What Scientists Do:  Science Olympiad Enhancing Science Inquiry
Through Student Collaboration, Problem-solving, and Creativity
[Printer Friendly Adobe® PDF Version]

 Dr. Mary Jo McGee-Brown, Presenter
Qualitative Research & Evaluation for Action, Inc.
155 Spruce Valley Road
Athens, GA 30605 

Dr. Charles Martin
Professor and Chair, Early Childhood and Middle Grades Education
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, GA

 Dr. Judy Monsaas
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334

 Dr. Milton Stombler, Director
Georgia Science Olympiad
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3088

 Paper presented at the Annual National Science Teachers Association Meeting,
Philadelphia, PA, March 28, 2003.  This study was funded, in part, by
National Science Foundation Grant number REC0196240.

Introduction

A team of three to five researchers per year, collaborating with the Director of Georgia Science Olympiad, has investigated the impact of Science Olympiad on students, teachers, and science curriculum in participating Georgia middle school and high schools for the past three years (1999-2002).  Although some elementary schools engage in Science Olympiad activities, that loosely organized level was not systematically studied.  An initial pilot study was conducted at four sites in Georgia in 1999 to determine the nature of implementation of the extracurricular program, Science Olympiad.  During that time, instruments to be used in the subsequent state-wide study were developed and refined with guidance of data from the four pilot study sites.

 Each year of the project, data were collected  from students, teachers, administrators, and parents at four case study schools.  In addition, sixteen associate schools each year were invited to participate in the study.   Closed-response item questionnaire data on the use of Science Olympiad events and materials in regular science instruction and local science curriculum were obtained from all coaches in Georgia who registered a team each year to participate in competitions.

Data across years of the study, and across data sources (students, teacher-coaches, parents, administrators) have indicated that collaboration, problem-solving, and creativity are three of the most important aspects of participation in Science Olympiad for students.  The competitive environment at regional, state, and national levels is the format in which students bond as school teams to demonstrate their knowledge of science and application of scientific, mathematical, and engineering concepts and skills in a wide variety of events.  At these competitions, students strive to “be the best” and win medals and ribbons for their science inquiry and creativity.

Background

In October, 2002, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution reported¹ students’ scores on the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests for students in grades three through eight who were tested in reading, English, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Similar reports of tests results have been made each year of this study for students in Georgia.  The 2002 report indicated that while students in the younger grades earned high marks in reading and language arts, test results indicated that older students still struggle in mathematics and science.  In science and mathematics for each of the grade levels, the following percentages did not meet expectations in performance on the tests:

Table 1. Performance of Georgia students on the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests

This is not only a problem in Georgia, but science achievement scores of U.S. students on other standardized tests deteriorate drastically from fourth through the eighth grade, with gaps between mainstream and diverse students.²  There are many speculations about poor performance of students in Georgia and throughout the United States in science and mathematics.  Some feel that teachers are not properly trained and qualified to teach science and mathematics.  Others feel that students find these courses boring because they are more “reading” courses rather than scientific inquiry and mathematical application courses.  Still others suggest that students in other countries spend more time focusing on math and the sciences in school, and doing homework in these areas.

Whatever the reasons that students seem to perform more poorly in mathematics and the sciences than other courses, teachers are constantly looking for curricula and programs that actively engage students in a way that makes science and math fun and challenging.

Science Olympiad offers educators an extracurricular option for students to engage in collaborative science inquiry that involves mathematical and engineering applications in a wide variety of science contexts.  Student work in pairs on cross-grade level teams to apply science and math content and skills that they have learned in classes as well as what they learn independently as they prepare to compete in specified science events with students in their region, state, and nation.  In this extracurricular “grade-free” environment, students seek both to deepen and expand their science, math, and engineering knowledge through books, tapes, computer software, Internet sites, and local scientists and engineers who volunteer their time to work with the students.

Science Olympiad had been recognized by the National Research Council as a “model program in the National Science Standards.”³ The student manual identifies the goals of Science Olympiad as “improving the quality of science education, creating a passion for learning science and providing recognition for outstanding achievement in science education by both students and teachers.  These goals are accomplished through classroom activities, research, professional development workshops, and the encouragement of intramural, district, regional, state, national and international academic interscholastic tournaments.”  The National Research Council⁴ defines scientific inquiry as: “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work.  Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world.” (P. 23)  Students who participate in Science Olympiad do study the natural world through a variety of the sciences, and through creative individual and team problem-solving, and while functioning in ways that scientists study the natural world, they deepen their knowledge of science and the way the world works.  The vast majority of Science Olympiad teams do all of their work after school in a Science Olympiad team that meets the academic requirements and rules of all school extracurricular clubs and athletic groups.

While Science Olympiad is traditionally an extracurricular activity, meeting once a week in preparation for regional, state, and national competitions, some teacher coaches have adopted or adapted Science Olympiad events to integrate into their regular science curriculum (when they support local, state, and national science objectives) to provide students with a more hands-on problem-solving approach to science than the textbook and “cookbook” labs afford.  Other teacher coaches, particularly at the middle school level, have created “Science Olympiad courses” in which all students in a designated exploratory elective course or gifted education course would work on a large number of Science Olympiad events, learning the science, mathematics, technology, and engineering concepts and skills while applying them in ways required by event specifications in the Science Olympiad Student Manuals.   

A few coaches across the years of the study commented that Science Olympiad provides an opportunity to study science in-depth for students who do not traditionally excel academically.  While this was true in select schools, the vast majority of school teams were composed of students who were A and A/B students, not only in science, but in other academic areas also.  We found that this extracurricular program does not draw significant numbers of low performing students or students who were previously disinterested in science and mathematics, but neither does it draw only “science geeks” as some students refer to their peers who focus only on science.  At some schools, the Science Olympiad team members were recruited from a school “science club,” but at others, recruiting was throughout the school.  The majority of student participants in Science Olympiad also reported participating in multiple diverse extracurricular activities including sports, academics, service, cheerleading, newspaper and yearbook staff, and other “clubs.”   Student participants seemed well-rounded.

Research Design and Data Collection Methods

An initial team of four researchers, in collaboration with the Director of Georgia Science Olympiad, proposed an investigation in 1999 of the impact of Georgia Science Olympiad on participating students, teachers, and science curriculum at both middle school and high school levels.  A pilot study in four school sites (three middle school and one high school level) was conducted in 1999.  Data collected at those sites were used to help develop appropriate data collection instruments for a larger three-year investigation (1999-2002).

 Each year of the project (1999-2002), four case study schools and 16 associate schools were invited to participate in the study.  For various reasons across the years, participants at some of the associate schools who originally signed documents agreeing to participate, did not complete required data.  Additionally, some of the case study schools were not able to provide data across all years of the study (as originally proposed), but did provide in depth data for at least one full year.  The sample of associate schools each year was a random sample within four geographic regions of Georgia (northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest).  The decision to group participating sites into these regions before doing a random sample was to insure representation from the three segments that did not include Atlanta.  A significant number of participating schools are in the Atlanta area and surrounding counties, and researchers wanted to ensure that data from students and coaches in  rural schools and schools from different areas of the state were included in the study.  Case study sites were selected using two criteria: 1) the four geographic areas, and 2) the level of use of Science Olympiad.  Using preliminary Science Olympiad use data collected from all coaches who registered a team for competition, we grouped all of the schools where coaches indicated that, in addition to Science Olympiad being an extracurricular activity, that events were also included in instruction in some way.

A closed-response item questionnaire on the use of Science Olympiad events and materials in regular curriculum were obtained from all coaches in Georgia who registered a team each year to participate in competitions.  Data were collected at case study sites from students, teachers, administrators, and parents through interviews, observations, document collection, and open-ended questionnaires during on-site visits.  Data were collected from students, coaches, administrators, and parents at associate schools through mailed open-ended questionnaires and e-mail “conversations” with coaches.

Open-ended data from questionnaires and interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method.  Using this strategy, raw data were coded, collapsed, and compared within site, and across sites to determine categories that emerged from the data to explain the experiences of the respondents and impact of Science Olympiad.  Data were examined by level (middle school and high school) and by gender (male and female) to determine differences in experiences and impact.  Dichotomous data and Likert Scale data from student and coach questionnaires were analyzed by generating percentages of each sample that responded to each option.

Findings

Data have provided a rich understanding of the diversity of uses and implementation of Science Olympiad in schools in Georgia.  Data across years of the study, and across data sources (students, teacher-coaches, parents, administrators) have indicated that collaboration, problem-solving, and creativity are three of the most important aspects of participation in Science Olympiad for students.  Data indicate that use of Science Olympiad in general science instruction differs from middle school to high school level, and across individual sites.  One of the most significant determiners of incorporation of Science Olympiad events in regular science instruction is the degree to which an event is aligned with local, state, and national science standards.

Findings: Coaches

Findings from Georgia Science Olympiad coaches about ways Science Olympiad is used vary across levels (middle school and high school) and across sites.  There is no “standard” model for implementing Science Olympiad as an extracurricular activity across schools.  There is no “standard” strategy that teachers use to incorporate Science Olympiad events and materials into their regular science curriculum.

Middle School

In general, middle school Science Olympiad extracurricular programs tend to be organized and facilitated by a teacher-coach or parent-coach with the assistance of interested parents and community/local industry adult volunteers.  In many schools, parents and other adults are involved weekly, teaching the academic and lab events, and assisting in designing and constructing the engineering events.  Teachers and adults provide guidance for students using print resources as well as software and Internet resources as they study and work on events for competitions.  The coach and many volunteer parents attend regional and state competitions, assisting students with organizing materials, problem-solving, and often interceding with judges when student performance or constructions are called into question.  Parents, siblings, and team members who are not performing in another event function as “cheerleading” groups when student participants are performing the engineering events (e.g., Bridge Building, Bottle Rocket, Wright stuff, Mission Possible, etc.).  Some schools would send student “data collection teams” to the competitions for the specific purpose of locating, interviewing, and audio taping or video taping their team members following competition in each event about what each of them experienced in the event.  Those tapes were used by team members the following year to improve students’ preparation for particular events.

Middle school coaches in case study schools and associate schools were asked to identify impacts that Science Olympiad has had on student participant’s knowledge of science concepts, principles, and skills.  Two areas emerged as common across many schools: expanded knowledge base and improved skills.  When discussing the impact on knowledge, coaches asserted that students have:

• increased knowledge of science concepts
• more in-depth knowledge; knowledge of science that exceeds middle school level
• an increase in ability to apply scientific knowledge
• greater breadth of knowledge in that they have explored areas that they never study in school

   Coaches asserted that some of the aspects of Science Olympiad that help students increase science knowledge include: it opens up new areas of science; it is fun; they can study more in depth; students are excited about being in Science Olympiad; and students begin to see science as functional.  Middle school coaches indicated that participation in Science Olympiad increases student’s skills in the following areas: problem-solving; higher order thinking skills; reflective responses; application of the scientific method, and experimental design.  Many coaches commented on the importance of learning and retaining science knowledge (as opposed to memorization of facts) as an important outcome of Science Olympiad.  Coaches assert that retention of science knowledge and ability to apply concepts and use skills is a result of “actually doing science” in the events.  When asked to describe ways participation in Science Olympiad has changed students’ understandings about the nature of science and science inquiry, coaches identified multiple positive impacts:

• improve problem-solving strategies
• learn the importance of trial and error
• experience science as real scientists would
• use and apply the scientific method with meaning
• begin to see the interrelatedness of the sciences
• have hands-on experiences rather than memorizing science facts

In responding to general questions about the impact of Science Olympiad participation on students, many coaches mentioned problem-solving ability and creativity as some of the most positive outcomes.  Middle school coaches were asked specifically to describe ways participation impacted students’ problem-solving abilities.  The following categories emerged from coaches’ responses:

• collaborative problem-solving
• creative problem solving
• importance of trial and error/modifications from mistakes
• continual problem-solving; constant experimentation to solve problems at hand;
• problem- solving as a long term endeavor

Coaches elaborated on the requirement in almost all events for ongoing problem-solving in a way that students do not have to do in science classes.  Some coaches indicated that the problem-solving aspect of Science Olympiad helped students realize that science is just a part of everyday life in which so many things must be tested for improvements.  The concept of creativity seemed to be linked closely with problem-solving in most coaches’ minds.  The following categories emerged from coaches’ data about ways Science Olympiad fosters creativity:

• creative problem-solving
• creative application of new ideas
• creative time management

Coaches characterized preparation for and participation in the Science Olympiad competitions as times when the students “always have to do something they didn’t expect” and that this develops creative problem-solving.  Coaches talked about students learning to “think outside the box” and seek new directions for ideas to solve problems.  A large number of coaches indicated that the engineering/building events engage students in more creative problem-solving than the academic events.  Coaches characterized these events as giving students an opportunity to be creative problem-solvers rather than the predominant “learning content” aspect of regular science curriculum.

High School

In contrast, high school extracurricular programs are frequently run relatively independently by the student participants, with little guidance or instruction from the coach, and almost no assistance from parents.  It is common to attend Science Olympiad meetings at the high school level and find no “organized” meeting, but rather small groups of students in different locations in the school (depending on where resources they need are located) studying and debating points about their event.  High school students seek assistance through Internet sites, in various resources in the library, and from various science and mathematics teachers in the school as they need it.  Students frequently meet at each other’s homes in the evenings or on weekends to work on engineering events.  It is common to attend a regional or state high school competition and find that no parents came with the team, and to discover the coach in the team-assigned room “keeping guard” over the construction devices rather than going with pairs of students to observe their performance in an event. 

High school coaches in case study schools and associate schools were asked to identify impacts that Science Olympiad has had on student participant’s knowledge of science concepts, principles, and skills.  Two areas emerged as common across many schools: students gain an in-depth understanding of science concepts and principles and students learn science process and techniques.  When discussing the impact on knowledge and skills , coaches asserted that students:

• gain a greater in-depth understanding of selected areas rather than a broad understanding  of a large number of areas because students compete in a small segment of the events   and become the “expert” for the team in their selected areas
• learn and apply many skills of science research
• begin to understand science techniques that are somewhat universal
• exhibit increased critical thinking skills
• exhibit significantly enhanced laboratory skills
• have an opportunity to explore science and science concepts beyond the “norm”

When asked to describe ways participation in Science Olympiad has changed students’ understandings about the nature of science and science inquiry, high school coaches identified multiple positive impacts:

• understanding the role of trial and error
• improved problem-solving skills
• improved critical thinking skills

It is difficult to distinguish between trial and error, problem-solving, and critical thinking as discussed by coaches.  The three aspects seem to be a part of a larger notion, inquiry.  Coaches indicated that these skills are developed and applied in many Science Olympiad events.  The following are a few selected comments that coaches made about students’ understandings about the nature of science and science inquiry:

• The trial and error, interactive basis for scientific inquiry really becomes apparent to participants in most events as they resolve problems.
• They learn that science is all trial and error, and there are wrong answers and understandings about things that don’t work that trigger new approaches and new ideas constantly.
• Since they have to do the research and solve the problems, this takes them beyond the cookbook lab.
• The Experimental Design project required students to use both critical thinking skills and creativity to complete.
• Science Olympiad allows students to apply science, not just memorize.  Many of the events require critical thinking.
• The participation in various events and fields of science allows them to understand what science really is.

It is clear from these few selected representative comments, that coaches feel strongly that students are using trial and error,  problem-solving, critical thinking skills, and creativity to accomplish many of the tasks in the Science Olympiad events.  Most coaches feel that through preparation for the events, students gain a more realistic understanding of the real nature of science.  The vast majority of coaches across sites and years of the study were extremely positive about the impact of Science Olympiad on student understanding of the nature of science.  One coach the final year, however, made the following negative observation: “I do not think many of them understand experimental design very well.”  Unfortunately, there was no further explanation of that comment to provide insights about what students were doing or discussing that would lead to that conclusion.

High school coaches were asked to describe ways participation in Science Olympiad has impacted students’ problem-solving ability.  The vast majority of respondents indicated that the events engage students in problem-solving, and that the level required enables students to see a variety of approaches to solving problems they encounter.  Coaches indicated that students:

• become more persistent in problem-solving
• no longer expect things to work on the first try
• tackle problems in new situations
• analyze problems systematically
• problem solve not only science issues that emerge, but also social problems on teams

The following are a few selected comments from coaches that are representative of the categories that emerged from the data:

• The students are more willing to keep trying when one solution doesn’t work.  They are beginning to see more than one way to approach problems.
• Greatly increased persistence in problem solving and removed the expectation that things work easily just because they’re supposed to.
• Scrambler - Problem included several areas.  Cow-A-Bungee - both problem areas stimulate students to solve problems in new situations.
• Most of the events stimulate problem solving.  I watch them systematically analyze white powders, wonder about the best way to construct the boom, and very meticulously calibrate the Cow-A-Bungee.  Without the challenge, students would never go there.
• Nearly all the events require problem solving.  For many students, these are the first experiences they have to apply scientific knowledge.
• All engineering projects allow students to solve problems, ranging from engineering (how do we support the boomilever beam) to social (how do we get “Sam” to show up for practice?).
• I believe students in all events have been challenged with problem solving.  Just having the opportunity to be a meaningful member of the team has brought forth problem solving skills they may not have exercised otherwise.

Many of the coaches across years of the study indicated that Science Olympiad has provided a format for problem-solving that high school students would not have had in the regular science curriculum or in other extracurricular activities.  Coaches link the aspect of cross-team competition and within team collaboration with improved problem-solving because they observe students solving problems more creatively and more efficiently in order to “beat” other teams who are applying the same scientific, mathematical, and engineering concepts and skills to accomplish the same tasks, but trying to do it more effectively.

When asked about the impact of Science Olympiad on student creativity, most coaches responded that many of the events, particularly the device events and Experimental Design, foster research and creativity or innovation.  In general, coaches did not talk about creativity and academic events.  The following are a few selected representative comments (some general and some “event-specific”) from coaches about the role of creativity in Science Olympiad:

• Participants are much more likely to look at problems from multiple angles and different perspectives.”

• The students are full of ideas about how to approach device events, which they decided not to try this year.  They also have some interesting ideas on recruiting more participants next year.

• The construction events have given the students many ways to be creative and innovative.

• Sounds of Music & Scrambler - Both allow students to do nearly anything, with no set of successful blueprints, to accomplish a task within clear parameters.

• Scrambler - Problem included several areas that students must use creative skills to solve.

• Some students would never dream of constructing a musical instrument, or engineer a boom if it were not for Science Olympiad.  This gives them a purpose which stimulates research and creativity.

• Again, Experimental Design and the engineering events require the student to think outside the box.

• Devices require ways H.S. students have to create.  Some learn electronics from circuits.  Opens their eyes to new ideas such as Scrambler.  Create solution in M.P.(Mission Possible). 

Clearly, creativity and problem-solving are linked in coaches’ minds when they talk about the impact of Science Olympiad participation on students.

Use of Science Olympiad in Regular Science Instruction

Teacher-coaches at the middle school level tend to incorporate Science Olympiad in their regular curriculum more than high school teachers.  Again, there is no “standard” model for how this is done at either level.  The following general responses on a short dichotomous-response questionnaire from coaches who registered teams for competitions in Georgia reveal the differences between middle school and high school use.

Table 2.  Percent of middle school and high school teacher-coaches who use Science Olympiad events in instruction and share information about events with colleagues

We did not find any instances of Science Olympiad being offered as a course at the high school level.  We did find that a few middle schools used Science Olympiad events in instruction in unique ways.  Science Olympiad was offered as an “exploratory” course (an elective) at one  middle school.  In that case study school, students studied science concepts related to Science Olympiad events in two ways on different days: 1) whole group activities like movies, lectures, or hands-on activities relating to an event; or 2) students came into class, got into pairs or small groups, and independently studied the science for an academic event or gathered information and built things for device events.  The students at that middle school assisted the teacher-coaches in instructing teachers and students at elementary schools in the district in how to do Science Olympiad events.  In another middle school (a parochial school), all students at the school were involved in studying the Science Olympiad events.  The program at that school was based on the events of the Science Olympiad competition; included cross-curricular activities; involved multi-grade grouping; involved teachers from all curriculum areas; included parent volunteers as participants in the program; and followed the NSTA standards.  In other middle schools, individual teachers identified events that supported attainment of science objectives and incorporated them into regular classroom instruction as time, space, and materials permitted

Middle school teacher-coaches in the case study schools and associate schools each year indicated that they used Experimental Design, Write-it/Do-it, and the device events (Mission Possible, Bottle Rocket, Bridge Building) in regular instruction more than other Science Olympiad events .  Student data about whether events should be used in classes reflected the events that coaches said they were using.  Slightly over 50% of students each year (see Appendix C) felt that Science Olympiad events should be used in regular science classes.  Students felt that Experimental Design, design events, and some of the lab events (at the high school level) should be incorporated into regular science instruction.

Problems Implementing Science Olympiad

Our findings at all case study sites across years of the project and across levels (middle school and high school) indicate that the greatest problems that teacher-coaches encounter when implementing Science Olympiad include:

• insufficient funds
• insufficient time
• insufficient assistance in mentoring/helping students prepare for events
• not knowing far enough in advance of competitions to have students prepare for events in which they will actually compete

Many coaches indicated that they and their spouses frequently were the only ones to teach students, transport or chaperone students to competitions, and donate money “from their own pockets” to purchase needed materials. 

Some teacher-coaches identified strategies to help address some of these problems, but others were unable to address any in a positive way, indicating that they had “very little” or no resources (persons, institutions, companies, or financial support) to help prepare their students for Science Olympiad competitions.  A few case study sites (predominantly middle schools) had well orchestrated parent support networks that provided volunteers to help at each Science Olympiad meeting and workers to help raise financial support through school fund-raisers.  The most common resources used by teacher-coaches and students at all school sites (case study and associate schools) across all years of the project to address these primary problems include:

• parent volunteers with science, engineering, or other needed expertise
• donations (funds and materials) from companies/industries with a science focus
• massive fund-raising letter campaign
• school fund-raisers by students and/or parents
• write grants to raise funds
• PTSA support
• donated materials from local stores (craft, hobby, and general stores)
• persons and materials from local hobby clubs
• donations from community-based groups like Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.

When asked for suggestions for improving Science Olympiad for students and coaches, many of the suggestions were related to the problems that were identified.  Coaches asserted that the following would help improve Science Olympiad:

• summer workshops for students
• funding grants or scholarships for coaches to attend summer teacher workshops
• more training opportunities locally
• lists of Science Olympiad-identified on-line resources for each event
• materials and resources made available to coaches
• take cost of materials into account when generating new events, or making a decision to    retain previously used events
• training for coaches in writing grants for support and lists of persons or companies and    addresses that give grants for science-based student projects
• provide coaches with the regional and state event schedules very early in the year

While coaches at almost every site identified problems as they implement Science Olympiad in their schools, all said that the program is excellent, addresses needs of many students,  and worth the problems that are associated with it.  Not one coach indicated that they felt the program should be dropped at their school or that Science Olympiad should be radically changed in order to address the problems.

Findings: Students

The vast majority of both middle school and high school students characterize their experiences in Science Olympiad as “fun” and “challenging.”  Students indicate that they have learned a great deal about how scientists function that they had not realized prior to their Science Olympiad experiences.  Many students identify collaboration is the key to scientific inquiry because the pooling of knowledge and stimulation of creativity and problem-solving from colleagues results in better applications of science and more effective products. Students assert that they expand their knowledge of the sciences, science concepts, and science skills, while applying them along with mathematics and engineering concepts and skills to solve “real world” problems.  Students report that the variety of events (lab, engineering, device, knowledge) is engaging and allows them to “specialize” in areas they like and deepen their knowledge in these areas.  Students identify and use a wide variety of resources, and learn to use new technology (computer, science equipment, and engineering equipment) to solve problems.

Many parents and student mentioned how enthusiastic students became about science and applying science concepts and skills as they worked on Science Olympiad events.  Students across levels (middle and high school) across all years of the project characterized their involvement as “fun” and “exciting.”  When asked if participation in Science Olympiad had resulted in them enjoying science more, the results were strikingly positive:

1999: 96% of MS and HS females; 85.7% of MS and HS f males

2000: 94.7% MS males; 95.1% MS females; 96.9% HS males; 94.7% HS females

2001: 95.3% MS males; 82.6% MS females; 88% HS males; 93.3% HS females

2002: 86.7% MS males; 88.8% MS females; 75.7% HS males; 85.4% HS females

Further support for the “fun” and engaging aspect of Science Olympiad reported by students and parents is that between 25% and 73% of each breakdown student group for data analysis across the years indicated that their research and application in Science Olympiad had resulted in them conducting science experiments on their own that are not required in science classes (see Appendices A, B, and C).  Between 50 and 75% of students in each breakdown group for data analysis each year indicated that they also enjoyed their regular science classes more since participating in Science Olympiad.  Data were not as positive when students were asked if participation in Science Olympiad had resulted in them enjoying mathematics and math classes more.  Between 17% and 67% of each breakdown group indicated they enjoy math more as a direct result of what they do in Science Olympiad.

Collaboration and competition appear to be companion processes in the Science Olympiad experience for students.  Regional, state and national competitions provide the framework around which all of Science Olympiad is conducted.  Students at each participating school form teams of up to 15 students to compete in up to 23 events.  The competitive aspect of the program, according to many students, leads them to collaborate more effectively within their own teams.  Their goal is to learn and be able to apply as much science in an effective manner to win top spots at each level of competition in order to move to the next level.  Within-team collaboration, as identified by one high school student, is “pooling all our knowledge, experience, skills, creativity and luck to pull off top places in each event.”  Over the three years of this study, across levels (middle and high school) and across school sites (different geographic regions of the state and varying school sizes) students have overwhelmingly indicated that based on their experiences in Science Olympiad, they believe that it is important for scientists to collaborate on projects (see Appendices A, B, and C).

• Scientists need to get together and throw ideas back and forth at each other, brainstorm.  I also believe they need a time for themselves where they can put what is on their mind down on paper or into a construction before meeting back up with other scientists.

• It helps you get things done faster, and also you can think of more creative ideas when brainstorming.

• You get more ideas with two minds put together channeling out more creativity.

• On Mission Possible, I don’t think that there is any way we could have made it by ourselves.  It required a lot of group effort and thinking.  Each member of the group thought of clever ideas for the machine that one of us individually would never have thought of.

• It makes you creative when solving problems, because one moves the other forward, and then you each bounce off each other’s ideas and plans 

• I discovered that combined intelligence is a powerful tool in science.

• The ability to divide work between many people helps to economize time.  Also, splitting up different areas of one subject between people helps to specialize knowledge and allows for more in-depth research.

• Teammates help come up with different and new ideas to try.

• I am part of the Mission Possible team.  Any ideas I’ve considered, I share with team members.  The same is said about all other members as well.  We also share our knowledge concerning the successfulness and practicality of each shared input.  As a whole, we cooperate in order to build a better working project.

• Without teamwork, things take longer.  If you run out of ideas, team members can help.  Teamwork also makes you get along better with others.

• We had to agree on lots of different things.  We also had to compromise.

• My teammates and I had to learn to work together and both support and cut back each other’s ideas.

• Having a teammate is just like having an extra brain.  If you forget something they can back you up and help you out.

• One person is stronger in one area than in another.

• In Feathered Frenzy, my partner and I found our strong points and then strengthened them.

• More people thinking about something is the best way to get something done.

• Two heads are always better than one!

• Things go faster with someone else’s ideas for improvement and hands to work with.

• Working with teammates makes all the jobs easier.

• Working with teammates can keep individuals on task, provide reassurance for one’s uncertainty, and can make the overall task easier since the work involved can be split up instead of placed all on one individual.

• In Can’t Judge a Powder, my partner and I didn’t know what we were doing, so we worked together to figure it all out, and we got 3^rd place.

• You get to know more than one perspective.

• When you’re trying to solve a problem, a teammate can help you figure out what you’re doing wrong.

• Teammates have ideas to make an experiment easier or more accurate.  Teammates catch and correct each other’s mistakes.

• Working together as a team is important.  We were able to combine our thinking skills to accomplish what was asked of us.  I am not sure I could have gone through all of the tasks without my teammate.

From students’ responses, it is clear that team work in Science Olympiad was critical for them, and that many of them translated their own experiences into a larger view of the importance of collaboration among scientists.  One high school student, comparing Science Olympiad to the scientific world,  told an investigator that, “Science Olympiad competitions are kind of like a group of scientists working in different scientific industries competing to test and find the best products before the other.  It’s just that we win medals and the scientists get the money for their products.”  Comments like that indicated that students were projecting their collaborative experiences on school teams and competition with other schools to the real world of science rather than academic science.  Observations of students at regional and state competitions in institutions of higher learning would support that perspective since students only saw and experienced “science classroom” settings where sciences are taught at the college level.  None of their work was done in specialized laboratories of scientists investigating a particular area supported by external grants.  Thus, the one-day college campus visit for competitions did not take students into settings that would expand their perspectives of science at the college and university level beyond that of “science classes.”

More than three-fourths of student respondents across the years of this study indicated that they have learned new science content or skills that they had not studied in their regular science classes (see Appendices A, B, and C).  The vast majority of students’ written responses were “event-specific” in that the knowledge and skills that students indicated they had learned, related specifically to the event(s) they prepared for competitions.  The most common general responses about science content or skills learned through Science Olympiad are: experimental design; logical thinking; organizational skills; measurement; metric system; engineering; specific sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, earth science, life science, astronomy, anatomy); merging mathematics and science; and application of science concepts. 

• The philosophy most abundant here seems to be Try, Try again, change something and Try Again, and Oh, why don’t we Try one more time!  Scientists work on theories and the trial and applications of them.

• You’ve always got to be prepared for anything to happen.  You’ve also got to think of any possibilities, and be creative.

• Work tediously.  Continuous trial and error.

• Scientists work diligently.  They have to experiment with an idea over and over again before making a certain decision.  Scientists also have to do a lot of research and learn about a vast variety of subjects.

• The preparation helped me learn how scientists keep trying even if something goes wrong.

• Sometimes, what you want to work doesn’t, but you can always try it again.

• They do a lot of logical problem-solving.

• It takes time and hard work to solve a problem.

• Scientists don’t seem to jump to new conclusions quickly.  They have to test everything out to prove it.

• They pay attention to details, taking into account that the smallest flaw or difference could alter an experiment.

• The skill of careful planning and implementing new ideas.

• It is important to pay special attention to every detail, especially if the conclusion is determined from a combination of different factors.

• Everything must be recorded.

• You have to be exact and specific

• Very meticulous, pay close attention to details.

• The importance of accurate measurements in chemical tests

• I see that it’s a much more thorough process than I thought.

• They have to be focused and dedicated.

• It’s a lot more pressure and work than I thought!

• They have a very hard job and it takes a lot of skill and patience to be a scientist.

• It’s not as easy as it may seem.

• Some experiments have to be done over and over to work.  Scientists are constantly changing designs to make them better.

• It is very tough.  There are many different possible solutions.  You have to find the one that fits best.

• In order to do science experiments, you have to break it down into steps.

• It takes a lot of work to design an experiment.

• In Experimental Design, on of my events, I get a feel for what it’s like to devise, carry out, and document an experiment, something otherwise, I wouldn’t do.

• That scientists must work together to get results.

• Most real scientists work in teams.

• How to conduct a better experiment and write it up too.

• You need to keep experimenting with variables and make sure it’s only one variable at a time.

• There is a specific procedure and method of how specific tasks are to be done, however, because they are not set in stone, it is up to the scientist to utilize his/her experiences and expertise to decide upon a plan and/or design.

• Many, many, many hours of research which are applied and rationalized in scientific testing.  The knowledge really is important.

• I now know how long and hard they work and how important safety is to them.

• Lots of experimentation!

• It helped me comprehend how scientists arrive at conclusions about experiments.

• more investigative thinking

• How science ties in with everything.

• I have learned what science does for everyone and how things would be without it.

• There are many fields of science, and they’re all hard!

• Didn’t know sciences were so hard and took so much work!

• Science isn’t just about chemicals in laboratories and explosions and the like.  It’s much more in-depth and diverse.

• My parents are scientists and I always thought they had a boring job.  Now, because I’ve taken Science Olympiad, it has shown me that science can be fun and that there are a lot of different types of science out there!

• Lets us know how science as a career works.

Findings: Parents

  Parents were asked to volunteer to complete a written open-ended questionnaire about their perceptions of the impact of Science Olympiad on their child and return them with team data by mail.  Parent responses from the 2002 data will be reported here because they are representative of parent comments across the years.  Many more parents of middle school students (73 parents from 10 schools in 2002) responded than parents of high school students (22 parents from 3 schools in 2002).  This response rate was consistent with the significantly larger parent participation in assisting coaching and helping at competitions at the middle school level than at the high school level.  Overwhelmingly, parent responses about their child’s participation on the child were highly positive. 

Parents were asked to describe the most positive outcomes they ad observed in their child that were a direct result of her/his participation in Science Olympiad.  A large number of categories emerged in the parent data (95 parents) : improved teamwork/social skills; increased self-confidence; increased interest in science; increased knowledge and skills in science; exhibits enthusiasm about science and Science Olympiad; more self-motivated; improved problem-solving; improved creativity; improved critical thinking skills; pride in accomplishments.  The following groupings represent parents’ coded perspectives, and the number of parents out of 95 who wrote that in an open-ended question: 

Improved Teamwork/Social Skills

• Improved teamwork/peer interaction/social skills/collaboration/group participation - 20

• Developing new friendships - 3

• Developed leadership skills- 2

• More patience - 1

• Likes working with older kids - 2

• Matured - 1 

Increased Self-confidence or Self-esteem

• More self-confident/increased self-esteem - 21

• Reduced stress/handles stress at competition better - 2

• Loves to teach others what she’s learned in Science Olympiad - 1

• Learned to win or lose gracefully - 1 

Increased Interest in Science/Knowledge and Skills in Science

• Increased interest in science/science principles/love for science - 19

• Increased knowledge of science/science skills/learning more science - 17

• Improved science grades/science performance - 6

• Researched areas never studied before - 1

• Expanded vocabulary in a mature way - 1

• New interest in engineering - 2

• One area became a new hobby - 1

• Does science at home now/does science projects on his own time - 2

• Now reads about science for pleasure - 1

• Watches more science related TV (Discovery) - 1

• Direct application of science/science theories learned in school - 4

• Hands-on application makes science real - 1

• Better understanding of relation between science and everything in life - 4

Exhibits Enthusiasm about Science and Participation in Science Olympiad

• Excitement/enthusiasm about participating/doing science/learning new area of science - 14

• It’s fun - 4

• Enjoys the challenge - 7

• Developed competitive spirit - 3

• Fun working with group of “smart kids” - 1

More Self-Motivated

• More focused/self-motivated/better follow through - 11

• More responsible/accountable - 4

• Better time management - 4

• Plans ahead now - 4

• Better prepared for school work/more dedicated to school work - 4

• More disciplined - 2

• Always tries to improve what he’s done/improves on original ideas - 2

• Learned value of failure and perseverance - 1

• More willing to assume a risk - 1

• Learned never to give up - 1

• More organized - 1

• Better problem solver - 6

• More creative - 4

• More critical thinking/analytical thinking - 3

• Works harder - 2

• Learned winning and working hard is not easy - 1

• Improved research skills - 2

• Improved study skills - 1

• Learned how to respond to questions, problems - 1

• Makes sure a project is researched thoroughly- 1

Pride in Accomplishments

• Pride/satisfaction with accomplishments/with team accomplishments - 13

Parents were asked to describe ways Science Olympiad enhances or extends their child’s traditional classroom instruction in science, mathematics, and/or technology.  They were also asked to describe ways that their child’s understanding of the nature of science or how scientists work had changed because of their work in Science Olympiad.  Their responses to these were very similar to the more general descriptions of impact described above.  Key categories that emerged in data from these two questions include: self-reliance/independent learner; increased creativity; increased understanding of how to do massive research; use of valuable resources other than a science textbook; learned the importance of trial and error; hands-on and application helps students understand science concepts; positive opportunity to work with different students in groups (different grade levels, different schools); understands the importance of precision and detail; understands the scientific process; could spend more time and learn areas of science more in depth; learned different areas of science than in class; learned that science is doing rather than memorizing facts; helps them understand how things in the real world work; and provides an academic challenge that science classes do not. 

Parents were asked to describe the greatest problems their child or other Science Olympiad team members encountered as they prepared for regional and state competitions.  The overwhelming number one problem indicated by parents was lack of time to research and get events ready the way students wanted to.  An issue relative to “lack of time” was that things had to be done by small groups of students, and they frequently were not able to coordinate research, planning, and practice times where all students in an event could work together.   Another related “lack of time” issue mentioned by many parents was the problem of multiple extracurricular activities being scheduled at the same time, causing their child to have to make choices about whether to practice for Science Olympiad or go to other events or clubs such as sports, band, chorus, academic clubs, etc.   The second most frequently mentioned problem was students not knowing which events to master since the competition schedules came out late and events students prepared may be at the same time, or “back-to-back” in the schedule where a student would not have time to get from one event to another.  Parents indicated that students had to compete in events in which they had not prepared when scheduling problems arose.  A few parents mentioned the lack of funding for materials, equipment, and transportation caused problems. 

Overall, parent descriptions of the impact of Science Olympiad on their child were overwhelmingly positive.  From parents’ perspectives, participation in Science Olympiad improves students academically, socially, and in individual personal development.