The

Texas Science Teacher Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Enhancing Science Knowledge...

Discover Proven Instructional Strategies Utilizing Different Disciplines.

STAT President’s Message

Budget Crisis Brings Tumult Over Education in Texas.

Confusing Language for Science and Math Students

How Vocabulary Can Influence Your Students’ Performance

Science-Fair Scorecard of DFW ISDs

A Study of How Participation Can Be a Predictor of Later Science Success.

ASSOCI ATION
RS
HE

OF
AC
TE

STAT Official Publication of the Science Teachers Association of Texas

1 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011
CE

TE
IEN

XA
SC

S
 www.hmheducation.com/tx/science
Lessons
Texas on Caring (cont’
Supplemental d.)
Science
Holt McDougal
onE-STop
solutions

Enter the digital classroom and try our

one-stop solutions for Texas Science at DigiTAl
www.hmheducation.com/tx/science. ClASSRoom

EngAgE
all learners

Resources include virtual labs, animations,

and other rich media to meet the learning
DiffeRenTiATion
needs of all students.

ExploRE
material for all TEKS
Search by TEKS to locate comprehensive instruction over
all science concepts, as well as connections to current
science issues through SciLinks, and correlations to
new TeKS
current science programs.

Equip
students for success on STAAR

Prepare for STAAR with instruction, review, and

practice assessments. STAAR

2 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

©Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 03/11
 TwentyAWays
NewtoPandemic
Teach Vocbulary
(cont’d.)(cont’d.)
Get LOOPY withLessons
LoopWriter Software
on Caring (cont’d.)

Collaboration, small group problem

solving, higher order thinking
AND vocabulary review - all
wrapped into one, fun activity.

Wrap up your vocabulary review in an easy to use, fun package.

Just $24.95 e-distribution;
1. Type in questions & answers;
$29.95 CD. Multi-user version
2. Shuffle the cards to ensure the game is challenging;
3. Select font, card layout and graphics, and; also available.
4. Print and play. That’s it!
When each question has been answered correctly, the final card placed will close the loop.

“I bought LoopWriter for my classroom and have

suggested it to my district head to buy for TAKS
tutoring and classroom use for all teachers in my
district. Thank you for helping me make learning fun!”
Mini-Cast participant 2010

“I enjoyed the training so much I

immediately bought LoopWriter and got
a few of my educator friends on board
too. This is wonderful for our students.”
Mesquite High School teacher

Be sure to drop by our booth,

#442, at CAST 2011 in
November, in Dallas; or give
us a call before that for more
information.

Visit our website to download

a free trial version, try it for
Switch to Spanish, French or 10 days and we know you’ll be
back to buy.
German; add jpg images, adjust
font & card size, print in color.

800.867.9067 • LoopWriter.com • CurriculumProject.com

3 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011
 The Texas Science Teacher
Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

Contents

STAT President’s Message

by Joel Palmer, Ed.D.

Confusing Language for Science and

Mathematics Students
by Sandra S. West and Sandra T. Browning

Cover Story: Enhancing Science Knowledge

through Proven Instructional Strategies
by Gloria Gresham, et. al.

Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth

Area Independent School Districts
by Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.

Cover Photo:
“Asexual Reproduction.” Photo of a Kalanchoe plant. © All Rights Reserved.
Image Credit:
STAT Member Susan Broz, IPC Teacher. Pershing Middle School.
The Texas Science Teacher, official journal of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, is published semiannually in April
and October. Enumeration of each volume begins with the April issue.
Editorial contents are copyrighted. All material appearing in The Texas Science Teacher (including editorials, articles, letters,
etc.) reflects the views of the author(s) and/or advertisers, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Science Teachers
Association of Texas (STAT) or its Board of Directors. Announcements and advertisements for products published in this
journal do not imply endorsement by the Science Teachers Association of Texas. STAT reserves the right to refuse any
announcement or advertisement that appears to be in conflict with the mission or positions of the
Science Teachers Association of Texas.
Permission is granted by STAT for libraries and other users to make single reproductions of The Texas Science Teacher for
their personal, noncommercial, or internal use. Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use. This permission does
not extend to any commercial, advertising, promotional, or any other work, including new collective work, which may
reasonably be considered to generate a profit.
For more information regarding permissions, contact the Editor: jpalmer59@gmail.com
4 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011
 STAT President’s Message
by Joel Palmer, Ed.D.

A s I sit down at my computer to write

this message, education in Texas is in
Fifty-three: what a daunting number.
Regardless of what happens in the rest of
tumult. According to The Legislative Refer- this session, it is safe to say that education
ence Library there are fifty-three bills that will be different when we reconvene next
affect the Texas Education Code that have fall. We do not know what will happen with
cience Division
been “engrossed.” I did not know what that funding, testing, class size, certification, or
cience Teacher
meant, so I looked it up and this is what I graduation requirements, but there is one
11 found: thing we know for sure: we will have stu-
4 dents in our classes that need instruction,
A legislative proposal that has been prepared and it is our job to provide the best possible
in a final form for its submission to a vote of education.
the law-making body after it has undergone
discussion and been approved by the appropri- This issue has some information to
ate committees. (West’s Encyclopedia of American help you do that. Confusing Language for
Law, published by Thomson Gale) Science and Mathematics Students focuses
on the differing and, at times, confusing
language used in math and science and
TST1104 how it impacts students’ learning. Enhanc-
ing Science Knowledge through Proven In-
structional Strategies, as the name suggests,
looks at reading and writing strategies that
can help students learn. The final article
analyzes how participation in local science
fairs in the North Dallas area impacts the
levels of student interest in scientific fields.
This has implications for the United States’
competitiveness in a global economy.

It is my hope that this issue can give

you something to take your mind off all the
issues surrounding education in Texas, at
least for a little while.

In addition to teaching in Texas classrooms

for more than twenty years, Joel Palmer
serves as the Curriculum Coordinator for
Mesquite ISD. He is also an adjunct
professor for Texas A&M Commerce. He
has been the editor of the Texas Science
Teacher for fourteen years, and is the
President of the Science Teachers
Association of Texas.

5 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Confusing Language for Science and Mathematics Students
by Sandra S. West and Sandra T. Browning
E nglish is one of the more difficult
languages in the world to learn partly
because it is full of homonyms/homophones
and synonyms. Words have several different
meanings depending upon the context of the
sentence and the audience being addressed.
Specifically for science and mathematics,
there are discipline-specific homophones
and homonyms. Bearing this in mind, the
English language can be a bear for students.
A Discovery!
The issue of confusing language first
arose in 2006 when planning a professional
development session for the project, Mix It
Up: Correlated Science & Math (CSM). In
preparation for the first correlated physics
and mathematics lessons, the university
physics instructor noticed that the univer-
sity mathematics instructor was using the
word motion differently. When asked what
motion meant, the mathematics instruc-
tor said, “You know, movement” while wav-
ing both hands. The science instructor
said, “That is not what we mean by motion
in physics.” We mean “moving from point
A to point B” (Author, 2006). The instruc-
tors then realized that while both science
and mathematics use the word distance, the
meaning of the word in science, while
related to the meaning in mathematics, is
not the same as in mathematics. This dis-
covery led to the realization that science and
mathematics use several of the same words,
but many with very different meanings.
More Discoveries through Rich
Conversations
Since that discovery in 2006, the Mix
It Up projects: CSM projects have contin-
ued to provide professional development to
6 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
science and mathematics teachers. When
training grades 5-8 science and mathemat-
ics teachers to integrate science and math-
ematics, the CSM science and mathematics
university specialists generally make class-
room observations as a team. However one
day, the science specialist conducted an
observation alone in an eighth grade Algebra
I class. The mathematics lesson that was
integrated with science used motion detec-
tors that had previously been used in the
eighth grade science class. The students
used the probes to gather and analyze the
data on time and distance. The domain and
range of the data set were then determined.
As the science specialist observed the
lesson, she wondered why the teacher did
not teach range before domain since she
considered range a less complex concept.
That night the science specialist was dis-
cussing and debriefing the algebra lesson
with the mathematics specialist and asked
her why the teacher did not teach range
before domain. The mathematics specialist
asked the science specialist to define range.
The science specialist said that, in this
instance, it means the span of numbers
from the highest number or value to the
lowest number or value or vice versa.
For example, considering the
numbers 1, 2, …, 9, the range would be 1 to
9. The mathematics specialist realized that
the meaning of range described by the sci-
ence specialist was not what range meant in
this algebra lesson. In algebra, range typi-
cally means the set of y-values of a function
(see Figure 1). In statistics, range generally
means the difference between the highest
and lowest value of a set of data (see Figure
2).
April 2011
 Twenty
Confusing
Ways to Teach
Language
Vocbulary
(cont’d(cont’
.) d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

If the function f(x) = x+2 is given the values x = {1, 2, 3 ,...} then its range will be {3,4,5, ...}

x f(x)
or domain or range
1 3
2 4
3 5
4 6
5 7

…
x x+2
Figure 1. Example of an algebraic range.

Sandra took 7 mathematics tests. Her scores are listed below What is the range of her test scores?
89, 73, 84, 91, 87, 77, 94
Ordering the test scores from greatest to least, we get: 94, 91, 89, 87, 84, 77, 73
The difference between the highest and lowest score: 94 - 73 = 21
The range of these test scores is 21 points.
Figure 2. Example of a statistical range.

In science, range also has several meanings, such as (a) an open region over which
animals (as livestock) may roam and feed, (b) a series of mountains, (c) the horizontal dis-
tance to which a projectile can be propelled, (d) the horizontal distance between a weapon
and target, (e) a sequence, series, or scale between limits as in a wide range of patterns in
nature, as well as (f) the “difference between the least and greatest values of an attribute
or of the variable of a frequency distribution ” (Merriam-Webster, n. d.). It is no wonder
that students are confused. Of course, the word range has a number of meanings in areas
other than science or mathematics to further confuse students such as in music (distance
between the lowest and highest notes of an instrument or voice) or the culinary arts (the
kitchen range). This must be especially confusing for English Language Learner (ELL)
students. What is a student to do? What is a teacher to do?

Correlated Science and Mathematics Dictionary

As the CSM team plans ongoing professional development, confusing words continue
to be identified by both instructors and participating grades 5-8 science and mathemat-
ics teacher teams. Collecting those words and compiling a CSM Identifying Confusing Sci-
ence and Mathematics Words Dictionary seemed a logical endeavor to help both teachers
and students clarify the meaning of terms. Following is a sample of synonyms and homo-
phones/homonyms that have been identified in the CSM research. Sample words that have
the same or comparable meaning in science and mathematics, called shared vocabulary,
are also included.

7 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Twenty
Confusing
Ways to Teach
Language
Vocbulary
(cont’d(cont’
.) d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

Synonyms
Synonyms are defined as words that have the same or similar meaning. Merriam-
Webster Dictionary (n.d.) defines them formally as “one of two or more words or expressions
of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses”
or “a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something” (n.p.). A sample of
synonyms from the CSM planning and teaching sessions has been identified (see Figure 3).

Meaning Science Mathematics

the length and direction of a straight line displacement distance

drawn from the start to finish

having the same value or elements on equilibrium balanced

both sides of the process or equation

the result when values in a list are added average mean

and the sum is divided by the number of
values added

an object cannot be folded or rotated in asymmetry no symmetry

such a way that it overlays itself

an object may be folded along a line such bilateral reflective/line

that the shapes on either side of the line symmetry
exactly overlay each other

an object may be rotated such that it radial rotational

exactly overlays itself symmetry symmetry

Figure 3. Sample of synonyms in science and mathematics.

Homophones/Homonyms
Homophones, or homonyms, are generally thought of as words that sound alike, but
have a different meaning. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n. d.) defines them as “one of two
or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning” (n. p.). Some of the
homophones that the CSM team has identified include the following (see Figure 4):

8 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Twenty
Confusing
Ways to Teach
Language
Vocbulary
(cont’d(cont’
.) d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

Word/Term Science Mathematics

Arrow symbol vector Ray or vector

()
constant variable that is kept the same value that does not change, but can be
throughout the types of represented by a letter
investigations called
comparative or experimental

distance actual length measured of a shortest length between two points

particular path taken, may
consist of several line
segments

regular shaped a formula can be used to
object (Ex cube) determine area or volume,
such as finding the volume of
a triangular prism or a
cylinder
a polygon with all sides congruent and
angles congruent or a three dimensional
solid with faces that are all congruent
regular polygons and all angles
congruent

simple something that is not difficult direct variation, or a relationship

relationship to work or understand between two variables in which one is a
constant multiple of the other, i. e. there
is a constant ratio between 2 quantities, y
= kx

vertical / vertical up and down, as opposed to angles opposite one another at the
angles horizontal intersection of two lines

period 3 numbers in place value between

commas in a list of whole numbers, such
as in 123,456,789, the numbers 456 are
in the thousand’s period
or
having a graph that repeats after a fixed
interval (period) of the independent
variable

Figure 4. Sample of homophones in science and mathematics.

9 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Confusing Language (cont’d.)

Shared Vocabulary
While many words are used differently in mathematics and science, science and
mathematics also share a common vocabulary (see Figure 5). That is, several words have
the same or similar definition in both science and mathematics. For example, co-linear
means lying on the same line in both science and mathematics.

Word/Term Meaning is the same in both Science & Mathematics

co-linear lying on the same line

order of operations Rules that determine the order in which operations should be
performed

perpendicular Meeting at or forming a 90o angle

radian A unit for measuring angles

square a parallelogram with all sides congruent and all angles

congruent
or
value with an exponent of two, n2

theorem statement that can be mathematically proven (not to be

confused with a theory)

Figure 5. Sample of words with common meanings in science and mathematics.

Recognition of Confusing Language by National Mathematics Standards

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) realizes the difficulty that
students have deciphering between everyday or natural language and content specific
language in mathematics. To address this difficulty, NCTM suggests that teachers make a
conscious effort to help students with confusing words. According to NCTM:

Teachers can help students see that some words that are used in everyday language, such as similar,
factor, area, or function, are used in mathematics with different or more-precise meanings. This
observation is the foundation for understanding the concepts of mathematical definitions. It is
important to give students experiences that help them appreciate the power and precision of
mathematical language. (NCTM, 2000, p. 63)

This disconnect between natural language and content specific language is especially
apparent in an algebra class. Driscoll (1999) identifies the ability to model real situations
mathematically as one of the central purposes for algebra. Therefore, the capacity to
translate from natural language to algebraic expression is crucial. Helping students to

10 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Confusing Language (cont’d.)

bridge this disconnect requires each teacher dominant medium through which these
to have a depth of knowledge and concep- subjects are taught” (p. 81).
tual understanding of the content to enable
students to build their academic vocabulary. Implications
The implications for not identifying
Recommendations for Academic Vocabu- and addressing this problem of confusing
lary Building language in science and mathematics are
Marzano and Pickering (2005) sup- enormous. Students in the United States
port the need for background knowledge and have historically not scored as well as de-
claim that intensive vocabulary development sired on international tests such as Trends
is critical for all learners, especially in sci- in International Mathematics and Science
ence and mathematics. They also support Study (TIMSS) (National Center for Educa-
the need to focus on the different meanings tion Statistics [NCES], 2009) and the Pro-
of the words, such as in science and gram for International Student Assessment
mathematics: (NCES, 2009). Making sense of science and
mathematics vocabulary is an important
Teaching specific terms in a specific way is piece of the puzzle to which science and
probably the strongest action a teacher can mathematics educators and students must
take to ensure that students have the academic attend since improving academic vocabulary
background knowledge they need to under- is such a critical component of improving
stand the content they will encounter in school. student performance. Without a clear un-
When all the teachers in a school focus on the derstanding of the meanings of words when
same academic vocabulary and teach it in the in class, students’ understandings of the
same way, the school has a powerful compre- content being taught can be very different
hensive approach. When all teachers in a dis- from what the teacher intended. Students’
trict embrace and use the approach, it becomes initial ideas and beliefs must be identified
even more powerful. and clarified rather than ignored (National
(Marzano & Pickering, 2005, p. 1) Research Council, 2000, p. 10).

Marzano (2003) also proposes that A Caveat

students’ ability to learn specific content can
be profoundly affected by the use of direct
instruction in teaching vocabulary that is
specific to the academic content. However,
this does not mean that teachers should
emphasize rote memorization of definitions.
Instead, students should elaborate on the
meanings of words. Likewise, Lemke (1988)
emphasizes the role that language plays in
the understanding of specific content. He
states “educators have begun to realize that
the mastery of academic subjects is the
mastery of their specialized patterns of
language use, and that language is the
We are not suggesting a focus on
building unnecessary vocabulary instruc-
tion. The national science standards, Na-
tional Science Education Standards, and the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) Science for All Americans and
Benchmarks for Science Literacy (BSL) are
clear about the proper place for vocabulary
in science and mathematics education. For
example, the AAAS explicitly focuses on
deemphasizing memorizing technical vocab-
ulary. According to the AAAS:

11 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Confusing Language (cont’d.)
Understanding rather than vocabulary should
be the main purpose of science teaching.
However, unambiguous terminology is also
important in scientific communication and—
ultimately—for understanding. If teachers
introduce technical terms only as needed to
clarify thinking and promote effective commu-
nication, then students will gradually build a
functional vocabulary that will survive beyond
the next test. For teachers to concentrate on
vocabulary, however, is to detract from science
as a process, to put learning for understand-
ing in jeopardy, and to risk being misled about
what students have learned.
(AAAS, 1989, p. 203)
We are not suggesting drilling on
vocabulary definitions. Many recommen-
dations focus on conceptual understand-
ing instead of rote memorization of defini-
tions. Facts and formulas are important in
mathematics and science, but memorizing
vocabulary or mathematics tables does little
to explain or make sense of the concepts
behind them. Without a deep cognitive
understanding, knowledge is easily forgot-
ten. True understanding involves a much
deeper approach to learning about concepts,
and this takes time. Effective teachers teach
topics in greater depth in order to deepen
student understanding (Barber, Parizeau,
& Bergman, 2002). This requires a careful
review of materials to ensure that important
knowledge is selected and taught as recom-
mended by AAAS in Science for All Ameri-
cans (SFAA) and referred to in (BSL), rather
than a laundry list of vocabulary words:
SFAA uses only those technical terms that
scientists believed ought to be part of every
adult’s vocabulary. The clear purpose was to
free teachers from spending most of their time
and energy teaching science vocabulary and let
them concentrate on teaching meaningful sci-
12 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
ence. The pressure to cover the curriculum and
test the students often leads people – teachers,
administrators, test makers and parents – to
be willing to accept the glib use of technical
terms as evidence of understanding. Students
will soon forget all of those technical words
anyway. Few adults can confidently distinguish
between revolve and rotate, reflect and refract,
meiosis and mitosis, mass and weight, orders
and families, igneous and metamorphic rocks,
nimbus and cumulus clouds, mitochrondria
and ribosomes. (AAAS, 1993, p. 312)
Yet, a problem with emphasizing un-
necessary academic vocabulary still exists,
particularly with state and district assess-
ments that focus on vocabulary. Instead,
the CSM team is encouraging district sci-
ence and mathematics teachers, instruc-
tional specialists, coordinators and admin-
istrators to become aware of this issue of
confusing language between science and
mathematics and to address this serious
problem for our students. Equally impor-
tant is that state and national assessment
leaders and policymakers have a similar
understanding of this issue and the rami-
fications for our nation’s quest to improve
STEM education.
Our Purpose
The purpose of this article is to alert
science and mathematics teachers and other
STEM stakeholders to the profound effect
that confusing language between science
and mathematics has on students’ under-
standing of each discipline. However, the
value is not in identifying and sharing what
the CSM team and others have discovered.
More importantly, science and mathematics
teachers and their students should discover
and clarify confusing language for them-
selves through rich conversations. Teach-
ers can have these rich conversations only if
April 2011
 Confusing Language (cont’d.)

the administration provides adequate daily team planning time. Subsequently, similar rich
conversations should occur in classrooms among students and teachers.

An Invitation to Contribute
We will continue to compile a list of confusing words as we discover them. We invite
you to share any confusing words that you identify with us, and we will make them avail-
able to everyone. Please send the words you identify as confusing to Dr. Sandra West at
sw04@txstate.edu.
References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Author. (2006). The Texas Science Teacher.

Barber, J., Parizeau, N., & Bergman, L. (2002). Spark your child’s success in math and science. Berkeley, CA: The
Regents of the University of California.

Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers grades 6-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Homophone. (n. d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophone

Lemke, J. (1988). Genres, semantics, and classroom education. Linguistics and Education 1, 81-99.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher’s manual. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2009). Comparing TIMSS with NAEP and PISA in
mathematics and science. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

13 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Confusing Language (cont’d.)

Range. (n. d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/range

Synonym. (n. d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym

Sandra S. West is an Associate Professor of Biology at Texas

State University – San Marcos who teaches science and science
methods courses for teachers, supervises science and mathematics
student teachers, and whose research interests include integrated
science and mathematics, safety and inquiry.

Sandra T. Browning is an Assistant Professor at the University of

Houston-Clear Lake. She teaches mathematics methods courses for
teachers and is the coordinator of graduate interns in curriculum and
instruction. Her research interests include integrated science and
mathematics, teacher efficacy, and classroom questioning strategies.

Authors’ Note

This research was support in part by grants from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Space
Grant Consortium and the Fund for Improvement of Undergraduate Education with additional funding from
Texas State University- San Marcos and the University of Houston – Clear Lake.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sandra S. West, Department of Biology, Texas
State University, San Marcos, TX, 78666.
E-mail: sw04@txstate.edu

14 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Enhancing Science Knowledge Through Proven
Instructional Strategies
by Gloria Gresham, et. al.
M any elementary teachers are
challenged to fit science into their daily
schedules partially due to reading and math
expectations reiterated in the No Child Left
Behind Act’s goal of all students perform-
ing at or above grade level by the year 2014
(ED.gov, 2008). Oftentimes, in an effort to
meet accountability expectations, elemen-
tary teachers concentrate on reading and
math instruction and find that they are left
with precious little time to devote to science.
Moreover, numerous teachers in elementary
schools discover learning science content
challenging for students because the vocab-
ulary of science is more specialized with new
words being frequently introduced through-
out the text (Baer & Nourie, 1993; Ediger,
2002). The faculty of an elementary campus
in East Texas was no different in that teach-
ers found the teaching of science a constant
challenge. For these instructors, a conse-
quence of their reading and math focus was
that their state standardized test scores in
science, the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAKS), were lower than reading and
mathematics scores. In fact, science TAKS
scores had prevented the campus from
performing above the “Acceptable” level on
the Texas accountability ranking system for
several years.
After much discussion, the teachers
decided to attack this concern by engag-
ing the assistance of three local university
professors. First, the professors facilitated a
review of current literature relating to effec-
tive instructional strategies and the teach-
ing of science. Through the review, teach-
ers gained knowledge of the importance of
inquiry learning, of using vocabulary and
comprehension strategies to boost reading,
15 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
of employing a method for releasing cogni-
tive responsibility to students, and of how
to engage students in science learning in a
meaningful way.
In examining research on inquiry
learning, the teachers discovered that in-
quiry is the foundation of science instruction
because learning science requires students
to intellectually and physically interact with
and question content while the instructor
moderates the process through “…explana-
tions, clarifications, and examinations…”
(Hammerman, 2006. p. xxv). Teachers also
found that “Teaching Standard A” of the Na-
tional Science Education Standards (1996)
expected them to deliver an inquiry-based
science program and assess the learning
strategies to ascertain student development
of science knowledge. A proven inquiry plan-
ning model was analyzed, the 5 E Learn-
ing Cycle Model, which included a five-step
lesson delivery approach: Engagement,
Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and
Evaluation (Coe, 2001). Engagement referred
to an object, event, or question to engage
students and connecting to what students
know and can do. Exploration employed
hands-on activities with teacher guidance.
The Explanation phase consisted of students
explaining concepts learned in Exploration,
and the teacher introducing new concepts
and clarifying concepts. Elaboration was the
step where students applied learning. Final-
ly, Evaluation included students assessing
their own knowledge as well as the teacher
assessing knowledge gained.
In their review of vocabulary and read-
ing instructional strategies, teachers discov-
ered that since reading capacity affects stu-
dents’ grasp of science content, systematic
April 2011
 Twenty
Enhancing
WaysScience
to Teach
Knowledge
Vocbulary(cont’
(cont’dd.).)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)
and explicit vocabulary instruction is one of
the most important instructional interven-
tions teachers can employ to aide student
understanding (Marzano, Pickering, & Pol-
lock, 2006). In a similar manner, compre-
hension is enhanced through implementing
modeling strategies and graphic organizers.
Shared reading, echo reading, choral read-
ing, and paired reading are modeling strate-
gies teachers can employ to assist readers
with challenging material (Carbo, 1997).
Shared reading involves the teacher plac-
ing text in front of students, reading while
pointing to the words, and pausing to ask
questions. Echo reading, according to Carbo
(1997), is when the teacher discusses a
passage and reads the text aloud while the
students follow along in the text. Then, the
teacher reads a small portion of the text,
and students read it back. Choral reading
includes reading a passage in unison, and
paired reading is when two students take
turns reading a passage. When students are
fluent and can read with little support, they
engage in independent or silent reading.
It was discovered that responding to
reading assists students in constructing
meaning and comprehending text. Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock (2006) found that us-
ing non-linguistic organizers and identifying
similarities and differences increases stu-
dent performance. Reading and then writing
about what one reads also promotes critical-
thinking and conceptual understanding
(Baker, et al., 2004; Wallace, Hand, & Prain,
2004). More importantly for this study in
particular, the teachers found that requir-
ing students to complete various writing
exercises, such as exploratory writing, field
notes, description, and written discussion of
experiments, are critical elements of inquiry
learning and science instruction (Ryan and
Walking-Woman 2000).
16 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
The next review of literature involved
examining the concept of releasing or trans-
ferring cognitive responsibility for learning
from teacher to student. According to the
Pearson and Gallagher model, the respon-
sibility for completing a task follows this
sequence: (1) teacher responsibility, (2) joint
responsibility between the teacher and stu-
dents, and (3) student responsibility (1983).
Diehl (2008) defined this release of respon-
sibility, “from outer control to inner control”
(p. 1). It is the outer control to inner control
that allows students to become independent
learners.
Because active intellectual and physi-
cal engagement is critical to learning, teach-
ers also reviewed what experts said about
social interaction and learning. They found
that Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning is
embedded in social interaction. Vygotsky
believed that a student’s learning is inter-
psychological; meaning is gained through
interaction with others. Schlechty (2001)
described this collaboration or affiliation as
displayed by interaction from instructor to
student, student to instructor, and student
to student (2001). When considering both
the importance of social learning and the
Gradual Release of Responsibility Model,
teachers detected that collaborative work is
a method of gradually releasing responsi-
bility. To release responsibility was viewed
by the teachers as a process, moving from
a teacher-directed whole group lesson, to
small group participation, to partner work,
and finally to the individual. Small group
interaction, in particular, provides an av-
enue for greater participation, feedback, and
mutual construction of meaning when com-
pared to whole-group participation (Evertson
& Emmer, 2009).
...Continued on Page 18.
April 2011
 Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

Region 4’s Gateways to Biology is a year-long instructional

program utilizing a less-is-more approach that maximizes
opportunity for student learning of the specific concepts and
processes mandated by the 2010 TEKS for Biology. This
instructional resource features a full-color student edition
organized around thematic units within a spiraling curriculum.

More than 50% of the instructional time is hands-on

experiences, making learning fun and interesting for today’s
students. In addition, research-based literacy strategies are
embedded to help meet the needs of the struggling reader.

The included Gateways to Biology teacher resource CD features—

• Reproducible masters for • TEKS correlation chart
classroom activities and
laboratory investigations • Five curriculum-based
assessments
• Microscope slide jpeg files
• EOC simulation
• Lesson plan calendar

Teacher comments from the pilot

testing of Gateways to Biology:
“Gateways to Biology engages students
and keeps them active. It makes them more
responsible for their own learning.”

“Gateways to Biology gives students lifelong

skills to help throughout high school.”

“I like what it offers. I like the hands-on

spiraling approach. It’s what science
needs to be . . . ”
Aligned
For customized professional development and to the
large-quantity orders, contact science@esc4.net 2010 TE
or order online at www.region4store.com. KS!
Teacher Edition: 460-1505 Student Edition: 460-1506

STAAR™ versions of Gateways to Science for grades 3–8 are now available for preorder by
contacting science@esc4.net. Chemistry and Physics editions are currently in development.
707154
17 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011
 Twenty
Enhancing
WaysScience
to Teach
Knowledge
Vocbulary(cont’
(cont’dd.).)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)
As the teachers synthesized findings
from the literature review, they crafted a
plan of attack. Since the district required
implementation of a curriculum aligned to
the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) that outlined units of study, the
teachers decided to build on this curricu-
lum and focus on a structured planning
approach that included information from
the literature review. Their solution was to
create and employ a five-day planning and
instruction model titled the Science Con-
tent Weekly Planning Model (see Figure 1),
reminiscent of the 5 E Learning Cycle Model.
This new model would include specific read-
ing and writing strategies, a schedule to im-
plement the concept of the gradual release of
responsibility, and specially designed forma-
tive and summative assessments. For ex-
ample, each week of instruction ended with
a short, TAKS-formatted practice and elimi-
nated the test preparation “drill and kill” ac-
tivities that had revealed little success in the
past. In addition, a new type of assessment
was added that required students to reflect
upon their findings and synthesize results.
Weekly, teachers focused on one par-
ticular standard of the TEKS outlined in
the district’s aligned curriculum four to five
week unit of study. Each day of the week
had specific purposes and instructional
strategies intended to foster inquiry learning
and comprehension of science knowledge.
Teachers believed this consistency would
provide structure, and, that over time, stu-
dents would gradually learn the purpose for
each day’s instruction as well as how that
day was an important part of the overall
plan.
Day One
This day’s intent was setting the
week’s objective, engaging attention, con-
18 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
ducting a field investigation, debriefing, and
transferring learning. The objective was stat-
ed in “student-friendly” terms, formally writ-
ten, and posted for the week. For example,
the objective for the fourth grade TEKS, 5 (C)
“compare and contrast a variety of mixtures
and solutions such as rocks in sand, sand
in water, or sugar in water” might look like
this, “You will learn what the word mixture
means and tell how a variety of mixtures are
alike and how they are different.” Following
the discussion of the week’s purpose, the
teachers assessed student prior knowledge
relating to the upcoming field investigation
by implementing a graphic organizer such
as a Circle Map. A Circle Map is one of eight
Thinking Maps® used to define what stu-
dents know (Hyerle, 1996).
Next, an inquiry-based field investiga-
tion relating to the content was introduced
to students as a problem to solve (National
Science Education Standards, 1996). In
teams, students noted the stated problem in
their science journals, crafted and applied
their hypotheses, recorded results, and then
composed conclusions. Teachers served as
guides to assist and clarify understanding
as small groups of students completed their
investigation. For example, when students
studied mixtures, the stated problem was
to determine how to separate sand from
iron filings in a closed, glass tube. Students
actively engaged in solving this problem and
were “thrown” into the content, the field in-
vestigation, prior to formal instruction over
vocabulary. The science class ended with
teachers questioning students about their
learning as a formative assessment provid-
ing a foundation for the transfer of learning
to the next day (Sousa, 2006).
April 2011
 Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont’d.)

Figure 1. Science Content Weekly Planning Model

Science Content Weekly Planning Model

Set the

S
Week’s
Objective/
Purpose

DAY TWO
DAY ONE
1. Access Prior
1. Access Prior
Knowledge
Knowledge
2. Vocabulary Instruction
2. Present Problem to
Solve 3. Content Reading
(Shared, Echo, Choral,
3. Field Investigation
Paired, Independent)
Using Scientific Method
4. Responding to Text
4. Reflection/Transfer/
with Graphic Organizers
Formative Assessment
5.Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment

DAY THREE
1. Access Prior
Knowledge DAY FOUR
2. Explicit, Engaging 1. Access Prior
Instruction Knowledge
3. Team Inquiry 2. Individually Work the
Activities Text
4. Partner Application 3. Reflection/Transfer/
Activities Formative Assessment
5. Reflection/Transfer/
Formative Assessment

DAY FIVE
1. Summative
Assessment
a. TAKS-
formatted Gloria Gresham
questions Work: PO Box 13018, SFA Station
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
(5 to 10)
936 468 1751
b. Scenario Essay Home: 3919 Timberwood Drive
Nacogdoches, TX 75965
936 560 9221

19 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Twenty
Enhancing
WaysScience
to Teach
Knowledge
Vocbulary(cont’
(cont’dd.).)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

Day Two
First, teachers used graphic organizers or posed questions to access and review con-
tent learned from the previous day (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2006). Next was a text
connection to the previous day’s field investigation. Students would spend time in learning
the meanings of the vocabulary introduced during the previous day’s field investigation.
During vocabulary instruction, teachers implemented strategies for vocabulary building,
as well as content reading and writing connections. Vocabulary strategies implemented
such as Word Charts required students to craft definitions, define characteristics, and list
examples and non-examples of each term. Then, content reading strategies were employed
to provide a way for students to “work” expository text relating to the field investigation
content. Since not all students were instructionally ready to read grade level text, teach-
ers provided opportunities for less able readers to see effective reading being modeled. The
strategies were chosen were based on the needs of the students.

Students who needed some support worked in pairs while independent, fluent read-
ers worked alone. Teachers met individually and in small groups with readers requiring
more reading support. Moving from strategy one, shared reading, to strategy five, silent/
independent reading, each strategy required increasingly more reading independence of
students and less modeling by teachers (Carbo, 1997). As the year progressed, all of the fol-
lowing strategies were utilized.

1. Shared Reading – The teacher read the story while “pointing out” key words and pausing
to ask questions.
2. Echo Reading – The teacher read aloud a small portion of the text, and the students
read the same portion back to the teacher.
3. Choral Reading –The teacher and students read a passage in unison.
4. Paired Reading – Two students alternated reading a passage. The teacher paired a more
able reader with a less able reader.
5. Silent/Independent Reading – Each student read alone.

Two types of formative assessment of student work were employed. First, students
completed graphic organizers in their science journals in response to readings. Text struc-
ture determined which type of thinking was required and which type of organizer was ap-
propriate. Eight different organizers called Thinking Maps® (Hyerle, 1996) plus Venn Dia-
grams were used during the year (see Figure 2).

20 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont’d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

Figure 2. Responding to Text Through Graphic Organizers

The first graphic organizer shown in this photograph is a Venn
Diagram. The student responded to text and compared and
contrasted a conductor to an insulator. In the second graphic
organizer, a Circle Map, the student defined an electric circuit.

After students completed the graphic organizer, they reflected on their learning for
the day by answering questions such as, “What was learned?” and writing in their science
journals (see Figure 3).

The graphic organizer and reflection provided daily formative assessment of student
understanding. Finally, the day’s lesson closed by previewing the next day’s content.

Figure 3. Displaying Learning Through a Tree Map

Shown is a Tree Map. The student constructed her
interpretation of this graphic organizer as needed to
display what she learned during the lesson.

21 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont’d.)
Day Three
Teachers opened Day Three with in-
struction that purposefully activated knowl-
edge acquired in Day One and Day Two,
explicitly filling in needed content or clearing
up any misconceptions. PowerPoint pre-
sentations, demonstrations, and video clips
were utilized for instructional input as well
as reinforcement. On Day Three, the focus
of the lesson was on the concept of cogni-
tive responsibility gradually shifting from
teacher to students (Pearson and Gallagher,
1983). First, students worked in teams to
construct knowledge through engaging in,
inquiry-based group activities. One such
activity was learning the difference between
inherited and learned behaviors through a
scenario concerning horse behaviors and
physical traits. Next, to continue the process
of releasing more cognitive responsibility,
students were paired and engaged in other
application activities to rehearse content.
The class ended with teachers asking stu-
dents to individually reflect upon what was
learned, thus providing formative assess-
ment. As a result of these activities on Day
Three, students rehearsed content through
whole group, small group, partner format,
and finally individual reflection, thereby
following the process of gradually releasing
cognitive responsibility from whole group
instruction by the teacher to individual stu-
dent reflection.
Day Four
The cognitive shift of responsibil-
ity continued on Day Four. After activating
students’ knowledge of the previous day’s
content, students responded orally to ques-
tions that required closed (one-answer) and
open-ended responses (more than one an-
swer). Individually, students engaged with
text passages that were previously read on
Tuesday and supported answers with evi-
22 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
dence from the text. The intent was to pro-
vide students with rehearsal so they would
have additional opportunities to retain con-
tent (Sousa, 2006). The role of the teachers
in this strategy was to guide and support.
Next, students engaged in a writing activity
that provided connection to content. Teach-
ers assigned one of the following as a writing
activity, summary, gist, main idea, or three
facts learned, and charged students with the
task of reflecting upon the week’s content
in their science journal. These opportuni-
ties provided the teachers with an additional
means of formative assessment prior to the
next day’s formal, summative assessment.
The class concluded with students reviewing
the day’s learning and teachers previewing
the events of the next day.
Day Five
The final step in the Science content
Model Planning Model was a formal, sum-
mative assessment involving two types of as-
sessment items: application-level, multiple-
choice questions and a written assessment
(Khatri, Reeve, & Kane, 1998). The short,
multi-choice questions were developed to
mirror the format of the state standardized,
fifth grade science exam (TAKS). The short
answer written assessment consisted of a
scenario that required students to think crit-
ically and synthesize what they had learned
during the week.
Evidence of Success
The Science Content Weekly Plan-
ning Model was instrumental in focusing
instruction on science at the elementary
level and in implementing proven instruc-
tional strategies that led to academic suc-
cess and science knowledge gain. At the end
of the second year of implementation, the
campus achieved the rating of Recognized,
the intended goal. Even more exciting was
April 2011
 Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont’d.)

the change in attitude toward science that students exhibited. The teachers reported that
students were eager to walk into the room; “You could see it in their eyes when they graced
the door,” exclaimed one teacher. Observations revealed that during science class, stu-
dents were actively engaged, responsible for their learning, and worked cooperatively. One
example of this success in science was shown by a student identified for special education
services. Previously, the student had never passed any state examination. Over the course
of the year, the student began to raise his hand to answer questions and participated in
all group and individual work. His special education teacher asked his teacher what he
was doing to inspire the student. The special education teacher noticed a marked, positive
change in the student’s retention capacity and learning attitude. When the state science as-
sessment results were received, this student passed!

In addition, responses by the teachers involved in The Science Content Weekly Plan-
ning Model revealed that the model was easy to implement because it provided more a
consistent structure of daily activities and simplified planning. Students and teachers knew
what was expected and focused learning on identified state curriculum standards. Included
in the Model are proven instructional strategies that emphasize students constructing sci-
ence knowledge through an inquiry approach.

Authors’ Biographical Information

Gloria Gresham is an associate professor in the Department of Secondary

Education and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University.
She has served as a teacher, administrator, and university professor.

Linda Black is an assistant professor in the Department of Secondary Educa-

tion and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University. She is
very involved in Advanced Placement in Texas.

Alan Sowards is a professor in the Department of Elementary Education at

Stephen F. Austin State University. He is a well-known and utilized consultant
in the area of elementary science instruction.

Kimberly Welsh is an assistant professor in the Department of Elementary

Education at Stephen F. Austin State University. Her area of expertise is read-
ing.

Ken Dickerson is presently an assistant principal at McMichael Middle

School in Nacogdoches Independent School District (NISD). He has served
as a fourth and fifth grade teacher in NISD.

23 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Enhancing Science Knowledge (cont’d.)

References

Baker, W. P., Barstack, R., Clark, D., Hull, E., & Goodman, B. et al. (2008). Writing-to-learn in the inquiry-science classroom: Effective
strategies from middle school science and writing teachers. Clearing House, 81(3), 105-108.

Baer, G. T., & Nourie, B. L. (1993). Strategies for teaching reading in the content areas. Clearing House, 67(2), 121-122.

Carbo, M. (1997). What every principal should know about teaching reading. New York: National Reading Institute.

Coe, M. A. (2001). The 5 E learning cycle model. Retrieved from

http://faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/inquire/inquiry.htm

Ediger, M. (20020. Factors which make reading expository text difficult. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 312-317.

ED.gov. (2008). Differentiated accountability: A more nuanced system to better target resources. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet.html

Evertson, C. M. & Emmer, E. T. (2009). Classroom management for elementary teachers (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hamerman, E. (2006). Eight essentials of inquiry-based science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Khattri, N., Reeve, A. L., & Kane, M. B. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (20060. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student
achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Standard A. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344.

Ryan, P., & Walking-Woman, I. (2000). Linking writing to the process of scientific inquiry: Strategies from writing teachers in the disciplines.
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education. ERIC Doc. Rep. No. ED458655.

Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Thinking Maps®. (2009) Thinking Maps, Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.thinkingmaps.com/index.htm

Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. , and Prain. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.

24 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Science-Fair Scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth Area Independent
School Districts
by Ramesh S. Hegde, Ph.D.
Abstract
In an effort to glean insights into the Dal-
las Region Science and Engineering Fair (DRSEF)
participation from Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area
independent school districts (ISDs) as a measure of
student interest and competitiveness in Secondary Sci-
ence Education (grades 7 – 12), a research analysis of
12 years of DRSEF data (1999 - 2010) was undertak-
en, with specific focus on the most recent 4-year data
(2007 - 2010). Plano ISD, with 11.7% of the total an-
nual student enrollment share of the area ISDs, leads
the pack with 46.9% share of the total projects partici-
pating at the DRSEF and a participation index (PI)
of 402, indicating a more-than-four-times the average
likelihood of participation at the competitive event.
Coppell ISD with only 2.3% of the student enroll-
ment share had a participation index of 322. Among
the 13 major ISDs included in the analysis, Dallas
ISD with the largest student enrollment (30% of total)
ranked a distant 8th (PI = 60) and Garland ISD with
the second-largest (12.6%) student enrollment ranked
7th (PI = 70) in DRSEF participation index. Interest-
ingly, Plano ISD, with the highest number of projects
entering DRSEF in both Physical and Life sciences
categories, had higher number of project entries in the
Physical sciences category than in Life sciences cat-
egory. By contrast, Dallas, Garland and McKinney,
three other ISDs with significant number of partici-
pating projects, had more projects in Life sciences cat-
egory than in Physical sciences. The findings reported
here have significant educational (science education, in
particular) and community implications in the DFW
metropolis.
 
Introduction
Another year of Elementary and Sec-
ondary Schools Science Fair competitions
has gone by for the Independent School
Districts (ISDs) in DFW metroplex. As is
well known, participants compete in several
science-subject categories at their schools,
first. The winners then advance to the dis-
25 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
trict level and from there go to regional, state
and international level competitions. With
hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake in
scholarships and awards, the competition at
this event is intense and at the highest level
can be termed as Science Olympiad for pre-
teens and teens.
Speaking of teens competing in
Science, let us look at some facts as they
relate to Science literacy of U.S. students in
the international context. In a recent inter-
national exam – Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA), 2006 - that is
supposed to assess the ability of 15-year-
olds to apply Math and Science knowledge in
real-life situation, students from the United
states ranked 21st among the 30 countries
of the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD) that were part
of this competitive assessment (1). Results
from the study showed that U.S. students
scored lower than the OECD average and
that they lagged behind their peers in 6 of
the 27 non-OECD countries in Science lit-
eracy (1, 2). Although there are differing
opinions among experts on the validity of
this study, results nevertheless support the
notion that all is not well with the Science
Education in the United States; perhaps
there is either a declining interest in Science
education among U.S. students or quality of
Science education in the nation, something
which is not easy to measure, has been de-
teriorating.
Another report (3) also provides sup-
porting evidence that even though overall
enrollment in Science and Technology (S&T)
fields increased in the last 15 years, the rel-
ative share of S&T enrollment has declined.
The policy report also pointed out that the
April 2011
 Twenty
Science-Fair
Ways to Teach
Scorecard
Vocbulary
(cont’(cont’
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)
existing statistical data are not adequate for
measuring and analyzing the levels of stu-
dent interest. With this backdrop, the cur-
rent study was undertaken with the follow-
ing objectives:
• To analyze the recent trends in Dallas
Regional Science and Engineering Fair
(DRSEF) participation, as a measure of
interest/competitiveness in science edu-
cation, at the junior (grades 7 & 8) and
senior (grades 9 – 12) divisions of DFW
area ISDs of public-school system, char-
ter schools and other private institutions
• To share the case-study analytical find-
ings with the science coordinators and/
or administrators of ISDs so that with the
supporting evidence they have of their
level of Science-fair participation vis-à-vis
their peers they can make an informed
decision on improving their science edu-
cation
• To publicize the results of the case study
so that legislators and policy makers at
the State-level and administrators of ISDs
devise ways for maintaining (wherever
ISDs have an edge over others) and/or
improving Science education in ISDs
Definitions of Metrics/Analytical
Techniques
• Average or Mean – arithmetic average of
the data included in the study or analysis
• Data normalization – is a technique
that allows data in different scales to be
brought to a common scale with the ap-
plication of a mathematical or statistical
operation so that the data can be com-
pared and valid conclusions drawn.
• Participation per thousand (PPT) = (num-
ber of participating projects/students
enrolled)*1000.
26 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
d.) d.)
• Participation Index (PI) = (share of sci-
ence-fair participation as % total/share
of student enrollment as % of total)*100.
Indexing is a data normalization tech-
nique that helps make “apples-to-apples”
comparison of various ISDs on their level
of participation. An index of 100 indicates
average participation. Participation index
of >100 (over-indexing) is above-average
participation and <100 is below-average
participation (under-indexing).
Data and Analytical Methodology
DRSEF comprises 20 Dallas-area
cities registered to exhibit projects
(http://www.dallassciencefair.org/about/).
Data from DRSEF at the individual and sci-
ence-category level were obtained from the
Fair President, Dr. Simon Dalley of Southern
Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX (4).
Using the data at this stage of the science-
fair competitions allows us to compare the
participation from and competitiveness of
different independent school districts,
charter schools and other private schools
from 20 cities of DFW Metroplex that make
up the Dallas regional-level competition.
DRSEF data collected were aggregated to
three levels - ISD, division and science-
category - for comparative purposes.
Longer-horizon participation data (1999 –
2010, 12-year period) was available only
for senior-division; junior-division partici-
pation data was available for only the last
four years (2007 – 2010). Most of the trend
analyses and ISD comparisons (junior vs.
senior divisions and physical vs. life cat-
egories), therefore, were focused on 2007 –
2010 data. Annual student-enrollment data
were obtained from Texas Education Agency
(TEA), Austin, TX (5). The two data ele-
ments – science-fair participation data and
student-enrollment data – were used in
April 2011
 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

the computation of metrics (see metrics definitions above) so that valid comparisons of ISDs
could be made both at the division level and science-category level.

Analytical Findings
Overall senior-division science-fair participation trends (1999 – 2010)
The long-term trend on science-fair participation at the senior-division level is pre-
sented in Fig. 1. Although substantial year-to-year variation is discernible (blue line), there
is a declining trend (red trend line) in general. Average number of project entries in the
DRSEF senior division in the last six years (2005-2010) was 14% lower than that in the
prior six years (1999-2004), while the average student enrollment increased 17% (Fig. 2)
between 1999 and 2009 academic years.

Fig. 1. Total Senior Division (Grades 9-12) Projects Participating in Dallas

Regional Science Fair, 1999 - 2010
500

450
y = 1.5382x2 - 28.853x + 460.98
Number of Projects Participating

400 R² = 0.6153

350

300

250

200

150

100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
432 392 396 375 404 307 329 357 291 294 372 332
Projects

Fig. 2. Total Students Enrolled in ISDs around D/FW Metroplex,

Grades 9 - 12, 1999 - 2009
Senior Division Students Enrolled

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Students
103,18 101,88 112,10 113,27 118,54 126,75 126,88 132,39 134,56 136,93 137,12
Enrolled

NB: DRSEF data for 2010 in Fig 1 above corresponds to academic-year student
enrollment data for 2009 in Fig 2 and so on.

27 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

The declining numbers of senior-level projects observed above can be explained, at

least in part, by the significant reduction in DRSEF participation from two large ISDs, Rich-
ardson and Irving. Participation from other new ISDs such as Coppell, McKinney, Frisco,
Cedar Hill, De Soto and Lancaster in the last four years was not enough to offset the declin-
ing trend. Evidently, the decline in participation at DRSEF is even steeper at the junior-
level (trend data not available; Dr. S. Dalley, personal communication).

ISDs’ participation trends by division in the last four years (2007 – 2010)
Plano ISD has consistently had the lion’s share of projects participating in DRSEF in
both junior and senior divisions, followed by Dallas ISD (Table 1). It is important to note
that Coppell and McKinney ISDs have steadily increased their share of participating proj-
ects at DRSEF over the last four years, surpassing Garland ISD in the last two years. Also
significant to note is that Dallas ISD whose participation at the fair has been decreasing
since 2007 has rebounded back in 2010, with a total of 113 projects, majority of which
(65%) was at the junior-division.

Table 1. Number of Science Project Entries by Division at the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering
Fair (2007 - 2010).
2007 2008 2009 2010

Total- Total- Total- Total-

School District Junior Senior 2007 Junior Senior 2008 Junior Senior 2009 Junior Senior 2010
Allen ISD 6 1 7 11 2 13 10 1 11 6 1 7
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 20 14 34 12 16 28 4 17 21 4 21 25
Cedar Hill ISD 0 0 0 3 2 5 6 11 17 8 9 17
Coppell ISD 12 15 27 24 14 38 29 27 56 27 23 50
Dallas Diocese 9 21 30 0 21 21 4 16 20 0 0 0
Dallas ISD 69 51 120 58 49 107 38 40 78 73 40 113
De Soto ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0
Frisco ISD 0 0 0 11 0 11 10 1 11 9 1 10
Garland ISD 39 21 60 27 24 51 17 33 50 16 26 42
Harmony Science Academy (Charter) 19 20 39 12 19 31 18 28 46 13 18 31
Irving ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
Kemp ISD 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancaster ISD 0 8 8 0 13 13 2 5 7 8 8 16
McKinney ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 57 0 57
Mesquite ISD 22 9 31 12 0 12 9 0 9 4 2 6
Plano ISD 137 126 263 119 118 237 130 170 300 134 149 283
Richardson ISD 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 3 3 0 10 10
Waxahachie ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2
Other* 7 4 11 3 7 10 4 7 11 17 22 39
Grand Total 340 291 631 292 294 586 328 372 700 376 332 708

* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specific or otherwise)

28 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)
Lessons on Caring (cont’d.)

ISDs’ participation trends by science-category in the last three years (2007 – 2010)
Table 2 shows the most recent 4-year DFW area-ISDs participation trend in Physi-
cal vs. Life Sciences categories. Plano ISD, with the highest number of projects entering
DRSEF in both Physical and Life sciences categories, had higher number of project entries
in the Physical sciences category than in Life sciences category. By contrast, Dallas,
Garland and McKinney, three other ISDs with significant number of participating projects –
had more projects in Life sciences category than in Physical sciences. Coppell ISD partici-
pation was more evenly spread between the two science categories, except in 2009.

Table 2. Number of Science Project Entries by Category at the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair
(2007 - 2010).

2007 2008 2009 2010

Total- Total- Total- Total-

School District Life Physical 2007 Life Physical 2008 Life Physical 2009 Life Physical 2010
Allen ISD 3 4 7 6 7 13 5 6 11 3 4 7
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 14 20 34 6 22 28 9 12 21 9 16 25
Cedar Hill ISD 0 0 0 2 3 5 11 6 17 13 4 17
Coppell ISD 13 14 27 19 19 38 31 25 56 23 27 50
Dallas Diocese 16 14 30 19 2 21 9 11 20 0 0 0
Dallas ISD 84 36 120 69 38 107 46 32 78 68 45 113
De Soto ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 9 0 0 0
Frisco ISD 0 0 0 6 5 11 2 9 11 4 6 10
Garland ISD 38 22 60 31 20 51 29 21 50 29 13 42
Harmony Science Academy (Charter) 19 20 39 12 19 31 17 29 46 16 15 31
Irving ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
Kemp ISD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancaster ISD 4 4 8 11 2 13 3 4 7 9 7 16
McKinney ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 17 47 32 25 57
Mesquite ISD 14 17 31 5 7 12 2 7 9 3 3 6
Plano ISD 119 144 263 108 129 237 135 165 300 126 157 283
Richardson ISD 0 0 0 5 4 9 3 0 3 7 3 10
Waxahachie ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2
Other* 5 6 11 5 5 10 10 1 11 21 18 39
Grand Total 330 301 631 304 282 586 348 352 700 364 344 708

* Includes Home School System and Private Schools (county-specific or otherwise)

29 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)

ISDs’ participation relative to student enrollment in the last four years (2007 – 2010)
Among the major ISDs in the DFW Metroplex (Table 3), Plano ISD, with a share of
11.7% of the student enrollment had not only had the highest number of projects partici-
pating at the DRSEF (46.9% of total) but also the highest number of participation per 1000
students enrolled (11.61 PPT) in grades 7 – 12 that make up the combined junior and se-
nior divisions of the Dallas regional-level competition. Dallas ISD accounted for 2nd high-
est number of participating projects, on an average, but ranks 8th in PPT, although it ranks
first (30.0%) among the DFW area ISDs in the percent share of student enrollment.

Computation of a metric called Participation Index (PI) by normalizing the participa-

tion data with the student enrollment data (see definition above), allows us to compare the
DRSEF participation of various ISDs on the same scale. Therefore, PI is a true reflection of
ISD participation at the competitive DRSEF. Note that PI of 100 is an average participation;
>100 is above-average, whereas <100 is below-average. Comparing the ISDs on this met-
ric, it is evident that Plano ISD had the highest PI of 402 (over four times more likely than
average in science-fair participation) followed by Coppell ISD (PI = 322, with 2.3% of the
student-enrollment share), Lancaster ISD (PI = 143, with 1.3% of the student-enrollment
share) and McKinney ISD (PI = 103 with 4.3% of total student enrollment) – the only four
ISDs with above-average likelihood of DRSEF participation (Table 3). Among the 13 major
ISDs included in the analysis, Dallas ISD with the largest student enrollment share - nearly
a third of the total - ranked a distant 8th (PI = 60) and Garland ISD with the second-largest
(12.6%) student enrollment ranked 7th (PI = 70), both with a below-average DRSEF partici-
pation.

Table 3. Comparison of Major ISDs in DFW Metroplex on Student Enrollment and Science-fair
Participation Metrics (Combined Junior & Senior Division) over 2007 – 2010 period

Average Average Projects

Annual Share of Project % Total per 1000
Student Student Entries Participating Students Participation
School District Enrollment Enrollment Per Year Projects Enrolled Index
Plano ISD 23,320 11.7% 271 46.9% 11.61 402
Coppell ISD 4,594 2.3% 43 7.4% 9.31 322
Lancaster ISD 2,656 1.3% 11 1.9% 4.14 143
McKinney ISD 8,635 4.3% 26 4.5% 2.98 103
Cedar Hill ISD 3,817 1.9% 10 1.7% 2.55 88
Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD 11,223 5.6% 27 4.7% 2.41 83
Garland ISD 25,117 12.6% 51 8.8% 2.02 70
Dallas ISD 59,858 30.0% 104 18.1% 1.74 60
Allen ISD 7,299 3.7% 10 1.6% 1.30 45
Mesquite ISD 16,507 8.3% 15 2.5% 0.88 30
Frisco ISD 8,814 4.4% 5 0.9% 0.60 21
Richardson ISD 14,651 7.3% 6 1.0% 0.38 13
Irving ISD 13,336 6.7% 1 0.1% 0.04 1

30 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)
Conclusion
If this study provides some supporting
evidence to the widely prevailing perception
that student-interest in science education
in the United States may be declining, then
there is a need to explore the subject further
and understand what factors might be con-
tributing to this decline. Based on the body
of knowledge available to us so far (1, 2, 3)
and current public and policy discussions/
debate happening on Science issues around
the country, it appears that a variety of fac-
tors – demographic, cultural and/or social
- contributing either directly or acting in
concert with other factors, may be responsi-
ble for the not-so-good state of affairs in the
nation’s science education today:
• Science curriculum
• An environment where the teaching of
Science and Math may be perceived as
burdensome
• Quality of teachers and science teaching
• Challenges in federal funding of educa-
tion relative to other priorities
• Value placed by the general public on
education vs. athletics
In spite of the prior evidence (1, 2, 3)
and findings of this study suggesting that
there has been a declining interest among
U.S. students in science education, it is
heartening to note that at least one of the
contributing factors listed above may be
changing for the better – funding for educa-
tion, in general, and science education, in
particular. President Obama has promised
to increase funding for Science education.
Similar to honoring winning athletes at the
White House, President Obama hosted a
White House Science Fair, the first ever,
on Oct 18, 2010, that fulfills his promise of
Educate to Innovate campaign he launched
31 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1
in Nov 2009 to inspire boys and girls to excel
in math and science. This is a welcome step,
however symbolic it may be, in the Federal
government’s efforts to accord science the
respect and the place it deserves and in
boosting the morale of all those who are in-
terested in working towards the betterment
of science education in the United States.
In addition to the immediate implica-
tions of this study to the science education
of DFW-area ISDs, what are the benefits of
this study to society at large? An increased
participation in science fair not only stimu-
lates student interest in scientific inquiry
and experimentation, but it also promotes
(a) public awareness about current science
issues and (b) a two-way dialogue and de-
bate between scientists and society at the
local level (6).
What can we do to promote DRSEF
participation?
• Schools (science teachers) need to publi-
cize better and reinforce the importance
of student participation in science fairs,
especially at the high-school level
• Make participation in science fairs or sci-
ence research projects mandatory
• Offer extra credit to students for partici-
pation in science fairs or science research
projects
• Have award winners at the science fair
share their project findings and participa-
tion experiences at school general assem-
bly – at their own schools as well as other
area schools
• Encourage scientists engaged in research
at the local universities and/or research
institutes to share their scientific activi-
ties and/or act as mentors to budding
scientists at schools
April 2011
 Science-Fair Scorecard (cont’d.)

• Build and facilitate a culture of shared learning and interaction among area ISDs as
it relates to science-fair competition, science education and scientific investigation at
school level

Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Simon Dalley of SMU and Texas
Education Agency for providing the DRSEF data and student enrollment data respectively.

References

Dr. Simon Dalley, DRSEF Chair Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX. Participating Junior and Senior
Division Projects data. Personal Communication, 2009 and 2010.

National Center for Education Statistics, 2007. Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old
Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context.
http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016 [Web release Dec 4,
2007; accessed 1/15/2010].

OECD Global Science Forum. 2008. Report from a workshop on Improving the Dialogue with Society on
Scientific Issues, September 17-18, 2008 Paris, France. Retrieved February 10th, 2011 from
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/1/41019441.pdf

OECD, 2006. Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies - Policy Report. Retrieved
February 10th, 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf

OECD, 2009. Top of the Class – High Performers in Science in PISA 2006. Retrieved February 10th, 2011
from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdf

Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX. 2009. ISDs Student Enrollment Data, 1999 - 2009.

Ramesh Hegde has a Ph.D. in Crop Science from University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MBA in Marketing from
the University of Texas at Dallas. He has 15 years of research
experience in the area of Plant and Environmental Sciences. He
has been actively involved in judging for over 10 years in Plano
District and Dallas Regional science fairs.

32 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011

 The Publication of the
Science Teachers Association of Texas
Solicits Manuscripts

The Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT) publishes two periodicals: TheStatellite and
The Texas Science Teacher.

• Statellite is the association’s newsletter with information and news from the STAT officers, as well as STAT
The

Affiliates and Regional Directors. It contains continuing educational opportunites for science teachers, in-
novative science activites, and other items of interest.

• The Texas Science Teacher is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers pertinent to science education from
all fields of science and science teaching. Contributions can be research articles, research notes, book reviews,
and essays of general scientific interest.

For Both Publications:

All submitted material must be a significant original contribution not being considered elsewhere for publi-
cation. Inform the editor if material included in the article is published on the web, as excessive duplication
should be avoided and adequate links must be established. All manuscripts must be written in English.

Send an electronic copy of your manuscript to:

The
Statellite Editor at stat@bizaustin.rr.com
Dr. Joel Palmer, The Texas Science Teacher Editor at jpalmer59@gmail.com

Include in the e-mail the author name(s), current e-mail and physical address(es), and a contact phone
number. Indicate the publication for which the manuscript is submitted. Two referees (reviewers) and the edi-
tor review all manuscripts. You will receive communication of original receipt and then of completed reviews.
Submissions for both publications should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Asso-
ciation, Fifth Edition.

Guidelines - The submission guidelines on-line: http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teach-

er/tst-guidelines

Upon Acceptance - Return the edited manuscript as soon as possible as an e-mail attachment to the editor.
The manuscript must be returned in strict adherence to the instructions you receive with your manuscript.

Tables and Figures - All tables must be separate files in Microsoft Word format. All images must be
separate files in .jpg, .psd, .ai, or other standard format. The file name of each table or figure must relate to
its place in the document (e.g. Figure 1.jpg). If submitting picture, they must be accompanied by a sepa-
rate file, including a caption and the source (i.e. the name of the photographer and/or the image copyright
owner) for each image.

33 The Texas Science Teacher • Volume 40, Number 1 April 2011