SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices

G O O D M A N R E S E A R C H G R O U P , I N C . A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 1
Sid the Science Kid
Summative Evaluation
PREPARED BY
Elizabeth R. Bachrach, Ph.D.
Markeisha Grant, B.A.
Irene F. Goodman, Ed.D.
SUBMITTED TO
The Jim Henson Company
Thirteen/WNET
March 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary......................................................................................... i
Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
Sid the Science Kid Science Camp Goals.................................................. 1
Evaluation Research Questions.................................................................. 2
Methods .......................................................................................................... 2
Research Design......................................................................................... 2
Data Collection: Teachers and Students..................................................... 3
Profile of Study Participants....................................................................... 5
Research Context: Science in the Classrooms............................................ 6
Results........................................................................................................... 10
Short Term Effects on Children ............................................................... 10
Teachers’ Knowledge and Comfort: Changes Seen over time................. 23
Treatment Group Teachers’ Satisfaction.................................................. 27
Conclusions................................................................................................... 30
Recommendations......................................................................................... 31

G O O D M A N R E S E A R C H G R O U P , I N C . M a r c h 2 0 1 2
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sid the Science Kid (STSK) is a daily PBS series, with accompanying website
and outreach materials, produced by The Jim Henson Company in Los Angeles.
The program aims to engage three- to six-year-old children and their adult
caregivers. Goals of the series are to:
build on preschoolers’ natural curiosity about the world to encourage
children to think, talk, and work the way scientists do;
partner with parents and teachers to create a climate of curiosity for
children; and
contribute to school readiness by fostering children’s skills, motivation,
and confidence as learners.
KCET Education, Children’s Programming, and Outreach teams created the Sid
the Science Kid Science Camp program for use in early childhood education
settings. Production and distribution is now being conducted by Thirteen/WNET
Children’s Outreach. Similar to the TV series, the Science Camp curriculum
lessons focus on one theme per week and the camp goals match those of the
series. An initial pilot Science Camp curriculum was built around the Science
Tools episode cycle.
Jim Henson Company (JHC) contracted with Goodman Research Group, Inc.
(GRG), an evaluation research firm in Cambridge, MA to conduct summative
evaluation of the Science Camp’s week-long pilot curriculum. The evaluation
was designed to assess short-term effectiveness of the new curriculum for
students and teachers, and to obtain feedback from teachers about the curriculum
and accompanying training. Evaluation research questions were:
1. How effective was the curriculum in teaching preschool aged children
the science content presented through the week-long unit?
2. What short-term student outcomes are evident after the week-long
curriculum?
3. What were teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum including ease of use,
their own learning, and their students’ learning? How prepared did they
feel to use the curriculum in their classrooms after the training?
GRG designed and employed a quasi-experimental two-group, pre-post design
for the evaluation. Early childhood teachers in two cities (New York City, NY
and Los Angeles area, CA) were recruited to participate with their classroom
students. In all, 16 teachers and 220 students participated; half were assigned to
the Treatment group and the other half to the Waiting Control group. At two
points in time -- once before and once after the week-long Science Camp
curriculum was implemented in Treatment group classrooms -- teachers
completed surveys and students participated in one-on-one play activities and
interviews with field interviewers hired and trained by GRG.

ii
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT
Participating students were a fairly equal number of boys and girls, mostly four
years old. About 50% of the students were English language learners (ELL) and
the majority spoke a language other than English at home, primarily Spanish. All
participating teachers were women, with an average of 10 years teaching
experience. Most were Hispanic or Latina, and held a Bachelor’s or Associate’s
degree. All of the teachers were accustomed to leading students in hands-on
science activities, making use of small- and large-group work.
During the intervention week, the primary difference between the Treatment and
Control group classrooms was the specific content of the Science Camp
curriculum and the use of Sid the Science Kid video as a medium through which
to engage students and demonstrate the science content (rather than the teachers
alone presenting the content).
At the two testing points, interviewers worked with students individually for
about 15 minutes per session. In an area separate from the rest of the students,
interviewers laid out a standard set of materials on a table and invited each child
to select and play with any of the objects, including: magnifying glasses,
Popsicle sticks, notebooks/journals, rulers, charts, stickers, and crayons.
During the session, interviewers recorded the child’s spontaneous activity and
verbal comments, and asked probing questions about their actions. Following a
protocol developed by GRG, the interviewers listened specifically for use of
relevant vocabulary and evidence of the students’ curiosity and exploration; they
recorded children’s behavior under one of four activities that corresponded with
those included in the Science Camp curriculum: Magnification, Measurement,
Charts, and Science Journals. The same protocol was used for both Treatment
and Control groups.
KEY STUDENT FINDINGS
After one week of Sid Science Camp activities and accompanying video, children
in the Treatment group were able to make real-world connections with the
activities they conducted in their classes. They showed interest in the activities
they had done, and excitement about continuing to try out those activities on their
own time. Their spontaneous use of words related to specific science tools,
particularly those related to measurement and magnification, more than doubled.
Analyses revealed a statistically significant positive shift in Treatment group
children’s awareness and understanding of science and science tools compared to
children in the Control group. This shift was demonstrated by the following
among Treatment group children only:
→ Verbalized and demonstrated more sophisticated understanding of
science, scientists, and science tools
→ Spontaneously used more science tool-specific words during their play
with the objects
→ Spent more time using the interviewer-provided objects as science tools
and in ways similar to the Science Camp classroom activities

iii
→ Exhibited increased awareness of the function and purpose of specific
science tools in their play
An association between these changes and the Science Camp curriculum,
including the activities and video clips, was evident. After exposure to the
program, children in the Treatment group:
→ Referred to STSK video clips during free play in and outside of the
classroom and during play activities with interviewers
→ Replicated activities they saw Sid and his friends doing in the video clips
→ Referred to activities they had conducted in class and to specific terms
their teachers taught them
Treatment group children’s behaviors and comments made during the play
activities suggested they were processing and working toward a deeper
understanding of the science concepts they had learned over the past week.
KEY TEACHER FINDINGS
Overall, Treatment group teachers were very satisfied with the Science Camp
curriculum including the one-day training session, the ease of implementation,
and the ease with which the activities fit into their regular daily schedules.
Compared to teachers in the Control group, those who conducted the Science
Camp activities with their students perceived personal knowledge gains and
increased confidence with science content. They also showed increased comfort
with science teaching strategies and reported that their students showed more
interest in science learning as a result of the Science Camp activities.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Highlight for teachers the opportunity to take more time to implement the
curriculum in class.
A few teachers mentioned that a week was too short for the
implementation of the curriculum; they would like to dedicate two or
more days to each activity to ensure that students grasp the concept of
using different scientific tools.
Emphasize these options, which are already included in the teachers’
manual, for extending each lesson with additional activities.
Considering the built-in flexibility to expand the activities over time,
teachers can tailor the curriculum to fit their students’ needs.
Extended use of the curriculum may increase the likelihood of longer-
term positive effects on the students.
Spend more time on -- and include developmentally appropriate activities
specifically dedicated to -- the use of science journals to record children’s
own science investigations and observations.
In their one-on-one play activities, children did not use the science
journals as much as they did other science tools provided. Teachers had
reported that the journal activity was the least successful because
students did not understand the idea of recording their own observations.

iv
Specific activities focused solely on this science tool may help children
to understand the concept.
Incorporate more repeated use of and emphasis on general science terms as
well as those specific to each lesson.
The words that children heard many times and that had specific activities
associated with them (e.g., “magnify,” “look bigger,” “measure”) were
the words that they incorporated into their vocabularies.
In order for students to learn more general science words such as
“compare,” “explore,” and “observe,” those words should be more
prevalent throughout the lessons.
Evaluation findings can be interpreted as an illustration of the value added from
presenting science concepts and activities in the context of a lively and engaging
television series that features appealing characters that children enjoy, relate to,
and learn from (GRG, 2008), along with a high level of energy and music. As it
is further developed, with additional lessons added, there is potential for a very
successful early childhood science program.

G O O D M A N R E S E A R C H G R O U P , I N C . M a r c h 2 0 1 2 1
INTRODUCTION
Sid the Science Kid (STSK) is a daily PBS series produced by The Jim Henson
Company in Los Angeles. Via a daily television series, website, and outreach
initiative, STSK aims to engage three- to six-year-old children and their adult
caregivers. In summer 2010, the KCET Education, Children’s Programming, and
Outreach team created the Sid the Science Kid Science Camp program for use in
early childhood education programs, beginning with one week-long pilot
curriculum. Preliminary testing in two Head Start locations in Los Angeles in
August 2010 led to modifications in preparation for national summative
evaluation of the pilot week.
In January, 2011, Thirteen/WNET Children’s Outreach, in New York City, took
over the development and distribution of the Sid Science Camp curriculum. The
Jim Henson Company (JHC) contracted with Goodman Research Group, Inc.
(GRG) to conduct summative evaluation of the Science Camp’s week-long pilot
curriculum. GRG, an evaluation research firm in Cambridge, MA that specializes
in the evaluation of educational programs, materials, and services, had previously
conducted a national summative evaluation of the STSK television series,
website, and outreach in its the first season (Fall 2008).
SID THE SCIENCE KID SCIENCE CAMP GOALS
The Science Camp curriculum was developed with the same overall goals as the
series:
build on preschoolers’ natural curiosity about the world to encourage
children to think, talk, and work the way scientists do;
partner with parents and teachers to create a climate of curiosity for
children; and
contribute to school readiness by fostering children’s skills, motivation,
and confidence as learners.
The television series was modeled after the Preschool Pathways to Science
(PrePS) curriculum developed by Rochel Gelman, Ph.D. and Kimberly
Brenneman, Ph.D. at Rutgers University and Gay E. MacDonald and Moises
Roman at UCLA. Each week of STSK focuses on one theme (e.g., science tools)
that is addressed through all five episodes for that week. The initial week-long
Science Camp curriculum was built around the Science Tools Episode Cycle and
integrates the following educational philosophy:
Preschoolers are naturally curious.
Early exposure to science can inspire a positive lifelong attitude toward it
by empowering children to see themselves as capable learners, and
motivating them to learn and do more.
Learning to think and act like a scientist is more important than
memorizing discrete facts.

Beginning in summer 2011, GRG conducted summative evaluation of the week-
long pilot Sid the Science Kid Science Camp curriculum in two national sites:
New York City, NY and the Greater Los Angeles area, CA.
EVALUATION RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The evaluation was designed to assess the short-term effectiveness of the new
curriculum using the following research questions:
1. How effective was the curriculum in teaching preschool aged children
the science content presented through the week-long unit?
2. What short-term student outcomes are evident after the week-long
curriculum?
3. What were teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum including ease of use,
their own learning, and their students’ learning? How prepared did they
feel to use the curriculum in their classrooms after the training?
METHODS
RESEARCH DESIGN
GRG designed and employed a quasi-experimental two-group, pre-post design
for the evaluation. Early childhood teachers in two cities (New York City and
Los Angeles area) were recruited to participate with their classroom students.
GRG obtained parental consent for all participating students. GRG randomly
selected 8 of the 16 teachers, and their students, to be in the Treatment group and
the other 8 to be in the Waiting Control group. All 16 teachers and students
participated in GRG evaluation activities, described below.
The Treatment group teachers attended a one-day in-person training at either
Thirteen/WNET (in New York) or Jim Henson Studios (in Los Angeles) and then
conducted the week-long Science Camp activities (including the accompanying
videos and other materials) with their students. The Waiting Control group
neither received training nor conducted Science Camp activities. Teachers in the
Waiting Control group (referred to from this point forward as Control group
teachers) were invited to receive all Science Camp materials and training after
completion of the data collection for the evaluation study. Each teacher received
a stipend for their full participation.

DATA COLLECTION: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
Teacher Surveys
All teachers completed a paper survey before and after the week-long
intervention. For the Treatment group, surveys were completed before and after
use of the Science Camp curriculum. Teachers in the Control group completed
surveys during the same time period, before and after a week of business as usual
in their classrooms.
The pre-surveys included questions about the teachers’ classroom characteristics,
regular science procedures, and their own experiences and comfort teaching
science. Post surveys included questions about activities conducted over the
previous week (i.e., during implementation of the Science Camp for Treatment
group; during a regular week for the Control group), as well as questions about
experiences and comfort with science, for comparison to their pre-survey
responses. Additionally, teachers in the Treatment group commented on their use
of and satisfaction with the Science Camp curriculum.
Student Play Activities
Data were collected from students on two separate occasions during this
evaluation study: once before (Time 1) and once after (Time 2) the week-long
intervention period. Field researchers (hereafter referred to as “interviewers”),
hired and trained by GRG, visited the classrooms, and conducted one-on-one
play activities and brief interviews with each student; sessions lasted from 10 to
15 minutes per child.
Using a standardized package of materials provided by GRG, interviewers
recorded their observations of students’ actions and behaviors on a paper
observation protocol and later entered their notes in a secure online form
programmed by GRG. Interviewers were blind to the experimental condition the
children were assigned to, and knew very little about the intervention itself.
GRG’s aim was for the interviewers to record children’s behavior with as few
biases or expectations as possible.
Each interviewer package contained materials that were similar to those used in
the Science Camp activities and were likely to be familiar to students as common
classroom objects. Each package consisted of the following:
Magnifying glasses Charts
Popsicle sticks Stickers
Notebooks/Journals Crayons
Rulers
At each site, interviewers conducted the play activities with children individually,
in an area of the classroom or school selected by the teachers. Interviewers laid
out the materials on a table and invited each child to select and play with any of
the objects. During the session, interviewers recorded the child’s spontaneous

activity and verbal comments, and asked probing questions about their actions.
The interviewers listened specifically for use of relevant vocabulary and evidence
of the students’ curiosity and exploration.
According to the observation protocol and GRG training, interviewers recorded
the children’s behavior under one of four activities that corresponded with those
included in the Science Camp curriculum: magnification, measurement, charts,
and science journals.
Examples of children’s actions with the materials and the activities under which
interviewers recorded them follow:
Because the interviewers did not know about the Science Camp curriculum, or
the child’s experimental condition, GRG researchers relied on the detailed
information interviewers provided as they described each child’s activities. The
protocol included space for interviewers to indicate which materials the children
selected, the activities they engaged in with those materials, the number and
length of discrete activities (i.e., the length of time children spent with one or
more objects until they put them down and selected a new object), and the
presence or absence of several science-related terms and phrases.
Classroom Observations
GRG researchers visited each location once during the week of the Science Camp
intervention to observe the lessons as they were implemented. Using an
observation protocol, researchers recorded a snapshot of the pilot curriculum in
use and noted teachers’ and students’ behaviors and response to the activities.
See Appendix A for copies of all data collection instruments; data from teachers’
surveys are included.
Look at the objects around them
with magnifying glass. Magnification
Compare length of the ruler to the
length of the notebook. Measurement
Draw and describe work in the
notebook.
Journal
Place stickers in rows and
columns on the chart paper. Charts

PROFILE OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS
In New York, participants were teachers in eight Head Start classrooms and their
students (N=124 students). In Los Angeles, participants were teachers in two Los
Angeles Universal Preschool (LAUP) classrooms. Each LAUP classroom had
one head teacher and three teaching assistants, and had a morning session and an
afternoon session with 24 students in each (N=96 students).
All 16 teachers were women. Shown in Table 1, most were Hispanic or Latina,
and held a Bachelor’s or Associate’s degree. On average, teachers had 10 years
of teaching experience. Their participating students were a fairly equal number of
boys and girls, mostly four years old. About 50% of the students were English
language learners (ELL) and the majority spoke a language other than English at
home, primarily Spanish.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Number of
Teachers
(N=16)
Race/Ethnicity
Latino/a or Hispanic 11
White 2
Black or African-American 2
Prefer not to respond 1
American Indian or Alaskan Native –
Asian –
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander –
Education
Some high school 1
High school diploma or GED -
Associate’s (2 year) college degree 5
Bachelor’s (4 year) college degree 9
Master’s degree 1
Doctorate/other post graduate -
% of children
(N=220)
Gender
Girls 46%
Boys 54%
Age
3 years old 10%
4 years old 66%
5 years old 22%

RESEARCH CONTEXT: SCIENCE IN THE CLASSROOMS
The following section describes participants’ typical classroom arrangements and
science teaching, as well as the specific science activities that were conducted
during the week of the Science Camp intervention.
Center and Classroom Characteristics
In the New York Head Start program, each classroom was created from one very
large space divided into two separate rooms. The divider was a unit of shelves;
teachers could see over the shelves, and students could not. Each individual
classroom was quite spacious and allowed for children to move freely around the
room during their free play time. GRG researchers did not observe any outdoor
activity.
In Los Angeles, classrooms were smaller, and were in bungalow-style buildings.
Each classroom doorway led outside, rather than to a shared indoor hallway, and
there was a door between the two classrooms. There was a large outdoor area
with tricycle paths and several tricycles, a climbing structure, swings, and other
play equipment. The researcher observed outdoor playtime in addition to the
Science Camp activity.
Classrooms in both locations were brightly lit and were arranged with tables and
different “centers” that are common in preschool classrooms. Children appeared
comfortable moving from one area to another during their free play times. In five
of the 10 classrooms, head teachers had between one and three classroom
assistants. Recall, there were eight separate classrooms in New York, each with
one head teacher, and there were two separate classrooms, with 4 teachers in
each, in Los Angeles. Among the five Treatment group classrooms, three had
access to DVD Players and TVs, and two had access to personal computers with
an Internet connection, printers, and SMART Boards.
Typical Approach to Science Teaching
Aside from the one-day Sid Science Camp training attended by the Treatment
group teachers, the majority of participating teachers had not attended any
previous training on how to conduct science activities in the classroom. Shown in
Table 2, teachers in both groups were accustomed to conducting hands-on
science activities with their students in small and large groups.
14 teachers had a designated science area in the classroom; 6 of them
also had a designated area outside
15 had children working in small groups with some doing science and
some doing a different activity
10 gave children the choice to do a science activity or a different activity
9 typically offered science activities every day
All participating
teachers were
accustomed to
leading students in
hands-on science
activities, making use
of small- and large-
group work.

Table 2
Teachers’ Approach to Science
# of
Teachers
Small group activities 14
Kids do almost all hands- on activities 11
Large group activities 10
Kids do some hands-on exploration 6
I lead science activities; kids watch as I handle the materials 3
Kids do very little hands-on exploration 1
N=16
All teachers, in both groups, used as the core curriculum in their classroom
The Creative Curriculum, which operates under the philosophy that children
learn best by actively thinking and experimenting on their own to find out
how things work. The curriculum focuses on social and emotional
development, the arts, physical health and development, mathematics and
science. The lessons involve teacher-led, small-group, and large-group
activities. Similar to the educational philosophy of the Sid Science Camp, the
goal of The Creative Curriculum is to encourage students to become active
learners who try out their own ideas and develop their own opinions on
topics.
Teachers’ Use of Science Tools during the Intervention Week
During the week, teachers in the Treatment group used the science tools as
suggested in the Science Camp manual. More than half of the Control group
teachers also conducted activities that involved magnifiers and linear and
standard measurement. Half or fewer of the Control group teachers also used data
and charts, journals, and non-standard measurement activities. See Table 3.
Table 3
Teachers’ Use of Activities Involving Science Tools
# of Teachers
Treatment Control
Use magnifiers in science explorations. 8 7
Activities about linear measurement. 7 5
Activities about standard measurement. 7 5
Collect data and record it on a chart.* 8 4
Record observations in journals.* 8 3
Activities about non-standard measurement.* 8 3
Discussions about linear measurement.* 7 2
N=16
* Done by more Treatment group teachers than Control group teachers
Commenting at Time 2 about the success of activities they conducted during the
previous week, most of the Treatment group teachers considered the activities
During the
intervention week,
teachers in both
groups reported
conducting at least
some classroom
activities that made
use of science tools.
Treatment group
teachers conducted
more than did Control
group teachers.

with magnifiers, collecting and recording data, and non-standard measurement to
be the most successful. Students “loved using the magnifiers, rulers, and creating
charts,” and some teachers have continued “making charts to gather many kinds
of information.” One teacher explained that students enjoyed the activities
around non-standard measurement, “especially when they used their shoes,
hands, body, blocks etc.”
Three of the Control group teachers said the activities they conducted with
magnifiers were the most successful. The remainder of Control group teachers
described science-related activities distinct from the Science Camp curriculum,
such as mixing colors, growing seeds, and growing crystals (children viewed the
crystals with magnifying glasses) as the most successful over the past week.
Six Treatment group teachers considered the time spent recording observations in
journal in the previous week to be the least successful. Many felt it was not age-
appropriate for preschool students who had difficulty understanding the concept
of recording information in this way. One teacher explained, “The children found
it harder to record their thoughts with pictures than to verbalize what they had
observed or explored.” A different teacher noted that size was a barrier: “The
journals were too small for them to draw. The children are used to drawing on
bigger paper.”
During the on-site observations, GRG researchers noted that Treatment group
children showed difficulty generalizing from what they saw on TV (i.e., Sid and
his friends drew pictures of the rolie polies they viewed with the magnifiers) to
what they saw in themselves (i.e., in class, they viewed rocks, shells, and leaves
with magnifiers). Instead of recording what they saw in class, the children drew
what they saw drawn on TV.
Table 4
Most and Least Successful Activities in the Past Week
# of Teachers
Most
Successful
Least
Successful
Activities about non-standard measurement. 9 1
Collect data and record it on a chart. 7 1
Activities about standard-measurement. 5 0
Record observations in journals. 3 6
Discussions about linear measurement. 2 2
Growing seeds 2 0
Rock candy/growing crystals 2 0
Farms 1 1
Mixing colors 1 0
Fossils 0 3
N=16

Treatment Group Teachers’ Use of Video Clips
Treatment group teachers viewed both the STSK program segments (animated)
and the Fab Lab segments (not animated) that were provided with the curriculum.
They described the two types of video segments as “both good,” with no
preference for one type over the other. One teacher showed students additional
video segments as well (e.g., segments from the Internet).
Most teachers introduced the video segment, “explained any vocabulary that was
not familiar for the children,” viewed the segment, and then reviewed the content
and implemented the activities. Two of them paused the videos at points, to
repeat questions posed, or to “have the children predict. Then we continued the
video.”
Overall, during the intervention week, the primary difference between the
Treatment and Control group classrooms was the specific content of the
Science Camp curriculum and the use of Sid the Science Kid video as a
medium through which to engage students and demonstrate the science
content rather than the teachers alone presenting the content. Findings
presented in this report can be interpreted as an illustration of the value added
from presenting science concepts and activities in the context of a lively and
engaging television series that features appealing characters that children
enjoy, relate to, and learn from (GRG, 2008), along with a high level of
energy and music.
Treatment group
teachers incorporated
STSK video segments
throughout the week’s
activities, as
prescribed in the
teacher’s manual.

RESULTS
In this section, we present a summary of findings regarding the effects of the
Science Camp curriculum on students. This is followed by teachers’ perceptions
of the effects on students and themselves, changes seen over time in teachers
across both groups, and finally Treatment group teachers’ satisfaction with
Science Camp materials and training and the experience overall.
SHORT TERM EFFECTS ON CHILDREN
Overall, after one week of exposure to the Sid Science Camp activities and
accompanying video, children in the Treatment group revealed a significant
positive shift in their awareness and understanding of science and science tools,
compared to children in the Control group. This shift was demonstrated by the
following among Treatment group children only:
→ Verbalized and demonstrated more sophisticated understanding of
science, scientists, and science tools
→ Spontaneously used more science tool-specific words during their play
with the objects
→ Spent more time using the interviewer-provided objects as science tools
and in ways similar to the Science Camp classroom activities
→ Exhibited increased awareness of the function and purpose of specific
science tools in their play
The behaviors listed above were demonstrated by one third of Treatment group
children before the week and by over one half of them after the Sid Science
Camp week. Moreover, the majority (up to 87%) of children in the Treatment
group used objects deliberately and accurately as science tools after the week,
compared to half of the Control group children.
An association between these changes and the Science Camp curriculum,
including the activities and video clips, was evident. At Time 2, children in the
Treatment group:
→ Referred to STSK video clips during free play in and outside of the
classroom and during play activities with interviewers
→ Replicated activities they saw Sid and his friends doing in the video clips
→ Referred to activities they had conducted in class and to specific terms
their teachers taught them
Interviewers’ descriptions of children’s behaviors and comments made during the
play activities, suggested that children in the Treatment group were processing
and working toward a deeper understanding of the science concepts they had
learned over the past week.
Summarized in Table 5, and described in more detail in sections that follow,
some changes in behavior over time that reflected science-related thinking were

seen in both groups of children while other, more Science Camp-specific
changes, were seen among the Treatment group children only (that is, no changes
were evident among Control group children). For example, while all children
used more of the objects provided at Time 2, the children in the Treatment group
used them more deliberately as science tools.
Table 5
Changes in Behavior from Time 1 to Time 2
Evident among Children in
Both Groups
Treatment Group Outperformed
Control Group
Children used more of the various objects
provided by the interviewer.
Children engaged for longer with each
science-tool related activity.
Children used the objects provided in ways
that were appropriate to the tools’ purpose.
Children used the tools in ways that
reflected learning from the Science Camp
activities.
Few children used general science terms
including “compare,” “contrast,” “observe,”
“science.”
Children’s spontaneous use of science
tool-specific terms more than doubled.
About two-thirds of children recalled
having done similar activities before (e.g.,
at Time 1, in their classroom, at home).
Children referred specifically to Science
Camp activities they had conducted in
class, learned about from their teacher, and
saw on TV (video clips).
Use of Science-Related Terms
The most notable effects of the Sid Science Camp curriculum were revealed in
children’s spontaneous use of terms specific to each science tool. Throughout the
one-on-one play activities, interviewers recorded children’s comments and
descriptions of their actions with the materials provided. Within each activity,
interviewers noted whether or not children used general science-related terms
such as “science,” “scientist,” “compare,” and “explore,” as well as terms related
to each specific science tool. The key words specific to each of the four Sid
Science Camp activities included the following.
CHART: MEASUREMENT:
“Information” “Ruler”
“Chart” “Non-standard”
“Data” “Measure”
MAGNIFYING GLASS SCIENCE JOURNAL
“Magnify” “Journal”
“Tiny” “Draw”
“Look Bigger” “Record”
Combined across the four activities, children in the Treatment group showed a
significant increase in the number of science tool-specific terms they used at
Time 2. These terms appeared to be new to the children. Very few children in
either group used any of the words during the play activity at Time 1. Children in
After participating in the
Sid Science Camp
activities for a week,
children’s use of words
related to specific
science tools,
particularly those
related to measurement
and magnification, more
than doubled.

the Treatment group showed a 70% increase in use of all science tool-related
terms at the end of the week, at Time 2. In contrast, there was no change among
children in the Control group. See Figure 1 for average number of terms used by
children in both groups, at Time 1 and Time 2.
Figure 1
Children’s Spontaneous Use of Science Tool Terms during Play Activities
N=210
Compared to the increases seen in children’s use of terms specific to each science
tool, over time, fewer children spontaneously used general science terms such as
“compare,” “contrast,” “observe,” “science,” or “scientist.”
Understanding of Science Tools and Their Functions
As described above, during each one-on-one play activity (i.e., once before and
once after the intervention week), the interviewer presented the child with seven
objects and encouraged the child to select and play with any of those objects.
During the 10-15 minute session, the interviewer noted which objects the child
selected and recorded the child’s verbal and non-verbal actions.
During their second play activity with interviewers (i.e., at Time 2), about two
thirds of the children in both groups recalled having done similar activities in the
past, and about one third said they had not. About 10% of the children in the
Treatment group, compared to 2% of the Control group, referred to a specific
activity they had done in class during the past week. For example:
“Um, yes, like non-standard measurement--you just get something like
this and decide how big it is with a tool.”
“We played with the magnifying glass and saw chart data.”
0.47
0.80
0.47
0.38
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Time 1 Time 2
AvereageNumberofWrodsUsed
Treatment Control
At Time 2, children in
the Treatment group
showed more
understanding of the
objects provided as
“science tools”
compared to children
in the Control group.
At Time 1, one third of
Treatment group
children used at least
one of the science tool
terms, and at Time 2,
more than half of them
did. There was no
change for the Control
group.

In the following sections, we describe children’s use of the science tools as they
corresponded with the four main activities: Magnification, Charts, Measurement,
and Science Journals. Children’s interactions with the objects were often similar
across the whole sample at Time 1, with changes evident in the Treatment group
at Time 2. For each activity, a summary of overall use is followed by group
differences in behaviors (between the Treatment and Control groups), and finally
examples of changes from Time 1 to Time 2 among the Treatment group only.
Magnification
The magnifying glass was used by most of the children in both groups; just over
90% of them used this tool both at Time 1 and Time 2. On average, children
worked with the magnifier for about two and a half minutes. At both times,
children in both groups held the magnifying glass and looked through it. They
looked at the objects in front of them and around the room and at the things they
drew. As was suggested in Science Camp manual, all of the children were
naturally interested in noticing how things looked; about half of the children in
both groups commented about the fact that the magnifier made things bigger.
At Time 2, children in the two groups used different terminology to describe
more specifically what they saw through the magnifiers. A majority (87%) of
children in the Treatment group referred to objects they worked with during the
week, and talked about “tiny things” that “looked bigger.” One child, using
words from one of the songs in the video clips said he used the magnifier “to see
with your eyes” and he explained, “I used it before with all my friends and
teachers.”
When asked what they were doing and what they saw with the magnifier, a
common answer among the Treatment group was, “Seeing something little to big.
It looks big” In contrast, nearly half of the children in the Control group used
terms such as “closer” and described looking for things, rather than looking at
things. Several Control group children mentioned spying and looking for clues.
Combined across the three key terms (Magnify, Tiny, Look Bigger), children in
the Treatment group showed a statistically signficant increase in spontaneous use
of terms at Time 2, compared to no change for the Control group. Within the
range of 0 to 3 of the words, the average number of words used by the Treatment
group, shown in Figure 2, reflects an increase of more than 100% from Time 1 to
Time 2.
At Time 2, the
average number of
terms related to
magnification more
than doubled among
the Treatment group.
At Time 1, 21% of
one term related to
magnification; at
Time 2, 40% did.

Figure 2
Children’s Spontaneous Use of Magnifying Terms: Magnify/Tiny/Look Bigger
N=210
Examples of children’s actions and comments, provided in Table 6, demonstrate
the increased sophistication in use and understanding of the magnifier as a
science tool among the Treatment group from Time 1 to Time 2. Descriptions in
each row are from the same child, at Time 1 and Time 2.
Table 6
Treatment Group: Actions with the Magnifying Glass at Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
Looked through magnifying glass at pictures.
C: "I can see a dinosaur and a Grandma."
I: "What does it help with?"
C: "It helps to see with the glass. It makes our eyes
bigger."
Looks through magnifying glass at notebook and
pictures.
I: "What does it do?"
C: "It lets you see bigger, my teacher told me that. I
see it bigger and bigger!
I: "What kind of things can you see?"
C: "Can look at bugs and starfish. Big."
Used magnifying glass to look at popsicle sticks
I: "How do you use it?"
C: "At home I have a black one. You catch
butterflies and let them go in the jungle."
Looks through magnifying glass.
C: “Magnifier glass. I used it before at my school.
We were science kids.”
He used the magnifying glass to look at the
stickers.
He looked through the magnifying glass at various
things, like his hand and the popsicle stick.
I: "Can you tell me about what you're doing?"
C: "I see bigger when I looked through it. I see my
hand, can make it bigger. See little lines on my
finger."
0.24
0.53
0.25 0.25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time 1 time 2
Averge#ofWordUsed
Treatment Control

Charts
About three quarters of the children engaged in activity with the chart at Time 1,
with a slight increase at Time 2 for both groups. On average, children worked
with the charts for four to five minutes. At both times, children put stickers on
and/or colored in the boxes of the chart in a methodical way; they lined the
stickers up, and placed them in the middle of the cells.
At Time 2, about one in five of the Treatment group children made a specific
reference to the Science Camp activities, mostly by noting that their teacher told
them the paper was called “a chart” and that it is used “to draw data.” When
asked what they were doing, a handful of Treatment group children explained
that they saw the same thing in the classroom and that their teacher told them “we
see something and we draw it on the chart.”
In contrast, children in the Control group said say they were “putting stickers” on
it, “coloring,” and “drawing.” None of the Control group children used the word
chart. Instead, they identified it as “paper” or “squares.” In reference to their
own prior classroom work, a few Control group children referred to mixing
colors, which was an activity one of the Control group teachers had described.
Combined across the three key terms (Information, Chart, Data), children in the
Treatment group showed a statistically signficant increase in spontaneous use of
terms at Time 2, compared to their not using any such terms at Time 1 and
compared no use at all among the Control group. Figure 3 shows the increase in
use of chart-related terms among the children in the Treatment group only. On
average, a small number of children used these terms; yet the increase was
statistically significant, due to a complete absence of the terms at Time 1.
Several children in the Treatment group used the words “chart” and “data” at
Time 2.
Figure 3
Number of Children in the Treatment Group Who Used Chart-Related Terms at
Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
the Treatment group
used the words “chart”
and “data.” This
reflected a significant
change from Time 1,
when no children in
either group used these
terms.
Chart
Chart Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Chart
Data

the increased sophistication in use and understanding of the chart as a science
tool among the Treatment group from Time 1 to Time 2.
Table 7
Treatment Group: Actions with the Chart at Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
Drew dinosaurs. Made V and L with crayons. Traced
hand on back of chart.
C: "I can draw a pterodactyl. He has flat wings, spiky
head. I can draw a brachiosaurus. He has a short head."
Drew pictures of dinosaurs on chart using stickers
as a reference.
I: "Do you know what this is called?"
C: "This is called a chart, my teachers told me."
He went back and forth between coloring on the chart and
doing a different activity. He said he was drawing a
robot. He talked about "painting" with crayons in class
during art.
I: "What happens when you color on the chart with the
crayons?"
C: “I don’t know.”
He said he was drawing toys. He drew one item per
box.
C: “At my school. We see something and we draw it
on the chart. All the shapes.”
Child put 1 sticker on the chart, somewhat hesitant.
I: "What is it?"
C: "It's a dinosaur. They're the same." [pointing to two of
the same dinosaurs]
Drawing shapes and letters in boxes. Put stickers on
chart.
I: "Have you seen this before?"
C: "I saw on the board with the shapes. I think it's
called a chart. We talked about why Sid shrinks his
shoes. It's in the story."
Measurement
About three quarters of the children engaged in measurement-related activity
both at Time 1 and Time 2. On average, children worked with measurement for
approximately two minutes. Children in both groups used the rulers to measure
objects around them and referred to the numbers they saw on the rulers. They
also used the rulers and the Popsicle sticks to align objects, to draw straight lines,
and to count.
At Time 2, children in the Treatment group focused more on measuring. More
than half of them used the ruler to measure various things around them, including
the charts, the boxes in the charts, and their own arms and legs. Children
explained they could measure themselves and see “how big” or “how tall”
different objects were in relation to other objects. One child identified the ruler as
“a tool.”
In contrast, while nearly half of the Control group children also referred to
measuring and used words like “bigger” and “taller,” several of them found
other uses for the materials such as tracing the ruler on a piece of paper, lining
things up, drawing straight lines, and using the Popsicle stick as a nail file.
In addition, while using the rulers and Popsicle sticks, several children in the
Treatment group referred to “8,” which may reflect specific reference to the
Science Camp non-standard measurement activity. The activity involved children

measuring different sides of a table or bookshelf with their hands. Suggested
discussion questions included: “If the short side is 8 hands, how many hands will
the long side be? Will it be more than 8? Fewer than 8?” Examples of comments
among children in the Treatment group, both spontaneous and in response to
interviewer questions included:
"Seeing what it is. It's 8!"
"To see how long, it's 8!"
"I can measure myself with this! This crayon is 7. This book measures 8.
My finger measures 5.”
Combined across the three key terms (Ruler, Non-Standard, Measure), children
in the Treatment group showed a statistically signficant increase in spontaneous
use of terms at Time 2, compared to no change for the Control group. Within the
range of 0 to 3 of the words, the average number of words used by the Treatment
group, shown in Figure 3, reflects an increase of more than 100% from Time 1 to
Time 2.
Figure 3
Children’s Spontaneous Use of Measurement-Related Terms: Ruler/Non
Standard/Measure
N=210
the increased sophistication in use and understanding of the ruler as a science
tool among the Treatment group from Time 1 to Time 2.
0.13
0.29
0.2
0.13
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time 1 Time 2
Average#ofWordsUsed
Treatment Control
At Time 2, the
average number of
terms related to
measurement more
than doubled among
the Treatment group.
At Time 1, 13% of
one term related to
measurement; at
Time 2, 24% did.

Table 8
Treatment Group: Actions with the Measurement at Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
Picked up ruler and measured his finger.
C: “Oh my gosh. It's five feet tall!"
He measured his arm, using multiple ruler
lengths. He counted 4½ ruler lengths.
I: "Can you tell me about what you're doing?"
C: "Measure."
Child places the ruler next to her finger, measuring it,
and then 'high-fives' me with the illustrated hand that's
on the ruler
"Look my finger is five because I'm five years old."
Child uses ruler to measure various things.
C: "I can measure myself with this!" [Holds ruler
up to her arm. Holds up to magnifying glass] "It's
smaller." [Holds ruler up to paper] "It's one!"
[Holds ruler up to crayon] "This crayon is 7. This
book measures 8. My finger measures 5."
Journal
Just over half of all children engaged in activity with the science journal, with a
slight decrease at Time 2 for children in both groups. On average, children
worked with the journals for just over three minutes. At both times, children in
both groups spent most of their time drawing pictures of the stickers, and of
themselves, their families, and the interviewer. Most were able to describe what
they had drawn, when the interviewer asked.
At Time 2, nearly one in five children in the Treatment group referred to the
journal as a “scientist tool” or “my scientist journal” and noted that they, and
scientists, use it “to observe” and to “write down” what they have done. None of
the children in the Control group used the journal in any way other than to draw
pictures.
While a few children used terms specific to science journals at Time 2 (Observe,
Journal, Draw), the change was an 18% increase from Time 1 and was not
statistically significant or different from the children in the Control group. This
corresponds with teachers’ reports about the success of their use of the journals
during the Science Camp activities. Recall, more than half of the Treatment
group teachers explained that children had trouble understanding the concept of
recording their work in the journal, and that the journals were too small for easy
writing. This difficulty in the classroom likely explains why fewer children
replicated use of the journal during the one-on-one play activities.
increased sophistication in use and understanding of the science journal as a
science tool among the Treatment group from Time 1 to Time 2.

Table 9
Treatment Group: Actions with the Science Journals at Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
He drew a picture of himself and wrote his name on top Drew me in the journal.
C: “This is my scientist journal.”
Measured lines in the notebook using the ruler.
Said she was writing her numbers.
Each time she did something in a box on the
chart, she wrote random numbers down on the
notebook page to represent what she had done on
the chart.
C: Pointed to chart and said, "I'm writing down
what I did here."
Colored picture of her Mom.
C: "I can't make it because the sun no make me see."
[sun was blocking view of notebook]
Said she'd seen one before in class. She drew an
“octopus with a lot of legs" and counted them.
C: "You can write names and what you do in
class. You write something and do stuff in your
journal."
Children’s Actions with the Objects Provided
While the number of distinct activities that children engaged in did not change
over time, the number of different objects children used increased significantly at
Time 2. At both times, children engaged in an average of three or four distinct
activities (Mean = 3.48 activities; range = 1 to 6 different activities). Shown in
Figure 4, at Time 1, children in both groups used three or four out of the seven
different objects provided. At Time 2, children in the Treatment group used just
over five objects, reflecting a 36% increase, compared to children in the Control
group who used fewer than five of the objects (reflecting a 29% increase). The
overall increase for all children, across both experimental groups, may reflect
increased comfort with the research situation and/or with the interviewer.
Figure 4
Number of Objects Used During Play Activities by Group: Time 1 and Time 2
N=220
3.79
5.17
3.79
4.90
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time 1 Time 2
Average#ofObjectsUsed
Treatment Control
Children in both
groups used more
of the objects
provided at Time
2 than they did at
Time 1.

Time Spent with Each Activity
Overall, at both time points, children spent the longest time engaged in activity
with the charts. On average, they spent between four and five minutes with the
charts compared to an average of two to four minutes for the other activities.
Among children in the Control group, average time spent on each of the four key
activities decreased significantly at Time 2. This resulted in significant
differences between the two groups at Time 2, such that children in the
Treatment group spent more time, on average, engaged in activities with the
science journals, measurement tools, and magnifiers than did their counterparts
(See Figure 5).
Figure 5
Time in Minutes Children Spent Engaged in Activities at Time 2
N=130 N=134 N=187
Awareness of Science in their Lives
At Time 2, most children in both groups reported that they knew a scientist;
about half in each group reported they themselves were scientists. In the
Treatment group, more of the children referred to “Sid the Science Kid,” Sid’s
friends, or someone they knew in real life, whereas the majority of children in the
Control group said “yes” they knew a scientist, but did not refer to anyone
specifically.
A few of the Control group children in Los Angeles referred to having seen Sid
“yesterday, in my classroom,” because the final Science Camp celebration took
place at their school before their final data collection sessions. They knew that
Sid visited the school and they “high fived” him. However, they did not refer to
any of the science tools or activities related to the curriculum.
3.62
2.98
2.522.55
1.61 1.78
0
1
2
3
4
Journal Measurement Magnification
Treatment Control
the Treatment group
engaged with each
activity longer than did
children in the Control
group. Children in the
Control group appeared
less interested in
exploring the science
tools for a second time.
Average#ofminutes

Examples of Treatment group responses included:
“Yes, Sid wanted to measure a big blue whale. Sid the Science Kid
visited our class yesterday.”
“Sid the scientist kid when we were watching yesterday.”
“Sid is a scientist, and we watched the show.”
In explanation of what scientists do, more than half of the children in the
Treatment group referred to Science Camp activities they had conducted and one
third referred to scientists’ use of “scientific tools.”
“Like use this paper so we can collect data.”
“They just use these tools, like a magnifier and a measurement. They
use a stick to measure this and they can measure with a crayon. “
One third of children in the Control group said they did not know what scientists
do and 25% of them gave an answer that was not related to science including,
“they play,” “they color,” and “they eat fruit.”
Generally, after one week of Sid Science Camp activities and video, children in
the Treatment group were able to make real-world connections with the activities
they conducted in their classes. They showed interest in the activities they had
done, and excitement about continuing to try out those activities on their own
time.
Treatment group teachers believed their students showed more
interest in science learning as a result of the Science Camp
activities.
In support of what we learned from the students’ behavior as well as what we
observed in Treatment group classrooms, after using the Science Camp
curriculum, seven of the eight Treatment group teachers perceived that their
students showed a lot to a great deal more interest in science learning. One
teacher explained, “The children repeated the activities during free choice time,
weeks later - measuring objects, making their own charts, etc.” During on-site
visits during the week of the intervention, GRG researchers’ observations
confirmed this, as students were actively engaged with the magnifiers and rulers
during free-play time.
In both locations, children spoke about Sid and his friends as they used their own
magnifiers to look at small objects in and outside the classroom. In New York,
children offered to share their “science” magnifying glass with the interviewer,
with the caution to treat it gently because it was so special. In Los Angeles,
during outside play, a child wanted to examine through a magnifying glass a snail
the teacher had just found. This type of behavior supports the finding that the
Science Camp activities effectively engaged and interested the kids, as they
After completing the
Science Camp week,
Treatment group
children seemed more
attuned to the science
around them, and were
able to verbalize their
understanding of
science tools.

transferred their knowledge of science tools and used them accurately, outside of
the curriculum activities.
Seven of the eight Treatment group teachers indicated that students learned about
the purpose and use of scientific tools as well as new science-related vocabulary.
Examples of teachers’ descriptions of student learning included:
“That a magnifying glass makes things look bigger. We use charts to
record and share information. We use rulers to measure.”
“The names and what you can use them for and when you can use them.”
“They learned the meaning of the word. Now they know that magnify
means make things look bigger, that chart is the same as graph and that
[it is used] to collect data.”
After the Science
Camp activities,
teachers believed
that their students
learned about the
purpose and use of
the scientific tools
and science-related
vocabulary.

TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND COMFORT: CHANGES
SEEN OVER TIME
Teachers themselves learned new science content and expanded
their views about science in general and in the classroom.
Nearly half of the Treatment group teachers described that they themselves
learned most about non-standard measurement. They learned, “that you can use
hands, feet, and other objects for non-standard measurement and only 1 item can
be used at a time.”
After completing the Science Camp, all eight Treatment group teachers reported
they considered more activities to be “science activities” than they did before the
week. The majority also expressed more confidence in using science vocabulary
with their students, encouraging students to seek out their own answers to
questions, and using TV as an educational tool. See Table 10.
Table 10
Treatment Group Teachers’ Changes in Science Attitudes after the Science Camp
More
than
before
About
the same
Less
than
before
The range of activities I would consider
“a science activity.”
8 – –
I’m likely to use science vocabulary in
conversations with kids in my classroom.
7 1 –
I’m confident in my ability to use television
as an educational tool.
5 3 –
I’m likely to encourage kids to seek answers
to their own questions
5 1 –
I’m confident in my ability to conduct science
activities with kids in my classroom.
4 3 1
I’m interested in doing science activities
with kids in my classroom.
4 4 –
I’m likely to incorporate science into
our regular classroom routine.
4 4 –
I’m likely to encourage kids to explore
the world around them.
4 3 1
I’m comfortable doing science activities
with kids in my classroom.
3 4 1
N=8
Half of the Treatment
group teachers increased
their interest, likelihood,
and confidence to
incorporate more science
into their classroom
routines. Nearly all of
them increased their
likelihood to use science
terms in their
conversations with
children and broadened
their perspective of what
they consider to be
“science.”

Teachers in the Treatment group perceived knowledge gains and
increased confidence with science content after conducting the Sid
Science Camp with their students.
Compared to those in the Control group, Treatment group teachers’ perceptions
of their own knowledge of science content for pre-school aged children increased
after they conducted the Science Camp activities for one week.
At Time 1:
2 teachers (both in the Treatment group) knew not much at all about pre-
school science content
14 teachers (6 in the Treatment group; 8 in the Control group) knew a
fair amount
At Time 2:
12 teachers (6 in each group) knew a fair amount
4 teachers (2 in each group) knew a lot
On average, teachers in the Treatment group rated themselves lower at Time 1
than did teachers in the Control group. Subsequently, they showed a larger
increase in their perceived knowledge at Time 2, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge of Preschool Science Content: Time 1 and Time
2
N=16
Scale: 1=I don’t know very much at all; 2=I know a little bit; 3=I know a fair
amount; 4=I know a lot; 5=I am an expert in this area
2.43
3.29
3.00 3.22
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time 1 Time 2
PerceivedKnowledge
Treatment Control
After one week with the
Science Camp activities,
teachers showed
increased perceived
knowledge of science
content, a broadened
view about what it
means to do science in
preschool classrooms,
and increased comfort
with a variety of science
teaching strategies.

Teachers also reported slight changes in how they responded to students’
science-related questions after the intervention week. Shown in Table 11, at Time
1 there were few differences between the groups. At Time 2, more of the
Treatment group teachers reported looking for answers in books or on websites
(by themselves or with the child), and suggesting that the child asks someone else
(e.g., parents, older siblings, an expert). The shift toward looking for answers
along with the child, seen in the Treatment group more than in the Control group,
suggests an increased confidence about not having to provide the child with an
immediate answer. This approach parallels the goals of the STSK program, to
encourage a climate of curiosity among children and adults.
Table 11
How Teachers Respond to Students’ Science-Related Questions
Treatment Control
Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Try to answer as best I can 7 8 6 8
Look it up in a book, myself 6 8 6 6
Look it up on a website, myself 6 8 4 5
Look it up in a book together with the child 6 8 5 6
Look it up on a website together with the child 2 5 2 1
Suggest he/she asks someone else. 2 4 1 0
N=16
Teachers in the Treatment group showed increased comfort with
science teaching strategies after conducting the Sid Science Camp
with students.
Before the Science Camp activities, teachers’ ratings of comfort with various
science activities in their classroom revealed no differences between groups.
After the intervention week, Treatment group teachers rated their comfort higher
than did teachers in the Control group on several items:
Incorporating science into circle time activities
Incorporating science into small group activities
Incorporating science into the free play options in the
classroom
Incorporating science into the free play options outside
Reading books about science topics
Teaching language and literacy during science activities
Teaching math during science activities
Asking children open-ended questions during hands-on
science activities
Encouraging children to reflect on their hands-on science
experiences
Even with a similar
approach to their
regular science
teaching, Treatment
group teachers
reported higher
comfort with several
science-teaching
strategies after
completing one week
of the Sid Science
Camp.
At Time 2,
Treatment group
teachers were more
comfortable to look
together with a
child for answers to
science-related
questions.

Additionally, for the Treatment group only, comfort with two items increased
significantly from Time 1 to Time 2:
Incorporating science into the free play options outside
Encouraging children to reflect on their hands-on science experiences
Table 12 shows average ratings on a scale from 1 (Not at all comfortable) to 5
(Extremely comfortable). Recall that the educational philosophy and teaching
approach for the Science Camp did not differ from teachers’ typical teaching;
further evidence for the value added by using video, music, and lively characters
as models of science exploration and learning.
Table 12
Teachers’ Mean Comfort at Time 1 and Time 2
Time 1 Time 2
Treatment Control Treatment Control
Trying new materials or activities yourself before
using them with children
3.86 3.88 4.71 4.57
Incorporating science into circle time activities a
4.13 4.38 4.75 4.00
Incorporating science into small group activities a
4.50 4.50 4.75 4.14
Incorporating science into the free play options in
the classroom ab
4.13 4.25 4.63 3.88
Incorporating science into the free play options
outside a
3.57 4.14 4.63 3.50
Reading books about science topics a
5.00 4.43 5.00 4.00
Teaching language and literacy during science
activities a
4.63 4.25 4.75 3.75
Teaching math during science activities a
4.38 4.38 4.71 3.88
Using related video when teaching a science
topic
3.00 4.00 3.88 3.80
Getting children excited about science 3.88 4.25 4.50 4.00
Guiding children in hands-on science activities 4.13 4.38 4.63 4.13
Asking children open-ended questions during
hands-on science activities a
3.75 4.00 4.75 3.75
Encouraging children to reflect on their hands-on
science experiences a
4.14 4.25 4.88 4.00
Asking children to share their discoveries with
each other during science activities
4.43 4.38 4.75 4.25
Responding when a child asks a science-related
question and you don’t know the answer
3.29 3.57 3.63 3.38
N=16
a
Treatment group rating was higher than Control group rating at Time 2.
ab
Treatment Group Time 2 rating is higher than Time 1.
At both Time 1 and Time 2, teachers in both groups reported experiencing
relatively few challenges when leading hands-on science activities with their
students. At Time 2, one item, classroom time constraints, was considered more

of a challenge among Control group teachers than Treatment group teachers. (See
Appendix A for teachers’ ratings of each challenge).
TREATMENT GROUP TEACHERS’ SATISFACTION
Overall, Treatment group teachers were very satisfied with the Sid
Science Camp curriculum including the one-day training session,
the ease of implementation, and the ease with which the activities
fit into their regular daily schedules.
After the intervention week, Treatment group teachers reported they were very
satisfied with the training received before they conducted the Science Camp.
They found it extremely useful for implementing the curriculum. Teachers
explained: “I think the training is an excellent resource that helped me use the
material successfully.” Another teacher suggested expanding the training period
beyond one day. “I think the training was very useful. It would have been
different if we weren't trained. I would have felt ill-prepared and unfamiliar with
the materials and concepts. Maybe 1 more day of training would be helpful.”
During the onsite visit in Los Angeles, one teacher expressed a preference for
training more in advance of the start date. She believed the trainers were
impressive and she felt prepared to lead the activities with her students. However,
she would have preferred more time to review and try out all the activities in the
manual. Given more time, she would have tried to collect more materials that
matched the activities conducted in the video clips.
Treatment group teachers were able to integrate the Science Camp activities
easily in their classroom over the week. As shown in Table 13, all Treatment
teachers reported that most or all of the time:
materials needed for activities were already available in their classrooms,
they were able to find space to set up the activities, and
the activity directions were clear.
Table 13
Teachers’ Experiences Preparing and Implementing the Curriculum
None of
the time
Some of
the time
Most of
the time
All of
the time
Were the materials needed for the
activities easy to find and/or already
in your classroom?
– – 2 6
Were you able to find space in your
class to set up the activities?
– – 1 7
Were the directions for the activities
clear and easy to understand?
– – 1 7
Did you try the activities on your
own before having your children try
them?
1 4 – 3
Did you make changes to the
activities?
4 3 1 –
N=8

The Science Camp activities were easy for teachers to incorporate into their
curriculum because the directions were clear and the scheduled time for each day
was easy to follow (See Table 14). The majority of teachers reported that the
number and variety of activities included in the Science Camp curriculum were
just right.
Table 14
Teachers’ Ratings of Ease of Use
Mean
(1-5)
How easy was it to incorporate the Sid the Science Kid activities into
your curriculum?
4.50
How easy was it to follow the activity directions? 4.50
How easy was it to follow the scheduled time each day? 4.25
N=8
Scale: 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely)
Table 15 shows that teachers were quite satisfied with all elements of the
curriculum. Average ratings on a scale from 1 (Not at all satisfied) to 5
(Extremely satisfied) were all higher than 4 out of 5. In particular, all eight
teachers were extremely satisfied with the tip-sheets for parents, and the take
home science tools
Table 15
Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Science Camp Curriculum
Mean
(1-5)
The Tip Sheets for Parents 5.00
The take-home science tools (magnifying glasses, journals, stickers) 5.00
The videos 4.88
The ease of using the materials in the classroom 4.75
The format of the curriculum 4.63
The teacher preparation information 4.63
The activities 4.25
The week-long schedule 4.13
N=8
All eight teachers would be extremely likely to recommend both the Science
Camp curriculum and training to friends and colleagues. All were either
extremely (n=7) or very (n=1) likely to recommend the STSK television series
program to colleagues.

Table 15
Teachers’ Likelihood to Recommend the Program to Others
Mean
(1-5)
Recommend using the Sid the Science Kid curriculum to
colleagues for use in their classrooms.
5.00
Recommend attending a Sid the Science Kid workshop to
friends or colleagues.
5.00
Recommend viewing Sid the Science Kid to friends or
colleagues.
4.88
N=8

CONCLUSIONS
Based on these findings, GRG concludes that the Sid the Science Kid Science
Camp curriculum effectively enhanced both students’ and teachers’
understanding of the content. After one week of Science Camp activities,
children showed increased understanding of science tools and their functions, and
demonstrated more sophisticated interactions with and descriptions of the tools.
Even with a similar teaching approach already in use, after one week with the
Science Camp activities, teachers showed increased perceived knowledge of
science content, a broadened view about what it means to do science in preschool
classrooms, and increased comfort with a variety of science teaching strategies.
The evaluation of this one-week pilot curriculum supports there was a clear
added value of the use of educational video in the classroom. Using characters (to
which children positively related) to teach, convey, and demonstrate science
learning was an effective strategy. Beyond learning about science tools, both the
teachers and students had enjoyed the experience.
Findings that address the main research questions follow:
The Science Camp curriculum was quite effective in teaching preschool
students the specific science content included in the week-long unit.
After one week with the Sid Science Camp activities, watching the video clips
and conducting and recording their own science investigations, children acquired
an understanding of science, scientists, and the function of various science tools.
During the play activities with interviewers, children in the Treatment group
were able to make connections to the activities that were conducted in their
classroom during the week of the intervention, in a way that Control group
children were not. Moreover, they were better able to express their understanding
verbally to the interviewers than were their counterparts.
Short term effects of the Science Camp on students were seen in increased
content knowledge, new science terminology integrated into their
vocabulary, and more sophisticated understanding of what science is and
how science tools are used.
Students’ spontaneous and accurate use of science-tool related terminology more
than doubled after one week of exposure to the new vocabulary and
accompanying activities. Compared to their actions before the week and
compared to the Control group, after the Science Camp children interacted with
the objects in a way that showed understanding and exploration of the new terms
and concepts they had learned, particularly for measurement and magnification.

Teachers found the curriculum and its activities to be easy to use. They felt
prepared to conduct the activities after their one-day in-person training, and
after a week of use, teachers saw changes in their own and their students’
science content knowledge.
Teachers were, overall, quite satisfied with the Science Camp training session
and found it useful preparation to implement the curriculum in their classrooms.
During the week, teachers had no difficulty acquiring the necessary materials,
scheduling the appropriate time for activities, and conducting the activities with
their students.
Aside from some difficulty with recording their own observations in the science
journals, teachers found that the tools and activities effectively engaged their
students. The inclusion of STSK video clips was a successful way to introduce
the activities. GRG researchers observed a high level of energy and enthusiasm
among teachers and students while watching the videos and conducting the
classroom activities. Students saw the characters having fun with science, and
they, in turn had fun conducting the activities themselves.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRG recommends providing teachers with more options and suggestions for
ways to extend the curriculum in classrooms. A few teachers mentioned that a
week was too short for the implementation of the curriculum. Teachers would
like to dedicate two or more days to each activity to ensure that students grasp
the concept of using different scientific tools.
Highlight in the teachers’ manual the ideas for extending each lesson with
additional activities. For example, add a chart for each theme that shows teachers
how to conduct the lessons if they have two days, five days, or up to 10 days in
which to implement the activities. Given flexibility to expand the activities over
time, teachers can tailor the curriculum to fit their students’ needs. Extended use
of the curriculum may increase the likelihood of longer-term positive effects on
the students.
GRG recommends spending more time on -- and including activities
specifically dedicated to -- the use of science journals to record science
investigations and observations. Several teachers indicated that the journal
activity was the least successful as many students did not understand the idea of
recording their own observations on paper. GRG researchers noted that students
struggled with recording their own observations, and in their one-on-one play
activities, children did not use the science journals as much as they did other
science tools provided. Specific activities focused solely on this science tool
may help children to understand the concept. Children are likely to benefit from
more specific practice.

GRG recommends more repeated use of and emphasis on general science
terms, as well as those terms and phrases specific to each lesson. The words
that children heard many times and that had specific activities associated with
them were the words that they incorporated into their vocabularies (e.g., magnify,
measure). In order for students to learn science words such as “compare,”
“explore,” and “observe,” those words should be more prevalent throughout the
lessons.
GRG makes the following recommendations for future research and
evaluation of the Sid Science Camp program:
Seek out and recruit for participation teachers who do not have science
teaching experience and background that matches the Science Camp
curriculum as closely. It will be useful to learn to what extent teachers
can implement these activities and incorporate them in their classroom if
they are not already accustomed to the approach.
Include teachers from multiple schools in one district, if possible, and
assign teachers in different schools to the different experimental
conditions. Despite teachers’ understanding of the importance of not
discussing the curriculum with others (i.e., teachers in the Control
group), in one school building there will likely be some discussion and
sharing of information about the curriculum. Moreover, teachers whose
own children are students in one or another classroom may be
inadvertently exposed to the intervention.
Overall, given the short duration of the intervention (one week), and the short
period of time between the first and second data collection, the current evaluation
revealed the Science Camp curriculum was quite effective. As it is further
developed, with additional lessons added, there is potential for a very successful
early childhood science program.

Goodman Research Group, Inc.
Main Office
929 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2A
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Tel: (617) 491-7033
Fax: (617) 864-2399
info@grginc.com
www.grginc.com
© 2012 Goodman Research Group, Inc.

Appendix A: Copies of All Survey Instruments

2
Teacher Pre-Survey with Data
Summer Science:
Pre-survey
FAMILIARITY WITH SID THE SCIENCE KID
1. Are you familiar with Sid the Science Kid? (Check only one.)
Respondents
Yes 9
No 6
N= 15
2. If yes: With which aspects of Sid the Science Kid are you familiar? (Check all that apply.)
Respondents
I’ve watched it on TV 6
I’ve watched it on the web (www.pbskids.org/sid) 2
Other 1
I’ve watched in on YouTube.com –
I’ve played games on the SID website –
I’ve done activities suggested on the SID website –
I’ve printed out activity or coloring pages from the SID website –
N= 9
I watched the videos given by the program
3. Have you ever attended a training about how to conduct science activities in the classroom? (Check all
that apply.)
Respondents
No 8
Yes, a training at my center 6
Yes, a training at a conference 1
Yes, via webinar –
N= 15
For the purposes of this annotated survey, questions 4 through 15 include data from only the head teacher in
each classroom. Information from teaching assistants was excluded.
YOUR CLASSROOM
4. How many children are in your classroom?
Average Range
Girls 16 7-25
Boys 17 6-25
N= 10
5. What race(s)/ethnicities are the children in your classroom? (Write the approximate number of children in
each blank)

Average Range
Hispanic or Latino 27 0-43
Asian 2 0-5
Black or African American 1 0-3
White 1 0-5
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 -
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 -
Other; please specify 0 -
N= 6
6. How many children in your classroom are English language learners?
Average: 16
Range: 1-32
7. How many children in your classroom speak a language other than English at home?
Average: 26
Range: 14-39
8. What languages do these include?
Total
Spanish 6
Tagalo 2
Other 3
N=10
Note: Total exceeds 10 as respondents were able to select multiple options.
9. How many classroom assistants do you have, if any? (Check only one.)
Number of
respondents
None 1
One 3
Two 1
Three or More 1
N= 6
10. How old are the children in your classroom?
Average Range
3 years old or younger <1 0-2
4 years old 18 1-47
5 years old 1.5 0-10
N= 5

4
11. Which of the following do you have access to for use in your classroom? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
DVD Player 6
Personal Computer 3
Television 4
Internet connection 4
Printer 4
SMART Board/Interactive White Board 2
VCR –
N= 10
YOUR CLASSROOM PRACTICES
12. In your classroom do you use a particular core curriculum?
Number of
respondents
Yes 9
No 1
N=10
13. If yes, what is the name of the Curriculum?
Creative Curriculum
N=9
14. Does the core curriculum include science? (Check only one.)
Number of
respondents
Yes 10
N=10
15. Do you use any additional science curriculum? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Other, please list 5
No additional science curriculum 3
Science Literacy Centers 2
AIMS –
FOSS Kits –
Galileo Resources –
GEMS –
Mudpies to Magnets –
Young Scientist Series –
N=10
Creative curriculum
Zula International

YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH TEACHING SCIENCE
16. How do you, or would you, respond when a student asks you a question about science? (Check all that
apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Try to answer as best I can 13
Look it up in a book, myself 12
Look it up in a book together with the child 11
Look it up on a website, myself 10
Look it up on a website together with the child 4
Suggest he/she asks someone else. 3
Other 3
N=16
Note: Total exceeds 10 as respondents were able to select multiple options
17. If suggest he/she asks someone else who?
Depends on the question. An expert
Parents of other teachers around
Parents or older siblings
18. If other, please describe:
Any family member
Explain that we will find the answer
19 . How would you rate yourself in terms of your knowledge of science content for preschool-aged
children? (Check only one.)
Mean
(1-5)
I don’t know very much
at all
(1)
I know a little bit
(2)
I know a fair
amount
(3)
I know a
lot
(4)
I am an expert in this
area (5)
2.75 2 – 14 – –
N=16
20. Which of the following describe the ways you approach teaching science in your classroom? (Check all
that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Small group activities 14
Kids do almost all hands- on activities 11
Large group activities 10
Kids do some hands-on exploration 6
I lead science activities; kids watch as I handle the materials 3
Kids do very little hands-on exploration 1
N=16

6
21. Where do kids in your classroom go to do science activities? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Designated science area in the classroom (for example, a science table) 14
Designated science area outside of the classroom 6
No designated science area; science activities can be done anywhere in the classroom 4
Several different designated science areas throughout the classroom 3
Other; Please describe 1
N=16
22. If other, please describe:
The park
23. Which of the following describe ways that science is conducted in your classroom? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Kids work in small groups, some doing science activities and some doing a different activity 15
All kids have the choice to do a science activity; some choose to participate and some do not 10
All of the kids do a science activity at the same time, in small groups 4
All of the kids do a science activity at the same time, in a large group 2
N=16
24. On average, how often is science available in your classroom throughout the school year? (Check only
one.)
Number of
Respondents
Every few months –
Every other month –
Once a month, every month –
A few times a month 3
Every week 2
Every day 11
N=16
25. During a typical week when you are doing science with your kids, how many days in that week is science
offered? (Check only one.)
Number of
respondents
One day 2
Two days 1
Three days 1
Four days 1
Five days (everyday) 9
N=14

26. Have you done any of the following activities in your classroom?
For each, indicate whether you have done this or not (Yes/No).
Yes No
Trying new materials or activities yourself
before using them with children
15 –
Incorporating science into circle time activities 16 –
Incorporating science into small group
activities
16 –
in the classroom
16 –
outside
14 1
Reading books about science topics 15 –
Teaching language and literacy during science
activities
16 –
Teaching math during science activities 16
Using related video when teaching a science
topic
5 10
Getting children excited about science 16 –
Guiding children in hands-on science activities 16 –
Asking children open-ended questions during
hands-on science activities
16 –
Encouraging children to reflect on their hands-
on science experiences
16 –
Asking children to share their discoveries with
each other during science activities
15 1
14 1
N=15-16
27. How comfortable are you doing the following in your classroom?
If you have, then rate your comfort:
Mean
(1-5)
Not at
All
(1)
A
Little
(2)
Somewhat
(3)
Very
(4)
Extremely
(5)
Trying new materials or activities yourself before using
them with children
3.87
– 1 5 4 5
Incorporating science into circle time activities 4.25 – – 3 6 7
Incorporating science into small group activities 4.50 – – – 8 8
Incorporating science into the free play options in the
classroom
4.19 – 1 4 2 9
Incorporating science into the free play options outside 3.86 – 1 5 3 5
Reading books about science topics 4.73 – – 1 2 12
Teaching language and literacy during science activities 4.44 – – 2 5 9
Teaching math during science activities 4.38 – – 2 6 8
Using related video when teaching a science topic 3.56 1 1 1 4 2
Getting children excited about science 4.06 – – 4 7 5
Guiding children in hands-on science activities 4.25 – – 3 6 7
Asking children open-ended questions during hands-on
science activities
3.88 – – 4 10 2
Encouraging children to reflect on their hands-on
science experiences
4.20 – – 3 6 6
Asking children to share their discoveries with each
other during science activities
4.40 – – 2 5 8
3.43 – 1 8 3 2
N= 8-16

8
28. How much of a challenge are the following when leading hands-on science activities with children in
your classroom?
Mean
(1-5)
Not at
All
(1)
A
Little
(2)
Somewhat
(3)
Very
(4)
Extremely
(5)
Classroom time constraints 2.38 4 2 10 – –
Classroom space constraints 2.00 5 4 5 – –
Lack of necessary materials for activities 2.19 6 5 3 – 2
Lack of necessary equipment 2.00 7 6 1 – 2
Lack of necessary teacher resources 1.80 10 2 1 – 2
Needing to meet my center’s standards and
requirements
1.63 9 4 3 – –
Difficulty integrating supplemental science into our
core curriculum
1.53 8 6 1 – –
Difficulty getting children excited about science 1.44 11 3 2 – –
My own comfort with science 2.19 6 3 5 2 –
Students’ language barriers 2.06 5 5 6 – –
Students’ lack of interest in particular topics 2.38 4 2 10 – –
Students’ discipline issues 2.69 3 2 9 1 1
Parents’ wishes for student outcomes 1.56 12 1 1 2 –
Other challenge 3.00 1 – – – 1
N= 14-16
29. FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED OTHER: Please describe:
Motivating parents to work with their children at home
YOUR INTERACTION WITH PARENTS
28. In which of the following ways, if any, do you share information about your program with parents?
(Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
On a bulletin board in your classroom 15
In person during drop off or pick-up 14
During scheduled one-on-one conferences with parents 14
Through a newsletter 13
During regular group meetings with parents 10
During parents’ nights/workshops 8
Use parent-leaders to share information with other parents 8
By phone 4
By email 3
Other 3
N=16
29. FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED OTHER: Please describe:
During monthly classroom meetings

30. Do you provide any of the above in your students’ home language (other than English)?
(Check only one.)
Number of Respondents
Yes 13
No, but I am interested in doing so 2
No, and I am not interested in doing so –
Does not apply; all of my students speak English –
N=15
31. Which of the following do you currently do to encourage parents to support their children’s science-related
experiences at home? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Give parents ideas for science activities they can do with their children 10
Give parents take-homes to read (such as one-page tip sheets or fact sheets) on science activities 8
Hold parent workshops 4
Share science-related books 2
Share links to websites with science-related information and/or video 2
Share science-related educational videos 1
Other 1
N=16
32. FOR PARTICIPANTS WHO SELECTED OTHER: Please describe:
Giving parents suggestion to get their children involved in daily life activities like trips to the supermarket,
cooking, talking about the weather etc.
The following background questions are for descriptive purposes only.
33. Are you:
Number of
Respondents
Female 16
Male –
N=16
34. What is your race/ethnicity? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Latino/a or Hispanic 11
White 2
Black or African-American 2
Prefer not to respond 1
American Indian or Alaskan Native –
Asian –
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander –
N=16

10
35. What is the last level of education you fully completed? (Check only one.)
Number of
Respondents
Some high school 1
High school diploma or GED -
Some college/trade school -
Associate’s (2 year) college degree 5
Bachelor’s (4 year) college degree 9
Master’s degree 1
Multiple master’s degrees -
Doctorate/other post graduate -
N=16
36. How many years have you been an early childhood teacher?
Number of
Respondents
One to Five 2
Six to Ten 6
Eleven to Fifteen 6
Fifteen or More 1
N=15
Average: 10 years
Range: 2-18 years

Teacher Post-Survey with Data
Summer Science:
Post-survey
Please think about the week-long Sid the Science Kid Science Camp activities you completed and tell us what
you thought, and what you would suggest to improve the experience.
1. How satisfied were you with the following elements of the Sid the Science Kid science camp:
Mean
(1-5)
Not at
All
(1)
A
Little
(2)
Somewhat
(3)
Very
(4)
Extremely
(5)
The format of the curriculum 4.63 0 0 0 3 5
The week-long schedule 4.13 0 0 2 3 3
The ease of using the materials in the classroom 4.75 0 0 0 2 6
The teacher preparation information 4.63 0 0 1 1 6
The activities 4.25 0 0 1 4 3
The videos 4.88 0 0 0 1 7
The Tip Sheets for Parents 5.00 0 0 0 0 8
The take-home science tools (magnifying glasses,
journals, stickers)
5.00 0 0 0 0 8
N=8
2.
Just Right
(1)
Too much
(2)
Not enough
(3)
What did you think of the variety of activities that were included? 5 0 2
What did you think of the number of activities that were included? 5 0 2
N=7
3. Rate the Sid the Science Kid curriculum materials on the following dimensions: (Circle one per
row.)
How easy was it to:
Mean
(1-5)
Not at
all
Easy
(1)
(2) (3) (4)
Extremely
Easy
(5)
follow the activity directions? 4.50 0 0 0 4 4
follow the scheduled time each day? 4.25 0 0 1 4 3
incorporate the Sid the Science Kid activities into your
curriculum?
4.50 0 0 1 2 5
N=8

12
4. For each question, mark the box that describes how often you experienced it. (Circle one per row.)
How often… Mean
(0-3)
None of
the time
(0)
Some of
the time
(1)
Most of
the time
(2)
All of the
time
(3)
Were the materials needed for the activities easy to
find and/or already in your classroom?
2.75 0 0 2 6
Were you able to find space in your class to set up the
activities?
2.88 0 0 1 7
Were the directions for the activities clear and easy to
understand?
2.88 0 0 1 7
Did you try the activities on your own before having
your children try them?
1.63 1 4 0 3
Did you make changes to the activities? 0.63 4 3 1 0
N=8
SID THE SCIENCE KID ACTIVITIES
5. Which of the activities did you try with your students during the week that you used the Sid the Science
Kid curriculum? (Check one per row.)
Yes No
Record observations in journals. 11 5
Collect data and record it on a chart. 12 4
Discussions about linear measurement. 9 7
Activities about non-standard measurement. 12 4
Activities about standard-measurement. 12 3
N=15-16
6. Which activities were most successful? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Use magnifiers in science explorations. 9
Activities about non-standard measurement. 9
Collect data and record it on a chart. 7
Activities about standard-measurement. 5
Record observations in journals. 3
Activities about linear measurement. 2
Discussions about linear measurement. 2
Growing seeds 2
Rock candy/growing crystals 2
Farms 1
Mixing colors 1
7. Please explain.
Click here for a complete list of responses

8. Which activities were least successful? (Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Record observations in journals. 6
Activities about linear measurement. 3
Fossils 3
Discussions about linear measurement. 2
Collect data and record it on a chart. 1
Activities about non-standard measurement. 1
Sea animals 1
Farms 1
Use magnifiers in science explorations. 0
Activities about standard-measurement. 0
9. Please explain:
10. If you didn’t try some of the activities, please share your reason(s).
I didn't consider them age appropriate
11. How do you think your use of the Sid the Science Kid curriculum materials would have been different if
you didn’t attend the training?
SID THE SCIENCE KID VIDEOS
12. Which video segments did you view with your students? (Check all that apply.)
Number of Respondents
SID program segments that were provided 8
Fab Lab segments that were provided 7
Additional segments that were not provided (for example, segments from the web) 1
I did not use video segments with my students 0
N=8
13. Describe an example of how you used the video segments.
Click for a complete list of responses
14. If you showed video segments, which type did you prefer? (Check only one.)
Number of
Respondents
I thought both were equally good. 8
I preferred to show the animated program segments 0
I preferred to show the Fab Lab live-action clips. 0
N=8
15. If you did not use any of the video segments in class, please tell us why not.
N/A

14
FAMILY TAKE-HOME MATERIALS
16. Which, if any, did you send home with the children? (Check one per row.)
Yes
Sid the Science Kid videos 8
Tip Sheets for Parents 8
Tips Sheets in Spanish. 8
Magnifying glass 8
Science Journal 8
Sid the Science Kid stickers 7
Sid the Science Kid poster 7
N=8
17. What feedback, if any, did you get from parents regarding the family take-home materials?
YOUR SCIENCE TEACHING
18. How do you, or would you, respond when a student asks you a question about science?
(Check all that apply.)
Number of
Respondents
Try to answer as best I can 16
Look it up in a book, myself 14
Look it up on a website, myself 13
Look it up in a book together with the child 14
Look it up on a website together with the child 6
Suggest he/she asks someone else. 4
Other 1
N=16
19. FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED SUGGEST HE/SHE ASKS SOMEONE ELSE: Who?
an expert
another teacher
parent, older siblings
20. FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED OTHER: Please describe
Maybe as a group at circle time or rug time. Ask the question and see what other children thought
and try to get an answer.
21. How would you rate yourself in terms of your knowledge of science content for preschool-aged children?
(Check only one.)
Mean
(1-5)
I don’t know
very much
at all
(1)
I know a
little bit
(2)
I know a fair
amount
(3)
I know a lot
(4)
I am an
expert in
this area
(5)
3.25 0 0 12 4 –
N=16

SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices

SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices

Similar to SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices (20)

SidScienceCampEvaluationReportwithAppendices