Science Fair Project Seeing How Reviews Effect Peoples Oppinions

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Article

High school scientific discipline fair: Positive and negative outcomes

• Frederick Grinnell,
• Simon Dalley,
• Joan Reisch

x

• Published: Feb 13, 2020
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0229237

Figures

Abstract

The goal of our ongoing research is to identify strengths and weaknesses of loftier schoolhouse level science fair and improvements that can help science educators make science fair a more effective, inclusive and equitable learning experience. In this paper, we ostend and extend our previous findings in several important ways. Nosotros added new questions to our bearding and voluntary surveys to larn the extent to which students had an interest in science or engineering careers and if science fair participation increased their involvement in science or engineering. And we surveyed a national rather than regional high school student group past incorporating our survey into the Scienteer online portal at present used past Texas and some other states for science fair registration, parental consent, and project management. We learned that most ~60% of the more than 300 students in the national cohorts completing surveys in 2017 and 2018 said that they were interested in a career in science or technology, and ~60% said that participating in science fair increased their interest in scientific discipline or technology. Nigh two-thirds of the students were required to participate in scientific discipline fair, and that requirement reduced the frequency of students who said that scientific discipline fair increased their interest. In the worst case, ~10% of the students who said that they were not interested in a career in scientific discipline or engineering and who were required to participate in science off-white engaged in research misconduct (i.e., plagiarism and making upwards their results). Students' positive comments about competition in science off-white focused on the competition incentive, whereas their positive comments about science fair that was non-competitive focused on learning about the scientific process and learning in general. We discuss the findings in the context of National Science Teaching Association guidance virtually voluntary science off-white participation and brainstorm to identify features of science fair practice consistent with increased student interest in the sciences or engineering.

Citation: Grinnell F, Dalley Due south, Reisch J (2020) Loftier school scientific discipline off-white: Positive and negative outcomes. PLoS ONE fifteen(2): e0229237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229237

Editor: Christine E. King, University of California Irvine, UNITED STATES

Received: Baronial 5, 2019; Accepted: February 1, 2020; Published: February thirteen, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Grinnell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Funding: FG was supported by the Robert McLemore Professorship. SD was supported past a Sam Taylor Fellowship and a Maguire Ethics Center Faculty Incentive Grant. Employ of the REDCap survey and data management tool was facilitated past the UTSW Department of Information Resources and Clinical and Translational Science Training Programme, NIH grant UL1TR001105. The REDCap funders had no role in study design, data drove and assay, decision to publish, or training of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Side by side Generation Science Standards (NGSS) identifies experiencing the practices of science as one of three essential dimensions of science education, "students cannot comprehend scientific practices, nor fully capeesh the nature of scientific knowledge itself, without straight experiencing those practices for themselves" [one]. The question how to integrate the practice of science into science curricula is not new. Debates near how to do then permeate the history of science education [2]. Scientific discipline fairs offering students an attractive opportunity to experience the practices of science for themselves because students who participate get through the processes of selecting a problem and question to answer; designing and implementing experiments to respond the question; analyzing and cartoon conclusions from the experiments; and explaining the findings to others through interviews and poster presentations [3–7].

Science fairs receive a lot of public attention. President Obama stated in his 2011 State of the Union Address, We need to teach our kids that it's non simply the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair [8]. The film Scientific discipline Fair won the 2018 Sundance Flick Festival festival favorite honor. A 2019 GEICO television commercial "Science Fair of the Futurity" had more than than 11 one thousand thousand views on YouTube in its first month. All the same, despite the long history and broad implementation every bit part of informal and formal science education in the Usa, few published research studies examine how scientific discipline fair participation affects student engagement with science [seven]. National Science Educational activity Clan (NSTA) guidance takes the position that student participation in science fairs should be voluntary with emphasis placed on the learning experience rather than on the contest [9]. However, whether about students who participate in high schoolhouse science fair are required or choose to participate and to what extent the students perceive science fairs as emphasizing learning vs. contest are open research questions.

The overarching hypothesis guiding our research is that a improve understanding of science fair practices volition assist science educators make scientific discipline off-white a more than effective, inclusive and equitable learning feel. Rather than theoretical, our aim is to amend the practical implementation of science fairs based on an analysis of students' loftier school science fair experiences. We began our research during 2014, conducting surveys with a grouping of regional high school students who had simply competed in the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair (DRSEF) and with post high schoolhouse students on biomedical science educational trajectories doing inquiry at UT Southwestern Medical Centre. The post high school students may or may not have participated in science fair. The surveys were bearding and voluntary and characterized pupil experiences past request them in addition to demographic data to identify sources of assist they received, types of aid received, obstacles encountered, and ways of overcoming obstacles [10, xi].

In this paper, we confirm and extend our previous findings in several important ways. First, nosotros added new survey questions to acquire the extent to which students had an interest in science or engineering careers and if science off-white participation increased their interest in scientific discipline and engineering. Second, nosotros surveyed a national group of high school students by incorporating our survey into the Scienteer (www.scienteer.com) online portal now used by Texas and some other states for scientific discipline fair registration, parental consent, and project management. We plant that about 2/3 of the students in the national cohort who completed surveys in 2017 and 2018 had been required to participate in science off-white and observed negative consequences of requiring participation on pupil science off-white experiences and attitudes. Some policy implications of the latest findings accept been put forth in a recent NSTA Reports commentary [12].

Materials and methods

This study was approved by the UT Southwestern Medical Center IRB (#STU 072014–076). Study design entailed administering to students a voluntary and anonymous online survey [10, 11] using the REDCap survey and information management tool [13]. Survey content, adapted from earlier research by others [fourteen], was like overall every bit our previous studies [10, 11] and included questions about student demographics, blazon of science fair participation, aid expected and received, and obstacles encountered and solutions implemented to overcome obstacles. Also, the survey used in the current studies included new questions about student involvement in a career in the sciences or engineering and the touch on of science off-white participation on interest in scientific discipline. The survey can be found in supporting data (S1 Survey).

High school students were invited to participate in the science fair survey through the Scienteer (www.scienteer.com) online portal used in Alabama, Maine, Missouri, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia for student science fair registration, parental consent, and projection direction. Afterward giving consent for their students to participate in science fair, parents could consent for their students to take part in the scientific discipline fair survey. To prevent whatsoever misunderstanding by parents or students nigh a possible impact of like-minded to participate or actually participating in the survey, access was not bachelor to students until later on they finished all of their science off-white activities. Students were instructed to log in to Scienteer afterward completing the final science off-white activity in which they participated. Those who did and so were presented with an alert and hyperlink to the science fair survey. No incentives were offered for participation, and Scienteer does not send out reminder emails.

Tabular array 1 summarizes the pupil survey response charge per unit. Of the students who clicked on the hyperlink, 20–25% completed the surveys. Nosotros don't know if some students logged back into Scienteer but did not click on the hyperlink and then the maximum response rate would accept been ~xx%. Overall, students who completed surveys represented slightly more than 0.v% of all students who signed upwardly for science fair through Scienteer. Given that participation in the survey involved an indirect, unmarried electronic invitation without incentive or follow-upwards, a low response charge per unit was not surprising [fifteen–17]. Most of the submitted surveys (>90%) were complete and non-duplicates. These surveys were used for data analysis. The complete survey data sets for students who participated during 2017 and 2018 school years tin can be institute in supporting data (S1 Dataset and S2 Dataset).

Quantitative data were analyzed by frequency counts and percentages. Data were sorted to compare different reply selections. Significance of potential relationships between data items was assessed using relevant statistical methods, east.thou., Chi-foursquare contingency tables for independent groups. Results shown in the figures are presented two ways—graphically to brand overall trends easier to appreciate and in tables beneath the graphs to show the actual numbers. A probability value of 0.05 or smaller was accustomed every bit statistically significant only bodily p values are indicated where significant differences were observed. Results for 2017 and 2018 national cohorts are shown separately in Figs i–3 and S1–S4 Figs but otherwise combined.

Fig 3. Frequency of student answers to the questions regarding educatee interest in a career in the sciences or engineering, impact of science off-white on interest in science, and attitude towards requiring science fair.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0229237.g003

Qualitative text analysis for the open-concluded text questions was achieved as described previously [11] using an approach modeled on NVivo [18, nineteen] based on grounded theory [20]. More than 80% of the students who completed surveys wrote comments nigh why science fairs should be optional or required. Two members of the enquiry team (FG and SD) independently coded students' comments, which were categorized into a matrix of shared student reasons (nodes). The independently coded matrices were revised and harmonized into xvi Reason Why categories why science fair should be required or optional. Longer educatee comments ofttimes expressed more than ane idea, in which case the comments were coded into more than than one Reason Why category, and which is why the number of reasons exceeds the total number of student comments. The complete prepare of student answers to the Reason Why question and corresponding reason category assignments can exist plant in supporting information (S3 Dataset).

Results

Survey demographics

Fig 1 shows the similarity of educatee responder cohorts in 2017 and 2018. Most students who participated in the survey (~75%) were in nine^th and x^th grades. More girls than boys completed surveys. Near one in iii students had carried out scientific discipline fair more in one case. The surveys are anonymous; therefore, nosotros do not know if any students who completed surveys in 2017 too did so in 2018, only the survey instructs the students that if they carried out science off-white more than than once, and so they should respond the survey questions according to their most recent experiences. Three out of four student projects were private.

Overall, 65–70% of the students who participated in scientific discipline fair reported that they were required to do so. Since the survey does not provide ancillary information regarding what it means for science off-white to be required, the students' answers reflect how they felt nigh their participation. We cannot tell if they empathise "required to do science fair" differently from their schools' intentions, e.g., required to participate in scientific discipline fair to become into an avant-garde form or to increase i's grade is not the aforementioned as truly required simply can be perceived that style.

Student experiences in high school science fair–aid and obstacles

Pupil answers to questions regarding sources of help, types of assistance received, obstacles encountered, and ways of overcoming obstacles were very similar comparing the 2017 and 2018 responders. Fig ii presents a graphical summary of the results with details in the corresponding supplemental figures S1–S4 Figs.

The most frequent educatee selections are labeled. (A) Parents, teachers, and articles on the internet were the principal sources of aid reported by more than 50% of the students. (B) No more than than 35% of the students reported receiving whatsoever particular blazon of help with the near frequent types of help received developing the thought, groundwork data and fine-tuning the report. Even though merely well-nigh a third of students received whatsoever particular type of help, a large bulk of students reported receiving the kind and amount of assistance that they wanted from teachers (meet S2 Fig). (C) Regarding obstacles faced, the nigh frequent selections were getting the idea, getting motivated, limited resources, and (above all) time. (D) Overcoming obstacles was accomplished most often by picking a familiar topic, doing more background research, and perseverance. 5 of the students indicated that they used someone else'southward data (D, #12) and 15 said they made up their data (D, #13) (see S4 Fig).

Comparison of national and regional student experiences

In Table 2, nosotros compare the almost frequent selections by the 2017–2018 national student groups (averaged) with information previously published based on surveys of regional students [x]. About of the tiptop choices (item rank) of the national and regional groups overlapped in every category. I major difference was that 85% of the regional students reported receiving coaching for the interview compared to only 21% of the national students. This deviation and several others—use of articles in books and magazines, more groundwork research, and more perseverance—are consequent with the highly supportive practices by the North Texas suburban school commune where most of the regional students attended loftier schoolhouse, and where students were incentivized rather than required to participate in science fair. Indeed, only 8% of the regional students were required to participate in science fair compared to 68% of the national students.

Effect of science fair on student interest in a career in the sciences or engineering and the consequences of requiring science fair participation

An important positive outcome of science off-white would be for students to become more than interested in science. Fig 3 presents an overview of educatee answers to two related questions, ane regarding the students' interests in a career in the sciences or engineering science, and the other regarding whether scientific discipline fair participation increased their interest in science or engineering. About sixty% of the students overall said they were interested in a career in the sciences or engineering science; xv% said they were not; and the remainder were unsure. Also, about 60% of the students said that science fair participation increased their interest in the sciences or technology.

As an indirect ways to assess how students viewed the value of science fair, we asked the quantitative question: Do you think science off-white should be required or optional? and the qualitative, open up-concluded text question: Reason Why? And we asked these questions for both competitive and not-competitive scientific discipline off-white to provide insights about student attitudes towards competition per se. Fig 3 shows the quantitative finding. Similar to previously reported results for the regional high schoolhouse students [xi], merely 1 in 5 of the national students favored requiring science fair competition. That number was marginally simply not significantly college if science fair was described as non-competitive vs. competitive. Qualitative results of the open up-concluded text question will exist described afterwards.

Fig iv shows some differences that reached significance comparison students who said that science fair did vs. did not increase their involvement in science. Non surprisingly, the impact of science fair participation on student interest paralleled educatee attitudes towards a career in the sciences or engineering. In addition, students who reported that science fair increased their interest in science or technology were more than likely to have received help from teachers, from articles in books and magazines, and coaching for the interview. More of these students did additional background inquiry and they reported more perseverance and self-discipline. Conversely, students required to do science fair were less likely to say that science off-white participation increased their involvement in the sciences and engineering and more than probable to report that getting motivated was an obstruction.

Figs 5 and vi show more clearly the negative affect of requiring science fair. Fig 5 shows that regardless whether or not students were interested in a career in science or engineering, requiring them to participate in science fair decreased the number who said that participating in science fair increased their interest. Fig half-dozen shows that students who were required to participate in science fair were more than likely to employ someone else's data or make up their data. Overall, ~10% of the students who also said they were not interested in a career in the sciences or engineering science and were required to participate in science fair did one or the other. Rather than becoming more than interested in scientific discipline, these students committing research misconduct, i.east., using someone else's data or making up their data.

Student reasons—Qualitative findings

Given the voluntary and anonymous format of our surveys, interviewing students was not a possibility. However, the open up-ended text questions asking students to state reasons why science off-white should be optional or required provided a rich source of insights regarding student attitudes. A total of 314 students (86.5%) commented about non-competitive science fair and 301 students (82.9%) commented about competitive science off-white regarding why science fair should be optional or required. That more than 80% of the students wrote thoughtful answers was one indication that the students took the surveys seriously.

The independently coded matrices were organized into xvi Reason Why categories that contained 445 educatee reasons most non-competitive science fair and 378 student reasons most competitive science off-white. Table 3 shows the categories (7 positive and 9 negative) and examples of the students' comments. Longer comments ofttimes expressed more than ane idea, in which case the comments were coded into more than ane Reason Why category. For instance, the pupil annotate, Science Fairs encourage students to learn new things in scientific discipline in specific areas that interest them, which might lead to a future career in the science section, was placed into both the "Introduction to scientific knowledge" and "Career interests" categories.

Fig seven shows the frequency with which the positive and negative reasons were mentioned. The society of reasons is the same equally in Tabular array three. Negative reasons outnumbered positive ones for both non-competitive (314 vs. 131) and competitive (277 vs. 101) science off-white, but the reason categories differed. For non-competitive science fair, the most frequently mentioned negative reasons were "No enjoyment/negative mental attitude" (~22% of the students) and "No time/money" (~17% of the students); whereas for competitive science off-white, the most frequently mentioned negative reason was "Don't similar to compete" (~22% of the students). The most frequently mentioned positive reasons for non-competitive scientific discipline off-white were "Introduction to the scientific procedure" and "General learning" (each ~viii% of the students) vs. "Competition incentive" (~14% of the students) for competitive scientific discipline off-white.

If the results in Fig 7 were sorted according to students' quantitative responses to the question whether or non science fair should be required, so 21–26% of students who said that science fair should be required accounted for 98% of the positive reasons regarding non-competitive science fair and 95% of the positive reasons regarding competitive science fair (S5 Fig). That the students' open-concluded comments compared favorably to their quantitative answers demonstrated internal survey consistency.

Fig 8 sorts the results in Fig seven according to students' quantitative responses to the question whether participating in science fair increased their interest in science. Students who said that science fair increased their involvement in scientific discipline or engineering were more likely to write positive comments in every category, especially introduction to process of science and general learning. Also, these students were more probable to select "competition incentive" for competitive scientific discipline fair. On the other hand, these students were simply every bit likely to offering negative comments most scientific discipline fair, specially nigh negative behaviors and consequences regarding non-competitive scientific discipline fair and nigh disliking having to make a public presentation for competitive science fair.

Discussion

The goal of our ongoing enquiry is to identify strengths and weaknesses of high schoolhouse level science fair and improvements that tin help science educators make science fair a more constructive, inclusive and equitable learning experience. More than 300 students completed surveys during 2017 and 2018, representing nearly 0.5% of the students that participated in high school science off-white via Scienteer. Student demographics and answers to questions regarding sources of assist, types of assist received, obstacles encountered, and ways of overcoming obstacles were very similar comparison the 2017 and 2018 responders. That more than fourscore% of the 2017/2018 national students wrote thoughtful answers to the open-ended text questions was an indication that the students took the surveys seriously. The finding that >95% of the positive student comments about scientific discipline fair were given past the 20–25% of students who said that science fair should be required besides provided validation of the survey responses.

A potential limitation of our report is the small size of the written report population relative to the full number of students participating. Nevertheless, we observed many overlapping features of science fair experience betwixt the national accomplice (low response charge per unit/large data ready) and previously described regional cohort (high response rate/small data set) [10, 11]. Manufactures on the internet, teachers, and parents were the principal sources of help; time pressure and coming up with the idea were the principal obstacles; more groundwork enquiry and perseverance were the main ways to overcome obstacles; fine-tuning the report and developing the thought were important types of assist received. This similarity supports our previous decision that many features of science fair are common to students notwithstanding the diversity of science fair formats.

One major difference between the national and region groups concerned the requirement to participate in science off-white, that is, 68% of the national students vs. 8% of the regional students. The finding that 68% of the national students were required to participate in scientific discipline fair suggests that NSTA guidance about voluntary student participation [9] is widely ignored, at least from the students' perception. We cannot tell if the students understand "required to do science fair" differently from their schools' intentions, e.chiliad., required to participate in scientific discipline fair to get into an advanced grade or to increase one's class is not exactly truly required but can be perceived that way.

Two other major differences betwixt the national and regional groups–coaching for the interview and aid from articles in books and magazines–may reverberate the highly supportive practices to incentivize rather than crave pupil scientific discipline off-white participation by the North Texas suburban schoolhouse district where near of the regional students attended. Local school commune support clearly can accept an touch on on some aspects of student scientific discipline fair experience. Moreover, the aforementioned group of experiential differences forth with receiving help from teachers and doing more background enquiry to overcome obstacles was characteristic of students who said that science off-white participation increased their interest in the sciences or engineering, and who reported more perseverance and less difficulty becoming motivated.

Compared to the regional students [11], the 2017/2018 national group of students showed some noteworthy differences in their open-ended text comments. For instance, they mentioned the positive value of scientific discipline fair towards full general learning (7.9% & 4.2%) as well every bit intro to scientific process (7.9% & 0.7%), whereas few of the regional students mentioned general learning equally an outcome of science off-white. Besides, they mentioned as negative reasons too much stress/force per unit area (5.4% & iv.8%) and no value (six.1% & 3.2%), neither of which was emphasized by the regional DRSEF students. And the negative comment don't similar to make public presentations (0.2% & 4.8%) made by the 2017/2018 students might reflect directly the lower number of students who reported receiving coaching for the interview.

Overall, the findings with the 2017/2018 national group of students are consistent with idea that the students' focus switches from competition to learning when thinking about competitive vs. non-competitive science off-white. For instance, regarding competitive science fair, the height negative reasons given by students were don't similar to compete (22%) and no enjoyment/overall negative attitude (thirteen%); the top positive reason was competition incentive (14%). By contrast, the most common negative reasons about non-competitive science fair were no enjoyment/overall negative attitude (22%) and no time/money (17%); the tiptop positive reasons were full general learning (7.nine%) and intro to scientific process (7.9%).

The potential value of not-competitive science fair in which judges assess on a sliding scale student progress towards mastery of the unlike practices of science has been described by others, albeit not for high school students [21–24]. By emphasizing learning vs. competing, the non-competitive approach would be consequent with educatee motivation and goal orientation theory, i.e., mastery (contest with oneself with emphasis on understanding and improving skills and knowledge) vs. performance (competing with others with emphasis on demonstrating loftier ability and grades) [25–27].

Increasing educatee involvement in scientific discipline represents ane of the most of import potential positive outcomes of science fair. Previous research by others had shown that participating in science competitions helped to maintain loftier school pupil interest in pursuing scientific discipline education and science careers albeit to a small extent, but those studies did not take into account whether or not students were required to do scientific discipline fair [28–32]. Other research has analyzed educatee motivations and the benefits of participating in scientific discipline off-white, but here likewise the bear on of requiring science fair participation was not taken into consideration [33–35].

Our information shows that beingness required to participate in science fair can accept the practical event of decreasing the positive impact on students. We establish that about sixty% of the students surveyed said that participating in science fair increased their interest in the sciences or engineering science. That number was significantly higher if the students had chosen to participate in science fair rather than been required to do so. Indeed, requiring scientific discipline off-white participation decreased the positive impact of science fair regardless whether or non the students said they were interested in a career in the sciences or engineering science. In the worst case, ~10% of the students who said that they were not interested in a career and were required to practise scientific discipline fair engaged in research misconduct, i.e. copying their projection from someone else or making upwards the information. None of the regional high school students in our previous written report reporting making up their data [10], just few were required to participate in science fair equally has been discussed. On the other hand, 24% (v of 21) of students, all of whom were required to participate in the 2000 Bell Montreal regional science fair, were reported to make up their data [14]. Taken together, the foregoing findings emphasize that requiring students to participate in scientific discipline fair can take a negative outcome. Perhaps an analogous situation occurs when professional scientists perceive their institutional environments every bit unfair and, as a result, say that they are more than likely to appoint in research misconduct [36].

In determination, our results lend potent empirical support to NSTA guidance that participation in science competitions should be voluntary [9]. The challenge volition be for schoolhouse districts to find means to incentivize an activeness that requires so much fourth dimension and effort. Our findings also suggest that offering students a noncompetitive scientific discipline fair option could provide a way to promote the NSTA goal that science fair emphasis should exist on the learning experience rather than the competition and would be an especially important option for students who do not like to compete. Finally, the availability of ii kinds of science fairs—competitive and non-competitive—may help achieve the dual objectives of science educational activity—science for the scientists and engineers of the future and scientific discipline for everyone [37]. Recently, we put forth these policy ideas in a commentary in NSTA Reports [12]. In future studies, we promise to gain further insights most educatee scientific discipline fair feel though new survey questions that nosotros have added regarding high school geographic location and student ethnicity.

Supporting data

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Russell Cowen and Rocky Slavin, managers of Scienteer Technologies, who incorporated the parental consent and science fair survey REDCap link into the Scienteer website and continue to provide ongoing oversight and management of survey access. Use of REDCap survey and data direction tool was facilitated by the UTSW Section of Population and Information Sciences and Clinical and Translational Scientific discipline Training Program. Karen Shepherd (Plano Independent School Commune) and Dr. Ann Batenburg (Southern Methodist University) helped with survey development. Dr. Shannon A. Scielzo (UT Southwestern) advised us almost survey metrics.

References

1. ane. NGSS Atomic number 82 States. Next Generation Science Standards For States, Past States. Volume 1: The Standards—Bundled past Disciplinary Core Ideas and by Topics. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2013.
2. 2. Rudolph JL. How We Teach Science-What′ s Changed, and Why It Matters: Harvard University Printing; 2019.
3. iii. McComas WF. Scientific discipline fair: A new await at an old tradition. The Science Teacher. 2011;78(eight):34–eight.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Rillero P, Zambo R. The Judge's Perspective. The Scientific discipline Teacher. 2011;78(8):44.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Paul J, Lederman NG, Groß J. Learning experimentation through scientific discipline fairs. International Journal of Scientific discipline Didactics. 2016;38(15):2367–87.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
6. vi. Mackey K, Culbertson T. Scientific discipline fairs for science literacy. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 2014;95(10):89–90.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Tai RH, Mitchell CE. Science Fairs. SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of-School Learning, edited by Kylie A Peppler. 2017;http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utd/particular.action?docID=4839834:676-eight.
8. 8. President Barack Obama. Remarks by the President in State of Union Accost. wwwwhitehousegov/the-printing-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address. 2011.
9. nine. National Science Teaching Association. NSTA Position Argument on Scientific discipline Competitions. wwwnstaorg/about/positions/competitionsaspx. 2016.
10. 10. Grinnell F, Dalley South, Shepherd M, Reisch J. Loftier school science fair and research integrity. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0174252. pmid:28328976
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Grinnell F, Dalley South, Shepherd Chiliad, Reisch J. High school science fair: Student opinions regarding whether participation should exist required or optional and why. PLOS Ane. 2018;xiii(viii):e0202320. pmid:30096184
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Grinnell F, Dalley S. How to brand science fairs more effective. NSTA Reports. 2020;31(5):3.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez Northward, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2009;42(2):377–81. pmid:18929686
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. fourteen. Syer CA, Shore BM. Science Fairs: What Are the Sources of Aid for Students and How Prevalent Is Cheating? School Science and Mathematics. 2001;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18023.x/total.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Kent R, Brandal H. Improving email response in a permission marketing context. International Periodical of Market Research. 2003;45(4):one–thirteen.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. sixteen. Van Mol C. Improving web survey efficiency: the bear on of an actress reminder and reminder content on web survey response. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2017;xx(four):317–27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Shih T-H, Fan X. Comparison response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-assay. Field methods. 2008;20(3):249–71.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Welsh E, editor Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative information analysis procedure. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research; 2002.
19. 19. Hutchison AJ, Johnston LH, Breckon JD. Using QSR‐NVivo to facilitate the evolution of a grounded theory projection: an account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Inquiry Methodology. 2010;13(4):283–302.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Martin PY, Turner BA. Grounded theory and organizational research. The journal of practical behavioral science. 1986;22(2):141–57.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Carlisle RW, Deeter BC. A Research Study of Scientific discipline Fairs. Science and Children. 1989;26(4):24–6.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Grobman A. A Fair Suggestion? Science Teacher. 1993;60(1):twoscore–i.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. McBride JW, Silverman FL. Judging Fairs Fairly. Science and Children. 1988;25(vi):15–8.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Rillero P. A standards-based science fair. Science and Children. 2011;48:32–6.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Ames C, Archer J. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of educational psychology. 1988;80(3):260.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Meece JL, Anderman EM, Anderman LH. Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and bookish achievement. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:487–503. pmid:16318604
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Kaplan A, Maehr ML. The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational psychology review. 2007;xix(2):141–84.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Dabney KP, Tai RH, Almarode JT, Miller-Friedmann JL, Sonnert One thousand, Sadler PM, et al. Out-of-school time scientific discipline activities and their association with career involvement in Stalk. International Journal of Science Pedagogy, Part B. 2012;2(ane):63–79.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Sahin A. Stalk clubs and scientific discipline fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of Stalk Teaching. 2013;14(1):5–11.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Dawes LA, Long S, Whiteford C, Richardson Yard, editors. Why are students choosing STEM and when do they brand their choice? Proceedings of 26th Almanac Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering; 2015: School of Applied science, Deakin University.
31. 31. Sahin A, Ekmekci A, Waxman HC. The relationships among high school STEM learning experiences, expectations, and mathematics and science efficacy and the likelihood of majoring in Stem in college. International Periodical of Science Education. 2017;39(eleven):1549–72.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Miller Thou, Sonnert K, Sadler P. The influence of students' participation in Stem competitions on their interest in Stalk careers. International Journal of Science Education, Part B. 2018;8(2):95–114.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Abernathy TV, Vineyard RN. Bookish competitions in scientific discipline: What are the rewards for students? The Clearing House. 2001;74(5):269–76.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Dionne L, Reis G, Trudel L, Guillet Yard, Kleine L, Hancianu C. Students'sources of motivation for participating in science fairs: An exploratory study inside the Canada-wide science fair 2008. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2012;10(three):669–93.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Schmidt KM, Kelter P. Science Fairs: A Qualitative Study of Their Touch on Student Science Enquiry Learning and Attitudes toward STEM. Science Educator. 2017;25(2):126–32.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, de Vries R. Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and cocky-reported misbehaviors. J Empir Res Hum Res Ideals. 2006;1(1):51–66. pmid:16810337
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Scientific discipline Didactics: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Cadre Ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2012.

millerpell1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229237

Share this post