st0ries.com

Afterschool and community science programs have become widely recognized as important sanctuaries for science learning for low-income urban youth and as offering them with “missing opportunities.” Yet, more needs to be known about how youth, themselves, perceive such opportunities. What motivates youth to seek out such opportunities in the nonschool hours? How do youth describe the doing and talking of science in such programs? Given such descriptions, how do youth perceive the role of these programs in their lives? This paper relies on stories from three youth drawn from a multisited ethnographic study, one site being an after school girls-only science program at the elementary level in Canada and the other an Upward Bound Math and Science program in the USA. The paper concludes with a discussion about the ways these programs offered youth a meaningful way to relate to science in concordance with their own lived experiences, resulting in “I will” and “I can” attitudes and a sense of hope for the future within which science becomes a tool for action.

Over the past four decades afterschool and youth programs have become popular venues for addressing gaps in the achievement and academic access and attainment of first generation low income college bound youth and to fill urban youth’s leisure time with “constructive” activities (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1997; Griffin, 1993; Halpern, 2002). Claims vary as to the effectiveness of these efforts in raising standardized test scores, increasing high school graduation and college matriculation rates, and reducing school drop-out rates and crime (Eccles & Templeton, 2002; Myers & Schirm, 1999). More recently, studies have examined the mechanics behind the successes of such programs, moving beyond the lenses of summative statistics, prevention and remedial work. It is clear that programs youth seek out voluntarily are the ones with youth rather than curriculum at the center (Heath & McLaughlin, 1993; McLaughlin, 2000; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). Such programs also do not subscribe to prevention or remediation but, instead, offer youth a place of hope, a safe place to express themselves and to explore new ideas that make it possible for them to be in charge again of their own futures.

 

Many of these afterschool and community programs also offer hands-on and meaningful science activities. Yet such activities are often integrated with others, driven by the overall goal of youth development (Delgado, 2002; Heath & McLaughlin, 1993; Heckman & Sanger, 2001). Take, for instance, an afterschool program in California where the theme “community unity” entailed activities such as the planting and maintaining of a community garden and the starting of a recycling program, among other nonscience-related activities, such as arts performances at the hospital (Bergstrom & O’Brien, 2001). Similarly, inner city youth gardening programs tend to focus on youth development and entrepreneurship rather than science per se. Within such programs, science is typically a tool for action and, hence, youth rarely think of themselves as doing science (Lawson & McNally, 1995; Rahm, 2002). Note, however, that science is typically broadly defined and often aligned with the critical science definition laid outby Barton and Osborne (2001), which acknowledges its social, cultural and political nature along with its inherent power structures.

Overall, the role of informal settings in making science appealing to youth has become widely recognized (Jones, 1997). Such contexts can also make science accessible by offering opportunities to do science in comfortable ways, in particular, for youth who struggle with the social incongruity of the educational system (Lee, Fradd & Sutman, 1995). As noted by Jones (1997), there are multidimensional opportunities for learning, leaving participants room to investigate topics of interest to them. When looking at research of science community programs such as science discovery programs, summer camps, and science career programs, their effectiveness has been documented in terms beyond improvements in academic standing to include contextual measures, such as changes in scientific knowledge, interest, attitudes, and confidence in science, as well as career trajectories, while being less clear about the processes leading to such outcomes (Atwater, Colson, & Simpson, 1999; Fadigan & Hammrich, 2004; Hofstein, Maoz, & Rishpon, 1990; Nicholson, Weiss, & Campbell, 1994).

Recent research on science outreach programs in universities has demonstrated their positive impact in terms of students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry, as well as their role in sparking a student’s interest in science and opening the participants’ eyes to the many career possibilities in science (Atwater et al., 1999; Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Knox, Moynihan & Markowitz, 2003; Richmond & Kurth, 1999). Some researchers have also looked inside such programs and examined the kind of science that gets done, as well as the challenges such programs face in terms of “undoing” narrow notions of science that impede students’ full participation in scientific investigations at the elbows of scientists (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Richtie & Rigano, 1996).

Finally, a number of afterschool and community science programs emerged that targeted specific groups of inner city youth and examined the question of what a science education for all really means (Barton, 1998). For instance, the development of an afterschool science club in a homeless shelter by Barton and colleagues (1998,2003; Fusco, 2001) was initiated to develop community science projects together with youth. It led to much insight into ways low income inner city youth construct science. In essence, youth relied much on their own intuitive understandings of the world and their creativity, along with some expert knowledge to resolve issues they deemed pertinent, such as restoring a polluted lot next to the shelter with the goal of improving life in their community (Barton, 2003). Another example is an afterschool science program targeting poor inner city African-American girls, offering them a culturally meaningful “third space” in which to do science (Eisenhart & Edwards, 2004).

As this brief review makes apparent, there is a vast array of afterschool and community science programs, some of which are specifically designed for science literacy development and increasing the number of science graduates from underrepresented groups (Atwater et al., 1999).

It is clear also that as a group, low income urban youth still have fewer opportunities than do their affluent peers to participate in quality science clubs and afterschool and summer science programs (Larson & Verma, 1999; McLaughlin et al., 1994; Offord, Lipman, & Duku, 1998). Yet, as noted by Barton (2003), researchers need to move away from the discourse based on a deficit model that focuses on what low income urban youth lack in terms of achievement, resources, and educational opportunities toward a critical examination of their science practices at the margins. What does it mean for them to succeed in science in afterschool and community programs? What resources do they have and bring to such contexts (human and social capital), and what role do these resources play in the doing of science and the kinds of learning opportunities that emerge in youth-centered settings?

For these reasons, we also look inside existing afterschool and community science programs in this paper, examing

1. What motivated youth to seek out the programs?
2. How do youth themselves describe the doing and talking of science in these programs?
3. Given such descriptions, how do youth perceive the role of these programs in their lives?

Motives for Participation in Informal Science Learning

According to some researchers, informal science learning not only differs from formal science learning because of its physical location, but because of its social context and “the underlying motivation of the learner” to seek out such an educational context. That recognition led Falk (2001) to propose a change in terminology from informal science learning to free-choice science education. Accordingly, such learning is driven primarily by “unique intrinsic needs and interests of the learner” and, hence, is quite different from compulsory education or “learning that is driven by a predetermined set of requirements dictated by externally imposed authority” (p. 7). Yet, does such an interest also drive low income inner city youth to science programs in the nonschool hours? When looking at the literature on community programs, such programs are often sought out for other reasons, such as a search for safety or simply a place to be and interact with adults, get some food, and get help with homework (Halpern, 2002; Heath & McLaughlin, 1993; McLaughlin, 2000). Parents, themselves may obligate participation given concerns about their children’s safety when alone at home after school.

In this paper, we explore motives for participation from an activity theory perspective, as initially described by Leont’ev (1978) and further extended by Engeström and colleagues (Engeström, 1999). We begin with the assumption that activity (e.g., participation in an afterschool science program) is tied to a motive (e.g., to be with friends). In turn, such motives influence how participation is experienced (actions), what kinds of opportunities are sought out within a program (goals), and in turn, the role such programs come to play in the lives of the participants. Put differently, we try to understand participation as embedded within a system of interrelationships.

Methodology

Data described in this paper were collected in the context of a larger 3-year research project driven by two objectives: (a) To document the role of afterschool and community science programs in the lives of poor youth, and (b) to identify discourse features of science in the making in such settings. The study itself is best described as a “multisited ethnography” (Marcus, 1998), in that low income youths’ doing and talking science outside of school within and across multiple sites is examined. That is, we trace its meaning by moving “upward’ and “outward” in attempts to understand how it is “manifested and produced in networks of larger social systems” – in this case in the world of afterschool and community programs designed for poor urban youth (Eisenhart, 2001, p. 22). At the same time, each system or setting is studied in great detail in itself through participant observation and ethnographic interviewing, following a conventional ethnographic approach.

The following four criteria guided site selection: First, programs had to be youth centered and to offer hands-on, authentic science activities. Second, programs had to be voluntarily sought out and in no way remedial or academically oriented. Third, programs had to serve low income and ethnically diverse inner city youth at the elementary or secondary level. Fourth, only long-term programs were sought out, making possible the study of change over time. In this paper, data are reported from two settings only.

Settings and Participants

Site 1. Les Scientifines is an afterschool science program in Canada serving urban girls, ranging in age from 9 to 12 years, from two local elementary schools with a high population of students from low income families. By exposing girls to the physical sciences primarily, it aims to equip them with the scientific literacy they may not get elsewhere, while also exposing them to a variety of financially interesting career paths potentially new to them, that if pursued, could help them break out of the vicious cycle of poverty (Chamberland, Théorêt, Garon, & Roy, 1995). We draw from a 1-year ethnographic case study of 19 girls who completed a science fair project within this program, working on it one afternoon a week, starting in September 2003 and finishing with an open house science fair in May 2004.

Site 2. COSMOS is an Upward Bound Mathematics and Science (UBMS) program funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the TRIO initiative of 1965. The program consists of a 6-week residential summer program centering on hands-on science research projects, while also including monthly contact and advising during the academic year. About 40 students (ethnically diverse, gender balanced), meeting the criteria of either being first generation college bound or low-income (or both) participate in the program (at or below 150% of the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Department of Education), beginning as freshmen/sophomores (ranging in age from 13 to 15 years) and typically staying with it for 3 consecutive years through graduation (age 16-18). In this paper we draw from qualitative data collected in 2001 of the summer mentorship component offered to third year participants.

Procedures

We relied on video data, ethnographic fieldnotes, and journal notes of the program activities, along with semistructured interviews of youth and instructors to construct the stories for the article (VanMaanen, 1988). Such stories make it possible to illuminate the experiences lived by these youth and, thereby, make apparent the meaning the programs and science activities had for youth (Barton, 2001 a, 2003; Witherell & Noddings, 1991). Two stories are presented from Scientifines and one from COSMOS followed by brief discussions each.

Results

Access to Science: Rosine

Rosine, a fifth grader from a family of three children who had immigrated from Central Africa, participated in the program for a third year. Initially, she was ambivalent about the program and especially its focus on science. But her friends convinced her to give it a try:

At first, I wasn’t interested in science at all. I hated it. Then my friends were telling me “Maybe you should come to the Scientifines. Why don’t you come? Maybe you’ll have fun.” And then I was telling myself, “I’m sick of those Scientifines. I don’t want to join them.” And then at home I thought about it, and I sort of said to myself, “It’s better if I go to the Scientifines, maybe it’s good.” So when I came, I saw that everything was normal, ’cause I thought we came here only to do our homework and eat a snack. And then we started doing the activities, and I said,” Hey, what’s this ?” And then when we started looking at science, and the biology stuff, the chemistry, the physics, I started to find it interesting, and I decided to come back again. That’s why now I’m interested in science. (Interview, May 2004)

Rosine, like most other girls, highly valued the many kinds of hands-on science activities the program offered. When asked about what made the program special to her she first said it was the computers, but after further thought she noted, “It’s the fact that I’m taught things well,” and, “They explain to us what science is [and] to be curious.” Rosine’s passion for science also made her science fair project a success, even though the beginning was somewhat difficult since she had to switch teams. The team ended up doing a project on rockets, explaining their parts and how they work (rocket-propulsion) while also constructing a model rocket. They simulated a rocket launch by adding a vinegar and baking soda mixture to film canisters, which then often took off, to their dismay, into the faces of their spectators. As one instructor noted, “She was really hooked to her topic, all through the end” and also “explained well what went on with the hydrogen” and what “made the rocket take off.”

Rosine felt good about the project and how the science fair went, referring to it as “interesting, amazing, and magnificent.” Yet, she would have still liked to learn more about her topic and “to get the difficult words.” It was not just the interest and the scientific information Rosine’s team managed to understand and present, but the way they proceeded over the year to gather that information that made them stand out:

And the Rocket team, [they had] words that I didn’t understand at first. They were very scientific… “They were also very logical.” Rosine went to get things and [then] she got the dictionary, so there was a way of working that they learned through the science fair project. I think that beyond all the apparent stuff, such as the presentations and the booths and the knowledge, what they learned is a way to work, a way to work and proceed that they will be able to use later on in life. (Interview of Jane, Instructor, 2004)

Rosine’s parents also supported her interest in science. In fact, Rosine’s father came to the open door day and filmed the presentation. It was his first time inside the program building, and he was amazed at the resources and scientific artifacts all around, noting, “Now I know why she always wants to come here!” When asked if she had anybody in her family doing science, Rosine referred to a cousin who makes plates. When asked about her own career plans, science came up numerous times. She wanted to become “a scientist in a white coat” and do chemistry where “you mix things and you have to be very skilled.” The program likely broadened the career options she could envision for herself, as is also evident in the kind of job she imagined for the future: “I’d like anything where I can do science, that’s what I’d like to do…” Not surprisingly, Rosine returned to the program the following year, working on a project on cars, explaining how the machinery works.

Rosine’s case illustrates a transition from somebody “hating science” to somebody who comes to see science as “interesting” after completion of a science fair project in an afterschool program she initially rejected. As is apparent, doing science is what appealed to Rosine. It was about doing “activities,” about exploring areas of science she valued (biology), and coming to own a science project. Even though Rosine did not even choose her topic for the science fair project but simply joined a group who had started already, that did not matter to her. Instead, she saw it as an opportunity to learn more about what science is and to be curious. The science fair project also made it possible for Rosine to apply ways of working and doing she had acquired elsewhere and could further refine here through the science fair project.

Through participation overtime, Rosine even came to see science as a possibility for the future in terms of a career. She valued it since it entailed thinking. “You have to know what you’re doing,” and “You have to think.” Given these opportunities, Rosine came to develop a new relationship with science that made it something interesting and desirable to her and not simply a distinct and abstract area of study unrelated to her life and her perceived future self. Accordingly, her trajectory makes evident the role the program played in making authentic science accessible and science literacy development a possibility for her.

Science and Valued Future Self. Kamila

Kamila, a fifth grader, participated in the program for the first time along with her two younger sisters, all born in Canada, although her parents immigrated from West Africa. She used to just hang out at home or play basketball and heard about the program through her friends. The first time the first author (Jrene) noticed Kamila was during homework time. She was unable to sit still on her chair and distracted her friends, to the dismay of the instructors. Eventually, she was moved to another room and isolated from the others. Jrène sat next to her and offered to help. She pulled out some math homework entitled “revisions,” saying she could not do that kind of math. She was asked to round numbers to the hundreds or thousands. Jrène encouraged her and they did one problem at a time. She managed well but needed an incredible amount of encouragement. Jrène wondered about her level of self-confidence.

A month later, Kamila gave a very different impression. She was fascinated by all the different brain functions she learned about as she researched the topic in books and through the Internet together with her teammate, Hannah, who was vigorously taking notes. At one point, however, they both got frustrated, since they did not understand what they were writing down. Instead of simply giving up, they asked the instructors, and with their help at times, looked up terms in the dictionary. It paid off, as is apparent in one instructor’s summary:

They had a lot of vocabulary, but they had to understand what a neuron is–is it the same as grey matter, white matter, the brain, its parts, etc.?–and at the end they were able, with only a drawing of the brain, to say which part was which, and to explain what it does and the synapses, what a synapse does and… it’s incredible. That’s something I learned at the age of 18! (Interview of Keila, instructor, June 2004)

Even though the team did not get one of the three prizes given out at the science fair for the best projects, the instructors highly valued the hard work Kamila and Hannah had accomplished: “I thought they were the ones who had the best vocabulary, who maybe didn’t have the greatest structure to explain it and all, but who knew what they were talking about.”

Kamila also got much out of the experience. She was very “happy” with the product of their team “because I put in a lot of effort and ended up finding what I was looking for.” She also liked to learn a lot of things about what “we want.” When Jrène returned in the fall of 2004, Kamila was working on a project on molds, examining their nutritional value and thereby linking her topic back to her interest in health and medicine. She said, “Remember, I want to be a doctor one day, so I better learn as much as possible about the body and health now. It will help me later!” (informal conversation, October 2004).

Kamila also has some role-models. Her mother is a chemist and her father worked as a mechanical engineer before passing away three years ago, while her uncle and her aunt are family doctors in Guinea, her home country.

In the fall and beginning of the program year, Kamila stood out as one of the problem girls who often had to be separated from the others, especially during homework time. Yet, once Kamila got started on her science project, another kind of person became apparent, somebody who was interested in science. In fact, Kamila sought out the program and the opportunity to participate in the science fair project to explore in greater depth an area of science that she valued and that she saw as a means toward becoming a doctor, a future possible self that she strived for. Only one other girl referred to the instrumental value of the program for her future.

Despite such interest in the topic, the actual doing of science posed certain challenges. Kamila insisted on finding as much information on her topic as possible, yet struggled with her teammate to appropriate the science terminology and make it their own. In fact, Kamila’s team spent much more time researching their topic than others, yet struggled with the integration and organization of their material. The work ethic that came to characterize Rosine’s work was something that Kamila was still developing, making the organization of the data such a challenge for her team. Yet, the motivation for “knowing” made her put much effort into her work and made the project a success in the end, to the surprise of many instructors. Definitions of scientific terms decorated the walls of their science fair booth. They also explained the functions of the brain in great detail, going beyond simply labeling its parts.

Science as a Tool for Action in Society: Edric

Edric joined COSMOS during the summer before his junior year. His experience in the program was atypical given his late entry, having forgone the 2 years of integrated mathematics and science strands and college preparatory work. At the time of the interview in 2004, Edric was a science major at a local university pursuing a career in human health and medicine. He expressed the need to get through the program at the university as quickly as possible to “start earning money… You’ve got to pay bills and stuff like that.” He was thinking of a job as “a technician in a lab or pharmaceutical.” He was very proud to be the first in his family, who imigrated from Mexico, to pursue a college education. He claimed to have been interested in science for some time, but the mentorship experience in the biochemistry lab further strengthened that interest:

Well, [I like] everything. You know, I’m working with a new drug that, that might make it out into the market one day. That would be cool. If it comes out one day, you know, I worked on that drug. Bragging rights. That’d be cool. (Interview, 2001)

Edric learned firsthand how science knowledge serves as a tool for action in society. In this case he became an insider to a scientific team working on the improvement of a drug for pain relief, which in turn, can help society better treat problems associated with such medication. Although the authenticity of the project mattered greatly to Edric and made this a valuable educational opportunity for him, the authenticity was challenged during the 6-week program. In fact, early on, the team reached obstacles as they tried to mix the compound. These obstacles led to a struggle for Edric, who was used to quick experiments as typically done in science classrooms:

There was something wrong with the drug and it wouldn’t work. And we struggled for like a week. So I lost a week there. That’s been the most challenging. Sticking through it. ‘Cause I flat out wanted to quit. I just wanted, you know, I’m like, “I’m going to walk if this doesn’t work” … but, but we got it to work. (Interview, 2001)

That things do not always work immediately is no news to scientists. Yet, for Edgar, that made the opportunity to work on a “real” scientific project less desirable and valuable at times. In this case, the dissolving of the chemical became a lab project in that all students and scientists took an active part in resolving the issue. Even a chemist was consulted and different titration machines were used. Maybe not surprisingly, Edric described the mentorship program as both a physical and emotional challenge, given the fact of having to get up early while also having to manage “setbacks.” Yet, Edric was able to see beyond the immediate frustrations. Knowing that he was involved in a “real” project about finding new drugs kept him going. It made the tedious work meaningful to him. Still today, Edric refers to COSMOS as a “once in a lifetime opportunity, and I would not take it for granted!” (Interview 2004).

A long interest in science made Edric seek out the opportunities COSMOS offered. In fact, his motives for participation were similar to the ones described by Kamila. He came to the program with an interest and wanted to take up the opportunity to learn more about science with the aim of being better prepared to pursue a science education in college. Beyond such a motive, the program also gave him an opportunity to experience science in new ways. He was not doing science for the sake of doing it, but instead, learned about using science as a tool to address a problem in society, namely the negative side-effects of pain relief drugs currently in use. Accordingly, he was becoming an insider to a scientific research group, which meant he was also exposed to the many challenges of “real” research, such as the problem of mixing chemicals in ways to produce a smooth cocktail and working toward something for which one does not have an answer upfront. Edric’s doing of science called for much perseverance, patience, and an openness to much tedious and repetitious work. Yet, he managed to live through the challenges and finish his research project and, in turn, contribute to the ongoing research.

Summary

The three stories underline many dimensions of informal science learning, two of which are highlighted briefly. First, such programs and settings offer access to the world of science and become a testing ground for the doing of meaningful and relevant science, in some cases leading to an interest in science for the future (case of Rosine). For others the programs may reinforce an interest they had developed prior to coming to the programs (Kamila and Edric). As discussed by Atwater et al. (1999), even if participants do not pursue the study of science per se after participation in such an outreach program, they are well equipped to excel in other areas, since such programs support the development of personal skills and work ethics essential for survival in college.

Clearly such programs offer their participants new ways to relate to science, either by letting them explore issues they deem of interest (case of Rosine) or by letting them simply find out about the “real” world of science (Kamila and Edric). In fact, such opportunities help youth better understand the pertinence of science to their daily lives. In sum, the two programs explored here, while different in focus and intention, offered participants access to a world of science they knew little about and that they had neither a way to relate to nor integrate with their daily experiences as poor youth. In particular, the open-ended structure of the programs supported multiple diverse forms of participation over time and the doing of an authentic science. It made possible a link for youth between their world and who they were and were becoming, resulting in an “I will” attitude and much hope for the future.

Discussion

In this paper, we wanted to make visible the diverse motives for participation in afterschool and community science programs, along with the diverse roles such programs play in the lives of poor urban youth. Too often, afterschool and community science programs are evaluated in terms of changes in achievement scores, perseverance in school, future career choice, and success within them (Atwater et al., 1999; Nicholson et al., 1994). Yet, as shown, what matters most is not the science literacy developed per se but the opportunity to have a place to learn, to question, to be with others who share such values and, together, develop a sense of hope for the future within which science becomes a tool for action. Similarly, motives for participation ranged widely from centering on science for some to learning for life for others. Since the two programs described in this article engaged “in a practice of science for the purposes of youth development” in the words of McLaren (Barton, 2001b, p. 855), a wide variety of motives for participation could also be accommodated. In essence, the two programs offered youth a “toolkit” for their future.

Yet, how did the two programs achieve such broadly defined goals, and how did science figure into that? Most important, the two programs exposed youth to new ways of relating to science, ways that fit with their lives and concerns as poverty urban youth and their own unique and rich experiences with science in their everyday world. The science the youth embraced was unique, real, complex, and factually valid, but somewhat different in practice from the science of scientists and also the “cookbook” science most of them experienced in school. In essence, the programs gave youth the latitude to learn and practice solid science in terms they were familiar with and in ways outside the mainstream dominant culture permeating the traditional settings. Within the two programs studied, youth were also respected and made to feel that they belong, making the programs safe places to develop the confidence needed to participate and succeed in science (Fadigan & Hammrich, 2004; Jones, 1997; Seiler, 2001).

To summarize, the two programs may be best perceived as sanctuaries for science learning for urban youth from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, given the programs’ flexibility and responsiveness to their needs, diverse identity projects, and kinds of sciences they can relate to and value (Barton, 1998, 2003; Hammond, 2001; Jones, 1997; Lee et al., 1995; Rahm, 2002; Rahm & Downey, 2002; Seiler, 2001; Sosniak, 1995). For instance, despite Kamila’s discipline problems when doing “school” (i.e., homework), the program was able to see beyond her identity as a troublemaker and gave her a chance to show who she could be and become when invested in something she perceived as valuable and worth investing in. Similarly, Rosine and Edgar made evident through their work and sustained involvement in challenging projects that they were interested in learning more about science and about themselves as successful youth.

This discussion of the value of such programs in the lives of poor urban youth prompts a word of caution about program evaluation in such contexts. Knowing that students entering such programs with more science advantages-a history of participation in informal science programs, family and teacher support, as well as high levels of confidence in themselves as learners–are most likely to develop the confidence needed to make it in the challenging world of science (Stakes & Mares, 2001) immediately puts programs in the urban context “at risk.” They serve primarily poverty and minority youth-youth who often lack such experiences and support. Yet, as shown, what makes Scientifines effective is the manner in which it opens the girls’ horizons to the world of science, while for COSMOS, it is the realization that the pursuit of a college education (whether in science or not) is an attainable goal that can lead to financial stability and an intellectually challenging and worthwhile future. For these reasons, program success also needs to be examined globally and foremost in terms of the ways such programs are able to offer youth a sense of hope for the future that makes the pursuit of an education and the active engagement as citizens a possibility for them.

Conclusion

Although much of the attention of science programs has been driven by the well-published and established gaps in achievement between the dominant culture and different segments of the population in North America and elsewhere, the gaps are generally based on economic and ethnic lines. The importance of increasing content knowledge cannot be understated, but our study illustrates a role that culture-in this case urban youth culture-plays in this calculus.

Education and science, like all human endeavors, are cultural endeavors. The current educational systems and science practices are largely the purview of the dominant culture, which developed from the renaissance and age of enlightenment. The distance in practices between urban low income youth culture and dominant education and science culture is far greater than the distances experienced by their middle and upper income white counterparts. Although researchers have emphasized these issues for decades, the need to build a science practice with youth that is based on respect, and a science they can relate to and that fits with their own worldviews and culture, is particularly crucial for urban afterschool and youth programs – settings that lend themselves well to this, given their structure and culture. Only then will they become sanctuaries for science literacy and youth development in the eyes of their participants.

Author Note: The authors wish to thank all the girls (big and small) of the program Scientifines for their participation in the research project. The research on that program was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de recherche sur la société et la culture de Québec. The authors also wish to thank the staff and students of the University of Northern Colorado Upward Bound Mathematics and Science program “COSMOS” for their participation as well as their assistance in locating and tracking the students. Thanks to Dr. Edward Bilsky and his lab for serving as a mentor, and special thanks to Dalton Miller-Jones, Elizabeth Swanson, and Shandy Hauk for their helpful comments and stimulating discussions.

This work was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Education (P047M 990093-00) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (ESI-0119786).

References

Atwater, M. M., Colson, J. J., & Simpson, R. D. (1999). Influences of a university summer residential program on high school students’ commitment to the sciences and higher education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 155-173.

Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of scientists: Issues related to the scientist apprentice camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379-394.

Barton, A. C. (2001a). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Education, 38(8), 899-917.

Barton, A. C. (2001 b). Capitalism, critical pedagogy, and urban science education: An interview with Peter McLaren. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 847-859.

Barton, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Barton, A. C., & Osborne, M. D. (2001). Marginalized discourses and pedagogies: Constructively confronting science for all in classroom practice. In A. C. Barton & M. D. Osborne (Eds.), Teaching science in diverse settings (pp. 7-32). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it! Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.

Bergstrom, J. M., & O’Brien, L. A. (2001 Spring). Themes of discovery. Educational Leadership, 29-33.

Bleicher, R. E. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1115-1133.

Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878-898.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1997). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Chamberland, C., Théorêt, M, Garon, R., & Roy, D. (1995). Les Scientifines en action. Conception, implantation et évaluation. Rapport de recherche, Université de Montréal, Faculté des arts et des sciences, École de service social.

Delgado, M. (2002). New frontiers for youth development in the twenty-first century. New York: Columbia University Press.

Eccles, J., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. Review of Research in Education, 26,113-180.

Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16-27,

Eisenhart, M., & Edwards, L. (2004). Red-eared sliders and neighborhood dogs: Creating third spaces to support ethnic girls’ interests in technological and scientific expertise. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 156-177.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fadigan, K.A., & Hammrich, P.L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835-860.

Falk, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fusco, D. (2001). Rethinking science and assessment. In A. C. Barton & M. D. Osborne (Eds.), Teaching science in diverse settings: Marginalized discourses and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). New York: Peter Lang.

Griffin, C. (1993). Representations of youth: The study of youth and adolescence in Britain and America. Cambridge: Polity.

Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 178-211.

Hammond, L. (2001). Notes from California: An anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 983-1000.

Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heckman, P. E., & Sanger, C. (2001 April). LA’s BEST-Beyond school as usual. Educational Leadership, 46-49.

Hofstein, A., Maoz, N., & Rishpon, M. (1990). Attitudes towards school science: A comparison of participants and nonparticipants in extracurricular science activities. School Science and Mathematics, 90(1), 13-22.

Jones, L. S. (1997). Opening doors with informal science: Exposure and access for our underserved students. Science Education, 81, 663-677.

Knox, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., & Markowitz D. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471-478.

Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701-736.

Lawson, L., & McNally, M. (1995). Putting teens at the center: Maximizing public utility or urban space through youth involvement in planning and employment. Children’s Environment, 12(2), 209212.

Lee, O., Fradd, S. H., & Sutman, F. X. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 797-816.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). The problem of activity in psychology.

In J. V. Wertsch (Ed. & Trans.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York: Sharpe.

Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. New York: Princeton University.

McLaughlin, M.W. (2000). Community counts. How youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.

McLaughlin, M. W., Irby, M. A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, D., & Schirm, A. (1999). The short-term impact of Upward Bound: Final report on Phase I of the national evaluation. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Nicholson, H. J., Weiss, F. L., & Campbell, P. B. (1994). Evaluation of informal science education: Community-based programs. In V. Crane, H. Nicholson, S. Bitgood, & M. Chen (Eds.), Informal science learning (pp. 107-176). Dedham, MA: Research Communications.

Offord, D. R., Lipman, E.L., & Duku, E. K. (1998). Les sports, les arts, et les programmes communautaires: Taux et corrélats de participation. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy, Human Resource Development Canada.

Rahm, J. (2002). Emergent learning opportunities in an inner city youth gardening program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 164-184.

Rahm, J., & Downey, J. (2002). “A scientist can be anyone!” Oral histories of scientists can make “real science” accessible to youth. The Clearing House, 75(5), 253-257.

Rahm, J., Miller, H., Hartley, L., & Moore, J. (2003). The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: Examples from two student/ teacher-scientist partnership programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 737-756.

Richmond, G., & Kurth, L. A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 677-697.

Richtie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 799-815.

Seiler, G.(2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African-American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000-1014.

Sosniak, L. A. (1995). Inviting adolescents into academic communities: An alternative perspective on systemic reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 35-42.

Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1065-1088.

VanMaanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Witherell, C., & Noddings, N. (1991). Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialog in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

By: Rahm, Jrene, Moore, John C., Martel-Reny, Marie-Paule, School Science & Mathematics, 2005