Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2021, pp. 5-22
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 710 DOWNLOADS: 425 Publication date: 15 Jan 2021
Making science enjoyable inspires students to learn more. Out-of-class activities such as science fairs and Olympiads, serve as reasonable informal learning environments that demand attention. The association  of students’ involvement in these activities with increased student interest in science followed by the selection of  science-related careers, should motivate all in-charge stakeholders. In this work, we analysed the outcomes of the Bosnia Science Olympiad (BSO) as the first national Science Olympiad in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), aiming the improvement of science education and bringing different ethnic groups under the umbrella of science, in a post-conflict area. The two-day endeavour held in Sarajevo includes competition in  four sciencerelated categories (Environment, Engineering, Have an Idea, Web Design) and social activities. In this work, the comprehensive data, including participants’ gender, their ethnic background, cities, schools, and supervisors, over five years, was analysed. The number of participating high-school students increased from 78 to 143, of supervisors from 21 to 95, and of schools from 7 to 15, reaching a wide demographic acceptance to cover all ethnic regions in BiH. The relationship between gender and the selection of a category, shows bias of male participants towards Web Design (21%) and Engineering (40%), and of female students towards “Have an Idea” (40%) and Environment (44%) categories. The contribution of BSO choosing a science career, getting socialized    without prejudices, and the improvement of students’ self-confidence, were as well addressed. Our work demonstrates a model work to successfully promote science in post-conflict settings.
Olympiad, Science, STEM, education, ethnic diversity, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Dogan, S., & Spahiu, E. (2021). Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 5-22.
  1. Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice.
  2. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356.
  3. Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacher–student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1211 – 1239.
  4. Andersen, L., & Chen, J. A. (2016). Do high-ability students disidentify with science? A descriptive study of
  5. U.S. ninth graders in 2009: DO high-ability students disidentify with science? Science Education, 100(1), 57–77.
  6. Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence Plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A comparison between Black, Hispanic, and White students. Science Education, 98(2), 216–242.
  7. Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth.
  8. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 466 – 489.
  9. Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). A national science fair: Exhibiting support for the knowledge economy.
  10. Bosnian Science Olympiad 2016 Gathered High Schoolers From All Over Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2016, April 9). International Burch University.
  11. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.
  12. Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. 46(1), 73–90.
  13. Drew, C. (2011, November 4). Why science majors change their minds (it’s just so darn hard). The New York Times. itsjust-so-darn-hard.html
  14. Echterhoff, G. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. 4(5), 496 – 521.
  15. Ekmekci, A., Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Almus, K. (2018). High school students’ semantic networks of scientific method in an international science olympiad context. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), em1604.
  16. Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., Hurtado, S.,
  17. John, G. H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, T. J., Summers, M. F., Werner-Washburne,
  18. M., & Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE Life
  19. Sciences Education, 15(3).
  20. Fuligni, A. J., & Hardway, C. (2006). Daily variation in adolescents’sleep, activities, and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 353–378.
  21. Garrod, S., & Almeida-Porada, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.
  22. Garrod, S., & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.
  23. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767.
  24. Grevtseva, G. Y., Litvak, R. A., Tsiulina, M. V., Balikaeva, M. B., & Pavlichenko, A. A. (2018). Scientific Olympiad as means of students’ youth development. SHS Web of Conferences, 50, 01205.
  25. Grinnell, F., Dalley, S., Shepherd, K., & Reisch, J. (2018). High school science fair: Student opinions regarding whether participation should be required or optional and why. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202320.
  26. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67.
  27. Hayes, B. C., & McAllister, I. (2009). Education as a mechanism for conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.
  28. Oxford Review of Education, 35(4), 437–450.
  29. Kang, E. J. S., Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2013). Crossing the border from science student to science teacher: Preservice teachers’ views and experiences learning to teach inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 427–447.
  30. Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing atitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893.
  31. Klopfer, L. E. (1973). Evaluation of science achievement and science test development in an international context: The IEA study in science. Science Education, 57(3), 387–403.
  32. Kruse, R., Howes, E. V., Carlson, J., Roth, K., Bourdelat-Parks, B., Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Flanagan, J. C. (2013). Developing and Evaluating an eighth grade curriculum unit that links foundational chemistry to biological growth: Changing the research-based curriculum. Online Submission.
  34. Kususanto, P., Fui, C. S., & Lan, L. H. (2012). Teachers’ expectancy and students’ attitude towards science. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(2), 87–98.
  35. Lent, R. W., Lopez, A., Lopez, F., & Sheu, H. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 52–62.
  36. Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition: Toward the acquisition of mental reflection and self-regulation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(4), 361–371.
  37. Miller, L., Lietz, P., & Kotte, D. (2002). On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal changes: Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in science. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 69–92.
  38. National Research Council. (2013). Preparing the next generation of earth scientists: An examination of federal education and training programs. The National Academies Press.
  39. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. (2013). The National Academies Press.
  41. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I). OECD Publishing.
  42. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
  43. Pope, D., Brown, M., & Miles, S. (2015). Overloaded and underprepared: Strategies for stronger schools and healthy, successful kids (1 edition). John Wiley & Sons.
  44. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 180–261.
  45. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907.
  46. Romney, A. K., Boyd, J. P., Moore, C. C., Btachelder, W. H., & Brazil, T. J. (1996). Culture as Shared Cognitive Representations. 93, 4699 – 4705.
  47. Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education, 14(1), 7–13.
  48. Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 785–805.
  49. Sanger, M. A., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 27, 569–578.
  50. Simpkins, S. D., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The intersection between self-concepts and values: Links between beliefs and choices in high school. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110(31–47).
  51. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., MacMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
  52. The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Science at Grades 4, 8 and 12. (2016, October 27). National Center for
  53. Education Statistics.
  54. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., Loof, H. D., Meester, J. D., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Pauw, J. B., Dehaene, W.,
  55. Deprez, J., Cock, M. D., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Velde, D. V. de, Petegem, P. V., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02.
  56. Top, N., Sahin, A., & Almus, K. (2015). A stimulating experience: I-SWEEEP participants’ perceptions on the benefits of science olympiad and gender differences in competition category. SAGE Open.
  57. Walan, S., & Ewen, B. M. (2018). Teachers’ and principals’ reflections on student participation in a school science and technology competition. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 391–412.
  58. Walan, S., & Gericke, N. (2019). Factors from informal learning contributing to the children's???? interest in STEM: Experiences from the out-of-school activity called children's??? University. Research in Science & Technological Education, Volume missing or if online - website???1–21.
  59. Watt, H. M. G., & Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the US. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 642–659.
  60. Weir, K. (2016, March). Is homework a necessary evil? Monitor on Psychology, 47(3).
  62. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000a). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educa- Tional Psychology, 25, 68 – 81.
  63. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000b). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary
  64. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
  65. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.
  66. Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782.
  67. Yoder, B. L. (2016). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education.
Creative Commons License