58 A complete l i s t i n g of a l l general commments received Is ln Appendix I I I . 4.462 Many teachers commented p o s i t i v e l y about s c i e n c e f a i r . Many teachers (28) made p o s i t i v e comments about science f a i r s . Teachers s a i d the D i s t r i c t was to be commended on the organization of the science f a i r and also on the amount of support provided to teachers. Some teachers commented that i t was the only D i s t r i c t academically oriented event and that i t was very worthwhile. The cooperation between parents and children, and the public r e l a t i o n s b e n e f i t s were also l i s t e d as po s i t i v e aspects of the science f a i r . 4.463 Many teachers made suggestions about improving the science f a i r . 29 teachers made suggestions for improvement. Teachers suggested allowing group or c l a s s p r o j e c t s to be entered in the science f a i r . Parents not helping t h e i r children and making p a r t i c i p a t i o n voluntary were also suggested. Some teachers suggested changing the format of science f a i r to allow for problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s by the students. Dividing the science f a i r into two regional science f a i r s and providing more support to those students who would l i k e to enter the Page 59 Vancouver Regional Science F a i r was mentioned by teachers. 4.464 Many teachers made general comments about the. science f a i r There were 19 comments made which were of a general nature. They included comments about not having s u f f i c i e n t time to p a r t i c i p a t e t h i s year because of the new Social Studies curriculum and that science f a i r s do not foster an understanding of science methods. One teacher commented that the questionnaire provided some good ideas for next year's science f a i r . 4.465 Some teachers were c r i t i c a l about some aspects of  the science f a i r . Some teachers (13> made c r i t i c a l comments about various aspects of science f a i r . The competitive aspects of the f a i r were c r i t i c i z e d by some teachers. The science f a i r was also thought to be too bi g , too chaotic, too r e p e t i t i v e and some students had too much parental help. Page 60 4.47 P r i n c i p a l s ' General Comments About Science F a i r 4.471 P r i n c i p a l s used the opportunity to comment about science fair.. The last page of the p r i n c i p a l ' s quest ionnaire was a lined page asking for general comments. Of the 52 respondents, 39 p r i n c i p a l s <75%), wrote general comments. The comments ranged from s i n g l e sentence comments such as "One of the major academic events of the year", to a d e t a i l e d comment of two pages. A complete l i s t i n g of a l l comments received i s in Appendix IV. 4.472 Some p r i n c i p a l s made po s i t i v e comments about the  science f a i r . Five p r i n c i p a l s made comments which were mostly p o s i t i v e . Other p r i n c i p a l s included p o s i t i v e comments about s p e c i f i c aspects of the science f a i r . The public r e l a t i o n s aspects were thought to be valuable. Science f a i r was l i s t e d as being a source of p o s i t i v e feedback for the students, a good learning experience and a major academic event for the D i s t r i c t . Page 61 4.473 Some p r i n c i p a l s made suggestions for Improving the  science f a i r . Five p r i n c i p a l s made suggestions for improving the science f a i r . Other p r i n c i p a l s included suggestions as part of a more general comment. Holding the science f a i r every other year was suggested by a few p r i n c i p a l s . Other suggestions were displaying previous winning projects and hi g h l i g h t i n g the science f a i r more in the community p r i o r to i t s occurence. 4.474 Many p r i n c i p a l s made comments which were of a  general nature about the science f a i r . Many of the comments. <15) received were of a general nature. They Included reasons for non-participation, changes that the school made to improve t h e i r own science f a i r , or summarized comments from the parents. Some p r i n c i p a l s discussed issues such as making science f a i r voluntary, the awards system, or the need for a knowledgable s t a f f . 4.475 Two p r i n c i p a l s were c r i t i c a l of science f a i r . Only two p r i n c i p a l s wrote comments which were mainly c r i t i c a l about science f a i r . One of these was very lengthy and well thought out. Other p r i n c i p a l s included one or more c r i t i c i s m s as part of a more general comment. Many of the c r i t i c i s m s were about competitive aspects of the science f a i r . Page 62 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction The purpose of the study was to examine the current status of science f a i r s ln the Surrey School D i s t r i c t and i s of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to teachers and administrators in Surrey. It i s also relevant to other educators who are involved or interested in science f a i r s at the elementary school l e v e l . The study centered around four general areas of investigation: (a) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school and d i s t r i c t science f a i r s , <b) organization of school science f a i r s , <c) re l a t i o n s h i p between science i n s t r u c t i o n and science f a i r s , <d> teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s . The conclusions, discussions, and l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l be presented within the context of these four areas. Due to the volume of information gathered in t h i s study, the discussion of r e s u l t s w i l l highlight those areas of p a r t i c u l a r importance to the researcher and the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . The reader i s encouraged to peruse the data l i s t e d for each questionnaire. The verbatum general Page 63 responses may also be of Interest to some readers. This information i s contained in Appendices I-IV and may help the reader to draw further inferences that may be of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . 5 . 2 Cong lusions 5.21 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in School and D i s t r i c t Science F a i r s Question 1 i s : How many students, classes, grades, and schools p a r t i c i p a t e in science f a i r s ? Information to answer t h i s question was obtained from School Distri.ct sources, the p r i n c i p a l ' s questionnaire, and the teacher's questionnaire. It was found that 56 elementary schools (95%), v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r (grades four to seven). Most schools (85%), involve both primary and intermediate grade levels in t h e i r school science f a i r but not necessarily together in one science f a i r . 560 classes (K-7), were reported by the p r i n c i p a l s as having taken part in the science f a i r and 4 827 intermediate students (83%), completed a science f a i r project. The actual number of students who p a r t i c i p a t e d in a science f a i r in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t i s higher than that reported because only intermediate teachers were surveyed and asked f o r the number of s t u d e n t s Page 64 p a r t i c i p a t i n g . Consequently, primary s t u d e n t s were not i n c l u d e d in the student p a r t i c i p a t i o n f i g u r e s . One area of i n t e r e s t to the School D i s t r i c t was the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of primary s t u d e n t s i n s c i e n c e f a i r s . C l e a r l y , a l a r g e number of primary s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e . S i nce the School D i s t r i c t support f o r s c i e n c e f a i r s c u r r e n t l y f o c u s s e s on intermediate grades, there i s a need to a s s e s s the support that primary t e a c h e r s need and d e s i r e in order f o r them to be more e f f e c t i v e in a s s i s t i n g t h e i r s t u d e n t s with a s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t . It would a l s o be v a l u a b l e to assess the b e n e f i t s to primary s t u d e n t s from p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s c i e n c e f a i r s , as p e r c e i v e d by t h e i r t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s . 5.22 O r g a n i z a t i o n of School Science F a i r s Question 2 i s : How are school s c i e n c e f a i r s organ i z i ed? Information from the p r i n c i p a l ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used to answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . In most s c h o o l s (75%), a l l of the student p r o j e c t s were ent e r e d in the school s c i e n c e f a i r and almost a l l s c h o o l s presented some form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n award. Half of the s c h o o l s made placement awards by grade l e v e l but 35% of s c h o o l s have placement awards only f o r those s t u d e n t s who are s e l e c t e d to represent the school at the d i s t r i c t s c i e n c e f a i r . A l l s c h o o l s encourage vi e w i n g of the s c i e n c e Page 65 f a i r by the community. Most schools have a c e n t r a l i z e d display of science f a i r projects. Crosstabulations were conducted with respect to school si z e and selection of projects for the school science f a i r . 25% of schools selected only the best projects from each c l a s s to enter in the school science f a i r . The researcher was interested ln determining whether large schools selected only the best science f a i r projects for the school science f a i r more frequently than small or medium s i z e schools. Table 5.1 shows the resu l t of the crosstabulation. Table 5.1 School Size vs. Project Selection School Size Every Project Best Project 1-5 Classes (small) 1 0 6-10 Classes (medium) 10 1 10+ Classes (large) 25 12 Totals 36 13 Of the 13 schools that selected only the best projects from the classrooms, only one school had less than 10 classes or was not a large school. Schools generally do not have large numbers of tables which can be used for displays nor do they have many large areas for displaying science f a i r projects. If a school has more projects than w i l l f i t in i t s gym, then the l i b r a r y i s Page 66 usually the only al t e r n a t i v e display space for most elementary schools. Based on the cross-tabu 1 at ions data, i t Is probable that schools s e l e c t i n g only the best science f a i r p r o j e c t s for the i r science f a i r make t h i s s election because of space considerations and not on the quality of the e x h i b i t s on display. The researcher supports the inclusion of as many science f a i r projects as i s possible in elementary school science f a i r s and i t appears that the majority of teachers and p r i n c i p a l s in Surrey do as w e l l . The topic of awards, and hence competition, deserves some discussion. Half of the schools provide placement awards by grade l e v e l . At the d i s t r i c t science f a i r placement awards are designated by category, not by grade l e v e l . Some schools provide placement awards for both grade and category. Some schools provide placement awards for intermediate grades only, while some schools provide placement awards for a l l grades. One school chose not to enter the d i s t r i c t science f a i r because of the competitve nature of the f a i r . In Surrey, there i s va r i a t i o n in the school science f a i r s awards structure. One structure for awards that was discussed in the l i t e r a t u r e review was the establishment of a standard. If the project was judged to have met that standard, then i t would receive the appropriate award, regardless of the number of other students who also achieved that standard. Page 67 In that way, each student has an opportunity to achieve a f i r s t place award and i f they don't, they w i l l know why they didn't achieve i t . This lessens the competitive aspects which some f i n d objectionable, but s t i l l provides an incentive for the students to s t r i v e f o r . Currently t h i s award structure i s not being used ln the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . The researcher thinks t h i s structure should be considered. 5.23 Relationship Between Science Instruction and Science F a i r P a r t i c i p a t i o n Question 3 i s : What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between science f a i r s and science instruction as determined by the selection of Instructional a c t i v i t i e s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, instructional/noninstructional time a l l o t t e d , and evaluation procedures? Information to answer t h i s question came from the teacher's questionnaire. Teachers do not change their instructional a c t i v i t i e s , t h e i r instructional materials, or their i n s t r u c t i o n a l time s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the f a l l to the spring. Teachers do provide extra i n - c l a s s time and extra-curricular time for science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s . The most frequent allotment of extra time was 30 minutes per week. A large proportion of teachers use science f a i r project evaluations as part of the student's science report Page 68 card mark. The completed display and pupil presentations were the most frequently evaluated aspects of the science f a i r project. Although completing a science f a i r project i s a complex process usually involving an extended time period, the emphasis on evaluation seems to be on the end product and not on the process or the products of the various stages in the process. The assumption by the teachers appears to be that i f the end product i s well done then so were a l l of the steps leading to the completion of the science f a i r project. A concern with t h i s emphasis on evaluating the end product i s that students who are not completing each step of the project s a t i s f a c t o r i l y may continue to do so throughout the ent i r e project. This unsatisfactory work may not be found out u n t i l the f i n i s h e d project a r r i v e s for the science f a i r . By then, i t i s too late to be corrected. If each step were evaluated, the teacher would be able to i d e n t i f y those students in d i f f i c u l t y much e a r l i e r in the process. Adequate guidance could be given and the student and teacher would be much more s a t i s f i e d with the r e s u l t . This approach would seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y important for those students who are completing a project for th e i r f i r s t time. The emphasis on evaluating the end product i s consistent with teachers' lack of accomodation of science f a i r project r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s in t h e i r science classes. Page 69 It appears that the science f a i r and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s are viewed by teachers as an extra and not as an integral aspect of science Instruction. This supports the personal correspondence of Nash, as reported in Chapter 2. As a parent, he f e l t that schools were very attentive to the organizational aspects of the science f a i r , but provided l i t t l e assistance to students and parents. While teachers do not appear to vary t h e i r science classes, discussion, use of the Surrey School D i s t r i c t pupil information booklet, showing s l i d e s of previous science f a i r p r o j e cts, were a l l used by a majority of the teachers to a s s i s t t h e i r students with completing a science f a i r p r o j e c t . Teachers would l i k e to have additional resources to a s s i s t them in their work with students. A large number of teachers requested video tapes showing the steps used in the completion of a science f a i r p roject. Teachers also requested video tapes of student presentations of t h e i r science f a i r project. Some teachers in t h e i r general comments also requested information about how to integrate science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s with the science curriculum. The lack of integration and emphasis on product instead of process found in t h i s study can be interpreted as a lack of understanding, on the part of most elementary teachers, of what constitutes good science Instruction. The Science Council of Canada (1984, p. 17) states that "science education encompasses both processes and knowledge Page 70 that can nurture a c h i l d ' s Intellectual growth." The B.C. Elementary Science Curriculum (1981) i d e n t i f i e s four goals for the elementary science program. They are the development in students of: (a) appropriate science attitudes (b) processes and s k i l l s of science (c) s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, and (d) c r e a t i v e , r a t i o n a l , and c r i t i c a l thinking. The investigative nature of most science f a i r projects, whether they are experimental or non-experimental, would seem to contribute toward the development of a l l four prescribed goals and also comply with the Science Council's d e f i n i t i o n . Therefore, those teachers with a good understanding of science and how to teach i t should have no d i f f i c u l t y in j u s t i f y i n g the use of science instructional time for science f a i r project a c t i v i t i e s . Teachers seem equally unclear about the topics of i n s t r u c t i o n . In two places, teachers who were using prescribed or supplementary units were asked to l i s t the s p e c i f i c t i t l e s of units that they used. A large number of teachers d i d not distinguish between those units which were prescribed and those units which were supplementary. Units such as Batteries and Bulbs, Mealworms, and Mystery Powders were l i s t e d in both sections of t h i s question as were rockets, salmon and National Geographic materials. There seems to be misunderstanding on the part of teachers as to Page 71 what un i t s / t o p i c s are prescribed vs. supplementary even though the current curriculum has been in place since 1981. The point to be emphasized Is not that teachers shouldn't be teaching these u n i t s , but that they should be aware of how the i r teaching f i t s with the prescribed curriculum. 5.24 Teacher P a r t i c i p a t i o n ln Science F a i r s Question 4 Is: How do teaching experience, sex, science background, inservice, and attitude influence science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s ? Information to answer t h i s question was obtained from the teacher's questionnaire. Information about the p r i n c i p a l ' s attitude was obtained from the p r i n c i p a l ' s quest ionnaIre. Teachers responding to the questionnaire have a varied science background and show an Interest in science outside of school through reading about science and watching science-oriented T.V. programs. An equal number of male and female teachers responded to the questionnaire. Most of the teachers have more than ten years teaching experience but have not attended inservice programs about science f a i r s . Most teachers responded that they would attend science f a i r inservice. Many teachers responded that they would attend an af t e r school inservice session. Based on these responses, an a f t e r school workshop in late January 1987, was organized for Surrey teachers. Page 72 Topics l i s t e d for the workshop Included motivating students, webbing techniques, organizing f a i r s , and a panel discussion. These were a l l topics requested by teachers in the survey. Although 83 teachers responded that they would attend an aft e r school workshop, only nine teachers ac t u a l l y attended i t . I t appears that teacher response on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s not always indicative of future behavior. Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s attitudes towards science f a i r were generally supportive. Crosstabs comparing male and female teachers attitudes were conducted and no difference was found between the two groups. Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s agreed most that science f a i r s stimulated students to work beyond what Is covered in c l a s s and provided students with an opportunity to gain practise in research. Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s also agreed least that science f a i r s promote an understanding of the s c i e n c t l f i c method and that science f a i r s teach students to be thorough. These findings are consistent with e a r l i e r findings about teachers' approach to science f a i r s and science i n s t r u c t i o n . Obviously, teachers who do not teach or evaluate the process of completing a science f a i r project would feel that the students would be working beyond c l a s s work, and would gain practise in research. I t i s int e r e s t i n g , however, that they do not think that an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method i s developed by the students nor that the students are taught to be thorough. Page 73 Perhaps i f teachers were evaluating the process throughout, they would be able to a s s i s t those students who were not being as thorough as the teachers expect. Teacher's thoughts on the lack of development of the s c i e n t i f i c method may stem from a general lack of understanding on the part of teachers as to what the " s c i e n t i f i c method" 1 i s . Again a clo s e r monitoring of the process may provide some insights for teachers about the " s c i e n t i f i c method". It i s possible that the lack of experimental p r o j e c t s in many elementary science f a i r s contributing to t h i s a t t i t u d e . However, as McNay argues, the non-experimental science f a i r project may be just as valuable as the experimental project for a s s i s t i n g students to develop a deeper understanding of science. 1 The researcher i s aware of the controversy regarding the d e f i n i t i o n of the " s c i e n t i f i c method". S u f f i c e i t to say that however the teachers are de f i n i n g t h i s term, i t i s not, in t h e i r opinion, being developed through science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s . 5.3 General Comments The researcher considers that a comment i s deserved about the General Comments sections of both teacher and p r i n c i p a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The l a s t page of the questionnaires i n v i t e d the respondents to comment about the Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r . The researcher was Page 74 Impressed by the quantity and quality of the responses to t h i s section. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy when the length of the teachers' questionnaire i s considered. Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s in Surrey have well established opinions about the science f a i r and appear to have been w i l l i n g to express them. 5.4 Recommendations The following recommendations are made based on the information obtained in t h i s study. Information presented in the l i t e r a t u r e review (Chapter 2), and data obtained through the questionnaires was used in formulating the following recommendations. 5.41 Surrey Elementary Schools Science F a i r Teacher and p r i n c i p a l attitudes toward the science f a i r were generally p o s i t i v e . Many pos i t i v e comments about the science f a i r were also received in the general comments section. This i s not s u r p r i s i n g , however as the science f a i r i s well supported by the teachers and p r i n c i p a l s of the Surrey School D i s t r i c t as i s evidenced by the large voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . It i s recommended that: the Surrey School D i s t r i c t continue to sponsor  and support an elementary schools science f a i r each year. Page 75 5.42 Science F a i r Objectives Several authors and researchers consider i t imperative to have objectives for science f a i r s . They argued that once a set of objectives was defined then many concerns, such as awards, parental involvement, etc., can be e a s i l y dealt with. The Surrey School D i s t r i c t does not have set of written objectives for the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . While t h i s i s so, i t i s l i k e l y that the committee members and organizers have goals and objectives which they think are being met as the f a i r i s seen to be worthwhile. However, there continues to be concern among many teachers and parents as to the purposes for p a r t i c i p a t i o n • in the science f a i r . It i s recommended that: the Surrey School D i s t r i c t develop and publish a set  of objectives for the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . Further, a number of the comments from teachers also show a need for schools to c l a r i f y their reasons for chosing to p a r t i c i p a t e in the science f a i r . It i s recommended that: elementary schools who choose to organize a school  science f a i r develop and communicate to the parents and  students, a set of objectives for the school science f a i r . Page 76 5.43 P r i m a r y S c i e n c e F a i r s A l a r g e number o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s c h o o s e t o i n c l u d e t h e i r p r i m a r y s t u d e n t s i n s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s . The s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e s r e s o u r c e s a n d a s s i s t a n c e t o i n t e r m e d i a t e t e a c h e r s i n a v a r i e t y o f w a y s b u t h a s n o t d e v e l o p e d any a s s i s t a n c e s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e p r i m a r y g r a d e l e v e l s . I t i s recommended t h a t : t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s c i e n c e f a i r d e t e r m i n e a n d  d e v e l o p t h e k i n d s o f a s s i s t a n c e n e c e s s a r y f o r p r i m a r y  s t u d e n t s t o e n a b l e t h e m t o b e n e f i t f r o m t h e i r  p a r t i c i p a t a t i o n i n s c i e n c e f a i r a c t i v i t i e s . 5.44 A w a r d s T h e r e a r e a v a r i e t y o f a w a r d s s t r u c t u r e s i n u s e i n t h e S u r r e y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . The d i s t r i c t s c i e n c e f a i r c h o o s e s t o make p l a c e m e n t a w a r d s by c a t e g o r y w h i l e c l o s e t o h a l f o f t h e s c h o o l s c h o o s e t o make p l a c e m e n t a w a r d s by g r a d e l e v e l . O t h e r a w a r d s s t r u c t u r e s a r e a l s o i n p l a c e i n v a r i o u s s c h o o l s b u t none h a v e c h o s e n t o h a v e s t u d e n t s c o m p e t e a g a i n s t a s t a n d a r d . I t may be t h a t s c h o o l s a r e u n a w a r e o f t h i s a l t e r n a t e s t r u c t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e s c h o o l s who a r e c r i t i c a l o f c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s . C o m p e t i t i o n c o u l d be d i s c u s s e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s t h a t a s c h o o l s e t s f o r i t s s c i e n c e f a i r . Some s c h o o l s may h a v e s t u d e n t s c o m pete a g a i n s t a s t a n d a r d a n d n o t a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r a n d Page 77 so be more congruent with t h e i r school philosophy and science f a i r objectives. It Is recommended that: schools examine t h e i r science f a i r awards structure With reSPect to t h e i r SChPPl Ph i losophy and science f a i r o b j e c t i v e s , Although most schools provide p a r t i c i p a t i o n awards, some do not. It would seem reasonable that In the elementary grades a l l students should be given recognition for t h e i r e f f o r t s . It i s recommended that: a l l students who p a r t i c i p a t e in a school science f a i r  receive a p a r t i c i p a t i o n award of some kind. 5.45 Science Instruction This study examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s and science i n s t r u c t i o n . It was found that teachers appear to treat science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s as unrelated to t h e i r regular science Instructional methods, materials, and time allotments. Science f a i r i s seen as an extra and not an integral part of t h e i r science Instruction. It i s recommended that: wavs be developed to help teachers integrate science  f a i r a c t i v i t i e s with t h e i r regular science classes and meet the goals of the science curriculum. Page 78 It i s also recommended that: teachers and schools who choose to p a r t i c i p a t e in  science f a i r be given assistance with the Integration of science f a i r a c t i v i t i e s as part of t h e i r science classes. Another Issue r e l a t e d to science i n s t r u c t i o n i s the evaluation of science f a i r projects. Most teachers evaluate students' science f a i r projects for the purpose of forming some portion of the students' science report card mark. The majority of teachers evaluate the product and not the process. Part of the reason for t h i s may be that teachers view science f a i r as an extra and most of the science f a i r project work i s c a r r i e d on outside of the school. Teachers also agreed least that science f a i r s teach students to be thorough and that science f a i r s help students develop an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method. It may be that i f teachers were evaluating the process of completing a science f a i r project as well as evaluating the product, teachers would then be able to a s s i s t the students with b e i n g more thorough and a l s o w i t h d e v e l o p i n g an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method. It i s recommended that: teachers be encouraged to evaluate the whole process of completing a science f a i r project and to place less Page 79 emphasis on evaluating the end product i . e . the science f a i r project and presentation. A f i n a l issue related to science instruction i s the lack of f a m i l i a r i t y of teachers with the prescribed and supplementary units in the B.C. Elementary Science Curriculum. Teachers who were using Materials Based Units and Supplementary materials were unable to specify which category the topics belonged to, despite the fact that the current curriculum has been prescribed since 1981. It i s recommended that: the Surrey School D i s t r i c t f i n d wavs to f a m i l i a r i z e  teachers with the prescribed and supplementary units of the  curriculum. 5.46 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Science F a i r s P a r t i c i p a t i o n in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r i s o p t i o n a l . However, almost 60% of the r e s p o n d i n g intermediate teachers require t h e i r students to p a r t i c i p a t e in the science f a i r . Some primary teachers also require students to p a r t i c i p a t e in the science f a i r . While some authors and researchers in the l i t e r a t u r e do suggest mandatory student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the science f a i r most, including the NSTA, recommend that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s be optional. Whether student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science Page 80 f a i r s s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d or not i s an i s s u e which i s best d e a l t with at the school and teacher l e v e l , and would be dependent upon the o b j e c t i v e s f o r the s c i e n c e f a i r . If one o b j e c t i v e of the s c i e n c e f a i r i s to enhance s t u d e n t s ' r e s e a r c h s k i l l s then mandatory p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be a p p r o p r i a t e . I f , however, a major goal i s to p r o v i d e a c h a l l e n g e to those s t u d e n t s with a keen i n t e r e s t in s c i e n c e , then mandatory p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s probably not a p p r o p r i a t e . I t i s recommended t h a t : s c h o o l s and t e a c h e r s e v a l u a t e the i s s u e of mandatory  student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s c i e n c e f a i r s with r e s p e c t to  t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s f o r the s c i e n c e f a i r . Another aspect of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n issue i s the amount of a s s i s t a n c e , support, and e v a l u a t i o n that s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e i n c o m p l e t i n g t h e i r s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t . Teachers appear to t r e a t s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t s as an e x t r a a c t i v i t y yet many t e a c h e r s r e q u i r e s c i e n c e f a i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Many te a c h e r s a l s o use s c i e n c e f a i r e v a l u a t i o n s f o r a p o r t i o n of the s t u d e n t ' s r e p o r t c a r d mark. Teachers who r e q u i r e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and who use the s c i e n c e f a i r e v a l u a t i o n s f o r a p o r t i o n of the s t u d e n t ' s r e p o r t c a r d mark, sh o u l d ensure that s u f f i c i e n t a s s i s t a n c e and time i s p r o v i d e d to ensure that s t u d e n t s b e n e f i t from the e x p e r i e n c e . It i s recommended t h a t : Page 81 teachers who mandate student p a r t i c i p a t i o n In science f a i r s should also provide assistance to students throughout the process of completing a project. Those teachers who cannot or are not prepared to provide t h i s  support should make student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s  voluntary. 5.47 Assistance to Students Thelan suggested that the entire gamut of a c t i v i t i e s leading up to science f a i r s needs to be c r i t i c a l l y appraised (1964, p. 446). Castner also i d e n t i f i e d the need for more research into what type and amount of q u a l i f i e d assistance should be available to students in the completion of a project (1967, p. 502). The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support these suggestions for further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . It i s possible that teachers' treatment of science f a i r s as an extra a c t i v i t y may come from a lack of understanding regarding what kinds of assistance the students require. It i s recommended that: further study be conducted to determine what type  and amount of assistance elementary students need to  complete a science f a i r project s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . Page 82 5.48 Science F a i r Inservice Three quarters of the responding teachers reported that they would attend Inservice about science f a i r s . Teachers l i s t e d topics that they would l i k e to see presented at an inservice session. Teachers preference for the timing of the Inservice session was expressed as inservice at a professional day, at a conference and at an aft e r school workshop. It i s recommended that: the Surrey School D i s t r i c t provide a s e r i e s of Inservice sessions about science f a i r s which emphasize the  topics requested by teachers. Inservice topics I d e n t i f i e d In t h i s study should a l s o be addressed, 5.5 Concluding Remarks The purpose of t h i s study was to e s t a b l i s h baseline data with respect to science f a i r organization and science instruction In the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . Several recommendations regarding science f a i r organization, science Instruction, and areas of further study have been presented. The researcher i s hopeful that the data and recommendations w i l l be useful to both the d i s t r i c t and others who have an interest in the topic of science f a i r s . Given the apparent lack of empirical studies on science f a i r s and t h e i r increasing popularity in B.C., the Page 83 researcher thinks that further studies on the topic are J u s t i f i e d . Page 84 REFERENCES Babbi e, E.R. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Be 1mont, CA: Wadsworth. Be l l i p a n n l , Lawrence, Cot ten, Donald R., & Kirkwood, Jan Marion. (1984). In the balance. Science and  C h i l d r e n , 2 i ( 4 ) , 12-13. Benson, Bernard W., Kerby, Joy A., Wofford, Barbara A., 8, Biggs, Kathryn B. (1981). Science f a i r s : do your students measure up? The Science Teacher. 49(1). 49-51. B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Education Curriculum Development Branch. (1981). Elementary Science  Curriculum Guide Grades 1-7. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Author. B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Education Learning Assessment Branch. (1982). B r i t i s h Columbia Science  Assessment: Summary Report. V i c t o r i a , B.C: Author, p. 48. Burtch, Bob. (1983). Who needs the competitive edge? Science and Children. 20(4), 12-14. Butts, David P. (1983). The survey-A research strategy rediscovered. Journal of Research in Science  Teaching. 20. 187-193. Page 85 Castner, Donna. (1967), The seventh grade science f a i r . Science Education. 5.1(5), 498-506. Charach, L. (1975). Using Mall Questionnaires; The Optimal Methodology and an Example. Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Chiappetta, Eugene L., & Foots, Barbara K. (1984). Does your science f a i r do what i t should? The Science  Teacher. November, 51(8), 24-26. Cramer, Nancy. (1981). Preparing for the f a i r . Science and  Children. 15(3), 18-19. Danilov, Victor J. (1975). 25 years of science f a i r i n g . The  Science Teacher. 42(4), 18-20. Fort, Deborah C. (1985). Getting a jump on the science f a i r . Science and Children. £2(2), 20-23. Foster, Gall C. (1983). Oh no, a science project! Science  and Children. 21(3), 20-22. Goodman, Harvey. (1975). At the science f a i r . The Science  Teacher, 42(9), 22-24. Hamrlck, Linda, & Harty, Harold. (1983). Science f a i r s : A primer for parents. Science and Children. 20.(5), 23-25. Page 86 Henderson, Stephen A. (1983). Did B i l l y Gene do t h i s project himself? Science and Children. 20.(4), 17. Hodges, H.G., Popp, L.A., & Robinson, F.G. (1974). How to have a better science f a i r . Orbi t. 5(2), 8-9. Kesting, P r i s c i l l a D. (1981). A science f a i r for younger ch i l d r e n . Science and Children. 18(7), 13. Knapp, John. (1975). Science f a i r s in the eighth, seventh, or s ixth grades? Science and Children. 12(8). 9-12. Lamb, William G., & Brown, Peter. (1984). Meet me at the f a i r . The Science Teacher. 5_1(8), 32-34. Markle, Sandra, & Cichowski, Robert. (1983). Science expo'83. Instuctor. 92(8), 68-71,78. McBurney, Wendel1 F. (1978). The science f a i r : A c r i t i q u e and some suggestions. The American Bioloav  Teacher. 40, 419-422. McNay, Margaret. (1983). The need to explore: Nonexperimental science f a i r projects. Science and  Children. £3(2), 17-18. National Science Teacher's Association. (1984). Science  F a i r s and Projects. Washington, D.C: Author. Page 87 Ovian, Rev. Leo Jerome. (1971). The current p r a c t i c e s in the organization and administration of science f a i r s in the secondary schools of the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International. 73 71-24,240. Paldy, Lester. (1971). Science f a i r s - In the s p i r i t of science? The Physics Teacher, 2 427-428. Pearson, Bruce. (1983). Planning the f a i r . Science and  Children. £0_<4), 9. Rice, Jeannle Rae. (1983). A special science f a i r : LD children learn what they can do. Science and  Chi ldren. 2P_(4), 15-16. Riechard, Donald E. (1976). So you're planning a science f a i r : Comments from a judge. The Clearing House: 49 256-258. Science Council of Canada. (1984). Science For Every Student: Educating Canadians For Tomorrow's World. (Report 36). Ottawa, Ontario. Silverman, Martin Bernard. (1985). E f f e c t s of science f a i r project involvement on attitudes of New York City junior high school students. Dissertation  Abstracts International. 47(01), 142-A Page 88 S m i t h , Norman F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Why s c i e n c e f a i r s d o n ' t e x h i b i t t h e g o a l s o f s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g . The S c i e n c e  T e a c h e r . 4 7 ( 1 ) , 22. S p e e c e , S.P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . I n d i a n a s c i e n c e f a i r s : A s t u d y o f s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f b e n e f i t s a n d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e o f s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , B a l l S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M u n c i e , I n d i a n a , 1 9 7 8 ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 4 0 ( 0 3 ) , 1387-A. S t e d m a n , C a r l t o n H. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S c i e n c e f a i r s , model b u i l d i n g , a n d n o n s c i e n c e . S c i e n c e a n d C h i l d r e n . 1 2 ( 5 ) . 2 0 - 2 2 . S t r e n g , E v e l y n . ( 1 9 6 6 ) . S c i e n c e f a i r s ? Who? Why? S c i e n c e  a n d C h i l d r e n . 3 ( 5 ) , 1 1-12. Sudman, Seymour, & B r a d b u r n , Norman M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Ask i no Q u e s t i o n s : A P r a c t i c a l G u i d e t o Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  D e s i cm. San F r a n s i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . T e x l e y , J u l i a n a . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . How t o c r e a t e p r o b l e m s . The  S c i e n c e T e a c h e r . 5 1 ( 8 ) , 2 9 - 3 1 . T h e l a n , L . J . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . The i m p a c t o f s c i e n c e f a i r s on s t u d e n t e x h i b i t o r s . S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 48 442- 4 4 6 . Page 89 APPENDIX I TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS NOTE: There are minor differences ln the wording between a few of the following questions and those found ln the or i g i n a l questionnaire. This was done for the sake of brevity and does not af f e c t the intent of each question. Those readers who wish to see the questionnaire as i t was d i s t r i b u t e d to teachers are refe r r e d to Appendix VI. 1. How many years have you taught as of June 1985? 0 years (beginning teacher) 4% 1-5 years 9.6% 6-10 years 25.9% 10+ years 63.2% 2. Are you male or female? Male 48.7% Fema 1 e 50 .4% 3. What was the last level of science course that you successfully completed? (check one) Grade 10 3.5% University., l y r 11 6.6% 2yr 12 17.5% 3yr 4yr ,23.7% .21.5% .10.5% ,13.6% How often do you read science magazines and or books? Weekly 38.6% Monthly 21.5% 3-6 times per year... 50.9% Never 3.5% Missing 1.3% 5. How often do you watch science programs on T.V. Nova, Nature of Things, nature programs etc.? one) Weekly 38.6% Monthly 18.9% 3-6 times per year... 50.9% Never 3.5% Missing 1.3% such as (check 6. Did any pu p i l s from your c l a s s p a r t i c i p a t e in your school's science f a i r t h i s year? (1985-86) Yes 94.3% No 4.4% Page 90 Have you attended any Inservice a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to science f a i r s ? (check a l l that apply) No 61.8% Yes A. What kind of inservice a c t i v i t y ? a) After school workshop 21.5% b) Professional day workshop 14.9% c) Workshop at a conference 11.0% d) Other (specify) 3.5% - presentation in c l a s s time - in school - planning meetings at the school - we invited D i s t r i c t Helping teacher to our school to make a presentation to p u p i l s and teachers - discussion group/ideas brainstorm af t e r school. Burt Deeter's s i i d e show - s t a f f meeting presentation - after school meeting B. Please specify topics about science f a i r s that you found useful. - o r g a n i z i n g s c i e n c e f a i r s in s c h o o l s (9 comments) -.webbing; how to select topics (7 comments) - s l i d e s of well presented projects (5 comments) - l i s t of previus topics (4 comments) - ideas contained in the science f a i r booklets (2 comments) - rules and regulations (2 comments) - planning and awards - how to help students begin scheduling - a l l points re. display, ingenuity, what judges look for etc. - Brian Hassen "Ideas", Burt Deeter "Air Pressure and P l a s t i c Bags" - short snappers, science planning - presentation of information by p a r t i c i p a t i n g student - general ideas re. format, presentation - experiments - al1 kinds - coming up with fresh ideas and ways to display them; how to prepare for questioning - motivating pupils; teaching 'presentation ideas - construction of displays Page 91 Would you attend any Inservice a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to science f a i r s i f they were offered? (check a l l that app1y ) No 25.4% Yes A. What kind of Inservice a c t i v i t y would you attend? a) After school workshop 36.4% b) Professional day workshop 55.3% c) Workshop at a conference 43.9% d) Other (specify) 2.6% - (a) i s least preferable - at our school - Professional day (3 comments) - during school - needs much more than a one hour after school session - p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s ; s p l i t c l a s s demonstration lessons - only i f they were non-competitive or included group a c t i v i t i e s B. Please specify topics about science f a i r s that you would l i k e presented, - m o t i v a t i n g t o e n c o u r a g e more experiments/original research (13 comments) - how to generate enthusiasm; getting the p u p i l s .started (11 comments) - evaluating projects; judges' expectations (8 comments) - how to encourage new/unique and creative ideas (8 comments) - how to set up/display projects to work and win (5 comments) - integrating science f a i r into the curriculum (4 comments) - how much parent help i s allowed? (4 comments) - Canadian contributions to science; names and ideas (4 comments) - l i s t s of topics across Canada (3 comments) - motivation of teachers (3 comments) - webbing; choosing topics (3 comments) - how to properly present the science lesson; what are the techniques for questioning and having the students eager to do experiments or research? - di f f e r e n t types of B.C. trees; complete salmon trave1s - magic garden; e l e c t r i c i t y - categories - how to introduce science f a i r to primary students; getting topics, how to do i t in a simple way that i s not overwhelming for younger pupils - yearly highlight ( l i k e Hal ley's Comet) Page 92 - e l e c t r i c i t y , levers and pulleys - getting children to use Inquiry process well - s e l l i n g science f a i r to parents - where to get cheap materials - what b e n l f l t s are accrued through working on science f a i r projects? - video of winners from previous science f a i r s - cost factor; how s t r i c t are we? - evaluation of the worth of science f a i r s - information about obtaining free materials - i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g the science curriculum - encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n for p a r t i c i p a t i o n sake rather than for competition - whole class vs. volunteer attendance - questioning; how to prepare background material - locating supplies for those in need - ecology; astrology 9. Are you teaching Science to an intermediate c l a s s (grades 4-7) t h i s year (1985-86)? Yes 90.4% No 9.6% 10. Which one of the following best describes the grade you teach? Grade 4 25.4% 5 21.9% 6 18.0% 7 22.8% Special intermediate c l a s s 1.3% Other 10.5% 11. For how many minutes per week on the average, d i d you teach science? mi nutes Sept.-Dec. Jan.-Mar 0 .9% .4% 30 3.1% 2.2% 60 11.0% 10.5% 90 31.1% 28.5% 120 26.3% 26.3% 150 8.8% 10.1% 180 5.7% 8.3% 180 + 3.9% 3.5% missing 9.2% 10.1% Page 93 12. Was your class given extra In-class time to a s s i s t pupils ln the preparation of their science f a i r projects during the months of January, February, and March, 1986? No 44.3% Yes How many minutes per week of extra i n - c l a s s time did your pupils receive minutes Jan. Feb. Mar. 15 3,5% 3.9% 1.3% 30 19.3% 23.7% 20.2% 60 6.6% 11.4% 12.7% 120 1.8% 2.2% 4.8% 120+ .4% .4% 1.2% 13. Did you ass i s t any pup i l s with their science f a i r projects during out of school time? No 46.5% Yes A. Please estimate the total number of minutes per week which you ass i s t e d the pupils with t h e i r projects during out of school hours. minutes Jan. Feb. Mar. 15 11.8% 9.6% 8.3% 30 13.2% 18.9% 18.9% 60 3.5% 6.6% 7.5% 120 1.3% .9% 1.3% 120+ .4% .9% 2.2% B. Please estimate the number of pupils which you assisted during out of school time 1259 p u p i l s Comments: - simple questions, resources, d i r e c t i o n s , r u l e s etc.; on a school-wide basis - t h i s was voluntary at our school t h i s year. My assistance was to: check their topic, provide resource materials, paper etc.; encourage and help out where necessary on an individual basis so i t ' s d i f f i c u l t to estimate time. Page 94 For what percentage of time do you use each of the following teaching materials? 1 2 3 4 5 never occasionally frequent 1y most 1y mi s s i ng 0% 1-33% 34-66% 67-100% Teaching materials 1 2 3 4 5 Exploring Science text Sept.-Dec.<%) 8.3 19. 3 22.8 26.8 22.8 Jan.-Mar.<%) 9.6 21 . 9 22.4 21.5 24.6 S.T.E.M./Focus on Sc. Sept-Dec.(%) 21 .9 20. 2 10.1 4.4 43.4 Jan.-Mar(%) 23.2 18. 4 8.3 4.4 45.6 B.C.T.F. Lesson Aids Sept.-Dec.(%) 24.1 20. 2 .9 .4 54.4 Jan.-Mar.(%) 24.1 17. 5 1.3 .9 56.1 Your own units Sept.-Dec.(%) 5.7 26. 3 18.0 17.5 32.5 Jan.-Mar.(%) 4.4 25. 0 19.7 15.8 35.1 M.B.U. (prescribed) Sept.-Dec.(%) 25.9 11 . 4 6.6 3.5 52.6 Jan.-Mar.(%) 24.1 11. 4 7.5 3.5 53.5 Supplementary materials Sept.-Dec.<%) 12.7 17. 1 10.5 2.2 57.5 Jan.-Mar 13.2 15. 4 8.8 3.1 59.6 M.B.U. (prescribed) Sept.-Dec. Topic Responses magnet 9 salmon 8 bat.& bulbs 6 mystery powder.. 5 Which ones? - mealworms 5 - a i r pressure.... 4 - astronomy 3 - forest ecology.. 3 - seeds 2 r- magnifying 2 - comets 2 - weather 2 - bones 2 - rocks and chart. 2 - peas and p a r t i c . 2 - small things.... 2 - earthworms - brine shrimp.... - space (Cen.Lib). - volcanoes - beach Jan.-Mar. Topic Responses - bat.& bulbs 5 - rockets 4 - salmon 4 - seeds 3 - energy 2 - mealworms 2 - mystery powders 2 - kitchen physics 2 - smal 1 th i ngs 2 - rocks and charts.... 2 - National Geographic. 2 - How I Began 2 - earth,sun & season.. - EYE Trees - plants - magnets - tangrams - microgardening - musical instruments. - insects - p i l l b o t t l e chem.... Page 95 - mlrror cards.... - mealworms - microgardening.. - teeth - Panda w i l d l i f e . . - SAVI k i t s - TOPS k i t s - pi 11 bott1e chem - rocketry - cr y s t a l radio... - Nat. Geog - pendulums - optics - kitchen physics. - Cdn. W i l d l i f e F. - owl .... - M i l l i k e n mat.... - plant Supplementary materials Sept.-Dec. Topic Responses - A/V materials... 5 - bat. & bulbs.... 4 - comets 4 - astronomy 3 - 1iving things... 2 - rocketry 2 - smal1 things.... 2 - seeds 2 - bones 2 - forest/trees.... 2 - weather - energy - plants - colour - li g h t - water - pamph1ets....... - mystery powders. - science n i f t i e s . - magnets - f i s h i n g in B.C.. - whales - Basic F i r s t Aid. pendu1 urns graphic map solar system science f a i r mat... Mi 11iken materials. EYE Senses Which ones? Jan.-Mar. Topic Responses - rocketry 6 - astronomy 6 - bat. & bulbs.... 3 - salmon 3 - beach 2 - cry s t a l radio... 2 - smal1 things.... 2 - A/V materials... 2 - owl pe 1 1 ets 2 - mealworms 2 - hatching chicks. - boomerangs - heat and temp... - magnets - pamphlets - birds - weather - comets - mystery powders. - plants - energy - mach i nes........ - graph i c map - science f a i r . . . . - seeds Page 96 How often did you Involve your pupils In the following activities/approaches in your science classes? 1 never 2 once or twice in 3-4 months 3 once or twice a month 4 once or twice a week 5 almost every c l a s s 6 missing activlty/approach a) carrying out experiments from Instructions Sept.-Dec.<%> Jan.-Mar.<%) b) making up own experiments Sept.-Dec.(%) Jan.-Mar.<%) c) l i s t e n i n g to teacher's explanations Sept.-Dec.(%) Jan.-Mar.<%) d) interacting with the teacher in a mix of questions and explanations Sept.-Dec.(%> Jan.-Mar.(%) e) c l a s s i f y i n g objects/events Sept.-Dec.<%) Jan.-Mar.(%) f) answering questions from worksheets/textbooks Sept.-Dec.<%) Jan.-Mar.<%> g) copying notes Sept.-Dec.<%) Jan.-Mar.(%) h) watching A/V presentations Sept.-Dec.<%) Jan.-Mar.(%) i ) memorizing Sept.-Dec.(%> Jan.-Mar.<%) j ) preparing for experiments to be conducted at home Sept.-Dec.(%) Jan.-Mar.<%) k) reading from texts Sept.-Dec.<%) Jan.-Mar.(%) 1) 1ibrary research 1 2 3 4 5 6 12.7 36.0 28.5 9.6 1.3 11.8 11.0 33.8 29.8 10.1 3.1 12.3 43.9 34.2 8.3 1.8 0.9 11.0 37.3 33.8 11.8 3.5 0.9 12.7 2.6 6.6 19.7 45.6 14.0 11.4 2.6 7.5 23.2 40.4 13.6 12.7 1.8 1.8 17.5 •41.7 26.8 10.5 1.8 2.6 18.0 37.3 28.1 12.3 5.7 32.0 33.3 14.9 0.9 13.2 8.3 30.3 31.6 12.7 1.8 15.4 7.5 16.2 31.6 28.5 3.9 12.3 8.8 15.4 34.6 25.0 3.9 12.3 14.5 26.3 30.7 14.0 3.5 11.0 14.0 27.6 31.1 11.8 3.1 12.3 6.6 23.7 48.7 9.6 10.1 11.4 6.6 24.6 46.5 9.6 0.0 12.7 30.7 31.1 18.9 4.8 2.6 11.8 29.4 31.1 18.9 3.9 2.6 14.0 32.5 34.6 18.0 0.9 0.4 13.6 28.9 32.9 18.4 3.9 0.9 14.9 5.3 17.1 23.7 33.8 9.6 10.5 6.1 20.6 21.9 31.1 7.5 12.7 Page 97 Sept.-Dec. (%) 8.8 38.6 34.6 5.3 0.4 12.3 Jan.-Mar.<%) 8.8 34.2 31.1 12.3 1.3 12.3 m) 1 i s t e n i n g to guests Sept.-Dec.<%) 63.6 19.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 Jan.-Mar.(%) 60.6 20.6 3.1 0.4 0.0 15.8 n) going on f i e l d t r i p s Sept.-Dec.<%) 53.1 31.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 14.5 Jan.-Mar.(%) 42.5 41.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 13.6 0) computer a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n Sept.-Dec.(%> 71.1 7.5 4.8 3.5 0.4 12.7 Jan.-Mar.(%) 68.4 6.6 6.6 4.4 0.4 13.6 . Throughout the 1985/86 school year, what provisions were made for individual differences among your students in your science class? (check a l l that apply) a) no special provisions 58.3% b) in d i v i d u a l i z e d programs 7.0% c) achievement grouping within the c l a s s 12.3% d) special interest groups 20.2% e) other (specify) 4.8% - units were planned to meet the needs of students in the c l a s s . Students complete tasks at their level of a b i l i t y . - let those who were interested do individual projects - work i s designed so that a l l can contribute and par t i c i p a t e - same material was taught, lower students had easier experiments, less research. Quizzes were sectioned into low, average and above average -bonuses were awarded - d i f f e r e n t assigned work for some students a f t e r group i n s t r u c t i o n / a c t i v i t y - only during science f a i r - individual differences are expected to be cared for in the depth of experimentation c a r r i e d on by individua1/group/class - a l l experiments were done with partners or groups so students could help and learn from each other. A l l assignments were done t h i s way too - except s e l f - d i r e c t e d studies for the science f a i r - work i s designed so a l l students can contribute and p a r t i c i p a t e . Assignments are open-ended - assignments were by sel e c t i o n of choices to sui t individual strengths and weaknesses, i . e . choice of four ways to do project - we try to carry through with questions that come up and seem inter e s t i n g Page 98 - open-ended assignments that a l l o w f o r Individual differences - modified work load - enrichment a c t i v i t i e s / c e n t r e s - d i f f e r e n t expectations; d i f f e r e n t questions o r a l l y - individual projects - they were a l l close in a b i l i t y t h i s year - extension a c t i v i t i e s ; "challenge" lev e l s offered at stations and as course work 17. Does student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science f a i r s provide for the individual differences of your pupils? No 17.1% Yes 70.2% missing 12.7% Comments - the 'slow' ones never win! 18. How many pupils are there in your class? 5 850 pupils (total for questionnaire) 19. How many pupils from your c l a s s completed a science 4 827 (82.5%) pupils (total for questionnaire) In my c l a s s : a) A l l pupils are encouraged to complete a science f a i r f a i r project? 20.  b) A l l pupils are required to complete a science f a i r project Yes 59.2% No 30.7% Missing 10.1% 21. Did you provide a c t i v i t i e s and/or resources to a s s i s t your p u p i l s in doing a science f a i r project? No 10.0% Yes: Please check those a c t i v i t i e s and/or information that you provided (check a l l that apply) a) pupil information booklet 76.7% b) teacher information booklet 54.8% c) previous science f a i r s l i d e s (C.M.C.) 57.5% d) previous science f a i r s l i d e s (your own) 21.9% e) f i l m s t r i p s 23.2% f) Helping Teacher presentation 22.0% g) discussion 77.6% h) wall display of how to do a project 41.7% i) wall chart of pupil progress 27.2% j ) presentation by other person 18.4% (specify) - our pr i n c i p a l did a l l t h i s for those students part i c i p a t ing Page 99 - t e a c h e r - l i b r a r i a n a s s i s t a n c e (6 comments) - s e v e r a l o l d e r s t u d e n t s t o l d of t h e i r p a s t p r e s e n t a t i o n s (4 comments) - t e a c h e r i n charge of s c i e n c e f a i r (5 comments) - c l a s s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s c i e n c e p r o j e c t (2 comments) - a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l makes a p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a l l c l a s s e s (2 comments) - m a t e r i a l s f o r p r o j e c t s ; w r i t t e n or o t h e r - a n other t e a c h e r - p i c t u r e s of p a s t p r o j e c t s k) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) 3.5% - 1 l b r a r y books - examples of good p r o j e c t s - e x p l a n a t i o n s - d i s p l a y of r i b b o n s won by my son and d a u g h t e r - own i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t , own m o d e l s , p r e p a r e d l e s s o n s - m a t e r i a l s needed t o do p r o j e c t - we p r a c t i c e d p u b l i c s p e a k i n g and r o l e - m o d e l l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s - i n f o r m a t i o n t o p a r e n t s - t i m e l i n e from J a n u a r y t o March - l e t t e r i n g c l a s s e s Which of the f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s and/or r e s o u r c e s w ould you use i f they were a v a i l a b l e ? (check a l l t h a t app1y) a) v i d e o of how t o do a p r o j e c t . . . . 81.6% b) v i d e o of p u p i l p r e s e n t a t i o n 71.1% c ) e x h i b i t s from p r e v i o u s s c i e n c e f a i r s 62.7% d) none 3.5% e) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) 1.3% - our s c h o o l doesn't have a v i d e o r e c o r d e r - i f every s t u d e n t c o u l d see the e x h i b i t s a t G u i l d f o r d i t would be an immense h e l p - s t u d e n t p r e s e n t a t i o n s of how they went about o r g a n i z i n g f o r s c i e n c e f a i r - how t o choose a p r o j e c t seems t o be v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r many s t u d e n t s - d e t a i l e d examples of e x h i b i t s t h a t f i t i n t o d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s (most done a r e r e s e a r c h type p r o j e c t s ) - d o i n g a sample w i t h the c l a s s - p o s t e r s , b o o k l e t s - c h o o s i n g one's own p r o j e c t r a t h e r than r e l y i n g on what's been done i n the p a s t Page 100 23. Are s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t e v a l u a t i o n s used f o r r e p o r t i n g p u p i l p r o g r e s s i n s c i e n c e ? No 21.1% Yes A. What percentage of the r e p o r t c a r d mark d i d the s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t e v a l u a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e f o r the r e p o r t i n g p e r i o d January-March 1986? 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 80-100% 4.4 16.2 21.1 11.8 14.0 0.4 0.4 0 0 m i s s i n g 10.5% B. Who e v a l u a t e d the p r o j e c t f o r the r e p o r t c a r d mark? (check a l l that apply) a) p u p i l s e l f e v a l u a t i o n 11.0% b) teacher only 33.8% c) judge only 3.1% d) both teacher and judge 32.9% e) other ( s p e c i f y ) 6.6% - teacher and f e l l o w s t u d e n t s (9 comments) - p r o j e c t s were pr e s e n t e d f i r s t to the c l a s s ; c l a s s e v a l u a t i o n (5 comments) - was not used f o r r e p o r t c a r d - three other teachers (primary) h e l p e d judge - two teachers - a separate r e p o r t c a r d mark i s given - p u p i l e v a l u a t i o n - not p a r t of r e p o r t c a r d mark C. Which of the f o l l o w i n g were used to e v a l u a t e the s c i e n c e f a i r p r o j e c t f o r the r e p o r t c a r d mark? (check al1 t h a t app1y) a) d i s p l a y 61.8% b) p u p i l p r e s e n t a t i o n to c l a s s 47.4% c) p u p i l p r e s e n t a t i o n to teacher ( i n d i v i d u a l ) . . . . 25.4% d) p u p i l p r e s e n t a t i o n to judge 21.5% e) completion of p r o j e c t 57.5% f ) D i s t r i c t j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a 34.2% g) each s t e p in process of doing p r o j e c t 12.7% h) other ( s p e c i f y ) 2.6% - p u p i l p r e s e n t a t i o n s were e x c e l l e n t . Students lea r n e d a l o t from one another - s e l e c t i o n from gym d i s p l a y - what b e n e f i t s from doing the p r o j e c t the st u d e n t s p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g v a l u a b l e - French, w r i t t e n - r e s e a r c h , w r i t t e n form - s i n c e the s c i e n c e f a i r i s a v o l u n t a r y a c t i v i t y , i t i s not c o n s i d e r e d in the term work. Instead, i t i s an i n d i v i d u a l grade r e p o r t e d in the second term only. - a b i 1 i t y of c h i I d Page 101 i - content - was not used for report card - some steps from 'g' and individual e f f o r t was stressed. - i n d i v i d u a l e f f o r t and i n d i v i d u a l accomplishments as they r e l a t e to a b i l i t y or di sabi1i ty TEACHER ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE FAIRS 1....agree very much 2....agree somewhat 3....agree very l i t t l e 4....disagree 5....mi s s i ng 1. Science f a i r s stimulate the students to work beyond what i s covered in c l a s s . 1 2 3 4 5 58.8% 31.6% 4.4% 2.2% 3.1% 2. Science f a i r s help students develop poise and s e l f confidence. 1 2 3 4 5 39.0% 47.8% 6.6% 3.5% 3.1% 3. Science f a i r s provide students with chance to gain practise in research. 1 2 3 4 5 56.1% 32.0% 6.1% 1.8% 3.9% 4. Science f a i r s allow students to work independently. 1 2 3 4 5 56.6% 32.0% 6.6% 1.8% 3.1% 5. Science f a i r s teach students to be thorough. 1 2 3 4 5 28.1% 48.2% 14.5% 5.7% 3.5% 6. Science f a i r s promote an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method. 1 2 3 4 5 18.0% 49.1% 24.6% 4.4% 3.9% 7. Science f a i r s help meet other students with li k e i nterests. 1 2 3 4 5 19.7% 46.1% 23.7% 6.6% 3.9% Page 102 8. Science f a i r s Introduce students to adults with li k e i n terests and knowledge in science. 1 2 3 4 5 20.2% 36.0% 31.1% 8.3% 4.4% 9. Science f a i r s are useful in focussing the r o l e of science in education. 1 2 3 4 5 36.0% 39.0% 17.5% 3.9% 3.5% 10. Science f a i r s provide the students with earned recogni t ion. 1 2 3 4 5 52.6% 34.6% 6.1% 3.1% 3.5% 11. Science f a i r s allow the students to work cooperatively. 1 2 3 4 5 39.0% 43.9% 11.0% 2.6% 3.5% Page 103 APPENDIX II  PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS NOTE: There are minor differences in the wording between a few of the following questions and those found in the o r i g i n a l questionnaire. This was done for the sake of brevity and does not a f f e c t the content of each question. Those readers who wish to see the questionnaire as i t was d i s t r i b u t e d to p r i n c i p a l s are referred to Appendix VII. 1. How were pupils selected to represent your school at the D i s t r i c t science f a i r ? a) They were selected as winners from the school science f a i r . . . 88.5% b) They were selected from one or more individual c l a s s science f a i r s 3.8% c) No pupils from my school were at the D i s t r i c t science f a i r 5.8% d> Other (specify) 1.9% - Our school does not p a r t i c i p a t e in the f a i r - begun at classroom l e v e l ; 25% of e n t r i e s from each room then q u a l i f y for gym. - m i n i - f a i r was held for c l a s s winners. A l l s t a f f voted for school reps. - however, the F i r s t s in the school were not necessarily selected to represent the school. - "Outstanding" e n t r i e s (rather than "winners") - grades 4-7 were awarded 1st, 2nd, 3rd in each grade. Top three in school went to Guildford 2. Which of the following best characterizes the viewing of your school's science f a i r projects? (check a l l that apply) A. The public are encouraged to view the projects during a) The day only 26.9% b) The evening only 21.2% c) Both day and evening.. 48.1% d) Other (specify) 0.0% e) Missing 3.8% B. A l l projects are viewed in one or two large areas (gym, l i b r a r y , etc.) 67.3% C. Projects are viewed only in classrooms 5.8% D. Projects are viewed in the classrooms with the best from each class viewed in one large area 28.8% Page 104 P u p i l s from which grades p a r t i c i p a t e In the school science f a i r ? (check a l l that apply) a) Grades K-7 in one science f a i r 46.2% b) Grades K-3 and 4-7 (two separate f a i r s ) 25.0% c) Grades 4-7 only 15.4% d) Other (specify) 11.5% - however, at the same time primary are doing s i m i l a r things but not as a f a i r - there Is no further competition in primary grades- "special merit" winners display projects in the 1ibrary - however, only grades 4-7 were Judged. The primary children have a person to comment on the i r projects. - K-3 voluntary, 4-7 compulsory - 2-7 individual projects or p a i r s ; grade 1 same or as class project - school wide open house, science theme - 4-7 pretty well every p u p i l , K-3 not emphasized-pupils interviewed but not formally judged - grade 3 had a separate f a i r - grades 4-7 with voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n from individual primary classes - grades K-3 - grade 7 only t h i s year Pupils from which grades are required to p a r t i c i p a t e ? (check one) a) A l l pupils K-7 are required to p a r t i c i p a t e 11.5% b) A l l pupils 4-7 are required to p a r t i c i p a t e 30.9% c) Only pu p i l s from some classes are required 25.0% d) Pupils p a r t i c i p a t e only i f they are interested. 26.9% e) Other (specify) , 1.9% f) Missing 3.8% - most from 1-7 took part; no K's took part - up to homeroom teacher - with some pressure from their teachers - changed for 1986/87; required for 4-7 - not a l l primary classes were involved - we have done i t both ways. This year i t was voluntary. Some kids put negative pressure on others r e s u l t i n g in many not p a r t i c i p a t i n g that would have i f It was mandatory. We are considering making i t a requirement next year. - or may do comparable written project How many classes p a r t i c i p a t e d in the school science f a i r ? Total= 560 Page 105 6. How are projects selected for the school science f a i r ? A. Every project i s entered in the science f a i r . . . 69.2% B. Only the best projects from each c l a s s are selected for the science f a i r 30.8% 1) The best projects are selected by: a) teachers 32.7% b) peers 7.7% c) secondary students 5.8% d) parents 7.7% e) community members 9.6% f) School D i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s 9.6% g) u n i v e r s i t y students 1.9% h) other (specify) 1.9% - r e l a t i v e s of teachers, former teachers - don't advise using parents from same school - senior c i t i z e n s 7. Who sel e c t s projects to represent the school at the D i s t r i c t f a i r ? (check a l l that apply) a) teachers 69.2% b) peers 3.8% c) secondary students.... 17.3% d) university students 0.0% e) parents 25.0% f) community members 40.4% g) School D i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s 38.5% h) other (specify) 13.5% - Department Heads from J r . Secondary school - Kwantlen College s t a f f - Helping Teachers - winners of school science f a i r 8. Who receives awards at the school science f a i r ? (check al1 that apply) a) a l l p u p i l s r e c e i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n ribbons/certificates/buttons etc 92.3% b) pupils in each grade receive F i r s t , Second, Third, Outstanding/Excellence awards 50.0% c) pupils in each category receive F i r s t , Second, Third, Outstanding/Excellence awards 11.5% d) Only p u p i l s selected to represent the school at the D i s t r i c t f a i r r e c e i v e F i r s t , Second, T h i r d , Outstanding/Excellence awards 34.6% - many o t h e r s r e c e i v e Honourable Mention cert i f i cates - F i n a l i s t ribbons for those going to D i s t r i c t f a i r Page 106 9. How many regular classes (K-7) are In your school? a) 1-4 classes 1.9% b) 5-9 classes 23.1% c) 10+ classes 73.1% d) Missing 1 1 .9% 10. PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE FAIRS 1....agree very much 2....agree somewhat 3....agree very l i t t l e 4....di sagree 5....missing 1. Science f a i r s stimulate the students to work beyond what i s covered in c l a s s . 1 2 3 4 5 63.5% 26.9% 3.8% 1.9% 3.8% 2. Science f a i r s help students develop poise and s e l f confidence. 1 2 3 4 5 46.2% 46.2% 3.8% 3.8% 1.9% 3. Science f a i r s provide students with chance to gain pra c t i s e in research. 1 2 3 4 5 50.0% 36.5% 7.7% 3.8% 1.9% 4. Science f a i r s allow students to work independently. 1 2 3 4 5 48.1% 42.3% 1.9% 5.8% 1.9% 5. Science f a i r s teach students to be thorough. 1 2 3 4 5 28.8% 51.9% 11.5% 5.8% 1.9% 6. Science f a i r s promote an understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c method. 1 2 3 4 5 21.2 50.0% 19.2% 7.7% 1.9% 7. Science f a i r s help meet other students with l i k e i nterests. 1 2 3 4 5 19.2% 55.8% 19.2% 3.8% 1.9% 8. Science f a i r s introduce students to adults with l i k e i n terests and knowledge in science. 1 2 3 4 5 17.3% 46.2% 28.8% 5.8% 1.9% Page 107 9. Science f a i r s are useful in focussing the role of science in education. 1 2 3 4 5 44.2% 32.7% 17.3% 3.8% 1.9% 10. Science f a i r s provide the students with earned recogn i t ion. 1 2 3 4 5 63.5% 25.0% 7.7% 1.9% 1.9% 11. Science f a i r s allow the students to work cooperat i ve1y. 1 2 3 4 5 38.5% 50.0% 5.8% 3.8% 1.9% Page 108 APPENDIX III GENERAL COMMENTS: TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE The Science Fair i s the only academic event for elementary pupils -everything else i s sports orientated. I have found that teacher enthusiasm has waned over the years. Most finding i t a bother, which i s sad because science f a i r allows pupils to explore things that Interest them. However, I f i n d i t unfortunate when (rumor has i t ) that some teachers only allow cert a i n categories so that the pupil can win! I hope science f a i r s continue. They are great! I have noticed that Science F a i r o f f e r s academically i n c l i n e d students an opportunity to shine. We often showcase school a t h l e t i c s but not the academics. Also I have followed three students whose projects are always superior. They are always chosen to go to Guildford, however these students are not necessarily top academic students in their regular classroom assignments. To my knowledge Surrey's Science F a i r i s famous for i t quality projects and massive p a r t i c i p a t i o n . It i s an event which brings the student, h i s or her family and the school closer together. I have enjoyed the p o s i t i v e feedback I receive from the students and parents. The science f a i r i s an academically oriented a c t i v i t y which lin k s the school and the community in a sole endeavour - s c i e n t i f i c pursuit! In t h i s day and age when education i s under such a negative deluge from p o l i t i c i a n s and tax payers, i t i s comforting to announce to those who r i d i c u l e the system the success of events such as the Surrey Schools Science F a i r . Please don't let i t die. Keep up the excellent work, Burt and a l l your co-workers who keep i t going! Excellent resource help. School outline from Helping Teacher h e l p f u l . Communication about dates etc. excellent. I enjoy doing i t each year and appreciate a l l the work you do Burt. Thank you. I am very pleased with e f f o r t s being made by d i s t r i c t s t a f f to improve the c a l i b r e of school science f a i r s . I think anyone teaching in Surrey should be proud of our d i s t r i c t ' s accomplishments ln t h i s area. Good work, Burt! Excellent. Well organized. Much appreciated. Page 109 I think our school and d i s t r i c t science f a i r s are excellent ln both format and execution. Everyone who i s involved deserves accolades. There w i l l always be small problems when a venture for t h i s size occurs, but apart from finding f i f t y more judges (an i m p o s s i b i l i t y ) I think everything works great! Anyone who knocks Science F a i r i s a jerk. As with many events, i t i s not always easy to motivate pupils or parents and teachers of these children who would benefit greatly from the experience. Those who do p a r t i c i p a t e appear to gain from the experience. I appreciate the organizational task and congratulate those who put i t together. Even though the organizing i s a chore and many negative comments surface, I think Science F a i r s at the individual and d i s t r i c t level are "good". One of the best learning experiences I have discovered, occurs the day a f t e r the f a i r when we view, as a cl a s s , primary and intermediate exhi b i t s . Classes should be encouraged to keep a chart from September l i s t i n g ideas for Science projects. Personally, I think projects should be mandatory for intermediate p u p i l s . . . at least a written report i f not a project. This i s the f i r s t year that our school d i d not organize a science f a i r . We put our energies and time into a f u l l school play production. Both students and parents expressed feelings of missing the annual science f a i r . For t h i s reason, f i n d i t hard to f i l l out t h i s form. The school community strongly supports the school science f a i r . Although some children did a f a n t a s t i c job of s e t t i n g up their own experiments I now r e a l i z e there was a real void in my science classes in t h i s area which I would try to correct next year. A l l our experiments were the suggested ones in the text or modifications of my own. Science F a i r s promote better quality projects as students see good projects then remember those for the next year and aspire to achieve a better quality than the previous years. The true focus of Science Fair to me i s that students show the public what they can create - i t ' s communication between the young and adults where the young has a chance to show and t e l l t heir gained knowledge of a project. The image i s very p o s i t i v e but also in a f i e l d that the general public seems to be non-confident about. C r e a t i v i t y i s just not part of the Arts. Page 110 Students enjoy the opportunity to share t h e i r knowledge. It also gives them an opportunity to p r a c t i s e some public speaking. Three years ago, J u s t i n Brown from my classroom did extremely well in both the Surrey and Vancouver Science F a i r s . His project dealt with a laser. Thanks for making the Surrey Science F a i r an ongoing thing. Strong supporter of Science F a i r s ! Had some en t r i e s in Regional Science F a i r and would l i k e to encourage more next year -would l i k e to see D i s t r i c t support etc. in t h i s area. Strong believer in workshop for parents, at the school l e v e l , for Science F a i r s l i d e show and talk i s s u f f i c i e n t Good P.R. We have enjoyed the Science F a i r . There has been considerable discussion about whether i t should be compulsory or voluntary for next year. Also should i t be every 2nd year. I f i n d Science f a i r s very worthwhile to the student as well as for the public. I think that Science F a i r s are a valuable educational experience. From my own experience as a parent in Langley with a 7 year old who p a r t i c i p a t e d for the f i r s t time, I was proud at the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the projects at both the primary and intermediate level at my school compared to what has happened at my son's school. Surrey has put a lot of work into making Science F a i r the success i t i s , and I'm a l l for i t continuing. A good s t a r t in the Primary grade has made Science F a i r at our school an important, e x c i t i n g learning experience. Keep up the good work! The new grade 4 Social Studies program has somewhat upstaged my regular science program and hopefully there w i l l be a balance next year. Thank goodness for Science F a i r ! We look forward to i t every year. I love Science F a i r . I t ' s great! I think i t i s great to have parents involved in working with th e i r c h i l d r e n . It has many pos i t i v e rewards, however in some cases i t i s a l l done by parents. I am, and always have been, a very strong proponent of Science F a i r . I believe that Science Fair can do more for the attitude towards Science than any teacher standing at Page 1 1 1 the blackboard. I also believe your department has done an excellent job at Science F a i r . These projects often bring parents to work with and get involved with their c h i l d ' s work. Thought i t was an extremely worthwhile and valuable learning experience for us a l l . Realize they need much more help in how to organize and present their research display etc. A video or s l i d e s on how to do t h i s would be extremely useful. I think I would now hold my own mini science f a i r in the September to December period so they have a better understanding of the requirement etc. I d i d go over with them the importance the knowledge of t h e i r project would play in th e i r assessment, in class as well as in the judging. I asked the children what they thought were the advantages and disadvantages of having a science f a i r . A l l the children (including the non-particpants) thought the f a i r was a good idea. Their reasons were: 1. You could use your brain 2 . There was an opportunity to investigate a variety of topi cs 3. You had a chance to work cooperatively 4. Confidence and a b i l i t y to present a display improved 5. You could learn new things 6. You had the opportunity to observe other people's ideas 7. Your knowledge increased 8. It was fun Pupil comments: We learned about things other people were doing. You learn as you go. Made Science more fun. Got my attention. Competition was hard on some who t r i e d hard and "didn't win". Seven pupils have already started working on next year's projects. F i l m s t r i p s and s l i d e s of how to do/display Science Fa i r projects should be presented in the f a l l , e s p e c i a l l y for the lower grades. More inservice, workshops please! I need a pamphlet or guideline to help me learn/teach about the s c i e n t i f i c method and research procedures. A videotaped presentation for teachers on preparing a cl a s s and students for science f a i r research and presentation would be h e l p f u l . . . more helpful than a workshop. Page 1 1 2 Teachers might be given more guidance ln topics for students. I f e l t our school overdid the "Research" category, probably because i t i s the easiest for students to get started on and complete. I would f i n d i t helpful i f the teachers were offered a workshop approximately 2 months before the scheduled Science F a i r . Science f a i r s are good, however too often they become the entire Science program. Also they are often used as the sole means of evaluating a student in science. I believe they should be used as enrichment for students rather than part of the curriculum. Science f a i r s can be a very p o s i t i v e learning experience for p u p i l s provided they do most of the research and other work themselves. However, I feel that science f a i r s have become so competitive that what we are seeing now i s more of what mother and dad are capable of doing, rather than what the c h i l d i s capable of doing. For t h i s reason, I would l i k e to see less competition for the honour of going to Guildford. Instead, I would prefer to see local shopping malls host each school in t h e i r area and send a l l projects from that school. I strongly disagree with the practice of some schools only allowing the "best" projects to be displayed in the gym. I believe science f a i r s should be voluntary much as e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r sports are voluntary. May be time to divide Science F a i r into north/south categories. School Science Fair remains one of our prime public r e l a t i o n s vehicles. I do believe, however, that we alienate some of our constituents by not providing enough i n s p i r a t i o n , information, assistance, guidance, etc. at school. I usually use the Science F a i r project as part of report card mark but didn't t h i s year as a r e s u l t Of having a student teacher. I think Science F a i r might be more useful later in the year. This way I have more opportunity to teach s c i e n t i f i c method of inves t i g a t i o n . Also students may have more and better ideas for science f a i r p r ojects. At our school many parents get Involved in Science F a i r . Some parents and teachers have voiced the opinion that a science f a i r every year i s too much. They suggest every other year of two out of three years. By the time students get to Grade 7 they suff e r from Science F a i r burnout. I do not know how wide spread t h i s f e e l i n g i s . It does e x i s t . I believe that Science F a i r s serve a d e f i n i t e purpose and are worthy of support. Page 113 The Science F a i r s have been very successful and I enjoy attending. I sometimes wonder i f we should have a change. I hate making projects compulsory because so many of my students never get any help from home and few get to go to Guildford. How about a school project for a year i . e . one school does a s p e c i f i c topic from Grade 1 to Grade 7. Or have one major project from a whole class so that everyone in the c l a s s contributes, (e.g. Mobiles) In my 3/4 s p l i t , the grade 3's were strongly encouraged to do a project, which they a l l wanted to and did. The projects they turned out were, in many cases, more c a r e f u l l y and completely done than some of my grade 4's. I r e a l i z e that I have quite an exceptional class of b a s i c a l l y top kids, but some of the best projects were not from just my top pupils, but from the others who put t h e i r hearts into these projects. The Grade 3's were b a s i c a l l y judged in c l a s s by myself and 3 other teachers, after which parents came in to view them. The parents' comments were a l l very p o s i t i v e . Would i t be possible to open i t to grade 3's who wish to p a r t i c i p a t e , and judge them as a grade 3/4 set? For my pupils, i t was excellent practice for next year, but i t would have been nice to include them in the gym presentation to the .school, i f possible. The Science Fair at Guildford i s far too short. Exhibits should be on display at least for the weekend. That amount of work and e f f o r t should not go unnoticed. The public needs to be made more aware of the Science F a i r . Too often kids at the f a i r get asked too few questions. Let's publish some guidelines in the local newspaper BEFORE the Science F a i r , o u t l i n i n g for the public what to look for, what to ask etc. We need to INVITE the public to come and p a r t i c i p a t e . Since I only teach science twice a week as well as eleven other subjects, I cannot spend much individual time with each student. I think i t would be most b e n e f i c i a l to the science program to have one science teacher in each school to teach a l l intermediate classes. I feel that Science Fa i r s have become too sophisticated in recent years. I think i t i s time to consider a science 'challenge' for awhile where students are given a challenge to try to solve using certain materials and a great deal of i n t u i t i o n . I would li k e to see sections devoted to engineering problems, i.e . 1) straw tower building; 2) vehicles to Page 114 carry weight to cover distance given a basic supply l i s t ; 3) airplanes b u i l t using standard supply l i s t ; 4) bridge building. Feel t h i s would provoke research and ingenuity. What about "Olympics of the Mind" type of competition at Guildford. A problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t y for teams representing schools. More guidelines should be given to judges, such as tryi n g to avoid sexism or ageism. The biggest complaint I have heard over the years, i s not at the school level of competition, but at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . I would suggest having people who have science knowledge and not being so r i g i d on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . A meeting with judges before the actual judging may help. This year I understand that judging was unduly long. Judging can be a serious problem when teachers or/and parents, or/and students feel they should have had a better mark. They lose sight of the fact that involvement i s more important than winning. Science F a i r s are very hard on parents. I have heard of comments by parents such as: "I hope Mr. So & so does not have a science f a i r t h i s year." many times. Suggestion: perhaps a l l science f a i r s should be made optional. An ongoing concern. Who are we judging? The student or the parent's willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e . I disagree with the "awards" end of the present system, unless we have two categories: 1) parent assisted and 2) student only. As t h i s i s very hard to monitor I question the whole 'award' system. P a r t i c i p a t i o n has i t s own merits. Most children do not do the projects on their own. Many parents p a r t i c i p a t e or do them for t h e i r youngsters. I think there should be group a c t i v i t i e s and projects. Projects should be done at school and not at home. Suggestion: a budget to schools for special materials. I believe the d i s t r i c t could promote p a r t i c i p a t i o n and excellence in science in other ways. A competition does not, in my opinion promote excellence. Science f a i r projects should be parent/pupil oriented rather than being done in/at school. A l l p u p i l s should do one project and i t should always count towards report card mark. I would l i k e to see d i f f e r e n t guidelines established so that the projects kids produce are t h e i r s , not their parents. Page 115 I always enjoy the Science F a i r s and I think the students look forward to them as w e l l . My only c r i t i c i s m i s the problem of how much help some students receive at home and conversely how l i t t l e help others receive. Because I use the projects for marks, I feel i t should be a l l the students own work, building, l a b e l l i n g , etc. I feel the costs should be not what the pupil paid for i t , but what the item would cost i f purchased as a new item. If a l l the teachers were very s t r i c t about t h i s , the Science F a i r s would be much more " f a i r " to the average or below average income fami 1y. It's time to raise the cost l i m i t s past $10.00 This was my f i r s t year teaching science at the 6th grade l e v e l , and due to a lack of confidence in the development of my program, I did not choose to have my pupils take part in the science f a i r . Perhaps another time when my comfort level has been raised, I w i l l feel that I can have my c l a s s take part in a science f a i r . What about work done after Science F a i r (April June) which frequently promotes student interest for the following year's Science Fair? Let's not get too serious about whole thing -Science " F a i r " . We did not have a science f a i r t h i s year because our fun night was schedule for that night. Next year we expect to p a r t i c i p a t e . Providing assistance and s p e c i f i c "How To" lessons throughout preparation time takes away from curriculum material to be covered. I am unsure as to the equitable value of time spent on s p e c i f i c preparation versus the value the students get out of i t . The projects presented in my c l a s s (grade 4) do not r e f l e c t my e f f o r t s . School wide, the projects t h i s year were poor q u a l i t y . Perhaps compulsory every year does not bolster motivation. I am cautious in my judgement as to the value of Science F a i r s to the student. One has to ask who i s doing the science project and how i t i s being done. For the most part, students do not seem to f u l l y appreciate the methods of science. Most projects could e a s i l y be c a l l e d a " c o l l e c t i o n of f a c t s " . Secondly, we must admit that we w i l l never know how much work i s the actual work of the student. If work i s done at home, the teacher has lost control of the process. For these reasons I do not give a report card mark but I do recognize p a r t i c i p a t i o n . And I do support Page 116 Science F a i r s for the reasons given on the opposite side of t h i s page. If the s c i e n t i f i c method could be done by the children and with less adult help, i t would be more thought provoking. I always get the f e e l i n g i t i s a memorized study in many cases. I'd l i k e to encourage simple thought provoking method with a display of observations and r e s u l t s . I'd li k e to be able to stimulate the growth of the children but haven't f e l t confident about It in the past I think the last page was slanted towards a favourable response. Otherwise, i t did help me get some good ideas on proceeding with next year's projects, i . e . s c i e n t i f i c i nvestigation, evaluation. I l i k e the idea of the Science F a i r , but sense a general loss of interest each year by s t a f f and students. Part of i t seems to be the lack of new and e x c i t i n g topics. Also, some teachers don't seem to l i k e the competitive aspect of i t . I also think students that do projects on th e i r own get quite f r u s t r a t e d by students who receive considerable help at home and bring in the 'ringer' projects. I would l i k e to see a few new Ideas put into the Science F a i r system just to Increase general interest and motivation. L i s t s of previous topics, s l i d e s , motivational chart etc. a l l helped to develop an interest and desire to do a project, (However, It was compulsory in my class.) The student and teacher booklet I f i n d very h e l p f u l . I guess though a sound science f a i r begins with a sound science program, and maybe that i s what causes my concern at the beginning (lack of materials etc, have not helped.) Parent p a r t i c i p a t i o n seems to be necessary to make i t to the f i n a l s . I often wonder who did the most work...the parents or the c h i l d r e n . This help isn't a l l bad as i t provides a vehicle for parents to p a r t i c i p a t e in something educational with their c h i l d . Projects frequently r e f l e c t the parents' occupation; should t h i s parental help and background be acknowledged/recognized or ignored? Has become, to some, absurdly competitive i.e. complete projects redone days before Guildford f i n a l s . More st r e s s on verbal presentation, at least among my school's chi1dren. The Science Fair in our school causes much i n t r i n s i c interest in science. I f i n d that some of the students have Page 117 chosen for their projects topics we have discussed In class and have expanded on them. Finding time In today's varied curriculum at the Elementary level i s d i f f i c u l t e.g. computers, etc. One becomes a "Jack of a l l trades" so to speak, and therefore i t i s hard to do j u s t i c e in a l l areas. The children who par t i c i p a t e seem to enjoy "Science Fairs" and i t does give them an opportunity to work with their parents on projects which i s often the case. Lack of classroom space makes i t d i f f i c u l t to have 15 or more children working on projects. You are very persistent! Science Fair projects can become burdensome for parents with several children Involved. My p o l i c y has always been to encourage every one in the c l a s s to become involved, but I sometimes wonder i f t h i s approach i s v a l i d . This year I am going to make the information available and show the c l a s s how to do the project etc. and encourage the "keeners" but not push the more reluctant ones. However, I do intend .to have in class assignment/projects which a l l must do. I hope you get enough data to serve your purpose and that i t i s useful to you, and useful to us! I ' l l be thinking of you t h i s summer! Re: question £15 C.A.I. Although my c l a s s does a great deal of computer work (140 minutes per week) we set up data bases ( S o c i a l s ) , use the MODEM and explore LOGO rather than using C.A.I, software. This i s my f i r s t year teaching Grade 4. My c l a s s i s a 3/4 s p l i t and the 4's did a l l my teacher based units in grade 3. Therefore I depended on a text t h i s year more than usual. Also Socials took a higher p r i o r i t y as I was teaching two separate programs and learning a new one in grade 4. I think that Science, unfortunately, took a lower p r i o r i t y t h i s year. Science F a i r i s boring!...because i t i s r e p e t i t i v e . There i s l i t t l e recognition given to the vast majority of students who p a r t i c i p a t e and one crowded night at Guildford has become far too chaotic rather than a p o s i t i v e experience. I would li k e to see science f a i r s become lower key with displays set up in a variety of shopping malls on a variety of days so that more people would be able to talk with the students, look c a r e f u l l y at the projects and Page 118 display a larger variety of projects to the public. Science Fa i r requires some serious rennovating! Any workshops on Science F a i r material should be held early enough in January to be of maximum benefit. Science F a i r s should be held every other year, to give students, parents and teachers a break from what, in some minds, has become just another thing to get through. If students were encouraged to work in cooperative groups on a project; i f the project was completed by the students themselves; i f everyone p a r t i c i p a t i n g received the same "recognition"; then I would be more comfortable supporting the "Science Fair " concept. If group projects were accepted we would p a r t i c i p a t e only i f a l l could p a r t i c i p a t e . Choosing the "best" i s contrary to our philosophy and i s , we f e e l , counter productive in stimulating the interest and involvement of a l l not just a "select" group. Our goal i s to have every c h i l d fascinated and involved with knowing about the world. I f i n d the idea of a Science Fair quite wonderful. However, i t i s too big, too many kids crowded together, no place for them to s i t . Exh i b i t s are very crowded. Lack of supplies in school has been a hindrance. Many complaints from parents re: pressure by pu p i l s to help etc. Topics are becoming harder and harder to f i n d an o r i g i n a l idea. After viewing e x h i b i t s t h i s year, I would give awards to parents. This year I f e l t the Science F a i r had outlived i t s l i f e and had comments from parents requesting a change of format, or eliminating i t a l l together. I f i n d i t somewhat reprehensible that our local school Science F a i r has chosen to acknowledge the e f f o r t s of approximately the top 10% of entrants in each category with an Award of Excellence, whereas the Surrey D i s t r i c t Science Fa i r p e r s i s t s in using the F i r s t , Second, Third, and Honourable Mention system. I am always amazed that t h i s i s used when in some of the larger categories i t i s not possible for a l l judges to see a l l the projects. Is the assessment of one judge deemed to be more accurate than that of others? Because the parents are involved with the students in t h i s project, the competition i s not r e a l l y f a i r . Children who have parents who are not interested or who haven't the talent to guide them are at a disadvantage. I favour a Science display with no awards such as 1,2,3, etc. just p a r t i c i p a t i o n awards for a l l who enter and make a Page 119 creditable display. Otherwise, just have a Science Club in each school and each school can send an entry. Science Fair has become "a drag" for many parents and children. It should be completely voluntary for a while Cat present our students must p a r t i c i p a t e . ) There's a great deal of negative f e e l i n g in the community about Science Fa i r and t h i s negative attitude i s passed on to the chl1dren. The Science Fair isn't very ' f a i r ' . Rather i t i s a competition in which the kids who do well in everything else do well again. Rather than being a celebration of discovery, i t tends to be for most "average" kids a rehash of old research, old l i b r a r y books and "chestnut demos" and experiments. I f i n d i t f r u s t r a t i n g l y hard to get most of the kids r e a l l y turned on to the s c i e n t i f i c as opposed to the competitive aspects of the whole thing. You r e a l l y would have to juggle c u r r i c u l a r time allotments to do Science Fair as a real f a i r . The School and D i s t r i c t Science F a i r s are well run and are excellent educational experiences. However, there seems to be an over emphasis on the 'competition' factor r e s u l t i n g in a general f e e l i n g of 'disappointment' for a l l but the handful of successful students. I do not know of a solution to t h i s problem but each year I have witnessed the "Why did I try so hard?" a t t i t u d e at both School and D i s t r i c t F a i r s . Basically a good idea. But too many students receive too much adult and parent help. I have seen entire projects completed and the student knew nothing of i t s content. The parents have then become upset because their project d i d not win! Science F a i r , too big, too competitive. Very b e n e f i c i a l , but for very few. SUMMARY - academic event <3 comment)s - allows students oportunlty to explore own in t e r e s t s - a l l o w s c o o p e r a t i o n between parent and student (5 comments) - excellent support from the D i s t r i c t (3 comments) - accolades (7 comments) - class viewing of projects a good learning experience - parents/students missed f a i r when i t wasn't held - showed de f i c i e n c i e s in science program, i . e . need for more experimentation Page 120 - Increase ln quality of projects for next year due to greater awareness - good opportunity to communicate with young and old, public r e l a t i o n s <4 comments) - public speaking - enjoyed, wothwhile (5 comments) - encourages p o s i t i v e attitude - c h i l d r e n ' s comments: use your brain var i e t y of topics cooperat1ve1y observe other projects made science more fun Suggest Ions: - s l i d e s , f l l m s t r l p s on how to do a project presented in f a l l - more support for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Regional Science Fair - more inservice (3 comments) - need assistance with the s c i e n t i f i c method - video of science f a i r research and presentation - help wth s e l e c t i n g topics - should be used as enrichment a c t i v i t y - separate the D i s t r i c t f a i r into smaller shopping malls (2 comments) - science f a i r should be voluntary <4 comments) - may be better later in year - school/class project <5 comments) - science f a i r every 2 years <2 commment)s - include grade 3 as a grade 3/4 group - display at Guildford i s too short - need to inform public of what to look for - need to i n v i t e the public - need science s p e c i a l i s t s in elementary schools - science chal1enges/OM etc. needed <3 comments) - more guidelines for judges - Judges should have science background - eliminate awards due to heavey parent involvement - provide a school budget for special materials - a l l p u p i l s should have to do science f a i r project - projects should be done at home - cost should be assessed at new value for everything - r a i s e cost to more than $10.00 - too much parental help in some instances <4 comments) Comments - d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e due to f i r s t year teaching t h i s grade - no science f a i r t h i s year but plan to next year - time spent on science f a i r takes time from curriculum Page 121 does not seem to foster an understanding of science methods would li k e to feel more confident about being able to stimulate experiments questionnaire provided some good ideas for next year lack of new ideas each year hard to f i n d time to f i t i t in projects can become burdensome for parents with more than one student science took a lower p r i o r i t y t h i s year due to the new Social Studies program science f a i r i s too r e p e t i t i v e , too l i t t l e recognition to majority of students, and i s too chaotic too big, crowded, lack of school supplies, too much parental help the awards system i s not v a l i d in the larger categories awards not f a i r due to parent p a r t i c i p a t i o n science f a i r isn't fair.Those who do well at other things also do well at science f a i r . too competitive (3 comments) Page 122 APPENDIX IV GENERAL COMMENTS: PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE The Science Fair i s c e r t a i n l y a very e f f e c t i v e P.R. tool in that i t has a very high v i s i b l e p r o f i l e . On the whole the Fair conveys a p o s i t i v e message to the parents and other members of our community which i s e s s e n t i a l . One of the major academic events of the year. Science f a i r Is an important major event at our school. Because i t i s a small school, i t i s simpler to standardize expectations, organize and execute. Issues such as report card grades, recognition of e f f o r t , p r i z e structure and primary p a r t i c i p a t i o n do not become major areas of debate i t seems because of t r a d i t i o n , cohesion and community expectation. Science F a i r provides one of several focus points for displaying pupil achievement and i s a source of positive feedback for p u p i l s and teachers. The D i s t r i c t Fair i s so large and complex but the p u p i l s who go each year consider i t worthwhile. I value the D i s t r i c t event as well.... I am most pleased with Science F a i r s at both the School and D i s t r i c t l e v e l . Very well promoted and well done. Would l i k e to see the F a i r highlighted more p r i o r to the displays at Guildford. I think the idea i s f a n t a s t i c and so impressive. It i s such a good learning experience for the children and great P.R. for Surrey Schools. Perhaps winning entries could be made availa b l e to schools on a loan basis for short display periods, or set up in central places on a zonal basis for v i s i t a t i o n s by interested school groups. I believe that these displays could serve as a tremendous motivational source for interested science students, parents and teachers throughout the school year. Arts, Science Technology Centre have mobile on portable display of some consequence and interest available to schools or for display at Guildford during the week of Science F a i r . There have been some questions raised by teachers and parents regarding the wisdom of having a Science F a i r every year. How long can you keep up the enthusiasm for the same Page 123 thing. Should we be looking year and having a Writing display as alternatives? at a Science Fair every second F a i r , Social Studies project I feel that with the Increasing demands being placed on teachers that Science F a i r s should be every other year. Another p o s s i b i l i t y might be that the D i s t r i c t be divided into two zones with each zone a l t e r n a t i n g every other year. If the date of the Science Fair can be announced very early in the term i t would help schools, when they plan t h e i r year, to avoid date c o n f l i c t s . The 'success' of the project i s very much dependent on the knowledge and enthusiasm of the teacher. When the teacher has both, the students r e a l l y benefit. I wonder i f the teachers who make a project compulsory and assign i t as homework, do not do "harm" to students who otherwise may enjoy the process. How can we get these teachers to change? Since parents sometimes feel inadequate to help their c h i l d , can we also help them more? The only grumbles I ever hear about the Science F a i r are from parents who feel they are s o l e l y "responsible" for the project (not at my schools,of course!). To compete at a young age i s not an educational goal of our school. We believe people should work together in a co-operative way. We f i n d children have an inate desire to learn and that their enthusiasm can be sparked without r e s o r t i n g to competition and rewards. I believe the Science F a i r has been a valuable public r e l a t i o n s project for the school d i s t r i c t but i s i t r e a l l y necessary? I have been t o l d that too often children do not work independently but rather involve parents in developing their projects. Perhaps i f c l a s s projects were done and the work was done in c l a s s , by the pupils together, without prizes as the ultimate goal, we might p a r t i c i p a t e . This year we decided to enter Science Fair alternate years only. While we had some concerns about parental or pupil response to t h i s , we f e l t that many parents, e s p e c i a l l y those with two or more pupils in elementary, probably found Science F a i r , year after year, a l i t t l e t r y i n g . This proved the case. For some 400 pu p i l s we received not one negative comment about the proposal. We hope, after a year o f f , that both parents and p u p i l s w i l l view p a r t i c i p a t i o n and attendance at the F a i r with renewed interest and excitement. Page 124 Another problem we found was that often the best projects, i . e . those to go to the D i s t r i c t F a i r , were submitted by pupils who'd gone the year before. Since most successful entries are from grades 6 8. 7 a l t e r n a t i n g the years of p a r t i c i p a t i o n should correct t h i s . Science F a i r s are very successful only when you have interested s t a f f . We have removed a potent "negative" from our f a i r and that i s the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ribbons. Each project i s so very d i f f e r e n t i t i s a l l but impossible to put them on a gradient. The subject and the energy required to complete each i s too f l u i d . We have chosen to simply recognize a job well done with a standard ribbon " f i n a l i s t " . A student has completed the work he set out to do in a successful way. The display of projects are always a physical organizational problem.... w i l l work towards school made display tables. Parents in the last two years have expressed concern about the general expectations of teachers for students (grades 4 to 7) to do most of the work on t h e i r own. They believe there i s too much pressure and very l i t t l e teaching of the di f f e r e n t procedures; especially the experimental design. Several have asked i t to be voluntary for a l l grades. These concerns have been discussed by the s t a f f and greater e f f o r t s w i l l be made to prepare intermediate p u p i l s . However we w i l l continue to make i t compulsory for intermediate. Science F a i r s are a very good tool to promote the a b i l i t i e s of p u p i l s (P.R.). This year we received more concerns from parents than any other year. The concerns expressed were: (1) the compulsory aspects: (2) judging: a f e e l i n g that parents' influence affected the outcome. We are considering changing our format. Perhaps i t i s time to consider other a l t e r n a t i v e s . Science F a i r s in most schools have been going for so long that perhaps they have lost some of th e i r stimulus When pupils have pa r t i c i p a t e d in a Science Fair from K to 7, by the time they get to grade 7 a lot of the p u p i l s are rather bored with the whole process. I don't know what the answer i s , but I think we may be spoiled by being too successful. Page 125 You caught us ln our off year. We have promoted a school-wide Science F a i r approximately every 2nd year. This year one teacher new to s t a f f wished to p a r t i c i p a t e and d i d . Parents are overly competitive. The problems with the Science F a i r are the following: (a) i t tends to hog a lot of time no matter how It i s organized, (b) the competition Is unfair since some p u p i l s have more talented parents than others, <c> the parents often complain about the burden thrust on them annually. The Science F a i r as It i s now gives too strong of recognition to the winners, i . e . f i r s t recognition at the school l e v e l , second recognition by being at the D i s t r i c t F a i r , t h i r d recognition ln the mall at 9:00, fourth recognition at the School Board Meeting. This over abundance of recognition r e s u l t s In a d r a s t i c and often unhealthy need to win. Coupled with the c h i l d ' s desire for recognition there i s also the parents' need for success. Because of the nature of the f a i r Cchild and parent working together) any recognition, or lack of, r e s u l t s ln 111 f e e l i n g s . Many parents spend Inordinate amounts of time and energy on the project. If not successful they take i t as a personal affront and attack t h e i r c h i l d for not performing c o r r e c t l y , the judges for not being f a i r , uninformed, prejudiced etc., the winners for cheating and the school for l o g i s t i c s , l i g h t i n g , location, e t c . Instead of being a science f a i r i t becomes a b a t t l e of egos and everyone, e s p e c i a l l y the children lose. The winners, besides being l i o n i z e d , are also subjected to vocal harassment on being chosen. What i n i t i a l l y was a program to enhance the unity and image of the school and community has now developed unfortunately, into a devislve program that p i t s parent against parent, teacher against teacher, c h i l d against c h i l d and in some cases, i s viewed by the parent school against school. For example Mr. "x" must be a wonderful science teacher because some of h i s p u p i l s won or school "x" must have a strong science f a c u l t y because.... From parents: Please don't make i t compulsory, with 2/3 kids i t becomes a t e r r i b l e s t r a i n to f i n d 14-21 Ideas over 7 years. I hope he/she didn't win. I can't stand the crowd and long hours at Guildford (from a few previous contestants at Guildford) He/she entered eagerly but was d i s i l l u s i o n e d over the s t r a i n of being Judged and competing against f r i e n d s . We have more family squabbles over Science F a i r . Page 126 Teachers are damned i f they do make i t compulsory and regarded as uninterested i f they don't. In conclusion, a science f a i r can be a valuable t o o l , however, i t must be used c a r e f u l l y . Elimination of judging could be a s t a r t . I understand the senior highs have an industrial arts display at Guildford without judging. Limitation of space makes i t d i f f i c u l t to allow a l l par t i c i p a n t s to go to Guildford. However, allowing only 2 grades (68.7) to enter may help. Teacher and parent consultation could eliminate ( i f indeed we want to) any less than s a t i s f a c t o r y projects. Down playing the winning aspect and encouraging the s c i e n t i f i c Interest would I am sure also eliminate many projects. I give f u l l c redit to the people who donate t h e i r time and energy to the f a i r but feel we have spawned a monster and i t must be put to r e s t . SUMMARY - display pupil achievement - p o s i t i v e feedback - good learning experience - great public r e l a t i o n s (3 comments) - would li k e to borrow display of winning e n t r i e s - ASTC display - every 2 years? (4 comments) - announce date e a r l i e r - c l a s s projects instead of individual ones - compulsory issue (2 comment)s - success depends on enthusiasm/knowledge of s t a f f (2 comment)s - non-competitive school - physical set-up a problem - using a ' F i n a l i s t ' ribbon only - loss of enthusiasm by the time students are in grade 7 - no 1,2,3, awards any more - parents too competitive (2 comments) - too much recognition to winners - too much parental involvement - eliminate judging - takes too much time Page 127 APPENDIX V SURREY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SCIENCE FAIR  BACKGROUND INFORMATION School D i s t r i c t 36 (Surrey) i n i t i a t e d a d i s t r i c t science f a i r in 1966 (21 years ago). The f a i r was i n i t i a t e d by Mr. D. L l n t o t t . In 1972, Mrs. Bev. Myers, Supervisor of Instruction, assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the science f a i r and continues to organize i t today. The science f a i r i s coordinated by the School D i s t r i c t Curriculum Helping Teacher (Science). Assistance and advice i s provided to the Supervisor and Helping Teacher by a committee of volunteer teachers. The Science Fair Committee meets once or twice each year to discuss issues, to provide suggestions, and to review the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of each committee member during the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . The size of the committee varies from year to year. In 1986, there were 18 teachers on the commi ttee. The science f a i r i s located at Guildford Towncentre shopping m a l l . G u i l d f o r d Towncentre has p r o v i d e d s i g n i f i c a n t support and assistance since the inception of the science f a i r . In addition to providing the location, Guildford Towncentre hosts a reception and dinner for the science f a i r committee and the judges, provides s t a f f for the clean-up a f t e r the science f a i r and at one time, provided p r i z e s for the f i r s t place winners. The science f a i r i s held on the Friday which i s closest to the middle of March. This provides students with two months to complete their science f a i r projects p r i o r to the school science f a i r . Most schools have their school science f a i r s between the day before the d i s t r i c t f a i r and up to two weeks before the d i s t r i c t f a i r . Projects are brought to the science f a i r immediately a f t e r school on the Friday of the f a i r . During that day the Helping Teacher and three science f a i r committee members set up the tables and signs in preparation for the students' a r r i v a l . The students, provided with maps of the mall before they leave the school, know the location of each project category in the mall. When the students get to their area, one of the science f a i r committee members a s s i s t s them with s e t t i n g up their project. The committee member also t r i e s to make them feel at ease and answers any questions the students might have. The students are expected to remain with their projects for the whole evening u n t i l the awards are announced. After the awards ceremony the students take their projects home. There are no further displays of the projects except for the f i r s t place winners who present their projects to the Board of Page 128 School Trustees at one of t h e i r meetings soon a f t e r the science f a i r . Students enter projects in one of eight categories: (a> Working models <b> S t a t i c models <c) Demonstrations <d) Research (e) Experimental research <f> Outer space <g) Canada's contributions to science and <h) Collections and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The students must follow the r u l e s which are the same for a l l categories. A set of d e f i n i t i o n s i s provided for each category to as s i s t the students in determining which category t h e i r project w i l l be entered i n . In some instances, a project i s e l i g i b l e for entry in more than one category. The students then may make the choice of which category he/she would l i k e to be i n . Students are encouraged to use the category d e f i n i t i o n s to a s s i s t them with the i n i t i a l s election of a topic or project. Students may enter a project i n d i v i d u a l l y or in p a i r s . Judging takes place between 6:00 and 8:15 P.M. The judges are requested to attend a meeting at 5:30 P.M., where they are reminded of the judging procedures, awards, and timelines. Each judge i s assigned to a category and adjudicates up to 20 projects., A F i r s t , Second, Third and Honourable Mention prize i s awarded by each Judge. In the categories where there are more than 20 e n t r i e s , two or more judges are assigned to that category and the p r o j e c t s are evenly divided among the judges. Each judge awards a F i r s t , Second, Third and Honourable Mention within his/her section of projects. Judges are provided with a general l i s t of items to consider in judging the projects. Most judges re f e r to the l i s t , but they are not required to do so. The suggested l i s t i s : (a) knowledge (10 marks) <b) resourcefulness and appropriateness (5 marks) (c) visual Impact <5 marks) (d) uniquiness <5 marks) <e) experimental design (5 marks experimental research category only) Judges are invited from a variety of areas of the community. Representatives from the Municipal Council, Board of School Trustees, Superintendent of Schools, Secondary Science Department Heads, F a c u l t i e s of Education from U.B.C. and S.F.U., Surrey Teacher's Association, Arts Sciences and Technology Centre, and Kwantlen College Science and Technology s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t e . Since some of the projects are completed in both French and English, one b i l i n g u a l judge p a r t i c i p a t e s from School D i s t r i c t S t a f f . This judge interviews those students who wish to be Page 129 interviewed in French. These interviews do not contribute to the judging for the awards and they are not conducted by the same judge who w i l l be deciding the awards for these projects. A l l students who enter projects at the d i s t r i c t science f a i r receive a rosette ' F i n a l i s t ' ribbon and a c e r t i f i c a t e . The winners also receive a 'Placement' rosette ribbon and a book. A l l winners receive the same book. Due to the size of the Surrey School D i s t r i c t (65 elementary schools), the number of entries in the d i s t r i c t science f a i r i s r e s t r i c t e d . This i s implemented according to school s i z e . Table V.l shows the allotment of projects. Table V.l Science Fair Project Allotment Intermed. Classes Projects Allowed < 5 classes 5-7 classes 8-10 classes > 10 classes 3 projects 4 projects 5 projects 6 projects Schools decide' which projects w i l l be entered in the D i s t r i c t science f a i r . Because the number of projects entered i s pro-rated according to school s i z e , and the total number of Surrey schools i s known, the maximum number of projects that w i l l be entered can be predicted. However, the categories that they w i l l be entered in cannot be determined u n t i l the day before the science f a i r . A l l schools are asked to phone the o f f i c e of the Helping Teacher as soon as i t i s known who w i l l be representing th e i r school and to indicate what the category of each project w i l l be. This ensures that adequate space w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for a l l the projects in each category. In summary, the d i s t r i c t science f a i r i s held on a Friday evening in the middle of March. Schools send representatives to the science f a i r based on the number of intermediate classes in the school. Students from grades four to seven only are e l i g i b l e to enter the d i s t r i c t science f a i r . The judges are requested from a variety of school and community sources. The d i s t r i c t science f a i r i s coordinated by the Curriculum Helping Teacher (Science) who i s a s s i s t e d by a committee of interested teachers. A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s in the science f a i r receive ribbons and c e r t i f i c a t e s while the winners receive additional ribbons and a book. Page 130 Please ignore shaded areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose or this section is to determine the teacher experience and school setting upon which the answers to the questionnaire are based. 1. How many years have you taught as of June I DBS? 0 years [beginning teacher] [ J i 1 - 5 years [ ] 2 0-10 years [ J i 10* years [ ] < | 3. 2. Are you male or female? 4' Male t ] i | Female . [ ] * | 2 i 3. What was the last level of science course that you successfully completed? | -[Check one] Grade lOt ] IH ] 12[ ] University 1 yr[ ] 2nd[ ] 3rd! ] Hth! ] t i t » S « 7 t. How often do you read science magazines and/or books? [Check one] ^ Weekly! ] Monthly! ] 3-B times/yearl ] Never! ] %\ 1 2 J * * ' I 5. How often do you watch Science programs on T.V. such as Nova. Nature * of Things, nature programs etc.? [Check one] j' Weekly! ] Monthly! ) 3-6 times/year! ] Never! ] ; 5 6. Did any pupils from your class participate in your school's Science ; Fair this year? [I0B5/B6] t Yes [ ] , No I 1 2 * < TEACHER INSERVICE RELATED TO SCIENCE FAIRS The purpose of this section is to gather information about Science Fair inservice activities that have been presented in the past and whether there Is a need for future inservice activities. Page 132 7. Have you attended any inservice activities relating to Science Fairs? [Check ell that apply] NO [ ]^ 7 : YES A. What kind or inservlce activity? | a] Afterschool workshop . . [ J \ % b] Professional day workshop [ ] [. 9 c] Workshop at a conference [ ) \ 10 d] Other [specify] [ ] \~ 11 B. Please specify topics about Science Pairs that you found useful. 6. Would you attend any inservice activities relating to Science Fairs if they were offered? [Check all that apply] j NO I ) I 12 YES A. What kind of inservice activity would you attend? j a] Arterschool workshop I ] \ 13 b] Professional day workshop [ "it 14 c] Workshop at a conference [ ] 15 d] Other [specify] [ ]|-16 B. Please specify topics about Science Fairs that you would like presented. i I 5:-l SCIENCE INSTRUCTION: TIME ALLOTMENTS The purpose of this section is to determine the grades to which you teach science and the amount of time you teach science. C Are you teaching Science to an intermediate class [grades 4-7) this year (1085-86)? YES [Please continue to next page] NO [Thank you for your time, please turn to the last page] . . -2-17 Page 133 If you are teaching Science to more than one grade choose the grade with which you are most familiar. In case of a split class, choose the grade with the highest enrollment. 10. Which one of the following best describes the grade you teach. Grade M Grade 5 Grade D Grade 7 Special Intermediate Class 11. For how many minutes during each week, on the average, did you teach Science for a] the time period September to December 1BB5? [Check one] 0[, ] 30[ , ] 601, ] 001 , ] 120[& ] 150[ ( ] 1801 , ] b] the time period January to March 1986? [Check one] 0[ ] 30[ ] «0[ } 00! ] 1201 ] 1501 ] IBOt ] i a i « t e J 12. Was your class given extra in-class time to assist pupils in the preparation of their Science Fair project during the months of January. February and March. 1086? NO YES A. How many minutes per week of extra in-class time did your pupils receive. [For each month - check one] a] January 15[ ] , 30[ ] , B0[ ],I20[ ] , 120*1 ] , b] February 15[ ] 2 30[ ],60[ ] , 1201 ] , 120*[ ) , c] March 151 ),30t ),60[ ],120[ ),120*[ ] , 13. Did you assist any pupils with their Science Fair projects during out of school time? [ie. before school, noon hour, after school]. NO YES A . Please estimate the total number of minutes per week which you assisted pupils with their projects during out of school hours. [For each month - check one] B] January 15[ ],30[ ] , B0[ ) , 120[ ] , 120*[ ] , b] February 15 [ ) , 301 ],60[ ] , 120[ ],120*[ ) , c] March 151 ) . 30[ ), BOt ] , 120[ ] ,120*1 3 , 6. Please estimate the number of pupils which you assisted during out of school time. ] i )> )> ]« ]« IB0*[ . ] IB0*[ ] [ ) 18 Mi 20 122 23 24 25 2 6 2 7 2 8 pupil* Page 134 SCIENCE INSTRUCTION: T E A C H I N G ACTIVITIES The purpose of this section is to determine: - whet kinds of instructional activities you use for your science Instruction; - the extent to which these activities are modified during the 2% month period prior to the Science Fair. * Please answer questions 14 C 15 for the time periods September to December 10B5 and January to March I BBS separately. m. For what X of time do you use each of the following teaching materials? DJ never [OX] El occasional ly [I-33X] EI frequently [34-68 X ] El mostly [67-100X] 1035 Teaching Materials Sept. - D e c 1BBB •Jon. - March Exploring Science textbook 1 2 3 4 j i l S.T.E.M./Focus on Science textbooks 1 2 3 4 3 3 B.C.T.F. Lesson Aids 1 2 3 4 [35 TeBCher designed units [your own] 1 2 3 4 3 7 Materials Based Unit [prescribed kits] 1 2 3 4 • Which kits? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -Supplementary materiel? from C . M . C . 1 2 3 4 K I : [pamphlets. Taecher Guides etc.) • ' w ~ Which ones? 1 2 3 4 3 2 : 3 « 36 J3S !40 42 -<4-Page 135 15. How often did you involve your pupils in the following activities/approaches in your science classes? (Circle one) • E B E B never once or twice once or twice once or twice almost every in 3/4 months a month • week class 1085 I QBE Activities/ Approaches Sept. - D e c Jan. - March a] Carrying out experiments from a set of instructions 1 2 3 1 5 . 43 b] Making up their own experiments 1 2 3 4 S 45 i 2 3 4 5 46 c] Listening to teacher's explanations 1 2 3 4 > s j 47 i 2 3 4 5 48 d] Interacting with the teacher in a mix of questions/explanations 1 2 3 4 5 49 i 2 3 4 5 SO e] Classifying objects/events t 2 3 4 5 51 i 2 3 4 S 52 f] Answering questions from work-sheets/ textbooks 1 2 3 4 s 53 i 2 3 4 S 54 g] Copying notes from blackboard/ overhead projector/charts etc. 1 2 3 4 5 i i 55 i 2 3 4 s 56 mm h] Watching audio visual presentations 1 2 3 4 5 111! i 2 3 4 5 : 58 i) Memorizing 1 2 3 4 5 59 s j] Preparing for experimental 1 2 3 4 5 fyy investigations to be carried out at home k] Reading from textbooks 1 2 3 4 5' £3 I 2 3 4 5 64 1] Doing library research 1 2 3 4 5 % 65 1 2 3 4 5 66 m)Listening to guest lectures/ presentations 1 2 3 4 5 67 1 2 3 4 5 68 111 70 n] Going on fieldtrips 1 2 3 4 S 69 1 2 3 4 5 0] Using computer assisted instruction 1 2 3 4 5 71 1 2 3 4 5 72 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4^4 60 < :62 - 5 -Page 1 16. Throughout the 1BB5/19B6 school yeBr. whet provisions were made for individual differences among students in your science class? [Check all that apply] a] No special provisions b] Individualized programs c] Achievement grouping within the class d] Special interest groups a] Other [specify] 73 7* 75 76 77 17. Does student participation in Science Fairs provide for the individual differences of your pupils? NO YES • [ ) .< [ 1 i 78 IB. How many pupils are there in your class? In the case of a split class indicate the total number of pupils 10. How many pupils from your class completed a Science Fair project? (If 2 pupils worked together on one project count them both] 20. In my class: a] All pupils are encouraged to'complete a Science Fair project b] All pupils are required to complete a Science Fair project 21. Did you provide activities and/or resources to assist your pupils in doing \ Science Fair project? NO YES Please check those activities end/or information which you provided. [Check all that apply] a] Pupil Information Booklet b] Teacher Information Booklet c] Slides of previous Science Fair projects from C . M . C d] Slides of your own showing Science Fair projects e] Filmstrips of how to do/display a Science Fair project . . . . f] Presentation from Helping Teacher g] Discussion h] Wall display showing how to do a project i] Wall chart of pupil progress j] Presentetion by other person Specify k] Other . Specify pupils [79/80 Yes No ' ( ]<( J»83 [ 1 1 [ J 28* [ 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 85 |86 87 *8B m |S4795 96/97 98/99 - 6 -Page 137 22. Which of the following activities and/or resources would you use to help your pupils prepare for a Science Fair if they were available? [Check all that apply] a] Video tape of how to carry out a project, b] Video tape of pupil presentation c] Exhibits from previous Science Fairs . . d] None et Other Specify ; 100 i 103 ; io« 23. Are the Science Fair project evaluations used for reporting pupil progress in Science? NO YES A . Whet percentage of the report card mark did the Science Fair project evaluation contribute for the reporting period January -March 1086? (Check one] I0X 20 X SOX 40X SOX SOX 70X BOX-100X [ , ] ( , ) ( , ] ( „ ] [ , J [ r ] [ , J ( , ] B.Who evaluated the Science Fair project for the report card mark? [Check all that apply] a] Pupil's self evaluation b] Teacher only . . . . , c] Judge only d] Both teacher t judge e] Other Specify Which of the following were used to evaluate the Science Fair project for the report card mark? [Check all that apply] a] The display b] The pupil presentation to class c] The pupil presentation to teacher (individually) d] The pupil presentation to judge e] The completion of project f] The criteria forjudging as per District guidelines g] Each step in the process of completing a Science Fair project , h] Other Specify [ ] * 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 11* 115 116 117 118 -7-Page 138 T E A C H E R A5SESSEMENT O F S C I E N C E FAIRS 21. For Questions 1- 11. please check the appropriate response. If you: E B B agree very much agree somewhat agree very l i t t l e 0 disagree 1. Science fairs stimulate the students to work beyond what is covered in class. 2. Science fairs help students develop poise and self confidence. I 3. Science fairs provide students with a chance to gain ' practice in research. 4. Science fairs allow the students to work independently. I 5. Science fairs teach students to be thorough. 1 6. Science fairs promote an understanding of the scientific 1 method. 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 7. ' Science fairs help students meet other students with like 1 2 3 4 interests. 8. Science fairs introduce students to adults with like interests 1 2 3 4 end knowledge in science. 0. Science fairs Bre useful in focusing the rote of science in 1 2 3 4 education. 10. Science fairs provide the students with earned recognition. 1 2 3 4 11. Science fairs allow the students to work cooperatively 1 2 3 4 119 l i l i l l > 1 2 0 ; 121 mmmm 122 123 124 125 126 127 - 128 £::::::::;:::x>:::::;>>.;: 129 -B-Page 139 G E N E R A L COMMENTS Return to: Burt Deeter Curriculum Helping Teacher [Science] Courier 172 Please return by May 30, 1986 Page 140 j p l e a i t ignore) shaded areas. SCHOOL SCIENCE FAIR INFORMATION The purpose of this section is to gather information about the nature of your school's Science Fair. Which of the following best characterizes theviewing of your school's Science Fair projects? [Check ell that apply] A. The public are encouraged to view the projects during a] The day only b] The evening only c] Both day and evening d] Other Specify How were pupils selected to represent your school at the District Science Fair? a] They were selected as winner from the school Science Fair [ } i b) They were selected from one or more individual classroom Science Fairs ( J 2 c] No pupils from my school were at the District Science Fair [ ] > d) Other [ ] , Specify [ 1 i [ ] 2 [ 1 9 [ ] « 1 B. C. D. All projects ere viewed in one or two large areas (gym. library etc.) , Projects are viewed only in the classrooms Projects are viewed in classrooms with the best from each class viewed in one large area [gym. library etc.) ( ]» [ ] • ( ] 7 3. Pupils from which grades participate in the School Science Fair? [Check all that apply] a] Pupils from grades K - 7 In one Science Fair b] Pupils from grades K-3 and 1-7 [two separate Science Fairs] . c] Pupils from grades 4-7 only ( ) j d] Other Specify ( ) i ( ) 2 ( ] ; 3 ; 6 Pupils from which grades are required to participate? a) All pupils K-7 are required to participate. . [Check one) b) c] d) e) All pupils 4-7 are required to participate Only pupils from some classes are required to participate. Pupils participate only if they are interested Other Specify -1-Page 142 5. How many classes participated in the school Science Fair? 6. How ere projects selected for the School Science Fair? A . Every project is entered in the School Science Fair [ J I B. Only the best projects from each class are selected for the School Science Fair [ ] 2 1] The best projects are selected by: (Check all that apply) a) Teachers [ ) 1 b) Peers ' ' 2 c l Secondary students ' ' * d] Parents " " ( 1 < e] Community members [ ] t f] School District officials ( It g] University students [ ) 7 h] Other [ ).i Specify 10 7. Who selects projects to represent the school at the District Science Fair? (Check all that apply) a) Teachers b) Peers .-. c) Secondary students d) University students e) Parents f) Community members g) School District officials h) Other Specify B. Who receives awards at the school Science Fair? [Check all that apply] a] All pupils receive participation ribbons/certificates/buttons, etc [ ] 1 b] Pupils in e s c h g r a d e receive First. Second. Third. Outstanding/Excellence awards [ ] j c] Pupils in eachCBtegory rece ive FirBt. Second. Third. Outstanding/Excellence awards [ ) s d] Only pupils selected to represent the school et the District Science Fair receive First. Second. Third. Outstanding/Excellence awards j [ ] , How many regular classes K - 7 are in your Bchool? 1-4 classes [ ) 1 5-0 classes . • I ) i 0* classes ( l a * 13 a * -2-Page 143 PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE FAIRS 10. For Questions 1-11. pleese check the appropriate response. If you: CD @ H] 0 agree very much agree some what agree very l i t t l e disagree 1. Science fairs stimulate the students to work beyond what Is covered in class. 2. Science fairs help students develop poise and self confidence. 1 2 3 4 t l£ 3. Science fairs provide students with a chance to gain 1 2 3 1 j . practice in research. ' 4. Science fairs allow the students to work independently. 1 2 3 4 ' 18 5. Science fairs teach students to be thorough. 1 2 3 4 - 1 9 6. Science fairs promote an understanding of the scientific 1 2 3 4 • 20 method. 7. Science fairs help students meet other students with like 1 2 3 4 < 23 interests. B. Science fairs introduce students to adults with like interests 1 2 3 4 '.22 and knowledge in science. B. Science fairs are useful in focusing the role of science in 1 2 3 4 23 education. <:S:S:-S-S: 10. Science fairs provide the students with earned recognition. 1 2 3 4 <>], 11. Science fairs allow the students to work cooperatively 1 2 3 4 -85 1 G E N E R A L C O M M E N T S Please feel free to edd any comments or suggestions concerning the District Science Fair that you may have. You may wish to comment on the materials/ information, structure, organization or Science Fairs in general. T H A N K Y O U F O R YOUR TIME - 3 -Page 144 GENERAL COMMENTS Return to: Burt Deeter Curriculum Helping Teacher [Science] Courier 972 Please return try Hay 30, 1986 Page 145 M E M O R A N D U M j TO: FROM: Burt Deeter Curriculum Helping Teacher [Science] RE: Science Fair Survey Just a quick reminder to please complete the survey and forward 1t to ne as soon as possible. I know that you ere very busy but 1t w i l l be easier for us to Improve Science Fair i f we receive your completed questlonalre. Thank you once again for your tine. P.S. If you have returned your questlonalre without your name tag, please check the box and return this memo so you w i l l not receive any •ore reminders. j j Page 147 Publications: Titles 1] AUTHORED . Planning Science Fairs . Comet Activit ies . S .A .S .A . (Seagull Assisted Survival Activit ies] . Are You Game? . Science Challenges . Care of Plants and Animals in the Classroom . Sci-Ventures Newsletter . Enrich Newsletter . The Great Escape . Spiders in the Classroom . Rotten Luck . An Array of Astronomical Act iv i t i es . Activit ies with Plastic Bags . Lunar-Tiking . It's About Time . Science Fair Pupil Booklet. 19B1 - 1986 . Science Fair Teacher Booklet. 1981 - 19BB . Salmon in Your Classroom [2] . Green Timbers Forest Sciences Activi t ies. 19B1 - 19BB . Hatching Chicks . Plant Growth and Behaviour . Pets and People . Sciencing . Read Aloud Books in Environmental Education 2] CO-AUTHORED 3] EDITED 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097260/manifest

Comment

Related Items