An Examination of Science and
Mathematics Competitions
For The National Science Foundation
Submitted by:
Laurie Somers
Susan Callan
Westat
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
June 1999
Matrix (Link is to a separate, 60KB Web page)
Variable 1: Type of Event
Variable 2: Content Area
Variable 3: Grade Level
Variable 4: Program Goals
Variable 5: Screening
Variable 6: Participation
Variable 7: Product of Competition
Variable 8: Judging Criteria
Variable 9: Judges
Variable 10: Awards
Variable 11: Competition Sponsors
Program Descriptions (Link is to a separate, 80KB Web page)
With the tremendous growth in science and mathematics competitions in the United States in the last 50 years, questions are now being raised regarding their impacts. Do such competitions spark students’ interest in science and mathematics? Do they improve mathematics and science education and achievement? Do they identify the young people who have both the interest and the aptitude in developing and using scientific and mathematical principles? Do they encourage students to consider mathematics and science careers? The National Science Foundation is interested in learning how such programs have been evaluated and what impact they have had on students, in terms of interest in mathematics and the sciences in school and as careers.
After identifying and investigating over 60 individual science and mathematics competitions through an Internet search and other sources and studying 36 of them closely, we found that few formal evaluations have been conducted. The list of 36 competitions described below is in no way exhaustive. These competitions do, however, represent what we believe to be the largest national competitions and similar to many local and regional competitions.
As an overview, this paper first presents a taxonomy of programs, aimed at describing what exists and how the various competitions differ. This taxonomy is a first step, a small step, in understanding these programs and thinking about their evaluation. This paper discusses the various types of competitions by describing eleven dimensions which define them and then provides full descriptions of each program as hyperlinks from a program matrix chart and in the Appendix.
Following the taxonomy, we suggest a set of preliminary research questions and considerations designed to build a more complete picture of the competitions: who competes, who is successful, what do they gain, what are lasting impacts, what interactions are there with other math and science education, are certain types of competitions more valuable educationally, etc. While this is not a full research agenda, it provides a starting place for designing an evaluation strategy. We suggest some areas where evaluations to date have revealed some general outcomes of the competitions, as well as some inconsistencies in the findings.
Finally, we review the evaluation data that do exist, and with hyperlinks from each question, we return to the competitions and compare our research questions to the evaluations conducted on the programs.
Competitions can be classified according to the following variables.
The science and math competitions vary in process and include both contests and fairs. We define contests as direct competitions between entrants, such as races between machines students have designed or between teams to solve a problem accurately first. We use fair to describe events where students display and present their research findings or inventions, and each entry is judged independently of other entries. A fair may not necessarily be a competition although those discussed here are generally competitive. Contests, more often than fairs, offer both team and individual events. Fairs and contests are usually held on-site at one central location. Some competitions require students to submit their entries by mail, and only finalists present their projects on-site.
A relatively new type of competition is the on-line fair. In this case, students complete projects and create Internet websites for their displays. All entries are linked to a competition’s main website, and judges review the entries on-line. As with other fairs, the displays vary in sophistication. In some cases the website is the project, and science and mathematics is just one entry category or the Internet research process is the focus. Such competitions encourage an educational component considerably beyond the scope of on-site fairs because they promote the interactive kinds of learning technology creates. Moreover, the research findings are available to a much broader audience.
Another on-line competition uses the Internet technology as a way of broadening the scope of eligible participants. After playing an off-line computer software-based game, students’ scores are posted on the Internet and tabulated with scores from other students and classes around the country (Math Olympics). In this way students are able to compete in their own classrooms but with a much larger pool of competitors.
In some cases these distinctions are blurred, and a competition may incorporate some elements of both fairs and contests and may use Internet technologies. As technology use expands, it is likely that the media for competitions will also become more varied.
Science and mathematics competitions cover the full range of academic disciplines and subdisciplines in mathematics and science. Some competitions are limited to one specific discipline, and others include multiple disciplines but are divided into categories of entry. The typical categories are:
Seventeen of the competitions accept entries in six or more categories, and six only offer one subject category. Some competitions use more specific categories, such as botany, biochemistry, zoology, microbiology, and environmental science. Three of the competitions also have events in the humanities.
Some competitions are open to the full K-12 student population, and most are open to both public and private school students. Thirty-two of the 36 competitions offer a high school level, and seventeen of those are open only to high school students. Similarly, seventeen competitions offer a middle school or junior high level (grades 5-8), with two open only to middle school students. Eight programs offer elementary levels, and one is only open to upper level elementary (grades 3-6) and not lower elementary grades.
The competitions are generally age-appropriate both in terms of the type of entry and the categories and events offered. Certainly a biology project from a first grade student (mold growth on bread) would be different from one of a tenth grade student (the gill withdrawal reflex of a marine mollusk). Similarly, some areas, such as electronics, are not typically offered for younger students. However, whereas an area such as space science may seem more relevant for upper level students, these competitions generally recognize the importance of starting early; the NASA Student Involvement Program includes a category for third through fifth graders for future aircraft/spacecraft design and is in the process of adding events for K-3. Some competitions, such as the Intel Science Talent Search, are open to high school seniors only (however, it is estimated that students spend from six months to two years on their research (NSTA, 1990), so presumably, the projects are begun during the junior year at the latest), and, accordingly, require a much higher level of research sophistication.
Eleven of the competitions are open only to individuals, and eleven only allow teams (usually of three to five students). Fourteen are open to both teams and individuals in separate judging categories. Two combine team and individual work for an overall team score.
That the programs recognize the value of nurturing young people’s science abilities indicates the major overarching goal of most of the competitions. Science Service, a non-profit organization that administers and manages two of the largest competitions (Intel’s Science Talent Search and International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF)), asserts that "the popularization of science and the recruitment of new generations of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers into universities and industry through science competitions have strengthened U.S. research and technology at all levels" (Science Service Website). The programs generate enthusiasm for science, engineering, and mathematics among all students or among particular populations of students, such as middle school students (Junior Solar Sprint, Internet Science and Technology Fair, National Engineers Week Future City Competition) or agricultural studies students (National FFA Agriscience Student Recognition Program and Fair). Some are designed specifically to promote and reward achievement (Afro-Academic, Cultural Technological, and Scientific Olympics (ACT-SO), ISEF-affiliated National American Indian Science and Engineering Fair, National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet).
Some competitions are designed to improve science and mathematics knowledge (National Science Bowl, American Computer Science League Computer Science Contest, Internet Science and Technology Fair, Math Olympics, Junior Science and Humanities Symposia, International Mathematical, Chemistry, and Physics Olympiads) or to improve research methods and problem solving skills (Science Talent Search, Odyssey of the Mind, SuperQuest, National Science Olympiad, Craftsman/NSTA Young Inventors Awards, Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics and Science). Several competitions are designed to create understandings of how real scientists and engineers work and how they approach real life problems (National Engineers Week Future City Competition, Duracell/NSTA Invention Challenge, Thomas Edison/Max McGraw Scholarship, National Engineering Design Contest) or encourage scientific and technical careers (International Bridge Building Contest). Others encourage students to explore the possibilities of technology in the future (ExploraVision Awards Program, National Engineers Week Future City Competition). Still others promote the use of the technology available today (Innovations: The Virtual Science Fair, ThinkQuest and ThinkQuest Junior, Internet Science and Technology Fair, International Computer Problem-Solving Contest, SuperQuest, Apple Computer Clubs National Merit Competition, Technology Student Association Competitive Events).
Most of the competitions have explicit, stated goals. In some cases goals are implied, more often for those goals that are more process-oriented, such as improving research and problem-solving skills, interacting with real scientists, and using current technology. However, because they aligned with the competition product and/or the judging criteria, they have been included as competition goals. We found that, when asked, competition managers and coordinators tended to offer more goals and objectives than their competitions’ literature specified.
A study on establishing research-based science fairs determined that having clearly stated goals was critical not only in improving student performance by providing motivational structures, but also in lessening the anxiety associated with competition (Slisz, 1989).
Only seven of the 36 competitions use any selection criteria on students’ applications or written proposals to enter the competition, other than following competitions’ submission rules. Thirteen of the competitions do not require applications, but are fed by other competitions. That is, the winners of local and regional competitions are eligible to compete in the highest level. However, no screening procedures are indicated for the local and regional competitions. Thus, at the entry level, 29 of the programs are open to all eligible students, with no screening or application process.
While the programs all attempt to spread interest in science, mathematics, and engineering, participation varies greatly among the different competitions. Perhaps the largest is the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF). ISEF coordinators estimated that 2 million students complete projects for local fairs that feed into the ISEF; approximately 1,200 actually compete at the final, international fair. Teams of 15 students from 12,000 schools compete nationally in the Science Olympiad each year, and the Physics and Chemistry Olympiad teams are each selected from among about 10,000 entrants. Other competitions, such as the Junior Solar Sprint, do not have a national final competition but still involve over 100,000 students in regional competitions. Over 1,500 high school seniors enter the Science Talent Search each year. Over 1,300 students from 14 schools participated in the 1997 Math Olympics.
Competitions also exist on much smaller scales. The University of Central Florida’s College of Engineering sponsors an entirely internet-based competition. In the first year 23 teams began the competition and eight teams actually completed project homepages.
Two of the larger competitions provide participation by gender. In 1999, the Intel Science Talent Search reported 47 percent females, and the Intel ISEF reported 50 percent females. While most of the individual competitions themselves do not break down participation by gender, several studies have done so for some competitions. Studies of several local North Carolina competitions, including the North Carolina Science Olympiad, (Jones, 1991) and the Science Talent Search (Campbell, 1991) have found that participation in science competitions by girls, while having grown dramatically in the past 20 years, still lags behind that of boys in some competitions. Interestingly, in the Science Olympiad (Georgia), a team competition, there is no gender gap, and a study of the Hawaii State Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF-affiliate) found that girls have actually outnumbered boys since the mid-1970s (Greenfield, 1995). A different report about the Science Talent Search indicated that almost half, about 45 percent, of entrants are girls and that 17 of the 40 finalists in 1991 were girls (Huler, 1991). Girls’ projects tend more often to be in the life sciences, rather than physical science, earth science, computer science, and mathematics (Jones, 1991). Moreover, girls are less likely than boys to prepare projects based on experimental research as opposed to library research (Greenfield, 1995). These differences are attributed largely to the ways children are socialized; girls are less likely to engage in competitive activities and less likely as young children to play with toys that encourage exploration and assembly. Similarly, the coordinator of the Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision program noted that girls are more likely to enter as teams than as individuals. The authors suggest that these participation rates have implications for girls’ future science and technical careers (Greenfield, 1995, Jones, 1991), as well as their self-confidence and feelings of achievement in science.
Critics of some science competitions have suggested that the programs highlight economic disparities (Huler, 1991). High schools that focus significant resources on the Science Talent Search have been able to send a higher number of students to the competitions. Students with access to lab equipment at the school or other research labs have a clear advantage in the competition. Supporters of the competition claim the Science Talent Search is "a competition for students who can compete at this level" rather than a program to teach science (Huler, 1991, 22).
In the Math Olympics, a software-based arithmetic competition (not associated with the International Mathematical Olympiad), organizers estimated that most students are from parochial schools in inner-city areas. Publicity for the competition has been largely word of mouth by the founders and has been spread largely through those circles. As Internet connectivity spreads to more and more schools, it is likely that the access to all on-line competitions will increase.
Competitions address their goals through three sorts of projects. In design projects, students create devices to accomplish certain goals or to fit certain specifications and use primarily engineering and physics principles. For research experiment projects, students ask a question and determine how it might be answered, using physical or life sciences. In some competitions the substance is purely academic knowledge of scientific or mathematical principles.
Within these three sorts of projects, the products of the competitions vary. In design projects, the product may be the actual machine, tool, or vehicle design, or it may be a description and/or drawing of the design; and in either case the product may be computer-generated. The design may also be an Internet website itself or a computer program or application. Similarly, research experiments may be a representation of the actual experiment undertaken, including data and conclusions, or they may be plans for an experiment, with only the hypothesis and methodology. Often the feasibility and scope of the research determine this; one category for the NASA Student Involvement Program is to plan an experiment to take place on Mars. In academic knowledge competitions, students may answer short questions about scientific or mathematical principles, or they may solve longer problems using those principles. In some cases speed and accuracy are critical. In some competitions a research question may be answered by running a computer program that the researchers have written. Design and academic knowledge competitions, more so than research competitions, often offer team competitions in addition to individual competitions.
Different competition products must necessarily be judged differently although there is considerable overlap in criteria. Typical judging criteria include, in various combinations:
Since some competitions require additional materials besides the actual product, the criteria can often extend beyond what applies to the actual product. Additional materials may include idea logs tracking the progress of the project, written descriptions of the projects or essays, or letters of recommendation. Some competitions interview students. The various materials are sometimes staged by the level of competition the student reaches; for example, usually only finalists participate in interviews. Student essay about their projects are usually submitted as part of the entry, but are occasionally submitted first and used as a gatekeeper to limit the number of final entries.
Judges for the larger competitions are science, engineering, and industry professionals and often must meet requirements of years of relevant experience or academic degree obtained. Twenty-six competitions state that judges are professionals. The four competitions sponsored by the National Science Teachers Association are also judged by a panel of science educators. Competitions that give special industry or professional association awards have the industry send representatives to the competitions to judge for the special awards. In smaller competitions, local experts or teachers usually serve as judges.
The range of awards in the competitions varies greatly with the scale of the competitions and the size of the category. Most offer awards in several categories. Local competitions generally do not offer awards beyond trophies, plaques, certificates, or ribbons for winners, and certificates for all participants. In the case of several local competitions, those affiliated with the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) and the International Mathematical, Chemistry, and Physics Olympiads, the award is advancement to the next level of competition. Other awards include cash, gift certificates, sponsor-donated products (Sears, Toshiba products, National Science Teacher Association publications).
Larger competitions offer trips to awards ceremonies for winners and their families and teachers. Some large competitions offer only medals and the prestige of winning. Others offer various amounts of cash and scholarships, often in the form of savings bonds, from $500 to $40,000 over four years. These larger scholarships are designed to encourage students to continue their science and mathematics educations at the university levels; often letters of recommendation are written for competition winners as well. One competition usually offers a half-tuition scholarship for four years to the university where the competition is held that year. Some competitions continue to promote their goals through the awards by sending winners on trips to science centers, including NASA Field Offices, Space Camp, the U.S. Department of Energy research laboratories, summer or short-term internships, or other conferences, such as Disneyworld’s Youth Education Series or the London International Youth Science Forum. Some give winners the opportunity to meet and interact with renowned scientists. The Mathematical, Computing, Chemistry, and Physics Olympiad winners attend two-week-long camps where they interact with scientists and mathematicians to develop their skills at the same time as they compete for spots on the national teams for the international competition. Some competitions offer students mentoring opportunities during and after the competitions as well.
The awards competitions offer depend largely on the sponsoring or funding organization. Generally, the competitions with multiple corporate sponsors are able to provide larger awards. Government sponsors, such as NASA, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, and the energy labs, are able to provide scientific experiences because they have access to the facilities providing them. Large national associations, such as the NAACP and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and well-funded non-profits, such as the OM Association, Inc. and National FFA, are also able to offer awards. Local governments, schools, districts, state agencies, and universities sponsor and fund competitions but generally do not offer large awards. Many state and county fairs offer science competitions as part of the general fair competitions. In some cases these fairs feed into the International Science and Engineering Fair, but in others the state fair is the final level.
Often an organization manages or administers a competition but does not fund it. The largest of these is Science Service, a Washington, D.C. non-profit dedicated to advancing the understanding and appreciation of science through several publications and educational programs. Science Service administers both the Intel Science Talent Search and the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, the two largest competitions. The National Science Teachers Association administers four competitions: Toshiba/ExploraVision, Craftsman/Young Inventors, Duracell/NSTA Invention Challenge, and NASA Student Involvement Program.
In some cases administering organizations must be members of the sponsoring organization or the larger competition. In order to run local, regional, or state competitions and participate in the OM World Finals, an organization must be a chartered association with OM Association, Inc. A regional contest feeding into the International Bridge Building Contest must meet certain requirements before it can become an approved region. Similarly, a science fair that intends to feed into the various regional and state-level science competitions of the International Science and Engineering Fair must register with Science Service to become an ISEF-Affiliated Science Fair and must meet certain size requirements. In some cases entrants must be members of the sponsoring organization, including Future Farmers of America, National Association of Rocketry, Technology Student Association, Science Olympiad, and Apple Computer Clubs. Administering organizations generally register entrants and coordinate the submission of entries, plan the actual fairs and display of projects, organize the judging, distribute awards, and field participant questions.
There are a wide range of questions that might be posed in evaluating these competitions. A long, but probably not exhaustive, list is presented below. These research questions fall into three broad categories: (1) competitions’ impacts on students, (2) the mediating factors on those impacts, such as characteristics of competitions, and (3) school inputs and outcomes.
(The links below are to the respective sections in this document where the questions are answered.)
How do competitions benefit students?
What competition characteristics seem to make a difference?
What factors and impacts are important for schools?
Although few programs have conducted formal evaluations that ask these questions, most have been addressed to some degree by several of the existing evaluations. Of the 36 competitions we reviewed, we found 21 evaluations, ranging from informal, open-ended participant questionnaires to surveys of past participants to case studies of participating teams and schools.
In reviewing the findings of the evaluations, we must be aware of several caveats about the data. We were able to obtain a range of evaluation data from the programs. Some programs provided survey instruments and raw data; others provided only summary findings. Still others indicated that they conduct evaluations, but the findings are only available to member organizations or participants.
Fifteen of the 21 program evaluations conducted by the competition organizers or their contractors were based on informal participant surveys administered at the end of or just after events. Surveys were typically short, with several open-ended questions and some Likert rating scales. In contrast, there is a small body of literature investigating science competitions largely in terms of participation by gender and race/ethnicity and selection of research topic.
Another problem with the available data is that most of the surveys generated relatively low response rates, and therefore may not be representative of the impacts of the programs. The Duracell/NSTA Invention Challenge surveyed past winners and teachers, but the survey had a response rate of 35 percent for contest winners and 29 percent for teachers (Duracell/NSTA, 1996). The National Engineers Week Future City Competition has also conducted surveys of volunteer engineer and teacher advisors, with an even lower response rate of 18 percent for engineers (18 of 100 returned) and 16 percent for teachers (33 of 206 returned) (Future City, 1995). Similary, a program survey for the Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics and Science obtained a response rate of 29 percent of regional hosts (28 of 98 returned) (TEAMS, 1999). Even for the evaluation of SuperQuest, the most in-depth evaluation we found, data were collected from 50 percent of teachers and 35 percent of students. The Junior Science and Humanities Symposium (JSHS) program conducts annual program reviews; in 1997, 27 percent of students (63 of 235) and 31 percent of participating adults (33 of 105) responded (JSHS, 1997). JSHS also has conducted a survey of "selected former participants," and while 67 percent (26 of 39 returned) of the questionnaires were returned (Osborne, 1986), we do not know on what basis former participants were selected to complete the survey.
In studies that were conducted outside of the actual programs, response rates were somewhat higher. For example, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), as part of their compendium of science and mathematics competitions, conducted a small survey of 164 men and women whom they believe to comprise all living Nobelists and Medal of Science winners from the United States (NSTA, 1990). They obtained a response rate of almost 60 percent.
Overall, students and their teachers generally report positive experiences, ones that improve their problem-solving skills and encourage further education in or careers in the sciences. However, few evaluations expanded on what is meant by "positive" or how the positive experiences affected students. Several studies said that the learning that goes on while working on a project is of the most value because it allows an in-depth, directed focus on a subject over a period of time. Participants enjoy the teamwork aspects and meeting scientists during competitions. Many students remain heavily involved in science, engineering, and computer science. Support from the schools and at home was critical to students’ success and good experiences; in fact, one study found that the most critical factor to success in the program was a supportive school administration. Technical support locally or through university connections was also important.
Some studies question the value of competition at an early age and suggest that competitions may unintentionally exclude some students; others question the educational value of those competitions where students must seek one correct answer. Finally, several reports mentioned earlier suggest that the competitions may perpetuate economic and gender participation disparities. Even with these findings, the potential and actual impacts of mathematics and science competitions are still unclear.
The numerous science and mathematics competitions available to K-12 students provide a variety of opportunities for them pursue their emerging science and mathematics interests. While surely hundreds of thousands of students would not be competing if they did not see value for themselves in these programs, considerably more research is needed to determine how different programs impact students, schools, and the scientific community. These might include longitudinal studies of students and their educational and career paths, demographic information on winners and non-winners, understanding of students’ processes in participating in the competitions, and teachers’, mentors’, and parents’ impressions of the competitions.
1995 National Engineers Week Future City Competition Survey Results, April 1995.
Campbell, James R. (1991). The roots of gender inequity in technical areas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3): 251-264.
Duracell/NSTA Invention Challenge. 2000 Contest information sheet. March 8, 1996 press release, 1995/96 Survey of winners, 1995/96 Survey of teacher/sponsors.
Greenfield, Teresa A. (1995). An exploration of gender participation patterns in science competitions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7): 735-748.
Grimaldi, Clareann, Light, Daniel, and Hawkins, Jan. (June 1996.) SuperQuest 1989-1995: Research and Evaluation. Center for Children and Technology Reports, Issue No. 8.
Huler, Scott. (April 15, 1991). Nurturing science’s young elite: Westinghouse Talent Search. The Scientist, 5(8): 20-22.
Jones, Gail. (1991). Gender differences in science competitions. Science Education, 75(2): 259-267.
Junior Science and Humanities Symposium. (1997). 35th National JSHS Program Evaluation Results.
National Science Teachers Association. (1990). Science and Math Competitions: Connecting and Competing. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Osborne, Barbara. (1986). Mini-survey of Selected JSHS Participants. Memo to Academy of Applied Science Advisory Council.
Science Service. About science service. Available on-line: http://www.sciserv.org/history.htm.
Science Service. About Science Talent Search. Available on-line: http://www.sciserv.org/abtsts.htm.
Slisz, Jill. (1989). Establishing the goals of a science fair based on sound research studies. ERIC Document ED309957. P.51
Stazinski, Wieslaw. (1988). Biological competitions and biological olympiads as a means of developing students’ interest in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2): 171-177.
Subotnix, Rena F. (1995). An Alternate Route to Talent Development in Science: An interview with Oleg Davydenko. Gifted Child Magazine, 18(5): 18-21, 24-25.
Subotnix, Rena F. et al. (April 1996). Implications of the Olympiad studies for the development of mathematical talent in schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics and Science (TEAMS) Program Survey, May 1999 Survey Results.
Toshiba/ExploraVision. (1998). Gender Breakdown—1993-1998.
Toshiba/ExploraVision. (1998). Demographics for the 1997-98, 1996-97, and 1995-96 Toshiba ExploraVision Awards.
In general, the competitions report that their participants felt the experiences were positive, but few evaluations expanded on what is meant by "positive" or how the positive experiences affected students. In the National Engineers Week Future City Competition evaluation, most of the teachers said their students began with no knowledge of engineering, and over 90 percent said that students acquired engineering knowledge. Several teachers also noted that the contest improved students’ problem solving skills and abilities to work cooperatively. Direct evidence beyond student and teacher self-reporting for these findings is unavailable. Most of the SuperQuest students reported positive experiences, particularly with the access to technology and learning technical skills. Several NSTA respondents said that the learning that goes on while working on a project is of the most value because it allows an in-depth, directed focus on a subject over a period of time that sits outside of the formal, exam-driven education many students get in school.
None of the studies attempted to make any link to classroom performance and achievement.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
The Duracell/NSTA Invention Challenge surveyed past winners and teachers and concluded that the invention competition fosters inventiveness among participants who then continue to be innovative in other ways and in other fields; no evidence or examples were provided. None of the studies reported on effects on achievement in other subject areas.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Many SuperQuest participants identified visiting a college campus and the program’s social aspects as positive features. Science Service also reports that Science Talent Search students say what they value most in the competition is the opportunity to meet and interact with each other and other scientists. One woman respondent to the NSTA survey who competed on her high school’s math team as the only girl thought that her successes reinforced the idea that she could succeed among men. Opportunity for teamwork was also cited as a benefit.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Most of the SuperQuest students remain heavily involved in science, engineering, and computer science years after the competition; all of the respondents from the 1989 through 1995 competitions still had access to the Internet, and most have regular contact with science professionals in 1996. Almost half of the Duracell competitors said the competition influenced their studies or careers, and twenty percent of the respondents have further developed their devices or are working on other inventions.
The Science Talent Search reports that past finalists have gone on to win a remarkable number of science and mathematics awards. The competition does not directly imply a causal relationship between participation in the competition and winning awards in the future.
A study of Polish students competing in the Biological Olympiads, a feeder to the International Biological Olympiad, argues that the competitions can be an important means of enhancing students’ interest in science and maintaining that interest beyond high school (Stazinski, 1988). It reports on two studies that examine participants and their future scientific involvement. Ninety eighth grade students who won in the district level (one level below the national competition) and their current teachers were interviewed two to three years after the competition on their further development of interests in biology, stability of their interest, and subsequent school achievement. Eighty-seven percent were still highly interested in biology, and nearly half participated in extra-curricular biology work. Most continued to read biology literature and did well in their biology courses.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Science Service reports that their statistics show that 95 percent of former Science Talent Search winners pursue some branch of science, and over 70 percent earn Ph.D.s or M.D.s although they make no explicit connection between winning the competition and future educational attainment.
The Junior Science and Humanities Symposium program has conducted several evaluations on the impact of JSHS in shaping students’ interest and development in the sciences. The first asked about participants’ universities attended and degrees attained, present employment status and description, and whether attendance at JSHS had affected or influenced their choice of career, acted as an incentive for educational pursuits, broadened scientific interests, or contributed to their professional growth and development. The responses about the impact of the program were overwhelmingly positive, over 70 percent indicating JSHS affected their career choice and over 90 percent indicating JSHS affected each of the other three questions. This study provided more detail of the progression of students’ subsequent science- and math-related activities, and it asked participants to make a direct causal link between the program and the outcomes.
One NSTA respondent who was winner in the Science Talent Search said the event led to a summer research job and a career in chemistry. Another recalled that his research for the competition led to publishing a paper in graduate school. A study of 95 former Olympians found similar achievement results; 40 percent of these students went on to make "important scientific contributions" (Stazinski, 1988, 176), and a further 50 percent planned on scientific careers.
None of these studies include any commentary about how participation affects educational attainment or career choice or which aspects of competitions encourage these outcomes.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
One scientist surveyed in the NSTA study questioned the value of the competitions because those who do not win may be forever discouraged from science, and competitions cannot identify all students with a potential future in science. Another had a negative opinion of competitions because the way they are often judged favors elaborate and overly ambitious projects and does not recognize the creativity that is often part of failed projects.
We found no studies that focus on non-winners.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Among the NSTA respondents, the 35 percent of the scientists who found great value in the competitions often likened them to athletic events as another place for young people to excel. However, many of the competitions are entered as classroom activities and that may be the only external motivator for some participants. Whether participation as part of a class assignment can create the same impacts is unknown.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
The Internet Science and Technology Fair, a program which requires teams of students to work with local experts to find solutions to technology problems, identifies one of the factors that contributed to lower than expected participation during the first year of the contest as a lack of technical advisors for entrants. These difficulties may be inherent in a competition requiring experts’ participation.
Some respondents to the NSTA study, as well as a scientist from Belarus, Oleg Davydenko, who runs a plant genetics club for students, believe that the Olympiads themselves and other competitions may not be of too much value. The Olympiads, Davydenko says, "require a lot of memorizing, and that’s not all there is to ability in science." (Subotnix, 1995, 19) His group of approximately ten high school age students are engaged in actual research on genetics, rather than answering questions about the science.
Surprisingly, little has been said about the value of team versus individual events or the outcomes from different content areas, either within the same competition or across different competitions. One study on establishing science fairs found that in certain situations both team and individual events are desirable (Slisz, 1989). The author found that teams are preferred for inquiry-based learning and promote positive attitudes, whereas individual competitions may be more effective for high ability students.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
The 15 percent of NSTA respondents who thought competitions were detrimental found the competitive nature of the events problematic both for the students and for science. Many of the scientists who thought competitions were irrelevant (about half), although not detrimental, said that they were impelled towards science because of certain teachers, experiences in school, and parental encouragement, rather than competitions. Several indicated that the opportunity to interact with scientists and use scientific labs and equipment could be afforded in more beneficial ways.
The study of Polish students competing in the Biological Olympiads argues that the competitions can be an important means of enhancing students’ interest in science and maintaining that interest beyond high school (Stazinski, 1988); the article describes the competition process, highlighting the intensive support required by the students’ biology teachers, as a critical factor.
No studies were found that compare the benefits of competitive events to the benefits of non-competitive events, or the effects of different types and amounts of awards.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Another explanation the Science and Technology Fair had for lower than expected participation was a lack of technical information appropriate for middle grade students, suggesting that the competition may be more appropriate for more advanced students. SuperQuest found that 16-year-old students participating in the program were more successful than either older or younger students due to conflicting demands of older students and immaturity in working with professional scientists of younger students.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Little research has been found concerning this question. SuperQuest may be the program which has the greatest effects back in the school environment since project work continues for the year following the competition and involves teachers.
Science Service and Intel have formed a partnership with Northwestern University to develop a curriculum to be made available on the Internet to help teachers teach the kinds of inquiry-based learning that lead students to scientific research and competitions.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
Most of the teachers who participated in the National Engineers Week Future City Competition felt the program appealed to girls as well as boys, although in some cases, the girls did not stick with the project (no explanation was provided). Many also said the program attracted students who were not already on the "math track."
Statistics from the Toshiba/ExploraVision Awards program show that since the program began in 1993, there have consistently been more girls winning regional contests than boys. While the statistics fluctuate for most grade levels, in the seventh to ninth grade category, girls consistently won more often. Moreover, for the 1996, 1997, and 1998 competitions, over half of the entrants were girls, indicating further that the contest appeals to girls.
The researchers studying winners of the Mathematics Olympiad conclude that single-sex education, mentoring, and homogenous grouping support more successful participation in the competitions by girls and other underrepresented groups in mathematics (Subotnix, et al, 1996). There have been only 2 girls in the history of the American Olympiad team and no African-Americans or Latinos; they attribute this lack of participation to a lack of exposure and challenge in mathematics due to course placement and selection, lower expectation for success, perceptions of the usefulness of math and science to long-term goals, and teacher behavior and the classroom environment. The authors suggest that the model of ability-grouping, academic pull-out programs, and skipping grades has developed the talent in Olympiad winners.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section
SuperQuest found that the most critical factor to success in the program was a supportive school administration. Technical support locally or through university connections was also important. However, for teachers, innovation, experimentation, and participation in other reform efforts were more important that technical ability. Student involvement before and after the summer institutes was important, particularly in training and technical support back in the schools. Schools with a tradition of requiring and supporting students’ research in science and math were more likely to benefit from the program although schools without a competition orientation also benefited. The best experiences were reported by teachers and students who set goals for their SuperQuest experiences, including redesigning curriculum, accessing technology, and meeting graduate students and other computer science-oriented high school students.
Researchers who have studied winners of the Mathematics Olympiad in the context of talent development of gifted students find that the Olympiad experience influences major life choices, but suggest that it is the preparation beginning in elementary school that creates the condition for such implications (Subotnix, et al, 1996). The researchers initially asked how educators could ensure support for students with mathematical talent through schooling and professional life. They argue that talent development for many Olympiad winners begins early in schooling and is best encouraged when students are placed in special gifted programs. Students and parents reported that parental support, including verbal encouragement, help with time management, driving to competitions, and a general commitment to these intellectual pursuits, rather than pressure to achieve, influenced winners. While not all winners were in special programs, researchers report that membership in a group that values academics is important.
Return to the Evaluation / Question Section