Texas Science Teacher: Letter From The Editor

Texas Science Teacher
Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012
The
Letter from the Editor

Not Goodbye, but Until We Meet Again.
Engaging Elementary Students

in Summer STEM Camp
Why Students Choose a College Major

in the STEM Fields
Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students

in a High School Environmental Science Program
ASSOCI ATION
HE RS
OF
TE
AC
IEN
CE
STAT
Official Publication of the Science Teachers Association of Texas

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012
TE XA
SC
The Texas Science Teacher

Volume 41, Number 1
Contents
April 2012

by Dr. Joel Palmer
Engaging Elementary Students in STEM Camp

by Dr. Tracy M. Walker, et. al.
Why Students Choose a College Major in STEM Fields

by Dr. Cynthia B. Powell and Erin Boyd
Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students

by Dr. Gianluca Corsi
Cover Photo: Blue Bonnets and Honey Bee All Rights Reserved. Image Credit: Retrieved on 4.10.12 from:
http://haykulu.org/2012/03/09/blue-bonnets-and-honey-bee/
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: stat@bizaustin.rr.com
The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1
April 2012

by Dr. Joel Palmer
n 1985, as a first year teacher at Alex W. Spence Academy for the Academically Talented and Gifted in the Dallas Independent School District, I received an invitation from then science director Winston Hoskins to attend the Conference for the Advancement of Science Teaching (CAST). I had no idea what this conference was, but I figured I would attend. At the orientation meeting, Winston said that a study had shown that there was one correlation among good science teachers. What was that one correlation? Attendance at science conferences! After my first CAST, I agreed with this study. I also realized that by attending the conference I had joined a statewide teacher organization call the Science Teachers Association of Texas. Over the next seven years, I attended CAST whenever possible (one time by camping because I could not afford a hotel) and remained a member of the STAT. After all, the STAT yearly membership was only $20 (I think). In the fall of 1989, I did my first presentation at CAST. It was at Texas A&M and I had the privilege of being part of the Operation Physics program the previous summer. At that CAST, all the Operation Physics trainers in Texas met and I got to meet, among others, Mrs. Virginia Woods. For those of you who do not know Virginia, she was a founding member of STAT and went on to become the first paid (part-time and never paid enough) Executive Secretary of STAT. Each year, STAT gives a Virginia Woods Award for outstanding contribution to the organization. For many years, Virginia kept the organization going, never getting paid enough for all she did. Virginia is one of the shining examples of the many science educators who gave of themselves to keep the organization going, teachers who have 3
served on the Board of Directors, as President, on committees, editors of the newsletter and journal, on CAST committees and volunteers at the conferences. In 1996, as the new science coordinator for the Mesquite Independent School District, I attended the CAST in Corpus Christi and one of my physics teachers, Becky Gideon (then Becky Coker), was the Vice President. Shortly after that conference, the President-Elect of STAT moved out of state and Becky, who had agreed to serve a one-year term as VP, was suddenly President-Elect and then President. During that time the editor of the STATellite: the Official Newsletter of STAT, Dr. Cynthia Ledbetter, decided to resign as editor and Becky asked me if I was interested. So somewhere in 1997, I took over as editor (since Cynthia and I worked on a few issues together I do not remember the exact date). As Editor I was an appointed non-voting member of the STAT Board. During the last 18 years, I have had a unique insight into the workings of STAT. In 2007 I gave up editorship of the STATellite and became Editor of the Texas Science Teacher: the Official Peer-Reviewed Journal of STAT. In 2009, I was elected President-Elect and, for the first time, was a voting member of the Board. I then served as President for 2010-11 and Past President for 2011-12. As Past President, I was privileged to serve as Conference Chairman for the CAST in Dallas last fall. Why, this has been a real trip down memory lane! This will be my last issue as editor of the Texas Science Teacher and at the end of the STAT Board meeting on May 19th, I will finish my long tenure on the Board. For the first time in 18 years I will not be attending quarterly board meetings, April 2012
Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary (contd.) Letter from the Editor(contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)
spending nights and weekends collecting, editing and desktop publishing articles, and working at CAST. But because I will be disengaged, I will have time to really enjoy CAST. I will be submitting workshop proposals for the upcoming CAST in Corpus Christi for the first time in years! Yea!! I am not crawling in a hole. I will still be around. I am just moving onto other things. I am in my second year on the Editorial Advisory Board for the NSTA publication The Science Teacher and am starting a one-year term as Chairman of that board. I just wanted to say to all my friends and colleagues: it has been a great ride. Being part of STAT has introduced me to many outstanding individuals. Any attempt to list names would surely leave out some deserving individuals, so I will not try. But you know who you are. For newbies and those who have never gotten involved in STAT or one of our affiliates: it is time for you to step up! We need new leaders and new ideas. Some of you are saying, I do not have time or I have nothing to offer. Those are sorry excuses! I can promise you that you have something to offer. No matter what you give to STAT, you will be repaid a hundred times over: I certainly have! Not goodbye, but rather until we meet again Your friend and fellow science teacher,
STEM that makes sense?
Well make it a snap!
Ready-to-go units, full year curriculum, or custom implementations.

Get a free national STEM report, download a free STEM Whitepaper, find out more about STEM, why your students need it and why implementing STEM is easier than you think.
Joel C. Palmer, Ed.D.
www.Learning.com/STEM-ready
April 2012
With Houghton Mifflin Harcourt/Holt McDougal, every student can be a science star.
Texas Science Test Preparation

Be Science STAARready with our practice workbooks and professional development.
Texas Science Leveled Reader Library

Science Leveled Reader Kits for Grades K3 and Grades 45 are available in English and Spanish.
Texas Science Equipment Kits

Science Equipment Kits are available for Grades 58, and each contains materials for six groups or lab stations.
To learn more, visit us online: hmheducation.com/tx/science
Holt McDougal is a trademark of HMH Publishers LLC. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 04/12 MS47798
April 2012
Engaging Elementary Students in Summer STEM Camp

by Dr. Tracy M. Walker, et. al.
Abstract
here has been an increasing demand for K-12 students to have learning opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields at an early age. Research shows that even students in lower elementary grades are able to comprehend some of the more basic concepts of STEM-related content. As our society changes, so does the need to begin incorporating inquiry-based learning in our educational practices. Scientists and other professionals are beginning to work in multidisciplinary teams, and thus, to prepare our future workforce, we must also teach our students to work in teams. This article suggests a format for a summer STEM enrichment camp for elementary students. The proposed activities integrate the Five E approach to inquiry-based learning and utilize components of the National Science Education Standards (1996) in order to provide students with an engaging and fun experience to enhance learning over summer vacation. Keywords: inquiry-based learning, STEM, elementary, summer school Engaging Elementary Students in Summer Science Enrichment Activities Each year, students and teachers alike count down the days until school ends. At the beginning of the next school year, teachers may ask their students Did you forget everything you learned over the summer? For many students, the answer to that question may be Yes! How can students not only retain what theyve learned over the summer, but add to what they already know in a way that is appealing or interesting? Participation in a summer enrichment camp or program can help students with this. 6
A high quality summer program can engage students, teach them new skills, encourage them to expand hidden talents, fostering innovation and creativity. Summer programs can be remediation tools for students, engaging them in science-related activities that enhance their learning from the previous year, and further develop students understandings of the scientific world around them. These programs can be an avenue for encouraging students to develop further interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Inquiry-based STEM instruction can be easily integrated into a summer elementary science curriculum (Brenner, 2009). Those not familiar with STEM integration in the school curriculum may suggest that young students arent yet ready for an introduction to complex concepts in the STEM fields. According to French (2004), young students are capable of gaining an extensive vocabulary related to science and are able to use higher order cognitive skills for participating in activities related to planning, predicting, and drawing inferences about the world around them. Charlesworth & Lind (2010) state in some ways, attitudes towards a subject or an activity can be as important as the subject itself (p. 81). They further add that research supports the notion that participation in a science program at a young age can help students to improve their language and literacy skills. National Science Standards In July 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) published A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. This framework was developed from a collaboration between four major agencies: National Academy of Science, National April 2012
Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and NRC, and represents the first step in a process to create new [science] standards in K-12 education (NRC, 2011, p. viii). This framework incorporates not only the National Science Education Standards (1996) created by NRC, but also integrates Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (NRC, 2011). It consists of three dimensions including scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. According to NRC, K-12 science instruction should include four main core ideas (NRC, 2011, p. 2-6): 1. Have broad importance across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines or be a key organizing principle of a single discipline; 2. Provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems; 3. Relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge; and 4. Be teachable and learnable over multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication. That is, the idea can be made accessible to younger students but is broad enough to sustain continued investigation over years. Using these four core ideas in planning science instruction can be valuable for students far beyond the K-12 environment. The four core ideas represent ideas used across disciplines, thereby providing students with the tools to better see how science and engineering pertain to real-world problems and explore opportunities to apply their scientific knowledge (NRC, 2011, p. 2-7). Terzian, Anderson-Moore & Hamilton (2009) suggest that successful summer educational programs will balance educational activities with engaging activities, such as games and sports. The researchers also recommend the use of interactive, hands-on projects and enrichment activities. Terzian, et al., (2009) advise that if a summer program is to be successful, it must include several key practices. First, not only should the learning experience be fun for the students, it should also ground [their] learning in a real-world context (Terzian, et al., 2009, p. 17). A successful summer program should provide students with hand-on experiences, and the instructor should be experienced as well as knowledgeable of the requirements of the content area(s). Inquiry-Based Learning The National Science Education Standards state that student understanding is actively constructed through individual and social processes (NRC, 1996, p. 28). It is with this in mind, in addition to the recommendations from NRC, that a weeklong summer STEM camp for elementary students was developed based on classroom modules conducted during the school year. The camp is designed to motivate students in science and technology, develop individual inquiry skills and provide an April 2012
Notable High School Chemistry Concepts (contd.) Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)
opportunity for social peer engagement in an authentic learning environment. An inquiry-based method of instruction, the Five E approach, will be used. The inquiry method allows students to take the lead in their learning while the teacher serves as a trainer and facilitator. The Five E approach to inquiry learning was developed by the Biological Science Career Study team, headed by Richard Bybee (Bybee et al., 2006). Five E is a constructivist approach centered on the learners building their own understanding of a concept. This constructivist approach is grounded in the works of Piaget, famous for his research on cognitive development, and Howard Gardner, known for his theory on multiple intelligences. The Five E approach has five components: engage, explore, explain, elaborate (or extend), and evaluate. During the first component, engage, teachers will introduce a topic and stimulate the students interest in the topic. Second, students will explore their topic through hands-on activities and research to investigate a specific problem. Then, the students will explain the problem by formally presenting the issues to the class and providing research-based solutions. During the fourth component, students learn to elaborate. They participate in activities facilitated by the teacher in which they expand upon what theyve already discovered. This can also be achieved by having students participate in constructive peer feedback activities. Lastly, students progress through the final component, evaluate. In this phase, students will ask each other about what theyve learned from their research, observations, and final product. 8 Program Components The modules for this summer camp are an extension of inquiry projects and activities completed throughout the regular school year by elementary classroom. The individual projects selected were expanded into detailed modules which could be implemented as a one week or two week summer camp. The summer STEM camp runs on a five-day schedule from 8:30 am 3:30 pm. If replicated, this camp could also be set up as either a one or two week half day camp. Transportation and lunch/ snacks are an additional consideration for the timing of this camp. The camp will utilize collaboration from local university engineering or science department and/ or recruit community-based engineers for participation. This collaboration between the teacher and professionals in the field aids the student in developing an indepth understanding of the real-world applications. Costs for conducting this camp may vary based on the number of students and length of the camp. Facilitators should consider using materials that can be easily found in the school or at home, providing the students with an opportunity to view the simple machines around them in new and different ways. The summer STEM camp is designed to address the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) as well as the recently published framework for K-12 science education. The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) addressed in this project are: Science as Inquiry: By giving the students an opportunity to explore and then create their own simple machines, students are developing an appreciation of how we know what we know in science thus facilitating April 2012
Email Data
Graphical Analysis for iPad
LabQuest Viewer Vernier Data Share
High-resolution touch screen Built-in data-collection software Quick response to touch, curve fits, and modeling 5 built-in sensorsincluding GPS 100,000 samples per second Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity Collect, view, and analyze data on ANY device with a compatible web browser. Show students how to use LabQuest by projecting your LabQuest screen in the classroom. (LabQuest Viewer sold separately.) Collect, view, and analyze data with Graphical AnalysisTM for iPad. Simultaneously provide access to data for the entire lab group. (Sold separately.)
Introducing LabQuest 2
NEW
oNLY
$329
The most powerful, connected, and versatile data-collection device available for STEM education
The new Vernier LabQuest 2 interface puts scientific data-collection technology into your students hands and is compatible with your existing Vernier sensors and software. Explore science in the lab and in the field with full-color clarity, touch-screen ease, and breakthrough, versatile technology. Collect, view, analyze, and annotate data on LabQuest 2 or on any device with a compatible web browseriPads, AndroidTM devices, iPhones, and other mobile technology Go to www.vernier.com/labquest2 for complete details, and to find frEE workshops in your neighborhood.
Vernier Software & Technology | Toll Free: 888-837-6437 | www.vernier.com
April 2012

the foundations of understanding the nature of science (National Science Education Standards, p. 105). Physical Science: By observing the properties of materials by identifying simple machines in everyday life and analyzing what causes their movements, students begin to explore the fundamentals of physics (National Science Education Standards, p. 106). Science and Technology: This standard is a perfect complement to the Science as Inquiry standard. Students first identify what makes work easier by identifying the simple machine components in the simple machines they first explore, and then identify within their environments. This enables the child to distinguish between natural objects and human made objects. Students also begin to analyze the abilities of the very basics of technical design. In order to link the concepts together, the students must first understand the concepts of simple machines and how they are applied to making work easier and furthering their concepts with their own application of the technology concepts. The student not only identifies and states a problem, but they design and implement the solution while associating costs to their models and then improve the form and function of their designs as they collaborate with their peers. (National Science Education Standards, 2011, pp. 106-107). Preparation Considerations for the Facilitator A review of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) for physical science, specifically science and technology, will assist the facilitator 10 in understanding the components that are addressed in this summer STEM camp project. Other considerations for the facilitator include the development of required technical vocabulary for the project. The vocabulary related to this project should use terminology easily understood by the students and may vary by the school environment in which the program is conducted, taking into account the grade levels for which this program is implemented. In addition, the facilitator will need to plan for evaluation tools, both formative and summative. At the end of each day, the facilitator may collect information as to each student or groups progress as a formative assessment tool. Creating and sharing a simple rubric for each activity allows the students to gain an understanding of the concepts that will be evaluated. On the final day, the guest evaluators (engineers) will provide a summative evaluation as to how the students were able to develop and present their simple machine project, providing the students with positive feedback. Finally, facilitators involved in the summer STEM camp should be knowledgeable regarding the Five E model of inquiry and understand how it is used. The modules for the implementation of the summer STEM camp are outlined below. It is important to note that although there are four modules, some modules may take more than one day to complete. The facilitator will determine when the groups are ready to move to the next module. Module 1: Introduction to Simple Machines (Engage phase) Students are introduced to each other through a warm-up activity The facilitator begins the 5E method April 2012

by introducing the topic of Simple Machines and engaging the students in open dialogue and assessing their prior knowledge by asking: o What is a simple machine? (discuss and give examples of the six types of simple machines: screw, pulley, wheel and axle, inclined plane, levers and wedge) o What do they each do? o Why are they important? o What benefits are provided by a simple machine? o How have simple machines made work easier? The facilitator will provide a sample of a compound machine (e. g. handheld egg beater). The students will identify the simple machine components of the egg beater and will describe how each component makes work easier. The facilitator will divide the students into their groups/teams. The facilitator will give each group a sample of different simple machines (samples may include screws, scissors, pencil sharpener, mechanical pencils, glue sticks, chapstick). The students will then work in groups to identify what the simple machine example does, name the simple machine in the product, and then describe how it makes work easier. The class then participates in a site-based field trip. The facilitator distributes to each student a clipboard with an observation report attached and a digital camera or tablet computer. The class will now walk around the school, take pictures and document as many simple machines as they can, where 11 they were located, and how they make work easier. The facilitator should ensure that various locations are used so that students will have an opportunity to find all six types of simple machines. The field trip should focus on outside and inside locations of the school and may include the playground. The students will import the pictures to their computers and use a labeling program such as Comic Life, Label Maker, or MS Word to label the simple machines and write about how they make work easier. Lastly, the facilitator will supply the students with a graphic organizer where each group will detail specifics about the simple machines that they have located. The details of the simple machines could include how they are alike, how are they different, and how they can be used to do the same type of work. Each group will work collaboratively to create a multimedia presentation of the simple machines they have found throughout the school to formally present to their classmates (continued as part of Module 2). By the end of Module 1, students should be able to answer the following questions: 1) What simple machines exist and how are they used? 2) How do you know? 3) How have simple machines addressed a particular need or want? 4) Can the simple machine be made better?
April 2012

Module 2: Exploration and Research of Simple Machines (Explore phase) Note: Module 2 may continue over two days The students will present their presentations of their simple machine field trip to their classmates. The facilitator will guide the students to elaborate on how their simple machines work and how they make work easier. The facilitator will introduce the idea of the design loop typically used in engineering and technology. A design loop usually consists of five phases: 1) defining the problem, 2) brainstorming ideas for addressing the problem, 3) creating a solution that works best to address the problem, 4) test the solution, and 5) evaluating the success of their efforts. The facilitator can walk the students through an example of using the five-step design loop. The facilitator will return the students back to their collaborative groups to brainstorm ideas of a simple machine they would like to invent to make work easier. The facilitator will distribute to each student a concept map of a design loop to help illustrate each step of the project. The facilitator then tells the students that they will pick one of these inventions to design and create. The facilitator will present students with a list of available materials, a cost list for the materials, and the groups budget that must be used to purchase these materials. The students will then work in their collaborative teams to create a design of their simple machine invention. They will also determine what pieces they will purchase that is in alignment with their budgets. The students will 12 select one group member to purchase their parts. The students will continue in the planning process of their products documenting their design ideas on paper to include materials and approximate measurements. By the end of Module 2, students should be able to answer the following questions: 1) What simple machines did you find that are in use in everyday life? 2) How are simple machines alike, how are they different? 3) How can you make a plan for designing a new simple machine by using a design loop? 4) How could the students conceptualize or design a model for a simple machine? Module 3: Design and Implementation Phase (Explore/Explain/Evaluate) The students work collaboratively building their designs the first half of the day (on Day 3). The second half of the day each group will demonstrate their simple machines to the group. They will present their invention to the class, describing how their invention makes work easier, which simple machines they are using in their design, how they made their design, what they learned as they were making it, and what they would do if they could redesign it. After each presentation, the class will be invited to share comments about each teams design and providing recommendations on how they can make their design better. By the end of Module 3, students should be able to answer the following questions: April 2012

1) Were you able to work on a team to complete your project? 2) What are some of the advantages to working on team? 3) Were you able to synthesize what you learned to develop a graphic organizer comparing and contrasting simple machines? 4) Were you able to develop a model of your simple machine concept? 5) Did you receive feedback from other students on how you could improve your simple machine? 6) How did you use the feedback to improve your simple machine? include the engineers telling the students about the design processes they go through in their jobs. The engineers will describe the type of engineering they are involved in and how what they do helps others. By doing this, the facilitator has also added a career exploration component to the program.
By the end of Module 4, students should be able to answer the following questions: 1) Were you able to solve a problem by developing a new design of a simple machine? 2) Were you able to construct a model of Module 4: Finalization of Project and Expert your simple machine? Evaluation (Elaborate/Evaluate): 3) Were you able to collect data on the During the morning of Day 5, students strengths and weaknesses of your will work in their collaborative groups model? to implement their improvements 4) How could the students conceptualize as well as the improvements they or design a model for a simple gathered from their class. They will machine? test their inventions one last time. In the afternoon, engineering Conclusion professionals and/or students-inThe NRC states that there is training visit the elementary students. ample opportunity to develop scientific Each group will share their invention thinking, argumentation, and reasoning with the professionals, which now [in elementary school], and that is the includes any revisions they may have experience that will best support science made. Each group will explain why learning across the grades (NRC, 2011, p. they created that simple machine, why 2-8). This proposal for a summer STEM it makes a specific job easier, and how camp for elementary students focuses they improved it. The engineers will on this reasoning as well as use of the give the students positive feedback national science standards as a basis for and recommendations on their its implementation. Engaging students projects. Students are then asked to at an early age in STEM-related learning self-evaluate their simple machine and tasks is essential to increasing the and to reflect on their experience. The probability of students pursuing future facilitator will ask each student how careers in the STEM disciplines of science, they can use what they learned in the technology, engineering and math. As summer camp in the real world. Charlesworth & Lind (2010) suggest, it is just as important for students to have fun The final component of the day will while learning concepts related to STEM as 13 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

it is to learning the content itself. Students who are able to work collaboratively in teams, have opportunities to be engaged in their own learning, and have the opportunity to think outside the box are those who will be most marketable in an ever-changing workforce. References Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A, Scotter, P. A., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS5e instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Retrieved from:
http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf.
Brenner, D. (2009). STEM topics in elementary education. Technology & Children, 14(1), pp. 14 16. Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K.K. (2010). Math & science for young children. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 128-149. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC) (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Terzian, M., Anderson-Moore, K., & Hamilton, K. (2009). White paper. Effective and Promising Summer Learning Programs and Approaches for Economically Disadvantaged Children and Youth. Retrieved from:
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearn ing/Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdf.
14
April 2012
Author Biographies
Dr. Tracy Walker is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Doctoral Studies at Virginia State University. She has worked closely with colleagues in the Education department on projects related to the development of a STEM Lab School, focusing specifically on increasing the interest of elementary-aged students in STEM-related opportunities. Dr. Walkers K-12 school experience includes working as a school counselor, school counseling director, and division-wide testing director. Her areas of research interest include STEM, research methods, mentoring and assessment.
Dr. Trina Spencer is an Assistant Professor of Elementary Education at Virginia State University. She has been an educator for more than 20 years with teaching experience at both the university and public school levels. Her research areas include instructional methods, classroom assessment, and strategies for increasing pre-service teacher interest and confidence for science teaching.
Kim F. Powell is the Elementary Science Specialist in Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, Virginia. She oversees the science curriculum in 45 elementary schools supporting 24,000 elementary students. Ms. Powell has been a curriculum specialist for 2 years and has devoted my career to teaching children for over 22 years. She hosts a blog for my teachers that houses content to assist them in integrating STREAM (Science Technology Research Engineering Art and Mathematics) into their classrooms. Please visit her blog: http://blogs.henrico.k12.va.us/pbscience/. Ms. Powell is also keeping abreast of the Next Generation Standards and is working to implement change to align to the common core with the current Virginia standards. Olaniyi Lucas is a secondary school counselor and doctoral student at Virginia State University. Olaniyi is beginning her seventh year as a schol counselor. Within that time, she has served as a member and technology chair for the Virginia School Counselor Association (VSCA) and presented at many conferences. Olaniyi completed her undergraduate degree at Virginia Commonwealth University (Psychology) in 2002 and her Masters of Education degree at Virginia State University (School Counseling) in 2006. Olaniyi is actively engaged in the learning process and seeks out new and innovative ways to help her students learn.
Authors Note
Tracy M. Walker, Assistant Professor, Department of Doctoral Studies, Virginia State University Trina L. Spencer, Assistant Professor, Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia State University Kimberly F. Powell, Educational Specialist for Elementary Science, Henrico County Public Schools, Virginia Olaniyi I. Lucas, Graduate Student, Department of Doctoral Studies, Virginia State University Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tracy M. Walker: School Address: Department of Doctoral Studies, P.O. Box 9403, Petersburg, VA 23806. Home address: 6153 Bootsie Blvd., Richmond, VA 23231. Contact email: twalker@vsu.edu.
15
April 2012
16
April 2012
Why Students Choose a College Major in the STEM Fields

by Dr. Cynthia B. Powell and Erin Boyd
Introduction he National Research Council has just released its much-anticipated recommendations for K-12 science and engineering education (National Research Council 2011). Implicit in the arguments for a stronger and more focused approach to teaching and learning in these fields is the realization that fewer students are choosing to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) than will be needed to fill workforce positions in our ever advancing technology-driven society. In light of this situation, research on why students choose a college major in the STEM fields and how students are influenced toward a career in one of these disciplines is vital. We need to look at data for the country as a whole, but also at data from the state of Texas to help inform educators and other community members as they make decisions that we hope will steer students toward STEM careers. Current research literature identifies several factors that correlate with student choice of STEM major. These include influence of teachers and parents, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and science self-efficacy (Forrester 2010; Maltese 2008; Lau & Roeser, 2002; Crisp, Nora & Taggart, 2009; Tai, Sadler & Loehr 2005). Many studies report that the influence of primary and secondary teachers is the most prominent factor in directing students toward a college major or a specific career path (Hattie 2003; MacIntyre et al.; Dick & Rallis 1991; Forrester 2010; Tai, Sadler & Loehr 2005; Tytler 2010; Lau & Roeser 2002; Maltese 2008). Parental encouragement is also a prominent factor through modeling of educational goals, 17
support through direct involvement with a school or learning activities, and verbal, emotional and financial support before and during college enrollment (Lau & Roeser 2002; Rowan-Kenyon 2007; Smith & Hausafus 1997; Herdon & Hirt 2004). Studies have focused on the student voice, methods of teaching science, the teacher voice and influences of popular science. Research from all of these areas must be integrated to make informed decisions about science education policies (Christidou 2011). Elucidating the student reflection of characteristics of teacher interactions and teaching styles as well as parental interactions is an important step to understanding what determines the success of a student within the STEM disciplines and what piques student interest in pursuing advanced studies in these fields. (MacIntryre et al. 2010, Hattie 2003). To give a richer, more detailed description of the pre-college factors that influence a students choice of STEM major among students in Texas, we undertook a case study comparing and contrasting populations of college-enrolled students who chose a STEM major with those who did not choose a STEM major. The case study approach allowed for a qualitative examination of a smaller sample size so that we could concentrate on specific context-dependent scenarios that might enrich an understanding of the influences affecting students (Gerring 2004, Flyvbjerg 2006). An article published by J. Koch in Science and Children (1990) describes the use of a science autobiography to stimulate discussion among pre-service elementary school teachers enrolled in a science methods course. Ellsworth & Buss (2000) reported interesting research April 2012
Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

focused on pre-service teachers that used student autobiographies to track how educational experiences affected feelings and perceptions of math and science. We decided to include similar studentgenerated science autobiographies in our research design that would allow the students in our STEM/non-STEM samples to describe specific experiences, attitudes, and changes in opinions over time. Each of our study participants wrote a unique narrative in response to an assigned prompt that described experiences from their precollege science education. We read and coded these autobiographies searching for emerging themes that might point toward common experiences (Maltese and Tai 2010). The results of this study are a descriptive analysis of factors contributing toward choice of STEM major and attitudes toward science and technology among students enrolled at a Texas university. Additional demographic data, a logic reasoning measure and a questionnaire on experiences in science teaching and learning enrich the comparison of the two student groups. Research Questions This study addressed four research questions: 1. Is there a correlation between student logic reasoning ability as measured by the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) test and experiences in teaching and learning science as measured by the Experiencing in Teaching and Learning (ETL) questionnaire for students in our sample? 2. What are the differences in learning orientations between STEM students enrolled in an entry-level science majors chemistry course and non18 STEM students enrolled in an entry-level education majors physical science course as determined by the Experiencing in Teaching and Learning (ETL) questionnaire? 3. What are the major educational influences on students attitudes toward science as described in science autobiographies? 4. What are the differences between the science education experiences and attitudes toward science of STEM students enrolled in an entry level science majors chemistry course and non-STEM students enrolled in an entry level education majors physical science course based on information gleaned from science autobiographies? Methodology The samples chosen for this study were students enrolled at a mid-size private university located in West Texas. The sample population was all students enrolled in two entry-level science courses during the fall 2010 semester. The students self-selected course schedules and all students in each of the chosen science courses were invited and consented to participate in the IRB-approved study. The first sample was comprised of the 22 students enrolled in Honors General Chemistry (CHEM H133), a chemistry course covering the fundamental principles of chemistry at an accelerated pace for honors students with a math or science major or a pre-health professions emphasis. Only one section of CHEM H133 is offered per semester. This course has the reputation for being a very difficult course. Science majors and pre-health professions students April 2012
CONGRATULATIONS!
2012 REGIONAL FINALISTS
Over $160,000 have been awarded to the H-E-B Excellence in Education awards teacher, principal and district nalists and their schools. And at the statewide competition on May 6th, they will compete to win an additional $5,000 to $100,000!
Be sure and visit
heb.com/education
for the complete list of nalists and to learn more about the H-E-B Excellence in Education awards program.
2012 HEB, 12-2844
Experiencing Physics
Integrated Teaching Solutions from
Physics, A First Course - Second Edition
Physics A First Course, is an ideal approach to physics at the introductory, conceptual level. This program uses an inquiry-based approach. Students discover science concepts by investigating with hands-on equipment. Foundations of Physics, is a friendly, readable, conceptual approach to physics that is accessible to every student. This program includes successful STAAR strategies and a focus on mathematics for conceptualized physics.
Like us Follow us
Foundations of Physics - Second Edition
Features of CPO Science Teaching and Learning Systems

Student textbooks and Investigation manuals High-quality equipment included with minimum purchase Teacher resources and professional development Digital and online learning products Sally Dudley, Regional Sales Manager 800-237-1371 or 972-825-6588 sally.dudley@schoolspecialty.com April 2012
2/14/12 12:26 PM
19 www.cposcience.com Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 The

STATellite_Ad_CPO.indd 1

are not required to enroll in the honors section and most choose to enroll in one of the non-honors sections. The university honors program has a strong humanities component. Students who choose to pursue an honors degree and are therefore eligible to enroll in CHEM H133 must also be articulate writers. As a result of these factors, the students who elect to take CHEM H133 are usually highly motivated students who are confident in their science ability, very interested in the subject matter and write well. This STEM major sample was specifically chosen because of these expected characteristics. The second sample chosen for this study was the group of 22 students enrolled in General Science for Preservice Elementary School Teachers (CHEM 203). This course is an entrylevel physical sciences course that presents the fundamental principles of chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy and meteorology for students preparing to teach in elementary schools. Only one section of CHEM 203 is offered per semester. None of these students have chosen to major in STEM disciplines and CHEM 203 is usually the first science course they have taken at the college level. It is not unusual for these students to postpone taking CHEM 203 until their junior or senior year because they are concerned about the science content of the course. Though some of the CHEM 203 students are intimidated by science content, they are usually creative and enthusiastic learners who have spent time in education courses reflecting on effective teaching. As a result of their previous education training, their written analysis of teaching and learning situations might be expected to be much richer than one written by a student who is not an education major. 20 Once again the non-STEM major sample was specifically chosen because of the expected characteristics of this population. The majority of the students who participated in this study are Texas residents who attended public schools in Texas. Four out of the 22 students in the STEM sample received their high school diplomas outside of Texas, while 2 out of the 22 students in the non-STEM sample graduated from high school in another state. The pre-service teachers enrolled in CHEM 203 are in training to be certified and teach in the Texas school systems. Demographic information was retrieved from university databases. Two assessments were administered to all students in both samples during the first days of course enrollment to ensure that the results indicated a reflection on previous experiences: the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) test and the Experiencing in Teaching and Learning (ETL) questionnaire (Roadrangka 1986, Roadrangka, Yeany & Padilla 1986, Enhancing TeachingLearning Environments). The GALT test measures logic reasoning ability and has been shown to have a correlation with success in science coursework (Bird 2010; Bunce & Hutchinson 1993; Jiang et al. 2010). The ETL questionnaire was used to assess previous teaching and learning environments and student approaches to studying, ways of thinking and practicing a subject. Both assessments have been used previously to study a variety of student populations and have been shown to have high reliability and strong validity (Parpala 2010; Xu 2004; Bird 2010). Data collected using these two tools were compared and statistical analyses were performed using R and SPSS. April 2012

The first assignment in each course was to write the science autobiography. Instructors provided a written description of the assignment with the prompt and students were given one week to complete the work (Figure 1). Essays were submitted electronically. All students were assured that their essays would be confidential and that the goal of the assignment was to learn about their previous experiences in studying and learning science that had influenced their attitudes toward the discipline. Students were also informed that grades would be assigned based on thorough completion of the task and not on positive, negative or indifferent content. Figure 1: Science autobiography prompt Assignment #1: Science Autobiography Respond to the following prompt in essay form. Your response should be at least 500 words long, but no longer than 1000 words. Completed autobiographies should be submitted electronically to your course drop box. When you think about your science education beginning in elementary school, through middle school and high school what are your dominant memories and impressions from each stage? Think about these questions as you answer: 21 (1) Did you like science, hate science, or just feel a bit neutral about it? (2) Who or what influenced your attitudes toward science and how did they influence you? (3) When did you feel like you learned science most effectively? (4) What topics do you remember studying? (5) Do you remember times when your experiences with science affected life choices? (6) Are there differences between inschool and out-of-school memories? Please be as specific as possible in describing experiences and include examples to support your answers. Respond to this prompt at the conclusion of your autobiography: Thinking about what youve just written about your science education, describe an ideal science teachers role in a classroom and an ideal science students role in a classroom. In this study, the science autobiographies were read by each author/ researcher who independently coded and categorized the content of the writing samples by general attitude. Five attitude categories were used: overall positive, April 2012

overall neutral, overall negative, positive to negative, and negative to positive. If a student autobiography included only positive statements regarding their science experiences, they were placed in the overall positive category. If they wrote exclusively about negative experiences, they were placed in the overall negative category. Students who were placed in the positive to negative or negative to positive groupings typically wrote about a transition period when their opinion toward science changed. Students whose autobiographies expressed indifference toward science were place in the overall neutral category. These classifications were similar to those used in the Ellsworth & Buss (2000) autobiography analysis. We independently analyzed each autobiography and then compared ratings to reach and record a consensus categorization. We also analyzed the science autobiographies for evidence of expected themes by looking for evidence of several non-demographic factors that previous research has shown to correlate with student success in and pursuit of STEM education. These categories were mention of teacher impact, mention of parental impact, and allusions to student science self-efficacy. We recorded the number of times teachers or parents were mentioned as positive and negative influences and the number of sentences dedicated to these topics. We looked for evidence of science self-efficacy by looking for descriptions of student confidence or lack of confidence in preparation for a university level science course or in academic performance in science courses taken during secondary education. Finally, we looked for any additional emergent themes in the student science autobiographies that might 22 elucidate possible connections between early experiences with science and choice of a STEM major. Quantitative Data Comparison of demographics of STEM and non-STEM samples Table 1 lists the gender, major, and classification distributions of the STEM and non-STEM student samples. The student participants enrolled in CHEM 203 were all female and a majority of the students were classified as juniors and education majors. Three CHEM 203 students had a declared major in a field closely aligned with education that also falls in the nonSTEM category. Students in CHEM 203 comprise the non-STEM sample. There were 13 men and 9 women enrolled in CHEM H133 and most had declared a biology or biochemistry major. The four students who were not science majors had declared a pre-health professions concentration that includes significant undergraduate level science coursework and their career goal requires enrollment in a graduate level health science program. All CHEM H133 students were classified as STEM students for the purposes of this study. Though many of the students in CHEM H133 were technically classified as sophomores, all but one were first-year university students; honors students often begin their college careers with over 30 hours of AP or duelcredit coursework and therefore may be classified as sophomores before high school graduation. The one senior enrolled in CHEM H133 had chosen to take the course due to a late-in-degree program decision to take pre-requisites courses for medical school and declare a pre-health professions concentration.
April 2012

Table 1: Sample demographics
STEM Gender Majors 13 Males 9 Females 9 Biochemistry 9 Biology 2 Bible 1 History 1 Psychology Classification 1 Senior 0 Juniors 11 Sophomores 10 Freshmen
test, reliability is indicated by a Cronbachs alpha of 0.71. Table 2 summarizes the mean Non-STEM performance of each sample population on 0 Males each GALT item. One point is assigned for correct completion of an item, and perfect 22 Females performance on the GALT test corresponds 17 Education to a score of 12. Figure 2 is a representation 2 Applied Studies of the stage distribution of students in each 1 Speech Pathology sample as determined by GALT performance. Most students in both sections can be 1 Family Studies Nasco Science Division categorized in the formal operations stage Texas 1 Psychology Science Teacher based on GALT score; however, 7 non-STEM March 2012 4 Seniors students fell in the concrete and transitional TST1203 12 Juniors stages.
4 Sophomores 2 Freshmen
Comparison of GALT data for STEM and non-STEM samples The GALT test can be used to assess logic reasoning ability and separates students into three operational stages that correspond to Piagets developmental model: the concrete stage, a transitional stage and the formal stage (Roadrangka 1986, Roadrangka, Yeany & Padilla 1986). This test has particular relevance when examining data for STEM and non-STEM university students as numerous research studies report a correlation between science ability and development of logic reasoning ability ( for example: Bird 2010; Bunce & Hutchinson 1993; Jiang et al. 2010). We planned to use this data to investigate connections between logic reasoning ability and experiences in learning and teaching of science among our sample populations. We might expect higher GALT scores for students who have a track record of success in STEM disciplines at the high school level and in turn expect a greater proportion of students who choose a STEM major to exhibit high GALT scores. During this administration of the GALT 23
There is a statistically significant difference between the mean GALT score of the STEM sample (10.3 + 1.35) and the mean GALT score of the non-STEM sample (7.8 + 2.21). Analysis of the sub-categories measured by the GALT test show that the
TST1203
April 2012

cause of the overall statistical difference is a statistical difference in performance on questions testing proportional reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, correlational reasoning and combinatorial reasoning (p < .05). The median overall GALT score for the STEM sample was 11, 0.7 higher than the mean, and the median overall GALT score for the non-STEM sample was 8, 0.2 higher than the mean. Four students in the STEM sample scored a perfect 12. No GALT data was collected for three of the students in the non-STEM sample. Table 2: Results of Group Assessment of Logical Thinking
Logical reasoning mode Mass/Volume conservation Proportional reasoning Experimental variable control Probabilistic reasoning Correlational reasoning Combinatorial reasoning Total GALT score Question STEM One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve All 1.000 0.905 0.809 0.905 0.952 0.667 0.952 1.000 0.857 0.476 1.000 0.952 10.2650
Cronbachs alpha = 0.71

p- value 0.1628 0.3292 0.2238 0.003373 0.2711 0.3947 0.944 0.02072 0.00000789 0.001867 0.1628 0.006678 0.00004659 Non-STEM 0.895 0.789 0.632 0.474 0.842 0.789 0.947 0.737 0.211 0.053 0.8947 0.579 7.7909
Mean score
Figure 2: Operational Figure 2: Operational stages determined using GALT stages determined using GALT
25 20 15 10 5 0 Concrete operational 0-4 Transitional stage 5-7 Formal operational 8-12 STEM Non-STEM
24
April 2012

GALT data can be further analyzed through examining any interaction effects by gender within the STEM sample. (The non-STEM sample does not include male students, limiting our analysis of this sample by gender.) Table 3 shows the mean GALT scores on each item by gender and the results of t-tests comparing these. At the p < .05 level only item ten (one of two questions testing correlational reasoning) is statistically significantly different for the male and female STEM students. Extending the limit to p < .10 the female STEM students performed at a statistically higher level on both correlational reasoning GALT items. All other mean GALT item scores for the STEM sample by gender show no statistically significant differences. Table 3: Comparison of STEM sample GALT data by gender
Logical Reasoning Mode Mass/Volume Conservation Proportional reasoning Experimental variable control Probabilistic reasoning Correlational reasoning Combinatorial reasoning Total GALT Score Question One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve All Mean Score MALE-STEM 1.000000 0.9230769 0.8461538 1.00 1.000 0.6153846 1.000 1.000000 0.7692308 0.2307692 1.000000 0.9230769 9.9000 FEMALE-STEM 1.000000 0.8750000 0.7500000 0.75 0.875 0.7500000 0.875 1.000000 1.0000 0.8750000 1.000000 1.00000 10.66667 p-value 1.000000 0.7488 0.6287 0.1705 0.3506 0.5413 0.3506 1.000000 0.0821 0.00174 1.000000 0.337 0.2319
Hands-On Kits
Just in time for your Spring & Summer Professional Development. Contact your Texas sales reps for kit contents and pricing.
Dallas/Fort Worth tom_avery@vwreducation.com Central/South Texas chuy_garcia@vwreducation.com Houston/Texas Coastal Bend/El Paso deborah_linscomb@vwreducation.com
STEMscopes Kits are available exclusively through
25
April 2012

Comparison of ETL data for STEM and non-STEM samples The data collected using the ETL questionnaire and displayed in Table 4 shows statistically significant differences in the STEM and non-STEM student intrinsic reasons for taking the science course and extrinsic reasons for taking the science course. The STEM student sample on mean reported having stronger intrinsic reasons for enrolling in the science course (p < .10) than non-STEM student sample. Likewise, the non-STEM student sample on mean reported stronger extrinsic reasons for taking the science course (p < .05). It is not surprising that students choosing a STEM major would express greater personal motivation for enrolling in a science course than students who have not chosen a STEM major and are required to take a science course for completion of their non-STEM degree. The reliability data as expressed by Cronbachs alpha for the measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are low perhaps indicating some conflict of thought among the students about their reasons for enrolling in the courses or their level of interest in the science content. A statistically significant difference is also evident in the reported measure of taking a surface approach to learning. Non-STEM students reported that they are more likely to take a surface approach to learning (p < .05, Cronbachs alpha =.863). The surface approach subscales that contributed to the statistical difference were the memorizing without understanding subscale and fragmented knowledge and unthinking acceptance subscales. Non-STEM students more frequently agreed that in previous science courses they had often attempted to learn information that did not make sense to them and struggled to remember this information. The strong reliability of this data gives us confidence in the accuracy of these self-reported learning tendencies. When comparing data for organized study habits, on mean the non-STEM students reported a more systematic approach to studying and learning than the STEM students. The difference is statistically significant at the at the p < .10 level (Cronbachs =.869). Again, the strong reliability of this measure indicates consistent student reporting of study habits. Table 4: Results of the Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environment Questionnaire (ETL)
ETL sub-scales Intrinsic learning orientation Intrinsic reason Extrinsic reason Deep approach Surface approach Monitoring studying Organized studying Effort management Cronbachs alpha .588 .305 .452 .813 .863 .795 .869 .717 t-test results STEM 4.712 4.450 2.640 4.200 2.281 3.956 3.842 4.050 Non-STEM 4.807 4.197 3.136 3.955 3.074 4.193 4.253 4.318 p-value 0.436 0.0894 0.009602 0.2183 0.002043 0.2164 0.07474 0.1480
26
April 2012

In looking at evidence for gender differences that might be displayed among the STEM student sample we see a statistically significant difference in the mean value of the measure of intrinsic reasons for enrolling in the course and in the deep approach to learning at the p < .10 level. The female STEM students reported a lower intrinsic motivation (p = .08206, Cronbachs alpha = .305) and a lower tendency toward a deep approach to learning (p = .0744, Cronbachs alpha = .869) than the male STEM students. Table 5: Comparison of STEM sample ETL data by gender
ETL sub-scales Intrinsic Learning Orientation Intrinsic Reason Extrinsic Reason Deep Approach Surface Approach Monitoring Studying Organized Studying Effort Management t-test results MALE-STEM 4.625000 4.633333 2.660000 4.400000 2.075000 4.000 3.983333 4.200000 FEMALE-STEM 4.777778 4.222222 2.666667 3.902778 2.638889 3.875 3.851852 3.962963 p-value 0.486 0.08206 0.9816 0.07447 0.1325 0.6335 0.651 0.3936
Qualitative Data General attitudes toward science General attitudes toward science as expressed in the science autobiographies of students in both the STEM and non-STEM samples were analyzed and categorized. Five categories were used to group the student attitudes that resulted from pre-college experiences: overall positive, overall neutral, overall negative, positive to negative, and negative to positive. None of the students in either group had an overall negative attitude toward science during their early education years. In the STEM sample, 15 students had an overall positive attitude toward science, 6 students reported transitioning from a negative to a positive attitude through their primary and secondary education years, and one student reported a transition from a positive to a negative attitude toward science during precollege education (Figure 3). By contrast, the non-STEM sample included 9 students with an overall positive attitude toward science, 3 students were classified as overall neutral, 6 students reported transitioning from negative to positive attitudes and 4 students included information in their autobiographies suggesting a shift from positive to negative attitudes toward science (Figure 3). Examination of Figure 3 shows that the greatest proportion of students in both samples can be classified as having a positive attitude toward science before beginning their college educations (combining the positive and negative to positive categories). However, it is not surprising that slightly more than 25% of the non-STEM students expressed a 27 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

neutral or positive to negative transition of attitude toward science that resulted in either a neutral or a negative attitude before beginning their college career. It is surprising that one STEM student expressed a negative attitude toward science and still chose a career path that included heavy science coursework. Figure 3: General attitudes toward science Figure 3: General attitudes toward science
STEM 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Positive Negative to Positive 5% Positive to Negative Neutral Negative 27% 27% 19% 11% 43% 68% Non-STEM
Themes in the science autobiographies Previous research suggests several common influences on student pursuit of and success in a STEM major in college. We began our analysis of the autobiographies by looking for evidence of these influences during the pre-college years to see if we could gather more detail about how students in our samples were affected in either positive or negative ways. Students discussed the influence of teachers, family, school and out-ofschool experiences. We saw evidence of student self-efficacy in both sample groups. One emergent theme that we did not initially target was prominent in writings collected from both sample groups: the importance of hands-on or laboratory learning in the classroom. A discussion of the data gathered under each of these themes follows. Theme I: The positive influence of teachers Among all of the anticipated and emergent themes, students in both samples dedicated the greatest number of sentences to discussing the influences of primary and secondary teachers on their attitudes toward science. All 44 students mentioned precollege level teachers in their science autobiographies. Nine out of the 22 students in the STEM sample specifically mentioned high school science teachers who fostered a personal relationship with their students and served as mentors. This is seen in the 28 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

following statements from STEM sample autobiographies: It was a strange relationship at first; almost with a love for teacher more than a love for subject, but with a great teacher comes an appreciation for what he or she is passionate about. She had a way of knowing us so personally, that she could discover each individuals learning style and accommodate it. His classes were structured as 30 minutes of lecture, 45 min of lab and 15 min to solve problems. During the entire time however, he would be talking to us, giving us life lessons, and being more of a mentor/ fatherly figure than a teacher. That really inspired me to pursue my goals, and just fortified my love of science. Physics was a hard subject for me because it is unlike any other science that I had grown accustomed to, but (my teacher) helped me to be able to get through the class, and still enjoy science. I am very grateful for his faith in actions, and his caring personality. Something that is similar in every stage of my life is the fact that my attitude towards science usually reflected that of my current science teacher. The ideal science teacher would be one that is interested in their students as well as the subject they are teaching. Students in the non-STEM sample discussed the importance of a teachers ability to actively engage their students in learning and did not stress the importance 29 of personal relationships or mentoring relationships. They equally sited primary and secondary teachers who were positive influences. The following excerpts from autobiographies written by non-STEM students are examples of student belief in the importance of creative and interesting teachers: She always had a new and creative way to help us learn hard concepts, and that quality made her one of the most effective teachers in my life. At the elementary age I enjoyed all my subjects because I had great teachers who made it fun and exciting no matter what we were doing. My teachers definitely influenced my attitude about science at the elementary age, and they influenced me by doing a lot of fun and hands on activities. My freshman year I had a physical science teacher (whose) passion for the subject was obvious from the first class. He was extremely upbeat and excited about science, and he made sure everything that he taught us was engaging and fun. He would go very in depth in the subjects he was teaching and not just teach the words of the textbook. He incorporated creative hands-on learning experiences, and science felt like less work. In middle school I had a fantastic teacher that had a way of making science interesting and understandable to everyone She was a great teacher because she never made me feel like I was April 2012

learning useless information just for the sake of learning science. She applied every detail to my life. While both groups clearly site teachers as an inspiration, it is notable that the students in the STEM group frequently mentioned being mentored by science teachers and the non-STEM group did not. The non-STEM students seemed more interested in the mechanics of how a course was taught, than in who was teaching it. Both appreciated creative teachers who were interested in the subject matter they taught and who were enthusiastic about drawing students into the learning experience. Theme II: The negative influence of teachers Our sample autobiographies cited teachers as a strong influence, both positive and negative, in the development of students view of the discipline of science. The following statements exemplify how the students believed teachers served as negative influences in shaping their attitudes. There were no lengthy descriptions of specific negative teacher influences among the STEM autobiographies, but general statements written by STEM students about negative teacher attitudes consistently reflects their interest in a mentoring relationship with teachers. All students in the non-STEM sample who described a positive to negative shift in their attitude toward science pinpointed teachers as the primary reason for this shift. When describing negative influence of teachers, the non-STEM students continued to focus on whether the teacher worked to make the material engaging rather than on the personality or function of the teacher as a mentor. The teachers were not engaging and did not make it fun for any of the students. During my aquatic science class, the information we were learning was not what the teacher enjoyed teaching, so unfortunately I was not able to learn and retain very much information from that class. My teachers in middle school also had an enormous impact on my feelings toward science. All of them were boring and monotonous, and not one of them incorporated hands-on learning or experiments. The love that I had previously felt for science disintegrated, and I began to think of it as a chore. I remember in 8th grade sitting in the classroom, we were learning about organisms and life stages and I just could not understand why we need this information, why I was being told to memorize any of the things, I just did not like itAfter having that one bad experience (with the teacher) in science I decided it was something I didnt need any more so I just stopped learning.
Students can usually tell when teachers could care less about them, and I know for me personally, it lessens my motivation greatly. I most effectively learned science at this level despite the teachers unpleasant attitude towards the Overall, the focus on teacher influence students in my class. is a dominant theme among the 44 written 30 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

autobiographies. Teachers impacted students in both positive and negative ways and the students in our sample who chose a STEM major as they began their university career reported a deeper connection with science teachers as mentors than the students in our non-STEM sample. The students in the non-STEM sample described teacher interest in the subject matter and effort to engage the students through active learning strategies as key components for positive teaching and pointed to absence of these attributes as contributors to negative teaching. Theme III: The positive influence of family members Undoubtedly family members have an enormous impact on student performance in school and attitudes toward education including attitudes toward specific disciplines (Lau & Roeser 2002; Smith & Hausafus 1997; Herdon & Hirt 2004; Hurtado & Carter 1997; Desmond & Turley 2009; Rowan-Kenyon 2007; Buchmann & DiPrete 2006). This theme was evident in autobiographies written by students in both the STEM and non-STEM samples. Twice as many students in the STEM sample (8) than in the non-STEM sample (4) described their parents or other family members as strong influences on their attitude toward science. Family members impacted students through discussion about their own careers that included a science component or through taking an active role in their students science education. Though the STEM students were more vocal about family influences, there were not notable differences in the types of family influences described by students in the two samples. The following excerpts drawn from a mixture of STEM and non-STEM autobiographies 31 exemplify student views of the importance of family influence on their attitudes toward science: In an academic sense I learned way more in the classroom, but in a far more significant way my Dad has taught me what science really means in the real world. My teachers were central to developing my love for science, but my Dad is responsible for my fascination with iteven from before I could write we were doing experiments. When I was little we used the scientific method to test which cereals stayed crunchy the longest, and when I got older he taught me why the barbecue turns things to charcoal. As a young child, our families shape many of our preferences and beliefs. In this way, my interest in science in elementary school was greatly influenced by my father, a physician, who has a great interest and understanding for sciences, and also by my older sister, who also loved science. My mom started working as a nurse in the cardiac cath lab at (a hospital) and her stories reminded me of my interest and love of the heart. I feel like my family had the biggest influence on my opinion on sciencemany of my family members have worked for NASA as long as I could remember. When I was a young child, I always wanted to follow in my grandfathers footsteps and become an aerospace engineer. My mother was a teacher and April 2012

taught biology for several years at our local high schoolShe did a lot of fun experiments and made her students write a daily notebook When I think about my earliest memories of science I think about my mother and the effort she put into planning and assessing her lessons at home. Students who expressed a negative attitude toward science did not include any mention of family influence in their autobiographies. Of the students who were classified as having an overall positive attitude toward science from both samples 25% (6 out of 24) mentioned a positive family influence. Theme IV: Science experiences outside of school The science autobiography prompt asked students to consider whether there were differences between in-school and out-of-school memories with respect to science. Family impact could fall under the category of an out-of-school memory so we anticipated some overlap in student responses. Despite the fact that they dedicated more sentences to their discussion of the influence of teachers than out-ofschool influences, 11 out of the 22 STEM students (50%) described experiences outside of the school setting as the primary reason for their interest in pursuing a career in science. These experiences included internships, science projects, interaction with doctors, and visits to museums in addition to family interactions. The following quotes are illustrative of the breadth of out-of-school experiences STEM students described as being highly influential: I was able to experience science 32 on a deeper level than most while working at an oral surgeons office last summer. It was there that I was able to observe and participate in surgeries at a minor level and realize that this field of study is fascinating to me. I volunteered at thezoo as a junior mammal keeper during the summers of my sophomore and junior year. For me, the in-class experiences and memories helped to cultivate my interest and love in science, but it was the out of class experiences that really led to my passion for biology that I have today. I was a part of an internship that enable me to learn hands on medicine. This is when I truly fell in love with science and what it has already accomplished with endless possibilities for the future. I began to get really bad migraineswe discovered that (it) was a benign cyst that only one surgeonwould even consider surgically removing. It was at that moment that I knew (I wanted) to be a neuro researcher. My earliest recollection of exploring the creationwas at a the Science Place. There they had all sorts of exhibits to show how things worked in the universe, how things were in the past, pools of water showing how waves workedand giant animatronics of everything from dinosaurs to human thumbsI was probably 6 or 7 when this happened, but it left a lasting impression on me about how much life there is all around us. April 2012

classroom (is) to be able to learn some of it on your own. It really is the best way to retain information. To realize that the goal is not for teachers to teach everything they can, but for students to learn everything they can. I remembered how much I had loved biology and so I chose to take AP biology last year. Not only is it the most challenging class I have ever taken, but it is also the class I have gotten the most out ofI have never learned so much in one course before. I was not the best in the class by any means, but I sure gave it my all. In order to truly learn, students must find the answers themselves. Junior high was when my love for science truly took flight. By then I had mastered the scientific method, and thought I can do anything. The non-STEM students more frequently directly described their science confidence levels as younger students. Like students in the STEM sample, students from the non-STEM sample referred to the confidence gained from learning challenging materials. When I think back to my elementary classrooms, however, I can remember becoming excited about the science experiments we conducted, and I remember going to great lengths to ask questions about what we were studying. I knew that I liked the ocean and sea creatures, but until I took this class I did not realize how much I enjoyed learning about marine biology. I started to go further in depth with what we studied in class on my own time, and I started to seriously April 2012
By contrast, only one student in the non-STEM sample described an outside of school experience as the primary influence on her attitude toward science and one additional student listed out of school experiences as being important. In both of these cases, the out-of-school experience they discussed was family influence. Theme V: The science self-efficacy Low self-efficacy is frequently suggested as a limiting factor in student success (Forrester 2010; Lau & Roeser 2002; Schoon & Boone 1998). We examined the student autobiographies for evidence of attitude toward the ability to succeed in learning science content materials. Interestingly, the STEM students dedicated fewer sentences to any discussion of their science ability than the non-STEM students. This may be due to a tacit assumption among students enrolled in an honors chemistry course that they are capable science scholars. Many of their statements about future careers in science or medicine included statements that implied confidence in their ability to achieve their post-graduate goals. They also made statements about their roles in learning or in coursework that indicated they considered themselves successful science students. The following excerpts are indicative of the STEM students confidence. After serious considerations I made one of the greatest decisions in my life, I decided to follow my heart and take the harder route. I am very confident that with the science background that I have, this major is not far off and well within my grasp. The ideal science students role in a 33

consider becoming a marine biologist. I always liked science. In elementary school, as much as I can remember, I always had fun, enthusiastic teachers. It was something that I was good at so I did not mind doing it. I think the time in which one of my science classes most affected a life choice was simply that I knew I could learn and handle anything, and therefore could do anything. I did struggle with some of the topics discussed between chemistry, biology, and physics but I seemed to work through it and understand the materials to the best of my ability. Completely absent from any of the autobiographies is any discussion of student lack of ability to understand or do science. Students with positive to negative overall attitudes did express lack of interest, but attributed this to poor science teaching, not to the subject matter. I had a very different experience in high schoolthe teachers I had were a different breed than the ones I had formerly. My tenth grade biology teacher was less than satisfactory. She failed to challenge the minds of her studentsMy interest in science grew weaker and weaker because I lacked good direction in my classes. But after some of my experiences with science (teachers) the idea (of studying science) became less appealingI feel a bit intimidated by science, and I do not feel confident with my science foundation. My physics class was by far 34 the worst class I have ever experienced(my teachers) lessons plans never differed much; we either did activities on a computer program of he put in a DVD of a college professor teaching a lessonIt was a struggle to do work in that class, and care about my grades. Theme VI: The effect of teaching using activities and experiments Discussion centering on activities and experiments that were part of school science curriculum is an emergent theme in autobiographies written by students in both sample groups. Students state that such active, hands-on approaches greatly influenced their interest in and understanding of science and made science a lot more fun. STEM students (13 out of 22) and non-STEM students (16 out of 22) discussed this topic. Non-STEM students dedicated 140 sentences to describing specific science activities in contrast to 79 sentences written by students in the STEM sample. This is not a surprising theme for a science autobiography, but its prominence emphasizes that experiential classroom curriculum is very memorable and influential! Students from both samples articulated this idea: The science classes that I loved and remember the most are the classes that I had incredible learning experiences because of fun activities or experiments. I feel like overall I learned science most effectively when we preformed activities to go along with the lesson, instead of just doing worksheets and listening to lectures. April 2012

What made my 6th grade science class so exciting was that the whole class seemed to be participating in experiments or other hands-on work. I dont think we even had a text book. In one of my chemistry classes, the teacher allowed us to perform a burn test lab where we burned certain chemicals and saw what color their flames were. It is during this period that my neutrality toward science turned into more of a fondness for the subject. My most memorable thoughts about science in elementary school was when we learned about the digestive system in the sixth grade. We did an activity where we pretended to be our favorite type of food and we had to draw what the food was like as it went through the digestive system. It was hands-on, self-paced and discovery based. We learned about astronomy, electricity, and simple machines that year. I had a better understanding of electrical current than most of my friends for years because of that science class. We made our own periodic table. We made shirts and posters of endangered animals. We made videos of different groups of elements. Everything really made me love science. Conclusions Previous research into the motivations for pursuing a STEM discipline in undergraduate and even graduate education identify several demographic and environmental factors that are correlated with pursuit of and success in advanced 35 STEM education. In this case study we have attempted to investigate some Texas students perceptions of the influences in their pre-college education that have affected their attitudes toward science to provide a richer description of how students might be supported toward higher education goals in the STEM disciplines. We chose a sample of students who are enrolled as STEM and non-STEM majors at a Texas university and investigated their pre-college experiences in the sciences. Most students completed their high school educations at a Texas high school. We planned to try to answer four research questions that we hope will help Texas educators identify methods of continuing to improve our encouragement of students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The first question we wished to address was whether we saw a correlation between student logic reasoning ability as measured by the GALT test and experiences in teaching and learning science as measured by the ETL survey. Comparison of the GALT data for the STEM and non-STEM samples indicates that the STEM sample had a significantly higher mean GALT score. This is not a surprising result since many previous studies have shown a correlation between logic reasoning ability and performance in STEM discipline coursework. Grouping of the GALT scores by Piagets stages of development for each sample show that all students in the STEM sample would be placed in the formal reasoning category while 61% of the non-STEM sample would be categorized in the formal reasoning stage. The remaining 39% of the non-STEM students would be placed in the transitional or concrete stages. Comparison of the ETL data for the April 2012

students from both samples who would be categorized as formal reasoners to the ETL data for the students from both samples who would be categorized as concrete or transitional reasoners shows two statistically significant differences: the intrinsic (p < .05) or extrinsic (p < .05) motivation for enrollment in the university level science course. Students with the higher GALT scores were more likely to report a personal interest in science that motivated their course enrollment than students with a lower GALT score. It might be suggested that this motivation is linked to a natural ability that is reflected in the GALT performance, but it may also be linked to previous experiences with STEM learning that led to a motivation for developing skills in STEM areas. It is interesting that comparison of the ETL data for formal reasoning students with the concrete and transitional stage students does not result in any significant differences in surface learning or deep learning, or in an organized approach to studying. These are qualities we might expect to be linked with logical approaches to learning and thus logic reasoning. Using data from the ETL we can address the second research question and look at the differences in selfreported learning orientations between STEM students enrolled in an entry level science majors chemistry course and nonSTEM students enrolled in an entry level education majors physical science course. As discussed in the quantitative data presentation, analysis of data for these two groups shows several significant differences in learning orientations. The STEM sample students report higher intrinsic motivation and the non-STEM sample students report greater extrinsic motivation. The STEM 36 sample students indicate that they are less organized studiers and also less likely to take a surface approach to studying content materials. The alignment of more organized studying and surface approach to studying as reported learning habits in the nonSTEM sample is an interesting juxtaposition of traits. It may be often assumed that students who are organized in their approach will exhibit the deepest learning approaches resulting in greater interest in a subject matter, but this data seems to negate that connection for our sample. The third research question asked what students identified as the major educational influences on their attitudes toward science as described in their science autobiographies. As reported in many previous studies, our students identified primary and secondary teachers, parents and other family members and outsideof-school volunteer and educational experiences as the dominant influences on their attitudes toward science. Students attributed much of their interest or lack of interest in formal science education to the level of enthusiasm and commitment of their science teachers. The hands-on laboratory teaching that occurred in classrooms left a deep impression on students in both samples. Interestingly, none of the students described their own ability to understand science content as a limiting factor in their success in science courses or interest level in science content. The majority of students in both samples who expressed thoughts about their ability to learn about science exhibited strong self-efficacy. Finally we wanted to identify the differences between the science education experiences and attitudes toward science of STEM students enrolled in an entry April 2012

level science majors chemistry course and non-STEM students enrolled in an entry level education majors physical science course by comparing the information gleaned from science autobiographies. We saw several important trends in the information provided by students in their autobiographical narratives describing experiences in science throughout their pre-college education years. STEM sample students identified teachers as mentors and role models and were very affected by the personal interest that teachers expressed in their students. The science autobiographies of the non-STEM students focused on classroom teaching styles of their primary and secondary teachers, but did not identify these teachers as mentors or comment on whether the teachers took a personal interest in the students. Further research into mentoring influences across disciplines might help us learn about teachers of other subjects who did serve as mentors for the non-STEM students and more about how these mentoring relationships were formed. The influence of family members on a students positive interest in science was a topic addressed by both STEM and nonSTEM students in our samples, however twice as many STEM students identified family members as a major influence. No students identified family members as a negative influence on their interest in science. Descriptions of family involvement in science education revolved around parent occupations and a few descriptions of parents who provided opportunities for their students to experiment at home. Our students seemed to be very impressed by the work their science-minded parents pursued and wanted to follow in their footsteps. Internships and volunteer opportunities were also highly influential for our STEM 37 sample students and several described these as the defining experience that motivated their choice of major. The presence of a parent who has a career in the sciences or an internship/volunteer work with professionals in science or technology fields give students first-hand experience that widens their understanding of how workers in these disciplines contribute to society. With this window into the everyday work life of a STEM professional, students are more likely to picture themselves pursuing a similar career. Identifying the influences on the students in our sample is both enriched by and limited by the unique pre-college experiences of every student. While we cannot directly compare the quality of their primary and secondary educations, we can compare the attitudes and impressions that the students have taken from those experiences and listen to their explanations of the genesis of their attitudes. From listening to the student voice as expressed in their autobiographies and in their analysis of their experienced teaching and learning styles, we can learn how our actions and interactions as teachers might affect student perceptions of STEM disciplines and eventually influence their decisions about pursuit of a STEM major. What conclusions can be drawn from the data presented in this study? First, all of us are being encouraged to pursue deeper learning objectives and to teach our students in ways that will encourage them to be lifetime learners. Sometimes this means that we are tasked with teaching study skills and organized studying habits regardless of our discipline. The ETL data in this study suggest that students who have chosen to pursue STEM disciplines April 2012

may not be as organized in their study approaches, but also are not as likely to take a surface approach to studying. This result is a reminder that it is vital that we impress upon our students the importance of understanding what they are studying and assess our students in ways that require understanding of material, not rote memorization. Organized studying of rote material will allow students to be successful in reproducing information, but does not provide the important foundation that will allow students to understand, retain and apply what they have learned or apparently lead to greater interest in pursuing a STEM discipline major. Second, this study re-affirms that the active, student-centered classroom makes science memorable and a positive enthusiastic teacher who draws students into learning can have an enormous impact on students. Additionally, teachers who are willing and able to mentor students seem to be a vital link to encouraging students to pursue a career in a STEM discipline. The teachers interactions with students is central to the learning process; a new curriculum or end-of-course exam may provide some motivation, but most essential is an instructor who is willing to show personal interest in students. Mentoring can take many forms. A recent publication in this journal implicitly highlighted the work of countless mentors in assisting students through co-curricular science projects and competitions (Hedge 2011). Students often have opportunities to learn about health science careers through programs planned by Area Health Education Centers (National Area Health Education Centers 2011). There are also statewide initiatives like the Joint Admission Medical Program that have been very successful in recruiting students 38 into health sciences (JAMP 2011). Magnet schools in areas of denser population have gathered students to study science and technology and health sciences. These are all excellent ventures. In a time of budget shortfall, many teachers are being asked to take on heavier loads. In the decision process, the importance of student mentoring and the time and attention it requires should be taken into consideration. Finally, increasing opportunities for students to volunteer or participate in internships in a professional setting that includes a wider variety of STEM careers could make a significant difference in student career choices; we see such exposure as a defining influence for many of the STEM students in our sample. While opportunities to shadow and learn from health professionals are more commonly available, opportunities to learn from a computer programmer at a software development firm, a chemist working in water quality control, an electrical engineer managing a project or any number of other essential STEM positions are scarce. Our data indicates that finding creative ways to expose students to careers in a STEM discipline may be one way to widen the stream of students entering our universities and technical schools to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Its a goal worth pursuing that will be key to continued economic growth in our state and nation.
April 2012
Author Biographies
Erin Q. Boyd is a senior at Abilene Christian University majoring in Biology and Psychology and involved in research projects in the social and biological sciences. She works as a research assistant and Erin Q. Boyd is a senior at Abilene Christian University majoring in Biology and Psychology and involved social media coordinator for Mobile Enhanced Inquiry Based Learning, a Next Generation Learning in research projects in the social and biological sciences. She works as a research assistant and social Challenge Wave I research project. Upon graduation, she will continue her education at the University media coordinator for Mobile Enhanced Inquiry Based Learning, a Next Generation Learning Challenge of Texas at continue her in the Department of Texas at Wave I research project. Upon graduation, she will Arlington education at the University of Psychology studying Health and Nueroscience Psychology.
Arlington in the Department of Psychology studying Health and Nueroscience Psychology.
Erin Q. Boyd is a senior at Abilene Christian University majoring in Biology and Psychologyin the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Cynthia B. Powell is an assistant professor and involved in research projects in the social and biologicalChristian University. research assistant M.S. in inorganic chemistry at Texas A&M University and Abilene sciences. She works as a She earned an and social media coordinator for Mobile Enhanced Inquiry Based Learning, a Next Generation Learning Challenge a Ph.D. in chemistry/chemistry education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests inWave I research project. Upon graduation, she will continue her education at the University of Texas at clude synthetic organometallic chemistry as well as effective pedagogies for promoting deep conceptual Arlington in the Department of Psychology studying Health and Nueroscience Psychology.
understanding and the use of technology to support student learning.
Literature Cited
Cynthia B. Powell is an assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Abilene Christian University. She earned an M.S. in inorganic chemistry at Texas A&M University and a Ph.D. in Bird, L. (2010). Logical reasoning ability and student performance in general chemistry/chemistry education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include synthetic organometallic chemistry as well as effective pedagogies for promoting deep conceptual understanding 541-546. doi: 10.1021/ed8001754 and the use of technology to support student learning.
chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5),
Buchmann, T., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 515-541. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100401
Cynthia D. M., & assistant professor in the (1993). The use of and GALT (Group Assessment of Logical Thinking) as a predictor of Bunce, B. Powell is anHutchinson, K. D. Department of Chemistry the Biochemistry at Abilene Christian University. She earned an M.S. in inorganic chemistry at Texas A&M University and a Ph.D. in academic success in college chemistry. The Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 183-187. doi: 10.1021/ed070p183 chemistry/chemistry education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include synthetic organometallic chemistry as well as effective pedagogies for promoting deep conceptual understanding and the use of V. (2011). Interests, attitudes Christidou, technology to support student learning. and images related to science: Combining
students voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(2), 141-159. Retrieved from http://www.ijese.com/IJESE_v6n2_Vasilia_Christidou.pdf
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924-942. doi: 10.3102/0002831209349460 Desmond, M., & Turley, R.N. L.(2009). The role of familism in explaining the Hispanic-White college application gap. Social Problems, 56(2), 311-334. doi: 10.1525/sp.2009.56.2.311. Dick, T. P., & Rallis, S. F. (1991). Factors and influences on high school students career choices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(4), 281-292. doi: 10.2307/749273 Ellsworth, J. Z., & Buss, A. (2000). Autobiographical stories from preservice elementary mathematics and science students:
39
April 2012

Implications for K-16 teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 355-364. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000. tb18177.x Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments (ETL) Project, ETL questionnaire. Web. 16 Aug. 2011, < http://www.etl.tla. ed.ac.uk/publications.html#measurement>. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363 Forrester, J. H. (2010). Competitive science events: gender, interest, science self-efficacy, and academic major choice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/6073 Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001182 Hattie, J.A C. (2002). What are the attributes of excellent teachers? In Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? (pp. 3-26). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Hedge, R. S. (2011). Science-fair scorecard of Dallas/Fort Worth area independent school districts. The Texas Science Teacher, 40(1), 25-32. Retrieved from http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/apr-11 Herdon, M.K, & Hirt, J. B. (2004). Black students and their families: What leads to success in college. Journal of Black Studies, 34(4), 489-513. doi: 10.1177/0021934703258762 Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345. doi: 10.2307/2673270 JAMP Homepage. The University of Texas System - Nine Universities. Six Health Institutions. Unlimited Possibilities. Web. 16 Aug. 2011. <http://www.utsystem.edu/jamp/>. Jiang, B., Xu, X., Garcia, A., & Lewis, J. E. (2010). Comparing two test of formal reasoning in a college chemistry context. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1430-1437. doi: 10.1021/ed100222v Koch, J. (1990). The science autobiography. Science and Children, 28(3), 42-43. Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139-162. doi: 10.1207/S15326977EA0802_04 MacIntyre, B., Gardner, D., Gilling, M., Hughes, H., Parkinson, T., Rosemergy, B., & Suddaby, G. (2010). Engaging secondary school learners effectively in science: Voices of students and teachers. In S. Dolinek, T. Lyons (Eds.), XIV IOSTE 2010 Socio-cultural and Human Values in Science and Technology Education Conference Proceedings (pp. 715724). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Institute for Innovation and Development of University of Ljubljana. Maltese, A. V. (2008). Persistence in STEM: An investigation of the relationship between high school experiences in science and
40
April 2012

mathematics and college degree completion in STEM fields (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (AAT 3326999) Maltese, A.V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685. doi:10.1080/09500690902792385 National Area Health Education Center Organization (NAO) - Resource Links. National AHEC Organization. Web. 16 Aug. 2011. <http://www.nationalahec.org/home/index.asp>. National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press. Parpala, A. (2010). Exploring the experience and conceptions of good teaching in higher education: Development of a questionnaire for assessing students approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment. (Doctoral thesis, University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences Studies in Educational Sciences, Helsinki, Finland). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-5955-1 Roadrangka, V., (1986). The construction and validation of the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(9), 2650. Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R., & Padilla, M. (1983). The Construction of A Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas, April 1983. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. (2007). Predictors of delayed college enrollment and the impact of socioeconomic status. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 188-214. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2007.0012 Schoon, K. J. & Boone, W. J. (1998), Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 8, 553568. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199809)82:5<553::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-8 Smith, F.M. & Hausafus, C.O. (1997). Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students achievement in science and mathematics. Science Education, 82(1), 111- 124. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199801)82:1<111::AIDSCE6>3.0.CO;2-K Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Loehr, J. F., (2005). Factors influencing success in introductory college chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 987-1012. doi: 10.1002/tea.20082 Tytler, R. (2010). Ways forward for primary science education. (Research Review) Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/ polopoly_fs/1.125130!Menu/article/attachment/16%2520Primary%2520Sci%2520Ed%2520Sweden.pdf Xu, R. (2004). Chinese mainland students experiences of teaching and learning at a Chinese university: Some emerging findings. Paper presented at the BERA 2004 Conference, UMIST, Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla. ed.ac.uk/docs/XuBERA.pdf
41
April 2012
Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students in a High School Environmental Science Program

by Dr. Gianluca Corsi
Abstract
ab practices are considered indispensable tools for teaching science. However, often they do not yield the desired effects in schools. Many students who participate in lab practices do not necessarily score higher on tests, nor do they necessarily gain stronger scientific confidence. In this quantitative, nonexperimental study, 76 at-risk students were tested in an Environmental Science program with the purpose of indentifying effective instructional models applicable to science lab practices that could yield better results in terms of test grades and student confidence in science. Two types of labs were analyzed: (a) expository labs, where students followed systematic instructions to find a pre-determined result, and (b) inquiry labs, where students created their own investigations to find answers to specific research questions. The results of the study indicate that lab practices are very beneficial to students if properly conducted. However, inquirybased labs seem to yield significantly higher results, in terms of test scores and student confidence, than expository labs do. Paired sample t-tests were conducted on pre/ post-lab test scores throughout the study, and regression models were developed on student socio-economic status (SES) and special education (SPED) classification. The results suggest that low SES and SPED students appear to benefit much more from conducting inquiry labs than they do from doing expository labs. Given the results of the study on low SES and SPED populations, further research is encouraged in the analysis of the relationships between effective lab designs and other demographic attributes. 42
Introduction Key Words: At-Risk Student, Environmental Science, Expository Lab, Inquiry Lab. Background Laboratory practices (labs) played vital roles in shaping our progress as a modern society, allowing scientists to simulate conditions otherwise too difficult, risky, or too expensive to face in the real world. This unique characteristic of labs makes them indispensable tools of scientific work and discovery. Singer, Hilton, and Schweingruber (2005) defined labs as opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models and theories of science (p. 31). This definition seems to put much emphasis on the critical need for labs in all science classes: labs provide the opportunity to interact with the material world, and perhaps to understand it better. The Role of Labs Although the role of labs is clear for scientists and students who pursue scientific careers, it is not as clear for those students who do not have particular interest in science, or for students classified as at-risk1. In most secondary and postsecondary settings, students are required to
1 For the purpose of this study, the definition of at-risk students will refer to the Texas Education Agencys (2010) definition: A student at risk of dropping out of school based on state-defined criteria (TEC 29.081) (p. 4). Specifically, under the Texas Education Code, Title 2 Public Education, Chapter 29, Subchapter C, an at risk student is a student under the age of 21, identified by 13 specific strands, among which low SES and SPED (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2009). The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012
Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students (contd.)

experience and attend lab practices. Most states make it mandatory for secondary science teachers to plan a certain percentage of their teaching practices as lab activities, which often becomes a concern for many science teachers for various reasons. The lab preparation is time consuming; also, many young students do not understand the importance of lab safety and rather engage in hazardous activities within the lab facility if not under constant and direct supervision, which at time might not be possible, particularly in large classes. Furthermore, there are considerable costs associated with setting labs, building and maintaining the facilities, purchasing the equipment and necessary materials, training faculty, and more. There seems to be significant divergence in the literature about the real benefits of labs in school. For instance, some authors assert that there are no correlations between students test scores and their participation in lab practices, indicating that the most important factor in a successful science course is the construction of conceptual models that illustrate and explain physical phenomena, rather than focusing on their practical applications (Tretter & Jones, 2003; Jackson, Dukerich, & Hestenes, 2008). On the other hand, there is also evidence of the opposite. Pickens and Eick (2009) sustain that a reason why underachiever students do not develop interest in classroom experiences is the lack of hands-on and physical interaction with their surroundings. This also translates into poor test performances. Ultimately, students of science must be able to articulate ideas and defend evidence, which skills transcend those often tested through standardized assessments, particularly if multiple-choice 43 fashioned. Effective paradigms of scientific instruction indicate that placing emphasis on the construction and application of conceptual models of physical phenomena, as a central aspect of learning and doing science, has positive effects (Jackson et al., 2008; Raeside, Busschots, Waddington, & Keatinig, 2008). Furthermore, although the long-term effects of lab applications are still unknown, there is evidence that lab experiences promote better understanding of scientific phenomena, while the lack of a place to perform experimentation (laboratory facilities) ultimately has repercussions on the students ability to apply theoretical knowledge to real-life scenarios (Singer et al., 2005; Woodfield et al., 2005; AsbellClarke & Rowe, 2006). Based on the background information, it is reasonable to believe that there is a concrete and justifiable need to implement labs for all students, regardless of their academic status or individual interests in, or aptitudes toward, science. However, not all labs are the same: which labs yield the greatest academic benefits for at-risk students? Some types of labs are designed to provide systematic directions and have a predetermined outcome. These labs can be classified as expository labs, because the students are simply exposed to a process and are not required to create or design an original experiment (Domin, 1999). Other types of labs are inquiry-based and require the students to design and carry out an experiment. These labs are known as inquiry labs; the students must identify the problems, define the experimental setting, perform the investigation, predict the outcomes, and compare the results to other similar studies (Domin, 1999).
April 2012

Study Overview The purpose of this non-experimental, quantitative study was to identify any statistically significant difference in academic performance of at-risk students between expository labs and inquiry labs. Both categories of labs (expository and inquiry) have advantages and disadvantages. The most intuitive advantage of expository labs is the convenience of having large groups of students perform the same tasks, following the exact same procedure, while the instructor knows exactly what to expect in the end. This makes class management easier and enhances the overall environmental control of the procedure. On the other hand, inquiry labs are more unpredictable, and may impose greater supervisory efforts particularly with large groups, because the instructor does not necessarily know the outcome and may not predict results right away. Therefore, what seems to be a management advantage for expository labs, it is a disadvantage for inquiry labs. Conversely, inquiry labs provide greater levels of experience in scientific design and process than expository labs do, since the students are required to create original experiments in order to investigate the problems observed. This level of engagement is typically not attainable with expository labs, which offer an already prepared procedure for students to follow and to repeat systematically. In this study, two indicators of academic performance were analyzed: test scores and student confidence in practicing science. The following research questions characterized the study: Q1. Are there any statistically significant differences between the test scores of at-risk students who perform expository labs and the test scores of at-risk students who perform inquiry labs? H10. There are no statistically significant differences between the test scores. H1a. There are statistically significant differences between the test scores. Q2. Are there any statistically significant differences between the scientific confidence of at-risk students who perform expository labs and the scientific confidence of at-risk students who perform inquiry labs? H20. There are no statistically significant differences in scientific confidence. H2a. There are statistically significant differences in scientific confidence Method Participants Five Environmental Science classes were tested at different times, over a twoyear period, in a large suburban high school near Dallas, Texas. The course was designed to provide students with the necessary scientific skills to understand how the natural systems, comprising our environment, work. This included a fundamental understanding of the natural dynamics that take place among the biosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere. The course was developed specifically to engage students in various lab activities and real-life projects. The participants, 76 eighteen-yearold high school students who agreed to participate in the study, were all classified April 2012
44

as academically at-risk, per TEA definition. Particular attention in this study was given to two of the 13 traits identified by the TEA (2009) for an at-risk student: (a) low socioeconomic status and (b) need for special modifications. The sample was a simple random sample with static group design (Creswell, 2003; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). A statistical power analysis was employed to assure that the sample size was adequate for the study (and in order to minimize the risk of Type I error), using G*Power for a priori sample size estimate, which provided an overall correct computed sample size N = 76 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Measures Throughout the duration of the study, the students worked on 50 labs. The labs were the same each year, and 10 of these labs were selected for the study on both school years. Five of these labs were designed to provide systematic approaches to test the problems and answer the research questions (expository labs), and the remaining five labs were created as inquiry labs, allowing the students to research and experiment on their own. In order to answer research question Q1, for each lab, sets of pre-lab and postlab quizzes were conducted to assess the knowledge and skills gained from lab completion. A comparative analysis was employed to test the statistical significance of the results. Because the participants remained the same throughout the entire study, a paired sample t-test was adopted after testing for, and confirming, normal distribution. To establish normality, an analysis of kurtosis and skewness was employed. In order to answer research question Q2, three surveys were given to the 45 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012 students, and answers were collected using a Likert Scale system. The results of the surveys were then compared. Data and Results Table 1 summarizes the results of the descriptive statistics of the pre- and post-lab quizzes based on the 10 labs. Determination of normality for each lab was done using kurtosis and skewness as numerical indexes (Park, 2008). Table 1 shows that kurtosis and skewness values are all very small and close to zero; based on this information, the parametric statistic (paired sample t-test) was deemed appropriate. (continued on next page...)

Table 1: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for the Pre- and Post-Lab Quiz Scores
Descriptive Statistics Labsa Expository Lab 1 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Expository Lab 2 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Expository Lab 3 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Expository Lab 4 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Expository Lab 5 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Inquiry Lab 1 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Inquiry Lab 2 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Inquiry Lab 3 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Inquiry Lab 4 Pre-Lab Post-Lab Inquiry Lab 5 Pre-Lab Post-Lab 35.23 (12.45) 41.16 (11.43) 45.35 (13.96) 51.21 (12.19) 43.77 (11.16) 49.12 (12.31) 37.48 (12.24) 42.31 (10.88) 53.47 (12.53) 58.23 (11.78) 38.42 (14.01) 72.13 (13.24) 42.14 (13.32) 68.89 (12.97) 55.17 (12.14) 83.35 (12.90) 63.66 (11.75) 78.32 (10.23) 67.41 (11.43) 79.93 (10.25)
a
M (SD)
k - .090 -.078 -.081 -.056 -.062 -.047 -.088 -.069 -.095 -.049 -.045 -.067 -.056 -.043 -.082 -.078 -.095 -.069 -.078
Skew .019 -.072 -.045 -.023 -.041 .079 -.044 .064 .093 -.035 -.067 -.039 -.022 .084 -.025 .014 .076 -.044 .089 -.043
n = 76
-.089
46
April 2012

The data in Table 2 indicate strong positive correlations between the pre-lab and post-lab quiz scores in both expository and inquiry labs. The quiz score correlations in the expository labs ranged between r(74) = .892, p < .001, and r(74) = .967, p < .001, while the correlations in the inquiry labs ranged between r(74) = .886, p < .001, and r(74) = .988, p < .001. These correlations indicate high likelihood that the students who scored high in the pre-lab quiz did well also in the post-lab quiz, while those who scored low in the pre-lab quiz possibly improved, but likely remained in the lower score range. Table 2: Paired Sample Correlation between the Pre-Lab and Post-Lab Quiz Scores
Pearson Correlation Coefficients Lab Expository Lab 1 Expository Lab 2 Expository Lab 3 Expository Lab 4 Expository Lab 5 Inquiry Lab 1 Inquiry Lab 2 Inquiry Lab 3 Inquiry Lab 4 Inquiry Lab 5
***
r .892*** .910*** .967*** .906*** .956*** .988*** .935*** .901*** .886*** .948***
p < .001.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the t-values with p < .05. The t-value is an expression of the probability that pre-lab and post-lab quiz scores have the same mean. The smaller the t-value, the larger is the probability of the means to be the same, and viceversa. The critical values for the t distribution, with a degree of freedom (df) = 74, and two sided = .05, is t = 1.99 (Van Belle, Fisher, Heagerty, & Lumley, 2004). All t-values are greater than the critical t, significant even for = .001 (critical t = 3.43). They ranged from t(74) = 3.565, p < .001 in expository lab 2, to t(74) = 15.631, p < .001 in inquiry lab 2.
47
April 2012
Table 3: t-Values of the Pre-Lab and Post-Lab Quiz Scores

Quiza Expository Lab 1 Expository Lab 2 Expository Lab 3 Expository Lab 4 Expository Lab 5 Inquiry Lab 1 Inquiry Lab 2 Inquiry Lab 3 Inquiry Lab 4 Inquiry Lab 5
a ***
t 4.519*** 3.565*** 6.712*** 5.251*** 6.087*** 11.234*** 15.631*** 13.346*** 12.279*** 9.611***
df = 74
p < .001.
Because information pertaining to student socio-economic status (SES) and in need of special education (SPED) of the participants was available in the study, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. This analysis was indented to strengthen the answer to research questions Q1, since it showed whether the differences in test scores could be predicted by SES or SPED status of the participants. The regression models for expository labs and inquiry labs showed strong relationship between the observed values and the model-predicted values for both the expository lab quiz scores (R = .921) and the inquiry lab quiz scores (R = .894). In order to answer Q2, three surveys, reflecting the participants perception of confidence in doing science, were administered: one initial survey at the beginning of the course, and two more (one pertaining to expository labs and one pertaining to inquiry labs) at course completion, as shown in Table 4. The results of the surveys indicate that initially the participants seemed eager to do science and work on labs, scoring an average of 4.1 points out of 5 on a Likert Scale. However, the results of the expository lab survey show an average of 2.8 points out of 5, suggesting perhaps that the participants did not feel like those labs met their expectations and did not help significantly to increase their confidence level in science. Conversely, the survey results of inquiry labs averaged a 4.4 points out of 5, which seem to suggest that the participants felt more confident and prepared after this type of lab approach.
48
April 2012
Table 4: Perception of Scientific Confidence

Average Scoresa Questions Initial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I will have (I had) opportunities to pursue my own science interests. I will be required (I was required) to design my own experiments to solve a given problem. I will feel (I felt) actively engaged in completing the labs. I will apply (I applied) some experimenting in the real world, by my own. The labs will help (The labs helped) me think like a scientist. The labs will improve (The labs improved) my confidence in science. The labs will make (The labs made) me feel more confident in answering science test questions. I will do (I did) better on the post-lab tests than I will do (I did) on the pre-lab tests because of lab completion. These labs are essential in a science course. These lab experiments will make me want to pursue further scientific studies in college. 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.1 4.7 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.3 3.6 4.1
a
Expository Labs 2.1 1.6 2.9 2.6 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.2 2.8
Inquiry Labs 4.1 5.0 4.8 3.8 4.5 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.4
n = 76
Conclusions Q1. The results of this study show that there are statistically significant differences between the test scores of at-risk students who perform expository labs and students who perform inquiry labs, in an Environmental Science program. At-risk students who perform inquiry labs seem to score higher than at-risk students who perform expository labs. 49 The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

Effective lab designs provide significant benefits to at-risk students. The regression models, based on student low SES and SPED classification, support the evidence that students who fall in both of these categories greatly benefit from inquiry labs, much more than they do when practicing only expository labs. Because the results are limited to this particular study, and the literature still shows some unclear divergence in this field of research, this conclusion should not be interpreted as a generalization, rather as a specific effect of this study, with the relative applicable limitations. Q2. The results indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the scientific confidence of atrisk students who perform expository labs and those who perform inquiry labs in an Environmental Science program. Based on the result of the surveys, student confidence in science appears to be greater when they perform inquiry labs as opposed to expository labs. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that the expository labs do not adequately stimulate student imaginative and experiential activity; rather, their systematic nature requires students to memorize steps and remember results. Alternatively, inquiry labs are designed to stimulate higher levels of cognitive engagement. When presented with a problem, students not only must evaluate options and solve the problem, but they must create paths that allow them to predict results and being able to support their evidence. This triggers thinking processes that go beyond the mere ability to identify and remember events. Over time, such training skills likely yield to better scientific preparation, more scientifically confident students, and ultimately better test scores. 50 Discussion Evidence suggests that the use of lab practices in Environmental Science is a very positive tool for understanding how the natural world works. At-risk students often have difficulties grasping scientific concepts and translating their classroom efforts into meaningful life experiences. This becomes the base for frustration and poor test scores. Even when teachers implement lab practices and exercises, results are often less than desired. Depending on the situations, this could be due to the way lab practices are presented. Many teachers go through great lengths to set up labs and activities, which often follow someone elses instructions on a pre-determined lab worksheet. Purchasing the materials, making copies of the worksheets, explaining the procedures, preparing the lab stations, and more, require a great deal of time and dedication, before and after school. Inquiry labs eliminate the need for most of these procedures. The strength of inquiry labs is in the shift of accountability and work from the teacher to the student. These types of labs seldom require any particular materials to be purchased or any worksheets to be copied and prepared. No pre-determined questions need to be asked, because the students typically come up with the questions. Most importantly, these labs allow the students to do most of the work in their own way, creating original thoughts and enriching classroom experiences. Students are stimulated to use thinking methods unique to their individualities and cognitive processes, and they often succeed in making predictions on their actions. The results of this study reflect only one type of life science area, which at this stage still represents a limitation. Nevertheless, further research is encouraged April 2012
on other aspects of the scientific fields, like physical and chemical sciences. Additionally, while this study focused specifically on low SES and SPED status, future research should analyze other demographic attributes such as IQ, student GPA or LEP status, in an effort to determine their relationships with student academic success in science. Author Biography
Gianluca Corsi, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Biology and Environmental Science at the American Public University System, as well as a secondary Science educator. Dr. Corsi resides in the Fort Worth area (TX), but studied Ecology and Forest Sustainability at the University of Padova (Padua, Italy). He spent years assessing the environmental impact of deforestation practices in remote areas of the Italian Alps, and studied environmental conservation in Brazil, where he traveled between the Mato Grosso forests and the semiarid zones of the Brazilian North East. Dr. Corsi designs and develops life science labs and curricula for high school science programs and coaches science teachers to be confident and successful in the art of teaching science through hands-on activities.
References
Asbell-Clarke, J., & Rowe, E. (2006). Learning science online: A descriptive study of online science courses for teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 11(3), 95-121. Retrieved from http://www.life.umd.edu/grad/MLfsc/JALN. V11,3.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles.Journal of Chemical Education,76(4),543-547. doi: 10.1021/ ed076p543 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. Retrieved from http://www. psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/download-and-register/Dokumente/GPower3-BRM-Paper.pdf Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Gay, L. R., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: An effective model for science education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10-17. Retrieved from http://www.nsela.org/images/stories/scienceeducator/17article7.pdf Park, H. M. (2008). Univariate analysis and normality test using, SAS, Stata, and SPSS [technical working paper]. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University. Pickens,M.,&Eick,C.(2009). Studying motivational strategies used by two teachers in differently tracked science courses.The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 349-362. doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.5.349-362
51
April 2012
Raeside, L., Busschots, B., Waddington, S., & Keatinig, J. G. (2008). An online image analysis tool for science education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 547-558. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.021 Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2005). Americas lab report: Investigations in high school science (Eds.). Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Research Council. Texas Education Agency. (2009). Education Code, Title 2 Public Education, Chapter 29, Subchapter C. Retrieved from http:// www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ ED.29.htm Texas Education Agency. (2010). Glossary of the Academic Excellence Indicator System. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ perfreport/aeis/2010/glossary.html Texas Education Agency. (2010). Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index.aspx Tretter,T. R., &Jones, M. G.(2003). Relationships between inquiry-based teaching and physical science standardized test scores.School Science and Mathematics, 103(7),345-350. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18211.x Van Belle, G., Fisher, L., Heagerty, P. J., & Lumley, T. (2004). Biostatistics: A methodology for the Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Woodfield, B. F., Andrus, M. B., Andersen, T., Miller, J., Simons, B., Stanger, R., Waddoups, G. L., Moore, M. S., Swan, R., Allen, R. & Bodily, G. (2005). The virtual chemlab project: A realistic and sophisticated simulation of organic synthesis and organic qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemistry Education, 82(11), 17281735. doi:10.1021/ ed082p1728
52
April 2012
53
April 2012
The Publications of the Science Teachers Association of Texas Solicit Manuscripts
The Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT) publishes two periodicals: The Statellite and The Texas Science Teacher. The Statellite is the associations newsletter. It contains innovative science activities, STAT leadership news, and current information on membership benefits. 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 publication. 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 STAT Editor at stat@bizaustin.rr.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 editor 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 Association, Fifth Edition. Guidelines - The submission guidelines on-line: http://www.statweb.org/texas-science-teacher/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 separate file, including a caption and the source (i.e. the name of the photographer and/or the image copyright owner) for each image.
54
April 2012

Texas Science Teacher: Letter From The Editor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas Science Teacher: Letter From The Editor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas Science Teacher

Volume 41, Number 1 April 2012

Letter from the Editor

Engaging Elementary Students

Why Students Choose a College Major

Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students

Official Publication of the Science Teachers Association of Texas

The Texas Science Teacher

Letter from the Editor

Engaging Elementary Students in STEM Camp

Why Students Choose a College Major in STEM Fields

Effects of Labs on At-Risk Students

For more information regarding permissions, contact the Editor: stat@bizaustin.rr.com

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Letter from the Editor

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary (contd.) Letter from the Editor(contd.)

STEM that makes sense?

Well make it a snap!

Ready-to-go units, full year curriculum, or custom implementations.

Joel C. Palmer, Ed.D.

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Texas Science Test Preparation

Texas Science Leveled Reader Library

Texas Science Equipment Kits

To learn more, visit us online: hmheducation.com/tx/science

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students in Summer STEM Camp

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Graphical Analysis for iPad

LabQuest Viewer Vernier Data Share

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Vernier Software & Technology | Toll Free: 888-837-6437 | www.vernier.com

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Why Students Choose a College Major in the STEM Fields

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

2012 HEB, 12-2844

Foundations of Physics - Second Edition

Features of CPO Science Teaching and Learning Systems

19 www.cposcience.com Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 The

Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1

Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

The Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1