the european science fairs evaluation framework – pilot study · science fairs affiliated to the...
TRANSCRIPT
The European Science Fairs Evaluation Framework – pilot studyAn Intel & EUN initiative.
September 2013
Authors ÀguedaGras-Velázquez,JonK.Price,PřemyslVelek,MichałDzoga&IzaPastuszynska
Collaborators CarolineBergaud,SaraPasquali,EmmaBluck,MichelaSaputi
Formoreinformationonthereport,pleasecontactDrÀguedaGras-Velázquez([email protected])
orIzabelaK.Pastuszynska([email protected]).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Executive summary
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Inthisreportwepresentandanalysethedata obtainedfromthepilotevaluationoffourEuropeansciencefairs.Theaimoftheevaluationexercisewastoshowthedatathatcanbeobtainedfromtheevaluationtooldeveloped.TheevaluationtoolisplannedtobeadministeredinallIntel-affiliatedfairsandprovideusefuldataforanalysis,ensuringcross-countryandcross-yearcomparability.
Thestudents’andteachers’datafromthefourfairswerecombinedandareprovidedintableorgraphformatinseparatesections,withshortdescriptionsandhighlightsforeachgraph.Asahelpingsimpletool,averagestatisticalprofilesofparticipatingstudentsandteachersareprovidedattheendofeachdatasection.Thesestatisticalprofilescanbeascomprehensiveasisrequired.
Attheendofthereport,amoredetailedanalysisof thestudents’andteachers’dataispresentedtogetherwithsomeconclusions,whilethedataforeachfairisprovided inaseparatereportperfair.
Main findings from students
• Theyarenewcomers(butloyaltyeffect).
• Malepredominance.
• Genderdifferencesintheprojectareas,withmales’interestsplitbetweenscienceandtechnology&engineering,whilewomenfocusmainlyonscience.
• Abalancebetweenindividualandteamprojects.
• Hardwork(highdegreeofstudentcommitmentto theprojects).
• Greaterconfidenceinidentifyingproblems,findingsolutionsandhowtousethescientificmethodorevenhadfuninthefair.
• Improvementincommunicatingandteamskills(studentsfindmanyvaluesinparticipation).
• Difficultiesingettingholdofmaterialsandequipment,aswellascarryingoutthedifferentstepsinthescientificmethod(facing andovercomingthesedifficultiesresultsin “anincreaseinconfidence”).
• Internshipsfor20%oftheparticipants(afurthershow ofcommitment).
• Essentialfactorsforsuccess:creativityandcommunicationskills,followedbyintelligence.Collaborationandleadershipcameinlast.
• Gendereffectinpersonaltraits:intelligenceis theoneskillwheretherewasalargerthan15%genderdifference.
• Voluntaryparticipationfor80%students.Theywereequallyinfluencedbytheteacher(s).(Bigteacherinfluence.)
• Satisfactionfor90%oftheparticipants.(Thismakes thefairsaneducationalsuccess.)
Main findings from teachers
• Slightgender(female)predominance.
• Longteachingexperience,over10yearsfor36% andover20yearsfor40%.
• Repeatschoolparticipationfor66%oftheschools. (Goodreceptivityofthefairsamongschools).
• Evenhigherteacherrepetition:notthefirstfairfor75%ofthem.(Thismaybeduetoteachers’permanencein agivenschool).
• Largestudents/teacherratio:75%bringupto10. (Highteachercommitmentwiththefairs).
• Teachers’areas:Science(38%),nextEngineering(19%). (Thefigurescorrelatewiththetopicsinthestudents’projects).
• SupervisedprojectsarepredominantinScience;TechnologyandEngineeringaresimilar.(Variedcharacteroftheschoolsactivities).
• Out-of-schoolactivitiesfor50%ofthestudents.They arenotin21%schools.(Studentsmakeextraefforts toparticipateinthesefairs).
• Voluntarytutoringfor99%oftheteachersand aschoolcoordinatorexistsin60%schools.(This indicatesafeltneedaswellasaguarantee ofsuccess).
5
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Executive summary
• TheprojectclearlylinkedwiththenationalSTEMcurriculumin40%ofthecases.(So,eithertheprojectshaveabroaderaimthanthecurriculum,oritisnoteasytodevelopsufficientlyinterestingprojectsbykeepinginsidethecurriculumboundaries).
• Schoolsupportforparticipationinthefairin75%of thecases.55%supportfromcolleagues,parentsandexperts.Leastsupportcomesfromlocalauthorities,localmediaoreventheNationalMinistryofEducation.(Thoseitemsrequiremoreeffortfromthefairandschoolmanagement).
• Mostusefulsupportcomesfrommentorsorscienceexpertsaswellastheschoolmanagement(60and46%,respectively).
• Students’personaltraitsforsuccessarecreativity,communicationskillsandintelligence(50%).Collaboration,scientificliteracyandworkethicareconsideredonlyin25%oftheanswers.Thecapacityofleadershipwasnotconsidered.(Itwouldbeinterestingtoanalysetheseresultsinmoredetailinthefuture).
• Mainreasonforteachers’commitment:“Mystudents”(94%)andprestige(74%).Lessimportant:theprospectofpromotion(29%),andtheeffectsoftheircolleagues
(43%).(Theseanswersmayhelpindesigningfutureannouncementsandrulesforthedevelopmentoffairs).
• Inquiry-basedmethodologychangesfrom25%to35%. For2/3oftheparticipatingteacherstheuseofIBSME(Inquiry-BasedScienceandMathematicsEducation)isstillanunknownfactorintheteachingequation.(ThustheScienceFairinitiativehelpstoimprovingschooleducationasregardsthenecessarytransformationandupdatingofteachers’methodologies,sothatthestudents’educationisimprovedintermsoftransferableknowledge,skillsandcompetences).
• 86%oftheteachersaresatisfiedandwouldrepeattutoring.(Thisisaremarkableresultofthewholeprogrammeand,inconjunctionwithstudents’opinions,onemayconcludethatbothforteachersandstudents,participatinginthesciencefairsisanenjoyableandpositiveeducationalexperience).
Overallthekeymessagesarethat70%ofthestudentsthatparticipateinsciencefairsareafterwardsmorelikelytoconsiderstudyingaSTEMdegree;65%ofthestudentsafterparticipatinginasciencefairaremorelikelytoconsideraSTEMcareerandmorethan80%oftheteachersconsideredtheyhadlearntalotthroughparticipatingin thesciencefair,thusfindingsciencefairsaneffectivewayofobtainingprofessionaldevelopment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executivesummary. ......................................................................................................................................3
TableofContents ............................................................................................................................................6
Listoftables ...............................................................................................................................................7
Listoffigures .............................................................................................................................................8
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................10
EvaluationMethodology ..........................................................................................................................12
Questionnaires .......................................................................................................................................14
Likertscalesandstatisticalanalysis............................................................................................16
Overallresults .................................................................................................................................................18
Students’ questionnaires ..........................................................................................................................20
Teachers’ questionnaires ...................................................................................................................30
AnalysisandConclusions..........................................................................................................................41
OpenDiscussionandFuturework ......................................................................................................45
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................47
Science Fairs – teachers’ questionnaire ....................................................................................47
Science Fairs – students’ questionnaire ....................................................................................53
List of tables
7
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Table1:Aspectsevaluatedineachsectionofthestudents’(SQ) andteachers’(TQ)questionnaires ....................................................................................................................................15
Table2:Likertscale&Redefinedscalesforanalysis ............................................................................................17
Table3:Numberofrespondentstothequestionnairesperevent ...............................................................19
Table4:RatioofScientific to Technological to Engineering to Maths projectsbygenderandaverage ........................................................................................................................................23
Table5:Usefulnessofvarioussourcesofprojectsupport(students) ........................................................26
Table6:Mostessentialcontributionstotheproject’ssuccess(students) ................................................27
LISTOFTABLES
List of figures
8
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Figure1:Ageofrespondents(students) ......................................................................................................................21
Figure2:Gendersplitamongtherespondents(students) .................................................................................21
Figure3:Numberofparticipationsinasciencefairincludingthepresentone(students) .............22
Figure4:Majorfocusoftheprojects(students) ......................................................................................................22
Figure5:Majorfocusoftheprojectsdependingongender(students) ......................................................22
Figure6:Individualversusteamparticipationinthefair(students) ............................................................23
Figure7:Timespentondevelopingtheproject(students) ...............................................................................23
Figure8:Timepreparingthedisplayandthepresentationoftheproject(students) .......................24
Figure9:Participationinanafter-schoolscienceclub,programmeoractivity(students) ..............24
Figure10:Agreementwithdifferentstatements(students) ...........................................................................24
Figure11:Advantagesofdoingasciencefairproject(students) ..................................................................25
Figure12:Difficultiesencountered(students) .........................................................................................................25
Figure13:Participationininternshipsrelatedtotheproject(students) ...................................................26
Figure14:Isitcompulsoryintheschooltodoasciencefairproject?(students) ................................27
Figure15:Factorsinfluencingthedecisiontocompeteinthesciencefair(students) .....................28
Figure16:Willingnesstorepeatasciencefairandrecommendtheexperience(students) ..........28
Figure17:Averageparticipantprofile(students) ...................................................................................................29
Figure18:Gendersplitamongparticipants(teachers) ........................................................................................31
Figure19:Yearsofteachingexperience(teachers) ..............................................................................................31
Figure20:Highestdegreeheld(teachers) ..................................................................................................................32
Figure21:Numberofschoolparticipationsinthefair(teachers) .................................................................32
Figure22:Numberofstudentsfromtheirschoolswhoarecompeting(teachers) .............................32
Figure23:Firsttimeparticipantsinfairs(Yes)versusrepeatparticipants (No)(teachers) .............................................................................................................................................................................33
Figure24:Mainsubjecttaught(teachers) ...................................................................................................................33
Figure25:Mainfocusoftheprojectssupervised(teachers)............................................................................33
LISTOFFIGURES
List of figures
9
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Figure26:Schoolswherethestudentsparticipatedinafter-schoolscienceclubs, etc.(teachers) ...............................................................................................................................................................................34
Figure27:Schoolswhere8)itiscompulsorytoparticipateinscience fairsand9)thereisapersoninchargeoftheparticipation(teachers) ......................................................34
Figure28:Itwaseasytointegratethecompetitionwiththecurricula(teachers) .............................34
Figure29:Impactofparticipatinginthesciencefairsonbothteachers andstudents(teachers) .........................................................................................................................................................35
Figure30:Advantagesofdoingasciencefairprojectoveraregular scienceclass(teachers) ..........................................................................................................................................................36
Figure31:Difficultiesencounteredinpreparingaprojectandparticipating inthefair(teachers). .................................................................................................................................................................36
Figure32:Difficultiesstudentsfoundinactivitiesincarryingoutaproject andparticipatinginafair(teachers). ................................................................................................................................37
Figure33:Supportobtainedfromdifferentpeopleororganizations(teachers)....................................37
Figure34:Organizationsorpeoplethatwereinstrumentaltocarryingout thestudents’projects(teachers). ......................................................................................................................................38
Figure35:Essentialissuescontributingtothesuccessofstudents’sciencefair projects(teachers). .....................................................................................................................................................................38
Figure36:Factorsorpeoplethatinfluencedthedecisiontoleadparticipants inthefairandmadethetaskeasier(teachers). ........................................................................................................39
Figure37:UseofIBSMEbeforethesciencefairandafterwards(teachers). ...........................................39
Figure38:Wouldyousuperviseaprojectforasciencefairagain?(teachers). .......................................39
Figure39:InterestinbecomingaScienceFairAmbassadorfortheircountry(teachers). ...............40
Figure40:Averageparticipantprofile(teachers). ....................................................................................................40
INTRODUCTION
11
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
InthisreportwepresentandanalysethedataobtainedfromthepilotevaluationoffourEuropeanScienceFairs.Theaimoftheevaluationexercisewastoshowthedatathatcanbeobtainedfromtheevaluationtooldeveloped.TheevaluationtoolisplannedtobeadministeredinallsciencefairsaffiliatedtotheIntelInternationalScienceandEngineeringFairs(IntelISEF)andprovideusefuldataforanalysis,ensuringcross-countryandcross-yearcomparability.
ThebasicideasbehindthevaluationmethodologyandstrategyforitswidespreadinfairsacrossEuropeare
discussedinGras-Velázquez,À.,Price,J.K.,Velek,P.,Dzoga,M.&Pastuszynska,I.K.(2013):Designing a Science Fair Evaluation Strategy: The European Model.
Herewejustprovidetheminimuminformationrequiredtobeabletofollowtherestofthereport.Thedatacontainedin the students’ and teachers’ questionnaires are listed in twoseparatesectionsingraphortabularform,followedbyadetailedanalysisandconclusions.Thefullcontentsofthestudents’andteachers’questionnairesaregiveninanappendix.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
13
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Evaluation methodology
EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY
Theevaluationofthesciencefairswasfocusedonthreeaspectsinrelationtotwotargetgroups:studentsandscienceteachers.Thethreemainaspectsofthefairsthatwereevaluatedareimpact,supportandsustainability.Theaimswerethefollowing:
• Impact–Theeffectofparticipatinginsciencefairsonstudents and teachers.
• Support–Thehelpreceivedforparticipatinginsciencefairs(students)orfortutoringstudents’scienceprojects(teachers).
• Sustainability–Themotivationofstudentsandteacherstoparticipateinsciencefairs.
Weexploredthosethreeaspectsbydevelopingtwoquestionnaires(oneforteachersandaseparateoneforstudents,seeAppendix)tobefilledinbytheparticipantsatthefiveselectedsciencefairs.
QUESTIONNAIRES
15
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Questionnaires
QUESTIONNAIRES
Theitemsinbothquestionnaires(forstudentsandteachers)aredividedintoseparatesectionsinorderto
obtaininformationaboutthevariousitemsofinterest,asshowninTable1.
ThequestionnaireitemsmentionedinSection1providetheusualdemographicdatathatservethepurposeofcharacterizingthesampleofstudentsandteacherswhoparticipatedinthefivesciencefairsthathavebeenevaluated.
TheparticularcomponentsinvestigatedinSection2(Impact)ofthestudentquestionnaireincludestudents’(self-assessed)knowledge,skillsandattitudetowardsscience,theirlearningexperience,andtheirmotivationtostudyscienceandchooseacareerinscience.Section2intheteachers’questionnaireadditionallycontainsquestionsregardingtheeducationalvalueoftheirstudent’sparticipation,andtheimpactthatthesciencefairhadontheirschoolandontheirteachingpractice.
Section3(Support)aimstoidentifyproblematicorchallengingaspects(e.g.funding,accesstomaterialsandequipment)ofthoseparticipatinginsciencefairsfromthepointofviewofbothstudentsandteachers;andhowandbywhomtheyweresupportedtoovercomethem.
Section4(Sustainability)focusesonthemotivatinganddiscouraging(intrinsicandextrinsic)factorsforstudentsandteacherstoparticipateinsciencefairs.Theteachers’questionnairealsocontainsitemsoninquiry-basedteachingandthepossiblerolethatsciencefairsmayplayinpromotingit.
The questions contained in the teachers’ and students’ questionnairesarepresentedinunambiguous,jargon-freestatementswithaFlesch-Kincaidreadability. Gradelevelis7.3forthestudents’questionnaire,suitableforGrades7–8(i.e.12–14yearsold),and8.4fortheteachers’questionnaire.Additionally,exceptinthecaseofthefewopen-endedquestionsincluded,allthequestionshadalimitedrangeofanswers,eitherintheformofaLikert-typescale,asamultiple-choice orasasingle-choicequestion.WeshallgiveafewmoredetailsabouttheLikertscalesandtheiranalysisin thefollowingsection.Insomeitems,respondentscouldaddadditionalcommentsorexplanatoryremarks totheiranswers.
TABLE 1: ASPECTS EVALUATED IN EACH SECTION OF THE STUDENTS’ (SQ) AND TEACHERS’ (TQ) QUESTIONNAIRES.
SECTIONITEMS IN...
TO OBTAIN DATA ON THE...SQ TQ
1 1-7 1-10 Demographic dataandotherbasiccharacteristicsofparticipants.
216-20 22-27
Impactofsciencefairsontheparticipants.8-9 11-12
3 10-13 13-17 Supportreceivedbytheparticipants.
4 14-15 18-21 Sustainabilityandmotivationofparticipantsinthesciencefair.
LIKERT SCALES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
17
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Likert scales and statistical analysis
LIKERTSCALESANDSTATISTICALANALYSIS
Asmentionedabovewehaveusedvarious4-levelLikertscalestoratethevariousoptionsprovidedinsomeanswers,seecolumn1inTable2.However,thedifferencebetweenrespondentssaying“completelyagree”orjust“agree”ishighlyinfluencedbypersonalitytraitsandthedifferencessignifylittleintermsof
statistics.Thereforefortheanalysisofdatalevels1+2and3+4havebeencombinedandredefinedasLowandHighdegreeoffulfilment,respectively(seeTable2,column2,RedefinedscaleA),or,whenevermoreappropriate,asNoandYes,respectively(seeTable2column3,RedefinedscaleB).
Concerningthestatisticalanalysisofthequestionnairedata,andasageneralcommentonthedatatobediscussedinthisreport,letusmentionthatduetotheintrinsicaccuracyofthedataobtainedfromthequestionnaires,whichis
roughlywithinthe±10%range,weshallonlysingleoutgenderdifferencesorotherdifferencesinanyoftheitemscontained in the students’ and teachers’ questionnaires whenthesedifferencesarelargerthanabout15%.
TABLE 2: LIKERT SCALE & REDEFINED SCALES FOR ANALYSIS.
LIKERT SCALEREDEFINED SCALE
A B
1–Notatall/VerydifficultLow No
2-
3-High Yes
4–Completelyagree
OVERALL RESULTS
19
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Overall results
OVERALLRESULTS
Therespondentsofthequestionnaireswereparticipants–studentsandtheirteachers(tutors)–attheselectedsciencefairs.Intotal,129teachersand464students
completedthequestionnaires.ThebreakdownpersciencefairisindicatedinTable3.
TheeventsinPortugalandtheCzechRepublicwerenationalevents,whiletheeventintheNetherlandswasinternational.TheHungarianevent,whilenational,includedHungarianexpatcommunitieslivinginother
countrieslikeSerbia.Throughouttheremainingof thereport,wewillrefertotheeventsbythecountrywheretheywerehosted,regardlessofthenationality oftheparticipants.
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES PER EVENT.
NAME OF EVENT LOCATION STUDENTS TEACHERS
ConcursoJovensCientistaseInvestigadores Portugal 114 37
TheInternationalEnvironment&SustainabilityOlympiad(INESPO)
Netherlands 78 2
Ifjúságitudományosésinnovációstehetségkutatóverseny Hungary 51 16
Středoškolskáodbornáčinnost CzechRepublic 221 74
Totals 464 129
STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRES
21
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
STUDENTS’QUESTIONNAIRES
The464studentswhofilledinthesciencefairsstudent’squestionnaireweremostlybetween15and20yearsofage,withanaverageageofover17year,
Figure1.Asplitof~40%womenversus60%menisalsoobserved(seeFigure2).
Figure1:Ageofrespondents(students).
Figure2:Gendersplitamongtherespondents(students).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
>21212019181716151413121110<10
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%1%
6%
12%
24%
29%
23%
3%
1% 1%
Female41%
Male57%
Not answered2%
22
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Althoughmoststudentswerenewcomers(72%oftheparticipantswereparticipatingintherespectivefairfor
thefirsttime)asignificant10%hadbeentothreeormoreofthesefairs(Figure3).
ScienceandTechnologywerethemostcommontopicsoftheparticipants’projects(~80%,seeFigure4)withMathsbeinglessthan5%.Still,sciencetopics
predominatebyafactorofthreeovertechnologyprojectsandafactorofalmostfouroverengineeringprojects.
Figure3:Numberofparticipationsinasciencefairincludingthepresentone(students)*.
Figure4:Majorfocusoftheprojects(students).
Whenthedatainthepreviousfigurearediscriminatedbygender,wefindthatfemalesfavoursciencetopicsovertechnologyorengineeringtopicsbyafactorof10
to1(seeFigure5)whereasmalesonlydo68%morescientificthantechnologicalprojects,and47%moretechnologicalthanengineeringprojects.
Figure5:Majorfocusoftheprojectsdependingongender(students)*.
*Themissing/above%infigureswherethetotalshouldbe100%,isresultofroundingthefigures.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
More than 3Overall
72% 17% 6% 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Science
Technology
Engineering
MathOverall
61% 20% 14% 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Female
Male
Overall
Science
Technology
Engineering
Math
81% 8% 7% 3%
47% 28% 19% 6%
62% 20% 14% 5%
23
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Thefollowingshowstheratiooftheprojecttopicsdiscriminatedbygender.
TABLE 4:
RATIO OF SCIENTIFIC TO TECHNOLOGICAL TO ENGINEERING TO MATHS PROJECTS BY GENDER AND AVERAGE.
GENDER RATIO OF SCIENCE TO TECHNOLOGY TO ENGINEERING TO MATHS PROJECTS
Males 1.7 1.5 3.2 1
Females 10.1 1 2.5 1
Average 3.1 1.4 2.8 1
Theoverallparticipationintheeventsappearstobesplitequallybetweenindividualprojectsandteamprojects,Figure6.
Figure6:Individualversusteamparticipationinthefair(students).
Analysingthenextthreefigurestogether:over80%oftheparticipantstookseveralmonthstodeveloptheproject(Figure7),whilethepresentationparttookatime
thatvariedbetweenafewhours,for17%,andaweekfor37%(Figure8).Morethanhalfoftheparticipantsattendedafter-schoolscienceactivities(Figure9).
Figure7:Timespentondevelopingtheproject(students)*.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
individual
Team
Overall
49% 51%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2-10 h
1 day
1 month
several monthsOverall
1% 13% 84%
*Themissing/above%infigureswherethetotalshouldbe100%,isresultofroundingthefigures.
24
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Figure8:Timepreparingthedisplayandthepresentationoftheproject(students).
Figure9:Participationinanafter-schoolscienceclub,programmeoractivity(students).
InFigure10weshowthepercentageofstudentswhoagreedwithdifferentstatementsontheeffectofthesciencefairsonthemselves.Thefullstatementsare:
8.1. Now,Iammoreconfidentatidentifyingproblems. 8.2. Now,Iamabletocommunicatebetter. 8.3. Now,Iambetteratteamwork. 8.4. Now,Iambetteratfindingsolutionsorcomingup withnewideas. 8.5. Ihadfuncompetinginthesciencefair.
8.6. Ilearntalotthroughcompetinginthesciencefair. 8.7. Now,Iknowmoreaboutthescientificmethod. 8.8. Now,Iammoreexcitedaboutscience. 8.9. Now,Icanseebetterhowscienceisrelevanttomy everydaylife. 8.10. Now,Iammorelikelytoconsiderstudying ascientificsubject. 8.11. Now,Iammoreattractedtotheprospectof ascientificcareer.
Figure10:Agreementwithdifferentstatements(students).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1-2 hours
3-5 hours
6-10 hours
1 day
1 week
Overall
12% 24% 10% 17% 37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Overall
54% 46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8.11. Now, I am more attracted to the prospect of a scientific career.
8.10. Now, I am more likely to consider studying a scientific subject.
8.9. Now, I can see better how science is relevant to my everyday life.
8.8. Now, I am more excited about science.
8.7. Now, I know more about the scientific method.
8.6. I learnt a lot through competing in the science fair.
8.5. I had fun competing in the science fair.
8.4. Now, I am better at finding solutions or coming up with new ideas.
8.3. Now, I am better at team work.
8.2. Now, I am able to communicate better.
8.1. Now, I am more confident at identifying problems. 79%
85%
62%
87%
87%
89%
86%
77%
76%
70%
66%
25
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Ahighpercentage,over80%,reportedanincreaseinconfidenceinidentifyingproblems,findingsolutionsandknowingmoreabouthowtousethescientificmethod,orevenhadfunparticipatinginthefair.Aslightlysmallerpercentageofthestudents,about60%,haveimprovedinteam-workingcapabilitiesorfeltmorelikelytostudyaSTEMdegree(around65%).
InFigure11weshowthepercentageofstudentswhoselectedeachofthestatementsasadvantagesofcarryingoutasciencefairproject.Themain
advantagesselected(basedonmorethan50%responses)werethepossibilityofworkingonaprojectoftheirown(64%),andhavingachancetoworkwithpeopleoutsidetheschoolwalls(58%).Themostimportantfactoristhechancetoshowtheirworktosocietyatlarge(78%).
Thefactthatnomarksareinvolvedindevelopingaprojectisonlyrelevantfor14%ofthestudents.Veryfewstudents(belowafew%)checkedthe“Idonotknow”or“Noneofthese”options.
Figure11:Advantagesofdoingasciencefairproject(students).
WeseeinFigure12that,ontheotherhand,around48%founditdifficulttogetholdofmaterialsandequipmentneededfortheproject.Atasimilarlevelofdifficultyforthestudents(40-50%)cameworkingwiththevarious
componentsofthescientificmethod(formulatingandtestinghypotheses,analysingdata,etc.).Therelativelyleastdifficultpartwastochooseatopictoworkonfortheproject(36%).
Figure12:Difficultiesencountered(students).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Don't know
None of these
You are part of a mixed group of students from various...
You get to work with people from out of school e.g....
No marks are involved
You get to work with teachers from various subjects
Mistakes allowed
You get the chance to show your work to the outside world
You feel like a real scientist working on a real project
You are the one in charge
You have a procect of your own 63%
30%
42%
78%
19%
27%
13%
58%
17%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
10.8 Displaying and communicating your project in a clear and compelling way
10.7 Drawing conclusions from project data
10.6 Analysing project data (including statistical analysis)
10.5 Testing your project hypothesis
10.4 Formulating your project hypothesis
10.3 Finding funding for the project
10.2 Getting hold of the materials and equipment needed for the project
10.1 Coming up with a topic 37%
49%
45%
47%
45%
45%
39%
39%
26
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
InTable5weshowthepercentageofstudentswhofoundtheknowledgeandexperiencereceivedfromdifferentsourcesuseful.Wehavehighlightedingreenthosepercentageshigherthan50%.TheInternetprovestobethemostsuccessfulresource,followedbythe
teacherandmentorsinthefield.Familymemberscomein4thplace.About50%findschoolclassesuseful.
Advicefrompreviousfairparticipantsandafter-schoolscienceclubsareimportantforathirdofthestudents.
TABLE 5: USEFULNESS OF VARIOUS SOURCES OF PROJECT SUPPORT (STUDENTS).
OVERALL
11.1Teacher(s) 77%
11.2Mentor/Expertinthefield 75%
11.3Afterschoolscienceclub/programme 32%
11.4Schoolclasses 48%
11.5Formersciencefairparticipantsfromyourschool 34%
11.6Internet/Onlinesupport(webpages,chats,forums) 85%
11.7Familymembers 54%
Only20%oftheparticipantsparticipatedonaverageinaninternshiprelatedtotheproject(seeFigure13).
Figure13:Participationininternshipsrelatedtotheproject(students).
AsseeninTable6,over60%ofthestudentsfeltcreativitywasthemostessentialfactor,followedbycommunicationskills(58%).Thethirdskillwouldbe
intelligence(42%).Collaboration(11%)andleadership(7%)cameinlast.Scientificliteracywasplacedatthesamelevel(about23%)asworkethic.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Overall
21% 79%
27
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
TABLE 6: MOST ESSENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROJECT’S SUCCESS (STUDENTS).
OVERALL
Intelligence 42%
Workethic 24%
Criticalthinking 37%
Communicationskills 58%
Scientificliteracy 22%
Curiosity 32%
Creativity 61%
Collaboration 11%
Leadership 7%
Whendiscriminatedbygender,thedataintheprevioustableshowthatintelligenceprovedtobetheonlyskillwheretherewasalargerthan15%differenceinresponsesbetweengenders.50%ofthemalestudentsconsideritanessentialskill,comparedto32%ofthewomen.
Overall80%ofthestudentscarriedoutthescienceprojectsonavoluntarybasis,withouttheschoolforcingthem(Figure14)butalmost80%wereinfluencedbytheteacher(s),asseeninFigure15).
Figure14:Isitcompulsoryintheschooltodoasciencefairproject?(students).
Furthermore,accordingtoFigure15,additionalfactorsthatinfluencetheparticipationofstudentsintheseprojectsaretheopportunitytodosomethingscience-relatedthatisdifferentfromwhatisdoneinschool(77%)andtheprestigeorrecognitionfromcompetinginthefair(78%),aswellasthe
opportunitytoimproveone’sapplicationtouniversity(78%).
Theinfluenceoffriendsparticipatinginthefairranksatonly30%.Itisfollowedbyparents’influence,whichisstressedin50%ofthecases.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Overall
17% 83%
28
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Figure15:Factorsinfluencingthedecisiontocompeteinthesciencefair(students).
Finally,almost90%oftheparticipantswishtorepeatandrecommendtheexperiencetoafriend(Figure16).
Onlyaround10%wouldnotparticipateinasciencefaireventagaininthefuture.
Figure16:Willingnesstorepeatasciencefairandrecommendtheexperience(students).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
14.10 The opportunity to improve my application to...
14.9 The personal attention I received from my...
14.8 The opportunity to do something science-related...
14.7 The opportunity to do a real science project like a...
14.6 My friends were competing in the science fair too
14.5 The prestige / recognition from competing in the fair
14.4 The opportunity to win prizes / awards
14.3 The opportunity to attend our national science fair
14.2 My parents
14.1 My teacher(s) 78%
50%
68%
57%
78%
30%
67%
77%
66%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
15.B Would you recommend competing in the fair to a friend?
15. Would you like to compete in a science fair again- irrespective of whether it's compulsory your school or not? 89%
91%
29
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Students’ questionnaires
Takingintoaccountonlythemajorcharacteristicsindicatedinthestudents’repliestothequestionnaires,onefindstheaveragepicturedepictedinFigure17.This
providesasimplehelpingtoolwhichcontainstheaveragestatisticalprofilesofparticipatingstudents.
Conclusion: Average students’ profile
Figure17:Averageparticipantprofile(students).
Thediagramabovecanbeeasilyexpandedtomakeitascomprehensiveasdesired,byincludingthemostsalientanswerstootheritemsinthequestionnaires.Inthisway,
cross-year,cross-countryandcross-faircomparisonsarequiteeasytomake.
72%newcomers to a fair
54%participate in after-school science activities
61%volunteer to do a Science project
50/50%Working alone or in a team
60/40%
Older than 17
Male - Femal
TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRES
31
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
TEACHERS’QUESTIONNAIRES
Theanalysisofthequestionnairesfilledin bytheteachersparticipatinginthefivescience fairsthatarereportedonhereshowsthefollowing results:
First,femaleteacherspredominateslightly,Figure18,andtheyhavealongteachingexperience,over10yearsfor36%ofthemandover20yearsfor40%.Only5%havelessthan5years’teachingexperience(Figure19).
Figure18:Gendersplitamongparticipants(teachers).
Figure19:Yearsofteachingexperience(teachers)*.
Female54%
Male46%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
<5 years
5-10 years
11-20 years
>20 years
5% 18% 36% 40%
*Themissing/above%infigureswherethetotalshouldbe100%,isresultofroundingthefigures.
32
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Teachersarealsowellqualified,withalmost75%holdingamaster’sdegree,Figure20.Thereiseven
asignificant8%ofPhDholders.
Figure20:Highestdegreeheld(teachers).
Morethan66%oftheparticipatingteachersworkinschoolsthathaveparticipatedinmorethanthree
sciencefairs,Figure21,andforonlyabout20%oftheschoolsisthistheirfirstfair.
Figure21:Numberofschoolparticipationsinthefair(teachers)*.
Almost50%oftheteachersareaccompanyingbetween1and4students,Figure22,whileatotal
of75%bringupto10.Aquarteroftheteachersarebringinginbetween11and50students.
Figure22:Numberofstudentsfromtheirschoolswhoarecompeting(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
School leaving certificate
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
DoctorateOverall
4% 14% 74% 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
More than 3
Don't know
Overall
19% 8% 7% 66% 1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1-4
5-10
11-50
More than 50
Don't know
Overall
48% 26% 23% 1% 2%
*Themissing/above%infigureswherethetotalshouldbe100%,isresultofroundingthefigures.
33
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
WeseeinFigure23thatformorethan75%oftheteachersthiswasnottheirfirstexperiencewithasciencefair.
Figure23:Firsttimeparticipantsinfairs(Yes)versusrepeatparticipants(No)(teachers).
AccordingtoFigure24thelargestgroupareScienceteachers,at38%,andthenextnumerousgroupteaches
Engineering(19%)whileTechnologycomesthirdat12%.Mathsteachersaccountfor6%.
Figure24:Mainsubjecttaught(teachers)*.
Accordingtotheaccompanyingteachers,Figure25,theratioofSciencetoTechnologytoEngineeringprojectspresentedis2.25:1.1:1.Mathsprojectsare
justafew(1%).Animportant25%oftheteachersareaccompanyingprojectsfromacombinationoftheareasmentionedabove.
Figure25:Mainfocusoftheprojectssupervised(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Overall
23% 77%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Science (Phisics, Chemistry, Biology)
Technology
Engineering
Math
A combination of the above
Overall
38% 17% 19% 1% 25%
*Themissing/above%infigureswherethetotalshouldbe100%,isresultofroundingthefigures.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Science (Phisics, Chemistry, Biology)
Technology
Engineering
Math
Other (e.g.: astronomy, informatics, languages)
Overall
38% 12% 19% 6% 24%
34
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Around45%ofthestudentsparticipatedinafter-schoolactivities,accordingtotheteachers,Figure26,whileover
25%didnotandin21%ofthecasestheseextracurricularoptionswerenotavailableintheirschools.
Figure26:Schoolswherethestudentsparticipatedinafter-schoolscienceclubs,etc.(teachers).
Itisnotcompulsoryforteachersinagivenschooltoparticipateinafairprojectin99%ofthecases,Figure27,
andtheschooldesignatesacoordinatorin60%ofthecases.
Figure27:Schoolswhere8)itiscompulsorytoparticipateinsciencefairsand9)thereisapersonincharge oftheparticipation(teachers).
ThereisaclearlinkbetweenthenationalSTEMcurriculumandthecontentsofthefairprojectsin
morethan40%ofthecases,Figure28.
Figure28:Itwaseasytointegratethecompetitionwiththecurricula(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
There is no after school science club / programme at our school
Don't know
Overall
45% 27% 21% 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
9. Is there in your school a person in charge of coordinating the participation in the science fair?
8. Is it compulsory in your school to do a science fair project? 1%
58%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Overall 42%
35
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Theteacherswerealsoaskedtoratevariousaspectsofstudents’participationinthefair.AccordingtoFigure29formorethan90%oftheteacherstheirstudentslearntalotfromparticipatingandknowmoreaboutthe
scientificmethod.Ontheotherhand,forabout53to60%,participationinthefairhashadabigimpactonthewaytheyteachandrewardedtheirstudentsforexcellenceinSTEM.
11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements now that you and your students have participated in the science fair?
Figure29:Impactofparticipatinginthesciencefairsonbothteachersandstudents(teachers).
62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
11.16 Now, those who participated in the science fair are more likely to consider studying a scientific subject
11.15 Now, those who participated in the science fair are better able to see how science is relevant to their everyday life
11.14 Now, those who participated in the science fair are more excited about science
11.13 Now, those who participated in the science fair are better communicators
11.12 Now, those who participated in the science fair are betterat teamwork
11.11 Now, those who participated in the science fair are better able to apply the scientific method
11.10 Now, those who participated in the science fair know more about the scientific method
11.9 My students learnt a lot through participating in the science fair
11.8 My students had fun participating in the science fair
11.7 Participating in the science fair has had a big impact on the way I teach
11.6 I as a teacher learnt a lot through participating in the science fair
11.5 Participating in the science fair motivated my students to pursue science, technology, engineering and maths careers
11.4 Participating in the science fair promoted project-based science in my school
11.3 Participating in the science fair promoted scientific inquiryin my school
11.2 Participating in the science fair rewarded my studentsfor excellence in STEM
11.1 Participating in the science fair encouraged my studentsto pursue excellence in STEM 77%
53%
62%
61%
72%
81%
60%
75%
94%
90%
87%
77%
89%
81%
83%
80%
36
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Theadvantagesofpartakinginasciencefairare,fortheteachers,thattheyinteractwiththeirstudentsdifferently(74%)andstudentsaremoremotivated(69%),
Figure30.Ontheotherhand,itisagoodopportunityforcollaborationacrossschoolyearsfor23%,andstudentsstartbehavinglikerealscientistsfor34%oftheteachers.
12. In your opinion, what are the advantages of doing a science fair project over regular science classes?
Figure30:Advantagesofdoingasciencefairprojectoveraregularscienceclass(teachers).
Theteachersmayexperiencesomedifficultiesinprovidingassistancetotheparticipatingstudents.Themainproblemsarefindingfundingandgettingstudentsonboard,ormaterials,andgettingexperts(about60%),Figure31,
butsupervisingstudentsinareasotherthantheteachers’areasofexpertiseisaproblemforjust26%.Only4%oftheteachersfinddifficultiesinfillinginapplicationformsforthecompetition.
Figure31:Difficultiesencounteredinpreparingaprojectandparticipatinginthefair(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Don’t know
This is a good opportunity for collaboration across school years
This is a good opportunity to engage with the outside world
This is a good opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary approach
Students start behaving like actual scientists
As a teacher, I get to interact with students in a different context
Students are the leaders of their learning
Students are more motivated 69%
43%
74%
34%
56%
65%
23%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
13.6 Supervising students whose projects were not in my area of expertise
13.5 Filling in application forms for the competition
13.4 Finding funding for the project
13.3 Getting hold of the materials and equipment needed for the project
13.2 Getting mentors / experts on the topic on board
13.1 Getting students on board 58%
50%
57%
60%
4%
26%
37
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Theteachersalsogavetheiropinionaboutwhatdifficultiesthestudentsmetinpreparingtheprojectsforthefair.Intheiropinion,Figure32,ontopofthesametwoitemsmentionedinthepreviousfigure(findingfundingandthematerialsfortheproject,bothatabout55%),teachersadd
thedifficultyforstudentstoapplythescientificmethod(at55%).Theleastdifficultylayinfillingintheformtoparticipateintheevent(difficultforonly8%),followedbythedifficultyforstudentstocommunicatetheirprojectsclearly(40%).
Figure32:Difficultiesstudentsfoundinactivitiesincarryingoutaprojectandparticipatinginafair(teachers).
Now,concerningsupportforparticipationinthefair,theschoolprovidessupportforalmost75%oftheteachers,Figure33,withsupportfromcolleagues,parentsandexpertscomingsecondatabout55%
average.Universitiesranknextat42%.Leastsupportcomesfromlocalauthorities,localmediaoreventhenationalMinistryofEducation(alloftheminthe15-22%range).
Figure33:Supportobtainedfromdifferentpeopleororganizations(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60%
14.6 Filling in application forms for the competition
14.5 Displaying and communicating their project in a clear and compelling way
14.4 Analysing project data (including statistical analysis)
14.3 Applying the scientific method
14.2 Finding funding for the project
14.1 Getting hold of the materials and equipment needed for the project 54%
56%
55%
51%
40%
8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
15.10 Universities / Research institutes / Partnerships
15.9 The Intel team
15.8 Your national Ministry of Education
15.7 Local/national science experts
15.6 Your local media
15.5 Your local authority
15.4 Mentors / Experts
15.3 Parents
15.2 Your colleagues
15.1 The senior management of your school 71%
53%
50%
57%
15%
22%
32%
17%
9%
42%
38
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Asregardstheusefulnessofthesupport,mentorsorscienceexpertsaswellastheschoolmanagementwereconsideredtobethemosteffective,withabigdifference
(60and46%,respectively),Figure34.Colleaguesandparentscomenext,athalftherelativeimportance. Theimportanceofothersourcesforsupportisbelow5%.
Figure34:Organizationsorpeoplethatwereinstrumentaltocarryingoutthestudents’projects(teachers).
Aquestionlookedintothepersonaltraitsoftheparticipatingstudentsthat,intheopinionoftheaccompanyingteachers,contributedmosttothesuccessoftheprojectundertaken.Teachersrankatabout50%ormorecreativity,
communicationskillsandintelligence,inthatorder,Figure35.Factorslikecollaboration,scientificliteracyandworkethicareconsideredoflessimportance,selectedinabout25%oftheanswers.Leadershipisnotconsideredatall.
Figure35:Essentialissuescontributingtothesuccessofstudents’sciencefairprojects(teachers).
Itisimportanttoknowthereasonswhyteachersmakethecommitmenttoorientandevenhelpstudentstoparticipateinthefair.AccordingtothedatainFigure36“Mystudents”standsoutat94%,andthe
prestigethatcomesfromthecompetition(74%).Leastimportanceisattributedtotheprospectofpromotion(29%)followedbytheeffectoftheirowncolleagues(43%).
0% 15% 30% 45% 60%
Don’t know
The Intel team
Your national Ministry of Education
Mentors / science experts
Your local media
Your local authority
Parents
Your colleagues
The senior management of your school 59%
30%
27%
4%
2%
46%
5%
2%
9%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60%
Leadership
Collaboration
Creativity
Curiosity
Scientific literacy
Communication skills
Critical thinking
Work ethic
Intelligence 48%
27%
37%
53%
25%
31%
58%
21%
0%
39
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
Figure36:Factorsorpeoplethatinfluencedthedecisiontoleadparticipantsinthefairandmadethetaskeasier(teachers).
RegardingtheextenttowhichsciencefairscontributetowardsextendingtheuseofInquiry-BasedScienceandMathematicsEducation(IBSME),asFigure37shows,participationinscience
fairsresultsina7percentagepointincreaseintheuseofinquiry-basedteaching,since28%oftheteachersalreadyuseIBSMEintheirclassesbeforeattendingthefair.
Figure37:UseofIBSMEbeforethesciencefairandafterwards(teachers).
Itisapositiveexperiencefortheteacherstosupervisestudents’projectsforthefaircompetition:86%ofthem
woulddoitagaininthefuture,Figure38.
Figure38:Wouldyousuperviseaprojectforasciencefairagain?(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
18.8 The access to labs from other organizations
18.7 The prospect of promotion
18.6 The prestige / recognition from competing in the fair
18.5 The opportunity to win prizes / awards
18.4 The opportunity to attend our national science fair
18.3 My colleagues
18.2 My students
18.1 My school principal 55%
94%
43%
70%
60%
74%
29%
47%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
21. How much do you use inquiry-based teaching in your classes nowadays?
20. Did you use inquiry-based teaching in your classes before the first time you participated in the science fairs? 28%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Overall 86%
40
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Teachers’ questionnaires
RegardingthedatainFigure39,askedwhethertheywouldbeinterestedinbecomingaScienceFairAmbassador,42%agree,26%donot,and32%didnotknowyetatthetimeofthefair.Thereasonsforthenegativeanswersweresplitequallybetween:
• Iwouldliketotryoutotheractivitiesinthefuture.• Ittookuptoomuchofmytime.• Ididn’tenjoyitasmuchasIthoughtIwould.• Ireceivedtoolittlesupport.• Itinvolvedtoomuchpaperwork.
Figure39:InterestinbecomingaScienceFairAmbassadorfortheircountry(teachers).
Takingintoaccountonlythemajorcharacteristicsindicatedintheteachers’repliestothequestionnaires,onefindstheaveragepicturedepictedinFigure40.
ThesamecommentsmadebeforeandafterFigure17,concerningtheaveragestudents’profile,alsoholdhere.
Conclusion: Average teachers’ profile
Figure40:Averageparticipantprofile(teachers).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Don't know
26% 42% 32%
2+2=
?
Female - Male54/46%
66%schools participated in 3+ fairs
74%hold Master’s degrees
58%schools have
a Fair coordinator
38%practice IBSME
86%would repeat a Fair,
as Ambassadors26%
77%teachers repeat Fair
48%bring 1-4 students
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
42
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Analysis and conclusions
ANALYSISANDCONCLUSIONS
Themainconclusionsofthepreviousoverallanalysisofthesciencefairswillbesplitinthefollowingsectionintostudents’ and teachers’ results.
Main students’ results
Newcomers: Moststudentsarefirst-timersatafair(72%).• Asignificant10%hadparticipatedinthreeormoreofthesefairs.
◊ Thisshowsanimportantloyaltyeffect.
Gender differences in the project areas:Malesfocusonscienceandengineering&technologyinequalmeasure.• Femalesfavourscientificprojectsoverallotherareas.
◊ Thislargedifferencedeservesfurtherinvestigation.
Balance: Thereisagoodnaturalbalanceinparticipationbetweenindividualprojectsandteamprojects.
◊ Thisagreeswiththespiritofthesciencefairs.
Hard work: Theparticipantsworkedhardfortheprojectstheypresented.• Forover80%ittookseveralmonthstodeveloptheprojectwhilethepresentationpartvariedbetweenafewhoursandaweek.
• Andmorethanhalfoftheparticipantsattendedafter-schoolscienceactivities.
◊ Thesefiguresshowahighdegreeofstudentcommitmenttotheprojects,sustainedovermonths,whichisanevidenteducationalandpersonaldevelopmentvaluethatoriginatesfromthesciencefaircompetition.
Greater confidence: Over80%noticedanincreaseinconfidenceinidentifyingproblems,findingsolutionsandusingthescientificmethodorevenhadfunparticipatinginthefair.• Aslightlysmallerpercentageofthestudents,about60%,haveimprovedinteam-workingcapabilitiesorfeltmorelikelytostudyaSTEMdegree(around65%).
◊ Itwouldbeofinteresttoascertainwhetherthemissing35%wereinitiallyconvincedtodoaSTEMdegree,ortheworkinthesciencefairprojectsomehowdiscouragedthem.Inthefirstcase,itmaybethatstudentsareagainststudyingaSTEMdegreeorwantedtodoitfromthestart,andparticipationinthesciencefairdidnotcontributetothis(astheywerealreadyconvincedinitially).Inthesecondcase,i.e.someonewhoisinterestedinaSTEMdegreebutafterparticipatingfeelsresearchisnotforthemandthereforetheydo
notwanttopursueaSTEMdegreeanymore,itmaybethattheyarenotawareofothercareeroptionsinSTEMthanresearch,aknowledgewhichisprovidedbyEUNprojectslikeinGenious,ideasfromwhichmightbeconsideredforinclusioninthesciencefairsprogramme.
Skills:Havingfunduringtheprojectandhavingimprovedtheircommunicationskillsstandoutaspossibleoutcomesofparticipationintheprogramme.• Themostimportantfactoristhechancetoshowtheirworktothesocietyatlarge.Otheradvantagesofcarryingoutasciencefairprojectwerethepossibilityofworkingonaprojectoftheirownandhavingachancetoworkwithpeopleoutsidetheschoolwalls.
◊ Thisshowsthatstudentsfindmanypossiblevaluesindevelopingtheseprojectsandthatgainsotherthanscientificskillsarealsoinvolved.
Difficulties: 40%ofthestudentsfounditdifficulttogetholdofmaterialsandequipmentneededfortheprojectandincarryingoutthedifferentstepsinthescientificmethod.• Therelativelyleastdifficultpartwastochooseatopictoworkon.
• Applyingthevariouscomponentsofthescientificmethod(formulatingandtestinghypothesis,analysingdata,etc.)comeatasimilarlevelofdifficultytogettingmaterialsfortheproject.
◊ Obviously,facingandovercomingthesedifficultiesresultsin“anincreaseinconfidence[in]howtousethescientificmethod”.
◊ Maybeinfuturestudiesonemightcheckhowmanyfailedattemptsstudentshavemade,thatis,whethertheprojectdevelopedwastheonefinallypresented.
Internships:20%oftheparticipantsonaveragetookpartinaninternshiprelatedtotheproject.
◊ Thisfactreinforcesthecommitmentfactormentionedabove:studentsparticipatewillinglyandaremotivatedtospendtimeontheprojectforaperiodofmonths,withouttheneedforamoreformallinklikeaninternship.
Essential factors for success: Oneofthemostinterestingresultsfoundwastheitemsparticipantsfoundessentialtothesuccessoftheirproject.Over60%oftheparticipantsfeltcreativitywasthemostessentialfactor,followedbycommunicationskills.
◊ Thethirdskillwouldbeintelligence.Collaborationandleadershipcameinlast.Scientificliteracycameoutatthesamelevel(about23%)asworkethic.
43
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Analysis and conclusions
◊ Termslikeleadership,collaborationandworkethicmaynotbetypicalingredientsofstandardschooleducation,andbelongmoretothestandardworkplaceculture.
Gender effect in personal traits:Whendiscriminatedbygender,thedatashowthatintelligenceprovedtobetheonlyskillwheretherewasalargerthan15%genderdifference.• 50%ofthemalestudentsconsideritanessentialskill,comparedtothe32%ofwomen.
◊ Thisfactdeservesfurtherconsideration.
Voluntary participation: Overall80%ofthestudentscarriedoutthescienceprojectsonavoluntarybasis.• Almost80%wereinfluencedbytheteacher(s).
◊ Theseresultsshowtheperhapsexpectedinfluenceofteachersinorientingstudents’activities,especiallytheextracurricularprojects.
Satisfaction: Almost90%oftheparticipantswishtorepeatandtorecommendtheexperiencetoafriend.
◊ Thismakesthefairsaneducationalsuccess.
Main teachers’ results
Slight gender predominance:Femaleteacherspredominateslightly.• Participantshavealongteachingexperience,above10yearsfor36%ofthemandover20yearsfor40%.Only5%havelessthan5years’teachingexperience.
◊ Contrarytothestudents’relativemalepredominance,femaleteachersareslightlymorepresentthanmalecounterparts.
Repeat school participation: Morethan66%oftheparticipatingteachersworkinschoolsthathaveparticipatedinmorethanthreesciencefairs.• Foronlyabout20%oftheschoolisthistheirfirstfair.
◊ Thisdemonstratesthegoodreceptionthatthefairsmeetwithamongschools.
Even higher teacher repetition: Teachersareonaveragemoreassiduousparticipantsinthefairsthanstudents:formorethanfor75%ofthemthiswasnottheirfirstexperiencewiththesciencefair.
◊ Thisis,ofcourse,onlynaturalasteachersstayintheschoolformoreyears.
Students/teacher: Teachersbringmanystudentstothefair:almost50%ofthemaccompanybetween1and4studentswhileatotalof75%bringupto10.• Andafourthoftheteachersarebringinginbetween11and50students.
◊ Thelargeratioofstudents/teachershowhighteachercommitmentwiththefairs.
Teachers’ areas:MostareScienceteachers,at38%,andthenextnumerousgroupteachEngineering(19%).• NextcomeTechnology(12%)andMaths(6%).
◊ Thesepercentagescorrelatewiththetopicspresentedbythestudents.
Supervised projects:TheratioofSciencetoTechnologytoEngineeringprojectspresentedis2.25:1.1:1.• Animportant25%oftheteachersareaccompanyingprojectsfromacombinationoftopics.
◊ Thisstressesthevariedcharacteroftheschools’activities,whichpromoteprojectsinallpossiblefields.
Out-of-school activities:Almost50%ofthestudentsparticipatedinextracurricularactivities,accordingtotheteachers.• Over25%didnotandin21%ofcasestheseextracurricularoptionswerenotavailable.
◊ Thefiguresindicatethatanimportantproportionofstudentsmakeextraeffortstoparticipateinthesefairs,aswehavealreadyfoundinthestudents’data.Itwouldbeinterestingtocheckwhetherthisproportiondoesindeedincreaseinthenextyears.
Voluntary tutoring and support, although it is not compulsoryforteachersinagivenschooltoparticipateinafairprojectin99%ofthecases.• Forparticipatingteacherstheschooldesignatesacoordinatorin60%ofthecases.
◊ Thisindicatesafeltneedaswellasaguaranteeofsuccessforprojectdevelopment.
Curriculum and project: ThereisaclearlinkbetweenthenationalSTEMcurriculumandthecontentsofthefairprojectsinslightlymorethan40%ofthecases.
◊ Thisshowsthateithertheprojectshaveabroaderaimthanthecurriculum,orthatitisdifficulttodevelopsufficientlyinterestingprojectswhilekeepinginsidethecurriculumboundaries.
Learning from participation: Studentslearnalot(94%),theylearntocommunicatebetter(89%)andmoreaboutthescientificmethod(90%).• Also,rewardingstudentsforexcellenceinSTEM(53%)andimpactingthewaytheyteach(60%).
◊ Thesensationofgettingimportantpersonalandprofessionalgainsfromparticipatinginthefairisimportantforteachersandstudents.
Advantages of fairs over classes: Differentwayofinteractingwithstudents(74%)andthestudents’motivation(69%).• Opportunitiestoengagewiththeoutsideworldareimportant(65%).
◊ Theseareskillsthatarenotusuallyassociatedwithregularclassroomactivities.
44
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Analysis and conclusions
Difficulties encountered: Getting students on board is difficultfor58%oftheteachers.• Alsofindingfunding,materials(about58%).
◊ Difficultiesingettingstudentsandfundingrateequally,butarenotinthe80-90%rangelikeotheranswersinthe questionnaire.
Difficulties students encountered:Gettingfunding,applyingthescientificmethodandthematerialsfortheprojectallratesimilarlyatabout55%.• Supervisingstudentsoutsidetheteacher’sareaisonlydifficultfor25%.Fillingintheapplicationformforthefairisdifficultfor8%.
◊ Again,onlyabout50%ofthestudentsorlesshavesomedifficulties.
School support:Participationinthefairgetsschoolsupportin75%ofthecases.• Supportfromcolleagues,parentsandexpertscomesecondatabout55%average.Universitiesranknextat42%.Leastsupportcomesfromlocalauthorities,localmediaoreventhenationalMinistryofEducation.Thefactoris2-3timeslesssupport.
◊ Thelastitemsmayrequiremoreeffortfromthefairandschoolmanagement.
Usefulness of the support:Mentorsorscienceexpertsaswellastheschoolmanagementwereconsideredthemosteffective,withabigdifference(60and46%,respectively).• Colleaguesandparentscomenextbutathalftherelativeimportance.Theimportanceoftheothersourcesforsupportisalmostinsignificant.
◊ ThesupportfromtheIntelteamshouldprobablyincreaseinthefuture.
Students’ personal traits and success: intheopinionoftheaccompanyingteachers,creativity,communicationskillsandintelligence,inthatorder,standoutat50%ormore.• Perhapssurprisingly,students’factorslikecollaboration,scientificliteracyandworkethicareconsideredoflessimportanceinabout25%oftheanswers.
◊ Strikingly,thecapacityofleadershipgotstrictlyzeroresponses.Itwouldbeinterestingtoanalysetheseresultsinmoredetailinthefuture.
Reasons for teachers’ commitment: “Mystudents”predominates(at94%)andtheprestigethatcomesfromthecompetition(74%).• Leastimportanceisattributedtotheprospectofpromotion(29%)followedbytheeffectsofcolleagues(43%).
◊ Theseanswersmayhelpindesigningfutureannouncementsandrulesforthedevelopmentoffairs.
Methodology changes:Participationinsciencefairsresultsina7%increaseintheuseofinquiry-basedteachingwith35%ofthemusingIBSMEnowadays.• However,thedatashowsthatstillfor2/3oftheparticipatingteacherstheuseofIBSMEisstillanunknownfactorintheteachingequation.
◊ Thesciencefairinitiativehastheambitiontohelpimproveschooleducationasregardsthenecessarytransformationandupdatingofteachers’methodologies,sothatthestudents’educationisimprovedintermsoftransferableknowledge,skillsandcompetences.OneofthekeyinnovatingTeachingandLearningmethodologies(T&L)isInquiry-BasedScienceandMathematicsEducation(IBSME),anditisinterestingtochecktheextenttowhichsciencefairscontributetowardsextendingitsuse.
Teachers’ satisfaction: For86%oftheteachersitisaquitepositiveexperiencetosupervisestudents’projectsforthefaircompetition.• Theywoulddoitagaininthefuture.
◊ Thisisaremarkableresultofthewholeprogrammeand,inconjunctionwithstudents’opinions,onemayconcludethatbothforteachersandstudents,participatinginthesciencefairsisanenjoyableandpositiveeducationalexperience.
Teachers’ further commitment: 26%oftheteacherswouldbeinterestedinbecomingaScienceFairAmbassador.• 32%wouldhavetogiveitfurtherconsideration.
◊ Again,thisresultspeaksofaremarkablesuccessofthesciencefairsamongtheteachers,whowouldconsideramajorinvolvementinpossibly58%ofcases.
OPEN DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
46
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Open Discussion and Future work
OPENDISCUSSIONANDFUTUREWORK
InadditiontotheresultshighlightedintheAnalysis andConclusionssection,theauthorsnotedanumber ofissuesduringtheanalysisstillopentointerpretation.Manyoftheseissuesopenthedoortofurtherdiscussionsandcouldbeexploredinfurtherstudies.
Forexample,inTable5wefoundthat85%of thestudentsfoundtheInternet/Onlinesupportusefulforthedevelopmentoftheirprojects,whileonly20%ofthemhadparticipatedonaninternship(Figure13).Itisinterestingtonotethetechnologypeakispresentevenwithsciencefairsprojects.Resultsfrompreviousstudiesindicatealmosttwothirdsoffinalistspointedouthavingamentoras“ImportanttoVeryImportant”(p.15)totheirsciencefairparticipation(Rilleroetal,2005).Thestrongresultsoftoday’sstudentparticipantsuseofinternetresourcesmayindicatethatthewaysamentoringrelationshipwasonceunderstoodarebeingreplaced bythelargenumberofonlineresources,communities andaccesstolesspersonalexpertrelationships.
Additionally,inTable6wefindthatCreativityisconsideredthemostessentialcontributiontothesuccessofaprojectbythestudents.Itisimportanttorememberthesearesciencestudents,carryingoutresearchprojectsforsciencefairs.Oftenthestigmaattached tosciencefairsisoneofaneventattractivetothetypeofstudentmostoftenfoundinthelibrarysurrounded bybooks.Incontrast,thestudentparticipantssuggestthatwhatisreallyneededareattributesnotoftenconsideredwhenthinkingaboutcreativity,suchasimagination,criticalthinkingskillsandnon-traditionalapproachestoproblemsolving.
Whilewehavementionedtheincreaseduseoftheinternetintheimplementationoftheprojects,teacherscontinue tobethekeyfactorforstudents’participationinthesefairs.Teacherscannotbereplacedbycomputersandplay acriticalroleinchallengingthestudentsandprovidingthemwithresources(seeFigure15).Ontheotherhand,parent’sinfluenceappearstobelessfeltbythestudents.
Representingtheyearsofteachingexperience,Figure19,illustratesthat40%ofcurrentteachershaveover20years’inthefield,andalmost80%over10years.Thisreallyindicatesnewteachersaregoingtobeinneedofsupportinordertogetthemtojointhesciencefairswiththeirstudents.
Figures29:Impactofparticipatinginthesciencefairs onbothteachersandstudents(teachers)and30:Advantagesofdoingasciencefairprojectoveraregularscienceclass(teachers)highlightedtwoimportantissues.Ononehand,therelativelylowresponsesto“Participatinginthesciencefairpromotedscientificinquiryinmyschool”and“Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairknowmoreaboutthescientificmethod”(~60%)compared tothealmost90%to“Now,thosewhoparticipated inthesciencefairarebetterabletoapplythescientificmethod”showsthatwhileasignificantimpactisperceivedinthestudent’sabilities,itappearstostayatanindividuallevelwithlimitedimpactintheschoolasawhole.Thisissimilarto,ontheotherhand,theteachers’impressionwith“ParticipatinginthesciencefairhashadabigimpactonthewayIteach”onlytruefor60%oftherespondentscomparedto“Asateacher,Igettointeractwithstudents inadifferentcontext”withalmost75%positiverespondents.Overallitappearstheeffectsremainatstudents/teachersparticipatinginthefairanddoesnotgettransferredtotheschooloreventheclassroomlevel.
Evenmoredisconcertingisfinallytheresultfound inFigure33,whichshowshowlittleinvolvementappears tocomefromthelocalmediaandauthorities(including theMinistriesofeducation).
Overallitappearsthatwhiletheimpactofthefairsisclearforthoseparticipatinginthefairs,furtheractionsshould bemadeto1)spreadthesebeneficialeffectsto theschoolingeneral;2)gettheinvolvementofotherpartsofthesocietywhicharecurrentlyunaware oruninterestedinthefairs,astheywouldafterallreapthebenefitsofhavingmoreSTEMstudentsandmoreSTEMliteratecitizensasawhole.
Rillero,P.,Zambo,R.&Haas,N.(2005).IntelInternationalScienceandEngineeringFair2005EvaluationReport. Retrievedfrom:http://download.intel.com/education/EvidenceOfImpact/ISEF-2005-Report.pdf
APPENDIX
SCIENCE FAIRS – TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
48
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Appendix
APPENDIXSCIENCEFAIRS–TEACHERS’QUESTIONNAIRE
SCIENCE FAIRS – TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
1 How many times has your school participated in the fair including this year?
123Morethan3Don’tknow
2 What is the approximate number of students from your school who competed in the science fair this year?
1–45-1011–50Morethan50Don’tknow
3 Is this the first year that you as a teacher participate in your national science fair?
YesNo
4 What subject do you teach primarily? Science(Physics,Chemistry,Biology)TechnologyEngineeringMathsOther,pleasespecify
5 Have many years have you been teaching? <5years5-10years11-20years>20years
6 What is the major focus of the student projects you supervised?
Science(Physics,Chemistry,Biology)TechnologyEngineeringMathsAcombinationoftheaboveOther,pleasespecify
7 Did students who competed in the science fair participate in an after-school science club / programme / activity?
YesNoThereisnoafter-schoolscienceclub/programmeat our schoolDon’tknow
8 Is it compulsory in your school to do a science fair project? YesNo
9 Is there in your school a person in charge of coordinating the participation in the science fair?
YesNo
49
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Science fairs – teachers’ questionnaire
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
10 How easy is it to link competing in the national science fair to your national STEM curriculum?
1–Verydifficult234–VeryeasyThereisnonationalSTEMcurriculum
11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements now that you and your students have participated in the science fair?
IfullyagreeIratheragreeIratherdisagreeIfullydisagreeDon’tknow/Notapplicable
11.1 Participatinginthesciencefairencouragedmystudentstopursueexcellenceinscience,technology,engineeringandmaths
11.2 Participatinginthesciencefairrewardedmystudentsforexcellenceinscience,technology,engineeringandmaths
11.4 Participatinginthesciencefairpromotedproject-basedscienceinmyschool
11.5 Participatinginthesciencefairmotivatedmystudentstopursuescience,technology,engineeringandmathscareers
11.6 Iasateacherlearntalotthroughparticipatinginthesciencefair
11.7 ParticipatinginthesciencefairhashadabigimpactonthewayIteach
11.8 Mystudentshadfunparticipatinginthesciencefair
11.9 Mystudentslearntalotthroughparticipatinginthesciencefair
11.10 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairknowmoreaboutthescientificmethod
11.11 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairarebetterabletoapplythescientificmethod
11.12 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairarebetteratteamwork
11.13 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairarebettercommunicators
11.14 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairaremoreexcitedaboutscience
11.15 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairarebetterabletoseehowscienceisrelevanttotheireverydaylife
11.16 Now,thosewhoparticipatedinthesciencefairaremorelikelytoconsiderstudyingascientificsubject
50
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Appendix
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
12 In your opinion, what are the advantages of doing a science fair project over regular science classes? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE]
*Studentsaremoremotivated*Studentsaretheleadersoftheirlearning*Asateacher,Igettointeractwithstudentsinadifferentcontext*Studentsstartbehavinglikeactualscientists*Thisisagoodopportunitytoworkinaninterdisciplinaryapproach*Thisisagoodopportunitytoengagewiththeoutsideworld*Thisisagoodopportunityforcollaborationacrossschoolyears*Don’tknow*Other,pleasespecify
13 How difficult did you as a teacher find the following activities in particular?
1–Verydifficult2–3–4VeryeasyN/A
13.1 Getting students on board
13.2 Gettingmentors/expertsonthetopiconboard
13.3 Gettingholdofthematerialsandequipmentneededfortheproject
13.4 Findingfundingfortheproject
13.5 Fillinginapplicationformsforthecompetition
13.6 Supervisingstudentswhoseprojectswerenotinmyareaofexpertise
13.7 Other,pleasespecify
14 And how difficult did your students find the following activities?
1–Verydifficult2–3–4VeryeasyN/A
14.1 Gettingholdofthematerialsandequipmentneededfortheproject
14.2 Findingfundingfortheproject
14.3 Applyingthescientificmethod
14.4 Analysingprojectdata(includingstatisticalanalysis)
14.5 Displayingandcommunicatingtheirprojectinaclearandcompellingway
14.6 Fillinginapplicationformsforthecompetition
14.7 Other,pleasespecify
15 How much support did you receive from the following people / organisations in particular?
AlotofsupportSomesupportNotalotofsupportNosupportatallDon’tknow/Notapplicable
15.1 Theseniormanagementofyourschool
15.2 Yourcolleagues
51
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Science fairs – teachers’ questionnaire
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
15.3 Parents
15.4 Mentors/Experts
15.5 Yourlocalauthority
15.6 Yourlocalmedia
15.7 Local/nationalscienceexperts
15.8 YournationalMinistryofEducation
15.9 TheIntelteam
15.10 Universities/Researchinstitutes/Partnerships
16 Whose support proved most instrumental in your opinion to carry out the projects with your students? [UP TO 3 ANSWERS]
*Theseniormanagementofyourschool*Yourcolleagues*Parents*Yourlocalauthority*Yourlocalmedia*Mentors/scienceexperts*YournationalMinistryofEducation*TheIntelteam*Don’tknow*Other,pleasespecify
17 Among the following issues, please select the 3 that are in your opinion most essential to the students’ success with their science fair project? [UP TO 3 ANSWERS]
IntelligenceWorkethicCriticalthinkingCommunicationskillsScientificliteracyCuriosityCreativityCollaborationLeadership
18 How important were the following people / factors in your decision to lead students competing in the science fair or made it easier to carry out the projects?
VeryimportantFairlyimportantNotveryimportantNotimportantatallDon’tknow/Notapplicable
18.1 Myschoolprincipal
18.2 Mystudents
18.3 Mycolleagues
18.4 Theopportunitytoattendournationalsciencefair
18.5 Theopportunitytowinprizes/awards
18.6 Theprestige/recognitionfromcompetinginthefair
18.7 Theprospectofpromotion
18.8 Theaccesstolabsfromotherorganizations
18.9 Other,pleasespecify
52
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Appendix
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
19 Do you feel like supervising students competing in the science fair again – irrespective of whether it’s compulsory at your school or not?
DefinitelyMaybeProbablynotDefinitelynotDon’tknow/Notapplicable
19A [IF NO TO Q19] Why not? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE] IwouldliketotryoutotheractivitiesinthefutureIttookuptoomuchofmytimeIdidn’tenjoyitasmuchasIthoughtIwouldIreceivedtoolittlesupportItinvolvedtoomuchpaperworkDon’tknowOther,pleasespecify
20 Did you use inquiry-based teaching in your classes before the first time you participated in the science fairs?
1-Notatall2-Notmuch3-Quiteabit4-Alwaysx-Don’tknowwhatInquiry-basedteachingis
21 How much do you use inquiry-based teaching in your classes nowadays?
1-Notatall2-Notmuch3-Quiteabit4-Alwaysx-Don’tknowwhatInquiry-basedteachingis
22 Is there anything else you would like to share with us or recommend?
[OPEN-ENDED]
23 Would you be available for a 15-minute follow-up interview over the phone?
YesNoDon’tknow
24 Would you be interested in becoming a Science Fair Ambassador in your country?
YesNoDon’tknow
25 What is the highest degree you hold? DoctorateMaster’sdegreeBachelor’s degreeSchoolleavingcertificateOther,pleasespecify
26 Gender MaleFemale
27 Country Listofcountriesparticipatingintheevaluation.
APPENDIX
SCIENCE FAIRS – STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
54
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Appendix
APPENDIXSCIENCEFAIRS–TEACHERS’QUESTIONNAIRE
SCIENCE FAIRS – STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
1 How many times have you participated in the fair including this one?
123Morethan3
2 What is the major focus of your project? ScienceTechnologyEngineeringMathsOther,pleasespecify
3 Did you submit your project as an individual or as a team? IndividualTeam
4 How much time did you spend developing the project? Closedquestion:2–10h1day1week1monthseveralmonths
5 Approximately how many hours did you work on the display and presentation part of your project?
1–2hours3–5hours6–10hours1day1week
6 Did you participate in an after-school science club / programme / activity?
YesNo
7 Is it compulsory at your school to do a science fair project? YesNo
8 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
IfullydisagreeagreeIdisagreeIagreeIfullyagreeDon’tknow/Notapplicable
8.1 Now,Iammoreconfidentatidentifyingproblems
8.2 Now,Iamabletocommunicatebetter
8.3 Now,Iambetteratteamwork
8.4 Now,Iambetteratfindingsolutionsorcomingupwithnewideas
55
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Science fairs – students’ questionnaire
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
8.5 Ihadfuncompetinginthesciencefair
8.6 Ilearntalotthroughcompetinginthesciencefair
8.7 Now,Iknowmoreaboutthescientificmethod
8.8 Now,Iammoreexcitedaboutscience
8.9 Now,Icanseebetterhowscienceisrelevanttomyeverydaylife
8.10 Now,Iammorelikelytoconsiderstudyingascientificsubject
8.11 Now,Iammoreattractedtotheprospectofascientificcareer
9 In your opinion, what are the advantages of doing a science fair project? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE]
*Youhaveaprojectofyourown*Youaretheoneincharge*Youfeellikearealscientistworkingonarealproject*Yougetthechancetoshowyourworktotheoutsideworld*Mistakesareallowed*Yougettoworkwithteachersfromvarioussubjects*Nomarksareinvolved*Yougettoworkwithpeoplefromoutofschoole.g.experts,students,etc.*Youarepartofamixedgroupofstudentsfromvariousclassesandlevels*Noneofthese*Don’tknow
10 How difficult did you find the following activities in particular?
1–Verydifficult234–Veryeasy
10.1 Comingupwithatopic
10.2 Gettingholdofthematerialsandequipmentneededfortheproject
10.3 Findingfundingfortheproject
10.4 Formulatingyourprojecthypothesis
10.5 Testingyourprojecthypothesis
10.6 Analysingprojectdata(includingstatisticalanalysis)
10.7 Drawingconclusionsfromprojectdata
10.8 Displayingandcommunicatingyourprojectinaclearandcompellingway
11 How useful were the following sources of knowledge and experience in providing support with your science project?
1-Notusefulatall2-Notveryuseful3-Fairlyuseful11.1 Teacher(s)
56
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Appendix
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
11.2 Mentor/Expertinthefield
4-VeryusefulDon’tknow/Notapplicable
11.3 After-schoolscienceclub/programme
11.4 School classes
11.5 Formersciencefairparticipantsfromyourschool
11.6 Internet/onlinesupport(webpages,chats,forums)
11.7 Familymembers
11.8 Other,pleasespecify
11A If you had a mentor or an expert in the field to support you, what was her/his profession and how did you meet/find her/him?
[OPEN-ENDED]–Optional
12 Did you participate in an internship related to your project?
YesNo
13 Among the following items, please select the 3 that are in your opinion most essential to the success of a science fair project? [UP TO 3 ANSWERS]
IntelligenceWorkethicCriticalthinkingCommunicationskillsScientificliteracyCuriosityCreativityCollaborationLeadership
14 How important were the following people/factors in your decision to compete in the science fair?
1-Notimportantatall2-Notveryimportant3-Fairlyimportant4-VeryimportantDon’tknow/Notapplicable
14.1 Myteacher(s)
14.2 Myparents
14.3 Theopportunitytoattendournationalsciencefair
14.4 Theopportunitytowinprizes/awards
14.5 Theprestige/recognitionfromcompetinginthefair
14.6 Myfriendswerecompetinginthesciencefairtoo
14.7 Theopportunitytodoarealscienceprojectlikearealresearcher
14.8 Theopportunitytodosomethingscience-relatedthat’sdifferentfromwhatwedoatschool
14.9 ThepersonalattentionIreceivedfrommymentor/teacher
14.10 Theopportunitytoimprovemyapplicationtouniversity
57
Pilot evaluation of Science Fairsin Europe
Science fairs – students’ questionnaire
Q QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES
15 How useful were the following sources of knowledge and experience in providing support with your science project?
1Definitelynot2Probablynot3Maybe4DefinitelyDon’tknow/Notapplicable
15A [IF NO TO Q15] Why not? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE] • Iwouldliketotryoutotheractivitiesinthefuture
• Ittookuptoomuchofmyfreetime• Ididn’thavesomuchfun• Igotdiscouragedbecausemostofmyexperimentsfailed
•Mostofmyfriendsarenotinterestedinjoining•Other,pleasespecify
15B [IF YES TO Q15] Would you recommend competing in the fair to a friend?
1Definitelynot2Probablynot3Maybe4DefinitelyDon’tknow/Notapplicable
16 Is there anything else you would like to share with us or recommend?
[OPEN-ENDED]
17 Would you be available for a 15-minute follow-up interview?
YesNoDon’tknow/Notapplicable
18 Age <10,10,11,12,1314,15,16,17,1819,20,21,>21
19 Gender MaleFemale
20 Country Listofcountriesparticipatingintheevaluationproject
PublishedinSeptember2013.TheviewsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthorsandnotnecessarilythoseofEUNPartnershipAISBLorIntelCorporation.Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged.